PDA

View Full Version : Come on Pyro, Read YOUR HISTORY BOOKS BROTHER!!!!



elconquistador
17th Sep 2004, 11:40
I do not know what books Pyro is reading but they must be smokin something illegal. The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 did not, I type again, did not begin the end of the Spanish Empire. The Spanish Armada was just another naval battle; unfortunately, the Spanish were defeated. However, King Philip II was able to raise another navy in no time. The English lucked out, and besides the English navy was beaten many times by the Spanish especially around the Spanish Main and even during the Hundred Years War. You and Pyro should read about in you local library in the Hundred Year War section and the Spanish Empire section as well. The Spanish Empire by no means was a washed up Empire during the Napoleonic Age, more than half OF THE NEW WORLD WAS CONOLIZED BY THE SPANISH. Napoleon and the Spanish were allies but they were betrayed by Napoleon when he was allowed to cross over Spain and conqueror Portugal because them naughty Portuguese kept their trading routes open with merry old England.

A republican faction in Spain overthrew the Spanish King because they wanted to be like France, republican ruled; however Napoleon’s ideology about the Revolution of the common man became corrupted and he decided to become Emperor of Europe or more precisely a dictator. He backstabbed his only legit powerful ally; thus, he overthrew the Spanish Republicans and he installed his dumb ass brother as the king of Spain. That was very naughty, very naughty of that Italian Corsican chump. Well, hell we all know that the Spanish rose up, but the Spanish Army was in disarray since they had nobody to command them centrally. The Spanish Army fought miserably, but they never gave up and with the help of their new allies, The English and with their Duke Wellington and Portuguese, the Spanish were able to drive the French and Napoleon out of Spain. Remember, the Spanish had a Global Empire, at that time still bigger than the British Empire. Therefore, the Spanish were still a contender, but like all empires, they rise and they fall and that my friends was around 1845 when the colonies decided to kick Spanish loving monarchist out of the New World. That empire was from Washington State to the end tip of Argentina but they still ruled other territory around the world and all this was over 300 years after the defeat of the Spanish Armada. The United States in barely 240 years old and they rule the whole world for the better part of the latter 50 years of their birth. I am pissed off that Pyro Studios did not have a Spanish Army in the Game. They are either a Basque or a Catalonian game company which then I would understand their politics, but if they are Madrid game company they ain’t smart at all. But, the Spanish Empire influence in still strong because over 400 million plus people speak the Spanish language and there are so many ethnic groups that speak Spanish, hell even the United States has given the Spanish language the billing as the second national language, thanks to good old Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. I rather had hoped that the Vikings discovered America and established a long lasting colony that would have been here before the Spanish. It is too bad we had to discover the New World, because it seems everybody is just jealous of us conquerors: Hernando Cortez, Pizzarro, De Soto, not to mention good old Columbus or in Spanish Colon. I would go on and on, but why should I when history backs me up so.

by the way, Total War at least had the respect to put the Spanish in their Game, so did Age of Empires. Why should they be left out of Imperial Glory? Come on Brother, at least remember us Spanish in the Expansion. I wouldn't be surprise if Morocco were put into the Game first, HAHAHAHA that would surely be a ripe old prejudice against old badass Spain or plain dumb ass researching.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 12:49
I think you fail to realize mexicans and members of peurto rico arent really spanish. They are actually mestizo's and latin americans.

Your comment about the united states national language is false, as the united states has no national language, and no second national language. That is the hole point of allowing people to be both english speaking and spanish speaking and russian or what ever. It is also cheaper because this way tax dollars arent forced to be spent on educating people in english becuase it is our "national language".

Aside from that, *almost* any mexican living in the united states, is ILLEGAL and shouldnt be there.

Aside from a spanish empire in the americas, there was a portugeese, a british, and a french one. Even in the time of napolean the french still held territory (ever hear of the middle half of the USA?).

The spanish were not as great as you said they were, as the french had the power to place their own monarch to rule over spain.

Aside from that, I dont remember there being any spanish conquests over europe in the time of napolean, or the spanish joining the allies in the battle of waterloo. The spanish influence on the world was dieing slowly but surely and for the past hundred years they have had almost no influence at all.

Claiming mexico, peurto rico, and south america as evidence of spanish influence on the modern world is a false claim. As they only thing spanish about these people is the language they speak, they hold no ties with spain itself, no ancestry, and no alliances. They are mainly, all native people of the lands, some mixed with european blood, IE mestizos, but most all of which speaking spanish becuase it was the language they adopted when the spanish invaded (DUH).

Referring to them as spanish, is wrong, they are actually latin american.

This being said, at the time of napolean, spain was on the brink of loosing all ties to its colonies, its colonies were pretty much independant of spain itself, and spain itself was a conquered nation.


And you want them to be a playable faction?....... yeah.

