Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The British defeat in America -
Herc the Merc    5/29/2007 8:27:07 PM
Perhaps one of the few major wars lost by Britain and that too in its own territory with vast ties by blood. How is the American war potrayed in English history books-- a civil war, liberation war, anarchy???? Its perhaps odd that Britain lost America, one of its few territories that it had connections with in bloodline. Even Britain and India parted ways with a handshake and cup of tea. The Yanks broke the tea crates in Boston Harbor and had bloody good fight.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39   NEXT
Nichevo       9/27/2007 12:09:55 PM







you not understanding says more about you than me....   :-)








 I could mock the writing but I will admit I was baffled by comparisons with HI/AKm which were legally acquired through purchase/no more remarkable than various UK ocean flyspecks.  I mean, Wake Is. and Johnson Atoll are equally suspect, I suppose?  Just exactly the same thing as Britain owning a piece of Germany, or of France if you can take all that Normandy business seriously.  Our colonial possessions aren't the sequelae of continental powers trying to eat each other, quite so much...









but Bob seems to have put it at a level that so should be able to understand. not sure why you did a "Tony" and went of on a tangent about Napoleon???





Shall I mock your confusion?  No, instead I will clarify: my previous dig was at European royalty and their failures.  What about Napoleon?  Napoleon was spared and given little Elba, instead of being hanged or caged, because of the sentimental extended-family feelings of...European royalty. 

I trust you're not GLAD for the Hundred Days?

if you go back through the thread you will see that you are covering old ground....


America expands by fair means or foul.
what about the American - Spanish war and gains there...????
what about the attempted invasion of Canada? (something that Tony did comment on......)
 
the US was just as expansionist as any European power but did in the name of the president rather than monarch.



I find I'm not going to touch this right now, except in rhetorical terms like Tu quoque.  I don't intend to go another 300 posts persuading you that Teddy Roosevelt was not just as bad as King Leopold, or listening to you tell me that the glory of Versailles was not in fact based upon raping the crap out of a million peasants for a thousand years.  We have a number of skeletons in our closet, sure, and some festooning the dining room too.  Some things we did because we had to, some things are just sad.  Some things, I suspect you don't really blame us for, but like to have around as a club to beat us with. 

And some things we did right.  Some of which we owe to you. 

And, perhaps, vice versa.

But since "relevance" has been invoked here, it's pretty sure that these were not causes of the British defeat in America!

If you want to call them results, okay.  Just remember that we can play tit for tat all day and that if I cared to I feel I could edge you out.  I don't have as much of a problem with Britain as with other European powers, so I really don't want to go there with you.  I am reluctant, but I am not afraid.

I also do not intend to eat $hit over things that the Spaniards did, or the French, or the Dutch, or you.  In particular the Spanish ventures in the New World were democidal if not genocidal.  (And tell me religion was irrelevant there.)




as for Napoleon... sure an man of your intelligence can work out why they cut a deal and gave him exile rather than fight down the streets of Paris to final victory....

 

Paul

I suppose your implication is that he was not a spent force and could have seemingly made things much worse if not given honorable terms?  I thought he was pretty much licked, to be quite frank.  Like Saddam, he had been offered terms before - he had his chance and he blew it, as we say...this was I think Chatillon?  I thought Paris was already lost to him. 

I can check this but if you want to provide appropriate linkage it will save me a bit of googling or p
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       9/27/2007 12:31:32 PM

 Well now it seems that you made it an issue by insulting me and my post to Bob. So Ehran, have you ever run into a burning house,not out of one?. Well unless you have, you have no right to say i did not!. Again, this only proves that real truth is irrelevent to a conversation with you!.
your personal courage is no doubt commendable but it's irrelevant to this discussion.  i did not say you weren't a volunteer fireman btw.

     Well now see, you say Jesus is not important to the discussion,actually he proves my point that no man or woman is royal,and since billions call him so, and Jesus never did,he is relevant to this conversation!. Now i do not find it shocking that you dont attend church,however i find it strange that you know nothing about him, since he was a big part of World History!. Typical Ehran to avoid any any real challenge to his view of history!. And if i am mistaken? Then answer my question!.
jesus is completely irrelevant to this discussion such as it is.  worse if there's a question in there i cannot see it tony.
  Now as for those Boer? Well i actually did not mean to spell it boar. And tell me Ehran just what sites or links did you post to educate me on this matter? Answer: NONE. So Ehran, i guess those khaki wearing red coats did not use theft and scorched earth against those Boer? Well now this again proves that Ehran is nothing more then a hypocritical,one sided bigot!.
once is a typo. repeated and consistent misspelling is a rather clear indication you don't know how to spell the word.  if you cannot get the name right what are the odds you are right about anything else on the subject?  what the british did was screw up managing the camps high wide and mighty.  other than that their tactics fighting the boer were nothing special or onerous.
   And Ehran, if we ever did meet face to face, i promise you that in person you will find that i know plenty,especially since i would not have to type to answer, and you can ask any question live and in person!.However, if you say i am not something i am for real? Well the only thing you will get from me is my foot so far up your butt you will see your own crap,and without looking into the toilet!.
are you familiar with the expression "jumped the shark" tony?  threats of violence are at best imprudent given you've never laid eyes on me and have no idea what if any fighting skills i might possess.  as for your "knowing plenty" that seems an entirely dubious claim given your performance to date in any discussion i've seen.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       9/27/2007 12:42:40 PM



