NationStates Jolt Archive

Historically, Britain and France have had the deepest of rivalries. Only Rome and Carthage come close, or Persia and Greece. Both Britain and France had sizeable Empire, and both have very different cultures. I'm just interest to see which of the old-world superpowers you prefer? Why?

Personally, I prefer the UK. I think our history is richer and of greater prestige. I think our people are kinder and more polite. I think our literature and artwork is on the whole, of greater quality. I think Britain has produced more great inventions, great discoveries and great people (greater heroes, scientists etc.) I prefer our constitutional monarchy, and our philosophy on the Rule of Law, the Sovereign Parliament and the uncodified constitution.

I also think our version of Imperialism was economically, culturally and morally superior. This is all my opinion, and I don't have a particular gripe against the French people or France as a country as it is now. I'm just entertaining myself with a thread.

Please no non-sensical French/British bashing. I want actual reasons. That they didn't back America in the war of Terrorism isn't good enough.

I do think France has superior wines and food, though.

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war. So my vote goes with the UK

Gotta go for my homeland

Great Britian all the way! They were ages ahead of France politically, and allowed there to be queens as well as kings (France's Salic Law shut that down in the Dark Ages) which I thought was quite progressive on their part. The UK also had a superior navy, and they had a better military with some of the best weaponry. Plus, the processes of common law, precedent, and much of the US constitution came from the UK. Lastly, I just like their culture in general more.

And finally, I love tea.

I think you guys have said everything I was going to say about the U.K., so I will not need to say... Those things... Yeah. Anyway, I like the U.K. more, but France has nicer weather, better food, and better scenery.

Great Britain vs. France

....

Personally, I prefer the UK.


You do, of course, know that 'Great Britain' != 'the UK'...

Having lived in the UK, but not france. I say UK.

I did liek it when I was there.

Long live the "dead dog".

France is an awesome place. I studied French for three years in highschool, and learned quite a bit about it; I certainly want to visit it some day. The food, the cities, the countryside.. it's all so dazzling!

But more than France, I want to see England. It's history, it's people, it's values and culture, hell, it's people are the better than, in my opinion, any other country.

British humor is also the best.

So, there you go.

Great Britain, duh. A great ally in the War on Terror, a practical approach to government (which is why Britain had a democracy so quickly, and France couldn't even manage to create one after a revolution), and a powerful military. No comparison. Besides, French cheese is a shame to all cheese.

Great Britain, duh. A great ally in the War on Terror, a practical approach to government (which is why Britain had a democracy so quickly, and France couldn't even manage to create one after a revolution), and a powerful military. No comparison. Besides, French cheese is a shame to all cheese.

Well, that's all very charming...but most of us weren't in favour of the War in Iraq. Ally might be a loose term, concerning the people. The government is firmly in Bush's bed though. Long live Blair-Bush some might say.

Britain kicks ass left and right. The story of the British Empire is one of the great epics of history. Stupid Mughals, owned.

Of course GB even if you did rule us for a while, we forgive ya. France, we can't forgive. They stole our muffins.

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war.

Actually, it has been overrun once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest) By France, incidentally.

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war.

Actually, it has been overrun once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest) By France, incidentally.

The Normans weren't French. Get over it.

They stole our muffins? :confused:


Heck, Im not discriminatory against cheese. Ill eat French Cheese, German Cheese, Chinese Cheese, Russian Cheese, though it may be laced with vodka, those drunk russonians.

The UK, they speak roughly the same language as me!

The Normans weren't French. Get over it.

Nor was the UK, or even Great Britain, over run by them: they conquered England and Wales (and even that took until 1280-something) but not Scotland (or Ireland/Northern Ireland).

The Normans weren't French. Get over it.
William the Conqueror and the Normans all spoke French. When they came to England they did not know the English language.

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war.

Actually, it has been overrun once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest) By France, incidentally.

You are absolutely right and well informed regarding some of the above uninformed people. Brittain was allready concured by the Normands at Hastings (French from Normandy or when you even more far back the "Normands" that are the vikings that concured that coast in the 9 and 10th century).

So was the language of the nobles and royals in Brittain French during ages. It only changed officially to English verry late (to late to use it as a argument on behalf the English language).

William the Conqueror and the Normans all spoke French. When they came to England they did not know the English language.

Ethnically, they were Vikings. A few titles changing hands is not 'overrun'

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war.

Actually, it has been overrun once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest) By France, incidentally.

You are missing the point that the UK didn't come into being until 1800, so it kind of missed out on the whole getting over-run by the French in 1066 malarky, didn't it?

You are absolutely right and well informed regarding some of the above uninformed people. Brittain was allready concured by the Normands at Hastings (French from Normandy or when you even more far back the "Normands" that are the vikings that concured that coast in the 9 and 10th century).

So was the language of the nobles and royals in Brittain French during ages. It only changed officially to English verry late (to late to use it as a argument on behalf the English language).

That wasn't the UK...

British humor is also the best.

So, there you go.

undoubtly! Remeber the dead parrot scene and other Pythonesque adventures :D

Is someone going to answer my question about how they(meaning France) Stole our muffins? :confused:

That wasn't the UK...

Hmm, thought I said Brittain. Read it again :rolleyes:

Hmm, thought I said Brittain. Read it again :rolleyes:

Yes, but you appeared to be agreeing with someone (Dowsley) who was using the term 'UK', and the term 'Britain' is an ill-defined one at best.

Hmm, the nation that produced Led Zeppelin or the nation that embraces Jerry Lewis? I'm gonna go with the UK.

Hmm, thought I said Brittain. Read it again :rolleyes:

You're incorrect all the same. A mishmash of Nobles and a King doesn't constitute a country being overrun.

I don't think it comes close, France obviously.

Did all of you forget about Napoleon Bonaparte?

G.B of course...I live on this lil'island that spawned the best Empire in the world...

You do, of course, know that 'Great Britain' != 'the UK'...

Sorry to disappoint...but wrong Great Britain = the lil' island England, Scotland and Wales sit on.

The UK = The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Kinda similar, true, but not the same.

I don't think it comes close, France obviously.

Did all of you forget about Napoleon Bonaparte?

No, I think people remembered him. Have you forgotten Arthur Wellesley and Neslon, the men who defeated Napoleon?

Plus, Napoleon was Corsican. Not French. ;)

Undoubtedly with the national make up of the users here, I believe it's quite obvious who will come out on top :-)

Ethnically, they were Vikings.
Culturally, the Normans were completely French. Their ancestors came from Scandinavia but that doesn't make them Vikings. The Normans did not speak Scandinavian languages, and their habits reflected the Northern French court.

A few titles changing hands is not 'overrun'
By your definition France has never been overrun either, because all that happened was that some titles changed hands, whether during the Hundred Years War or WWII.

