I am very sceptical about Wellington, he has also suffered many defeat in Spain, that he simply put in as victory. I believe the Prussian was instrumental for french defeat.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
1. For the first time Napoleon did encouter a very good equipped and trained army (kind of a landversion of Trafalgar) that were the brits.
2. Complete **** up of admiral Né against the 40k (I think they were only 40k) british troops
3. Napoleon was in a hurry to defeat the small but very lethal british contingent before the prussians arrived (see also point 2)
4. French troops were not as good as they used to be, first of all many veterans died in the russian campaign, second of all many french troops were actually peasants (beglian etc) who were forced to fight for a crazy man.
5. Napoleon's tactics weren't superb either imo
Don't try this at home lads
quoted from panda:
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
Napoleon lost at Waterloo because the rest of Europe had caught up with French tactics. What was novel once, was no longer novel. Also, as someone pointed out, the cream of the French Army was lost on the retreat from Moscow. The Old Guard consisted of only 3000 troops at Waterloo. Way to few to be the decisive force they had been in the past. Finally, the terrain at Waterloo is custom made for defence. Napoleon's preference to stretch the field of combat was not possible because of the limited front. The French attacked head on and were defeated head on. The Prussians certainly added that extra bit of insurance for Napoleons defeat, but the French would have lost the battle even if the Prussians didn't show up. They hadn't even dented the Allied lines in front of them despite hours of infantry and cavalry attacks by the early evening.
"I am very sceptical about Wellington, he has also suffered many defeat in Spain, that he simply put in as victory"
NAME THEM.(then explain how he apparently managed to fool everybody)
The British under Wellington did suffer some defeats at the hands of the French in the Peninsular of course and they are well documented.
Equally well documented are the many more British victories under Wellington in the Peninsular (and elsewhere), which explains why the french were BEATEN.
I'm sure you can't accept this but the French were strategically out thought and tactically out fought in the Peninsular, a British campaign that tied down over 200,000 seasoned French troops.
200,000+ seasoned French troops that may have made all the difference in Russia.
Reaver180
Everyone and their dog know that Waterloo was an allied victory won by the joint effort of a British/allied army and a Prussian army, whats your point in trying to down play the British contribution.
It seems to me your pre-occupation with inflating the Prussian contribution (which may have been large but lets face it the Prussians wouldn't have won it alone given their record of success against France) is more about inflating present day German feelings about the Napoleonic period.
A period which may have ultimately seen Prussian troops contribute to Napoleons defeat but also saw many German troops (Prussian, Bavarian, Westphalian, Hessian etc, etc) fighting alongside the French, including in the Russian campaign.
I can feel a "many Germans fought for the British" response from you coming, and your right they did but what you fail to understand is that the Kings German Legion were not a German force per se, they were Germans fighting in the British army and were part of the official British army order of battle fighting with us because of their loyalty to our Hanoverian King not to any other German state of the time. To say that their contribution should now be classed as a German contribution is like saying any historical victory by the Gurkhas in British service should now go to Nepal, ridiculous.
The battle of Waterloo is and has always been well documented, it's always been their on paper for anyone to research who did what, where and when. The idea that suddenly German historians and authors have made some new found discoveries that undermine the British contribution to the battle of waterloo is rubbish.
To my knowledge there has never been any attempt by the British to downplay the Prussian contribution overall just a natural tendency to focus on the British part of the battle more when speaking to British audiences, just as is the case for Germans and the Prussian contribution when talking to German audiences.
As for Wellington and his contribution to the battle, and for that matter the Napoleonic wars in general, the facts are also a part of public record, and although he wasn't perfect in all ways (neither was Blucher or Napoleon for that matter) his record in the wars with France is unrivalled, certainly better than Blucher or any other Prussian General officer, better than the Austrian Archduke Charles and to my thinking better and more consistent than Napoleon himself.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Aug 2, 2005 8:09 AM
Quote:Napoleon lost at Waterloo because the rest of Europe had caught up with French tactics. What was novel once, was no longer novel. Also, as someone pointed out, the cream of the French Army was lost on the retreat from Moscow. The Old Guard consisted of only 3000 troops at Waterloo. Way to few to be the decisive force they had been in the past. Finally, the terrain at Waterloo is custom made for defence. Napoleon's preference to stretch the field of combat was not possible because of the limited front. The French attacked head on and were defeated head on. The Prussians certainly added that extra bit of insurance for Napoleons defeat, but the French would have lost the battle even if the Prussians didn't show up. They hadn't even dented the Allied lines in front of them despite hours of infantry and cavalry attacks by the early evening.
Pretty much nonsense. To start french tactics wasn't novel, in fact it is very old, predating the revolutionary wars but reform was made during the first republic. it was all about localised superiority, concentration of firepower at critical points to achieve decisive victory. this is very old in the military book. What was new was the application with the new equipments of the time, and the formation and tactics weren't even developped by napoleon but by the revolutionary armies. the first time these tactics appeared was at tourcoing (war of the first coalition). The european didn't catch up with Napoleonic strategy, there were some reform, but the most important tactics adopted by the allies was not to engage napoleonic forces in battle unless they are considerable advantage. this worked, napoleon forces usually were exhausted before battle and the enemy didn't let french forces decide the terrain anymore.
about waterloo you are wrong again, first it wasn't the british but a combine dutch and british army.
Second the prussian were instrumental in napoleonic defeat. they knew the prussian were coming so all moved were made with the Prussian in mind. Finally with the prussian appearing on the battlefield meant game over, a victory over the british wouldn't have mattered.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
"I am very sceptical about Wellington, he has also suffered many defeat in Spain, that he simply put in as victory"
NAME THEM.(then explain how he apparently managed to fool everybody)
The British under Wellington did suffer some defeats at the hands of the French in the Peninsular of course and they are well documented.
Equally well documented are the many more British victories under Wellington in the Peninsular (and elsewhere), which explains why the french were BEATEN.
I'm sure you can't accept this but the French were strategically out thought and tactically out fought in the Peninsular, a British campaign that tied down over 200,000 seasoned French troops.
200,000+ seasoned French troops that may have made
I can't remember the exact battle but there was a battle that was a clear victory for the french army (entered as victory by the french but Wellignton put it as a British victory). War has a lot to do with politics, even if a battle is a defeat looking nearly tie, with manipulation you can make it look like a victory.
In Spain we were not out fought by the british, this is pretty much a myth. You certainly forgetting the spanish factor, the most important factor, at the time this was a very hostile territory, they were religious fanatics (pretty much similar to muslims nowadays) seeing french as this evil atheist alien regimes, representing values that they could ill comprehend. For the french came straight from hell. The guerilla was truely bleeding french forces more than the british could ever do in direct confrontation. Much of french forces were sick there (it was worst that russia and it was very long campaign). if the battlefield were in France or the low lands, there is no way, british army could have confront french forces with all equipments and fresh troops. You would lose all the time like at tourcoing. Spain was like France bleeding wounds always demanding more soldiers, people constantly died of sickness in these hostile environment. What you fought in Spain were really a bleeding army lacking in everything and constantly harassed by the guerilla. The real victor were the Spanish in truth not the british. The british on the other hand had the support of the local population, and hence didn't require a supply line. In fact the british was merely the conventional form of the guerilla, and extension of the guerilla, simply there to finish the wounded beast.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Quote:3. Napoleon was in a hurry to defeat the small but very lethal british contingent before the prussians arrived (see also point 2)
Bullsh!t, the british weren't more lethal than the Prussian or the austrians. This wars has nothing to do with lethality, but more about how you can outmaneuver your opponent and outnumbered them at a critical point.
French tactics didn't demand highly trained soldiers to win, it was very flexible and those soldiers just have to do their best at point where they would outnumbered the enemy. this was how the Prussian armys, which was perhaps way better train and more lethal forces in europe, defeated. You can be lethal on an individual or regimental lvl, but if you are surrounded and under massive artillery bombardment, there is nothing your lethality can do about this.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
can't remember the exact battle but there was a battle that was a clear victory for the french army (entered as victory by the french but Wellignton put it as a British victory). War has a lot to do with politics, even if a battle is a defeat looking nearly tie, with manipulation you can make it look like a victory.
name? time? location? commanding French general?
even if your right (and your not) its just one
Eryx you are the most biased person I have ever met, your revisionist history is more amuseing then anything but i must admit you iritate me a little sometimes with your constant pointless whineing and the way you insult and sware at anyone that does not agree with you.
That's Britain for you. Tea solves everything.
You're a bit cold? Tea.
Your girlfriend has just left you? Tea.
You've just been told you've got cancer? Tea.
Coordinated terrorist attack on the transport network bringing the city to a grinding halt? TEA DAMMIT!
The Spanish contributin to the defeat of the French in the Peninsular of course has to be taken in to consideration but to say their geurilla actions are what won the war and the conventional battles just finished off thr French is idiotic, the other way around is more accurate, the major battles broke the French and the geurillas finished off those small elements left over.
Come on, if the French forces had been fully equipped and not sick the British would have lost every battle, yeah and if pigs could fly. The fact is they were sick, both armies were fighting in similar conditions (and you don't hear us whinging about how sick our troops were) and with similar levels of support (the British advantage of some population support in Spain is easily offset by the fact that the vast majority of equipment had to be shipped to Portuguese ports before being transported to the army and the French supply line was far simpler and shorter because of the French border with Spain)
Evidence speaks for itself and that says that in most battles in the Peninsular the British/Portuguese army under BRITISH command out fought the French tactically on the battlefield and the overall BRITISH command strategically out thought the French all the way up to and beyond the border with France itself, fact.