It would not be an inaccurate view to portray the American revolution not just as an American victory but a European victory.  German, Polish, French, Spanish, Dutch, Nordic, etc. rulers all had an interest in seeing Britain take a fall in the Americas and contributed weapons, training, cash, medical supplies, etc to make it happen.


Germany committed Hessian mercenaries who fought for Britain. Poland, Spain, and the Dutch committed nothing. The only power of the era who provided support and combat arms for America was France. Europe had it's own problems and America was not one of them. You view of history is inaccurate.

the hessians came from king georges lands in germany they weren't committed by the german government not that there was any german government of the day.  the hessians really don't seem to meet the test to be called mercenaries.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       9/27/2007 12:49:06 PM


Although more substantive critiques might be made.   For instance, giving Bonaparte Elba instead of some fine Chinese lead, because some king or czar was his brother-in-law or what-have-you.   But hey, it wasn't my ancestors dying like flies during the 100 Days.


the british "gave" elba to napoleon in exactly the same way the usa "gave" gitmo to the prisoners there.
napoleon plonked his brother or was it brother in law on the throne of spain briefly but that was as close as he got to being a relative to royalty.

 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       9/27/2007 1:03:11 PM

 I could mock the writing but I will admit I was baffled by comparisons with HI/AKm which were legally acquired through purchase/no more remarkable than various UK ocean flyspecks.  I mean, Wake Is. and Johnson Atoll are equally suspect, I suppose?  Just exactly the same thing as Britain owning a piece of Germany, or of France if you can take all that Normandy business seriously.  Our colonial possessions aren't the sequelae of continental powers trying to eat each other, quite so much...


Shall I mock your confusion?  No, instead I will clarify: my previous dig was at European royalty and their failures.  What about Napoleon?  Napoleon was spared and given little Elba, instead of being hanged or caged, because of the sentimental extended-family feelings of...European royalty. 

I trust you're not GLAD for the Hundred Days?

alaska was bought from the tsar pretty cheap.  hawaii on the other hand was seized from the hawaiians at gunpoint courtesy of the us marines and navy at the behest of american sugar planters.  read the history on it sometime and you'll soon see just how things actually went down with that one.
napoleon was spared because he was very popular with the french people even after all the pain he put them through.  the british were smart enough not to create a martyr to trouble them later and wise enough to do it again a second time as tempting as it must have been to run him up the yardarm.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       9/27/2007 1:06:54 PM




Although more substantive critiques might be made.   For instance, giving Bonaparte Elba instead of some fine Chinese lead, because some king or czar was his brother-in-law or what-have-you.   But hey, it wasn't my ancestors dying like flies during the 100 Days.



the british "gave" elba to napoleon in exactly the same way the usa "gave" gitmo to the prisoners there.

napoleon plonked his brother or was it brother in law on the throne of spain briefly but that was as close as he got to being a relative to royalty.



Excuse me...as I have just been called to deal with an illness in the family, I will not be posting this week or next with any regularity.  If I have a chance I will look into it.


ahh...would it be correct to say that he was friends with the then Czar, and that the Emperor of Austria was his father-in-law?

As for Elba...a quick google:
>>

Elba

Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled by the Allied governments to Elba following his abdication at Fontainebleau and landed on the island on 4 May 1814.

He was allowed a personal escort of some 1000 men, a household staff and was even given the title Emperor of Elba and rule over its 110,000 people.

Bonaparte began his exile with a reform of the governmental system on the island, which is Italy's third biggest and lies just off the coast of Tuscany.

Soon, however, the former French emperor's thoughts turned towards Paris - now under the restored rule of the Bourbons - and he began to plan his return.

The time came faster than he imagined and only nine months later, on 26 February 1815, he escaped with his miniature army and landed in France. The 100 Days Campaign had begun.



Oh yeah, Gitmo it is.  For that matter, St. Helena was not Gitmo.

