Why England tried to conquer the world.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Why England tried to conquer the world.

Originally posted by Frogger
Either they or the USSR were the largest nations of all time...

The Mongols ruled over a bigger area IIRC.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Yes, but most of it was completely empty. They might as well have claimed dominion over the sea-bed too.

[David James]

I don't know about the ugly women thing... when I was there I found it varied quite significantly by area. Fortunately where I was they were rather good looking but just a few tens of miles to the north they ... weren't. I was there at New Year's - talk about scantily clad females, even with snow on the ground and freezing temperatures. Far better than what I see here most of the time (even at Queen's, which tends to have better-than-average looking people).

And the Normans were largely Vikings, even if they had been there for a few generations... do you really think that an Army of Frenchmen could have crossed the Channel? Sheesh. [it would be interesting to know what language most of the soldiers actually spoke - French only? Norse only? both? Bilingual nobles but Norse-speaking soldiers? (would seem to be the most likely)]

[Az]

this thread rules.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: Why England tried to conquer the world.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The Mongols ruled over a bigger area IIRC.

Not as a single political unit...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It's really sad when the finest historical achievement of a nation was a draw in a war. The treaty of ghent was status quo ante bellum. The war of the American Revolution, however, was a clear-cut U.S. victory.

So the scorecard


USA: 1 Win No loss, 1 Draw
Britian/Canada: No Wins, 1 Loss, 1 Draw



USA!

Canada has a separate scorecard from Britain for both our participation in 1775 and 1812.

The revolutionary war was not a clear-cut US victory, either; you tried to take all of BNA, and only got half (the half you already prett much controlled, given the independence already displayed)

Canada: 1 win, 1 tie (on the battlefields of 1812, in the North, you had your asses handed to you, including on your own territory).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually the War of 1812 was definetly a tie. We got all we wanted out of the peace... an end to impressment and removal of the British forts in the Ohio Valley. That was all our aims. For the life of me, I can't understand this Canadian inferiority complex that says the US's main goal was to take Canada both times. Canada was a side goal. Some idiots might have wanted it, but that wasn't why we fought the wars.

And besides, in 1812, a full 1/3rd of the country wasn't partaking in the war (all of New England abstained from fighting the war, which is why you never hear of many battles coming from there).

Furthermore in the Revolution, not only did the US get the 13 colonies, but also ALL the land to the Mississippi, which made the United States almost 2.5 times bigger than it was. I'd call that a definete victory. This 'US wanted British North America' is such BS, I don't know whether to laugh to sigh.

Someone should really look into this Canadian inferiority complex where they believe that people actually want to conquer them!

[MikeH]

In 1812 we were fighting Napoleon's armies in Spain, and in the West Indies and the 4th Kaffir war. Don't tell me we had to fight you losers as well?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by MikeH
In 1812 we were fighting Napoleon's armies in Spain, and in the West Indies and the 4th Kaffir war. Don't tell me we had to fight you losers as well?

Damn, Napoleon sure got around.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually the War of 1812 was definetly a tie. We got all we wanted out of the peace... an end to impressment and removal of the British forts in the Ohio Valley. That was all our aims. For the life of me, I can't understand this Canadian inferiority complex that says the US's main goal was to take Canada both times. Canada was a side goal. Some idiots might have wanted it, but that wasn't why we fought the wars.

And besides, in 1812, a full 1/3rd of the country wasn't partaking in the war (all of New England abstained from fighting the war, which is why you never hear of many battles coming from there).

Furthermore in the Revolution, not only did the US get the 13 colonies, but also ALL the land to the Mississippi, which made the United States almost 2.5 times bigger than it was. I'd call that a definete victory. This 'US wanted British North America' is such BS, I don't know whether to laugh to sigh.

Someone should really look into this Canadian inferiority complex where they believe that people actually want to conquer them!

So the invasions of Lower Canada in 1775 and Upper Canada in 1812 aren't sufficient reason to think that?

Admit it. You guys wanted it all, and we kicked your asses out. This is our house, b*tch.

[MikeH]

Napoleon wasn't actually in France. It was his brother or cousin or someone commanding.

Americans! Are you going to stand for that abuse! Get the tanks rolling, you march on Canada at dawn!

[Q Classic]

god, no...

we saw real war footage in that south park movie. the horror! the horror!

[Q Classic]

oh, and it's a relief that we're back to normal discussion, rather than that odd... bit back there with mikeh and venom...

[TheStinger]

The real reason for all of our past actions was to enable american movies to have bad guys that wouldn't offend anyone.(except the english but then we try not to take ourselves to seriously anyway)

[Dauphin]

English bad guys are so much better than American heroes.

Take Robin Hood: Prince of Theives

An American, Kevin Costner, playing the eponymous ENGLISH hero, yet Robin looked like a ponce next to the sheer evilness of the Sheriff, Alan Rickman.

Best line of the movie:

Nottingham: "I'm going to cut his heart out with a spoon!"
Guy. "Why a spoon cousin, Why not an axe?"
Nottingham "Cos it'll hert more".