Busaco, Sept. 27 1810. BRITISH VICTORY.
MASSENA
50,700 French infantry.
8,400 French cavalry.
114 guns
WELLINGTON
24,800 British infantry.
24,650 Portuguese infantry.
210 British cavalry.
60 guns
Fuentes de Onoro, May 3-5 1811. BRITISH VICTORY.
MASSENA
42,200 French infantry.
4,660 French cavalry.
38 guns.
WELLINGTON
23,000 British infantry.
11,500 Portuguese infantry.
1,870 British cavalry.
48 guns.
Casualties.
2,844 French.
1,804 Brit & Port.
Salamanca, July 22 1812. BRITISH VICTORY.
MARMONT
41,600 French infantry.
3,390 French cavalry.
78 guns.
WELLINGTON
25,600 British infantry.
17,400 Portuguese infantry.
3,500 British cavalry.
500 Portuguese cavalry.
60 guns.
Casualties.
14,000 French.
5,200 Brit & Port.
Viroria, June 21 1813. BRITISH VICTORY.
GAZAN, D'ERLON, REILLE AND JOSEPH
56,400 French infantry.
10,750 French cavalry.
140 guns.
WELLINGTON
27,350 British infantry.
27,550 Portuguese infantry.
6,900 Spanish infantry.
7,400 British cavalry.
890 Portuguese cavalry.
90 guns.
casualties.
8,000 French.
5,100 Brit, Port and Span.
And don't use the pitiful excuse that these were Anglo/Portuguese armies and not just British, the Portuguese army was almost completely influenced by the British at this time, in terms of training, command and logistical support the Portuguese army had been totally transformed by us into a confident fighting force. It was in every way an extension of the British army in the Peninsular.
"Bullsh!t, the british weren't more lethal than the Prussian or the austrians. This wars has nothing to do with lethality, but more about how you can outmaneuver your opponent and outnumbered them at a critical point".
"French tactics didn't demand highly trained soldiers to win, it was very flexible and those soldiers just have to do their best at point where they would outnumbered the enemy".
Wrong..., the Prussians, Austrians and the Russians and just about every major army in Europe at the time had similar tactics to the French because they fought their infantry in column with a heavy reliance on artillery and cavalry, a necessity for large armies with less professional infantry.
The British were exceptional in that they fought infantry in line (giving the ability to bring more fire to bear from the same number of troops than a column) and had a much less reliance on artillery (although were fond of horse artillery) and cavalry, because of the high quality of British infantry.
The line basis for infantry combat was extremely difficult to train for and could only be successful when performed by highly trained troops because of the danger that the line would be attacked and defeated (because it had much less depth than a column and was less defencible) before the infantry using it could re-form in to square.
This fact in itself made the British infantry more dangerous than any other infantry in Europe.
As for our cavalry and artillery, they in my opinion were as good as any in Europe but no better. The artillery element of the British army was smaller than other major European armies but our tendency toward horse artillery much them far more flexible than any other type of artillery, this in itself didn't offset the French dominance in artillery but it helped.
The cavalry generally performed well but again we never had the numbers to turn them in to anything other than what to use to finish an enemy after he had been softened up rather than a force to soften up itselves.
Our real strength was always our infantry, other armies real strengths was their artillery and/or cavalry this also made British armies difficult to cope with because conventional French tactics, that had worked against Prussia and Austria, didn't work so well against an army that was infantry orientated.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Aug 2, 2005 9:27 AM
Quote:name? time? location? commanding French general?
even if your right (and your not) its just one
Eryx you are the most biased person I have ever met, your revisionist history is more amuseing then anything but i must admit you iritate me a little sometimes with your constant pointless whineing and the way you insult and sware at anyone that does not agree with you.
Battle of Coruna 1809/01/16 , French commander was Soult, british commander was Moore.
a victory in french history book, a victory for the anglos in British history book. And many others, where french and british acccount differs.
Reaver posted a link, at least have the decency to listen to it, if you think our claims are without foundation. I believe Wellington was liar and manipulator, more a politician than a soldier. We downplayed the role of the Prussian and magnify the role of the british. Fools and idiots will obviously believe. Only in an English history book perhaps.
About the Napoleonics wars I believe
1. The russians were instrumental for french defeat
2. The guerilla and disease caused way more death than the british army inflicted.Most of the british are exagerated, some were mere skirmish. They have to show the british ion favorable light to continue the war.
3. At waterloo, it was the prussian than defeated France not britain.
I hope you are irritated now. History is all about lies, all about propaganda. You can turn defeat into victory and vice versa under certain conditions. This depends whether the audience will believe you or not.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Wellington's lies about Waterloo
August 2 2005, 10:17 AM
Woah, I created that much interest, who would have thought
"Reaver180
Everyone and their dog know that Waterloo was an allied victory won by the joint effort of a British/allied army and a Prussian army, whats your point in trying to down play the British contribution."
If that were the case I would say nothing, unfortunately the common view held is that Waterloo was a British victory, negating the fact that the "British" forces were up to 2/3 not British and that the Prussian arrival turned a bloody stalemate into an Allied victory.
"It seems to me your pre-occupation with inflating the Prussian contribution (which may have been large but lets face it the Prussians wouldn't have won it alone given their record of success against France) is more about inflating present day German feelings about the Napoleonic period."
Not at all, frankly there aren't many feelings at all about this period here, the people don't care.
As for you underestimating the Prussian army, after the reforms by Scharnhorst, Stein and Gneisenau they were as effective as any, particularly in the command and control area. And that was what saved you at Waterloo. No, I'm simply trying to correct a false historical impression.
"A period which may have ultimately seen Prussian troops contribute to Napoleons defeat but also saw many German troops (Prussian, Bavarian, Westphalian, Hessian etc, etc) fighting alongside the French, including in the Russian campaign."
Wow, even the Prussians "fought" for the French in Russia at least until the army saw the first Russians and joined them. Hannover was Allied from the start and it's army became your German Legion. German armies of German states fought on any side in this conflict, what's your point?
"I can feel a "many Germans fought for the British" response from you coming, and your right they did but what you fail to understand is that the Kings German Legion were not a German force per se, they were Germans fighting in the British army and were part of the official British army order of battle fighting with us because of their loyalty to our Hanoverian King not to any other German state of the time. To say that their contribution should now be classed as a German contribution is like saying any historical victory by the Gurkhas in British service should now go to Nepal, ridiculous."
It's not only the KGL, which as you rightly state was the Hannoveran army under another name really, but also contingents from Braunschweig, Darmstadt and many others (who were NOT part of the British army), and then of course the major Dutch and Belgian contingents. The non-British forces made up over 50% up to 2/3 of the army. Together with the Prussian impact it is not hard to see what bugs me about the common view that it was a British victory.
"The battle of Waterloo is and has always been well documented, it's always been their on paper for anyone to research who did what, where and when. The idea that suddenly German historians and authors have made some new found discoveries that undermine the British contribution to the battle of waterloo is rubbish. "
You are right, these findings aren't new, they were just not used and instead Wellington's figures were taken over those of the Prussian and French general staff's.
"To my knowledge there has never been any attempt by the British to downplay the Prussian contribution overall just a natural tendency to focus on the British part of the battle more when speaking to British audiences, just as is the case for Germans and the Prussian contribution when talking to German audiences."
Not British, but Wellington especially. A man of flawed character. If you listen to the interview, the German historian DEFENDS a British one who recognised the truth only a couple of years after Waterloo. It is the redemption of him together with putting the Prussian contribution in the right light that is the main point of the German historian here.
"As for Wellington and his contribution to the battle, and for that matter the Napoleonic wars in general, the facts are also a part of public record, and although he wasn't perfect in all ways (neither was Blucher or Napoleon for that matter) his record in the wars with France is unrivalled, certainly better than Blucher or any other Prussian General officer, better than the Austrian Archduke Charles and to my thinking better and more consistent than Napoleon himself."
Blücher was half-mad, of course it eases things considerably if one is not forced to fight the main French force. Despite it's numbers the Peninsula was a sideshow compared tho Central Europe and Russia.
I've never read anything that say's Corunna was a British victory but that dosn't mean it was a French victory either.
French forces attempted to destroy withdrawing British forces (sickness and disease had cost 4000 lives in the British forces advance in to Spain) and we managed to check French attacks and cause twice as many casualties as you did and then continue our withdrawal.
"About the Napoleonics wars I believe"
Like it makes a difference what you believe, the facts speak for themselves.
"1. The russians were instrumental for french defeat".
1. Of course Russia was instrumental in the French defeat, nobody is trying to take away from the Russian contribution to Napoleons failure, but they were not the only country involved.
If you can't accept that Britain also played a big part then your deluding yourself.
"2. The guerilla and disease caused way more death than the british army inflicted.Most of the british are exagerated, some were mere skirmish. They have to show the british ion favorable light to continue the war".
2. Ah now you include disease in your pitiful attempt to explain why Britain hammered you in the Peninsular, Disease caused more deaths than any other cause to both sides not only the French, we still managed to kick your arse.