Ehran, I suspect you have a brain somewhere, why don't you use it?  Or are you just looking to argue with me?  (That's OK, I guess.  Two Jews, three opinions.  I just won't take you seriously)
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       9/27/2007 1:18:49 PM
nichevo i think you'd have to agree that paul bob and i are not the irascible fly off the handle types.  we've been polite to this buffoon for several hundred posts now trying to point out his major mistakes and even tried offering up some advice on posting style etc.  all this has been ignored and bloviated over by tony who has now sunk to calling me a root vegetable which just has to be the most feeble attempt at an insult i think i've ever been subjected to.  now he resorts to threats to kick my butt.  tony earned what's raining down on him several times over.  the only way this guy could follow a logical thought was if you strapped him to a bobsled and then pushed the thought into the run ahead of the sled.
 
Quote    Reply

Ehran       9/27/2007 1:32:55 PM
well elba certainly wasn't the situation i'd thought it was.  so nichevo any suggestions for what goes well with crow?
 
i knew he'd been allowed his guards and staff but that they'd given him the island rather beggars the imagination.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       9/27/2007 1:48:07 PM


alaska was bought from the tsar pretty cheap.  hawaii on the other hand was seized from the hawaiians at gunpoint courtesy of the us marines and navy at the behest of american sugar planters.  read the history on it sometime and you'll soon see just how things actually went down with that one.


Naw, I never read no history 'bout no Hawaii.   Who told you I could read?

I certainly can't discuss any of the subtleties.of annexation, nohow.  In fact I can't even find it on a map.  Neither Hawaii, nor Maui, Oahu, Kauai, Niihau, Nihoa, Molokai, nor none of the other li'l tidbits of pineapple-land, though I do love my Hawaii Five-O.

On my globe, however, it is a few thousand miles northwest of the Marquesas (Fr.), which are a few thousand miles northwest of Pitcairn Island (U.K.) 

But since Arthur King of the Britons told you to hang a left at Juan Fernandez and score some coconuts, by all means you have divine right to the place, that and the other dozens of UK coaling stations around the globe.  France too doubtless is entitled to all her little Pacific tidbits, especially the nuclear test sites.

Unfortunately, we made Hawaii into a state.  But you just say the word, and we'll cut 'em loose. 

Should we give them to you or to France?




napoleon was spared because he was very popular with the french people even after all the pain he put them through.  the british were smart enough not to create a martyr to trouble them later and wise enough to do it again a second time as tempting as it must have been to run him up the yardarm.

Smart?  Uh, fine.  Genius, as things turned out, eh?  If you didn't see fit to let the French know they lost, why should I question that?  Nobody in my family got disemboweled at Les Quatre Bras or La Haye Sainte.  None of them were murdered by Europeans at that particular juncture of history.  And since you are apparently the soul brother of FS, why should you care about another fifty thousand dead, as long as it wasn't happening to you? 

F&*king Einstein.  F@#king Niels Bohr.  F@#king Galileo.  F^(king  Marilyn Vos Savant.

Smart ain't the word.


Martyrs all have one thing in common, Ehran:

They're all dead.

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       9/27/2007 2:06:58 PM
Ehran       9/27/2007 1:18:49 PM
nichevo i think you'd have to agree that paul bob and i are not the irascible fly off the handle types.  we've been polite to this buffoon for several hundred posts now trying to point out his major mistakes and even tried offering up some advice on posting style etc.  all this has been ignored and bloviated over by tony who has now sunk to calling me a root vegetable which just has to be the most feeble attempt at an insult i think i've ever been subjected to.  now he resorts to threats to kick my butt.  tony earned what's raining down on him several times over.  the only way this guy could follow a logical thought was if you strapped him to a bobsled and then pushed the thought into the run ahead of the sled.
 
Quote    Reply
May I be perfectly frank?  You and paul1970 annoy me too on occasion, with very similar mannerisms; I try to handle it as best I can without losing it or weeping .  (Bob is all right AFAIK).  But ISTM sometimes that you treat everybody you disagree with like idiots.  ...Now you know the difference.


Ehran       9/27/2007 1:32:55 PM
well elba certainly wasn't the situation i'd thought it was.  so nichevo any suggestions for what goes well with crow?
 
That depends on whether you prefer Red or White Whine

i knew he'd been allowed his guards and staff but that they'd given him the island rather beggars the imagination.
 Rawthuh.  You didn't have to behead him on video or nuthin' - but 110,000 subjects?   Emperor of Elba? 

Can't you see that's like - to put it in terms you will relate to, Ehran - sitting down George W. Bush in front of a case of Jim Beam and a kilo of Peruvian flake sprinkled over a dozen naked hookers?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics