Why is it that the British were so much more successful than

Geography
Economics
Politics

the british were not. the people in charge of britain were. the british are not a special people, culturally genetically or otherwise. they had a confluence of geopolitical factors and leadership that led them to widespread colonialism.

>>2831246
Industrial revolution and the naval dominance that arose from that mostly.

>>2831246
first to industrialise, tbqh
>>2831270
this
the case of the british empire is why i find all attempts to link race/iq to success as outrageously flawed and simplistic.

>>2831270
>the british are not a special people

The most special when it comes to music though

>>2831318
also Acting

I'm pretty sure not physically being attached to Europe helped considering much more effort had to be thrown into ransacking the english country side. Granted they did that to themselves quite a few times but atleast the looted money stayed in the country ish

>>2831281
What, because the British are stupid? You're a idiot yourself if you think that.

>>2831246
Look at the map all that land was held by poor little naitives that got fucked either by diesses in the case of the americas or really advance tech and military tactics hell they conquered at least one nation by simply placing a warship outside thier capitol. If you notice they hold almost no land in europe. At the end of the day having a third of the worlds population you conquered feed your european wars you win alot. Oh and the channel meant that invasion were unlikely as fuck.

>>2831246
>Be GB
>strong rival european faction discovered
>ally slightly weaker european faction
>in the ensuing war annex their colonies while they fight it out on the mainland
>eventually grow to become greatest european empire
>idiots still only fight each other over mainland europe

>>2831444
>Look at the map all that land was held by poor little naitives that got fucked either by diesses in the case of the americas or really advance tech and military tactics hell they conquered at least one nation by simply placing a warship outside thier capitol.
We were fighting the against time against the Portugese and Dutch in controlling the Indian sub-continent and a big portion of Afghanistan. They got (mostly) repelled by the natives but we didn't. Stay mad.

>If you notice they hold almost no land in europe.
And yet you're still speaking English now.

>At the end of the day having a third of the worlds population you conquered feed your european wars you win alot. Oh and the channel meant that invasion were unlikely as fuck.
No shit. We had an advantage and we took it. Fuck off you butthurt Frog.

>>2832331
Dude im fuckin english ya shit. I was praising England while also being honest about how it was all conquered.

>>2832331
>And yet you're still speaking English now.
That was the USA's doing, the world speaks American English.

>>2831318
>The most special when it comes to music though
Only after the Germans/Austrians and Americans.

How were they the most succesful? 80 years of soft hegemony after Europe got ravaged by the Napoleonic wars seems pretty pathetic. Specially with such a big empire

>>2831246
The British are French rape babies, it is the French who are the most successful.

>>2831246
Being on a easily defendable island and a really big navy.

>>2832331
I don't think Portuguese and Dutch ever tried to conquer Afghanistan.

Early industrialisation and an effective colonial mentality.

Add that to the extensive bureaucracy, and you've got the potential to colonise.

>>2831444
>Look at the map all that land was held by poor little naitives that got fucked either by diesses in the case of the americas or really advance tech

India was held by advanced kingdoms who utilised muskets, also we fought wars against the Europeans to decide our dominance in America and India, for example the seven years war.

>>2832348
>He believes this

So you think colonising almost a quarter of the worlds land wasn't as important in spreading English as American rock music was.

>>2833049
>So you think colonising almost a quarter of the worlds land wasn't as important in spreading English as American rock music was.
No.In the former Brittish empire only 8% of the population knows English.If it wasn't for America English would be as irrelevant as French

>>2833057
It doesn't matter if the general population who can't speak it, most of them are illiterate. But their politicians speak it, their businessmen speak it etc. That's what a lingua franca is it helps facilitate things like trade because when you share a mutual language those things are much easier.

>>2832433
Hahahaha, good joke

>>2833074
>It doesn't matter if the general population who can't speak it, most of them are illiterate. But their politicians speak it, their businessmen speak it etc. That's what a lingua franca is it helps facilitate things like trade because when you share a mutual language those things are much easier.
They speak it because the US.Britain is a smaller economy than fucking California.The Brittish empire was pointless generally speaking.A great sink of money that accomplished nothing and only left memes like cricket and rugby in their colonies.If it wasn't for the US English would be spoken by Britain,Canada,Australia and New Zewland which comes pretty fucking short for a lingua franca

>>2832433
More like both are Norman rape babies.

There are many factors, but I would consider the most important to be: ethnic restructuring of large areas, being the first nation to industrialize, and having an unparalleled navy. They also were efficient at bureaucracy and the employment of locals who would answer to the crown. These soldiers were very stable usually, with exceptions such as the Sepoy Rebellion

>>2833049
It wasn't
During the height of the British Empire, the latter part of the 19th century, the English language was unimportant compared to French (the international language of diplomacy and culture), and even German (the international language of science)
It is only since 1945 that English has become the international lingua franca, and that is when the English and their empire had declined or disappeared, and America had risen to prominence.
Nobody speaks English because the British colonized Nigeria or India.

>>2833116
>English because the British colonized Nigeria or India
They never colonized them.You can go to either country and outside of cricket there is no Brittish influence on the land.They were just protectorates and commercial outposts.The only colonies were southern Africa (including Rhodesia),Australia,Canada and New Zeland

>>2833085
>Britain is a smaller economy than fucking California.
Your point? We're talking about history not the present day.

>The Brittish empire was pointless generally speaking.
So the steam engine among other things that were birthed out of the wealth of the British empire were useless.

>If it wasn't for the US English would be spoken by Britain,Canada,Australia and New Zewland which comes pretty fucking short for a lingua franca

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anglospeak.svg

What a coincidence, everything on that picture is a former British territory. And thry speak those languages because we maintained a presence there for many centuries.

>>2833144
>Your point? We're talking about history not the present day.
No one would learn English for Britain as it is irrelevant globally
>So the steam engine among other things that were birthed out of the wealth of the British empire were useless.
The steam engine existed way before Watt was even an idea.
>What a coincidence, everything on that picture is a former British territory. And thry speak those languages because we maintained a presence there for many centuries.
They speak english because the US.If it was for Britain English would be more than death in most of Africa and all of India as Britain is irrelevant.If the US spoke German all those countries would have more German speakers than English speakers

Briden hav big bouts

>>2831281
>first to industrialise, tbqh
This is just circular logic. Why were they the first to industralize? The rest of Europe outside Wallonia and the Ruhr was a backwater swamp well up until the late 1800s.

>>2832352
>Who are the Beatles

>>2834284
>Wallonia
Spotted the smelly Wallonian cuck

>>2832352
>>2834308
>>2831318
Germanic countries produce a disproportionately large amount of music for their population.

Ive noticed Iceland, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the UK have about the roughly same proportion of musicians relative to their population

Although the UK has the added benefit of being English speaking so it has a greater audience making it stand out from the crowd

>>2834339
Are you counting meme music like heavy metal or hip hop in the same category as Mozart?

File: europeclimates.jpg (135KB, 870x1137px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 870x1137px

>>2831246
>>2831254
almost entirely geography
http://desuarchive.org/his/thread/2812899/#2813719

tl;dr being an island on the western european plain close to the mediterranean in the old world

>>2833085
>suggesting America is why we speak English
You forget that Northern America was basically a British colony, that is why you speak English. If you believe that America is responsible for English becoming the lingua franca, you must understand this is the result of the empire

File: 1484744963320.png (171KB, 477x333px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 477x333px

>>2834345
go fuck a bag of glass you pretentious wanker

>>2834284
A lot of early industrial development in Britain were caused by Dutch migrants introducing new cloth and attitudes towards industry and profit.
They also introduced some nice farming stuff as well

>>2834345
He never said good music anon.

>>2831246
How is this impressive? Literally no land in Europe and everything else with the exception of India was tribal. They couldn't defeat any nation on the mainland on their own and always needed alliances.

>>2834428
you are a retard

>>2834428
What would be the point in subjugating other Europeans whom they saw as equals?

>>2834461
you are also a retard

>>2834480
>if i call everyone a retard I'll seem super smart and won't have to actually engage in discussion.
Grow up.

>>2834387
>Northern America was basically a British colony.
Most of it was Spanish land. The US earned it by buying it (purchase of Louisiana) and through war (American-Mexican war). The only thing that Britain did for the colonkes was making them backwards shitholes. Once we got our independence everything improved drastically

>>2834492
yep

>>2834495
Are you seriously arguing against his point that the U.S. speaks English because of Britain?

>>2831246
Everything, man.
Anglos are the masterrace. You should all bow down to your Anglo masters.

>>2834529
It speaks English because of England. But it didn't become relevant because of Britain as Brttish rule was backwards and holding us down

>>2834544
>Brttish rule was backwards

well memed, you know a president is essentially an elected king

Substantial imperial possessions in the Caribbean, North America and eventually India, Britain was highly commercialized.

Guilds that used to protect urban artisans basically disappeared. This allowed employers to run their manufacturing enterprises as they saw fit.

British aristocrats, unlike their counterparts in Europe had a fascination with business.

Britain practiced religious toleration, welcoming protestants with technical skills. Catholic France did the opposite.

The British government had laws that were business friendly, forbade worker's unions, and created a unified internal market.

Continental Europe was vastly separated when it came to scientists, makers of scientific instruments and entrepreneurs. As others pointed out, the close proximity geography of Britain aided these minds when it came to meeting and expressing ideas.

Lastly they had A TON of coal and iron ore to feed the industrial revolution.

>>2834565
The US' GDP dobled from1783 to 1800. Britain was shit. It limited local manufacturing and just used the colonies as a tax cow

Early adopters of legalism, early adopters of financial institutions, very early adopters of empiricism & scientific revolution.
End result: The first country to industrialize.

File: 18485973_1287320558042877_251639827338326277_n.jpg (20KB, 720x397px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 720x397px

>>2832331
u mad?

>>2834284
Mercantilism, a wealth of canals just begging to be replaced with something faster, naval prowess and concentrated industry, government, and thought.

>>2834610
the seven years war cost a lot of money it was basically the first world war

it cleared the way for the western expansion of the USA without fear of french invasion

>>2834770
>fear of french invasion
New France had 5000 french setlers.Hell Spain posed a bigger threat than France when they took Louisiana and increased the population by 10 in 20 years.Britain was just a burden.

>>2831318
Wrong. It's just another expression of imperialism. English being the business language makes people learn english as their second tongue and makes english the lingua franca. The best way to get your music listened worldwide is to compose in english, which anglos do because they are natives and next come other eurobands that sing in English, mainly dutch and German.

Lots of other countries produce really good music with a fuckton of different styles. Just because you dont know about it because you're a monolingual pleb it doesn't mean english music is superior in any way.

Isolationism and coal

>>2834858
>Isolationism
Kek

File: Geology-Map-Western-Europe.jpg (523KB, 1192x1733px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1192x1733px

>>2834284
>Why were they the first to industralize?

England has lots of coal, iron and copper.

France has basically none.

>>2834284
Wealth from slavery

>>2832348
America speaks English because it was founded by the English.
Don't let the retarded kraut diaspora fool you, we're a British country.

>>2834495
So what? Yeah, we bought and conquered Spanish and French lands, but fucking spics and Frenchmen aren't who made America. The British made America. Those lands we bought and conquered were colonized by British Americans.
And don't give me shit about Americans being krauts, Brits are the largest minority, if you count people who identify as "American," who are all descended from early British colonials and don't even remember where they're from. And that's not even counting micks, which would bring us to being a third of all Americans.

>>2835149
>Those lands we bought and conquered were colonized by British Americans.
Nope.It was mostly colonized by Germans.That is why Jefferson was so worried about German inmigration
>And don't give me shit about Americans being krauts, Brits are the largest minority,
If you include niggers as Brits
> if you count people who identify as "American," who are all descended from early British colonials and don't even remember where they're from. And that's not even counting micks, which would bring us to being a third of all Americans.
Most Americans don't have any ties with the people that got independence.The country had 2,5 M people in 1783.Brits were such shit colonizers.Like fuck we would probably be a 60 M people country and just the 13 colonies if we continued to be under Brittish control.Britain sucked balls

>>2835042
REPERATIONS

>>2835149
>ship off your poor and rejects to the new world
>whine when it breaks off from you muh tea
>claim you built the place two centuries later

>>2832615
They did india

File: Pepe_TEETH2.png (190KB, 418x359px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 418x359px

>>2834371
>tl;dr
I should have stopped reading there but apparently I'm a masochist.

>being an island on the western european plain close to the mediterranean in the old world
I knew it would be stupidity, I knew it!
How is Britain close to the Mediterranean? It's literally more accessible from the fucking Sudan, the UK had to wrest control of Gibralter (no easy feat) and a bunch of other islands just to make there presence there viable. Also, there are actual islands already in the Med! You've circled an enormous one called Sicily you incorrigible retard.

>>2835030
Britain has unremarkable quantities of low quality coal.
France has plenty of advantages that Britain doesn't have.

File: Earl william pitt amherst.jpg (89KB, 416x690px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 416x690px

>>2831270
>the british are not a special people
Outside of antiquity the British count among their number

>The greatest dramatists, poets and novelists
>The greatest engineers and innovators
>The most formidable Military men and minds
>The greatest philosophers
>The greatest Historians
>The most distinguished scientists (of all disciplines)

I could go on but one of these is a sufficient remonstrance to the ridiculous assertion that the British
>are not a special people

>>2831246
England had the first industrial revolution which instantly made them superior to every single country and colony on the face of the earth.

They used this to their advantage and then eventually most European countries became industrialized and England basically sat down, sat down high but still sat down.

>>2836842
>The greatest engineers
>The greatest philosophers
The Germans would like a word with you

>>2836897
I think if you only take issue with one and a half of those - you've proven my point.

>>2831246
Common Law tradition.

>>2833049
He is correct. Most people learn English because of the US's cultural dominance of the world.

>Rich island chain with plenty of metal and all the goods needed for industrial output
>Managed to unify all its neighbors
>Had a navy to defend it from any land invasion
>Tradition of limited government

Those four aspects were pretty damn important. Even the Romans knew that Britain was an immensely rich and tax farmable island.
>>2835042
This is also a big one, after one of the wars (Cant recall which one, since europoors are such warmongers) the English pushed out the Dutch in the slave trade which allowed English maritime fleet capacity to balloon since all slaves traded had to be through british ships. This would allow Britain to maintain their colonies all over the world, since they could handle high volume trade back and forth from the colonies.

>Britian was so great it manged to out-industrialize out-colonilianize everyone else
>why? because they were the first to industrialize and had the greatest colonial empire

the circular reasoning in this thread pisses me off.

>>2833057
>being this much of an amerifat
Right so britain colonzing and administrating those countries for decades or even centruries was less effective as America having good export and GDP.
Also
>Making a claim with percentage numbers without a citation
kys

>>2836842
They really aren't special. It's just that (at least at one point in time) a massive amount of people spoke English, and therefore there's obviously more chance for great people to have the English language. Aside from that, most of the stuff you mentioned is debatable.

>>2839021
>Right so britain colonzing and administrating those countries for decades or even centruries was less effective as America having good export and GDP.
Exactly.Britain just control 1 city in every country of the Brittish """empire""".America controls the global economy and entretainment.The Brittish empire was useless.

>>2831246
Guranteed replies

>>2834284
Lots of skilled artizan and metal workers who were significantly cheaper to employ than on the continent.
London using up all its wood supply whuch lead to the coal industry.
Higher life expectancy and income per person than most of the continent.
Ability to promote mercantalist policy through its strong navy, which was reinforced from men who learned their trade transporting coal form the north.
Those are the main reasons.

>>2836842
>The greatest dramatists, poets and novelists
That would be Ireland
>The greatest engineers and innovators
Germans and Americans
>The most formidable Military men and minds
Germans and Americans
>The greatest philosophers
Germans and French
>The greatest Historians
I guess? Is that even an accomplishment
>The most distinguished scientists (of all disciplines)
Again Germany mostly then America
They are a special people insofar as they were the first to industrialise and leveraged this into a great empire.

>>2831246
australia and nzs antarctica arnt reflected upon this img op.

to answer you: mercantilism

>>2831246
Hiding in their island and doing proxy wars

>>2839205
holdings*

>>2839211
also this and industrialisation

>>2839204
>That would be Ireland

>>2839204
>>The most formidable Military men and minds
> Americans
R U serious?

>>2839204
The smell of yank on this post

>>2839223
Joyce, Wilde, Yeats, Heaney
All you have is fucking Shakespeare.
>>2839225
Yeah fair enough that one is abit dumb but the English certainly aren't better

File: peperesigned.png (1KB, 186x170px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 186x170px

>>2836819
>the UK had to wrest control of [Gibraltar] (no easy feat) and a bunch of other islands just to make [their] presence there viable
I was talking in the context of exposure to technology not military conquest. Why do you assume that is the only thing we're talking about here?

>>2831246
>British
You mean the English. The rest of Britain contributed fuck-all to the Empire except manpower and starvation.

>>2839297
Shakespeare
Dickens
Orwell
Bacon
Conan Doyle
Tolkien
Carroll
Lewis

This is naming a few, mind you.

>>2839509
>You mean the English. The rest of Britain contributed fuck-all to the Empire except manpower and starvation.
Most of the colonization was done by Scots,Irish and Welsh.And I am pretty sure that Scots contributed a lot proportionally to their size

>>2839522
>Shakespeare
Overrated fuck
>Dickens
J.K.Rowling without a pussy
>Orwell
le dumb commie with shit writting style
>Bacon
muh essays
>Conan Doyle
le cunning detective man
>Tolkien
le dwarfs lmao
>Carroll
muh shit mathematician with le crappy story telling
>Lewis
muh bible
LMAO even Poland has more serious literature than that

>>2839536
>Most of the colonization was done by Scots,Irish and Welsh.
The Scots couldn't even colonize Panama, and the Irish colonized New York at best.
England and her sons fought the wars, sent the missions and built the forts that granted Britain rule over a quarter of the known world.

>>2839551
>i'll just list personal reasons why i don't like these authors

'le cunning detective man' and 'muh essays' aren't even arguments

>>2839566
>England and her sons fought the wars, sent the missions and built the forts
>what are the Scottish regiments
Kek.Most elite trops of the UK were Scottish or welsh as English suck at war

>>2839551
>Overrated fuck
kk settle down there shaw

>>2839662
>This is what Celts actually believe

>>2839820
Nigie we kicked your ass all the time.And we founded the empire.Ian Smith,Hume,Watt or Maxwell amongst others.The Brittish empire was quintessentially Scottish

File: battle of Roslin.png (51KB, 323x553px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 323x553px

>>2839881

>it's a wikipedia battles thread

>>2835211
You don't need to count niggers. Krauts are only 20 of our population. Brits are 13%, so are micks. And so are "Americans," who are all Scots who settled Appalachia. Most "Americans" are, anyway.
Combined, and I would combine them, since they're all close enough, to me, we're likely 35%~ British. It was even larger, back in the generations when we took the world stage, and we can always take spics and niggers out of the count, since they never accomplished anything.
My point is, British Americans built this country.
We kept what we liked of the British legal system, took away what we didn't, and ended up with a great one.
>>2835240
I'm fucking American. I literally have a direct link to the Mayflower(Though at least 10% of Americans probably do.)

>>2839021
That's not an American. Probably a butthurt frog.
He can't even properly use the tongue.

>>2839566
This is like arguing over whether te cities or the country contributed more to a country. They both did. They worked together.
The people comfortable with a small life lived in small towns and provided food and materials to the country, which made their way to where they were needed. The people who wanted to be known went to the city and contributed more abstract things to the Empire, like science, art, leadership, Etc.
Don't be an ass. All Brits are practically the same, genetically, anyway. The only difference is culture, and now they all speak English and wear pants.

>>2831246
British are the most intelligent, inventive and organized races in Europe. I would say only rivaled by Germans. These traits combined with being an island and having access to the sea allowed them to spread their culture through out the world and build an effective war machine.

>Anglos think if english is linga franca is because of their "empire"

>>2831246
British are the most intelligent, inventive and organized race in Europe. I would say only rivalled by Germans. This combined with their island status and access to the ocean allowed them to conquer, spread their culture through out the world and build an effective war machine.

>>2839522
I mean if you want cheap, low-brow entertainment for the masses I guess thats alright. Still nothing compared to Joyce's novels, Wilde's dramas, or Yeats poetry, all of which fundamental redefined how we view and use the English language.

sorry, it said the captcha failed so i rewrote

>>2834318
t.mad Nedercuck

>>2834852
lmao

>>2839039
>American exceptionalism intensifies
>What is Pax Britannica
>What is the British Raj
>What is the commonwealth
>What is ruling a quarter of the world population
America's cultural borders probably covers the whole globe, and US companies have products found in every country. But you are a fool if you think the majority of english-speakers in non-english speaking country chose english primarily just for good business opportunities and not because in most of those countries a whole generation lived and died under British rule.
I can't believe someone can tell themselves that if Britain had never formed any overseas territories except the thirteen colonies, English would be just as prevalent worldwide as it is today.

>>2840654
Many of those places rip the Brits systems 1:1 with barely any alterations to fit local sensibilities or needs.

>>2840665
I'm sorry but I don't think I really understand the argument that you're trying to put forward here?
British territories used British systems that weren't suited to local need?

Anglos rule the world.

>>2831246

Successful at what? Destroying this world? Creating suffering? Only Germany comes close.

t. Hans

>>2839297

>Joyce, Wilde, Yeats

>born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

>>2841230
>United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
>Great Britain AND Ireland
Jees i wonder if these people born in Ireland are British

>>2841295
>British Isles
It could be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Little Britain, and surrounding Britains, but that'd be a mouth full.

>>2841320
>Doesn't know little Britain refers to Brittany or Wales
How stupid can English people be?

>>2841334
I'm not English. I'm American.
My point is, Ireland is a British Isle. So those from Ireland are British.
They the same, genetically, and now they all speak English and act English, so they might as well be considered the same group, even if they, historically, weren't. Especially so back when they were also a single country.

>>2839297
>Joyce, Wilde, Yeats, Heaney
>...Sessions

File: 9670E445-CE89-4B11-8161-15E6489A91C9-924-000001477BBF81ED_tmp.png (235KB, 1032x1478px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1032x1478px

>this thread

>>2841359
First point fuck off with your meme fucking genetics, no one outside of America gives a flying fuck about genetics. Also Irish are Celts, Britain are not, two completely different cultures not that someone who believes in "white culture" could grasp such a challenging topic.
So we previously established that the British don't refer to the Irish as British, The Irish don't refer to the Irish as British, only mongoloid unionists and retarded yanks are dumb enough
not to grasp this distinction. By your logic half of south america is Spanish and the other half is Portuguese. Finally the British Isles is a defunct geological term not used by any government or institution.
So to summarise, don't stick your spastic Yank nose into topics that are clearly above your intellect and outside your knowledge. Now fuck off and go complain about how the darkies are ruining your country.

>>2841404
Go back to fucking your potatoes.
Micks are genetically and culturally British, speaking the same language, having the same customs, and, for a long time, being ruled by the same government, as all of the other British people.
I'm not some semantic-sputtering European, so I'm just saying the facts. Micks are British.
What even is your argument?
P.S. Ireland belongs to the Queen.

