ITT: Things normies believe that annoy you

How the fuck was Britain not the most important world power in 1775?

>>3295469
By not being, you American tard
See the map in the OP?
Take the orange part, add the tiny 13 colonies to that and you have the British "empire" in 1775
Does it look like a global superpower to you?

File: _you_.png (461KB, 870x722px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 870x722px

>>3295459
Excellent b8.
Will be monitoring this thread for stupid replies.

>>3295486
Not an argument

>>3295459
>>Britain had a huge empire and was a superpower during the 18th century

they beat the fucking Dutch and French. Out of any single European state at the period, they were top dog

THIS THREAD WAS MADE BY AN AMERICAN TO MAKE NON AMERICANS LOOK RETARDED
REMEMBER TO SAGE

File: indx.png (83KB, 322x996px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 322x996px

>>3295489
>they beat the fucking Dutch
They had to ally French and Germans for that

>and French
Talking about the French and Indian Wars?
Taking a fucking decade to defeat a French force you outnumber 4 to 1 in America while France is busy fighting a real war in Europe ain't really that impressive
Prussia was the real tough shit of the Seven Years War, taking on Russia, France, Austria and Spain alone

>>3295469

>podts pic of colonies across the world
>not the most important world power

What did he mean by this?

>>3295505
Want to take a look at the Spanish Empire in the same era?
The British Empire was a joke in the 18th century

>>3295518
>>3295502
>>3295459
>A bunch of completely untrained farm boys with no navy take on some of the world's largest professional armies and win
>This is completely unimpressive

>inb4 "French assistance"
The colonists only got that assistance because they had already shown the strength of their forces by encircling the British at Saratoga.

File: RevolutionaryWarsUS.jpg (313KB, 1806x1135px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1806x1135px

>>3295615
>a bunch of peasants, with the help of two European powers stronger than Britain, take on the country with the shittiest land army in Europe

Fixed
Odds were against Britain in that war

By 1775 Britain already had a great naval might and world influence. It's just that full-scale colonization of India, Africa, Australia and Canada didn't come around until Victorian era.Most maps that get posted presenting territorial extent of Britain are from late 19th/early 20th century.

British Empire was at its greatest extent after WW1, when it has acquired Middle East and Palestine.

>>3295459
Jesus fucking Christ get some new material, this shit is old. Are you the same guy that brings this up in every thread about Britain or American culture? Or are there just numerous retards on /his/ determined to shitpost the same point over and over again?

>>3295632
>getting this buttdevasted over the truth

Come on, Nigel

>>3295638
/int/ style shitposting isn't an argument. If you want to believe that's the truth then go ahead, just don't clog up the board with garbage like this when better historical discussion could be taking its place. But it's whatever, clearly you're such a salty cunt about British history that you've taken the time to support the bullshit contrarian views posted in this thread, so I doubt that whatever I say is going to change your mind. Kill yourself

>>3295679
Is that your way to say you agree (or want to believe otherwise but have no arguments to support that)?

>>3295459
That Germany wasn't the main instigator of World War I

>>3295754
>A-H invades Serbia
>somehow this is Germany's fault

>>3295804
The German general staff pressured Austria into invading Serbia

>>3295804
this>>3295808
and Germany declared war on both France and Russia, invaded a neutral Belgium which forced Britain to step in.

>>3295459
The typical
>france was never the GOAT nation it has been throughout history and has always surrendered in big wars.
>france was easily beaten in WWI and WWII and were always faggots that didn't even try to fight the germans
>Rome was this sort of glorious and amazing nation that was totally not filled with degenerate assholes

>>3295808
>>3295818
The Austro-Hungarians didn't HAVE to invade Serbia. And Russia was allied with Serbia, and France was allied with Russia and UIK, so they would have gone to war anyway.