Sorry to disappoint...but wrong Great Britain = the lil' island England, Scotland and Wales sit on.

The UK = The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Kinda similar, true, but not the same.

Yes, indeed: this is just what I was saying.

The exclamation mark followed by the equals sign is a short hand for 'does not equal'.

It remains unclear whether the matter at hand is meant to be UK vs. France or GB vs. France.

Culturally, the Normans were completely French. Their ancestors came from Scandinavia but that doesn't make them Vikings. The Normans did not speak Scandinavian languages, and their habits reflected the Northern French court.


By your definition France has never been overrun either, because all that happened was that some titles changed hands, whether during the Hundred Years War or WWII.

Well, France was destroyed in both World Wars and parts during the Napoleonic wars. Second, Normandy was VERY different to the rest of France culturally. That is why William acted so independently to the King of France. They also spoke a different dialect of french, and strapped dragon's heads to their ships. QED ;)

Yes, indeed: this is just what I was saying.

The exclamation mark followed by the equals sign is a short hand for 'does not equal'.

It remains unclear whether the matter at hand is meant to be UK vs. France or GB vs. France.

My apologies. I've learnt something new today!

Well, either way, we're still better than France.

The UK.

They are the best parents a nation could ask for. We learned everything we know from them...

Pluse, my room mate is from Scotland. :D

I don't think it comes close, France obviously.

Did all of you forget about Napoleon Bonaparte?

napoleon was coriscan and he was also an asshole. UK rocks your bocks.

No, I think people remembered him. Have you forgotten Arthur Wellesley and Neslon, the men who defeated Napoleon?

Plus, Napoleon was Corsican. Not French. ;)

Considering it took an entire union of great European powers to finally end the Napoleon Empire, I wouldn't exactly say that Britian defeated France.

And the Geographic location of France determined that combat in both world wars would be on French land.

Plus, Napoleon was Corsican. Not French. ;)

His army was French though. So were his best generals (who Napolean wasn't above stealing the credit for their victories).

Considering it took an entire union of great European powers to finally end the Napoleon Empire, I wouldn't exactly say that Britian defeated France.

And the Geographic location of France determined that combat in both world wars would be on French land.

Well, I would say that Britain crippling the French Navy and the French economy through Blockades and the French military through Wellington whenever the French encountered the British...then yes, that's defeating them.

Yes. France fought terribly in both wars.

Heh this thread caught my attention...
To sum up the comments from the few enlightened people here, plus a few of my own:

B.R.I.T.A.I.N Just the one T..
And UK does NOT = GB. UK and GB are NOT interchangable...
UK = GB+Ireland. GB = England, Scotland, Wales and surrounding islands
This thread is GreatBritain Vs France... Nothing to go with UK

According to my vast and omnipotent knowledge, GreatBritain(This is the IRL version, not my NS) has never been wholly conqured. Large scale invasions have happened, and mostly been fought off.

"Acts of union joined England with Wales in 1536, with Scotland in 1707 to create the political entity of Great Britain" (And then in 1801, joining with Ireland to form the UK)

Hastings was 1066... this was before the existance of GB

Definition of Norman (ie, the invaders from Normandy)
Norman:
Noun
1. a. A member of a Scandinavian people who settled in northern France in the tenth century.
Thus the Normans were *not* French...

And to set the record straight... GB is far superior to France ^_^
- Better food (you'll find no frogs, slugs or horses to eat here!)
- Better culture
- Nicer people (The french...mostly are a bloody arrogant people)
- Better TV
- The best technology (UK invents it, America makes it bigger. Japan helps too)
- The S.A.S
- And we had an Empire that Hitler himself envious of! (Thats right... One of Hitlers greatest wishes was to ally with GB and merge with its empire during WW2)

So there you have it... GB > France ^_^

[EDIT:]
Also... Did you know that French Tanks (the things with tracks and a big gun) have more gears in reverse...than in drive? :-P So much for France's help in a war... they'd be back home before anyone else got there..
Ohh..and the French started the Vietnamese War... thats not widely known in UK...


The Omnipotent Union of GreatBritain

UK = GB+Ireland. GB = England, Scotland, Wales and surrounding islands

...

"Acts of union joined England with Wales in 1536, with Scotland in 1707 to create the political entity of Great Britain" (And then in 1801, joining with Ireland to form the UK)

This definition only fits the time period between 1801-1927, after that the UK = GB + small islands + Northern Ireland.

Well, I would say that Britain crippling the French Navy and the French economy through Blockades and the French military through Wellington whenever the French encountered the British...then yes, that's defeating them.

Yes. France fought terribly in both wars.
Most to all historians would name Russia as the major factor to the end of Napoleon, and the Americans and Russians in both World wars.

Most to all historians would name Russia as the major factor to the end of Napoleon, and the Americans and Russians in both World wars.

No. They really wouldn't.

Most historians believe that Napoleon's own arrogance brought about his downfall, but the British Navy and his invasion of Russia were major contributors.

As an historian myself, I can tell you it is currently accepted by the majority that Britain won WW1 for the Allies, and that America won world war two and not the USSR is still a very heavily debated topic.

Don't say that Russia dropping out of the war was the decisive factor. It was not. Neither were American reserves piling into the back-end trenches.

No, I think people remembered him. Have you forgotten Arthur Wellesley and Neslon, the men who defeated Napoleon?

Plus, Napoleon was Corsican. Not French. ;)
One of the most irrelevant technicalities ever. That's like insisting Hitler should only be remembered as an Austrian, not as a German. Or William III should be a Dutchman and not Englishman. We can go on and on about examples of influential expatriates. All these men - Napoleon, Hitler, William III, etc. - influenced by their adopted countries, and are as much part of their adopted countries as any native born son.

France, because it has a much stronger trade union movement and still has one of Europe's largest communist parties.

Hm. At least somebody has defended British food, and others actually backed France.

Butter pies, cod and chips, proper breakfasts: these things should not be dismissed by fast-food junkies or snail-eaters! And there has been no mention of British ales, as yet, which is a grave omission in this casual debate.

Still, I am not backing Great Britain over France, as I am far from a patriot and am quite disinterested in all that nationalistic twaddle. And besides, the C19th has managed to make me wish for a go-back-in-time-o-tron and a Eurostar ticket south. I'd be all, "Hey, Rambo [tee hee, he doesn't get it!]; sup, M.Arouet? Zola, my man! Bit heavy on the technical descriptions of life down the pits, but I appreciate the headache!" And then I'd totally be up for getting slaughtered with the rest of the Communards.

In conclusion, I got distracted by cheap vodka and can't remember whether or not I've already made a point. Blah. Down with borders, or something.