>>2841452
>MICKS ARE ENGLISH REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Not culturally the same, not the same customs either, if you had ever been outside your ignorant retard nation you would know that. Yeah we were ruled over by the Brits for along time, what is Algeria French now? Of coarse not stop blindly falling into every single stereotype about the obese burger.
Go fuck your cousin to protect muh white race

>>2841478
Tell me about Irish culture.
What is it? Make sure it's distinct from any similar British culture.
P.S. Potatoes aren't culture, and everyone has them. Neither is beer, and neither is writing done in English that, if you didn't know the author, could easily be assumed to have been written by an Englishman.

>>2841507
Do you realise how retarded you sound right now? Do you lack all self-awareness? Ireland has its own sports, music, literature, cuisine, religion, political system, value system, nationalism, language, even the Irish accent and dialect is completely distinguished from regular English.
Your just such le typical retard American who tries to speak about topics that they have absolutely no knowledge of. Like if your entire world view wasn't predicated on protecting your nonexistant "white European culture and race" you would realise how much complete shite you are talking.

>>2841551
STOP REPLYING TO HIM.
Yes I know you want to correct him and try to be informative but that never works. Let him stew in his own shitpost and ignore him.

>>2841584
Its fun to feed the trolls though.

>>2841551
>sports,
Football, rugby, and cricket, right?
>music,
Anything unique that most people actually listen to? I don't mean historical shanties, but stuff the average mick listens to.
>literature,
Is there anything that's really unique of Irish literature, though? Any tell-tale signs that what you're reading is another Irish classic?
>cuisine,
Like what? I slightly differently prepared version of sheep spleen?
>religion,
>political system,
I'll give you these, though they aren't super "Irish unique." Both are from other places.
>value system,
What?
>nationalism,
Everyone has nationalism. The differences between different nationalism amount to the different flags.
>language,
That 2% of people actually speak.
>even the Irish accent and dialect is completely distinguished from regular English.
It's still English.

I don't disagree that Ireland used to be unique. It used to be its own culture. But that's no longer the case. LARPing as your ancestors by learning a few of their words and listening to recreations of their shanties isn't really distinct culture.
And can you stop insisting that I'm some Southern Nazi? I'm from the Great Lakes area, and a pretty standard independent voter.

>>2841591
So, you feed a troll by playing into him? It's clear you're extremely butt-bothered. Perhaps because it hits a bit close to home?

>>2841616
>Sports
Gaelic, Hurling. See the way you have never heard of these games. Thats because you are a retard American who has no idea what he is talking about.
>Music
The wolfe tones, Clancey Brothers, Dubliners for more trad, Imelda May is more modern.
>Literature
Yes there is lots of distinct Irish literature, its subject matter tone and use of language is uniquely Irish not that you would understand that.
>Cuisine
Lots of traditional Irish food customs and alcohol that are different from Britain. See Irish beef, stews and to be as stereotypical as possible the prevalence of the common spud.
>Value Systems
Ireland is far more economicaly left wing and conservative and liberal in distinct ways from the British. Again you would have to not be an ignorant yank and actually know something about the histories and cultures of the place you are talking about to undestand this.
>Nationalism
Irish nationalism is very distinct from British nationalism, one being grounded in far right lust for a return of the empire, the other a left win struggle from opression and freedom.
>language
ALll Irish students learn Irish in schools, while many can't barely speak a word of it it still effects the national carachter.
These are continuous traditions so its hardly LARPing, its simply continuing traditions which have been passed down through the generations.
>Accent and dialect
Still distinct and different, alot more so then you think, because again you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
See why its a good idea to have even the faintest flying fuck about a topic before discussing it.
>B-But Pa, you told me europe had a common identity, is my whole world outlook a lie.
>No Billybob its the European thats wrong

>>2841701
I still believe that you'd be better off united.
But I'm willing to learn more. Do you have any books to learn about this Irish culture?
As long as you stop your dumb bullshit American Southern stereotypes.
Also, you should learn not to get so upset.

>>2841726
Listen to the music.
Dubliners: traditional Irish music big in the 50s-70s but still very popular today. Here is a good song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuafmLvoJow
The words are taken from a famous Irish poet.

The wolfe tones are very rebelious, very anti English. They sing IRA songs mostly. They would have been at their peak during the troubles, which was the insurgency fought in northern Ireland form the 60s till the 90s. A few songs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM7ltlq_lbM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORifieiZiP4
Our culture and history is closely related to our music so it should give you a general idea. Of coarse these are more traditional and Ireland has changed alot in the last 20.

File: napoleon-1er.jpg (160KB, 625x952px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 625x952px

Not so fast, kiddo.

File: laughing pepe.jpg (18KB, 248x189px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 248x189px

>>2839204
>Goes on /his/
>asks: Is good history an accomplishment?
haha, I don't even know why I feel obliged to respond when you've already made this exhibition of stupidity.
All of these are laughable, even if Germany and the USA were one country they'd still only just compete with the historical output in all the aforementioned categories.
Provide examples for them please, I honestly can't wait.

>>2839297
ALL WE HAVE IS SHAKESPEARE! FUCKING KEK!
Milton, Dryden, Wilmot, etc.
...The Romantics
>Doesn't enjoy prosody.
>Thinks the Irish are the best at it.
Checks out desu
>>2839492
>I was talking in the context of exposure to technology not military conquest. Why do you assume that is the only thing we're talking about here?
You said being close to the Med was a cause for it's success. The Gibraltar strait is 9 miles on a good day, British ships would have to pass France's, Spain's & Portugal's entire Atlantic coasts to even get to the very defensible and singular entrance to the med.
>I was talking in the context of exposure to technology
Britain wasn't "exposed" to technology though. Think of all the advances actual Mediterranean cultures had to draw on or the Islamic world, or China or India. Why did these cultures barely, if at all, surpass antiquity in their understandings of the world. The UK isn't a historical centre of learning, it's just not - the reason it became one is a result of all the unsurpassed geniuses it produces.

>>2841967
I mean you are clearly delusional if you don't think Yeats is the best poet of the 20th century and arguably in history

>>2841996
>You are clearly delusional if you don't like the things I like.
I don't hate Yeats (The Cloths of Heaven is good) but very few people would say he's the greatest poet in history!
Even if he was (he's not), he's one individual and he's Anglo-Irish hailing from the Protestant Ascendancy. Perhaps he's the greatest poet of the 20th century but this is not a century known for it's wealth of poetry.

I hope you're not the anon who said:
>All you have is fucking Shakespeare.
Shakespeare is a roaring titan, a god in literature universally recognized, Goethe paid fealty to him -
>"Once I had read an entire play, I stood there like a blind man given the gift of sight by some miraculous healing touch."
I didn't address how absurd this was, I thought it would just make more sense to demonstrate that even without Shakespeare the British (probably even the English) poetic pantheon would be stronger than any other nations.
Honestly I'd bet money Yeats would agree with this. England's Elizabethan poets brought English prosody to parity with the the Romans and the Greeks, it's the only extant tradition in this category.

>>2841967
>the reason it became one is a result of all the unsurpassed geniuses it produces
What would a genius accomplish if they were born an inuit? A better method of tracking whales? A more stable canoe? A stone tipped bone harpoon head? Their accomplishments might be impressive but they aren't going to build the first steam engine or anything. Even the smartest human is still limited by their environment.

Also technology isn't always due to the preponderance of geniuses in a society. Iron for instance only arose after 1000s of years in the bronze age. They discovered arsenic was a substitute for tin and extracted mercury, lead, silver, gold and various other metals and had various alloys of all these, but not iron. It seems like it was discovered in large part due to luck rather than active application of intelligence.