>>3295469
Spain and France were the most important in the 18th Century, then progressively more to France and Austria/Prussia towards the latter half. Britain starts it's route to empire from 1756 onwards, but can only really start to call itself as such in the 19-20th Century.

also don't forget the 'informal empire', literally land we basically owned through regional power projection but didn't administrate ourselves ie. China, South America

>>3295615
>untrained farm boys with access to the greatest drill masters of the 18th century
>fighting against the most neglected part of the british armed forces
>awful politics and generals on britains part
>having the british divert majority of their american forces back to britain for fear of invasion from france/spain
>expecting the british to do well in a guerilla war halfway across the globe
>expecting the British to do well when fighting against the two other superpowers in europe

and you keep on calling us an empire, all we owned was America (which was in revolt), Canada (which was barely settled and had a large french population), and small parts of India. I'm surprised we held on that long against a guerilla force.

you can back us up when we say beating guerillas from halfway across the globe is difficult yeah

>>3295833
They didn't have to, but they did. And Germany supported them.

File: William_Holman_Hunt_-_Selfportrait.jpg (253KB, 845x1200px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 845x1200px

>>3295481
It was though, it's naval architecture was at-least a generation ahead of their closest competitors, they dominated trade routes and gained the financial supremacy that came with it, had an unprecedented command of the high seas, were MUCH further ahead of all other nations industriously (even this early) and though it's not a terribly populated country, the UK had the best provisioned, most efficient and disciplined fighting men.
Being able to fight Mysore, the Dutch republic, the fledgling US and BOTH the french and Spanish empires at once with-out ever being terribly concerned bears witness to there strength in the era.
OP is right about the odds though, the rebels were bound to win eventually with the aforementioned support.
>>3295624
>shittiest land army in Europe
The UK still had hangups about large standing armies and didn't need one because they could cuck those "two European powers stronger than Britain" (what is the Seven Year's War)
That being said, they rarely raised anything larger than expeditionary forces - which was evidently enough to get Napoleon to surrender wasn't it?

>>3295459
>people believed in Flat Earth until Columbus
>Napoleon was evil Hitler-tier dictator
>Europeans were the only devils who were enslaving poor Africans (Islamic trade trade??? What Islamic slave trade???)

>>3295481
You're pretty ignorant of your own history if you are in fact from the UK and this isn't a false flag thread.

>>3295875
>guerilla
>in the American Revolutionary War

No such thing
It was a conventional war that Britain lost to standing armies on the battlefield

>>3295949
>which was evidently enough to get Napoleon to surrender wasn't it?
No, that was the huge european armies that fought him

>>3295949
>"we totally had naval supremacy guys!!"
>end up losing the US Revolutionary War because French and Spanish navies prevented Britain from sending reinforcement across the ocean

British naval supremacy started after Trafalgar

File: 1502731929184.jpg (150KB, 900x562px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 900x562px

>>3295949
Thanks you so much. I think you gave me some perspective replying to that anon.

Do you have any recommended reading from an non Anglo-American historian on the time period regarding England's strength relative of the other powers?

File: RevolutionaryWarsdc.png (644KB, 1809x2152px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 1809x2152px

>>3295949
>Being able to fight Mysore, the Dutch republic, the fledgling US and BOTH the french and Spanish empires at once with-out ever being terribly concerned bears witness to there strength in the era.

If you thing that's some though shit, look at what France did just two decades later (and successfully, unlike you)

>>3296075
Sorry, esl

>>3296075
>Do you have any recommended reading from an non Anglo-American historian on the time period regarding England's strength relative of the other powers?

Napoleon published a book on the topic titled "A Nation of Shopkeepers"

>>3295941
>they didn't have to
Thanks for agreeing with me and proving me right.