All this talk about wars, I think you are all forgetting how delightful french women are. Just hearing that accent sends shivers down my spine. So as to be one that has never been too fond of the english accent I will have to pledge my allegiance (based on such shallow reasoning as i like their women) to the french. ;)

Well, France was destroyed in both World Wars and parts during the Napoleonic wars.
France suffered during the takeovers because there was active resistance. William the Conqueror made sure his new land would be of use to him. There was no reason for William to rape ENgland's land if he wanted to tax it and profit from the peasants. The old Anglo Saxon nobles were stripped of their power, and the new Norman nobility took over all the land, as summarized by the Domesday Book... the new power structure is often referred to by disgruntled Anglo Saxon peasants as the "Norman yoke." The Normans' relatively bloodless takeover of England was much more effective and profitable than Egland or Germanys' messy takeover attempts of France. A takeover doesn't have to destroy the land that is being taken over.

Second, Normandy was VERY different to the rest of France culturally. That is why William acted so independently to the King of France.
Incorrect. Politically, France was divided, but that doesn't make the Normans any less part of the French nation than the Ile de France. All the German states were divided, and acted independently of each other, but we still regard Bavaria and Prussia as fundamentally German.
They also spoke a different dialect of french, and strapped dragon's heads to their ships. QED ;)
If strapping dragons heads to your ships somehow proves you are a Viking, then the Chinese were Vikings. The Normans may have thought a dragons head on a ship would look pretty, but they were still Frenchmen. Dialects is irrelevant too... King James I spoke lallans, but nobody will question that he was ruler of England.

All this talk about wars, I think you are all forgetting how delightful french women are. Just hearing that accent sends shivers down my spine. So as to be one that has never been too fond of the english accent I will have to pledge my allegiance (based on such shallow reasoning as i like their women) to the french. ;)

Ah, sir (or not, I dunno), but this is GB vs. France, not England vs. France! What about a nice Welsh accent?

No?

Heh, right, no, never mind, eh.

There was no reason for William to rape ENgland's land if he wanted to tax it and profit from the peasants.

Are you forgetting about the harrowing of the North here?

Are you forgetting about the harrowing of the North here?

Harrowing! That's the term I was sat here trying to remember so that I could make that point! Good work.

Harrowing! That's the term I was sat here trying to remember so that I could make that point! Good work.

90% of the population of Yorkshire wiped out by the Normans according to some records...


...I got the Rimbaud reference, by the way.

Ethnically, they were Vikings.
No they weren't. The Vikings settled in small numbers on the coast of Normandy. By the time Willy set off to England the Viking settlers had already mixed with the natives. And culturaly they were French. Otherwise you can claim that the Russians are ethnical Vikings as well.
And that they spoke a different French dialect doesn't make them more Viking. You have different versions of languages everywhere.

I have a very good reason why Great Britain is better than France. Great Britain gave us James Bond.

90% of the population of Yorkshire wiped out by the Normans according to some records...


...I got the Rimbaud reference, by the way.

[smiles]

You know, for a moment I was actually having difficulty holding that statistic against the Normans ;)

(What? Who said I was from Lancashire!)

But then I suppose that the modern population of Yorkshire, which was no help when I got lost in Leeds, would have little to do with that which was erradicated...

Uhm, anyway, while I agree somewhat with those pointing out that the Normans weren't entirely French, I think that in the context of this thread -as we're considering France and GB in pretty general terms, I think- that really, being as all of... well, France, is now French, Norman history in what is now France can safely be considered French.

Damn, that sounded like a drunk argument, didn't it?

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war. So my vote goes with the UK

Yes it has. Thats why the Celts were the only nonGerman europeans that were conquered and/or occupied by the roman republic.

I vote for neither. Neither can hold their own against germany, russia or US in a war. The Brits also were anticatholic genocidal madpeople from 1707's act of union(I think thats the Irish one) until disrali. The French easily got defeated by the Prussians, Britains, Russians and had only one good leader who was french because the treaty that gave france corsica (i think thats how you spell it) was signed 2 months before napolean was born and he was ethnically italian. Britain still has a monarchy who gets paid millions of pounds and live in a palace rentfree with specially trained gaurds only for them to do what?, stand still insulting the rest of the world? Then again the french surrendered without a fight in ww2 unless you count the resistance who saved d day. the french also went through many revelutions.

Now for thoughs who challenge the genocidally of the britains during the time frame i set up (beginning might be slightly off), GB stole the irish land, forced them to grow wheat and only sell them to GB not even keeping any so their only food source was potatoes. The famine was 3 years long killing millions and having millions more emigrate to america. The famine only affected the potatoes not the wheat and it was illegal for the irish to hunt or fish for it was the lord's land although the lord was british and didnt even live there. Some historians and people like myself refer to that as a genocide as the british enforced laws that insured the starvation of most of the irish and didnt even care.

Now the French resistance saved d day by using their liberator pistol which was horrible (1 shot and a long reload time but they hardly had any other shots) to shoot a panzer reinforcement. The reinforcements werent seriously hurt but got made and blew up that town killing every living thing. It delayed them by 2 hours (maybe more but it had to do with a 2 and it wasnt in days or minutes) when they would no longer be effective.

The Norman upper class was an extremely small percentage of the English population. In fact, Thomas Paine in his Common Sense said the Peerage (Nobility) was only half descended from the Norman class. Even smaller population. The majority of the population remained English.

Besides I favor Britain. I have ancestry from Ireland, England, and Scotland. However, I would like Britain to be redivided back into the respective ethnic nations.

I'm a hopeless anglophile but i'm also a hopeless romantic so I really cannot decide~!!

They're both better than the US, thats for sure~!

^___^

I'm a hopeless anglophile but i'm also a hopeless romantic so I really cannot decide~!!

They're both better than the US, thats for sure~!
I thought that the English Moors, or the Cliffs of Dover could be considered romantic. I guess I may have read too much Wordsworth.

I thought that the English Moors, or the Cliffs of Dover could be considered romantic. I guess I may have read too much Wordsworth.


Romanticism is essentially france's culture.


But I really really do love england, tragically.

France was the home of Napoleon, so my vote goes to France.

French Military History in a Nutshell, I 'll have to go with Great Britain

Gallic Wars: Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

Hundred Years War: Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare - "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchmen."

Italian Wars: Lost. France becomes the first and only country ever to lose two wars when fighting Italians.

Wars of Religion: France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.

Thirty Years' War: France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution: Tied; Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

The Dutch War: Tied.

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War: Lost, but claimed as a tie. Deluded Frogophiles the world over label the period as the height of French Military Power.

War of the Spanish Succession: Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved ever since.

American Revolution: In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting".

French Revolution: Won, primarily due to the fact that the opponent was also French.

The Napoleonic Wars: Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War: Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

WWI: Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like not only to sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

WWII: Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

War in Indochina: Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with Dien Bien Flu.