elconquistador
17th Sep 2004, 19:53
Well Brother you must be jealous to say that Mexicans and Puerto Ricans aren’t Spanish, but they are Spanish they carry Spanish traditions and language with them all over the world. You must realize many of have mixed with populations that they conquered and assimilated with just as the English conquered and assimilated many people that they have acquired as well. The Spanish language just like English are each spoken by over 400 million peoples in the world the French merely 70 million. What does that tell you about influence and power? The Spanish Empire had fought off every major power in the world for over 400 years since the empire began. They never depended on allies as the French and they managed to exist for several centuries, not like the French. Their two empires, that’s right two failed empires attempted, which both barely survived 45 years maybe 60 years in total couldn’t survive a slave uprising in Haiti. The Spanish took over that country twice and for dumb reasons gave it back to them Negroes, why, maybe to embarrass the French. The French were slapped around for a century or more by the Spanish in the 16th and century 17th. I don’t mind that your are being jealous, hell; your typing on this topic is so obvious. How long did the French Revolution last, 15 years, ……….15 years? Come on Brother, that’s chump change compared to the Glorious Spanish Empire or even comparing that to the English Empire. The French were toppled and ruled by an Italian Corsican and you talk about Mestizo’s with a degrading sneer. Brother, Italians are more mestizos than Mexicans are. Anyone can topple a government but CAN THEY RULE THEM FOR OVER 4 CENTURIES, Not the French. When the French toppled the Mexican government how long, did they last there? I’ll tell ya, 4 chump change years. Four dumb ass years, and the so-called Maximillian the so-called emperor was executed by the Mexicans too. Brother, you changed my mind. Thank God almighty that the Spanish aren’t in this game, why would the Glorious Spanish people smack the French again, and again, and an again we are a good Christian conqueroring group and we don’t beat down retarded children. The French need some help. The French are losers. All 70 million of them all placed in one area of the world. The influence I see the French given to the world is in the perfection of perfume and the name of vegetables in English like carrots, and lettuce. Well, I guess it’s better than nothing. Yeah, I would rather stick with War Hammer better yet Total War is more to my liking.

See ya Chumpaign.



:D

elconquistador
17th Sep 2004, 20:27
Oh, I forgot to mention the Lousianna Territory too. The Spanish controlled that region and for good intentions they gave it to French in order to help them with another empire building scheme. And what did the Little Italian Corsican do, he sold it for chump change to the Americans. I called that stupid, don’t you.

Oh well, what do the French know about Empire Building.
:D

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 22:02
1, Stop saying brothers, it is annoying the piss out of me.

2, Stop saying chump change, sounds like a phrase from the 50s.

3, Peurto Ricans are not spanish. They are part of the united states, and are mestizos / latin americans. They are not white peoples of europe. They are not european americans, as they would have to be in order to be spanish. They are however, latin americans. The same goes for mexicans, and south americans. Though colonized and influenced by europeans, spanish, portugeese, they are not europeans, and they are not spanniards. Just because some of them speak spanish, does not mean they ARE spanish. Like I said before none of them hold any alliances or ties to spain itself.

4, " but they are Spanish they ", wrong, they aren't

5, "with them all over the world", peurtoricans and mexicans are not traveling all over the world. Pretty much every country in the americas south of the united states, is a third world country, is dirt poor, is latin american, and is not some thing to be proud about.

6, "just as the English conquered and assimilated", actually no, the english enslaved and destroyed an entire native people, and then brought its own people to the land to colonize it. As you see, there are not many native americans in the original 13 colonies. In australia, the english just carted off their people to a prison colony, similar to what they did in georgia. The indians hated the english the most, and sided with the french in the 7 years war because the french did not completely obliterate the indians and drive them west as the english had done. This is the reason americans in new england are primarily white, and not mestizo, infact there are little if any native americans in any of the 13 colonies for this reason.


7, as to your comment about there being only 70 million francophones, wrong, there is an estimated 125 million people who speak french on this planet.

8, "dumb reasons gave it back to them Negroes, " racist are we? Try african americans on for size.

9, Do you remember when the muslims invaded europe through spain, and they were stopped by none other than, the FRENCH!? OH NOES?! What was this bull**** about spain keeping every enemy out and keeping its great CHRISTIAN empire?

10, "Glorious Spanish Empire or even comparing that to the English Empire", ok, the english empire in the americas was tiny compared to that of the french. The french held the ohio river basin as well as all of canada. The english had only their 13 colonies and massive claims of land they didnt rightfully own. The french and english fought a 7 years war over their conflicting river basin claims, and as we know the french lost, land was given tot he spanish, and every thing else was gievn to the english. Wow, what do you know. Pretty much all the colonies of the "glorious spanish empire" grew up into third world ****ty countries. How glorious.

11, "The French were toppled and ruled by an Italian Corsican and you talk about Mestizo’s with a degrading sneer." ok, I am not racist like you, I do not refer to mestizos and latin americans in a degrading way at all, I refer to them in the sense they are not spanish, they are mestizo or latin american, there is a diference. Aside from that, the french were not really toppled and ruled by napolean, napolean was a french citizen, spoke french, his native land was later annexed by france, and he served at one time as a french soldier, and from the short robe obtained the long. He was as french as any one living in paris. Also white european. All europeans of which derive from the celts and there is not much diference between any of them. However constantly refering to napolean as the italian corsican is getting annoying...

12, "Brother, Italians are more mestizos than Mexicans are." Are you a ****ing moron? A mestizo is some one with nativeamerican and european blood.

13, "The influence I see the French given to the world is" let me finish that for you, ehemmm... saving europe in world war one by merely stopping the germans at the trenches (france was not defeated in ww1), saving europe from the muslim invasion that trampled right through spain, conquering and ruling over england after the battle of hastings, defeating england again in the 100 years war, the birth of gothic architecture, the statue of liberty, being the first country to recognize the united states as a nation, being the only naval support of the united states in their revolution, being marquis de lafayette an officer who trained the american troops to fight correctly, also it is french soldiers who discover the rosetta stone the key to all ancient egyption hyrogliffs and knowledge, also the first known photograph and camera, the first portable movie camera, the best known artists of the world, need i say more you ignorant moron?!

14, Bye Chumpaign? Wtf is with the word chump. That is so stupid. Well, bye ignorant racist moron who thinks spain is the leading super power and the most influencial country of all time.

sick
17th Sep 2004, 23:20
I have to admit that both of you know pretty much of the past (of course you can't know everything.) One thing that bothers me is the swearing, so I got an idea.

