Log in

View Full Version : Rule, Britannia!



antisocialmunky
11-19-2009, 02:42
Okay, I'm wrong:

B) English culture managed to take over the world in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. :-p

Atraphoenix
11-19-2009, 08:59
Okay, I'm wrong:

B) English culture managed to take over the world in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. :-p

Check your memories this helps a bit:


The World before the Napoleonic wars.....
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Colonisation_1800.png/300px-Colonisation_1800.png

19th may be,
I leave 16th 17th for Spanish and Portuguese domination in the world...
but (17th?) and 18th 19th centuries in Europe French language & Culture were ruling and french revolution swept the Europe.
until 1900s diplomatic language throughout the world was French and English would not be so much a dominating Language and Culture without US. English Language and Culture started to dominate the world after the defeats of France in Napoleonic Wars and mainly after World wars......
and if Axis had won the world you can be sure that the world should be speaking German now....

Apázlinemjó
11-19-2009, 09:27
Okay, I'm wrong:

B) English culture managed to take over the world in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. :-p

I guess we would speek French on the internetz' if the French were the winner of the Seven years' war.

antisocialmunky
11-19-2009, 15:37
Check your memories this helps a bit:


The World before the Napoleonic wars.....
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Colonisation_1800.png/300px-Colonisation_1800.png

19th may be,
I leave 16th 17th for Spanish and Portuguese domination in the world...
but (17th?) and 18th 19th centuries in Europe French language & Culture were ruling and french revolution swept the Europe.
until 1900s diplomatic language throughout the world was French and English would not be so much a dominating Language and Culture without US. English Language and Culture started to dominate the world after the defeats of France in Napoleonic Wars and mainly after World wars......
and if Axis had won the world you can be sure that the world should be speaking German now....

Dominate as in increasing.

Over that period:
1) Britain defeats the Spanish Armada and later develops as the preeminant naval power in the world.
2) Spain loses its colonial holdings after the Napoleonic Wars.
3) Britain because the first industrialized power in Europe and stays that way for a good amount of time.
4) Escape Unscathed during the Napoleonic Wars...
5) Britain ends up with the largest empire the world had ever seen.

British culture ends up dominating North America, Oceania, South Asia, a good chunk of Africa, etc.


The point still stands, Longbows are hyped because of English culture.

Horatius Flaccus
11-19-2009, 15:44
I was accualy asking if any of the long ones will be in?

Well, since Indian Longbowmen are already in EBI, I would assume they are also in EBII.




I leave 16th 17th for Spanish and Portuguese domination in the world...


I disagree about the Portugese, I would argue the Dutch were at least as strong, if not stronger.



but (17th?) and 18th 19th centuries in Europe French language & Culture were ruling and french revolution swept the Europe.
until 1900s diplomatic language throughout the world was French and English would not be so much a dominating Language and Culture without US. English Language and Culture started to dominate the world after the defeats of France in Napoleonic Wars and mainly after World wars......

Uh, aren't you forgetting something like the 'Industrial revolution'? And the Age of Enlightment wasn't an exclusive French thing too.


and if Axis had won the world you can be sure that the world should be speaking German now....

Wait, what?

I'm sorry for the offtopic!:oops:

Atraphoenix
11-19-2009, 18:56
5) Britain ends up with the largest empire the world had ever seen.



The biggest Empire of all times :

The Mongol Empire is the largest contiguous empire in the history of the world.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif



I have B.A. in ELT and please let me know something about the cultural and linguistic expansion of England. England, UK in fact, dominated the world from Waterloo until World War I. After World War I she started to decline and after World War II she lost her world domination to US and USSR ...
Domination does not mean expansion.

please get back to topic, I do not wanna kill it any more.....

Aulus Caecina Severus
11-19-2009, 20:37
Britannia?
Very nice faction to play... nothing else
Briton?
Only the Welsh are what remains of the Britons...
English are Saxons... aren't they?

The General
11-19-2009, 21:06
English are Saxons... aren't they?

Norman-Viking-Anglo-Saxon-Roman-Celtic(-Pre-Celtic=Basque?), mixed with more modern immigrants (from India, Pakistan, etc.).

Mostly though Pre-Roman populations mixed with a good deal of Angle/Saxon blood.

Iirc.

Horatius Flaccus
11-19-2009, 21:56
Domination does not mean expansion.

Exactly. That's why you can't just say that until Waterloo 'French language and culture were ruling'. Britain was the first to really industrialize as a country, that also counts as 'dominating'.

And when you say that the French revolution 'swept through Europe', you know that you are talking about roughly ten years?

Meneldil
11-19-2009, 23:37
Exactly. That's why you can't just say that until Waterloo 'French language and culture were ruling'. Britain was the first to really industrialize as a country, that also counts as 'dominating'.


One can certainly say that. Industrialization has no tie to culture and language. The ruling language in Europe from the late 16th to the mid-19th was french. Same goes for the culture, though the downfall started earlier.

But I'm pretty sure the British Empire was bigger than the Mongol Empire though. Would have to check that.

bobbin
11-19-2009, 23:47
The Mongol Empire is the largest contiguous empire in the history of the world.


The word to note here is "Contiguous" meaning connected together. The British empire was bigger, it just wasn't joined up in one big chunk like the Mongol empire.

Atraphoenix
11-20-2009, 00:04
If we talk about land size, Mongol Empire should have been more size.
If we talk about population England had more because they survived 700 years later!

I do not want to about culture any more, it is so subjective so it changes from man to man...
If we talk about political domination I would give my vote to:

15th 16th Century Ottomans dominated Europe, world is under debate,
17th 18 th Rise of Spain and Portugal as world powers and Rise of French Language in Europe.
19 th century for me the peak of England domination over the world, Europe is under debate.

If we talk about Cultural domination especially rise of English, I can say that from my univ. years that we discussed the topic for days, the Language itself started to dominate the world after successful colonialism of Britannia of Africa, India, America and Australia. World trade centers were on the hand of Englishmen so trade caused English's Inflation than of course literature etc. but even the golden era artistic works was not starred before 18th and 19 th century even Shakespeare became a world celebrity after 200 years after his death.

bobbin
11-20-2009, 00:16
If we talk about land size, Mongol Empire should have been more size.
If we talk about population England had more because they survived 700 years later!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
Some of the empire sizes are quite contriversial (the persian empire is sated as being the biggest ancient empire which a lot of people don't agree with) but with in land area there seems to be a consenus with respect to the British and Mongol sizes.