"3. At waterloo, it was the prussian than defeated France not britain".
3. Then your retarded, but if you can't accept that Britain played such a large part in destroying French attempts at taking over Europe and especially played a large part in the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo then i'll put it down to that inferiority complex you continually show when talking about GREAT BRITAIN.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Aug 2, 2005 11:08 AM
Hmm used to be a napoleonic wars fanatic, studied this from lots of
sources and always interesting to see different viewpoints
thanks for the link reaver ill have a good look when i get home
QUOTE
___
About the Napoleonics wars I believe
1. The russians were instrumental for french defeat
2. The guerilla and disease caused way more death than the british army inflicted.Most of the british are exagerated, some were mere skirmish. They have to show the british ion favorable light to continue the war.
3. At waterloo, it was the prussian than defeated France not britain.
I hope you are irritated now. History is all about lies, all about propaganda. You can turn defeat into victory and vice versa under certain conditions. This depends whether the audience will believe you or not.
___
1) Of course this is correct, but it was napoleons mistakes
rather than 'russian prowess'
2) Some exaggeration?. Perhaps, however while britains army
was small and generally melded with coalitions it was
a very professional force. It was also eventually extremely
well supplied, the importance of the dominance of the royal
navy at the time is generally grossly under-estimated.
Napoleon ignored advise from 3 generals as well, all of whom
were of the opinion the british infantry would not crack easily,
and were uneasy that grouchy was lost.
3) I think it is quite unfair to be dismissive of wellingtons
forces here, they took very heavy casualties in the initial
engagement before bluchers arrival, and i personally believe
many forces would have cracked.
Regards
El
______
"PAX"
As much as it pains me to say this i think i'm becoming more and more anti-Europe by the day. A couple of months ago i would have been the most vocal pro-Britain-in-Europe supporter on these boards along with Nero, but as you read more and more of the crap we have to put up with and certain Euro leader's attitudes one must take a stand
Quote:1) Of course this is correct, but it was napoleons mistakes
rather than 'russian prowess'
2) Some exaggeration?. Perhaps, however while britains army
was small and generally melded with coalitions it was
a very professional force. It was also eventually extremely
well supplied, the importance of the dominance of the royal
navy at the time is generally grossly under-estimated.
Napoleon ignored advise from 3 generals as well, all of whom
were of the opinion the british infantry would not crack easily,
and were uneasy that grouchy was lost.
3) I think it is quite unfair to be dismissive of wellingtons
forces here, they took very heavy casualties in the initial
engagement before bluchers arrival, and i personally believe
many forces would have cracked.
Regards
May always being reasonable and logical. If there was more people like you on earth and less like me, it would actually be a better place. I don't follow the trend May, I know how the system works. It is all about lies and rhetoric, nothing is as it seems. Napoleon was never really what people think he was, Austerlitz, Marengo, the battle of the pyramids etc, were all part of the propaganda machine to glorify the man. war is all about propaganda.
France was losing WW1 May, the germans were winning battle after battle, french forces were desintegrating, overwhelm everywhere, the german were at the gates of Paris. Joffre was calm, everyone else was panicking, he calmly rally the soldiers to form a new army when many would have just seek honorable surrender. He just rallied a new army and turned the battle in the favour of the ally at Marne. On the hand the germans leadership lose their nerves and started to retreat after Marne. You see he never admitted defeat when disaster strike. this is the key to victory, propaganda has a strange power on the people, you need to make the people believe you are victorious even if disaster is at your gate. Defeat or victory is never obvious and/or clear cut.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
All of your assumptions seem to be based on the fact that no one has ever looked into the battle in detail before relatively recently which is wrong.
The Duke of Wellington has been dead for some time and his ability to influence the retelling of the battle went with him. Since then any information about the battle and the contribution made by all those involved has been readily available and many books on the subject have been produced. They all seem to be able to recognise the fact that Britain played a pivotal role in the defeat of the French at Waterloo without underplaying the Prussian part in the battle.
Certainly if you read a short brief historical note about the battle in British school history books then it may, and i do mean may, say that the battle was a "British" victory, just as i'm sure that in Germany and before that Prussia it was portrayed as a "Prussian" victory, but anybody who looks in to the battle a little bit in either country has the information available to them to get a more balanced view of things.
Every book i've read in the last 25 years (some written in that time, some much older) has highlighted the Prussian contribution to the battle, some may have been wrong in the details (numbers, times etc) but most of them have been very accurate to what i know to be the truth.
The only thing new about Peter Hoffschroer books isn't the highlighting of the Prussian contribution (most before him managed to do that), it's the downplaying of the British contribution in order to highlight the Prussian contribution, something there is no historical evidence for and is not only factually innaccurate but i think is also morally wrong.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Aug 2, 2005 2:02 PM
"Blücher was half-mad, of course it eases things considerably if one is not forced to fight the main French force. Despite it's numbers the Peninsula was a sideshow compared tho Central Europe and Russia".
A sideshow, i don't think so, not even compared to the large battles in Europe and Russia, look at these numbers in the British victories i posted before.
Busaco, Sept. 27 1810. BRITISH VICTORY.
MASSENA
50,700 French infantry.
8,400 French cavalry.
114 guns
WELLINGTON
24,800 British infantry.
24,650 Portuguese infantry.
210 British cavalry.
60 guns
Fuentes de Onoro, May 3-5 1811. BRITISH VICTORY.
MASSENA
42,200 French infantry.
4,660 French cavalry.
38 guns.
WELLINGTON
23,000 British infantry.
11,500 Portuguese infantry.
1,870 British cavalry.
48 guns.
Casualties.
2,844 French.
1,804 Brit & Port.
Salamanca, July 22 1812. BRITISH VICTORY.
MARMONT
41,600 French infantry.
3,390 French cavalry.
78 guns.
WELLINGTON
25,600 British infantry.
17,400 Portuguese infantry.
3,500 British cavalry.
500 Portuguese cavalry.
60 guns.
Casualties.
14,000 French.
5,200 Brit & Port.
Viroria, June 21 1813. BRITISH VICTORY.
GAZAN, D'ERLON, REILLE AND JOSEPH
56,400 French infantry.
10,750 French cavalry.
140 guns.
WELLINGTON
27,350 British infantry.
27,550 Portuguese infantry.
6,900 Spanish infantry.
7,400 British cavalry.
890 Portuguese cavalry.
90 guns.
casualties.
8,000 French.
5,100 Brit, Port and Span.
These were big battles with large numbers involved.
Look at the battle of Vitoria on 21st June 1813 with approximately 70,000 troops on both sides, nearly 145,000 troops on the battlefield at one time.
The numbers may not compare to battles in central Europe and Russia but these battles were hardly small by any standard and the whole campaign was far from a sideshow.
Conservative estimates put the number of French troops tied down in Spain at 200,000-250,000, or between a third and a half of the number Napoleon sent in to Russia, and you don't think these troops would have made a difference to the outcome of the campaign in Russia or the campaign against Napoleon in central Europe, in particular the French defeat at the battle of Leipzig in 1813.
This message has been edited by britopinion on Aug 2, 2005 3:55 PM
'Casualties are estimated at 25,000 men killed and wounded and 9,000 captured among the French forces. Wellington's casualties were 15,000 and Blücher's about 8,000.'
Doesnt say anything about the dutch etc but still from that we can see the 'Brtiish' lost twice as many men as the prussians...
There isn't a military subject that Eric can't pollute with his ignorance. Waterloo, Hastings, whatever. He also doesn't know much about electrical engineering, even though he considers himself an authority. French education.
I'm not saying i think that casualty figures is the best way of indicating who fought more in a battle but your point is a good one i think.
As for the Dutch and Belgian elements of the allied army i think their casualties were rather light compared to British casualties.
The fact is that although the Dutch and the Belgians were part of the allied army because of their former alliances with France they were considered unreliable.
Although in the end the Dutch performed quite well both the Dutch and the Belgians were there to make up the numbers and the vast majority of the fighting (most of the key defensive actions and all of the offensive actions) by the allied army was carried out by the British element (including the KGL) and to a much smaller extent the Hanoverian element.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
ive read that site before, some stuff is interesting such
as putman extracts
but when a site has the following in its pages you cant help
feeling the webmaster has a definite motive
"Dear Ennglishman, don't you think it's about time to stop whining about the lost Empire and films ("Patriot") that portray your humiliating defeat to a bunch of American farmers ? You are no longer empire and without Americans you all would be speaking German or Russian. Don't forget that your Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain gave Hitler whatever he asked for in 1938. What a sissy.
I wish you as a country all the best but advise you to think carefully before you point the finger of blame at others and claim that you were never wrong.
"
This statement kind of colours my opinion of the whole site im afraid
Regards
El
______
"PAX"
As much as it pains me to say this i think i'm becoming more and more anti-Europe by the day. A couple of months ago i would have been the most vocal pro-Britain-in-Europe supporter on these boards along with Nero, but as you read more and more of the crap we have to put up with and certain Euro leader's attitudes one must take a stand
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Wellington's lies about Waterloo
August 3 2005, 12:40 AM
I know May, the site has, shall we say not a very pro-British tone I don't take it's snide remarks for full, but concentrate on the hard data. I doubt that they would lie there, at least they present sources.
Sad that they had to ruin such a good site with remarks of this kind. A simple notice stating that British historical publications don't match with others would have been enough IMO.