>>3295459
People who think Ancient Egyptians were like those of current Egypt
Current Egyptians are arabs, from the Arab invasions
Ancient Egyptians were white (Phoenicians)

>>3295949

This is Britain's European participation in the Seven Years War;

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Klosterzeven

>Or in short, be allied with other German States, lose (royally btfo) first time you meet in battle a French continental army, get subsequently surrounded, proceed to surrender monkey your entire army, sign up a full fledged Capitulation (or as anglos put it, a ""Convention"") effectively putting those German States out of the war and your army kicked the fuck out of Europe, betray that ""Convention"" the next day, (right about the time it took the Generals to Dunkirk their way back to the English monkey-island) due to Prussia being outraged at all these treachery and surrender-monkeyness, spent the rest of the war subsidizing moneys to Prussian-German armies while focusing your entire army and navy on fighting the 3-4 frogs standing in North America.

Britain was a maritime power, the main one indeed, with some projection force outside their monkey island. That's all.

As for the American Independence War, the american theatre itself was in itself secondary to other theatres in military terms and even politically secondary to the Brits themselves.

>>3296828
WE

>>3297079
WUZ

>>3297120
WHITES

>>3296058
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_guerrilla_warfare#American_Revolution

>>3296068
Ding ding ding retard alert!

The British Navy became the best after they evaluated what went wrong in the last war. I.E American independence war. By the 1790's Britain had the best fleet. That's why the French consistently ran and hid in ports like Toulon and tried to drag other navies in like the Spanish and Dutch.

Napoleon abandoned his army in Egypt because they were BTFO by the British Navy and that was in the Med!


>>3296062
They only fought because of the inability of the French to defeat the English army ;^)

The only quality the British army lacked was manpower. Superior equipment, morale and tactics while being the only non conscript army in Europe.

>>3295481
Given that most of Africa was a space no one cared about, their carribbean possesions and indian made them pretty huge, plus owning canada just above you

>>3295615
>>A bunch of completely untrained farm boys with no navy take on some of the world's largest professional armies and win
>>This is completely unimpressive
Literally not what happened though. Go to bed Mel

File: Napoleon's surrender.jpg (71KB, 460x310px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 460x310px

>>3296078
>/his/ constantly posts the map which rights off the British empire as non-possessions populated by "abos", "natives" and "niggers"
>also posts these maps where the vast majority of blue is literally oceans of nothingness with little to no context and an obscenely facile understanding.
How many men did, oh i don't know, all of the Americas send to fight in the revolutionary wars?
How many guns did eastern Australia bring for the Flanders campaign?
How many officers from Mozambique were present at the treaty of Lunéville?

This may shock you but the UK actually gained territory during the French Revolutionary wars and reliably exercised indomitably. From the wiki you've capped:
>The naval war also continued, with the United Kingdom maintaining a blockade of France by sea. Non-combatants Russia, Prussia, Denmark, and Sweden joined to protect neutral shipping from British attacks, but were unsuccessful.
5 major European powers unable to so much as break the blockade and defy the inhabitants of the worlds ninth largest island... baka
>In the Second Battle of Algeciras, four days later, the British captured a French ship and sank two others, killing around 2000 French for the loss of 12 British.
On that battle, btw
>In France, despite the heavy Spanish losses, the battle was celebrated as a victory, with Troude widely praised and promoted for the defence of his ship.
12 losses to 2000
>celebrated as a victory

you can post some coalition wiki screenshot or the casualties of some battles of the peninsular war all you like - the fact remains, Napoleon viewed England (not even the UK) as his primary adversary all his life and despite all of Frances advantages, he, their emperor died in British custody.

>>3295459
>True communism has been tried

>>3297895
>Napoleon viewed England (not even the UK)
Wow, it's almost as if England was the most revelant and politically dominant country in the UK
>he, their emperor died in British custody.
That's literally "fuck you" to the coalition though, if he surrendered to Germans or (especially) Russians he would be executed, while the British, despite all the propaganda, didn't hate him as much as people like to believe

File: Thomas Lundy Packer Boat Under Sail.png (2MB, 1328x736px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1328x736px