Megas Methuselah
11-20-2009, 03:48
Dominate as in increasing.


Increasing in influence certainly does not mean domination. :inquisitive:


The point still stands, Longbows are hyped because of English culture.

I had always thought it was more to do with bands of peasants beating the undisputed nobility on the field of battle.

antisocialmunky
11-20-2009, 05:41
You know, I don't care about this conversation. I don't even get why he split off these threads when they will clutter up the forum, screws up context, and has created another parallel thing in the last post. It wasn't even that off topic. We were talking about why Longbowman were so over hyped.

You're cleaning up individual off topic threads at the expense of cluttering up the thread list with off topic threads... Am I the only one that feels like its somewhat counter productive to highlight off topicness?

PS. Maybe we should jsut sticky a thread called 'Random Thoughts' and just merge every single off topic line of reasoning into it. Atleast that'd keep the forum clean.

Megas Methuselah
11-20-2009, 08:06
You know, I don't care about this conversation. I don't even get why he split off these threads when they will clutter up the forum, screws up context, and has created another parallel thing in the last post. It wasn't even that off topic. We were talking about why Longbowman were so over hyped.

You're cleaning up individual off topic threads at the expense of cluttering up the thread list with off topic threads... Am I the only one that feels like its somewhat counter productive to highlight off topicness?

PS. Maybe we should jsut sticky a thread called 'Random Thoughts' and just merge every single off topic line of reasoning into it. Atleast that'd keep the forum clean.

I win the argument by default. And yes, Ludens is a strange creature, but he is one we must nonetheless obey. I'm one of the rare exceptions, though, if my infraction count is anything to judge by.

Ludens
11-20-2009, 10:40
You're cleaning up individual off topic threads at the expense of cluttering up the thread list with off topic threads... Am I the only one that feels like its somewhat counter productive to highlight off topicness?

Perhaps, but I feel you are exaggerating here. There are only two split threads on the first page and perhaps two or three more in the rest of the forum. That is hardly cluttering up the list.

Knight of Heaven
11-20-2009, 10:52
I disagree about the Portugese, I would argue the Dutch were at least as strong, if not stronger.

It depends, of the time frame, first the Portuguese had a great hegemony, in the orient, africa and brazil. only in 17 century that you can call the ducth a great power, even so, it didnt last long. Only maybe in the orient for some time, but they coulnt get the Portuguese out. And the Portuguese end up of reconquering again most of the colonies. Only in the orient was more even. So you can say the duch were stronger then the portuguese for a time period, and the portuguese were stronger then the duch for other time periods. As for the cultural hegemony, i would say the portuguese were always stronger, with efects on todays day.

If you want a hint, they you should know that the Portuguese language is more spoken then the duch, in the 4 corners of the world. Remember the portuguese colonial empire only end in 1999, with the restoring of Macau to the chinese again.


The biggest Empire of all times : The mongols are you joking? they got a huge land mass to rule, but it wasnt an empire unlike Alexanders empire, the roman, or the british, or the portuguese, or spanish, or the the ducth. My meaning is it had a impact during the living time of his empire, but the cultural efects were few, the mongols were absorved culturaly by his conquered people, unlike the other empires in history. what im saying it was a empire with diferent caracteristics, then the others, naturaly.

Bloody Sacha
11-20-2009, 12:35
I have seen on many occasions English-British people who claim the empire started with queen Elizabeth 1 and was cruelly evaporated by chance and circumstance in 1945. Realistically their golden age was from 1748 to 1920. A time span not much greater on average then any other empire.

Whether it was English culture which has iconified the longbow I can not say. I would blame the weapons outright efficiency myself.

antisocialmunky
11-20-2009, 15:16
Perhaps, but I feel you are exaggerating here. There are only two split threads on the first page and perhaps two or three more in the rest of the forum. That is hardly cluttering up the list.

That's true, but if you keep doing this... :)

KARTLOS
11-20-2009, 15:49
Geoff Capes is the strongest man in the world.

Brennus
11-21-2009, 13:27
English- Not really a mix of Celt-Saxon-Angle-Viking-Roman-Norman and Pre-Celtic population. Genetic and linguistic evidence points to the fact that the majority of English (excluding those of Cornwall, Cumbria and Yorkshire) are Anglo-Saxons with most possessing pre-Celtic genes (although these genes are fairly ubiquitous across Neolithic Europe)

Now we are dealing with the BRITISH empire not the ENGLISH empire, the massive contribution made by Celts to the creation of the empire probably exceeds the contribution of the English. In particular massive numbers of soldiers and sailors were Irish, if anything we are dealing with a Celtic empire in which only the upper strata is English.

Cambyses
11-21-2009, 17:53
Now we are dealing with the BRITISH empire not the ENGLISH empire, the massive contribution made by Celts to the creation of the empire probably exceeds the contribution of the English. In particular massive numbers of soldiers and sailors were Irish, if anything we are dealing with a Celtic empire in which only the upper strata is English.

You really believe this?

It was very definitely a British Empire and not an English one, any attempt to divide who did what would be incredibly artificial. In fact to suggest that the "Celts" created more of the empire than the "upper strata of English" is patently absurd.

A Very Super Market
11-21-2009, 18:04
So... the poor and sociopathic were all Irish? The British army (Along with most others) was recruited mostly from criminals and other low-lifes that had nothing better to do. It was hardly a volunteer outfit until the 20th century.

A Terribly Harmful Name
11-21-2009, 19:32
Stop making it look like there are no certainties. British dominance over the Sea was a gradual but firm process, beginning with 1588 and reaching its culmination in the Seven Years War. After 1763 none could challenge them on the Sea, Napoleon tried but the precedents were so unfavourable that he failed as expected - and this situation continued well up to the XX century.