Elconquistador, you might want to click here:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/sendpm.gif (http://forums.eidosgames.com/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=53060)

Champagne, you might want to click here:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/images/sendpm.gif (http://forums.eidosgames.com/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=53057)

Remember, the amount of Private Messages you can store is set to 40. The recipient will automatically get an e-mail when it comes so far, so don't worry about that. Have fun.:)

PANDA
17th Sep 2004, 23:49
The both of you are lost causes, your facts are totally (and I mean TOTALLY) wrong.

And it ain't English you daft pricks, it's British.

Lol, and as for the Spanish... The British Army had to come and save their sorry WEAK arses from the French; not alot of good that did seeing as the Spanish vouched for the Nazis in WW2 :rolleyes:

*Rant over and sorry mods*

Champagne
18th Sep 2004, 04:52
Hmmm, I dont really see how any of my "facts could be totally totally wrong" as most of which are straight out of early american history, and french history.

If any one is wondering about that "arab invasion" I was referring to, it was the Arab invasion that came through spain in 732. For the lesser inofrmed who may think I was talking out of my ass, here you go...


Spain

Map of Muslim Expansion into Spain. Click on map for larger image.

Before the Muslim invasion, the Iberian peninsula, which included present-day Spain and Portugal, had been a Christian territory, ruled by the Visigoths. The kingdom was weak in the early 8th century, plagued by internal strife. Tariq, a Berber who led the Muslim forces into Spain in 711, took advantage of these weaknesses when he led the invasion. Of particular advantage to Tariq and his army was a civil war that was raging over the kingdom's succession. Tariq's military success in Spain led the conquerors to name the now-famous rock on the southern tip of Spain, Jabal Tariq, or Mountain of Tariq. That name has since become "Gibraltar."

The disorganisation of the Spanish defenders proved to be their downfall, and the Muslims completed their conquest of most of the Iberian peninsula swiftly. The Muslims were so confident after conquering almost all of Spain that they continued to push northeast into present-day France. They crossed the Pyrenees and occupied several Frankish cities, including Bordeaux. In 732 they were finally defeated by the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers. After that, the Muslims remained on the southern side of the Pyrenees during their 700 years in Europe.
So much for the glorious "Christian" empire as you put it.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/imageislam/muslimSpain750Large.gif

Willmore
18th Sep 2004, 07:08
It would be a tad bit more correct to call them moors, as that is what they were called, but muslims is correct enough.


You may continue the argument, I in particular find it extremelly entertaining.

Ragnar_NZ
18th Sep 2004, 16:11
Me too. Break out the popcorn!

I reckon Champagne's winning. His arguments are more structured, more sophisticated, more rational and he has a better grasp of history.

Eh Champagne! Why didn't you mention what Napoleon gave the world?

Arctic_Wolf
19th Sep 2004, 10:30
I'm going to join the argument, I have to defend my adopted nation.



Champagne, the British did not wipe out the native americans and many tribes actualy took the british side during the wars.

The Native Americans were nearly wiped out during the USA's campeigns of Manifest Destiny and settlement in the west, infact it was a government order to genocide them when they gave bounties for Buffalo, the natives main source of food.

The British empire did have an assimilation and "britification" policy in most of their territories, especialy in India, I believe it was once likened to "showing misguided children the right way" while still wrong it does show the idea of benevolent assimilation.

The British did own candada, the queen of England is still their head of state, not Jack Chirac.

The first Industial revolution occured in Britain and spread through the empire and then the rest of the world. Without britain, there would be no modern world.

The UK has not been invaded for nearly a 1000 years. France was invaded 60 years ago, and spain...200 years? English, later British citizens enjoyed more civil rights than any other european countries until recent times. The UK was also the first country to abolish slavery

Oh yes it was the british tanks and the involvement of the USA, that won WWI when together they broke the stalemate. The French were not the only ones to hold the previous lines, russian, british, british territory troops and many others were also fighting.


I hope you understand I mean no personal insult but if you are going to slander the country I think is the best in the world I am going to have to do something, much like you are doing in defending france. So in defending france, its a good idea to not raise the hackles of france's biggest rival or you'll be fighting on two fronts.

Champagne
19th Sep 2004, 16:23
Ummm, well in regaurd to canada, that was not british until they obtained it from the french in the 7 years war which ended with another treaty of paris.

*There are about a million disagreements on earth that ended with "the treaty of paris"*

There is a reason quebec and montreal speak french, and every year are doing a vote to break away from the now primarily english speaking Canada.

In regaurd to the UK not being invaded for a thousand years? Simply put, wrong. A french Duke, William Of Normandy held rightful claims to the english throne when a king died and Harold was named his successor. Harold I believe was swiftly excommunicated by the pope for not being the rightful heir. Harold Hardratta of the current viking empire saw this as a good time to take his conquests to england, so invaded from the north, while William built up a navy of troop ships and an army of men accross the channel. When the vikings were finished, the french crossed the channel, and faught the battle of hastings on english soil, where the english had the advantage of defence, and terrain, but still lost.

As a result, William inherited the english throne, made a monument at the battlefield as he promised he would, and wrote the history of this battle around it. This was less then a thousand years ago as you put it and already an example of two land invasions.

Another thing I guess, could be the 100 years war. Although the island itself was never invaded, the british lost mostly all of their land in mainland europe to the french in a war inspired by almost the same reasons as the battle of hastings. The english were seeking the french throne for claims of their rightful inheritence, while the french brought up old laws of which stated property cannot travel through the blood of a women, and the throne must be in the hands of a frenchmen.

