How did the English annex half the world?

fianna saor

mike65 wrote: »

You are going to be a fun contributor, you can enjoy the various Anti-Brit threads as and when they crop up

thank you very much for the warm welcome and i will indeed enjoy them when they crop up

Auvers

Stiff upper lip \ Discipline

Supreme arrogance

Their Navy

and don't forget a third of the British forces where Irish at the zenith of the Empire

AEDIC

fianna saor wrote: »

thank you very much for the warm welcome and i will indeed enjoy them when they crop up

Do try and get your Brit/British v's England/English sorted out though...it does get a bit tedious seeing people say one thing and mean another...and it does especially annoy the non English British. :rolleyes:

Anyone

A ginger queen.

Yakult

It worked out well for them in the end :pac:

Cianos

We've colonised the world with Irish pubs.

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm not sure if you get what I'm asking. I'm saying that before the English had an empire to speak of, what was the crucial advances that they made and that we didn't pick up on during that time?

They watched what Spain, Portugal and France were doing and learnt from their mistakes.

A lot, if not the majority, of the countries they conquered they pinched off other colonial powers.

Davyhal

British Imperialism can pretty much be summarised in three words: Gun beats Spear!

Logical Fallacy

poppyvally wrote: »

EXCUSE ME! the Brits left us some beautiful architecture.walls and bridges. LOOK at our Georgian houses, our Post offices.banks to name but a few. Compare this to the sh1t that passes for architecture nowadays

That all came very late in the game though, the concept of diplomacy and killing people with kindness had started to creep in to international politics, especially with regard to colonialism.

Any major improvement in Ireland under British rule came very late compared to improvements in England under Roman rule.

Not too sure what needs to be excused, a simple study and comparison of the two should yield the truth.

One deciding factor of course was that generally speaking the "countries" they colonized weren't really countries at all at the time of invasion. Like the USA and Canada for example which were a series of tribal, in many cases nomadic settlements. Certainly they invented some countries after the fact in order to make them more manageable in much the same way as they divided Ireland into the counties we know today, but Pakistan (let's say) wasn't really Pakistan in the sense of a nation state until the Brits said it was.

Much the same with Africa and Australia where all they really did was confiscate tribal lands/farms etc from people who didn't share a common national identity, probably had little concept of what that even meant, and were really no match for a modern military with limitless resources and utterly ruthless.

Casillas

We were broke and needed work. Problem solved!


The 6th Horse became the 5th Horse in 1690 this in 1746 became the 1st Irish Horse and in Feb 1788 became the 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards.

The 5th Royal Irish Lancers were raised in 1689 fought at the Battle of the Boyne and as Ross's Horse were sent to the Netherlands were disbanded in 1799 having being infiltrated by the United Irishmen. The 5th was raised again in 1858.

The 6th Inniskilling Dragoon Guards were raised in 1689 to fight for King William III. The Regiment left Ireland in 1708 and did not return for 100 years fighting in the 1715 rebellion in Scotland were in Flanders and fought at Fontenoy in 1745, later at Waterloo in 1815 and Balaclava in the Crimea in 1854.

The 8th Royal Irish Hussars was raised in 1693 as dragoons later called 8th Dragoons or King's Royal Irish Light Dragoons. In 1823 they became 8th Royal Irish Hussars.

The 18th Foot (Royal Irish Regiment) was raised in 1683 and fought against King James II. It fought against the Irish Brigade in Flanders and the Spanish Irish Regiments at Gibraltar. In 1751 it became the 18th Foot. It was disbanded after action around the globe in July 1922.

The Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers were raised in 1689, and in 1751 it became the 27th Regt. of Foot. In July 1968 the Inniskillings was amalgamated with other Irish Regiments to become the Royal Irish Rangers.

The Royal Irish Rifles were raised as the 83rd Regiment of Foot in October 1758. Disbanded in 1763 and raised again in 1793.

The 86th Regiment was raised in November 1756, disbanded in 1763 and raised again in 1778. In 1881 the 83rd and 86th were combined to form the Royal Irish Regiment.

The 87th Regiment and 89th Regiment were raised in Ireland in 1793. In 1881 the two Regiments were amalgamated to form the Royal Irish Fusiliers in 1968 this was amalgamated in to the Royal Irish Rangers.

The Connaught Rangers were formed in September 1793 as the 88th Regiment, following a Republican mutiny in 1920 the Regiment was disbanded in 1922.

The Leinster regiment also disbanded in 1922 was formed from the 100th and 109th Regiments of Foot.

