I strongly disagree with you. France is always a great power and have a comeback in the latest milliennium (from AD 1000 - 2000 I suppose) ? Obviously you didn’t have immense knowledge about the European military history. In fact....
Until the very late 15th century, France did not even accomplish the total centralization of monarchial rule exerting all over the roughly nowadays French realm by smashing all rival fedual lords. Until then, France was hardly called a “great power”. Until the reign of Philip Augustus, most part of the nowadays France was even once ruled by the Norman-English dynasty known as the Plantagenet, which once greatly overpowered the much fragile Capets. And at the earlier period, the 11th century, the Kingdom of France was weak being plagued by rampant fedualism. At the reign of the First Capetian King Hugh Capet. One noble accordingly scornfully answered to the monarch like this : "Who made you king ? ". Oh...what a powerful French kingdom.
Needless to mention the Hundred Years War and the Italian Wars for which a number of French defeat in many field battles and sieges were renowned. Even in the Thirty Years Wars, the French lost few battles. Even the Swedes won more battles than the French by just counting total figure.
The Hungarian Black Army was the strongest in the late 15th century until AD 1490.
The Spanish and the later Habsburg Empire pretty much dominated the 16th century, extending the military superiority to the early 17th century.
The French military merely reached the climax and obtained the dominance of Europe during the reign of the famous Sun King Louis XIV from around 1680s to 1714, and then declined again in mid-18th century during the reign of Louis V through later achieved som remarkable victories in the late-18th century Anglo-French War prior to AD 1789.
Hereafter France once again elevated to the golden age by the French Revolutionary Era and the mighty Napoleonic Era. After that, the French military domination was broken and began to enter into the long, long stagnant period with military leadership and theories steadily being eroded and surpassed by the dangerous neighbour Prussia-Germany.
Talking about the consistently naval supremacy in history, it was England-Britain rather than France. Talking about the consistently strongest cavalry force, it was Poles rather than French (pretty close for this one though...but the Poles still prevailed in length of dominating period). Talking about the military organization, tactics, arms, equipment and theories in modern era, it was Prussia-Germany achieving far more than other nations. Talking about the consistently strategic depth in territories and the largest amount of available military force since the early 18th century, it was Russia-Soviet far surpassing other European nations. Moreover, the consistently strongest air force from WW1 to WW2 was forged by Germany, followed by Britain and Russia-Soviet. The Poles even had their own incredible air force in exile after their own country had fallen to the wrath of Nazi Germany, though same could be said to the (Vichy) French for their navy.
So just dismiss such consistently French awesomeness in military strength and dominance and re-examine the facts through thorough analysis.
I disagree with you on several points.
Plantagenets were vassals of French crown. Most powerful vassals, but still vassals. Henry II didn't get much of his lands on continent by conquest. He inherited Normandy and Anjou. He got Aquitaine thanks to the marriage to Eleonore. So, French king was still overlord of those territories that Plantagenets controlled. They didn't become part of independent English crown. Many wars that followed were basically ,, King vs powerful vassal ''. French king could confiscate fiefs of English king. That is what Philip II did when John of England was summoned for his actions in Aquitaine and Tours , but did not present himself. Philip confiscated his fiefs.
Swedes won more battles ? In overall history ? Sorry, but that is simply not true. In Thirty Years War ? Well, don't forget that Sweden entered the war much earlier than France and that Sweden was financially backed by France as well. What Sweden would do without French money ? Don't forget about crushing defeat of Swedish army at Battle of Nordlingen in 1634.
The battle was one of the most crushing victories of the Thirty Years' War. With their forces substantially reduced and many German principalities refusing aid, the Swedes withdrew to Northern Germany where they remained inactive for several years. Consequently, the Protestant German princes made a separate peace with the Emperor in the Treaty of Prague.
The Habsburg triumph at Nördlingen followed by the Treaty of Prague could have been decisive in ending the war, enhancing Habsburg dominance in Europe. Spanish forces no longer engaged in warfare in Germany, posing a direct threat to France all along its frontier. France therefore intervened against the Imperial Habsburgs.
Prime Minister Richelieu had long been financing the enemies of the Habsburgs, but now they no longer were strong enough to be relied upon. War was declared against Spain on May 21, 1635, thus opening a second front on the Spanish Low Countries. In 1636 war was declared on Holy Roman Empire.
Habsburg Empire dominated so much in 16th century that they always struggled with Ottoman Empire. Their most successful conflict was 13 years war in Hungary 1593 - 1606 and even that didn't bring territorial gains.
Sorry, but England - Britain didn't have consistently naval supremacy. Spanish fleet was superior in the beginning of 16th century and even in the second half of 16th century English fleet wasn't superior. English couldn't defeat Spain in 1585 - 1604 war and had such disaster on their hands as English Armada in 1589. Where is
martin76 when you need him ?
Fleet of James I was a joke. Situation started to get better under Charles I.
English navy didn't have supremacy over Dutch one in second half of 17th century. No way. Dutch destroyed and humiliated English in Second Anglo - Dutch war 1665 - 1667. Famous Raid on Medway by De Ruyter in 1667 was a complete humiliation of English and their fleet. In Third Anglo - Dutch war 1672 - 1674 English fleet couldn't beat the Dutch one. Charles II had to abandon the war and situation returned to 1667 Treaty of Breda. Which you know, was favorable for the Dutch.
In Modern age naval supremacy belongs to USA.
Against what great European force Polish cavalry fought that you rate them so highly and above everyone else ? Polish Hussars never fought against Western European cavalry in 16th and 17th century. All of their battles are either against Russians, Swedish or Ottomans. They never faced something like French Gendarmes, for example.
Russia having largest amount of available military force since the early 18th century ? Sorry, but this is wrong. France was superior to Russia in terms of population in the beginning of 18th century with 20 million people. In theory Louis XIV could field 400 000 troops. During Nine Year War ( 1688 -1697 ) French fielded more than 300 000 soldiers. Russia wasn't superior to France in terms of population and ability to field larger force in the beginning of 18th century. Not to mention, that French army had superior organization to Russians and could provide + supply those troops.
Let's not forget, that Prussians were defeated quite a few times during Seven Years War. Frederick himself was defeated 3 times ( at Kolin in 1757, at Hochkirch in 1758 and at Kunersdorf in 1759). He also couldn't beat Russian force in Battle of Zorndorf in 1758, despite inflicting heavy casualties on them. Frederick was actually in panic after disaster at Kunersdorf. By the way, Russians captured Berlin for 3 days in 1760. Prussia got really lucky that Elizabeth died and Peter III ascended to the throne, who was fan of Frederick. He got rid of powerful enemy thanks to her death, when his country was in critical situation and condition.
Prussia also got left behind by French army in 1806. Leaving in the past and than they faced harsh reality.