As far as the world wars go, I guess you could say england was invaded by air, via the luft waffe. I believe we all know enough about the battle of britain to just end it at that. British colonies in afrika do deserve mention I guess, the good ol' battle of Erwinn Rommel versus Monty. Although we all also know enough about the battle of france to know that it was a major demoralizing event against the french. Although the french however, were not treated as the inferior subhumans like the russians were. There were many french peoples who served willingly to defend the reich for this reason.

Also, at the end of the war in europe, German soldiers invaded england in the form of what we know as "PRISONERS OF WAR"... Haha, I remember watching old news footage showing german troops crossing the channel in prison ships, with the voice over yelling "What is this? This then is hitlers invasion of england, an invasion in shackles behind barbedwire, coming to fill our prisons as shattered defenders of a government that tried to destroy the world"... Figured id add that one in.

I however, was not insulting or attacking the british in my opinion. Although the british had indian allies at some points, they were still treated as subhumans, never recieved any amount of respect, and indians generally favored the french, hence the name French and Indian war, where the majority of indian tribes sided with the french to defend against the english; as the treatment and quality of life for them under the french was much better. At this time however, canada was a french colony, and not an english one. It became an english one at the end of the war and that is why Jaques Chirac has little influence over canada.


The island however, if you think about it, has its ups and downs. For one, in pretty much any war, there is an ally on the mainland from which england can deploy troops. However there is no mainland of england with seperate allys the the opposing faction can deploy troops. Any invasion of england by land usually would require destroying not only the english navy, but coastal defences, followed by the actual battles on land. This presents almost a tremendous homefield advantage IMO, as it allows england an invasion by land via her allies in almost any situation, and it prevents her enemy from any such attempt on english soil without first defeating england in all her combined arms.

However, in the history of both england and france, they remained the nemesis of eachother for quite some time... Until in thousands of years of fighting eachother, they realized they are the two people they know best, which resulted in them being best friends pretty much, well, at least when facing german and austrian conquests, and later the very large threat of Soviet land, air, and nuclear conquest. ALthough right now, the only real "anti-french" syndrome going around is a result of the war in iraq, and people are antifrench because their opposition to the war, in which, every one in the united states and UK are now against becuase they realized "the french might have been right", and the war is taking more and more lives now then it ever did before, with a rising cost to both powers with few allies to bail them out of it.

However, that is not an anti american or anti british statement. More along the lines of defending frances initial and current stance on the war which brought up so much controversy and is now overlooked as the world slowly adopts their initial view.

England may have been one of the first to abandon slavery, but there were many cultures of the earth, that didnt involve slavery to begin with, hence they would not have to abandon it. Keep in mind however, the southern of the 13 colonies almost required slaves as they were a free source of labor on the farms. This resulted in a dilema after independance, where you had an entire half of the countries economy dependent on the evil enslavement of African Americans. Truly a hard habbit to break as doing so destroys the entire economy, puts the country in civil war, and puts the very people americans hated and discriminated against, on their streets and all over their cities. For this reason, america was the last to abandon slavesry AFAIK.

However abandoning slavery never meant equal rights or friendship between any two races. Racism lives on, even to this day, in large percentages. Although discrimination doesnt exist much, it did almost until just recently.



However, none of this is actually an attack on britain, or slandering of your countries name. Requires no defence, as this post is almost entirely neutral of pro or anti british material. So end your arguement at that.

I wasn't attacking britain and claiming france to be the most superior and influencial force on the planet, I was simply having an arguement with a pro-spanniard who claimed that of spain. England was left pretty much entirely out of that arguement except as a mere comparison or example of some thing between france and spain.

IMO it is quite obvious england has richer history, and more influence on the world, then spain. However that is one of the reasons, the british will be a playable empire in Imperial Glory.

Hell, the spannish are playable. You play the french, then conquer spain, and from that point on you are playing as the spannish and the french, just as they were in real life!



Lets end it here, and sign yet another treaty of paris saying were going to STFU and end this thread.

http://www.designexploration.com/resources/authors/Vebell/The-Treaty-of-Paris.jpg

Arctic_Wolf
19th Sep 2004, 22:42
You devil of a frenchman :D, I submit to your impressive historical knowledge, except on one point;


In regaurd to the UK not being invaded for a thousand years? Simply put, wrong.

2004 - 1066 = 938, that close enough for me and I did say nearly. There are a few other niggles, but they hardly matter(differing source, context, etc.).

And with that I sign your treaty.


Hang on, waht does STFU mean?

Arctic_Wolf
19th Sep 2004, 22:59
I'm not very good with french so this will probably sound a bit wrong, but i think its supposed to be appropriate.

J'aime le bateau qui est allé le jour avant

Arctic_Wolf
19th Sep 2004, 23:15
And what results would these be? Tell me for I am shortsighted.

The_Russian_Rocket
30th Sep 2004, 00:02
This is a useless thread which I cannot fight the urge to post on. elconquistador with an overthrown, half beaten, half Muslim, union I find it logical to put this non-influential union to this period in this game.

Plus, you kept bring up the new world which doesn't apply to the game AT ALL.

Signed,
The Russian Rocket

Willmore
30th Sep 2004, 18:04
Hey, rocket are you really russian ? If so what part of Russia are you from ?

Arctic_Wolf
30th Sep 2004, 21:33
Why flame the thread when it was already buried 10 days ago?

PANDA
30th Sep 2004, 23:26
the french crossed the channel, and faught the battle of hastings on english soil, where the english had the advantage of defence, and terrain, but still lost.