Algerian Rebellion: Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare -"We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Eskimos.

War on Terrorism: France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe.

Ethnic division can frick right off, sir. Ethnically, I am entirely of the Celtic fringe. By birth, I am English. What the heck would I do, declare alliegence to the new Welsh princes from my bedroom and hope that the English army's okay with it?

As to Jibea's assault, well, pff. The monarchy presently protects a good deal of rights and does more than one may initially think to limit the power of demi-representative dictatorships here, and removing it would be silly without social revolution on the scale rarely tried before outside of... France (and damn Thiers and the Prussians for screwing that up).

I can not stand the attacks on France for its poor showing in WWII. Even less the Great War. France took and survived a thrashing in WWI and its soldiers were amongst the best when it comes to having the courage and foresight to say, "Fuck this for a game of soldiers, I'm going home!" which was quite right of them, and when the Americans came over they made exactly the same mistakes as everyone else had. In WWII, well, every nation was pretty questionable when coming up against the Germans early on, and, let's face it, if the USA had been on the European continent, it would have fallen faster than France or Poland... it was still researching cavalry tactics during the fall of France.

And so what? So France has a fairly bad record when it comes to fighting wars.

I find it really, really hard to care, or to hold that against the French people or their state (which I hold in no higher or lower regard than any other nation).

So there you go.

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war. So my vote goes with the UKYes it has.

Thats why the Celts were the only nonGerman europeans that were conquered and/or occupied by the roman republic.


England as far North as Hadrian's Wall does not equal Great Britain, never mind the UK.

And that list of French military blunders just leaves me thinking, 1) Woah, the yanks can take credit for just about anything, these days, and 2) Screw the wars, *you* wouldn't have dared join the the Communards on the barricades at the end of the Franco-Prussian farce.

I have a very good reason why Great Britain is better than France. Great Britain gave us James Bond.
I guess that nobody caught what I said.

I'm a hopeless anglophile but i'm also a hopeless romantic so I really cannot decide~!!

They're both better than the US, thats for sure~!

Thare is no way that France is better than the U.S.A!!!!

Now GB is about the same.

I think GB is better than france

England as far North as Hadrian's Wall does not equal Great Britain, never mind the UK.

North of the wall the Saxons or another "barbarian" tribe lived there and attacked the romans and the british

Ethnic division can frick right off, sir. Ethnically, I am entirely of the Celtic fringe. By birth, I am English. What the heck would I do, declare alliegence to the new Welsh princes from my bedroom and hope that the English army's okay with it?

As to Jibea's assault, well, pff. The monarchy presently protects a good deal of rights and does more than one may initially think to limit the power of demi-representative dictatorships here, and removing it would be silly without social revolution on the scale rarely tried before outside of... France (and damn Thiers and the Prussians for screwing that up).

I can not stand the attacks on France for its poor showing in WWII. Even less the Great War. France took and survived a thrashing in WWI and its soldiers were amongst the best when it comes to having the courage and foresight to say, "Fuck this for a game of soldiers, I'm going home!" which was quite right of them, and when the Americans came over they made exactly the same mistakes as everyone else had. In WWII, well, every nation was pretty questionable when coming up against the Germans early on, and, let's face it, if the USA had been on the European continent, it would have fallen faster than France or Poland... it was still researching cavalry tactics during the fall of France.

And so what? So France has a fairly bad record when it comes to fighting wars.

I find it really, really hard to care, or to hold that against the French people or their state (which I hold in no higher or lower regard than any other nation).

So there you go.

I dont know what pff means well anyway the french in WW1 improved greatly upon the british tank by giving it one ROTATABLE turret, making it smaller and more reliable and i think faster.

I dont know what pff means well anyway the french in WW1 improved greatly upon the british tank by giving it one ROTATABLE turret, making it smaller and more reliable and i think faster.

Indeed, the Renault FT.17 (I think, off the top of my head) was the first turreted tank. The Americans adopted it in a hurry, too. Along with French machineguns (which were far less impressive, but never mind). Sadly, the French kept hold of the FT.17 until the Second World War, and it continued to see service with the Vichy forces even though I could probably put my foot through it if I tried :)

North of the wall the Saxons or another "barbarian" tribe lived there and attacked the romans and the british

Are you using 'British' to mean the inhabitants of England exclusively now?

I have a very good reason why Great Britain is better than France. Great Britain gave us James Bond.

Ah, yes, but he was half-Swiss...

Ah, yes, but he was half-Swiss...
What?!

I have to vote for GB. At least they knew when their empire was finished.

Because my girlfriend is probably the most attractive and refined person I've ever met -- she's also British, so I'll go with the British.

Parenthetically, the imperial saga of Great Britain has always fascinated me, as has her long democratic tradition. I would love to visit the UK someday (I hear Scotland is one of the most beautiful places in the world).

I must confess, however, that is was hard not voting for the French. My all-time greatest hero is Napoleon Bonaparte: I am virtually a fanatical admirer of the man and his methods, but that fixation isn't enough to draw a vote for France (as being preferable to Britain).

What?!

Half-Swiss, Half-Scot.

Historically, Britain and France have had the deepest of rivalries. Only Rome and Carthage come close, or Persia and Greece. Both Britain and France had sizeable Empire, and both have very different cultures. I'm just interest to see which of the old-world superpowers you prefer? Why?

Personally, I prefer the UK. I think our history is richer and of greater prestige. I think our people are kinder and more polite. I think our literature and artwork is on the whole, of greater quality. I think Britain has produced more great inventions, great discoveries and great people (greater heroes, scientists etc.) I prefer our constitutional monarchy, and our philosophy on the Rule of Law, the Sovereign Parliament and the uncodified constitution.

I also think our version of Imperialism was economically, culturally and morally superior. This is all my opinion, and I don't have a particular gripe against the French people or France as a country as it is now. I'm just entertaining myself with a thread.

Please no non-sensical French/British bashing. I want actual reasons. That they didn't back America in the war of Terrorism isn't good enough.

I do think France has superior wines and food, though.

No, England and France were rivals for many centuries. It was a problem you just got rest of the British nations into after the union, soon after you united the wars ended. You seem to forgett that Scotland and France for i.e. were not enemys but good friends when you the English were in full scale war with the French. I find it funny how you allways hide behind the name Britain when ever the English do or did something wrong or went to war, dont act like you dont know what I am talking about.

Now on the topic.
I said France because I like the way they stood up to England and later Britain who had a better military and fought often without mercy. I admire that and it did pay off in the end. True patriots the French of old.

Yeah, NI, I always admired the way that the French state stood up to the hordes of armoured knights trying to force submission to the Pope and surrender of individual rights upon them!

Although there's a slight possibility that I may have used the word French where I meant English or Anglo-Welsh, I dunno...