Environment in turn is influenced by technology which may not have originated in that area. Yes, Britain wasn't a center of learning until the 18th century, but it didn't need to be, it was CLOSE (enough) TO THE MEDITERRANEAN to be quickly exposed to any innovations circulating around that giant trade network, these improved its environment and this combined with other factors led to it eventually becoming a more important region and itself becoming a leader in tech.

File: dda.jpg (22KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 540x540px

>>2841952
>the greatest frenchman was an italian

>>2842185
>What would a genius accomplish if they were born an inuit? A better method of tracking whales? A more stable canoe? A stone tipped bone harpoon head?
A lot of consequential British advances were precisely that mundane, peace-meal enhancements to seed drilling, subtle improvements to Naval architecture, gradual refinements of old and frankly primitive practices. It's not as though wisdom arrived from the Med and suddenly London is the capital of the world, there was a long crescendo of homegrown innovation. I'm not going to say they drew no inspiration from other cultures (as this isn't true for anyone) but if the med is so important, why weren't actual Mediterranean cultures the first to benefit from their own brilliance or the brilliance of their region? Do you think there were Isaac Newtons born to Rome, Genoa or Montpelier who yearned to be in the vibrant and more stimulating environments of war-torn rural Lincolnshire?
There are dozens of societies with better access to the Med.

>Even the smartest human is still limited by their environment
Of-course, but that doesn't mean Britain hasn't produced a prodigious amount of innovators, people have this idea that societies are equal and Britain just happens to be a better spawn that was inevitably going to flourish which is absurd.
Britain is not a particularly favorable region and no-one looking at the world a thousand years ago would have assigned much relevance to London, England or GB.

People throw out these immediately refutable claims to downplay the achievements of the British.
>They had better coal
>They have a channel protecting them
>Better waterways
>Proximity to the med
I'm not convinced that the reason the UK accomplished as much as it did is the superiority of the inhabitants but that's honestly a more convincing explanation than the aforementioned.

>>2842348
>Of-course, but that doesn't mean Britain hasn't produced a prodigious amount of innovators, people have this idea that societies are equal and Britain just happens to be a better spawn that was inevitably going to flourish which is absurd.

No one has said that. Britain has a ton of idiots but it just so happens that they have one of the best educational institutes in the world and one of the worlds strongest economies. Also drop that

>people are downplaying Brits achievements bullshit

It's making you look whiny as fuck.Those reasons make great sense.

>>2842379
>It's making you look whiny as fuck.Those reasons make great sense.
Nah you're just a transparent ax grinder m8. Not him btw

>>2842379
>Those reasons make great sense.
Hilarious.

>>2832352
Who the fuck has listened to anything from Germany in the last 50 years?

>>2842450
99 luftballoons is the pinnacle of human artistic expression

>>2836842
I challenge you to think of anything that Britain contributed to the rest of the world before 1500 except
- Beowulf
- The Arthur legends
- Duns Scotus and WIlliam of Ockham, wow

Basically Britons were the noble savages of Europe before 1500. They were an island nation, so big surprise they had ships. The English managed to massacre most of the Scottish royalty in 1513 and then they had an incredible stroke of luck in 1588 when the Spanish Armada failed.
That left them with basically no credible opponents in Europe, lots of ships, and open lines of transportation with North America.

>>2842572
>and then they had an incredible stroke of luck in 1588 when the Spanish Armada failed.
>That left them with basically no credible opponents in Europe, lots of ships, and open lines of transportation with North America.
Spain still had a way vigger fleet than England until Dunes which was a Dutch victory. And the Dutch had a bigger fleet than England from their creation until the first years of the XVIII century

Why can't Americans distinguish between 'English' and 'British'?

>>2842572
Magna carta and Robin Hood you stupid tosser

File: Guffaw Pepe.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>2842572
Fundamentally different discussion isn't it?
The overwhelming majority of Britain's accomplishments are modern, why have I got to omit everything that happened after 1500?
But i'll bite,
>The Venerable Bede?
>Old St Paul's Cathedral in London (Construction in the 13th century) was the tallest building ever built, beating the Great Pyramid's millenniums old record. Lincoln Cathedral was built 35 feet taller, again breaking the record, a record that endured well into the 1500s.
>
>Could add a lot more Scholastic heavyweights but it's funny you're not impressed by Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. Roger Bacon is probably some hack nobody too huh?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_folklore
>Geoffrey Chaucer
>The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Domesday Book, the Magna Carta...
>1185, Earliest record of the use of Windmills in Europe (Yorkshire, England). Pretty auspicious desu.
>Common law? not impressive no? hahaha, you challenged me to think of anything...
>Habeas Corpus
In short, get fucked!

>noble savages of Europe before 1500
Hahaha

> they had an incredible stroke of luck
KEK i forgot to add this to the list >>2842348
>They had better coal
>They have a channel protecting them
>Better waterways
>Proximity to the med
>They were incredibly lucky
>REEEE THEY'RE JUST BETTER BUT I CAN'T ADMIT IT WAAAH WAAAH

I have lost all respect for Britain and British people thanks to this garbage board.

>>2843024
Brits have constructed their entire national identity on historical delusions and a laughably unwarranted sense of self-importance. They're faced every day with the reality of their mediocrity, so circle-jerking in places like this is their only comfort.

It's sad to look at but I just leave them be. What else can you do.

>>2843024
>>2843042
Funny, I lost all sense of respect for Frogs from this board, since you're all so butthurt about Britain.

Posts like this just prove that /his/ hasn't moved on since Gibbon. Of course there wasn't a genetic or cultural reason for their success. It was the industrial revolution.

>>2843402
>this pathetic obsession with France

>>2843427
The reason France is permanently on their minds is that Britain is just a cheap knockoff of France, and has always failed in its one goal which was to surpass France in anything.

Just imagine being a britcuck, which means for example that you're almost certainly monolingual, and so you can't even utter a single sentence or even formulate a single thought in your head without paying homage to your French colonial overlords who created your language. Now add to that the knowledge that France isn't some long dead ancient civilisation, but still exists and prospers right across the Channel, continues to be superior to your crummy island in every way, and that the descendants of the Frenchmen who conquered your country still own it to this day, while you continue to bow and scrape for them like all your ancestors have for a thousand years in an eternal cycle of impotent submission and servitude.

It's no wonder they use any time they can get posting anonymously on the internet to try to make themselves feel better.

>>2837181
Germans also have among their number some of the greatest military minds, writers and musicians (or composers I guess) ever as well.

>>2843464
Clearly, you're the one escaping onto the internet to feel good, froggy.
While Britain and its best buddy, the US, continue being the greatest powers on this planet, you'll be scrounging for Germany's scraps. Have fun in the Four- oops, I mean, the EU.

>>2836842
The only thing you have the greatest of is delusion. You realize the rest of the world is laughing at you, right?

You're maybe the fourth most relevant country out of five in Western Europe, and you hope to make up for your mediocrity with all this pathetic boasting.

>>2831246
Probably the fact that they were Frenchmen who roleplayed as Britons.

>>2843475
>becoming the cumguzzling cocksleeve of your former colony just to try to claim some of its relevance
>everyone I don't like is French

You're not our "best buddy" you delusional bong, nobody here gives a shit about you toothless little shits. The closest you'll ever be to being a "great power" is being our aircraft carrier, and you know it which is why you're such obedient poodles.

>>2843483
>You're maybe the fourth most relevant country out of five in Western Europe
What is this delusion? Both Russia,France and Germany have been way less relevant than Britain. And I would put the Brits above Spain/Portugal. So obejectively it would be something like
1)Italy (as the geographical region)
2) Britain
3)The iberian peninsula
4)Germany
5)France
6)Russia

File: smug finn.jpg (54KB, 452x570px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 452x570px

>>2843499
>this is what bongistanis actually believe

>>2843499
*cringes*

>>2843499
In arts, Britain is inferior to France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain
In sciences and engineering, Britain is inferior to France and Germany
In philosophy and literature, Britain is inferior to Germany, France, and Italy, maybe about on par with Spain
In military achievements, Britain is inferior to France, Germany, and Spain

The one single thing you have to be proud of is shooting a lot of naked stone age savages and taking their land, because you were too beta to compete with European powers on the European continent.