The French invaded? I'm sorry were they even a nation in 1066? No, it was simply migrated Saxons who invaded. Yeah the 'English Saxons' lost but why don't you try marching 500 miles to fight a very vicious Viking army and then marching 500 miles back to stop a fresh Norman one?

And as for the 7 years war; the British beat the French even though they had Indian help because the British had superior troops (and still do to this day). It also showed up French cowardice; the British were happily making mince meat of the American Rebels until the French arrived and started blocking supply lines like back stabbing cowards.

I also hate the French and Britain is most certainly NOT 'best friends' with them.

IMO, the day the British Empire fell was the day this world got *****ed. I think anyone who dis-respects Britain deserves to have his/her teeth knocked clean out.

*Yes sorry mods again, I just can't keep may cool with these people*

The_Russian_Rocket
30th Sep 2004, 23:50
(off topic)
Yes Willmore, I am from Magadan, Russia. I came here to Canada when the government allowed travel out side of the country (from the cold war overthrow of the government etc.).

Champagne
1st Oct 2004, 02:02
Panda, you are a tool. Im done debating this, the debates have nothing to do with britain, until some one else looking for a fight brought it up, i ended that one, and your re-opening it like a retard but only this time your adding a pinch of ignorance and stupidity to the mix. Just end it. Stfu. No more discussing britain, as this thread was primarily about making the creator of the thread look like a douche.

Britain and France are both in the game.... so whats your problem now? Are you mad at history?

In regaurd to your best friends comment, they may not be bending over and giving eachother blowjobs on a daily basis, but in both world wars they were supreme allies of eachother, shared military access and airspace, and did their best to defend eachother. They had one of the strongest alliances ever.

Just because you are an ignorant moron that "hates" people of another country doesnt mean ****, or that your fellow englishmen share your point of view.

Do yourself a favor, dont post in this thread again. Leave it be. Let it die. I didnt really argue against any of your comments because i dont want another arguement.

Mastalerz
1st Oct 2004, 02:49
At first I wasn't going to respond to Panda because Champagne was right this thread had nothing to do with Britain and it was over and then you reopened it. I wasn't going to continue but I couldn't let you warp military history and get away with it. Alright obviously your history PANDA is a bit rusty.

The French & Indian War - was started by the British. At the time New France had about 65,000 people, the 13 colonies had about 1,000,000. Colonists crossed over the Appalachians into the Ohio River valley and claimed land that France had already claimed as New France. Thus the war began. The Native Americans to be politically correct were mainly siding with the French do to the fact French traded with them and didn’t really kick them out of their land such as the British Colonists did. French had learned to adapt Native American guerilla warfare which was great for combating a military that greatly outnumbers you in colonial America. The British were getting for lack of a better phrase their ***** handed to them. Right up until Prime Minister William Pitt came into power, He borrowed money from other countries and got parliament to give him a new budget. All British troops were recalled and retrained to fight guerilla war. After that it was a fair fight but the British still outnumbered the French. The British also had a new ally the most powerful Native American group the Iroquois Nation. And soon enough the French cut their losses and surrendered to the British, but the British were not alone they had colonial militia to help them fight. But either way they did win.

The American Revolution - These were although technically British colonists not every person there was British it was a place where many immigrants & religions traveled to as it is today. The British did not make mince meat out of them. Let’s take the first day for instance, The Battle of Lexington & Concord including the British RETREAT back to Boston, By the time the British soldiers reached Boston, 73 British solders were dead and 174 more were wounded. In the days fighting, 49 patriots were killed, and 39 more were wounded. For the sake of not writing too much I didn't show other battles outcomes/casualties if you think the colonists got "owned" I will be more than happy to talk about other battles. No matter what the American Patriots were unprepared for a war at that exact point & time and were still preparing when it began. After the Battle of Lexington & Concord the colonists sent a document the Olive Branch Petition to King George which stated the colonists continues loyalty to the Monarch and their wish for peace. Georgie boy declined the proposal. The French as well as some other European countries aided Americans with naval support and troop training, but the French were by far the major source. In the end the Americans won their freedom and thus the birth of the, in my opinion, the third greatest nation in the history of the civilized world (the Roman Empire was by far the greatest Empire/Nation, and the Greeks were the second but that’s my opinion).

After the Revolution other French and English colonies realized freedom is out there and they can govern themselves if they try. The British later lost all their colonies. And no the world would not be better off under the British Monarch's rule. He obviously couldn’t govern his colonies correctly, and the UK would not be a country today if joint forces primarily the United States did not aid them against the fight with Nazi Germany. I'm not trying to trash the British or anything so forgive me if I come across as I am, but what I'm trying to do is explain certain facts you seem to overlook. You are obviously proud of your country which is great but don't be ignorant. Just so you know I am not French, I am American and I do not have French heritage it is Italian and Polish. So I am not playing favorites in this thread. Anyways I thank you and your fellow country men for sending troops into Iraq with us whether or not you are pro or Anti war.

If you do not read my post or the other ones don't respond.

Champagne
1st Oct 2004, 16:56
I think its pretty obvious with out american help, the british would have collapsed in WW2.

For **** sakes, in france, the only reason rommel didnt kill the entire british expeditionary force was because Hitler wanted to seak an english/german truce.

Prior to this point in the war he didnt even want to be in france as the french military was the best in the world ATM with the most advanced tanks, they were only defeated (with the english) becuase they were using inferior tactics and relying on the maginot line. The only reasons he went to france was because he had no choice, the french and english had declared war on germany and germany would either be attacked on german soil, or have to attack them on french soil. Amazingly, with radios in every german tank, and much more sophisticated and modern tactics, the germans whiped the french out forcing them to surrendor, and could have done the same to the english but they wanted to end the fighting once they finished retreating.