No, England and France were rivals for many centuries. It was a problem you just got rest of the British nations into after the union, soon after you united the wars ended. You seem to forgett that Scotland and France for i.e. were not enemys but good friends when you the English were in full scale war with the French.


There is a story about an English MP giving a speech in Scotland and making an impassion plea for people to stand together in face of whatever threat was facing them. The speech might have gone down somewhat better if the Scots audience hadn't been asked by the MP to 'remember Agincourt'....

Yeah, NI, I always admired the way that the French state stood up to the hordes of armoured knights trying to force submission to the Pope and surrender of individual rights upon them!

Although there's a slight possibility that I may have used the word French where I meant English or Anglo-Welsh, I dunno...
Why cant you Brits, look I used the word Brits, Happy?, just let people say what they want and let them be? Cant you people get it that not all people think youre so great. I speak my mind and it seems too much for many of you, deal with it. Your so noble bla bla bla, only a very dumb person thinks that is true.
Do not get me wrong, youre nation(s) have done some great things that I admire very much but you aint no saints.

There is a story about an English MP giving a speech in Scotland and making an impassion plea for people to stand together in face of whatever threat was facing them. The speech might have gone down somewhat better if the Scots audience hadn't been asked by the MP to 'remember Agincourt'....
:D

Why cant you Brits, look I used the word Brits, Happy?, just let people say what they want and let them be? Cant you people get it that not all people think youre so great. I speak my mind and it seems too much for many of you, deal with it. Your so noble bla bla bla, only a very dumb person thinks that is true.
Do not get me wrong, youre nation(s) have done some great things that I admire very much but you aint no saints.

Wait, what, so your word is the be all and end all of a debate? This was all just chaffe until you turned up and ended it? Are you totally off your rocker, then?

You say all that as if you think I'm some kind of English patriot. That's funny, because, like, you know, I'm one of those what's it, you know, a communist, and I couldn't care less for nationhood. I have done shit all that you admire. Damn nationalists... stop it, or I'll come round and slap you, when I'm drunk enough.

Wait, what, so your word is the be all and end all of a debate? This was all just chaffe until you turned up and ended it? Are you totally off your rocker, then?

You say all that as if you think I'm some kind of English patriot. That's funny, because, like, you know, I'm one of those what's it, you know, a communist, and I couldn't care less for nationhood. I have done shit all that you admire. Damn nationalists... stop it, or I'll come round and slap you, when I'm drunk enough.

No I never said that.
Put youre money were youre mouth is. It is easy to make threats on the internet, no point in arguing with someone as naive as you seem to be. Nationalist? I am not English, Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh, British or even French.I just admire the way France stood up to a superior force and that is why I chose France and not Britain.

P.S. What is a 'chaffe' and how the hell did I end it? Let me remind you that you started to post in regards to something I posted off topic, I was speaking my mind. Under the first part I got on topic as you can see and posted what I wanted to, youre the one that got off youre "rocker" slick.

"I have done shit all that you admire." - What kind of grades are you getting in English?
"stop it, or I'll come round and slap you, when I'm drunk enough." Just say when. :rolleyes:

No I never said that.
Put youre money were youre mouth is. It is easy to make threats on the internet, no point in arguing with someone as naive as you seem to be. Nationalist? I am not English, Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh, British or even French.I just admire the way France stood up to a superior force and that is why I chose France and not Britain.

P.S. What is a 'chaffe' and how the hell did I end it? Let me remind you that you started to post in regards to something I posted off topic, I was speaking my mind. Under the first part I got on topic as you can see and posted what I wanted to, youre the one that got off youre "rocker" slick.

"I have done shit all that you admire." - What kind of grades are you getting in English?
"stop it, or I'll come round and slap you, when I'm drunk enough." Just say when. :rolleyes:

I know that you're not British... I have the vague impression that you may be from Iceland, but there's a good chance I just made that up, because I am pretty drunk. I spoke of nationalism because you launched in with some attack on, "you Brits" and I wanted to indicate how gigantically inappropriate that was.

Chaffe is basically just useless byproduct... I was responding to your insinuation that I was wrong to respond with criticism to your post. Why was it okay that you join the debate and have your say, but not that anyone respond? Was it because your word is that of God and all the rest is useless byproduct? You see?

By typing, "I have done shit-all that you admire" I meant to respond to your words reading, "youre nation(s) have done some great things that I admire very much but you aint no saints." As I say, I have done nothing that you admire (so far as I'm aware). This fits in with my earlier assertion that I am no nationalist or patriot: I will not take credit for some brave English feudal plebe who centuries ago bashed in the skull of a much-better armed French knight who would have used his superior arms and numbers to erradicate England's more advanced sense of political freedom.

I was, in short, saying that your argument made less sense than a drunken Englishman.

I know that you're not British... I have the vague impression that you may be from Iceland, but there's a good chance I just made that up, because I am pretty drunk. I spoke of nationalism because you launched in with some attack on, "you Brits" and I wanted to indicate how gigantically inappropriate that was.

Chaffe is basically just useless byproduct... I was responding to your insinuation that I was wrong to respond with criticism to your post. Why was it okay that you join the debate and have your say, but not that anyone respond? Was it because your word is that of God and all the rest is useless byproduct? You see?

By typing, "I have done shit-all that you admire" I meant to respond to your words reading, "youre nation(s) have done some great things that I admire very much but you aint no saints." As I say, I have done nothing that you admire (so far as I'm aware). This fits in with my earlier assertion that I am no nationalist or patriot: I will not take credit for some brave English feudal plebe who centuries ago bashed in the skull of a much-better armed French knight who would have used his superior arms and numbers to erradicate England's more advanced sense of political freedom.

I was, in short, saying that your argument made less sense than a drunken Englishman.


Well I see you found a dictionary, good for you!
I look at the French and British wars form an historical point of view, the Frence did not have a superior force as the British did but they still managed to fight off the British and I admire that. Nothing more nothing less.
You are not wrong to reply to my post, you have that right as we do we all.
The second part of my first post was 'on topic' as I stated in the post and the first part was just a thought of mine that has no relevant point to the subject of this thread and I could not understand why you had to reply with such strong words in regards to the first part.
If you do not want to be a nationalist then don't be angry that I posted the word 'Brits', the fact that you did it just goes to show that you are one.
Youre 'insinuation' is wrong, by all means reply to my post. I never said that you could not, it is just that the second part was on topic and the first was not so I really did not see a point for you to reply to that part. My words are not of 'God' as you put it, you just asumed that

"As I say, I have done nothing that you admire (so far as I'm aware)"
Well that goes with out saying. I was referring to Darwin, Bell, Edison, Smith etc.

I am getting tired of this and we are spamming this thread. Lets just forgett about this and go on.