>>2843531
Britain started the industrial revolutiom which is more important than anything a bunch of French fedoras have ever accomplished.

>>2843531
>In sciences and engineering, Britain is inferior to France and Germany
wrong

>>2843537
>more shitty bong memes

Do you even know what the "industrial revolution" is? It's the direct consequence of the Scientific Revolution, you know the one that was an actual accomplishment and the one that actually changed the world. The only reason the "industrial revolution" began in England is because the Frenchman who invented the steam engine migrated there because he was a Huguenot, and because Britain had a huge amount of human cattle (aka British "people") ready to mindlessly die for the profit of a few industrialists.

>>2843531
>In sciences and engineering, Britain is inferior to France and Germany
>geology is based off the works of brits.

>>2843552
So James Watt was a Huguenot? Kek French men are so jealous of our accomplishments. Keep tipping your fedora while reading Rousseau pal

>>2843557
>one (1) science
>possibly the most irrelevant one at that

>>2843569
You probably also think Steve Jobs invented the phone, right?

>>2843576
You can believe your conspiracy theories pal. The Romans and the Spaniards also have their autistic claims for the steam machine and their claim is way older than your claim. Kek keep dreaming fedora autist

>>2843569
>>2843583
Wait bongs actually believe they invented the steam engine?

>>2843583
>if I say it enough it will become true!

>>2843587
Anything before Thomas Newcomen is pure fedoratry

>>2843024
>>2843464
>>2843587
I actually think these are Canadians

>>2843595
Nobody who isn't a complete retard claims Newcomen invented the steam engine.

>>2843591
The first patent was obtained by a Spaniard. But the first functional designs were obtained by Englishmen

>>2843606
>The use of boiling water to produce mechanical motion goes back over 2000 years, but early devices were not highly practical. The Spanish inventor Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont obtained a patent for a rudimentary steam-powered water pump in 1606.[2] In 1698 Thomas Savery patented a steam pump that used steam in direct contact with the water being pumped. Savery's steam pump used condensing steam to create a vacuum and draw water into a chamber, and then applied pressurized steam to further pump the water.

>Thomas Newcomen's atmospheric engine was the first commercial true steam engine using a piston, and was used in 1712 for pumping in a mine. They became popular for mining and 104 were in use by 1733, eventually over two thousand of them were installed.[3]
Stop tipping your fedora lad

File: 1491153409448.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 562x437px

>>2843531

>being this butt-blasted

>>2843608
The steam engine was invented by a Frenchman named Denis Papin.

None of your autistic bong revisionism is going to change that.

>>2843620
>The steam engine was invented by a Frenchman named Denis Papin.
Kek. This delusion. Even the Jeronimo lad has a better claim. Stop your tipping

>>2843624
>REEEEEEEEE FROGS STOP INVENTING THINGS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Nice autism you sperglord.

>>2843620

James Watt patented a steam engine based off the work of Thomas Newcomen, who based his work off Thomas Savery and Denis Papin. Claiming the steam engine as a French creation because of one Frenchman in a long line of British inventors that produced the steam engine is pretty fucking retarded you little autismo

Successful at what? Taking shitholes from primitive natives? Well that's mostly because they sucked so hard at warfare that they kept getting rekt whenever they tried to fight another European country, so they didn't have any options but to pick on monkeys instead.

>Is it the genes?
... that made bongs so shit at fighting and at everything else? I mean, probably. Having a foreign upper class only gets you so far when your native people are so irredeemably inferior.

>>2843637
You do know what invention means right? It's not an invention if someone else already invented it.

>Frenchman invents steam engine
>a long line of Brits then builds different versions of that steam engine
>WE WUZ STEAM ENGINE AND SHIET

File: very droll.png (189KB, 245x279px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 245x279px

A lot of French criticism of Britain here. Perhaps it helps soothe the pain they feel over the fact Britain, a wet and windy archipelago inhabited by [apparently] semi-retarded subhumans, became far wealthier, powerful and important than they ever were, with Anglo-Saxon culture becoming the global norm. We also hear a lot on this board about Britain's colonial legacy, yet strangely very little about the even more barbaric approach of the French in their African and Asian territories. Why is that? I guess massacring tribespeople for disobedience doesn't fit with the image of liberté, égalité et fraternité that they like to peddle, as they try and convince the world that Britain was unique in trying to grow wealthy off its colonies (as if there's any other reason to have one) whilst le français altruistically spread haute couture and liberty at gunpoint.

Silly me, I forgot they held a few European cities for a decade. How impressive.
I await the mockery about how Britain should be ashamed of the fact they were allied with the Prussians when they captured France's greatest historical figure and shipped him off to die on the grey slopes of a South Atlantic volcano.

Guffaw!

>>2843651

Thomas Savery patented the first industrially used steam engine while Papin was busy fucking around with experimental models. If I have an idea for something, then someone else turns a similar idea into an actual useful invention does that mean I invented it? Of course it fucking doesn't. You're shitty memes aren't going to make you right

File: Niall Ferguson.jpg (34KB, 235x563px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 235x563px

>>2843687
Why engage these people? Without the ingenuity of British people, mankind would be centuries behind in its medicine, science and technology. We all know that.

You are seeing why nobody likes the French; much like Afrocentrists, it is not enough for them to take pride in themselves. They need to either denigrate or wrongly-claim the achievements of everyone else too.

>>2843687
One is an inventor, the other is a salesman.

How typical of an Anglo that you would value only egotistical profit.

>>2843706

in 1698 Thomas Savery patented:
>"A new invention for raising of water and occasioning motion to all sorts of mill work by the impellent force of fire, which will be of great use and advantage for draining mines, serving towns with water, and for the working of all sorts of mills where they have not the benefit of water nor constant winds."

That is, an invention distinct from Papin's

>How typical of an Anglo that you would value only egotistical profit.

Oh boy, here we go. Savery had the sense to patent his invention and apply it to industry. Papin didn't. How is that a bad thing?

>>2843720
Papin invented the steam engine. Savery attached it to a pump. He didn't invent the steam engine, he "invented" a steam-powered pump.

>How is that a bad thing?
It's not but it doesn't make him the fucking inventor of the steam engine any more than Bill Gates invented the computer.

File: mfw.png (972KB, 513x810px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 513x810px

>>2843741
>Papin invented the steam engine. Savery attached it to a pump. He didn't invent the steam engine, he "invented" a steam-powered pump
kek

>>2843627
You are just appropiating stuff lad. Pretty pathetic

File: 1805plumpud.jpg (250KB, 1087x800px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1087x800px

>>2842348
>A lot of consequential British advances were precisely that mundane, [piece]-meal enhancements to seed drilling, subtle improvements to Naval architecture, gradual refinements of old and frankly primitive practices.
Even if Britain was a powerhouse of innovation in the middle ages I find it unlikely that the majority would originate there due to simple numbers. They had a population of 3 to 6 million out of 100+ million in Europe so all things being equal you would expect 5%, they would need to be super geniuses with 10 times more innovations despite being a bit of a backwater at the time.

>why weren't actual Mediterranean cultures the first to benefit from their own brilliance or the brilliance of their region?
They did, northern Italy with its cooler wetter plains benefited from the agricultural revolution of the middle ages and Italian city states rivaled and later usurped Byzantium as the trading center of the Mediterranean. They had an apparent technological advantage during the renaissance up until the Italian wars and the Dutch renaissance.

>war-torn rural Lincolnshire
Britain wasn't constantly war torn. Roger Bacon did good.

>There are dozens of societies with better access to the Med.
There are other factors besides Med access and Britain didn't need excellent access to merely be exposed to tech.