There was entire panzer divisions, on call, just waiting to go into dunkirk and the beach, and destroy the entire british expeditionary force, but they were halted not because of "danger" or "potential casualties" or 'fear" or "lack of supplies", but becuase the germans wanted to seak a truce and end the fighting, and by whiping out the entire expeditionary force, that wouldnt even be plausible. It is true, they did fight small skirmishes over dunkirk, and do small air raids on the sihps evacuating the expeditionary force, but this was not the full might of nazi germany, and it wasnt intended to actually kill the force.



The english army would have been completely whiped out in france had the germans wanted it. You can claim the english were "fine" without the americans as they were surviving, but some what wrong...

English naval ships would be escorted by "neutral" american ships, forcing U-Boats not to fire on them as they did NOT want war with america and sinking a US cruiser would certainly result in that. It was ordered by hitler, any ship with a US flag is not to be fired on and to strictly identify enemy ships before shooting. However, churchill convinced roosevelt that saving his ass was a good idea, and eventually the lend lease act came along where americans could give the british airplanes, tanks, guns, ships, etc. Even so however, the americans helped the british in many ways that they could not help themselves.

With american ships, "babying" english ones preventing them from being availible targets for uboats, american tanks and planes being "given" to england for use, and eventually american troops being used all over afrika, with the american navy fighting all over european waters against uboats and the bismark and such, and in the DDAY invasion, and all kinds of stuff, britain probably wouldnt have survived the war if it wasnt for america.


Some people believe russia won the war by itself, I however, feel that is false, as without constant allied bombing runs on german factories and industrial centers, the german production level would have sky rocketed, allowing thousands more tanks to goto the front defeating any russian invasion.

Willmore
1st Oct 2004, 17:36
Originally posted by The_Russian_Rocket
(off topic)
Yes Willmore, I am from Magadan, Russia. I came here to Canada when the government allowed travel out side of the country (from the cold war overthrow of the government etc.).


Cool, I live in the US, moved from Russia 4 years ago.

anyway, back on topic:


Forget this thread, let's all be peaceful, or at least revert to politeness.

Senor v2
1st Oct 2004, 17:59
About hating the french, only morons abjectly hate the french but the 'firendly' rivalry is one of the longest going rivalries in the world and its always fun until the moron arives.

But, oh dear champagene, WWII again.

Lets see, first, why are you so agressive about the UK, if I remember right france surrendered the moment the germans approached Paris and infact many french colaberated with the germans in Vichy france.

The UK would not have collapsed if the americans did not enter the WWII, the battle of Britain destroyed the luftwaffe, any invasion would have been severly hindered as the RAF practicly controlled the skies with their RADAR and could have pict apart any major force. It would have ended in stalemate.

Also, how can the french be the best army in the world if they use the wong tactics and can't work their weapons, an army that doesn't know how to work is a crap army. Also the french did not have the best tanks, the Germans did. Until toward the closing stages of the war, panzers ruled the field.

Dunkirk was a retreat, it was a retreat where the british took a lot of casualties, the germans did not let up and it was not american ships in Dunkirk, it was thousand of ships, aswell as naval ships, hundreds of small private boats flocked to lend a hand.

The lendlease agreement was not where the British recieved millitary supplies for free. The americans overcharged for everything and imposed high-interest on any loans, the americans rode the British and the empire for everything they had and as a result became the world power they are today.

Churchill did not force the USA into WWII, a little thing known as Pearl Harour, whereby a huge chunk of the american navy was decimated in a suprise attack by the Japenese, allies of Germany.


I hold no illusions of grandeur over the british in world war two, we were often beaten soundly and sent packing. It is however completely and utterly wrong to say that the british were completely weak in WWII, and that they could not have survived. Without the americans the UK would not have won but they would not have been defeated either.

*Written by Arctic Wolf, his internet explorer is behaving strangely and the cookies have gone off so he sent this to me for posting. I agree with all he has said though.*

Mastalerz
1st Oct 2004, 19:26
OMgZ EVERY1 SHUT UP!!!!!!1111 CAPE VERDE IS THE BESST COuntRY IN TEH WORLD AND IT SHOULD BE IN THE GAME CUZZ ITZ TEH MOST INFLUENCILLL emPIRE 4EVA!!!!!!!111

Champagne
1st Oct 2004, 19:26
NO **** ABOUT DUNKIRK.


And about the french military at the time, what I said was right.

The germans DID NOT want to invade france, they thought they were walking right into a sword but they had no choice. AT THE TIME! the french tanks were superior to that of the germans, and the french military was the best standing army. Sort of like if Iran invaded Israel they would be scared ****less. However, you can have the best guns, and the best tanks, but they were never really tested in combat until the german invasion and their inferior tactics cost them the war. You completely failed to realise what I was saying.

I am not talking ANTI british. I know america wasnt even involved at that time.

But with out america can you say britain would have controlled the seas? or the german airspace? or france? or holand? or any of these places? No, you cannot.

Yes, we all know the RAF had the advantage of Defence, the advantage of AA on their side, the advantage of being able to not only defend against the enemy over your own airfield on a full tank of fuel, but then to chaise the bombers back accross the channel and shoot them down along the way without once ever flying into german territory. Those are some of the main reasons the battle of britain was a failure. I wasnt talking about america when I was talking about dunkirk and france.


Why must these pointless debates continue? can we just end them, just say "oh really? the french had great tanks and stuff? thats cool didnt know that, too bad they werent ready for the new style of blitzkrieg warfare' and then say "Yeah i know the british probably wouldnt have done much other htan defend their island form invasion if it wasnt for american aid, but they did do a good job defending themselves you have to give them that" and also say "ok the debates over its about that time aye chap? righto".