That's dominance, because maritime dominance means necessarily commercial, and thus economic dominance. Britain only truly began to forego it after their peak in 1850, first by repealing the Corn Laws, then by being steadily outmatched in industrial production by continental powers and the United States. But it was a 200 year period when they practically ruled the waves.


I had always thought it was more to do with bands of peasants beating the undisputed nobility on the field of battle.

A myth. People try to portray Agincourt as some sort of Marxian class struggle where the "proletariat" left victorious. In fact there were as many nobles scattered among the "peasants" as there were proportionally nobles in the French army; it was a common practice.

And the yeoman class was hardly a bunch of peasants with pitchforks. If anything, and by the standards of the Middle Ages, they were rather middle class property owners.

Brennus
11-21-2009, 20:00
You really believe this?

It was very definitely a British Empire and not an English one, any attempt to divide who did what would be incredibly artificial. In fact to suggest that the "Celts" created more of the empire than the "upper strata of English" is patently absurd.

I merely say this to offest anyone claiming the Empire was a product of only the English. Of course it would be artificial to try and divide up the Empire along lines of Celt and Anglo-Saxon all I am saying is that the Irish contribution is often overlooked.

Megas Methuselah
11-22-2009, 01:43
A myth. People try to portray Agincourt as some sort of Marxian class struggle where the "proletariat" left victorious. In fact there were as many nobles scattered among the "peasants" as there were proportionally nobles in the French army; it was a common practice.

And the yeoman class was hardly a bunch of peasants with pitchforks. If anything, and by the standards of the Middle Ages, they were rather middle class property owners.

Thanks. Nevertheless, if anything, this myth merely strengthens my point that English longbows may be hyped up because of the well-known story/myth of the French nobility beaten on the field by English commoners.

:smile:

antisocialmunky
11-22-2009, 05:18
I'm slightly bemused by the fact that it has steered back towards the longbow debate.

But my memory is fuzzy. What did hte Irish contribute to the British Empire besides being a subject of racism and having bad things done to them?

Brennus
11-22-2009, 12:48
A massive contribution, large numbers of the army and navy were Irish, the Irish were the main builders of canals within the Empire and anything that required large amounts of manual labour, not to mention many leaders, the Duke of Wellington, Robert Ross (who burnt Washington DC during the war of 1812) to name a few. The Irish contribution was massive

Gododdin O'Ceallagh
11-22-2009, 12:52
I'm slightly bemused by the fact that it has steered back towards the longbow debate.

But my memory is fuzzy. What did hte Irish contribute to the British Empire besides being a subject of racism and having bad things done to them?

4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards
5th Royal Irish Lancers
6th Inniskilling Dragoon Guards
8th Royal Irish Hussars
18th Foot (Royal Irish Regiment)
Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers (27th Regt. of Foot)
Royal Irish Regiment (83rd and 86th Regiments of Foot)
Royal Irish Fusiliers (87th and 89th Regiments of Foot)
Connaught Rangers (88th Regiment of Foot)
Leinster Regiment (100th and 109th Regiments of Foot)
Royal Munster Fusiliers (101st and 104th Regiments of Foot)
Royal Dublin Fusiliers (102nd and 103rd Regiments of Foot)
Irish Guards

""British Army had always used Irishmen, in fact it is has been said "the British Empire was won by the Irish, administered by the Scots and Welsh and the profits went to the English". In recent years the last line was amended to read "lost by the English.""

And as you can tell from my id on this forum, I am what is sometimes called Irish-Scots.

GO'C

Brennus
11-22-2009, 13:26
Well personally I was born to a Scottish father and a mother from Yorkshire and I will admit that for a while I was incredibly proud of everything British, especially the Empire. But not now, my home now is Ireland and although my last relative left Ireland in the 1910s this is the land I love and the land I feel most connected to.

My last post may not be related but speaking as somebody born British the Irish contribution to both the British Empire and the USA must never be forgotten

antisocialmunky
11-22-2009, 15:19
Yeah, I knew the Irish contribution to the US but didn't know how much it was in the UK proper. That can be said for lots of other colonized people like the Indians. Just not in the UK proper.

KARTLOS
11-22-2009, 18:01
there was massive amounts of irish in the navy as welll. I believe a fifth of the salors at trafalgar were from ireland

http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%2526+heritage/war+%2526+conflict/pre%252d20th+century+conflict/art32693

Brennus
11-22-2009, 19:21
That's cetainly true, even to the extent that the Royal Navy forbid the speaking of Gaelic for fear that it could assist people plotting mutiny although as far as I know the Army never banned it.

alexanderthegreater
11-22-2009, 20:47
Britannia rules the waves in 17th century?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chatham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Days_Battle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Solebay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Schooneveld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Texel

I dunno, we kinda won a lot of battles against them.

England was also kinda invaded in 1688.
interestingly, both the people who succesfully invaded England were named William.

bobbin
11-22-2009, 22:18
You mean this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution)
Its kinda debatable as to what the status of that event was (I tend towards invasion though it doesn't fit the term that well)

Cyclops
11-22-2009, 22:41
Its true that bizarre tiny details have been massively overhyped in the Whig version of history. Magna Carta, "the common law", the longbow, John Knox are given prominence and credit for the simplified course of events masquerading as the story of England.

Recntly read that controversialist Davies History of the Isles, he argues Sluys is far more significant than Crecy or Poitiers.

IIRC the army of Great Britain during the Napoleonic wars was about 55% Irish in composition. However the Duke of Wellington, on being labelled an Irishman famously commented "being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse" or words to that effect.


...England was also kinda invaded in 1688.
interestingly, both the people who succesfully invaded England were named William.

Thats a good point, but don't forget William Bluetooth, William Plantagenet and William Tudor.

The isles have been succesfully invaded many times, by Dutch, Danes and Frenchmen (and their Welsh mercenaries).

Brennus
11-22-2009, 23:29
However the Duke of Wellington, on being labelled an Irishman famously commented "being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse" or words to that effect.

I always loved that comeback, it reminds me of the one Disraeli gave in parliament when an Irish nationalist accused him of being Jewish. Cant remember exaclty what it was so I won't quote it but I am sure it easy to find.

antisocialmunky
11-22-2009, 23:51
Man, the 19th century was so hilarious unpolitically correct :)

alexanderthegreater
11-23-2009, 08:58
The isles have been succesfully invaded many times, by Dutch, Danes and Frenchmen (and their Welsh mercenaries).