>Britain just happens to be a better spawn that was inevitably going to flourish which is absurd.
The window was quite narrow. Spain had a massive initial advantage in colonies but still environmental factors meant it couldn't compete with its northern neighbors in terms of industry in the long run. So in terms of the merits of particular nations it is only really fair to look at the rivalry between countries with similar environments, the rivalry between France and Britain mainly, possibly including the Netherlands and northern Germany at a stretch.

>Thread has devolved into patent sperging
Reminder that the US was single-handedly industrialised and lifted out of the swamp by stealing from, lying to and spying on England, look up Samuel Slater (as in 'Slater the Traitor') or Francis Lowell. The Germans at least had the courtesy to ask for help, far more than you can say for the Americans.

>>2842348
>no-one looking at the world a thousand years ago
That was before the medieval population boom and intensification of agriculture.

>They had better coal
>Better waterways
I am skeptical of these as well.

>They have a channel protecting them
>Proximity to the med
However I am going to have to insist on these being very relevant. The channel has always been a huge obstacle. For a long time the Netherlands was a center of manufacturing while England sold wool to it to be weaved for them, by all means the industrial revolution should have began there. In fact Belgium trailed England closely during the industrial revolution as evidenced by its dense rail network in the early years of rail. However the Netherlands had to engage in massive land wars with the Habsburgs and later Louis XIV and France and needed an enormous military. After the glorious revolution much trade moved to London.

Proximity to the med meant tech and meant Britain and Europe had a bit of an advantage over the more isolated India and China.

>>2834371
>After the "glorious revolution" much business moved across the channel to London which was under less pressure thus Britain became the center of this economic region which was itself one of the most densely populated in Europe, though in tough competition from France. Perhaps this is why Louis XIV commented "I was too fond of war"

So the economic liberalism which developed through medieval property rights and rule of law, developed in the English Civil war, the restoration, the Glorious Revolution, the establishment of the Bank of England, the Bill of Rights in 1689 which allowed capitalism and free trade to dominate England while France was protectionist, AND all the other institutional particularities of England, were ALL of them CAUSED by geography? this is only resolved through circular logic, by assuming that all institutions are products of geography because it is assumed that geography determines destiny.

It takes a special kind of autism to reduce human history to geography. It also takes a special sort of baseness and philistinism to rob mankind of his achievements, reducing history to a deterministic mechanical system outside of man. A cowardice too, since history as culture, history as great men of action, is a road to reactionary thinking which most people are too craven to travel down...

This thread is gold.

I think /his/ is the official /comedy/ board now.

t. anglo-canuck

It's probably their genes. I went to an international high school and all my teachers were tall, fair british intellectuals. They must be a master race somehow

File: 1446858464828.png (204KB, 3952x4200px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 3952x4200px

>>2842216
>The Greatest Anglo King's achievement is kicking out raiders
>they called him "The Great" for that

>England has had French Kings longer then it has had Anglo Kings

File: Codex Amiatinus 1.jpg (304KB, 1475x2052px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1475x2052px

>>2845195
>implying he wasn't the great because he was an incredibly pious man who implemented legal and education systems that benefited all citizens
>implying that william the conqueror isn't the only english or british (post-1707) monarch not to be a descendant of alfred the great

>>2845237
>>implying that william the conqueror isn't the only english or british (post-1707) monarch not to be a descendant of alfred the great
Compared to Frances 987–1792 House of Capet.

>>2831270
"The British" aren't even a people.

"Britain" is a myth made up by English elites to justify imperialism with in the British Isles. "The British" are mainly just the English, and most English people are cunts.

>>2845264
>dude no bastards
Laughing irl

I'm starting to think the French in /his/ meme might have some truth to it. The only two nations you can't discuss reasonably or dispassionately on this board are the Germans and the British, it just devolves immediately into shit-flinging and extreme invective. Does that not strike anyone as a bit of a coincidence?

>>2845264
>Spanish dinasty
>Attt least it is cadet branch of the Capet.Right guys?
LMAO enjoy your Navarrese dinasty loser

>>2845278
French dick riding in this board is obnoxious and cringy.

Largest Navy after NW
First to go full capitalism
First to industrialise
A good national ethos and spirit

>>2833164
>They speak english because the US

And the US speaks English because of Britain. Checkmate atheists

>>2845283
>Largest Navy after NW
Before WWII.
Also, what is "full capitalism"?

>>2839204

>The greatest engineers and innovators
Germans and Americans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_innovations_and_discoveries

>>2843464

>has always failed in its one goal which was to surpass France in anything

The British Empire was three times larger than the French Empire. Jean-Pierre please go

>>2834852
>>2832352
The Who
Pink Floyd
Iron Maiden
Black Sabbath
The Beatles
Rolling stones
Queen

And that's just rock bands really. Britain is a pioneer in many other genres. Name a single band that has as much of a reputation as one of these bands, from another country other than America

>>2843574
>geology
>irrelevant

You just typed that into a computer that was made of out of materials extracted from the earth, in a building made out of materials extracted from the earth, which might well be powered by materials extracted from the earth.

File: 1491785270548.png (691KB, 910x900px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 910x900px

>>2843652

Excellent post.

>>2845279
Enjoy your Germans and Frenchman who have no connection to your dynasty or Kingdom.

>>2843652
>with Anglo-Saxon culture becoming the global norm.
Letting Foreigners fuck you and your woman truly is the height of Anglo culture, you are right.

>>2843652
Great post.

One of the parts I love most about British history is the moment when louis XIV's troops were defeated by the Duke of Marlborough in 1707, and louis was in total shock that he had been beaten by the English, a territory considered a backwater, and then over the next 120 years, England would slowly grow greater than France and restore its prestige.

File: furst-6.jpg (31KB, 470x318px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 470x318px

>>2845435
weak post

france has had its women fucked by literally all of its neighbours at some point

>>2845447
France actually has land borders with their neighbors. England somehow lets itself get culturally enriched while only having Scotland as a neighbor.

>>2835224
Reparations are overdue

>>2845455
>what are airplanes

>>2845465
I'm sure the Normans and Vikings mastered air flight, I mean how else could they have reached America first?

>>2845491
You do understand the Normans weren't exactly natives to France either?

>>2845455
It's almost as if a Channel isn't defensible until standing navies are developed in the 18th century.

File: Keep_on_Truckin.jpg (80KB, 920x300px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 920x300px

From the long-term point of view, I believe that the biggest advantage of UK, compared to any other country, was the littlest Ouroboros effect.

Genes : Celts, Romans, Vikings, French (considered negative gene pool), Saxons, Angles... that may sound all great, but which country does not have diversity-rich gene pool? Nothing extra spotted here, IMO.

Island - being on an island is usually only short term prosperity scenario - would not fit into the "many centuries upper-hand"

Unity ... not truly spotted (literally any corner of UK pretty much hates all other corners.. to the death). Nope, no true unity.

Wider integrity: UK did show the middle finger to Vatican and any wanna-be empire. This kind of rebellion can be spotted on cultural/religious/commercial sphere. Unless we are prone to believe in some unknown grey government that may have took roots and it never was revealed, there is little to none of integrity tying UK to other countries. (it is said that blood of the royal family goes down to Vikings-occupied Normandy or Frank/German royalty, but not true friendliness surfaced). No integrity proven.

Cruel leadership and heavy punishment of rebellion/disobey? This can be found in any country through the history.

But the Ouroboros effect was pretty weak with UK through the history.
Naval domination : Portuguese pirate -> beheaded. UK pirate :"good job, mate!"
Revolution: French king -> beheaded, UK king : NWM mate, please proceed...
Internal struggle: Middle Europe -> defenestration. UK "ow, someone wanted blow us up ... let's take a day off, shall we?"
Losing battles: pretty much any other country -> shame on you losers!. UK:"ehm, you did well sir and your glorious retreat surely had to strike fear into hearts of those winning pussies. Here, take this medal!"