Mastalerz
1st Oct 2004, 19:34
^----Agreed

The_Russian_Rocket
1st Oct 2004, 19:52
Has anyone else seen how funny this is! We went from the Napoleonic wars in western Europe to the French and Indian war an then to WW2!

Mastalerz
1st Oct 2004, 20:09
Yeah its really amazing especially since it was originally Champagne telling this newb that Spain was not this huge world influencial empire that owned everyone, right up untill some random person out of no where was like "WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT BRITAIN OmgZ BRITAIN #1!!!!!!11" its wierd how stuff like that works.

Adunaphel
3rd Oct 2004, 23:23
Originally posted by Champagne

Aside from that, I dont remember there being any spanish conquests over europe in the time of napolean, or the spanish joining the allies in the battle of waterloo. The spanish influence on the world was dieing slowly but surely and for the past hundred years they have had almost no influence at all.




Well, Spain, joins to the allies in the battle of waterloo , sending about 3000 soldiers from El Marques de la Romana Division (cavalry and grenadiers)
Spain, was the FIRST country in the world in defeat an ENTIRE french army, in battle of Bailen, and to resist 2 siege about 1 year as the example of Zaragoza (saragosse) and a lot of other samples in wich the french arm was put in evidence. :D
If the spanish hasn´t defeated the french invasion , the europe history could be totally different, as napoleon, should have too much troops to conquer all europe (the russia campaign have a lot of importance in this too)
For this simple arguments, I consider than Spain must be a playable faction. ;)

-Adunaphel

The_Russian_Rocket
4th Oct 2004, 23:39
The surrender of two small French forces at Bailen sent shockwaves throughout the French empire.

The 23,000 men, under the overall command of General Dupont, found themselves separated and trapped without water facing 30,000 Spaniards.

The French made five sorties to break out on 19 May, but without success and, after two days of talks, agreed to throw down their arms.

General Dupont was jailed on his return to France, but was restored to the military by the Bourbons.

Yes, Adunaphel they did defeat two small armies out numbering them by 7,000 men. Why this is important as you quote I have no idea:

If the spanish hasn´t defeated the french invasion , the europe history could be totally different, as napoleon, should have too much troops to conquer all europe (the russia campaign have a lot of importance in this too)

Oh and by the way the Russians defeated FAR more than 23,000.

Champagne
5th Oct 2004, 20:10
The debate needs to just wither and die and people need to stop posting about spain, england, russia, franec, etc.

Arctic_Wolf
5th Oct 2004, 21:47
To end,

France, Russia, Spain and all those countries are great. But the UK is greater. :D

The_Russian_Rocket
5th Oct 2004, 22:07
Oh no! Here we go again!

Mastalerz
14th Oct 2004, 19:06
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
To end,

France, Russia, Spain and all those countries are great. But the UK is greater. :D

Agreed but the United States is better than all of those combined.:D

Arctic_Wolf
16th Oct 2004, 13:32
Damn you! :D

haradrim
21st Oct 2004, 02:56
I know im a little late to get in on thsi post but oh well here goes,
franceisbyfarsuperiorthananyoftheothercivsbecausetheygointobattlefollowinga5footemperor, gasp :D

firestarter
28th Oct 2004, 11:37
However, in the history of both england and france, they remained the nemesis of eachother for quite some time... Until in thousands of years of fighting eachother, they realized they are the two people they know best, which resulted in them being best friends pretty much, well, at least when facing german and austrian conquests, and later the very large threat of Soviet land, air, and nuclear conquest. ALthough right now, the only real "anti-french" syndrome going around is a result of the war in iraq, and people are antifrench because their opposition to the war, in which, every one in the united states and UK are now against becuase they realized "the french might have been right", and the war is taking more and more lives now then it ever did before, with a rising cost to both powers with few allies to bail them out of it.

I'd just like to add one comment, before I'll let you continue.

Your stuff about nobody being anti-french is bull***t. I don't like the french, people I ask dislike the french, and everybody I know generally has a dislike for the french. Its in our history. We had to but down some stupid upstart once, we had to prevent you from being destroyed in WWI, and we almost were destroyed in WWII from attempting to help you again.

In all my life, I will always dislike the french. I'm not syaing I hate them, hate is far too strong a word, but I just don't particularly like them.


infact many french colaberated with the germans in Vichy france.

They sure did. While the rest of the powerful nations were attempting to stop the Nazis, half the french peope decided to give up and instead help them. Great, so the French resistance helped, a little, but IMO France gave up way too easily.

Champagne, yes, the Americans helped us. And yes, without them, we probably would of been defeated. But I think the point your missing out here is, France didn't help much in the war compared to the other powers. That I think, is why Britain can always be considered morally better than France.

Arctic_Wolf
28th Oct 2004, 17:54
Oh dear god, why can't people just let old topics die.

Oh and this comment,


That I think, is why Britain can always be considered morally better than France.

Hell no. Britain has done a lot of rather nasty things in its time, as have all nations in the world... 'cept maybe Canada. Here are two examples,

Britain used to sell unlawful drugs, opium i think it was, to china, when the chinese emperor tried to stop it he found the British navy in his harbours.
The US wanted an air base in the indian ocean, britain happened to own an island there. The inhabitants were forcefully relocated.

sick
28th Oct 2004, 18:00
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
Oh dear god, why can't people just let old topics die.

It's because of his nickname: f - i - r - e -s - t - a - r - t - e - r
No wonder it was him to give this thread new life.:)

firestarter
28th Oct 2004, 18:14
Hey, I'm not saying Britain is morally good, I'm just saying we're better than France.

