Because that's what I know most about. I wouldn't have much of a grounds for argument outside of military history, and thus would hesitate to argue with you on an issue outside of human armed conflict.
I'm not comparing the Roman conquest of Gaul with the World Wars. I said that that was an example of a successful attack on France from Italy (and I noted that it was an outlier), but that there are extenuating circumstances preventing it from being legitimate evidence in favor of the possible point (which I am not making) that France is easy to invade from Italy (which it's not) - namely, that said conquest took place over a long period of time and was conducted against an occupied people who failed to effectively unite on most occasions, by an organized people with technological, numerical, economic, and leadership advantages. And there are myriad examples of failed attacks on France from Italy, e.g. the War of the First Coalition, the War of the Second Coalition, the War of the Spanish Succession and the other wars of Louis XIV, the Italian wars between Charles V and Francis I... So there is evidence that France is difficult to conquer from Italy, or even successfully attack. OTOH, Austria has been successfully attacked from the Italian peninsula on several occasions, namely the War of the First Coalition, the War of the Third Coalition, and the two World Wars, for starters. So there is significant evidence to demonstrate that Austria is easier to attack from Italy than France is.mitsho said:
How did that affect the end outcome? Due to political squabbling preventing from getting him sizable reinforcements, Napoleon ought to have lost in 1796-7, not won an astonishing series of victories. And the pressures and centripetal force associated with a coalition wouldn't apply, because in all of the above cases France may have been fighting a coalition, but the only antagonists in Italy (apart from the Italians themselves) were France and Austria. Please provide a substantive example of this being a factor.mitsho said:
How'd that end up affecting the course of the war? In general, France usually dispatched fewer forces to Italian theaters than did the Austrians, yet usually Austria ended up losing. The two World Wars are counterpoints to that, yes, but in those cases the Allied numerical/technical/supply advantage was less than the theoretical minimum three-to-one attacker/defender ratio that is usually requisite.mitsho said:
Please provide an example of how this actually influenced the outcome of a conflict.mitsho said:
Because details prove you wrong?mitsho said:
I didn't say anything about conquest, I said that it was easier to invade. And yes, I would believe that, all else (including military forces, as unlikely as that is, especially in this day and age) being equal, Italy would have an easier time invading Austria than France.mitsho said:
Point one: there are more passes through the Alps from Italy to France than vice versa. On the western side, there is egress and ingress from, among others, the Little and Great St. Bernard Passes, the St. Gotthard Pass, and the Maddalena Pass. In the east, there are primarily the Brenner Pass and the Ljubljana Gap, but in practice, since the Brenner Pass leads to the Tyrol (which isn't Austria proper), historically the Gap of Ljubljana has been the primary vehicle for attacking Austria. France ought to have dispersion problems among its multiple passes, while Austria should be able to establish a blocking position with ease. Such has not really been the case.mitsho said:
Point two: the river barriers in the main Italian plain work both ways, and thus oughtn't really be counted in favor of either side.
Point three: the Austrians have in their favor the large region of the Trentino, which along with the Adige, Brenta, and/or Piave severely restrict traffic towards Austria and the Ljubljana Gap. There is no corresponding area for the defense of France.
Point four: your example, that of "Hitler being stupid when he invaded Russia because Napoleon tried it too and it didn't work", is also primarily a function of geography.
I'm primarily using historical examples, because to my mind it would seem to be the other way 'round.mitsho said:
That's not enough information to make a decision.mitsho said:Do you think that in a different, but similar situation (with countries Ataly and Iustriaor whatever they are called if this situation exists on this planet, on another one or in a paralell universe), Ataly will have it easy to invade Iustria?