The Danes were ultimately unsuccesful, it was more like a series of raids and settlement. And i didnt count the romans since there wasnt an English state yet. That leaves two?

mountaingoat
11-23-2009, 09:46
https://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6672/rarwlfras1.jpg

bobbin
11-23-2009, 13:22
The Danes were ultimately unsuccesful, it was more like a series of raids and settlement. And i didnt count the romans since there wasnt an English state yet. That leaves two?

He said the isles not england, if you count from (and including) the roman invasion there have been 4 succesful invasions and a further two possible ones depending one who you talk too.

Roman invasion
Gael (Scots) invasion
Anglo-Saxon invasion
Dane Invasion?
Norman Invasion
Dutch Invasion/Glourious revolution?


IIRC the army of Great Britain during the Napoleonic wars was about 55% Irish in composition. However the Duke of Wellington, on being labelled an Irishman famously commented "being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse" or words to that effect.
Where did you get that figure from? it sounds a bit big, in those times it was the poorest who joined he army so naturally the poorer parts of the united kingdom would be over represented (Ireland, Scotland) but 55% for ireland alone seems excessive and it wasn't like there were no poor english people at the time.

McAds
11-23-2009, 17:12
I'm slightly bemused by the fact that it has steered back towards the longbow debate.

But my memory is fuzzy. What did hte Irish contribute to the British Empire besides being a subject of racism and having bad things done to them?


The only hard number I have off the top of my head, was that around a third of Wellington’s force in the Peninsular Wars was made up of Irish. Given this was prior to Catholic emancipation, you could then split this further with land owning Protestants filling the officer positions and the rank and file being mainly catholic. I know this isn’t entirely helpful, as its merely a snap shot from a brief period of the early 19th century.

Claiming Wellesley as Irish is quite amusing, although probably not to the man himself, who is no doubt currently spinning in his grave at the suggestion. Horses and stables and all that.

Brennus
11-23-2009, 19:07
https://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6672/rarwlfras1.jpg

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Cyclops
11-23-2009, 22:46
The Danes were ultimately unsuccesful, it was more like a series of raids and settlement. And i didnt count the romans since there wasnt an English state yet. That leaves two?

The Danes took half of "England" and made it their own with their settlements, law and place names. They affected the language we call English very deeply, so it no longer resembles the language spoken in the Angle.

Military forces from the continent took control of England under the Danes (including Harald Bluetooth-ugh, what an image) the Normans (French speaking Danes) Plantagenets (plain French) Tudors (Welsh mercenary of the French) Oranges (Dutch mercenary of a rebel faction) and Hanoverians (German mercenaries of the same faction).

The Whig version of history is a tired joke, it supports a triumphalist view of history (similar to the American "manifest destiny" model) that recent events have proved false.

McAds
11-24-2009, 15:50
I’m not sure shoehorning the various conflicts, be they military based or the political fallout of internal strife, is any more of an effective summary of the English history than your attack on the ‘Whig myth’. Would you categorise Henry II claim and ascension to the throne as the same as William I? I certainly would not.

Brennus
11-24-2009, 16:01
Military forces from the continent took control of England under the Danes (including Harald Bluetooth-ugh, what an image) the Normans (French speaking Danes) Plantagenets (plain French) Tudors (Welsh mercenary of the French) Oranges (Dutch mercenary of a rebel faction) and Hanoverians (German mercenaries of the same faction).

.

And lets not forget the Stuarts. I know it wasn't a military takeover but the important thing is that at no point in history did the King of England rule Scotland except as an overlord yet with James VI a Scottish king ruled England as king, not just overlord.

McAds
11-24-2009, 16:11
And lets not forget the Stuarts. I know it wasn't a military takeover but the important thing is that at no point in history did the King of England rule Scotland except as an overlord yet with James VI a Scottish king ruled England as king, not just overlord.


Your distinction is artificial. By the same token, James I was an English king ruling Scotland. The nationality of the king, as several Danes, Saxons, Angevins, Normans and subsequent ethnic Germans shows, is unimportant.

The significance of James I ascension is significant as far as the English reformation is concerned, rather than nationality. Nationality is important only to the extent of the greater devolved church in Scotland and the hopes that the reformers had in the changes James I might have brought to the Episcopal system.

bobbin
11-24-2009, 16:15
The Danes took half of "England" and made it their own with their settlements, law and place names. They affected the language we call English very deeply, so it no longer resembles the language spoken in the Angle.

Military forces from the continent took control of England under the Danes (including Harald Bluetooth-ugh, what an image) the Normans (French speaking Danes) Plantagenets (plain French) Tudors (Welsh mercenary of the French) Oranges (Dutch mercenary of a rebel faction) and Hanoverians (German mercenaries of the same faction).

The Whig version of history is a tired joke, it supports a triumphalist view of history (similar to the American "manifest destiny" model) that recent events have proved false.

Someone doesn't seem to like the english...

McAds
11-24-2009, 16:21
Someone doesn't seem to like the english...

Calling the Tudors pawns of the French is stretching things, considering continental support came from the erstwhile Dukes of Brittany. A mob who’d been interwoven in the English political scene via their Richmond holdings.

As I said, I think he's shoehorned a lot of examples there.

Cyclops
11-25-2009, 03:09
Oh certainly I have shoehorned a bunch of feet into the english boot. I am just responding to the silly myth of "the unconquered isle". The isles were regularly invaded and sometimes the invaders took control for long periods.

The Plantagenet invasion was a squabble between two French magnates over a bit of "France Overseas" aka England. For a long time the crown of England was for the Duke of Normandy was what crown of Prussia was for the Electors of Brandenburg: a useful title from outside the overlords aegis.

I was astounded to learn (in my great ignorance) that all the main players in Braveheart were not all that Scottish: Edward Longshanks was of course as French as a baguette, but Bruce and Balliol were also French-descended French speakers. Was Wallace a local? Someone told me he was Welsh but I doubt that.

Scotland is a wonderful mixture of wonderful cultures (I suspect this confluence is a major factor in the amazing intellectual contribution that small country has made) but there's a tartan myth too, with English villains and a Hollyrood ending.


Someone doesn't seem to like the english...

My culture is English (Australian culture is just a subset of the English, although we are getting less Pom flavoured and a little more Yank these days). English is the language I speak (and a mighty fine one too) and the heritage I share, but not the flag I salute. I have enjoyed visiting England and have some English friends not to mention ancestors.

I just don't like the ill-intentioned twisiting of history which is obscure and difficult enough without sifting horrible political lies.

I'm not saying its the sole province of the English of course: we Aussies have our own rosey little potted history covering up the sins we've managed to perpetrate in our short time, and playing up our tiny part.

athanaric
11-25-2009, 03:30
we Aussies have our own rosey little potted history covering up the sins we've managed to perpetrate in our short time, and playing up our tiny part.

And so has every people or confederation on this planet... time to move on.



BTT, sometimes I'm still baffled at the amount of control and cultural influence such a tiny country as Britain was able to exert. Language, too, is an incredibly powerful tool in cultural influence - it brings along a lot of things, such as certain ways of thinking, etc.

Apázlinemjó
11-25-2009, 09:21
And so has every people or confederation on this planet... time to move on.



BTT, sometimes I'm still baffled at the amount of control and cultural influence such a tiny country as Britain was able to exert. Language, too, is an incredibly powerful tool in cultural influence - it brings along a lot of things, such as certain ways of thinking, etc.

Well, just like Rome or the Hellens, everyone starts it from the scratch. Actually I wonder which language will be the next world language, maybe Chinese?

mountaingoat
11-25-2009, 09:46
And so has every people or confederation on this planet... time to move on.

yeah not cool


just shits me when people like to downplay these events like like they were nothing


....... anyway continue on

moonburn
11-25-2009, 11:49
people are forgetting the greatest invasion that the isles have ever had in the last 5000 years, i´m talking about the pakistani ofc :laugh4: soon enough the independent pakistani islamic republic of europe will declare independence and will go to war with the united cristhians irish republic :X

McAds
11-25-2009, 11:53
The Plantagenet invasion was a squabble between two French magnates over a bit of "France Overseas" aka England.

Really? Although the power of the French crown was extending, with the decline of feudalism it was not until Abbott Sugers was able to remedy this with introduction of liege homage that the King of the Franks became the King of France and the Duchies and large counties of France began to properly fall under his dominion and control. Even then you had the allodial states of Gascony and the areas around Bordeaux and the Medoc out of his dominion. The counts of Almanac down in Languidoc were always a law unto themselves, as were the erstwhile English allies of the Dukes of Britanny. Indeed, the English crown held dominions over Aquitaine/Gascony. So I’d refute your comment about England being a bit of France.

To take the above point further, England didn’t become ‘a bit of France’. I think you’re misunderstanding the implications of the Treaty of Paris 1259 and the very serious (and unbelievable on the English part, unnoticed!) clause in regards to Liege Homage of the English monarch; in essence the coach and horses that the French lawyers were able to place in the treaty without the English clergy picking up on.

Edward I saw himself as an English man, much in the same way his (incredibly lairy) grandson and great grandson would also. They were French only in their styles in so much as they mirrored Phillip II; i.e. they were all aggressive hardmen.

athanaric
11-25-2009, 12:59
Actually I wonder which language will be the next world language, maybe Chinese?

Too impractical - not least because of the script, which, although the prettiest in the world, is very difficult to learn. The Latin Alphabet is still the most practical. Meanwhile English, on a low level, is also easier to learn than Chinese.

antisocialmunky
11-25-2009, 14:34
Chinese is actually really easy to learn if you can memorize things easily and get past the whole tone thing(as evidenced by Chinese talk shows hosted by former professional wrestlers). English is much more difficult because it is loaded with idioms, borrows from like 3 different languages, and can have a very wide variety of meanings for one sentence depending on inflection.

Its not really a good lingua franca though. Its not easily expanded because it lacks the alphabet part.

Cyclops
11-25-2009, 22:53
@Athanaric: what do you mean move on? I'm not interested in history composed of deliberate lies (there's enough accidental lies already).

Interesting point about Chinese: like many native English speakers I only have one tongue and am amazed by the cultural versatility of these who sepak several. My relatives in Sweden speak everything, and there's heasps of migrant sin Australia who come here learning English as a third, fourth or umpteenth language.

Maybe a several lingua franca is the way to go? The Ottomans and Romans had a couple of widespread languages (eg Greek was widely spoken in both).


...Edward I saw himself as an English man, much in the same way his (incredibly lairy) grandson and great grandson would also. They were French only in their styles in so much as they mirrored Phillip II; i.e. they were all aggressive hardmen.

...aggressive hard men who spoke French as their birth tongue, and wanted nothing more than to be Kings of France? Very English.

I feel England from the Normans to the Yorkists was a cultural province of France ruled by a french speaking french descended elite. The local cultures reasserted themselves wonderfully under the Tudors as the French holdings were lost (although the partial self destruction of the old aristocracy in the War of the Roses helped too), leadng to a productive fusion.

Atraphoenix
11-26-2009, 00:25
The hardest languages to learn : Chinese (Canton), Mongolian, Turkish.....
for any Roman Languages that means any latin alphabet using language (French, Italian, Spanish, German, Roman, etc.) learns the other Latin easier in comparison to agglutinative language (a language that produces new words from stems by adding suffixes) like Turkish, Mongolian, in some part Japanese and Georgian some of them evolved to get prefixes as well.

but that difficulty may depend on the family of the language of the learner.
for example English has advantage over nearly all European languages on definite article namely "The" she has only "the" that is why I love her, German has 3 French, Spanish and many has at least 2.
But here where I work even "The" is difficult to teach because Turkish has no definite articles but has indefinite ones. One example : Apple : old Alma new elma The Apple : old Alma new elma no difference....