The Royal Munster Fusiliers were formed from 101st and 104th Regiments and it too was disbanded in 1922.

The Royal Dublin Fusiliers was created from 102 and 103rd Regiments in India but can trace their origins back to 1661. The Regiment was stood down in 1922.

http://www.doyle.com.au/irish_soldiers_of_the_british_ar.htm

Jonah42

Navy

Trade

Industrialisation

dpe

Deleted User wrote: »

One deciding factor of course was that generally speaking the "countries" they colonized weren't really countries at all at the time of invasion. Like the USA and Canada for example which were a series of tribal, in many cases nomadic settlements. Certainly they invented some countries after the fact in order to make them more manageable in much the same way as they divided Ireland into the counties we know today, but Pakistan (let's say) wasn't really Pakistan in the sense of a nation state until the Brits said it was.

Much the same with Africa and Australia where all they really did was confiscate tribal lands/farms etc from people who didn't share a common national identity, probably had little concept of what that even meant, and were really no match for a modern military with limitless resources and utterly ruthless.

Bad example. "Pakistan" as is, was under the Mughals, who were as politically and militarily sophisticated as the Europeans when they turned up in their leaky boats. The British (and French) used internal dissatisfaction with Mughal rule (Mughals were moslem, ruling over Sikhs and Hindus, like the Rajputs) for their own benefit.

Its also a bit of a myth about the nomadic north American Indians. The tribes the British dealt with in the early period (on the East coast) like the Iroquois, were settled and relatively sophisticated; but lacked certain things, like immunity to smallpox. But having said that, the British in North America weren't as a bad as the Americans, who actively committed genocide.

conor.hogan.2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A lot, if not the majority, of the countries they conquered they pinched off other colonial powers.

...and treated them worse for the most part.

bwatson

Davyhal wrote: »

British Imperialism can pretty much be summarised in three words: Gun beats Spear!

I presume your knowledge of colonial history is based on an overheard conversation in a pub then? In terms of summing up the manner in which the British created the Empire (which is actually nearly impossible to do so succinctly) you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

golden lane

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They all had their strengths i suppose.

England
- birthplace of the industrial revolution (due to access to sea, coal, iron, early breaking of serfdom, protestant work ethic?, enlightenment thinking...)
- Extraordinarily powerful navy - dwarfing (by far) competitors
- Trade, trade, trade.

are you aware that the armada.....dwarfed the english fleet........

and the combined spanish/french fleet at trafalgar.........

and of course there was the irish sailors..on the english side......

Davyhal

bwatson wrote: »

I presume your knowledge of colonial history is based on an overheard conversation in a pub then? In terms of summing up the manner in which the British created the Empire (which is actually nearly impossible to do so succinctly) you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

I know that is not the real answer, just a light-hearted comment that was said in passing! Oh, and FYI, I actually have a University Degree in History, and English/British History is what I specialised in

Dravokivich

Davyhal wrote: »

British Imperialism can pretty much be summarised in three words: Gun beats Spear!

Try telling that to Michael Caine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI

dpe

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

...and treated them worse for the most part.

I think you'd find that quite difficult to prove. I've seen first hand the Spanish handiwork in South America (Cusco, Potosi, Mexico City, all fine examples of Spanish tolerance). The French seem a bit more loved than the British in Africa, but its hardly chalk and cheese, and everyone agrees the Belgians and Germans were the worst. In Asia the Dutch had a much worse reputation than the British (to the extent that Indonesia was one of the few places the Japanese didn't make massively worse). There were no "good" colonial powers but the British weren't uniquely nasty.

Nodin

Dravokivich wrote: »

Try telling that to Michael Caine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1csr0dxalpI

For some reason I can't imagine, I find the other Zulu movie more appealling.

golden lane

Nodin wrote: »

For some reason I can't imagine, I find the other Zulu movie more appealling.

them poor zulu's.....disobeying orders not to cross the river, then panicking because if thery didn't get a victory.....they would get their balls chewed off;;literally......

attack a defended position with warriors who were hungry and very tired after the long marches (runs).......not having the know how, to use all the guns and ammunition they had captured.......

bad leadership.....clear as daylight.......but very good for michael cane.....as he said so himself......i can buy my mum a house now.........

bwatson

Davyhal wrote: »

I know that is not the real answer, just a light-hearted comment that was said in passing! Oh, and FYI, I actually have a University Degree in History, and English/British History is what I specialised in

Umm, well done?

plasmaguy

Do you want the long version or the short version?

The short version mainly to do with having more advanced technology such as guns and cannon which natives in many of these countries didn't have.