Oh and that example you mentioned, about the forceful relocating of the islanders, if we hadn't, US wouldn't of liked us. I don't condone it at all, it wasn't nice, but it's better to be friends with the most powerful nation on earth.

The opium smuggling was done by more countries than just Britain. But we were a bad empire in many areas, I'll admit. Without us, however, things would be a lot worse in the world.


Oh dear god, why can't people just let old topics die.

Just to piss you off :) I couldn't let half these comments about Britain go down without some sort of fight against them. It jsut wouldn't be British.

Ragnar_NZ
28th Oct 2004, 18:51
Hey, I'm not saying Britain is morally good, I'm just saying we're better than France.

Of course. Which is why France attacked Iraq, who were submitting to UN weapons inspectors, who were bending over backwards to accommodate UN demands, who were a legitimate sovereign nation, this is why France joined Big Brother US in this illegal immoral war, while Britain sat on the sidelines and deplored "No! Don't! You shouldn't! You're behaving just like Hitler!"
Because France is, after all, far morally inferior to Britain.

And sorry, Arctic Wolf, I may just have started a flame war, I may just be biting the baited hook, but then some comments can't be passed up...

Arctic_Wolf
28th Oct 2004, 18:53
While I would agree the Britain is a better country than France, bringing morals in make everything a bit hazier, it depends mostly on people's onions.

Some people would say we were right to go to war because Saddam was captured.
Some people would say we were wrong to go to war because mostly innocent people were killed
Some people would say we were right to go to war because saddam would have kiled more people than our bombs
Some people would say we were wrong to go to war because it was us that put saddam there in the first place

See, morals are mostly onions.

firestarter
28th Oct 2004, 18:57
You won't start a flame war, thankfully I'm not like that

;)

Your opinion is fine, personally I think we did a good thing in toppling Saddam Hussein from power. In fact I believe it was morally good as a war, just it was illegal, and yes it was done improperly, with the wrong reasons etc etc. Obviously things happened which should never of done, because they went upon it in the wrong way.

However, behaving like Hitler? No thanks. I don't remember use running into Iraq building gas chambers and conquering half the Middle East.


it depends mostly on people's onions.

Yep, I personally like my onions chopped into small pieces, but others may enjoy eating them full. To each his own.

Ha, continued the discussion, Napoleonic, to WWII and now to the Iraq war.

GrandDukeRoadRunner
31st Oct 2004, 10:47
I know I'm really late into this argument, but, heres a quote by George Bernard Shaw

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."

firestarter
31st Oct 2004, 12:49
Patriotism in England is possibly the rarer than a sober Irishman.

Unless there's some sort of sporting competition on, nobody cares. Apart from me, perhaps.


The US wanted an air base in the indian ocean, britain happened to own an island there. The inhabitants were forcefully relocated.

Unfortunately, you haven't got all your facts there. Firstly, the Houses of Parliament actually overruled the decision and decided to move the inhabitants back to their rightful place. The Houses of Lords agreed with the decision and it was due to be done. However, our legal system is a pile of crud. The Queen's Privy council then overruled the decision, with no real reason. The fact that an unelected council of Lords and rich people can overrule an elected hall, is stupid.

So, our country wanted to put them back, but our crap traditions and the royal family overruled it.

CaptTermiteUSN
31st Oct 2004, 22:11
This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic and off topic discussions Ive ever read, and yes I have read the whole thing.
If the administrators of this forum have any sense they might consider closing the whole thread and hoping everyone will start over. This discussion has nothing to do with Imperial Glory as a game and shows a great deal of how a bunch of egomaniacs can ruin one.

By the way, like it or not:

1)The official language of the United States of America IS and WILL remain the English Language &
2) The Vikings DID discover North America before the Spanish.

Now everybody chill and drinks on me,

Capt Termite USN
USS Constellation 38
Chesapeake Bay

haradrim
1st Nov 2004, 00:36
1.captain im pretty sure the united states does not have a national language. they have languages spoken by a majority of the population, of which english and spanish are the two largest (though spanish is still trailing english by a sizable margin). I looked this up on the cia website which you can go to here
http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

2. this discussion is fun as it is the only topic i can think of on this forum thats erupted into a flame war :D.
3. hey cap take a chill pill its not a big deal, if you dont like this thread just browse somewhere else

CaptTermiteUSN
1st Nov 2004, 01:51
27 states have existing official language laws on their books: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming. A small handful date back more than a few decades, such as Louisiana (1811) and Nebraska (1920), but most official language statutes were passed since the 1970's. That a majority.

I promise not to pursue this thread anymore, but I just have to say this, politically correct dingbats are the only reason the rest of the states in this country havent passed the law. The fact that a significant number of people in this country speak a language other than English is not a reason to say it isn't the national language.

rock on

Arctic_Wolf
2nd Nov 2004, 00:32
I heard some statistic that by 2010 hispanic people will be the largest ethnic group in the US. Does that mean the national language will change to spanish?

CaptTermiteUSN
2nd Nov 2004, 01:10
LOL, no because we intend that it remains English just as you fine Brits (and I mean that with all respect because my ancestors came from there) will make sure your official language doesn't mutate into an Arabic root.

Term

Arctic_Wolf
2nd Nov 2004, 01:19
Actually the UK doesn't have an official language either, just a majoryity one.

firestarter
2nd Nov 2004, 17:14
Yeh, the UK doesn't.

However, funnily enough, Wales has an official language of English and Welsh and in Northern Ireland English, Irish and Ulster Scots are official.

Even though only around 20% of the people in Wales speak it fluently. Sad.