I can assure that Chinese cannot be so popular as English because of her complexity.
maybe a bit futuristic my vote is on Esperanto...

athanaric
11-26-2009, 01:07
@Athanaric: what do you mean move on? I'm not interested in history composed of deliberate lies (there's enough accidental lies already).
Lies are certainly the last thing I'd ever suggest.
Briton-bashing is sooo 1968. You may not have felt it on your continent, but in Europe today, we're facing other problems than expansionist or hubris-filled Englishmen. Of course that does not mean we should forget the wrongs of the past, but we shouldn't obsessively dwell on them.

And just for the record: I'm downplaying nothing, just trying to put things in perspective.



Maybe a several lingua franca is the way to go? The Ottomans and Romans had a couple of widespread languages (eg Greek was widely spoken in both).
We already have "regional" linguae francae (?), such as Spanish, Arabian, French, and (Mandarin) Chinese.



The hardest languages to learn : Chinese (Canton), Mongolian, Turkish.....
Wut? For all I know, Turkish is comparatively easy. The grammar is rather stupid and there are no difficult sounds like in Arabian. Japanese, OTOH, is said to be very difficult.

A Very Super Market
11-26-2009, 01:10
Learning Japanese requires you to learn a sortof-alphabet, Chinese (Kanji), and katanaka, which I can't even describe properly. Quite difficult.

machinor
11-26-2009, 01:13
Japanese is only difficult to write and read as you have zillions of symbols (kanji). Speaking it is easy-peasy since the grammar is very simple. You get a crash-course in Japanese in the "Shogun"-Miniseries. :beam:

Cyclops
11-26-2009, 03:02
Lies are certainly the last thing I'd ever suggest.
Briton-bashing is sooo 1968. You may not have felt it on your continent, but in Europe today, we're facing other problems than expansionist or hubris-filled Englishmen. Of course that does not mean we should forget the wrongs of the past, but we shouldn't obsessively dwell on them.

And just for the record: I'm downplaying nothing, just trying to put things in perspective...

Fair enough, I'm just bubbling from reading this recent Norman Davies, that stuff about Bruce and Balliol was an eye-opener.


...We already have "regional" linguae francae (?), such as Spanish, Arabian, French, and (Mandarin) Chinese...

Very true, I think the majority of people in the world can speak more than one language. Which can make the leap to a global tongue like English: if the Ottoman and Romans are a guide its possible to have a couple of widespread languages.

I'm thinking more of what languages should be retained when we here at P2 set up the new world government...oops I've said too much...

antisocialmunky
11-26-2009, 06:06
This is all assuming you learn this in your adult years. Young children can suck up 3-4 languages quite easily.

Also to clear things up: I was refering to beyond business and coversational into something like everyday proficiency. Within those parameters, I've always heard that Japanese and English are the most difficult.

satalexton
11-26-2009, 07:38
All languages are hard to learn if you 'force' yourself to. The best (but slower) way to learn a language is to 'feel' it gradually, through various media...along with an understanding and (growing) interest in the host language's culture.

It's really the inherent xenophobia and fear/uneasiness of change that makes languages hard to learn for adults. Kids don't have that because their heads aren't -that- filled with the jargons of life yet.

p.s. Chinese is actually far simpler than english, it's really the unfamiliarity with the script stucture (which isn't hard either) that puts most people off.

McAds
11-26-2009, 14:43
...aggressive hard men who spoke French as their birth tongue, and wanted nothing more than to be Kings of France? Very English.


Again, I don’t think you have grasped the historical reality. Edward III was the first English king who decided he wanted to be King of France. The reasoning behind this all goes back to the 1259 treaty of Paris and the issue over liege homage. How could a king swear homage to another etc? The issue over the Valois usurper due to French salic law not allowing females to inherit the throne, thus diluting the Capetian dynasty provided the opportunity through Edwards distant family links via his (detested) French mother. Thus the English claim to the French crown was born, not out of Edward III declaration, but from the key clause ratified by his great-grandfather eighty years previously.

The Edwards, including Woodstock, were all English born and all certainly could speak it. French was the language of the nobility however and indeed as said, the language of his mother and grand mother.



I feel England from the Normans to the Yorkists was a cultural province of France ruled by a french speaking french descended elite. The local cultures reasserted themselves wonderfully under the Tudors as the French holdings were lost (although the partial self destruction of the old aristocracy in the War of the Roses helped too), leadng to a productive fusion.

The argument does not work when you factor in that the Normans weren’t French at all. Indeed, their actions since Rollo’s defeat in 911 up until the Norman Conquest of England displayed their aggressive Viking roots in plain fashion. Similarly, by the time the crown found its way to the Yorkists, the Kings of England had been speaking English for some considerable time as the main language, rather than the duel linguists that had gone previously.

There is no doubt that French culture was influential or that the histories intertwined themselves. But then that was always going to be the case after Philips II commenced his expansion of the Kings writ, he and his successors in title would eventual have come up against the English holdings. Most importantly for the English monarch being the lands held in Gascony to the south; lands of extreme importance given their financial value.

Horatius Flaccus
11-26-2009, 15:39
What is going to be the new 'lingua franca', is not about how hard a language is to learn. A child can (as said before) easily learn a couple of languages, it doesn't matter if they are hard or not. It's about were you grow up with.

How many people outside China grow up with Chinese? Not many. While the whole western world grows up with English (movies, books, music etc.). So I don't think any language is going to overtake English in the near future.

Mindaros
11-26-2009, 20:54
Normans weren't French comment is just plain nonsense in so many ways. For one thing, the French army that conquered England didn't come merely from Normandy, even though it was led by the duke of Normandy. Nor can you deny that even the Normans weren't French at all. Now if I remember correctly, the French kings referred to their subjects as "French" and "English".

Ludens
11-26-2009, 21:47
It's really the inherent xenophobia and fear/uneasiness of change that makes languages hard to learn for adults. Kids don't have that because their heads aren't -that- filled with the jargons of life yet.

Actually, there is a neurological basis for children being able to pick up languages so quickly. As the brain grows older it becomes more inflexible and less able to adapt to or process unusual information. There appear to be sensitive periods for learning specific skills: languages are easiest to learn between 6 and 12 years (IIRC the window is smaller, but I can't remember the exact ages).


Normans weren't French comment is just plain nonsense in so many ways. For one thing, the French army that conquered England didn't come merely from Normandy, even though it was led by the duke of Normandy.