Same reason Spain was able to conquer the Incas, etc.

That's the short version, and I don't have time to give the long version.

bwatson

Nodin wrote: »

For some reason I can't imagine, I find the other Zulu movie more appealling.

You very much enjoy the thought that the events which are unfolding in the film, the horrific killing and wounding of British soldiers - actually happened less than one hundred years before the film was created?

Nodin

bwatson wrote: »

You very much enjoy the thought that the events which are unfolding in the film, the horrific killing and wounding of British soldiers - actually happened less than one hundred years before the film was created?

These would be the people arriving to take over the sections of Africa inhabited by the zulus, turn the population into cheap labour and essentially loot the resources of the region, using any excuse to do so.....
who were being resisted by a people for the most part armed with bravery and spears.......

When you were a kid, did you cheer on the Nazis in the war movies?

Did you hate "Dances With Wolves", perchance?

Witcher

bwatson wrote: »

You very much enjoy the thought that the events which are unfolding in the film, the horrific killing and wounding of British soldiers - actually happened less than one hundred years before the film was created?

Poor little soldiers....how dare the Zulus attack these invaders:pac:

Nodin

dpe wrote: »

I think you'd find that quite difficult to prove. I've seen first hand the Spanish handiwork in South America (Cusco, Potosi, Mexico City, all fine examples of Spanish tolerance). The French seem a bit more loved than the British in Africa, but its hardly chalk and cheese, and everyone agrees the Belgians and Germans were the worst. In Asia the Dutch had a much worse reputation than the British (to the extent that Indonesia was one of the few places the Japanese didn't make massively worse). There were no "good" colonial powers but the British weren't uniquely nasty.

Indeedy. Theres no saints, and its hard to sort the degrees of sinner. Certainly the spanish were absolute bastards in the Americas. The Portugese have a particularily bad reputation - up there with the Belgians.

Ush1

Them being occupied by the Romans and getting a better infrastructure is an interesting answer. Do most agree that is when they went ahead and was the primary advantage they had over Ireland for instance?

Nodin

Blay wrote: »

Poor little soldiers....how dare the Zulus attack these invaders:pac:

You play, I'll hum along.

long range shooter

Its all to do with the Viking legacy.
How could small countries like Norway and Denmark invade england??
Cause they had superior weapons and craftmanship compared to many other nations.
This legacy the english has brought with them up untill to day.

dpe

Nodin wrote: »

These would be the people arriving to take over the sections of Africa inhabited by the zulus, turn the population into cheap labour and essentially loot the resources of the region, using any excuse to do so.....
who were being resisted by a people for the most part armed with bravery and spears.......

When you were a kid, did you cheer on the Nazis in the war movies?

Did you hate "Dances With Wolves", perchance?

Erm, you do know the Zulus were invaders themselves don't you? Neither party were exactly fighting over ancestral lands, the Zulus had only come down from the north about 50 years before the Boers and then the British came from the north.

ejmaztec

long range shooter wrote: »

Its all to do with the Viking legacy.
How could small countries like Norway and Denmark invade england??
Cause they had superior weapons and craftmanship compared to many other nations.
This legacy the english has brought with them up untill to day.

Probably because 99% of the population couldn't give a sh1t as long as it was business as usual for them. Only the chiefs had a problem.

Nodin

dpe wrote: »

Erm, you do know the Zulus were invaders themselves don't you? Neither party were exactly fighting over ancestral lands, the Zulus had only come down from the north about 50 years before the Boers and then the British came from the north.

.....doesn't make it not international banditry by the British though, does it?

long range shooter

ejmaztec wrote: »

Probably because 99% of the population couldn't give a sh1t as long as it was business as usual for them. Only the chiefs had a problem.

Only the chiefs when half of england was overrun by vikings,dont think so.
The vikings are the only one that have ever invaded the british isles.

Nodin

long range shooter wrote: »

Only the chiefs when half of england was overrun by vikings,dont think so.
The vikings are the only one that have ever invaded the british isles.

....saxons, jutes, angles, viking descendants (Normans).