Regards,
N.I.

I've just skimmed through the thread so far and there seemed to be much discussion about whether Great Britain hed ever been completly overrun by anyone. The Normans and Vikings were mentioned, but not reference to the Romans! They invaded some thousand+ years before the Normans.

It's because Britain has been invaded by Romans and Normans that we have such a diverse language and many words that means exactly the same thing (such as Royal, Regal and Kingly - from the French, Latin and Anglo-Saxon)

If any americans come over here to visit; forget spending all your time in Londinium and try going to Eboracum, Aquae Sulis or Mamucium (or Ratae Coritanorum where I originally come from) But avoid Durocornovium - which is pretty boring today.

I've just skimmed through the thread so far and there seemed to be much discussion about whether Great Britain hed ever been completly overrun by anyone. The Normans and Vikings were mentioned, but not reference to the Romans! They invaded some thousand+ years before the Normans.

They never conquered Scotland though, or Ireland for that matter, so the claim about Britain not having been completely over-run remains.

Well...the only thing I'm going to accomplish by being discriminatory against France is a bunch of people yelling at me (kinda), so I'll just go with the UK because they speak English....and the U.S. does too. :D

pointless thread, still though i prefere the french. im irish wat do u expect

I prefer France, and I don't care that they've been defeated militarily more times than Britain. I think the country is nicer.

I would say that the GB v F rivalry is very weak compared to say:

Greece - Turkey
Israel - Palestine (or Syria or Iraq or Iran or almost any other Arab nation)
India - Pakistan
Japan - China
Ethiopia - Eritrea

etc etc.

Historically, Britain and France have had the deepest of rivalries. Only Rome and Carthage come close, or Persia and Greece. Both Britain and France had sizeable Empire, and both have very different cultures. I'm just interest to see which of the old-world superpowers you prefer? Why?

Personally, I prefer the UK. I think our history is richer and of greater prestige. I think our people are kinder and more polite. I think our literature and artwork is on the whole, of greater quality. I think Britain has produced more great inventions, great discoveries and great people (greater heroes, scientists etc.) I prefer our constitutional monarchy, and our philosophy on the Rule of Law, the Sovereign Parliament and the uncodified constitution.

I also think our version of Imperialism was economically, culturally and morally superior. This is all my opinion, and I don't have a particular gripe against the French people or France as a country as it is now. I'm just entertaining myself with a thread.

Please no non-sensical French/British bashing. I want actual reasons. That they didn't back America in the war of Terrorism isn't good enough.

I do think France has superior wines and food, though.


I prefer Great Britain. Why? well... I agree with you on the superior morality of their colonial period, for starters. There's also the British 'stability' politically-the British Nation figured out fairly early how to manage themselves without resorting to internal violence, with the only truly serious civil war happening in the mid-seventeenth century, and at the end, got nowhere. Notice there has been NO REPEATS. (France is like on their fifth Republic?)

I disagree about French Food, though-I prefer my fish to be unspoiled, and dislike heavy cream-sauces.
(then again, I don't like boiled beef either-so british food isn't much better...other than the Fish, and the desserts...mmm...)

Britain is a better ally to have, as well-they don't draw their allies in, only to surrender to an invader. (1939-1944), nor do they draw their allies into trench warfare by effectively not defending themselves from invaders (1914-1917, 1939-1944), drawing their allies in to interferei n their former possessions (Vietnam, Haiti), or backstabbing their allies (1939 to present).

I'm from Singapore, which just so happens to exist because Britain colonised it about 200 years back. Right now I hate Britain for siding with the US of A in what was clearly an act of terrorism- terrorising third world countries. :sniper: :mp5:

I'm cheering for France even though they have absolutely no brains. All they do is veto almost every decision the US of A puts up before the UN. :gundge:

Well then the reason that Great Britain has never been completely overrun is that it wasn't a single country until 1707 (and the UK didn't exist until 1801). But England was overrun many times in the Dark Ages (and Scotland a couple of times I think as well). Still, if we get to 2066 without being invaded then, as far as England is concerned, we will have successfully resisted foreign invasion for 1000 years, and that would really be quite special. It's not like people haven't tried either.

Anyway, I prefer the UK, my homeland, because it is more sensible and pragmatic, and has a great history of political freedom in contrast with the French history of social equality (given the choice, and we have to make it, I would not enforce equality at the expense of liberty. The French used the guillotine to do so). I think that our contribution to science is unmatched. I think that our philosphers are better because they actually have some relationship with reality.

The French appreciate the good things in life better than we do. They have much better food, especially in the South, they are more stylish than we are and I have a bad feeling that their women are better looking.

I voted for France...since for starters, France ain't that bad in military. They had the best cavlary and the guts to take on the rest of Europe. Napolean is just one general, but the rest are mostly French.

I WWII no one country in the european continent could've stopped Germany. GB was just lucky Hitler and the Luftwaffe went stupid. Besides, General Juin Alphonese of the French Army was instrumental in the taking of Tunisia, and their Phantom jets were quite good when it went into service.

France!

I mean, just pronounce the name! Doesn't it sounds fantastic?

Besides that I am starting to like French culture more and more.

Wait... Is Eutrusca going to read this thread?

GO USA!

England is the second best country in the world. France is like the 119 best. England makes the best music. Has some of the most awesome history has a kick ass population and as for the pubs. Well, thats no secret. Britain you guys are awesome! This is a guy from America saying that you guys kick ass! And if I was born there I would probably say the UK is the best country.

To add this, the French are somewhat slimey. Not because they didnt help us in Iraq, but they are bums. They did business with Saddam, they look down at many other people, especially the US, the women dont shave and they have awful shower and clothe changing habits. And recently one of the largest child sex rings or whatever you want to call it happened. And when it was exposed it recieved little emotion. Like noone even cared. I mean thats discusting you dont just go around screwing children and than the population doesnt care.

Plus those man robots really piss me off.

They did business with Saddam...


Unlike the USA, to pick an example purely at random?


And recently one of the largest child sex rings or whatever you want to call it happened.

Wasn't this in Belgium, or am I thinking of a different incident?

Wasn't this in Belgium, or am I thinking of a different incident?

Yes, they're thinking about Belgium. And Daft Punk are cool!

I voted for France...since for starters, France ain't that bad in military. They had the best cavlary and the guts to take on the rest of Europe. Napolean is just one general, but the rest are mostly French.

I WWII no one country in the european continent could've stopped Germany. GB was just lucky Hitler and the Luftwaffe went stupid. Besides, General Juin Alphonese of the French Army was instrumental in the taking of Tunisia, and their Phantom jets were quite good when it went into service.


Ahahahahaha, thanks for the laugh.

Yes, but you appeared to be agreeing with someone (Dowsley) who was using the term 'UK', and the term 'Britain' is an ill-defined one at best.