It's true that a considerable part of William's army did not come from Normandy, but AFAIK these were mostly Normans from Brittany or Sicily. I agree that the Norman conquest drew England away from the Scandinavian sphere and closer to the French culture. But the Normans were an independently-minded lot and, although their language was French, their culture was still very much that of the Norman warrior.


Now if I remember correctly, the French kings referred to their subjects as "French" and "English".

And that proves exactly nothing, as there was only one French king (Philip II) whose control over the English was more than nominal.

antisocialmunky
11-26-2009, 21:51
Actually, there is a neurological basis for children being able to pick up languages so quickly. As the brain grows older it becomes more inflexible and less able to adapt to or process unusual information. There appear to be sensitive periods for learning specific skills: languages are easiest to learn between 6 and 12 years (IIRC the window is smaller, but I can't remember the exact ages).

Yes and from cases of feral children or children that weren't taught to speak: if children don't develop language abilities, then they will have some really bad problems with language skills. Its actually a fairly crucial development phase that occurs before puberty when you brain learns to use symbolic language.

Ludens
11-26-2009, 22:05
Yes and from cases of feral children or children that weren't taught to speak: if children don't develop language abilities, then they will have some really bad problems with language skills.

Indeed. There is a difference between learning a first and a second (third, fourth...) language, though. My comment applies to learning a second language, obviously.

Now let's get back to the topic, whatever it was.

Mindaros
11-27-2009, 01:04
Actually, there is a neurological basis for children being able to pick up languages so quickly. As the brain grows older it becomes more inflexible and less able to adapt to or process unusual information. There appear to be sensitive periods for learning specific skills: languages are easiest to learn between 6 and 12 years (IIRC the window is smaller, but I can't remember the exact ages).



It's true that a considerable part of William's army did not come from Normandy, but AFAIK these were mostly Normans from Brittany or Sicily. I agree that the Norman conquest drew England away from the Scandinavian sphere and closer to the French culture. But the Normans were an independently-minded lot and, although their language was French, their culture was still very much that of the Norman warrior.



And that proves exactly nothing, as there was only one French king (Philip II) whose control over the English was more than nominal.

Of course the Normans were different from the rest of the French. This is hardly amazing since it was generally the case in France. I mean the southern French were very different from the Northern French, the Bretons were different etc. Also, there were troops from Flanders in addition to Brittany in William's army. One can hardly assume that they were all "Scandinavians". What makes no sense is to think that the Normans were Scandinavians in France which one does when one assumes that the French culture had had no effect on them, apart from the surface (how can one be so much affected only on the "surface"?). They were both French and Norman and the two do not contradict.

Sorry about the quote. I meant the Norman kings of England, my mistake, not the French king.

Foot
11-27-2009, 02:26
Chinese is actually really easy to learn if you can memorize things easily and get past the whole tone thing(as evidenced by Chinese talk shows hosted by former professional wrestlers). English is much more difficult because it is loaded with idioms, borrows from like 3 different languages, and can have a very wide variety of meanings for one sentence depending on inflection.

Its not really a good lingua franca though. Its not easily expanded because it lacks the alphabet part.

"Were English pronunciation less arbitrary, there is not the slightest doubt but that in the course of a very few years, comparatively speaking, it would become the language of the world. All foreigners agree that, grammatically, it is the easiest language of any to learn. A German, comparing it to his own language, where every word in every sentence is governed by at least four distinct and separate rules, tells you that English has no grammar. A good many English people would seem to have come to the same conclusion; but they are wrong. As a matter of fact, there is an English grammar, and one of these days our schools will recognize the fact, and it will be taught to our children, penetrating maybe even to literary and journalistic circles. But at present we appear to agree with the foreigner that it is a quantity neglectable. English pronunciation is the stumbling block to our progress. English spelling would seem to have been designed chiefly as a disguise to pronunciation. It is a clever idea, calculated to check presumption on the part of the foreigner; but for that he would learn it in a year."
- Three Men on the Bummel, Jerome K. Jerome

Foot

moonburn
11-27-2009, 08:19
so what would stop the chinese from passin their language into the latin script ? except for cultural reasons there´s really no reason stop them from making it easyer to teach people to speak while writting a type of "mandarin" in the latin/english alphabet, many people in hong kong already write many chinese words in english anyway :oops:

satalexton
11-27-2009, 10:44
Pinyin, which is a latin-based method of romanizing chinese, works reasonably well if you're a romance language speaker. However latin... isn't very anglophonic friendly, since english is a germanic language.... (Cao Cao got pronounced as "kow kow"....rofl.)

Khorak
11-27-2009, 12:35
They were both French and Norman and the two do not contradict.

The Normans were a cultural mashup between the Norsemen who conquered and settled in the area, and the French who got conquered and settled on, and the result was the Normans. Saying they were French and Norman is contradictory, since 'Norman' already takes it into account, in the same way it would also be contradictory to say they're Norse and Norman. Their contemporaries, even the actual French themselves, were very clear about making the distinction in studiously referring to them always as Normans instead of any kind of French; they merely spoke French because they chose to after having conquered the place and laid siege to Paris itself, until the French king threw the whole region at them in concession.

The modern argument is a painfully ludicrous battle of ego of the French trying to claim Norman historical acts of awesome they simply don't deserve, and the English trying to deny they were ever defeated by anything that had the audacity to even live in an area we now think of as France.

The simple fact is that the Normans were pretty much their own nation despite the nominal (and as history showed us, laughable) 'fealty' they were supposed to pay to the French king as a vassal. As it is, the Normans existed at a time when it's a bit of a joke to really claim that France as we think of it even existed, and it was the Norman invasion that made the England that began to have any meaning at all in the world. Hell, without the obscene French/Old English mashup between the new Norman aristocracy and their English subjects, the modern English language wouldn't be marauding across the world like a vicious thief, stealing every piece of spare grammar and vocabulary anyone foolishly leaves unguarded.

....though yeah, I agree. It's insulting to the Normans really to treat them as anything but their own nation. Arguably they still exist as England itself, but before that changeover really started happening they were a very significant medieval nation unto themselves with very noticeably their own culture and achievements.