Happy Monday

Top class soldiers.
Highly motivated young men putting the enemy to the sword.

mikemac1

Guns, Germs and Steel is up on youtube

Worth a watch

golden lane

long range shooter wrote: »

Only the chiefs when half of england was overrun by vikings,dont think so.
The vikings are the only one that have ever invaded the british isles.

is that why it was taken over by the norman french.....the same people that were first invited to invade ireland.....

and the ancestors of the same norman french are still the big landowners in the uk.......

the poor english have been invaded more times than ireland.......

of course.....who are the english......the name comes from the angles, a german tribe........there were the romans....saxons.....danes..norsemen....
french....

thats is where the english language comes from.....a mixture.......

marienbad

You can't wage a war on two fronts- at least not in those days. The English Channel effectively solved that problem for England and allowed them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

long range shooter

Nodin wrote: »

....saxons, jutes, angles, viking descendants (Normans).

they where allready there when the vikings invaded england.;)

Fratton Fred

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

...and treated them worse for the most part.

In a lot of cases there was no one to treat worse because the Spanish had either wiped them out or enslaved them.

Nodin

long range shooter wrote: »

they where allready there when the vikings invaded england.;)

Right then.

So apart from the Romans (who I fergot...how could I forget the Romans? Is it old age...is this also why I don't find Rhianna that hot...who knows) Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, nobody except the Vikings invaded England. Successfully.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

Right then.

So apart from the Romans (who I fergot...how could I forget the Romans? Is it old age...is this also why I don't find Rhianna that hot...who knows) Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, nobody except the Vikings invaded England. Successfully.

Lets not forget the Normans and William of Orange .

golden lane

in england.....the people we refer to as english.......the landowners have mostly frenckh names.......and the people have mostly.....german names....with a few viking name thrown in............but today.....all sorts of names.....and more people with irish names than any other country's names....

long range shooter

Nodin wrote: »

Right then.

So apart from the Romans (who I fergot...how could I forget the Romans? Is it old age...is this also why I don't find Rhianna that hot...who knows) Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, nobody except the Vikings invaded England. Successfully.

Anglo-Saxons were a group of Germanic people who emmigrated from Northern Germany into Britain, taking advantage of the vacuum left by the departure of the Roman Legions in the early fifth century. Their arrival was resisted by the Britons with little success (this is the conflict that spawned the Arthurian legend), and the AS had established their own kingdoms throughout what is now England by the sixth century.

The Vikings (or Norsemen) were also a germanic people, based in Scandinavia. In the eighth century, for reasons that still aren't fully understood, they left their homelands and began raiding, exploring, and trading throughout Europe. They established colonies in Iceland, Scotland, Ireland (they founded Dublin), and Normandy, and raided all the way down the west coast of Europe, as far as Sicily. Another group, mostly Swedish, established trading posts along the Volga and Neva Rivers, and eventually became the first princes of what would become Russia. In Britain, the Saxons managed to hold off the Vikings for sometime, but were so exhausted by the fight that they were unable to stop the invasion of the Normans, under William the Conquerer, in 1066.

Cool Mo D

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In a lot of cases there was no one to treat worse because the Spanish had either wiped them out or enslaved them.

Then how come ex-Spanish colonies have descendants of European settlers and native peoples living together side-by-side, and English colonies like Canada and the USA eradicated the original dwellers from any halfway valuable piece of land, and have them living in either barely inhabitable wastelands, or tiny reservations?

Also, the Normans were not the last people to conquer Britain, as a large Dutch army did it in 1688. The nobility in England were able to turn that invasion to their own advantage though.

paddyandy

O.P.They are not a dreamy kind of people as many peoples are .They espoused discipline and
and a very good sense of themselves .Learned from invasion by the romans . I worked with them closely years ago in south london factories and shops . The Irish are too Aizy going to be a powerful nation .Anyway why bother .Where are they now ? Invaded themselves .By default we were the wiser .
They are better LISTENERS than we are and don't dream about great trays of medals and cups for the mantelpiece and sideboards for all to see . Endless pints to bate the bands with songs and celebrations about cups and more medals for giving our neighbours more hidings on the fields of endeavour .Erin go Brawl !!!!

the purple tin

Britain and the US have a close relationship nowadays but British government was actually drawing up plans to attack the US in the early 20th century.
Then WW1 came along and changed everything.

Nodin

paddyandy wrote: »

............ .Where are they now ? Invaded themselves .By default we were the wiser .

Do please expand on this nugget of wisdom.

ejmaztec

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Then how come ex-Spanish colonies have descendants of European settlers and native peoples living together side-by-side, and English colonies like Canada and the USA eradicated the original dwellers from any halfway valuable piece of land, and have them living in either barely inhabitable wastelands, or tiny reservations?

In the case of the Spanish, they forgot to kill all of the natives, but then probably thought that the remainder would be a source of slave labour for the descendants of the conquerors.

As for the US, I think it was long independent from Britain when they decided to put the natives in their place.

I don't know about the Canadian treatment of the natives.