>>3296075
Any book on the history of naval warfare or the age of the sail will outline Britain's clear and stark advantages, most of them are written by Anglos/Anglo-Americans. Don't be fooled by Bernard Ireland 's name - he is not a bad place to start.
/his/ hates the UK but it's ascendancy is actually really interesting and a pretty major episode in history.
It wasn't luck or environmental determinism or "hiding on their island"
There is plenty to read about - how they utilized their growing financial and industrial might, the advent of block mills, mass production, industry, copper sheathing, the reforms of the Earl of St Vincent, the eradication of scurvy, development of amphibious warfare etc.
>>3296068
>What is the Battle of Quiberon Bay
>>3296964
>What is the Annus Mirabilis
If the UK was so shit, then France must have been absolutely abominable to keep losing to them, god know what league the rest of the world must have been in.
Why don't you realize that insulting a nation which at that moment was objectively superior is just cutting your nose to spite your face.

File: Napoleon_Las_Casas.jpg (37KB, 600x365px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x365px

>>3297923
>Wow, it's almost as if England was the most revelant and politically dominant country in the UK
He was trying to arouse the nationalist sentiments in other parts of the UK but only found slight success with Ireland. Even so it's interesting that with his propaganda he was careful to only attack England so as to not bite off more than he can chew only to embarrass himself by never getting the better of even the southern part of that small and unremarkable island.
>That's literally "fuck you" to the coalition though, if he surrendered to Germans or (especially) Russians he would be executed, while the British, despite all the propaganda, didn't hate him as much as people like to believe
You mean the British were the most civilized, unwilling to execute a surrendered noble, and Napoleon new this? It's not a fuck you, Napoleon was dramatic; he surrendered to England because he lost to England. If the UK was as irrelevant and limp as /his/ pretends it was they would have been in no position to accept him anyway with how much the Bourbons, Prussians, Austrians and Russians hated him.

>>3297954
>he surrendered to England because he lost to England.
Uh, source? Because we all remember when Napoleon was really on top of things and then disastrously invaded England with an army of 500,000 men, only to have that army effectively wiped out.

>>3297895
>Napoleon viewed England (not even the UK) as his primary adversary

Far from it
Pretty sure he saw Austria as his main foe

>>3295853
>>3295469
>>3295459
>I've never read a book and therefore don't know what Pax Britannica is

>>3298005
Pax Britannica is supposed to have started in 1815, not before
And anyway it's just a meme as proven by the Crimean War, the German wars of unification and ultimately WW1

>>3295502
Diplomacy my nigger
"the pen is mightier than the sword"
Won fair and square. Nothing stopped them from allying up with other global powers.

File: Crushing this Vale.png (3MB, 1000x1503px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1000x1503px

>>3297954
>Prussians declare they will execute him after Waterloo
>Napoleon withdraws and considers migating to US
>Port he intended to use in escape gets blockaded
>Napoleon sends his men to the British ship to discuss surrender terms
>Captain says he will end up in asylum in England
>Napoleon becomes hostage while British discuss what to do with him
>Prince Regent, Prime Minister, and Secretary of War want him dead, but he gets declared to be POW
>Even though France and UK aren't at war anymore, and Napoleon literally lost French citizenship
>UK can't do anything with him without doing something illegal (or more like, controversial)
>They can't put him on trial either, since the term "war criminal" wasn't coined yet and Coalition declared most of the wars, so he could easily get away with it (which also means they knew Bonaparte wasn't that bad)
>So they send him on St. Helena as a retired general on half pay, literally

File: 1503343851210.jpg (65KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 400x400px

>>3295481
>The amount of land a country owns is proportionate to how powerful it is

>>3298075
Except every claim of Britain being powerful ever steamed from the size of its empire
And while Britain in 1775 was certainly not powerful through amount of land owned, it was even less so through military might

>>3298086
>what is trade
>what is money
>what is navy

File: SoundOfMusic.png (969KB, 992x558px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 992x558px

>>3298086
That is such a straw-man, I've never seen Brits argue their power "steamed from the size of its empire"
The maps people post, derisively, were usually originally made for Edwardian school boys to give them a sense of place and instill pride during geography lessons.
Brits would far sooner point to ingenuity, intrepidness, naval dominance, a strong diplomatic service, superior industrial and financial sectors etc.
Personally i'd say it's probably got something to do with how clever they are.
The two smartest men in history, Newton and Maxwell just happen to be from the island which came to dominate so much?

>>3298051
What was he going to do with that money on st. Helena

>>3298086
Britain was the most powerful army in europe at the time. France was defeated 20 years earlier. And outside of the American fronts the brits kicked ass during the revolution

>>3298177
>Britain was the most powerful army in europe at the time. France was defeated 20 years earlier.

Are you retarded?
Britain had the shittiest army in Europe in that era, the Seven Years War was enough to prove that
Prussia was considered to have the best army, followed by France, Austria and Russia

>>3298189
During the revolution the Brits kicked ass outside of the American colonies and even then they came close to winning about 4 different times

>>3298201
>During the revolution the Brits kicked ass outside of the American colonies

Maybe because these were only naval battles, faggot
And maybe one land skirmish in India but everyone else was focused on the American theater, so Brits had easy time there

File: Dernier_carre_de_la_Garde_-_gen_Hill.png (905KB, 1026x532px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 1026x532px

>>3297989
>When you can't so much as land a man on the most powerful country in Europe even though they're less than 20 miles away so you try to turn the second most powerful country in Europe into a satellite state so that they might cease trading with the first most powerful which would result in the first suing for peace...
>So with the support of basically the entire continent you invade and are decisively defeated because apparently the gulf between #2 (Russia) and maybe #3 (France) is so enormous support from Germany, Poland, Italy, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands is not sufficient to ensure victory, well at-least not when your plan is obscenely arrogant and ill-conceived.

You want a source on Napoleon losing to England then surrendering?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo
You know Napoleon desperately wanted to invade England right? "Let us be masters of the Channel for six hours and we are masters of the world."
He sold over 500 million acres of land to the US to finance the endeavor. Ultimately he never even tried because that campaign would have been even more of an ignominious slaughter.

>>3298300
>When you can't so much as land a man on the most powerful country in Europe even though they're less than 20 miles away

Pretty sure the "most powerful country in Europe" was the one that conquered the entire continent, not the one that hid behind the sea until the war was over

>>3298300
>You want a source on Napoleon losing to England then surrendering?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

Hmmm, let me look at that closer

>Total Allied forces: 118,000 men
>Out of these, 68,000 men were under British command
>Out of these men under British command, 25,000 were British

So you have 25,000 Brits out of an Allied force of 118,000 men
And given that most of these Brits were Scottish, I doubt there were as much as 10,000 Englishmen in that battle
So much for an English victory

File: thunderkraut.jpg (35KB, 330x440px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 330x440px

>>3295949
>>3295624
>>3295615
>When the British threatened to intervene on behalf of the Danes in the Second Schleswig War, Chancellor Bismarck simply replied "If the British Army landed in Europe, I'd get the Belgian police to arrest them"
Shittiest land army in Europe

>>3297757
>By the 1790's Britain had the best fleet
So you acknowledge the British didn't in fact have naval supremacy during the Revolutionary War?

>>3295459
Britain was a superpower, the only problem was it wasn't an uncontested superpower and could easily be overwhelmed if the other great powers of the day banded together against it.

>>3298300
>120k forces including 25k British and 50k Prussian soldiers
yeah he totally lost to England lmfao

>>3295818

Russia had already mobilized by the time of the war declaration, which was tantamount to a war declaration. Britain had threatened Belgium with war if they let Germany through, so Belgium was going to be raped either way. Britain also violated neutrality of countless nations by laying sea mines in neutral shipping lanes, and for a while there was a push in the USA for military escorts against both German and Royal navy interference, since the RN did not respect the neutrality of the US flag. I'd like to see them try that shit in this century.