Ludens
11-27-2009, 12:43
What makes no sense is to think that the Normans were Scandinavians in France which one does when one assumes that the French culture had had no effect on them, apart from the surface (how can one be so much affected only on the "surface"?). They were both French and Norman and the two do not contradict.

Er? The Normans were both French and Norman, but not Scandinavian? No-one is saying that the Normans were not influenced by French culture. The discussion is about the claim that the medieval kings of England were culturally French. There is a good deal of truth in that statement, but it's not entirely true.


Sorry about the quote. I meant the Norman kings of England, my mistake, not the French king.

I assume the English kings were referring to their vassals and subject in Aquitaine and Normandy.

McAds
11-27-2009, 17:56
Normans weren't French comment is just plain nonsense in so many ways. For one thing, the French army that conquered England didn't come merely from Normandy, even though it was led by the duke of Normandy. Nor can you deny that even the Normans weren't French at all. Now if I remember correctly, the French kings referred to their subjects as "French" and "English".


The fact there were Brettons, amongst other mercenaries, in the Norman invasion force somehow disproves the notion that the Normans were a law unto themselves and had been for over 150 since settlement in modern day northern France? What do you mean by 'French army'?


Remember that the kings writ at this period extended only fifty so miles north to south and twenty or so east to west. The counts and self-styled dukes of what is now modern day France wielded far more power or at least enough to remain independent from the crown.




....though yeah, I agree. It's insulting to the Normans really to treat them as anything but their own nation.

I agree absolutely.

As an aside, the Normans are definitely one of the peoples that stick out for me from my undergraduate studies. I can’t help but imagine them and chuckle at the notion that they'reall 6ft brick shit houses, shaved heads with a twitch, just game for a fight! The way Henry I went on to circumvent the traditional Norman inheritance system by simply not buggering off down south and deciding instead to fill in his brothers is probably one reason. The Duke William tanner story is another.

All tongue in cheek of course, but they do make me smile!

Mindaros
11-28-2009, 00:56
Er? The Normans were both French and Norman, but not Scandinavian? No-one is saying that the Normans were not influenced by French culture. The discussion is about the claim that the medieval kings of England were culturally French. There is a good deal of truth in that statement, but it's not entirely true.



I assume the English kings were referring to their vassals and subject in Aquitaine and Normandy.
Ok, now you're just reading your own prejudices into my arguments. I was talking about the Norman kings, not the Angevins, so no Aquitaine or Anjou.

I did simply state that culturally speaking it is perfectly correct to call the Norman kings French kings, indeed this is the case. Just to remind you, I was initially answering to a claim that Norman weren't French at all. I called it nonsense. And nonsense it was. And actually you seem to agree with me.

Carpenter ("Struggle for mastery") would put it even more bluntly:
"Although Viking settlement had probably been quite extensive, the newcomers ultimately
lost their connection with Scandinavia and became essentially French in language,
politics and social structure."

@Khorak:
Ok, let's imagine I'm from London. If I say I'm English and a Londoner. According to you these contradict? So you can't be both English and a Londoner. Well, that's fine I suppose. Yes, the French called them Normans. Why? Because there were a lot of people who could be called French and it makes sense to make the distinction. Whereas the English called them French. Both were right you know. I wouldn't downplay language either. Anyone remotely familiar with linguistics knows that it's nonsense to call the language you speak just "surface". The rest of what Khorak writes seem to bear no relevance to what I wrote, neither can I detect any relevance in anything written by McAds.

McAds
11-28-2009, 14:56
Ok, now you're just reading your own prejudices into my arguments. I was talking about the Norman kings, not the Angevins, so no Aquitaine or Anjou.

I did simply state that culturally speaking it is perfectly correct to call the Norman kings French kings, indeed this is the case. Just to remind you, I was initially answering to a claim that Norman weren't French at all. I called it nonsense. And nonsense it was. And actually you seem to agree with me.

Carpenter ("Struggle for mastery") would put it even more bluntly:
"Although Viking settlement had probably been quite extensive, the newcomers ultimately
lost their connection with Scandinavia and became essentially French in language,
politics and social structure."

@Khorak:
Ok, let's imagine I'm from London. If I say I'm English and a Londoner. According to you these contradict? So you can't be both English and a Londoner. Well, that's fine I suppose. Yes, the French called them Normans. Why? Because there were a lot of people who could be called French and it makes sense to make the distinction. Whereas the English called them French. Both were right you know. I wouldn't downplay language either. Anyone remotely familiar with linguistics knows that it's nonsense to call the language you speak just "surface". The rest of what Khorak writes seem to bear no relevance to what I wrote, neither can I detect any relevance in anything written by McAds.


No it is not nonsense. They were Norman. They were influenced by the peoples they conquered in northern France, in the same way they influenced them. They were never French kings. The English crown and the Norman duchy were split after William I death and it was only Henry I circumventing the traditional Norman inheritance system, being a chip off his dads block and in true Norman style decided to unite them as he didn’t want to bugger off south in true Norman/de Tonsy fashion.

The London analogy does not work. London is not a distinct and independent region of England, able to raise its own military forces, evolve ecclesiastically in a unique fashion, expand its borders at will, develop a unique architectural style, grant itself a title or conduct its own foreign policy across Europe indirectly via its own cultural inheritance system.

If you cannot see the relevance of what I wrote, then perhaps it’s because you do not fully grasp the situation of the time. Indeed, your insistence on calling them French bears this out*. I cannot believe you’ve gone through either a undergraduate or post graduate course where you’ve been encouraged to read the Normans as French.

*Unless your of course referring to my second post, in which case that’s a post separate from this discussion and is more my admiration for Norman attitudes.

Mindaros
11-28-2009, 19:15
Ok, McAds. Since you've decided to a) completely misunderstand everything that I write (probably due to the fact that you're pissed off by the fact that I called your writing "nonsense") and b) use offensive personal remarks instead of actual arguments, I have no choice but to ignore your messages from now on as they have crossed the boundaries of such basic respectful behavior which is the fundamental criterion of any meaningful discussion.

Ludens
11-28-2009, 19:38
That certainly ends meaningful discussion. I am going to temporarily close this thread. If somebody wants to continue the discussion, PM me.

Thread closed.