Saying: "You appeared" proves that you are not ablle to understand or proves your wrong. I was not agreeing with anybody, just simple facts!

As you can tell from my name, I'd rather not be where I am right now, so I'll go Great Britain :)

Yes, they're thinking about Belgium. And Daft Punk are cool!
What are child sex rings? Is it good or bad?

there seems to be a lot of france-bashing going on.

in my opinion, frances military record A) shouldnt have anything to do with it and B) if it does, then the french have been very unlucky throughout the ages. i love the way the americans claim that they won the first and second world wars. in 1939 if it hadnt been for france and britain taking on germany in the first place, i believe america would have got rid of roosevelt and allied itself with the nazis, because there were profits involved.

oh i voted for britain, because although i hate the society and many of the people, i love living here, because of the landscape. i loved going to france on holiday though. fantastic place. plus its against the war on terror. doubleplusgood. oh and cheese. the list is almost endless.

Having lived in the UK, but not france. I say UK.

Having lived in the UK, but not in France. I say France.

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war. So my vote goes with the UK

How about the battle of hastings? you know with the vikings and the normans

Yes, they're thinking about Belgium. And Daft Punk are cool!
No they weren't. There has been a much bigger, wider and more disturbing child sex ring in France.

How about the battle of hastings? you know with the vikings and the normans
It was between the Saxons and the Normans (in fact, the Saxons had to hot foot it down to Hastings after defeating Harold Hardraada[?] and his Vikings).

Also, that was just England, and not the other countries that make up Britian

No they weren't. There has been a much bigger, wider and more disturbing child sex ring in France.
What's a child sex ring?

What's a child sex ring?
oh blaaaaah. you know what it means. is paedophile ring better?

hmmm...actually that's not a proper word in this case. What you call a mother who sells her child to paedophiles?

What you call a mother who sells her child for paedophiles?

A junkie?

Easy to decide - ask the English kings of the middle ages. They came to England in 1066 and tried everything for nearly 100 years to come back to France subsequently. I suppose they would vote for France if they were so desperately in need to leave England (a remarkable part of what is now the UK) again headed back for France after just arriving. After they did not manage to come back to France they were so disturbed that they ordered all people to walk/drive on the wrong/left side of the road. Gladly the USA was saved from this nonsense by the French freeing them from the UK in the years after 1776.

there seems to be a lot of france-bashing going on.

in my opinion, frances military record A) shouldnt have anything to do with it and B) if it does, then the french have been very unlucky throughout the ages. i love the way the americans claim that they won the first and second world wars. in 1939 if it hadnt been for france and britain taking on germany in the first place, i believe america would have got rid of roosevelt and allied itself with the nazis, because there were profits involved.

oh i voted for britain, because although i hate the society and many of the people, i love living here, because of the landscape. i loved going to france on holiday though. fantastic place. plus its against the war on terror. doubleplusgood. oh and cheese. the list is almost endless.

1. Your theories about the intentions of Americans doesn't refute what ACTUALLY happened, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that if it hadn't been for the US, both wars probably would have been lost. I'm not saying they single handedly took on Germany, because they didn't, but without their crucial help, the allies would have lost.

2. 1939 was the second year of Roosevelt's second term. In the U.S. we don't overthrow Presidents. They don't function like PMs, in that sense.

I would say that the GB v F rivalry is very weak compared to say:

Greece - Turkey
Israel - Palestine (or Syria or Iraq or Iran or almost any other Arab nation)
India - Pakistan
Japan - China
Ethiopia - Eritrea

etc etc.

Agreed on the first three.

Half-Swiss, Half-Scot.

What kind of Swiss? I would say there is a huge difference amongst the French, German, Italian, and Rhaetian Swiss peoples.

You do, of course, know that 'Great Britain' != 'the UK'...

Actually there different

UK doesnt inclued EIRE, Great Britain does

But anyway I have to go with the UK cos of their superior military as a whole in the past

I've just skimmed through the thread so far and there seemed to be much discussion about whether Great Britain hed ever been completly overrun by anyone. The Normans and Vikings were mentioned, but not reference to the Romans! They invaded some thousand+ years before the Normans.

It's because Britain has been invaded by Romans and Normans that we have such a diverse language and many words that means exactly the same thing (such as Royal, Regal and Kingly - from the French, Latin and Anglo-Saxon)

If any americans come over here to visit; forget spending all your time in Londinium and try going to Eboracum, Aquae Sulis or Mamucium (or Ratae Coritanorum where I originally come from) But avoid Durocornovium - which is pretty boring today.

Well, the Romans overran Britain when the Britons lived there. And the ancestors of the English forced the Celts into Brittany, Cornwall, and Wales, or killed them. They had no real lasting effect. It was the later Christian missionaries to England who retintroduced Latin via the Church. Obviously, the Normans introduced a bastardized form of French, but they were a small percentage of the population and affected England on a minute scale genetically. However, they were the upper class, and therefore the learned, and their language influenced the English language greatly.

How about the battle of hastings? you know with the vikings and the normans

psssstttt

The vikings werent involved in hastings

Actually there different

UK doesnt inclued EIRE, Great Britain does

But anyway I have to go with the UK cos of their superior military as a whole in the past

Great Britain was the name first adopted with the Union of England (and Wales) with Scotland. The United Kingdom was used when Ireland was added on to the roster, and has continued to be used with Northern Ireland. I believe that you are referring to the term "British Isles".

I go for France because they had the revolution and they kicked the king in the ass (well they did even better than that) and they kicked religion in the ass as well.

North of the wall the Saxons or another "barbarian" tribe lived there and attacked the romans and the british

The Saxons came from the European mainland. Celtic Britons (for this was before the Scots, whose ancestors came over from Ireland) and mostly Basque-like Picts lived up in what is now Scotland.

Well, the Romans overran Britain when the Britons lived there. And the ancestors of the English forced the Celts into Brittany, Cornwall, and Wales, or killed them. They had no real lasting effect. It was the later Christian missionaries to England who retintroduced Latin via the Church. Obviously, the Normans introduced a bastardized form of French, but they were a small percentage of the population and affected England on a minute scale genetically. However, they were the upper class, and therefore the learned, and their language influenced the English language greatly.