While any other country (European or not) did literally enjoy eating it's own children, when chaos followed up... UK somehow always kept on truckin' + learned from mistakes.

>>2845534
i can't tell if this post admires or hates anglos

File: 1478786076036.jpg (44KB, 342x380px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 342x380px

>>2845555
Because you are stupid dumbass.

>>2845576
no i mean some sounds anti anglo:
>Genes : Celts, Romans, Vikings, French (considered negative gene pool)
>UK:"ehm, you did well sir and your glorious retreat surely had to strike fear into hearts of those winning pussies. Here, take this medal!"
>Unity ... not truly spotted (literally any corner of UK pretty much hates all other corners.. to the death). Nope, no true unity.


and some sounds pro anglo
>UK somehow always kept on truckin' + learned from mistakes.
>Naval domination : Portuguese pirate -> beheaded. UK pirate :"good job, mate!"

>>2831338

This is such bullshit. Most of Britain is coastal or near-coastal. My city was raided continuously until the 19th century. Breton raiders and the French mainly but slave traiders raided the whole region too.

We're just not salty people so we forget about it. The island is only a strong asset if you invest in a strong navy, which we did, and we still got raided until the heyday of the empire. If we weren't an army, it would be a strong army instead.

>>2845663

If we weren't an island*

>>2835211

Something like 50% of American whites are predominantly British if you actually look it up instead of self-reported studies.

8/10 of the most common American names are British, even with all the Hispanic and Black people.

Irish people are both genetically the same as British people and heavily mixed with them through history. "Scots-Irish" are actually mainly from the English/Scottish border, and "American" is almost entirely British/Irish.

White America is substantially more British than people think.

>>2845534

This. Same reason the Romans did so well. I think there's probably a reason phrases like "Don't throw good money after bad" or "Don't cut your nose off to spite your face" are so common here.

File: gaul3.png (3MB, 1148x1744px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1148x1744px

>>2845435
No, that's something we have the French to thank for too. Whilst the late-Victorian and pre-WWII British spread the idea of Christian morality, and encouraged people to pursue individual excellence within the wider civic framework of British Civilisation, the French were mastering the art of selfish degeneracies like drug use and sexual promiscuity. Of course, these things have always occurred in all human societies, but it was the Eternal Gaul who pushed them as a socially acceptable aspect of Western 'liberté' for the first time in nearly 2,000 years. After all, this is the nation that gave us state atheism and proto-communism as early as the 1700s. As a wise man once asked, "if French society is so superior, why do they keep having revolutions?".

Since WWII, the mantle of Head Degenerates has been assumed by the Americans, who presumably learned the basics as soldiers whilst stationed in cities like Paris in the 1940s.

>>2843687
Right of course, that's why no one ever gives Da Vinci any credit for his inventions.

File: SpanishEmpire1790.svg_.png (469KB, 2000x1027px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 2000x1027px

>"were so much more successful than any other European country"

>>2845968
>larger land area
>larger population
>lasted longer

Yeah, British was better.

>>2842760
Magna Carta? Great, influenced a lot of people. All of them after 1500 and all of them in countries eventually conquered by Britain. It was no great accomplishment at the time.
Robin Hood? OK, if you consider any fairy tale to be a contribution to the rest of the world.

>>2842838
Bede was a good regional historian, nothing more. There are his like in many countries.
There were lots of cathedrals being built all around Europe in the Middle Ages. That St. Paul's and Lincoln were briefly the tallest isn't surprising.
Bacon, like Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, are fine but not particularly noteworthy members of the large body of Medieval scholars. We just hear about them more because they were British.
I'll give you Chaucer -- I forgot to include him on my original list.
Regional historical books and law books? Would have had zero influence if not for the fact that Britain after 1500 was successful.

Fact is, if you took a snapshot of Europe in 1500 you would never pick Britain as the one destined to be a dominant power. The equivalent of 4chan at that time would have dismissed them as irrelevant, backwards peasants. "Rome in 50 AD / Britain today" etc.

>>2846000
>larger land area
3/4 th of the British empire was useless wasteland.
>>larger population
And the average GDP per capita of the British empire was around a pound a month
>>lasted longer
1492-1830>>>>>1830-1945
>Yeah, British was better.
Britain wasn't even powerful by European standards. See Crimea

>>2831318
Not a single listenable composer since Purcell tbqhwy

File: IMG_0026.png (13KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 470x313px

>>2831318
Ahem

>>2845278
>thread is bongs being obnoxious and cringy as usual while everyone else laughs at you
>m-muh french

>>2847201
>muh wasteland
So was the Spanish. How many do you think lived in Spanish Peru?

>gdp per fucking capita
That's a dumb measurement of an empire, and the statistic is entirely dragged down by India

>1830
What? British empire began in early 1500's with the taking of newfoundland, ended in 1997.

>britain wasn't even powerful by european standards
>What is being a naval power

>>2847267
Bongs won this thread, mate. The majority of posters here are overwhelmingly pro-bong.

>>2847547
>So was the Spanish. How many do you think lived in Spanish Peru?
The Spanish empire was full of resources and mines.Britain claimed a bunch of empty savannah,cold wastelands and desserts
>That's a dumb measurement of an empire, and the statistic is entirely dragged down by India
It is important to see the impact that those lands had on Britain.They were poor shitholes that relied on British handouts.The Spanish colonies were extremelly wealthy and self-sufficient
>What? British empire began in early 1500's with the taking of newfoundland, ended in 1997.
If you go that way then the Spanish empire started in 1470 with the conquest of the canary islands and ended in 1975 with the lose of the western sahara.Calling XVI England an empire is pure retardation

>>2847207
DId i say composer?

check >>2845370

>>2842572
If, but, maybe.
The list is far more extensive than you name, so feel free to check it out. Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were hugely respected across Europe. If they weren't considered worthy of respect, they wouldn't have intermarried and allied with Frankish kingdoms, etc, would they. In fact, in the wake of Charlemagne's death, peaceful, well-run and culturally-advanced kingdoms like Wessex and Northumbria surpassed them.

Also, you could say the same thing about the French and Spanish. In fact, anybody but the classical Greeks and Romans.

How about looking at Britain's achievements since 1500? Because, without them, we'd be stuck far nearer to that period than the present day.


>Æthelwulf set out for Rome in the spring of 855, accompanied by Alfred and a large retinue.[94] The King left Wessex in the care of his oldest surviving son, Æthelbald, and the sub-kingdom of Kent to the rule of Æthelberht, and thereby confirmed that they were to succeed to the two kingdoms.[25] On the way the party stayed with Charles the Bald in Francia, where there were the usual banquets and exchange of gifts. Æthelwulf stayed a year in Rome,[95] and his gifts to the Diocese of Rome included a gold crown weighing 4 pounds (1.8 kg), two gold goblets, a sword bound with gold, four silver-gilt bowls, two silk tunics and two gold-interwoven veils. He also gave gold to the clergy and leading men and silver to the people of Rome. According to the historian Joanna Story, his gifts rivalled those of Carolingian donors and the Byzantine emperor and "were clearly chosen to reflect the personal generosity and spiritual wealth of the West Saxon king; here was no Germanic 'hillbilly' from the backwoods of the Christian world but, rather, a sophisticated, wealthy and utterly contemporary monarch".[96] According to the 12th-century chronicler William of Malmesbury, he helped to pay for the restoration of the Saxon quarter, which had recently been destroyed by fire, for English pilgrims.[97]

>>2841359
>My point is, Ireland is a British Isle. So those from Ireland are British.
British
ˈbrJtJʃ/
adjective
adjective: British

1.
relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to its people or language.
2.
of the British Commonwealth or (formerly) the British Empire.

noun
plural noun: the British

1.
the British people.

Wrong.