Quote:There isn't a military subject that Eric can't pollute with his ignorance. Waterloo, Hastings, whatever. He also doesn't know much about electrical engineering, even though he considers himself an authority. French education.
Coming from a total retard who pretend to be an Elec Eng, this is funny, isn't that enough humiliation for you that you were proved to be a chronic liar, lol. I'm an electro not an electrical, from australian institution. Please keep your retarded insult for yourself, the topic is about whether Wellington lied about waterloo, obviously again you are talking out of the place where the light doesn't shine again. Don't try to hard to be smart, it just make you look foolish.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Wellington was a so-so leader whose country's foreign policy leaders were smart and sneaky enough to get the Prussians, Spanish and the rest o Europe to fight for them. England had never faced a continental army by itself and fared well (don't claim victories in the 100 Years War which were fought by French Kings who happened to hold England.) England did extremely well bullying the brown masses of the third world though.
BTW, Eryx is second only to me as far as intelligence is concerned in this forum. You English dudes better listen to him. LOL
Good posts Erix.
Notably about the war in Spain, Erix is right. In all the books I've read about it, the soldiers speak of the hell they suffered in ordinary life and the massacre they had to do on civilian population everywhere they went to calm them down. The people of Spain were completely fanatized by the most backward clerics Europe ever had.
When they used to fight the British the French were already exhausted and a lot even had no shoes.
Still the Brits never were able to win any decisive victory and at the end of the war, the French were retreating from Spain to France in good order.
May be the battle you are speaking about Erix is the battle of Albuera the 16 May 1811 where the British commander Beresford thought he was defeated by the French. But Wellington's reaction to Beresford's account was: "This won't do. Write me down a victory".
There is also the battle of Toulouse the 10 April 1814 where Wellington confronted the French troops retreating from Spain that is considered as a victory by Wellington while it's debatable to say the least.
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Aug 3, 2005 6:38 PM This message has been edited by ultrarep on Aug 3, 2005 6:35 PM
"Still the Brits never were able to win any decisive victory and at the end of the war, the French were retreating from Spain to France in good order"
Depends what you mean by decisive, winning multiple battles against the French (Vimeiro,Corunna,Talavera,Busaco,Barrossa,Fuentes de Onoro,Albuera,Cuidad Rodrogo,badajoz,Salamanca,Vittoria etc,etc,etc) and driving the French army in Spain out sounds pretty fu>>ing decisive to me.
Panda
"Wellington was a so-so leader whose country's foreign policy leaders were smart and sneaky enough to get the Prussians, Spanish and the rest o Europe to fight for them. England had never faced a continental army by itself and fared well (don't claim victories in the 100 Years War which were fought by French Kings who happened to hold England.) England did extremely well bullying the brown masses of the third world though."
Wellington was an exceptional military leader and proved it whether he was fighting the Tipu Sultan in India or Napoleon in Europe, if you can't accept that, well never mind.
It's convenient that we can't claim responsibility for any victory while we were ruled by any king before Henry V (first English speaking King), of course many of our victories took place while we were under the rule of some foreign king, why not go the whole way and say Britains can't claim responsibility for any BRITISH victories.
As for us bullying the brown masses of the third world, YAWN, we also bullied and kicked the arse of China on more than a few occassions, deal with it.
Eric, you're the clown prince of this site. You don't add anything to the discussion except for comic relief. For someone who acts as if they're the protector of some divine wisdom, you sure are a dumb phuck. Go study pole/zero analysis some more, as a commentator at a military affairs site you're not even in the bush league. Doofus.
I advice you not to reply to Landos Erix. He is a mod a la Murph. This forum is the only one who have some Troll as mods and still is good quality
Jason.
Depends what you mean by decisive, winning multiple battles against the French (Vimeiro,Corunna,Talavera,Busaco,Barrossa,Fuentes de Onoro,Albuera,Cuidad Rodrogo,badajoz,Salamanca,Vittoria etc,etc,etc) and driving the French army in Spain out sounds pretty fu>>ing decisive to me.
not decisive as the French army wasn't destroyed or trapped there. Also the invading troops that entered the most deeply in France when the peace was signed, were coming from the East, NOT from Spain. From Spain Wellington couldn't go further than Toulouse.
You try to make your point with a list of British virctory. That doesn't work that way. Here is a list of French victory in Spain:
16 Jan 1809 Coruna French victory -
27 June 1809 Casa de Salinas French victory -
16-24 May 1810 Siege of Mequinenza French victory -
10 July 1810 Barquilla French victory -
24 July 1810 Coa River French victory -
11 Aug 1810 Villagarcia French victory -
27 Sep 1810 Bussaco The Brit-Portug. repelled
the assaults of French troops
but were nevertheless forced
to withdraw.
13 Oct 1810 Fuengirola Polish-French
victory -
April-May 1811 Blockade of Almeida French victory -
April-May 1811 2nd Siege of Badajoz French victory -
16 May 1811 Albuera British commander Beresford
thought he was defeated by
the French. Wellington's reaction to Beresford's
account was: "This won't do.
Write me down a victory".
May-June 1811 3rd Siege of Badajoz French victory -
June 1811 Operations around
Almeida French victory -
22 June 1811 Elvas French victory -
25 Sep 1811 El Bodon French victory -
29 Dec 1811 Membrillo French victory -
11 April 1812 Villagarcia French victory -
11 June 1812 Maguilla French victory -
18 July 1812 Castrejon French victory -
11 Aug 1812 Malajahonda French victory -
Sep-Oct 1812 Siege of Burgos French victory -
23 Oct 1812 Venta del Pozo French victory -
25 Oct 1812 Villa Muriel French victory -
28 Oct 1812 Tordesillas French victory -
17 Nov 1812 San Munoz French victory -
June 1813 Siege of Tarragona French victory -
24 June 1813 Villafranca French victory -
25 July 1813 Roncesvalles French victory -
25 July 1813 Maya French victory -
July-Aug 1813 Siege of San Sebastian French-Allies
victory -
July-Aug 1813 Blockade of Tarragona French victory -
2 Aug 1813 Lizaso French victory -
13-14 Sep 1813 skirmishes at:
Ordal and Villafranca French victory -
7 Oct 1813 Vera French victory -
16 Jan 1814 Molins de Rey French victory -
17 March 1814 Daunia's Raid French victory -
19 March 1814 Vic-Bigorre French victory -
Does that mean France was victorious in Spain ? of course not. But all in all this Spain affair was more a slow retreat of the French under endless attacks than a clear victory of the Coalition. Still a very bad deal for France as it sucked ressources that would have been much better employed in north east.
Quote:May be the battle you are speaking about Erix is the battle of Albuera the 16 May 1811 where the British commander Beresford thought he was defeated by the French. But Wellington's reaction to Beresford's account was: "This won't do. Write me down a victory".
You are the man. Exactly what I was trying to figure out roland. Thanx
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
quoted from panda:
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
Quote:Eric, you're the clown prince of this site. You don't add anything to the discussion except for comic relief. For someone who acts as if they're the protector of some divine wisdom, you sure are a dumb phuck. Go study pole/zero analysis some more, as a commentator at a military affairs site you're not even in the bush league. Doofus.
Hhahahhahah, you sure been reading my posts too much. News flash this is all irrelevent to the topic, leave it here boy, would you, because you know I have a master degree in insultology. Now go get your pills and relax. Again the thread is about whether Wellignton was a cunning politician and deforming the truth or not. If you got nothing about matter, you keep it shut. you don't like my opinion, you just ignore it or you try to counter it using fact like Britopinion been doing, it is that easy no need being a drama queen.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Aug 4, 2005 1:50 AM
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
LOL. From what I've seen your "insults" are mostly personal attacks. They don't even come close to flirting with clever commentary, ala Cyrano. As for commenting on Wellington, you skirted over my points like a blind man evaluating a Da Vinci painting. I'm not surprised that pointed discussion and thoughtful commentary isn't recognized by you. As I said once before, all gas and no spark. Keep trying, Eric, you may land a blow one of these days by accident!
Wellington was an excellent, if cautious commander
Wellington marshalled what forces he had very well imho.
Of course, the british land forces were relatively small.
France had a huge army, britain cared about 2 things
wealth and trade. Thats why
a) The majority of money went to the navy
b) The country was able to afford to finance the war for
other countries.
c) Britain ever got involved in the continent (continental system for
example).
Ive seen nothing however to demonstrate to me that wellington
was a 'so so' commander, or that the infantry did not perform
in the manner expected of a small proffesional force.
Altho slightly offtopic i do think people never understand
the importance of sea dominance at the time as well
when discussing the napoleonic wars sigh.
______
CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?
quote
______
As for us bullying the brown masses of the third world, YAWN, we also bullied and kicked the arse of China on more than a few occassions, deal with it.
___
Actually the way that britain, and to an extent france
humiliated china for decades isnt something im proud of
Forcing them to be drug addicts, destroying their entire navy
with a couple of small british gunboats, burning the palace
down, easily beating their primitive troops
and for decades dictating to china exactly what treaty they would sign
and generally treating them as a province was tyrannical imho.
It was only when we got tea seeds to grow in india that we stopped,
to an extent bullying them
Really a bad piece of history for both britain (as tyrannical
bullies) and china (being humilitated with such ease).
