Were the Austrians ever actually competent on the battlefield? Their history seems to be a chronicle of both immense luck and immense failure.
>>789903
That info box is misleading. The Austrian columns were separated and moving out of the area, so that for most of the battle they were actually outnumbered by the French forces and Piedmontese cavalry. At no point were 30,000 Austrian troops deployed for battle there.
>wikipedia as a source
At least nitpick a real battle.
>>789903
Nope, never ever
>>790062
>karansebes
>literally a made up event first written about 40 years after is supposedly took place and completely unknown to the Ottomans of the day
wew lad, how long did it take you to make that?
>>789903
The Austrians did pull off the Great Turkish War. So there's that.
>>790077
> literally a made up event
Sounds like a conspiracy theory for me. Any other examples of so called made up events in history?
>>789903
Yes. They beat Prussia on some battles, fought against the Turks and took back some lands, defeated the Italians many times and did a pretty good against Napoleon
>>790091
Jews building the pyramids.
>>790094
>and did a pretty good against Napoleon
As in losing every battle ever, making peace with him to stab him in the back right after, just to get conquered again?
>>790122
If you have a simplistic and uneducated viewpoint of history, whatever floats your boat. American?
>>790122
>losing every battle ever
At least try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aspern-Essling
>inb4 damage control "i-i was just kidding!"
>>790141
>undecisive, pyrrhic victory, with no actual goal being achieved and austria losing yet again a few days later
>took them 20 years to achieve a force that could pretend being comparable to napoleonic france
wew
>>790166
>they achieved no victories!
>e-except for the ones they did!
>undecisive
wew lad, it's never a bore discussing "history" with Americans
>>790177
Of course they won some battles, here and there. It's expected over the sheer amount of wars that were fought at the time.
What I meant is that they were never successful, and that their empire never recovered from it.
>obviously forgetting to mention what happened right after Aspern (hint: Wagram and the capitulation yet again of Austria, and the coalition)
>implying an american knows what history even is
>>790209
>What I meant is
>obviously forgetting
Don't move the goalposts, darling, it makes you appear insincere (not unsincere).
>>790224
>literally thinking everyone is always literal
Hello Hitler, resurrected already?
>>790234
>Hitler
ara ara~ anon-kun
:^)
>>790209
>implying an american knows what history even is
Ebin meme, friend.
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/qs-world-university-rankings-2015-history.
>>790344
>a few american do so they all do
>>790332
He wasn't really Austrian and the duke of Marlborough was waaaaaaaay better.
>>790332
>born in Paris, from a french father and a french mother
Best day of my life
>>790332
Oh man he must have been a habsburg
>>790351
More likely than fucking reverse correlation.
>Americans are over-represented in the leading scholarship of history, therefore on average they know nothing about history.
>B-but I talked to a burger on my Laotian board game wiki a-and they were r-really stupid!
>>790436
ayy nice try obama
>>790094
>and did a pretty good against Napoleon
They were literally the most pathetic of all coalition countries