File: britshits.jpg (841KB, 1939x1129px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 1939x1129px

>>3298367
Are you retarded?
In the 1700s and early 1800s, it was usually Britain that would band with other great powers to fight more powerful countries (namely France or Spain)
See War of Spanish Succession, Quadruple Alliance, Austrian Succession, French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars...

Britain was a mere great power, and far from the strongest
Even before France and Spain joined the American Revolutionary War, the shitty British land army was already getting BTFO by rebels

>>3298521
umm, no sweetie that's not how it works

>>3298530
You sure showed him

Please leave.

File: Thinking_Face_Emoji_grande.png (143KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 600x600px

>>3298346
kek, realize you're wrong so start talking about a completely different era?
Why would England maintain a large standing army? They had neutralized all threats on there landmass and had command of an indomitable navy, a large standing army would be a needless expense, liability and to be quite honest - a quintessential exhibition of pageantry autism that was far more common in countries with far more to prove.
>>3298308
>>3298326
>>3298392
Royal Highness, – Exposed to the factions which divide my country, and to the enmity of the great Powers of Europe, I have terminated my political career; and I come, like Themistocles, to throw myself upon the hospitality (m'asseoir sur le foyer) of the British people. I claim from your Royal Highness the protections of the laws, and throw myself upon the most powerful, the most constant, and the most generous of my enemies.

—Napoleon. (letter of surrender to the Prince Regent; translation).
>>3298521
The USA often forms coalitions to fight far less powerful entities and occasionally "losses" in the sense that they don't achieve they're strategic aims. They still were/are a superpower.
>Superpower is a term used to describe a state with a dominant position, which is characterised by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale. This is done through the combined-means of technological, cultural, military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic international relations and soft power influence.

>>3295459
>*something something if not Christianity we would be colonizing different universes by now*

>>3298638
>The USA often forms coalitions to fight far less powerful entities and occasionally "losses" in the sense that they don't achieve they're strategic aims. They still were/are a superpower.

Except if you look at these wars on the pics, most are defeats, and not Vietnam type of defeats, but conventional defeats on the battlefield
Also, Britain is never the leader or most powerful country in any of these coalitions (unlike the US in modern wars)

Thinking Britain was more powerful than France, Spain, Austria, Prussia or Russia in term of military might during the 18th century is just pure and utter ignorance
They had an okay navy that allowed them to match the stronger countries cited above in far off colonial wars, but it ends there

>>3298638
>kek, realize you're wrong so start talking about a completely different era?

Yes, an era during which, if anything, Britain was stronger than during the 18th century
So if even then they werent taken seriously, it tells you a lot about how they were seen in the 1700s

>>3298653
>pure and utter ignorance
>an okay navy
>to match the stronger countries
>match

>>3298663
The UK was weaker in the early 20th century than in the late 19th, the Kaiser had the same sort of dismissive, mistaking Britain's decision not to maintain a large standing army as an inability to do so.
Dreadnoughts don't have wheels, am I right?
*invents tanks, fighter aircraft, depth charges and sonar, mobilizes five million men and instill such a fear in the German navy that they sooner mutiny than go, like lambs to the abattoir, up against the royal navy*
As true genius Ludwig Wittgenstein said:
>"It seems to me as good as certain that we cannot get the upper hand against England. The English — the best race in the world — cannot lose! "
I can not help but notice that the dismissive arrogance with which /his/ views Britain is not dissimilar to the attitude Napoleon had.

>>3297300
That is bullshit, there was not such thing as the guerrilla warfare until the spanish's war

>>3298713
>The UK was weaker in the early 20th century than in the late 19th

And weaker in the 18th century than both those
That being said, your comment was irrelevant as the famous quote "If the British army land, I'll have the Belgian police arrest them" isnt from the 20th century but from the late 19th, when Britain was at peak
The British army was, as a matter of fact, never a force to be reckoned with until halfway through WW1 (around 1917)

>>3298713
>invents tanks, fighter aircraft

Pretty sure France was the first country to have an air force and to use a machine gun on an aircraft
Brits invented tanks and that about that (and said tanks were so shit they had to be improved by other nations to become relevant)

>>3296078
>US
>Belligerent
Explain?