______
CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?
Quote:Actually the way that britain, and to an extent france
humiliated china for decades isnt something im proud of
We didn't invade China during the Sino-french war, they invaded us (indochina), we just have to act and they lost territories in the war. If you are talking of the boxer rebellion, this was an absolute disgrace, I agree.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
I advice you not to reply to Landos Erix. He is a mod a la Murph. This forum is the only one who have some Troll as mods and still is good quality
more comical spelling errors from ultrarep who has the audacity to question others intelligence..are you still pissed that I had your dumb azz thrown out for a bit ultraraped? .. or are you still pissed that a french moderator had to 'correct' you when you made baseless allegations against me regarding your good buddy thunder?..landos is as good a moderator as we have so I take it as a compliment when you mention he and I together....I disagree with landos about one thing.. you, not eryx, in my opinion is the forum clown here.
Actually the way that britain, and to an extent france
humiliated china for decades isnt something im proud of
Forcing them to be drug addicts, destroying their entire navy
with a couple of small british gunboats, burning the palace
down, easily beating their primitive troops
and for decades dictating to china exactly what treaty they would sign
and generally treating them as a province was tyrannical imho.
And you shouldn't be proud of it, May. Yet pushing drugs and bullying third worlders is seen as something to be "proud" of in England.
What you should be proud of are battles with your peers in Europe. But English armies fared very poorly against other Europeans (especially against French and Germans) unless they had massive help from others.
England simply can't fight its peers but had made its "reputation" on murdering off native people who have no concept of war and old pacifist nations like China and India who didn't like fighting.
Really a bad piece of history for both britain (as tyrannical
bullies) and china (being humilitated with such ease).
That's why it is silly today for people, especially Anglo-Saxons, to call China a threat. China is historically bullied by European nations. It does not threaten them.
We didn't invade China during the Sino-french war, they invaded us (indochina), we just have to act and they lost territories in the war. If you are talking of the boxer rebellion, this was an absolute disgrace, I agree.
See? Unlike the British, the French don't make a big deal out of fighting old pacifist civilizations like China or slaughtering tribes like Aborigines and Zulus - unlike Britain. They don't brag about be drug pushers on a national scale either. The French made their name fighting other European powers and that is the point we're making here.
Who was bragging about the opium wars and unequal treaties
in the following decades??.
Most historical sites in the uk list our bullying of china
as one of our worst periods in history, especially as it was
like taking candy off a baby ((eryx mentions the boxer rebellion
it was this that led to china reforms and adoption of modern
western science / military doctrine).
As for how british armies have performed in combat, well they
have done fine. Of course they have usually been part of a coalition
because as ive tried to explain britain has not traditionally
been a land power, but a sea power instead.
The public tolerated a large navy far better than a large army,
not surprising for an island really.
As for our performance as a naval power..well theres no
real need to discuss that as it speaks for itself.
______
CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?
Who was bragging about the opium wars and unequal treaties
in the following decades??.
No, May, I didn't use the term "brag" and I didn't bring up the Opium War, you did.
What I did say is the the British are "proud" of the fact they were an Empire which was predicated on bullying third worlders and killing off indigenous tribes who could not and did not offer much resistance.
So British pride is based on attacking and murdering off much weaker peoples not in battles against other powerful peoples. Constrast that with the history of Germany and France.
As for our performance as a naval power..well theres no
real need to discuss that as it speaks for itself.
The seat of purpose will always be on land, May. Naval power would have afforded Britain nothing if there were no weak peoples outside Europe for England to bully.
Take today, for example. Britain is still a naval power but its influence is nearly nil in parts of the world it had bullied before because the same weak opponents are no longer there.
Again, Britih pride is based on its former "Empire" and the Empire was built on bullying the weak. Isn't that a fair statement?
quote
___
No, May, I didn't use the term "brag" and I didn't bring up the Opium War, you did.
Earlier panda wrote
They don't brag about be drug pushers on a national scale either. The French made their name fighting other European powers and that is the point we're making here.
____
I can see both 'brag' and the opium wars in your earlier statement.
If you dont understand why in the time of empire building
sea power was paramount, then i respectfully
suggest a little research. Sea power was absoloutly vital for the
powers of the time, it led to uninterrupted trade, which led
to massive wealth.
If you want to learn more i suggest reading the works
of leading european and american military advisers
of the 19th century.
As for us being 'bullies' well all european nations
(the powers at the time ) were scrambling for power,
in fact many british decisions were made purely to
prevent european competitors such as france expanding.
For example, when america declared it would not allow
'further euopean interference' it was the Royal Navy
that enforced the declaration untill america
had a navy capable of doing this itself.
Really, having to explain the importance of sea power
on a military history forum is not something id expect
to have to do (sigh)
______
CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?
They don't brag about be drug pushers on a national scale either. The French made their name fighting other European powers and that is the point we're making here.
____
LOL. I did say "brag". Thanks for the catch. Then let me rephrase that statement and say that unlike the Brits, the French don't stake their "pride" in pushing drugs in an international scale but instead made their name fighting other European powers.
If you dont understand why in the time of empire building
sea power was paramount, then i respectfully
suggest a little research. Sea power was absoloutly vital for the
powers of the time, it led to uninterrupted trade, which led
to massive wealth.
Again, naval power was important for building an "Empire" and empire in Britain's case was based solely on bullying weaker peoples overseas. The British navy didn't allow Britain much control of Europe. In fact, it was the delightfil sneakiness of the British policy builders and diplomats that gave Britain a semblance of influence on the Continent with coalitions where other people did most of the fighting.
If you want to learn more i suggest reading the works
of leading european and american military advisers
of the 19th century.
I know full well how naval power is paramount in trading nations but it does not change the fact that naval powers spend most of their time fighting weaker opponents because that's what naval reach alows a nation to do.
As for us being 'bullies' well all european nations
(the powers at the time ) were scrambling for power,
in fact many british decisions were made purely to
prevent european competitors such as france expanding.
Yes, but Britain has no independent land victories against other great powers to prove its case. It's power was based entirely on bullying third worlders and getting the Continentals to fight each other.
For example, when Germany was on verge of invading England, the Brits were screaming how they were "alone" in standing up against the Germans. LOL. This while the UK was an empire of oppressed peoples occupying far more of the world's landmass than Germany!
But the Brits KNEW they were intrinsically WEAKER than the Germans even though they had far greater access to the world and its resources than the Germans.
That is how we have the idiocy of the British EMPIRE being seen as an underdog in the fight against Germany, a much smaller republic. LOL.
It was an "underdog" during the BoB because Britain was and is historically weak against major powers and had made its reputation bullying the weak. Germany was most defintely not one of the weak. LOL
Really, having to explain the importance of sea power
on a military history forum is not something id expect
to have to do (sigh)
Really, May, you shouldn't have bothered. I know the subject like the back of my hand. Did you know that China actuly destroyed its navy during the Ming? The seat of purpose ALWAYS lies on land. We are, after all, terrestial creatures, May.
(Well, the Ming was also pacifist but that is another story )
LOL. I did say "brag". Thanks for the catch. Then let me rephrase that statement and say that unlike the Brits, the French don't stake their "pride" in pushing drugs in an international scale but instead made their name fighting other European powers.
_______________________
Lol we don take pride in the opium wars as i stated its listed as a black part of our history
As for europe, yes keeping any one power from being too big was our
goal. You seem to think britains foreign policy was to build giant armies
to 'fight in europe' so people could brag about it later..nope it was
to become rich, an economic superpower. It achieved that, everything was
geared towards those two goals. For instance UAE, britain didnt take it as a protectorate
to 'brag about british power' but because it helped protect vital routes from and too india.
Again, naval power was important for building an "Empire" and empire in Britain's case was based solely on bullying weaker peoples overseas. The British navy didn't allow Britain much control of Europe. In fact, it was the delightfil sneakiness of the British policy builders and diplomats that gave Britain a semblance of influence on the Continent with coalitions where other people did most of the fighting.
See above, control of europe?..wheres the profit of that. Why do you think
that despite spending more on military in 1815 than the rest of europe combined
we spent very little on the army??.
I know full well how naval power is paramount in trading nations but it does not change the fact that naval powers spend most of their time fighting weaker opponents because that's what naval reach alows a nation to do.
Naval power allowed power projection, you really do seem to think
britain should build an big army and get involved in
unprofitable conflict for 'bragging rights'??
France also grabbed what land it could. And for exactly the
same reasons, look at the conflict between the two
over india and canada for instance.
Yes, but Britain has no independent land victories against other great powers to prove its case. It's power was based entirely on bullying third worlders and getting the Continentals to fight each other.
___
this is a repeat of the above comments
For example, when Germany was on verge of invading England, the Brits were screaming how they were "alone" in standing up against the Germans. LOL. This while the UK was an empire of oppressed peoples occupying far more of the world's landmass than Germany!
But the Brits KNEW they were intrinsically WEAKER than the Germans even though they had far greater access to the world and its resources than the Germans.
That is how we have the idiocy of the British EMPIRE being seen as an underdog in the fight against Germany, a much smaller republic. LOL.
It was an "underdog" during the BoB because Britain was and is historically weak against major powers and had made its reputation bullying the weak. Germany was most defintely not one of the weak. LOL
________________
Britain was much weaker, after ww1 it disarmed, financially ww1 destroyed britain
In the late 30's a rearmament program started but too late, most of the cash
went to the air force, many soldiers in 1940 were 1/4 str regiments with
ww1 weapons. It was considered that france (our allies) were the land power.