The Romans advanced to the border of Scotland, but failed to conquer the whole landmass-they built a wall to keep Roman Settlers from aggravating the Picts and the Scots.
The Angles and the Saxons divvied up the south-end until the Normans came.
The Norman conquerors didn't take Scotland-the Scots, in their characteristic way, conquered themselves by being unable to unite effectively against one of the Edward-Plantagenets. (by then, it was English vs. Scots, though-not Norman-vs.-Scot, or N.vs.E.)
Unlike certain continental nations, nobody has ever successfully invaded and conquered the British Isles without 'going native' first.
(that would be, invadedn and conquered them in a single generation, the way Ceasar took Gaul, for instance.)
At Hastings, Norman Cavalry took the field, but post-Hastings, the strength of the British Isles has always been Infantry. Mounted Knights are of little actual use on the bulk of British terrain-it's just not flat and level enough, and the weather's dreadful for horses.
If you look at Crecy, or Agincourt, in france, and check the dates, both terrain and weather favoured the English infantry over the mounted knights, which is why Black Edward and Henry V were able to turn what (by the conventional wisdom of the time) were overwhelming disadvantages into crushing victories.

Oh, and the Welsh Longbow is the first anti-armour weapon. four foot long shaft tipped with hardened iron (cast, then hammered in charcoal, then work-hardened after it cooled) with a massive amount of sectional densitiy, and fairly high-velocity, the Armour-Piercing Flechette of the 12th Century!

The English adopted the idea, and the Longbow was an effective weapon up until the 17th Century on the battlefield, with its high-rate-of-fire, well-trained operators, long range, and good effectiveness against armour.

The Romans advanced to the border of Scotland, but failed to conquer the whole landmass-they built a wall to keep Roman Settlers from aggravating the Picts and the Scots.
The Angles and the Saxons divvied up the south-end until the Normans came.

The wall was built to keep the Britons (not Scots, they weren't there until later. They came from Ireland) and the Picts out of Roman Britain (now England), not the other way around.

The Angles and the Saxons had efficiently remerged into the English (as the Germanic tribes had once been one people in the past) quite a while before the Norman conquest. There had been kings of a united England (Anglia) before the Normans.

Britain and France haven't had the deepest of rivalries........England and France have. In Scotland, there existed what what known as "The Auld Alliance", where Both countries aided and suppoted each other in their wars against England. This was all before the union of the countries into "Great Britain" and then it was primarily the south (England) who dictated policy agains France. So it's not true to say Scotland has always had emnity towards France.

What kind of Swiss? I would say there is a huge difference amongst the French, German, Italian, and Rhaetian Swiss peoples.

"James Bond was born of a Scottish father, Andrew Bond of Glencoe, and a Swiss mother, Monique Delacroix, from the Canton de Vaud" - from his obituary in You Only Live Twice.

Actually there different

UK doesnt inclued EIRE, Great Britain does

But anyway I have to go with the UK cos of their superior military as a whole in the past

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8597280&postcount=34

"Yes, indeed: this is just what I was saying.

The exclamation mark followed by the equals sign is a short hand for 'does not equal'."

... and by the way 'Great Britain' doesn't include Eire: it is comprised of the landmass which is comprised of England, Scotland, Wales and small surrounding islands. However 'the British Isles' does include both Great Britain and the island of Ireland (ie. both Northern Ireland and Eire), which may be what you are thinking of.

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war.

Actually, it has been overrun once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest) By France, incidentally.


A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this:

England != The United Kingdom

England != Britain

The United Kingdom = England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Great Britain = the island consisting of England, Scotland and Wales

The UK has not been overrun since it came into existence in 1801. Before that Great Britain was not overrun since it came into existence in 1707. Before that England hadn't been conquered since 1066. I'm not sure about Scotland. Wales was obviously conquered by the English, as was Ireland.

Overall an extremely good record against foreign invasion however you want to define things, especially if you're English.

Nova Castlemilk - while accepting your point about Scotland and the Auld Alliance, I think it is also fair to say that since 1707 Scotland has been as enthusiastic a participant as any in the rivalry and wars between Britain and France.

Just to throw my hat into the ring, I prefer the UK for the main point that France, in its entire history, has only won (I'm 90% certain) 2 wars. One of which was the French revolution, so they had to win that one. This is not "French bashing" even though it would be so fun and easy to do, it is merely the truth that france has a record of about 2-10 in conflicts/wars.

A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this:

England != The United Kingdom

England != Britain

The United Kingdom = England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Great Britain = the island consisting of England, Scotland and Wales

By the time this thread dissapears into thread hell, you'll have learn't an important lesson.

Don't use boolean logic in a forum half filled with muppets.. ;)

Hmmm....

Sporadic waves of Viking attacks on our coastlines occured for long periods of time, I remember something about the sacking of a monestary, however the Viking attackers were beaten back when they tried to go furthur in land in England.

England was attacked on numerous occasions, the Romans (who did actually settle on England) didn't fully overrun the UK (which wasn't around at the time), Boudicca the queen of the Britons continued to harrass Roman towns and cities in England until she commited suicide.

After the Romans there was of course Hastings and King Harold Godwinson, he may of won the battle had he of stopped off for reinforcements (he had just fought a battle on a bridge, can't remember the name). Again the UK didn't exist but they took control of much of the mainland as they defeated the army at the time.

And then there was the Scots, they defeated the only army standing in their way and attacked an English city..they could of easily continued into greater England, although their attack would of lost strength eventually.

And finally the only real overrunning of the whole country (England, Scotland and Wales) was with the rebellion of Cromwell and his Roundheads, but you could say it wasn't really them overrunning the country because well they were already in the country and were English. ;)

The UK has a good record of not being overrun, however the same cannot be said for England, it seems to bare the brunt of any invasions.

Sorry for the lack of dates, but well I am to tired to google for some. ;/

The UK has not been overrun since it came into existence in 1801. Before that Great Britain was not overrun since it came into existence in 1707. Before that England hadn't been conquered since 1066. I'm not sure about Scotland. Wales was obviously conquered by the English, as was Ireland.

Overall an extremely good record against foreign invasion however you want to define things, especially if you're English.

Nova Castlemilk - while accepting your point about Scotland and the Auld Alliance, I think it is also fair to say that since 1707 Scotland has been as enthusiastic a participant as any in the rivalry and wars between Britain and France.
I think you're forgetting about the Jacobite rebellion in 1745, when Bonnie Prince Charlie "The Young Pretender" defeated the English forces and got down as far as Derby. He had financial support from the French for this, however, he did not receive any of the expected military forces and had to rely entirely on Scottish Patriots.
Admittedly, he was chased back to Glencoe and finally defeated but the point is, that for a time, the Hanoverian King and English Government were concerned about a Scottish invasion in London and a Stuart takeover.

The UK has never been completely over run and defeated in a war.

Actually, it has been overrun once. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Conquest) By France, incidentally.

it wasnt the french the normans were norsemen (vikings) who settled in the north of france and took control of a great deal of france as well

By the time this thread dissapears into thread hell, you'll have learn't an important lesson.

Don't use boolean logic in a forum half filled with muppets.. ;)

A + B = C

where A = 'Boolean logic', B = 'muppets' and C = 'thread hell'.