British = Most aggressive little buggers in history?

Remove all ads!

I was just looking and reading through this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_history#Early_Modern_period

It's basically a list of the major wars England and Britain has been involved in since around Roman times.

I knew about most of them, but there is some in the list I didn't know of. Quite interesting stuff (I love readong up on history). If you look, there doesn't seem to be any extended time in our history where we haven't been involved in some war or other. Either some rebellion within our own borders (the Scottish invading because we were busy elsewhere, or some rich guy thinking he can grab some land etc.); or, us trying to expand our borders, control trade or just getting involved in someone elses war for no apparent reason. I think we've fought pretty much everyone at some point. There's no wonder we're not especially liked around the world. Is there any other nation still around that's been involved in more wars? I doubt it.

Our 2 main periods where we were most strong was around the 1350-1420 period, where nobody really had an answer to the longbow, so small English armies could defeat much bigger armies. Then during the early modern period where we managed to get a chokehold on international trade and had lots of great military leaders. I don't think our soldiers were any better than anyone elses at this point (except our sailors were better than anyone elses though, our gunnery was not matched until the Americans got involved). The red coat was a disciplined soldier (because of the lash) but I don't think he was any better in a scrap than a French Grenadier for example, we just had good leaders on land and at sea.

Quite a good read is all that. By the look of it, we lose some but win most. We must just be a naturally warlike people. If we can't find someone to fight, then we fight amongst ourselves. The amount of times the Scottish/Welsh invaded us, and we invaded them, or some powerful guy gathered support and wanted to overthrow the government/monarchy is obscene. We've been real bastards to some folks over the years, but we've recieved the same in return so it's all relative. I reckon it's the 'Island mentality'.

Have a read if you've got the time, it's good stuff.

 

It's quite a good read. However I really think the "most aggressive buggers in history" title can be applied to just about every country I can think. France, Germany, Spain, Japan, the USA, Iraq, (e-)Yugoslavia... all these countries have had centuries of non-stop warmongering, either against their neighbours or amongst each other. Most of the Europeans countries have only stopped doing this in the last 20 or 30 years (if you count the colonial wars, then France was still at war until well into the 70s). Japan and Germany probably hold the record of not having been at war for the longest time, and that time is just over 60 years. Not exactly a huge length of time.

Actually now that I think of it, France has been at war quite recently, as part of NATO. So make that "well into the 90s". So yeah... every country's an aggressive little bugger.

 

And here I thought Barmy was starting a thread about the gay community in the UK....

 

Now THAT deserves a rep

Liking your work Bruno. Not much on these boards makes me smile.

 

And I am sure that Barmy Army stole that avatar from someone else, the aggressive bugger. Who was it that used to have that avatar? Was it Equester? Bring back the Lemure!

 

As has been mentioned, most European countries have been aggressive little bugger. When it comes to my own little country I have lately been stunned when thinking about it by the audacity that the tiny little country with, at the time, barely a million inhabitants thought it was okay to do for a few centuries. Namely invading practically anyone within sailing reach squabbling with the Danes, Norwegians or even north German princedoms is one thing but Sweden also went after bigger game, like bears. Sweden spent the better part of the 17th and 18th century at war with Russia for example. Russia is big but for some reason several Swedish kings thought it was a good idea for Russia's tiny little western neighbour to invade the immense bear, several times. Generally quite succesful as well even if Sweden did lose almost half the country in the end (Finland).

European history is riddled with the most chaotic mayhem and bloodthirst of anywhere I would guess. I am no expert on Asia but the impression I got is that the peoples over there largely merged into big and reasonably stable units, kinda like if the Roman empire had been left standing, that of course had their fair share of conflicts but not the unbridled free-for-all warfare that was European history up to well, 50 years ago.

Maybe this is better suited for one of the alleys though?

 

Really? I thought it was the teeth....or perhaps the awful food.

I always liked learning about the ever constant European wars in school. My World History teacher let us watch a lot of those PBS style movies on European wars when he didn't feel much like teaching. The "Pre-Musket/Cannon" wars were much more interesting.

 

As was said, most European countries were pretty bloodthirsty when they got going. Britain was certainly up there with the worst though.

He's British; of course he's aggressive!

Admittedly, that could be because of factors such as football hooliganism. The advantage to being Scottish is that most people in other countries seem to approve of your nationality, regardless of what they think of the English.

 

Yeah well, the youth of the UK aren't doing much to dissuade this.

 

Romen Empire. Greeks.

There go your arguments


Although haveing said that, English schools have a...lets just say a reputation of uncooperative children.

 

Not really, we 'owned' more people than either! We just don't like peace in this country

 

Heh. Take a gander at Chinese history if you will, there ARE no periods lacking blood and violence. Every single Chinese dynasty, with no exceptions, is built on rebellions, revolutions, and bloody warfare.

Yeah, I know every new government is built on revolutions, but China has had about a dozen dynasties, with periods of failed civil wars inbetween. Thus, mine is methinks the bloodiest/most aggressive history of all.

 

I think that humans in general have been at war constantly. I don't think the English are any better or worse than anyone else. Their history has probably just been more documented for you.

Plus I am sure that Equester used to have that avatar.

 

I think nobleman had it before equester but then nobleman has not posted on the forums in ages and his avatar was "redistributed". I can't say I remember equester having other than the Dhall avatar though.

Those dozen dynasties also have existed on the span of thousands of years. I don't think it's very fair to consider China as a single entity in here, China has rarely been as united as it is now. A more real comparison would in my opinion be between Europe and China and not between individual European countries since there is a huge gap in size, but then I suppose this kind of comparisons are quite futile in general.

 

I'm also pretty sure that Equester had just the Dhall avatar.

And am with Deathmage on "voting" for China

 

Interesting link. I don't know that much about China, but considering Europe I'd say the French would rank as bad as the British (nothing too be proud of though).

Although he wasn't that French, Napoleon would certainly qualify as one of "the most aggressive little buggers in history", he caused so much mayhem and bloodshed all across Europe and as far as Russia.

 

plus he Was a little bugger

 

Napoleon wasn't causing that mayhem on his own. The main reason there were so much French fighting at that time was that no other country felt comfortable with a reasonable succesful revolution where the old ruling class was thrown out. It couldn't be allowed to exist and that is why the rest of Europe kept attacking post-revolution France. After Napoleon trounced everyone though he kept seeking peace again and again but those aggressive little British buggers building alliances against him. The foreign policy of Britain was for many centuries focused on one single thing, make sure that no continental power got too powerful. Britain many times switched sides in conflicts just to make sure no single house or country got too powerful.