And therefore this would be logical. Unfortunatly germany developed combined
arms and france was much weaker than it should have been as it underwent
terrible political and economic instability after WW1. Had france ben stable
the policy would have worked, france showed mettle at verdun in WW1,
they just needed the tools and political will.
Empire?. Yes we drew upon foreign troops but empire had been declining for 30 years
and the strength of th empire was an illusion in 1940
As for being histoically 'weak' much of british conflict was over possessions such as canada
africa and india (mainly with our major rivals france) we did well because..of the navy.
Really, May, you shouldn't have bothered. I know the subject like the back of my hand. Did you know that China actuly destroyed its navy during the Ming? The seat of purpose ALWAYS lies on land. We are, after all, terrestial creatures, May.
(Well, the Ming was also pacifist but that is another story )
_________________________
I know that china's navy was pretty primitive for a long time ..but eventually recieved
british training and changed its methodology. China was an inward looking country
so yes naval power would have seemed of little importance.
______
CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?
" England simply can't fight its peers but had made its "reputation" on murdering off native people who have no concept of war and old pacifist nations like China and India who didn't like fighting."
that's just ridiculous, Englad has always had a good army with the best trained soldiers. WWI and WWII, the Falklands war are just some recent examples of their excellent army and soldiers !
Don't try this at home lads
quoted from panda:
"Of course we knew it would be a tuff fight. The little Viets are our tiny cousins. They are practically Chinese but only much shorter."
If your under the impression that the armies of various parts of India, to mention just a small part of the British Empire, were some sort of weaklings who were just standing around waiting to be conquered (not bullied) by the first country that happened to come across them then your a fool.
Read your history, we had to fight tooth and nail for the valuable parts of our Empire and on ocassion had to fight tooth and nail to keep them, and very few of the people we fought turned out to be the cowering, easy to bully arseholes you seem to think they were.
As for Britain always fighting as part of an alliance in order to beat European armies (which is a load of bollocks anyway), our ability to make and keep good, reliable allies is something that should be praised not criticised, if France and Germany had been able to do it half as well (instead of making allies of people who often ended up turning against them) then they may have been more successful in their many and varied attempts at controlling Europe.
Britain has never been willing to completely militarize the country in order to compete with European armies who were willing to do just this (again something we should be praised about), as a result we have always had a small (compared to others), professional, highly effective army that in order to win battles and wars in Europe has often had to form good, reliable alliances to do it. However in most of these alliances the British element has usually been the most successful militarily and has certainly been the most prominant of all the various countries armies we have fought alongside.
may18
Your right about the British opium trade in China when you look at it from a 21st century perspective, but you have to look at it from a 19th century perspective when opium was seen as just another trading resource.
You must not, in my opinion at least, try to judge history using 21st century moral values, you will end up never agreeing with any of the reasons for going to war and very few of the actions taken during the wars.
The opium wars were seen as an attempt by China to interupt legal (as it was then) British trade and was dealt with accordingly.
Mike Murphy yeah I tried some french pill and suddenly I find myself throwing up my hands and walking away from fights.
very good Murph, very good ! at last you are going to stay calm and stop pissing people off ?
but you have to know that the pills you take or how you feel interest only ... hem ... I mean doesn't interest everybody and certainly not me in a thread talking about history. I DON'T CARE. You always desperately try to catch my attention or what ?
This message has been edited by ultrarep on Aug 5, 2005 12:16 AM
Quote:I advice you not to reply to Landos Erix. He is a mod a la Murph. This forum is the only one who have some Troll as mods and still is good quality
Landos that @ss clown, hahahahha. He is very bitter, last time he claimed he was an electrical engineer, and I proved he wasn't. I guess he felt humiliated, now he is looking for a fight everywhere. Popping from nowhere with personal insults. This is kind of funny, i wanted to push his buttons a little bit more to see how ridiculous he can get, but in the end what the point, I wouldn't give a rat about the dude. I think he is no longer funny more of an embarrassment to himself. Ignoring him is the best thing to do. ROFLMAO.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Panda, all May was saying, is that she isn't proud of what the british have done in China. She was disagreeing with britopinion, and I'm sure most british would agree with May18 rather with britopinion.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
pissing who off ultraraped? you?!... so what if I pissed you off..I couldn't care less!..as for wanting your attention, I believe it was you who mentioned me in this thread when I had nothing to do with it.. so it appears you are the obsessive one here following me around.....I do believe it was you who was rendered speechless after your allegations about my supposed bias against thunder proved to be completely off based.. you posted that you were surprised that I was fair to him but you posted it in french because you looked like an idiot after ren corrected you...typical you I suppose.
Quote:If your under the impression that the armies of various parts of India, to mention just a small part of the British Empire, were some sort of weaklings who were just standing around waiting to be conquered (not bullied) by the first country that happened to come across them then your a fool.
That's right Jason...this site has a free book that describes EIC's political and military tactics against the Mughals, Rajputs, and Marathas.
Lol we don take pride in the opium wars as i stated its listed as a black part of our history
It might be listed as a black part of your history (and hardly the blackest) but your only claim to a military legacy is based on the the "Empire" and the Empire is by necessity based on nothing but a series of bullying deeds such the Opium wars and the slaughter of aboriginals.
Britain can claim no great victory on its own against a major European power.
You seem to think britains foreign policy was to build giant armies
to 'fight in europe' so people could brag about it later
No, I said the opposite. It never had much of an army. Wellington is considered one of the claims of British military prowess and we found out that those claims were mainly fictional. That had been a sneaking suspicion for ages anyways since much of the fighting during the Napoleonic Wars (as well WWI and WWII) were fought more by English allies than the English themselves.
See above, control of europe?..wheres the profit of that.
There was no profit for England because it was intrinsically weaker than the Continental powers. France and Germany repeatedly attempted to control the Continent because they were militarily powerful states that didn't depend solely on bullying for their reputation.
Again, that is the key. British nilitary reputation was based solely on bullying weaker peoples. No one will deny that the Brits had a huge and large Empire.
Britain was much weaker, after ww1 it disarmed, financially ww1 destroyed britain
May, Britain was ALWAYS weaker vis a vis the Continental powers. It was an "underdog" during the Napoleon's rampage through Europe and it was the same in 1914 though a stiff French resistance in the Great War alleviated any chance of Britain being invaded directly. But in 1940, Britain, an Empire, was again scared stiff by the Germans.
Britain was ALWAYS weaker EVEN in the glory days of its Empire vis a vis the land powers.
Empire?. Yes we drew upon foreign troops but empire had been declining for 30 years
and the strength of th empire was an illusion in 1940
Again, it ALWAYS an illusion when faced with first rate powers. This was why even at the height of the British Empire, Britain had little control of the Continent.
I know that china's navy was pretty primitive for a long time ..but eventually recieved
british training and changed its methodology.
China actually had German training and methodology and this slowly changed China from a backward state to one that in 1950 was able to the push the US Army back 300 miles from the Yalu.
Japan was the one that had UK naval training. Japan actually did become a powerful nation that fought major powers. It destroyed the Russian Navy at Tsushima in 1905 and in 1941 had easily destroyed the British Navy in Indian Ocean. It bit off more than it could chew with the US though.
China was an inward looking country
so yes naval power would have seemed of little importance.
Yes, it was. When Britain attacked China to push drugs, China was a very pacifist nation.
that's just ridiculous, Englad has always had a good army with the best trained soldiers. WWI and WWII, the Falklands war are just some recent examples of their excellent army and soldiers !
Again, Eric, as I said to May, in WWI and WWII (like the Napoleonic War) Britain had to fight as the junior member of the Western alliance against Germany (who fought mightily and alone twice.)
The Falklands conflict was a classic case of the UK harassing and beating on a weak foe. LOL.
Dudes, seriously, if England was a legitimate military power in the vein of France or Germany, it would have fought China in 1997 instead of giving up Hong Kong to the commies.
It refused to fight China when it could have protected an democracy. But it didn't hesitate to attack China for the universally despised act of pushing and selling drugs. So morals certainly weren't what moved British decisions. LOL.
Nope, what made Britain act in the Falkland and in the 1840s and 1860s during the Opium War was the opportunity to bully a weak opponent. It refused to act in 1997 because it was too weak to face off against an opponent that looked even the least bit tough.
Let's face it. Britain has all the habits of the schoolyard bully. He fought only in large numbers and spent his time bullying the weak and the pacifist. When faced with a strong opponent (and not necessarily a strongER opponent) Britain will invariably back down. Unless of course he has lots of help. LOL
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Aug 5, 2005 4:04 AM
It might be listed as a black part of your history (and hardly the blackest) but your only claim to a military legacy is based on the the "Empire" and the Empire is by necessity based on nothing but a series of bullying deeds such the Opium wars and the slaughter of aboriginals.
______
This has been covered many times, no we are not proud of the opium wars.
Britain can claim no great victory on its own against a major European power.
_____
When britains interests where threatened troops of our own were sent, we have
fought just about every european nation at some point. But thats what it is about
our interests. For britain a europe with no dominating power was the best thing.