>>3298772
The French should've never pulled the XYZ Affair.

>>3298783
And Americans shouldnt have behaved like a bunch of Greeks

>>3298767
The French navy used ships that the us sold them to attack American shipping so we had to rebuild our ocean going navy and fight them off

>>3297079
>>3297120
>>3297225
They really were tho

File: confusedanimegirl124.jpg (64KB, 619x619px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 619x619px

>>3295615
>some of the world's largest professional armies

>size/landmass directly reflect economic development and always mean fully populated land

Russia is the first example that comes to mind
>DUDE RUSSIA WAS SO BIG AND POWERFUL I MEAN LOOK AT IT'S LAND
>doesn't realize that Russia is barely inhabited or industrialized east of the Urals for most of it's history

G*rmans need to be purged, they're the greatest cancer to the human race

>>3298638
Napoleon surrendered to the British because just about every other power but the Austrians would have executed him.

File: Wellington.png (373KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 375x500px

>>3296078
>and successfully

>>3302411
This guy was still machine gunning brown people in India when the French Revolutionary War ended

>>3302423
And then he returned to quash their pathetic revolution

>>3298750
just because it wasn't called guerilla warfare until the Napoleonic wars doesn't mean it uses the same principles

>>3297938
>Battle of Quiberon Bay
One of my favourite naval battles.

>>3295459
Shitty map doesnt matter.
Britain was top 2 world country since 1702 and was fighting against top 1 France.
France was bigger, had stronger army. But British intellegence was better. 7-year war was brilliant (spies done coup in Russia and reverted result). Finally British intellegence organized French revolution which made Britain top 1 and triggered French degradation to 2 and bottom.

>>3295624
>spain
>stronger than britain in the late 18th century

???

>>3304193
It was
Just look at how they BTFO the shit out of English in the US Revolutionary War
Spain only became irrelevant after Napoleon rekt them

>>3304020
>Finally British intellegence organized French revolution which made Britain top 1 and triggered French degradation to 2 and bottom.

Yeah, truly brillant
Except for the fact that the Revolution made France even more powerful, to the point that if Napoleon hadnt autistically invaded Russia, there would have been no way for Britain to prevent total French domination over Europe

>>3304228
Yes, killing of nobility, indluding military officers made French stronger. Unfortunately, Napoleon had to established much stricter regime than Kingdom, and wasnt even thinking about Gibraltar or stable control of Denmark (2 main points against Britain). But yes, he made France strong again. 1815 was peak of power.

>>3297757
>The only quality the British army lacked was manpower. Superior equipment, morale and tactics while being the only non conscript army in Europe.
Spoken like a true retard.

>>3304307
> I have no evidence so I'll resort to ad hominem

Nice one, m8. Feel free to refute me. If not try reading "Britain Against Napoleon: The Organization of Victory, 1793-1815" by J.B Knight. You might learn something. It's a good book on how Britain improved and developed it's army across the period

>>3304796
Anyone who studied the Napoleonic Wars knows France was winning against Britain from 1793 to 1812
Then Napoleon invaded Russia and we all know the result

>>3304864
Hahahahah

That's why the British were happily sat in Portugal and the French couldn't dislodge them? Like I said the only reason nothing happened sooner is manpower.

Sure 1808 didn't go well for the British but their withdrawal was due to being outnumbered. They beat soult twice and he only got away the first time because of the retards who out ranked Wellesley.

>>3298017
It's not about fairness, it's about how relevant it is in 'measuring' how powerful the UK was.

>>3306750
>That's why the British were happily sat in Portugal

Actually they tried to invade Spain three times, and three times they retreated to Portugal upon meeting any substantial French force
The reason they French couldn't "disloge" them is because Iberia was a secondary theater and they didnt have much men there