British = Most aggressive little buggers in history?

Remove all ads!

Well, under those dynasties, China was united. Yes, the size was not as great as today, but it was still united under one nation - so I don't see why you don't think it was "rarely united".

Take a gander at this and this. I'm not especially proud of pointing out the bloody conflicts in China as it's very rare when they (we?) actually expend their energies fighting other nations (and unfortunately, when they do, they tend to get their arse kicked). But whatever, this is no place for political debates and whatnot. Carry on with bloody aggressive bugger talk!

 

The French may have been aggressive, but were they competent? No says this link!

 

Mm, that's not actually entirely true. The Capetians did kick the Plantagenet's arses all the way to Britain; and then they became, well, British. No denying that. But one could argue the Plantagenets were French as well. Also, there was Charlemagne, whose territories later became known as France...but he could be considered German too.

Seems a little unfair to chalk up Napoleon as a loss, too, considering he did mow the army across Europe...

 

Most of our pre-1300 leaders were 'French' if you want to consider it like that. However, if you could personally ask William the Conqueror if he though himself French he'd proably scewer you there. There wasn't really a 'France' as we know it at that time. However, the English aristocracy talked French well past the 1400's, however English was spoken by the lower classes and eventually by everyone else. However, anyone who's taken over England has 'assimilated' with the local culture rather than change much.

 

Well then, pre-French beat pre-Britons. How's that?
(Hey, don't kick me for spoiling the fun. All that medieval history I've been learning has to go SOMEWHERE...)

 

I'd say Napoleon lost to Wellington alright. Wellesley never lost to Napoleon (they in fact only met once, but Wellington won) or any of his Grand Marshalls. Good old nosey was top man then.

 

Wow...So many uses of the word 'bugger'

Reminds me of work and how often the term douchebag gets thrown around.

So that this post is not off topic, I shall add my 2 cents.
Firstly, I agree with Harbs (at least I think it was Harbs) who said that the entire human race consists of aggresive little buggers. Secondly, I would say that there is not really one stand out country or race as the worst. I mean, the orient has be at war with one another and everyone else throughout history. Europe has been turned into a slaughter field numerous times. America has had its fingers in everything since they were caught off guard in WW2. Africa is full of in-fighting the quite often gets unnoticed by the rest of the world. South America has a bloody history, even before the Spanish decided to go over and plunder. The island nations near us have had some pretty bloody wars and the middle east is cops it from everyone and themselves as well

But personally, if there has to be a worst, it has to be Europe as a whole for the reasons that they wiped out some other human races (there are no full blood Aboriginals left in Aus and I think American Indians are in the same boat) and that they seem to like taking over other nationalities and forcing their way of life on them.

 

Really? No Aboriginals left? Their culture and mythology seemed fascinating. That's a shame...

 

There are still Aboriginals left, just no full blood ones. And the culture among them isnt as strong as it was a few years back.

 

Not as strong as a few years back? Wow, and I thought cultures don't die so easily when machine guns are not involved ("no man, no problem," as a certain Georgian said).

Anyway, I agree most human societies are naturally aggressive (though whether more or less than most animals is dubious - we're just able to channel and coordinate it better), and most religions or national ideas do little to mitigate it. However, for the "most aggressive" I'm seriously thinking about nominating the Turks.

 

I know I'm coming to the party rather late, but I think something needs to be added here - a definition of 'aggressive' beyond simply "active warfare".

Looking at 'dominant upon the world population for a significant time', one definitely puts the British and French Empires in there, as well as the Conquistadors of Spain (one argues that the 'rosbifs' watered out the Australian Aboriginals and most of the North American Amerindians; well, 'the Dons' had such an effect on the Central and Southern American natives that they're now considered "hispanic"...or they're extinct) as well as the Portuguese to an admittedly lesser extent.

Further back in time, the Hellenic period Greeks and Roman Empire as well as the Pharaohs of Egypt all were dominating a large portion of the known world, as were the Persians, and the Ottoman Empire.

But I find it surprising that no one has mentioned the arguably largest empire for population controlled, as well as geographic area, the Mongols.

 

The answer to your question, Barmy, IMHO, is the French - well, sort of. Consider that it was the Normans who conqured England and turned it into the "aggressive" little island that it would become after 1066. If one looks at the history of the Normans, they are probably the worst. Whether or not they were really French is an open question, since they were Vikings in the beginning who were paid off by the French King with the realm of Normandy.

Edit:

I can't say I agree with that, since William radically changed Anglo-Saxon England. I would also comment, that before the Normans, England was one of the most "conquered" islands in history.