Which is why when each nation threatened to dominate (be it france, russia etc)
troops where used to help maintain the balance.
No, I said the opposite. It never had much of an army. Wellington is considered one of the claims of British military prowess and we found out that those claims were mainly fictional. That had been a sneaking suspicion for ages anyways since much of the fighting during the Napoleonic Wars (as well WWI and WWII) were fought more by English allies than the English themselves.
____
The army was small yes, but performed well, wellington marshalled the forces
he commanded very well indeed. Yes malborough wellington etc considered some of our
finest generals, and with justification. Our 'greatest military commander' is probably nelson
however.
There was no profit for England because it was intrinsically weaker than the Continental powers. France and Germany repeatedly attempted to control the Continent because they were militarily powerful states that didn't depend solely on bullying for their reputation.
___
LOL you really do think that britain just took the possessions it gained with no european
opposition?. Wrong, it had to fight against other european powers to get, and to keep them.
Britains military spending was actually higher than france and germany combined for some time
but no, we didnt bring in conscripotion for a larger land force because a) the populace
would not have tolerated it and b) It would have done nothing to further our interests.
What would britain have gained by bringing in conscription and engaging in a full scale
conflict in europe?. The idea that european powers went on military campaigns within
europe 'because they could' is also false. In most cases such as napoleon's, it was driven
by goals and ideals, or mad dictators..something britain hasnt had for some time.
Again, that is the key. British nilitary reputation was based solely on bullying weaker peoples. No one will deny that the Brits had a huge and large Empire.
_____
This is just a rehash of your earlier comments
May, Britain was ALWAYS weaker vis a vis the Continental powers. It was an "underdog" during the Napoleon's rampage through Europe and it was the same in 1914 though a stiff French resistance in the Great War alleviated any chance of Britain being invaded directly. But in 1940, Britain, an Empire, was again scared stiff by the Germans.
____
In 1914 there was zero chance of invasion of britain because we still controlled the seas.
Germany could have had 10 times the troops and it wouldnt have made invasion anymore possible.
Britain was ALWAYS weaker EVEN in the glory days of its Empire vis a vis the land powers.
___
Weaker?. This is again a rehash. There was simply no need to call upon conscription
to defend our island or our interests
Again, it ALWAYS an illusion when faced with first rate powers. This was why even at the height of the British Empire, Britain had little control of the Continent.
___
This is just another rehash of the false premise that britain should have
instigated conscription and a bigger army for a 'big scrap in europe' when it wasnt
needed.
China actually had German training and methodology and this slowly changed China from a backward state to one that in 1950 was able to the push the US Army back 300 miles from the Yalu.
Japan was the one that had UK naval training. Japan actually did become a powerful nation that fought major powers. It destroyed the Russian Navy at Tsushima in 1905 and in 1941 had easily destroyed the British Navy in Indian Ocean. It bit off more than it could chew with the US though.
Well china demonstrated human wave tactics, they didnt demonstrate any military skill however
Royal navy advisors were in china in the late 19th century, but admittedly didnt do
china much good. Unfortunatly the vast population of china wasnt enough to stop it being
invaded again..and this isnt sarcasm, the rape of china in the 20th century by japan
was one of the most horrific in the worlds history,
Again, Eric, as I said to May, in WWI and WWII (like the Napoleonic War) Britain had to fight as the junior member of the Western alliance against Germany (who fought mightily and alone twice.)
Another rehash of previous comments.
The Falklands conflict was a classic case of the UK harassing and beating on a weak foe. LOL.
____
The falklands was an invasion of british land, it was an extremely difficult operation
to retake it that very few nations could have pulled off. US obviously, france possibly.
China no way in hell.
Dudes, seriously, if England was a legitimate military power in the vein of France or Germany, it would have fought China in 1997 instead of giving up Hong Kong to the commies.
___
LOL the time to give back hong kong was decided 100 years before. Do you seriously think france or gemany
would have 'fought china in 1997' if they had been in our position?.
It refused to fight China when it could have protected an democracy. But it didn't hesitate to attack China for the universally despised act of pushing and selling drugs. So morals certainly weren't what moved British decisions. LOL.
Nope, what made Britain act in the Falkland and in the 1840s and 1860s during the Opium War was the opportunity to bully a weak opponent. It refused to act in 1997 because it was too weak to face off against an opponent that looked even the least bit tough.
Let's face it. Britain has all the habits of the schoolyard bully. He fought only in large numbers and spent his time bullying the weak and the pacifist. When faced with a strong opponent (and not necessarily a strongER opponent) Britain will invariably back down. Unless of course he has lots of help. LOL
Sorry panda but this is mainly a rehash of your central theme, and the idea that any nation
would have 'fought to hold onto hong kong' in 1997 is a ridicoulous one
Good discussion!
Well it was, but im afraid your one central 'theme' is that britain in order
to demonstrate 'military' success would have had to bring in conscription
and engage in larger scale european wars despite them being against our interests
This demonstrates either ignorance of, or refusal to understand just what was
in britains economic interests as europes largest trading nation.
Also im afraid the 'hong kong in 1997' comments have taken it into the realm of childishness.
The idea that 'france or germany' would have fought for hong kong is ludicrous.
______
CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?
This has been covered many times, no we are not proud of the opium wars.
I'll take your war for it, May.
But my basic premise is that Britain's military reputation is based solely on bullying weak peoples and nations. Its fight against proper powers were fought as junior partners to larger coalitions.
The army was small yes, but performed well, wellington marshalled the forces
he commanded very well indeed.
Less well than claimed by the English - as we are seeing from French sources in this very thread. He lied about victories in Spain.
The idea that european powers went on military campaigns within
europe 'because they could' is also false. In most cases such as napoleon's, it was driven
by goals and ideals, or mad dictators..something britain hasnt had for some time.
Oh please, controlling Europe would be grant England (or any other European nation) far more power than any Empire Britain could fashion overseas. An Europe united under a single flag would be the most powerful and wealthiest state on earth many times over. It nearly happened under Napoleon and Hitler. It never had a chance of happening under Britain because Britain was simply incapable of it.
This is just a rehash of your earlier comments
The crux of my argument, May.
Again, it ALWAYS an illusion when faced with first rate powers. This was why even at the height of the British Empire, Britain had little control of the Continent.
___
This is just another rehash of the false premise that britain should have
instigated conscription and a bigger army for a 'big scrap in europe' when it wasnt
needed.
Again, Britain's power was always an "illusion" that was quickly dispelled when faced with a major power.
Unfortunatly the vast population of china wasnt enough to stop it being
invaded again..and this isnt sarcasm, the rape of china in the 20th century by japan
was one of the most horrific in the worlds history,
I certainly didn't see it as sarcasm unless you want to hint to me that you are deploying sarcasm. My view is that China had always been weak and pacifist and more interested in being left alone since Buddhism came into the civilization.
The Falklands conflict was a classic case of the UK harassing and beating on a weak foe. LOL.
____
The falklands was an invasion of british land, it was an extremely difficult operation
to retake it that very few nations could have pulled off. US obviously, france possibly.
China no way in hell.
Obviously not China. It doesn't even have a blue water navy for one and secondly it's historically an inward looking and peaceful nation. LOL. Why mention China and not say Zimbabwe?
Argentina was a third world nation that England knew it could bully. Pure and simple.
If that wasn't the thought process then the UK would have taken China on in 1997.
Sorry panda but this is mainly a rehash of your central theme, and the idea that any nation
would have 'fought to hold onto hong kong' in 1997 is a ridicoulous one
It was an re-iteration of my central theme
Now why is the UK fighting to retain HK a ridiculous idea? After all, Britain fought China once before. So why would it not in 1997? And why Argentina and not China?
Doesn't that behavior matches that exactly of the schoolyard bully? Pick on the weak but shying away from even former victims once they grow up just a littel bit?
Actions like this leaves no doubt that England is in the second tier among European powers with a dismal record against peers.
Britain does have a great record of murdering off indigenous peoples armed with tree branches and spears and pushing drugs in building its empire. No one will deny that.
But again, I would say hardly in the same league as France or Germany when it came to military prowess and battle honors. Or even Spain and Austria if you really thought about it.
What are you talking about? Britain was by comparison an angel compared to what other Empires did to indigenous peoples or even their own people.
It was not a case of Britain being a bully. Britain stood up against powerful European continental empires who were even worse bullies!
The 99 year lease on Hong Kong had ended so the land had to be given back, simple really. War was not justified in this circumstance.
Empires are by their nature bullies. China was once the same and will be again in the near future so stop complaining about the UK.
I am proud of Britain during the Opium Wars actually. I read a book on it that was quite good. Whilst the whole drug aspect of it was bad the whole operation of it was quite ingenious!
Britain has never been a serious land power apart from WW1 so its to her credit that the British Army was able to be the lynchpin of a bunch of unreliable allies and inflict defeat on the French at Waterloo!
What are you talking about? Britain was by comparison an angel compared to what other Empires did to indigenous peoples or even their own people.
Doubtful. Under the British colonists, complete annihilation of the indigenous peoples of Canada, the US and Australia occurred. Other European Empires, even the Spanish allowed some vestiges of local peoples top remain. In Mexico and Central and South America, AmerIndian blood still seen among large swaths of the local population.
Among the British colonies, native peoples were basically wiped out. Americans, Canadians and Australian are overwhelming white without much trace of native blood.
