Rule, Britannia!

[Brennus]

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]

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]

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+...flict/art32693

[Brennus]

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]

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]

You mean this?
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]

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]

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]

Man, the 19th century was so hilarious unpolitically correct :)

[alexanderthegreater]

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]

[bobbin]

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]

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]

[Cyclops]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

people are forgetting the greatest invasion that the isles have ever had in the last 5000 years, i´m talking about the pakistani ofc 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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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...