The 99 year lease on Hong Kong had ended so the land had to be given back, simple really. War was not justified in this circumstance.
False. Only the New Territories were under the 99 year treaty. Hong Kong island itself was ceded for perpetuity. Britain had EXACTLY the same legal justification to fight just as it did at the Falklands.
The UK refused to fight as was its historic behavior of skipping any opponent it didn't feel confident in bullying. LOL
I am proud of Britain during the Opium Wars actually.
Since they lost in the hundred year war, England never tried again to be a continental power. It spent all it's energy on Navy and that was damn smart of them.
Thinking of it, it's a pity England played it so bad in the hundred year war. There claim on French crown were justified. Had the England armies's behavior be correct there is no reason we wouldn't had been a single country. The history of the whole continent would have been changed. But the English tried to treat the French like Indians, Zulus ... or Chinese
Side note: Contrary to a comon idea, France is not only a continental power and has a big maritime tradition too. But obviously, except during the American Revolution, the Brits were superior most of the time, not in quality of ship, the French ship were often better, but in quality of leadership, tactic and training.
@May: Napoleon is the result of an agression. It's NOT France that attacked. Even when Napoleon was in power he always tried to make peace. It's the Brits that always used to put oil on the fire. So, please, let it go with this "In most cases such as napoleon's, it was driven by goals and ideals, or mad dictators.." That's pure propaganda of this time.
Agree french ships were often better roland
and yes you had a strong maritime tradition,
we had a slew of great captains imho. For instance
people think of nelson at trafalgar, yet many considered
collingwood his equal.
as for the bit about napoleon and mad dictators, actually
i didnt mean napoleon as a mad dictator but someone
with ideals and goals ;p
Hitler was who i was thinking about as a mad dictator.
______
CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?
quote
___
It's the Brits that always used to put oil on the fire
yep and ive tried to explain why shrug
entente cordiale was a move away from that though imho
______
CAMPBELL: Is what you wrote about the man who called Two Jags, that's a name you coined: "He's a chimp, a pustulating boil of resentment and class hatred, a chippy, thin-skinned puffed up laughing stock, an ocean-going tub of lard, groaning with arrogance, ego, hypocrisy, and inferiority, he's an inadequate, inarticulate embarrassment, a disgrace to Britain at home and abroad." ...Do you sometimes think that this is a human being you're talking about?
i know the 99 year lease was on the new territories only. i would have supported efforts to keep the island by itself, but as was stated at the time it was simply not feasible to separate the two. water and energy etc etc etc. shame really, we built the island into the economic powerhouse that it is and just give it to you on a plate. Thats nice of us isnt it, best gift you ever got off Britain! A present to say sorry for burning down the summer palace.
i know the 99 year lease was on the new territories only. i would have supported efforts to keep the island by itself, but as was stated at the time it was simply not feasible to separate the two. water and energy etc etc etc. shame really,
Again, Britain had the same legal rights to fight for Hong Kong Island as the Falklands. The fact that it decided to fight Argentina and not China is indicative of a Britain traditional "bully" mentality. Fight only the weak ones.
LOL. I'm not saying this isn't a smart thing to do. But the German fella who began this thread and the French posters have convincingly argued that Wellington lied about his victories. Even you can see this is pretty much par for course for a British military tradition that depended on bullying aboriginals and pacifists. LOL
we built the island into the economic powerhouse that it is and just give it to you on a plate.
Now why is it you couldn't build a Hong Kong or Singapore in India or Africa? LOL. Could it be because there are hardly any Chinese in those places?
British rule of law is a fabulous system that enhanced Chinese potential I must say.
Thats nice of us isnt it, best gift you ever got off Britain! A present to say sorry for burning down the summer palace.
Actually, British and American culture as a whole is probably the greatest gifts we gotten from Britain. LOL. Dudes, we actually like you Brits more than you know. LOL.
But still, militarily, we see you are as sneaks and bullies unlike the Germans or even the French.
Dude, look at Britain today. It is, as Chirac said, a poodle of the US. You would never see France or Germany being that. LOL
-------------------------------------------------
This message has been edited by BigFatPandaBear on Aug 5, 2005 11:00 PM
"Even you can see this is pretty much par for course for a British military tradition that depended on bullying aboriginals and pacifists."
I refer you to the post i made earlier and maybe you can look up exactly how capable the native armies in India were.
"If your under the impression that the armies of various parts of India, to mention just a small part of the British Empire, were some sort of weaklings who were just standing around waiting to be conquered (not bullied) by the first country that happened to come across them then your a fool."
"Read your history, we had to fight tooth and nail for the valuable parts of our Empire and on ocassion had to fight tooth and nail to keep them, and very few of the people we fought turned out to be the cowering, easy to bully arseholes you seem to think they were."
You might not like or even be able to accept the military history of GREAT BRITAIN (a great military history) but your constant ranting about us bullying and picking on poor native populations dosn't make it a fact.
You clearly have no idea about the history of Britain or simply are choosing to believe what already fits in with your original ideas and prejudices about my country and it's people.
I can respect, if not always agree with, most of the French and German (also countries with great military histories) guys opinions on this forum because they usually have a valid point that can be argued but you are so busy personally insulting the country (in this case Britain) your argueing against that anything you might have to say of any value (not much, if anything) is lost in all the anti-Imperialist, anti-British, anti-Indian, anti-US, anti-whatever bullsh>t you droan on about.
"Landos that @ss clown, hahahahha. He is very bitter, last time he claimed he was an electrical engineer, and I proved he wasn't. I guess he felt humiliated, now he is looking for a fight everywhere. Popping from nowhere with personal insults. This is kind of funny, i wanted to push his buttons a little bit more to see how ridiculous he can get, but in the end what the point, I wouldn't give a rat about the dude. I think he is no longer funny more of an embarrassment to himself. Ignoring him is the best thing to do. ROFLMAO."
I'm not looking for a fight with you, Eric. I'd be humiliated to fight with a French masturbator with zits on his face and hair on his knuckles. I just enjoy baiting morons and you're one of the biggest one of those in this forum.
You act as if you're some kind of wunderkind about military affairs, when the truth is you're quite ignorant and have superficial and shallow viewpoints. You haven't made a correct analysis about any military subject in this forum as long as I've been reading your crap.
As for my qualifications as an engineer, your views on that couldn't bother me less. I have more years in industry than you've been alive to pollute this world. I got my Masters Degree when you were still filling your diapers. Then again, you were probably doing that until you were 10 years old.
Quote:I'm not looking for a fight with you, Eric. I'd be humiliated to fight with a French masturbator with zits on his face and hair on his knuckles. I just enjoy baiting morons and you're one of the biggest one of those in this forum.
You act as if you're some kind of wunderkind about military affairs, when the truth is you're quite ignorant and have superficial and shallow viewpoints. You haven't made a correct analysis about any military subject in this forum as long as I've been reading your crap.
As for my qualifications as an engineer, your views on that couldn't bother me less. I have more years in industry than you've been alive to pollute this world. I got my Masters Degree when you were still filling your diapers. Then again, you were probably doing that until you were 10 years old.
Don't you think it is time for you to just fvck off, you don't have to tell your life history, I really wouldn't give a rat. This is off topic here. You want to whine or try to impress with your fake "industrial experience", you open a new thread in the den somewhere. See if I care. ROFLMAO.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
Quote:Side note: Contrary to a comon idea, France is not only a continental power and has a big maritime tradition too
During the Louis XIV reign, at one time actually France ruled the sea and the land. At beachy head, Tourville defeated a combined anglo-dutch fleet. But they made a terrible mistake, they didn't follow it up with invasion. Tourville hesitated. If a massive invasion was launched, it would have been very likely successful, the English army was rather small. The sun king didn't quite care with about the invasion of britain for some reason. This could have had great impact, infact Malborough said, if the French were not defeated at Bleinheim, the Sun king would have had an empire that would have rivalled Alexander the great and that in the most fiercely competitive territories on earth.
There claim on French crown were justified. Had the England armies's behavior be correct there is no reason we wouldn't had been a single country.
There is a misconception the the 100 year war that it was a battle btw England and france. This is only true at the end of the war mainly.
Tt was England (under platagenet, a familiy that originated from anjou not normandy as some would believe), Burgundy, Aquittaine vs ile-de-France and Scotland (the norwegian shold have been ile-de_france side but tey didn't join the war). In reality we were outnumbered. Burgundy was a very strong forces, if we had lost the 100 year war, the geography of Europe would have changed. England and northern France would been united (Paris would still have been the capital, they have to hold Paris to be overlord of Francia occidentalis) and burgundy with capital at lyon or Dijon would be a mighty empire, holding the netherland, belgium, part of switzerland, burgundy itself, Alsace and lorraine. Burgundy was a very aggressive, predatorial power, extremely violent at time brutally killing everyone in the city they sieged. louis XIV and the swiss put an end to the burgundian. They were trying to take over switzerland and alsace. It is imprtant to differentiate ile-de-France and Burgundy. burgundy is a little bit like austria, it used to be powerful, but unlike austria it was completely defeated and assimilated.
The Charles the bold wanted to recreate Francia media. The territory was caught btw France (Francia occindentalis) and the Holy roman empire(Francia orientalis)
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Aug 6, 2005 4:57 AM
Search, learn and make your opinion by yourself.
