NationStates Jolt Archive

Something happened in Europe around 1500. The various powers of Europe conquered and colonized eachother, and overseas territories. They had different ideaologies for doing this, but it all prolonged imperialism until the 20th century.
The British Empire was undoubtedly one of the greatest. It was definatly the wealthiest, arguably the strongest, and conquered the most territory. Yet the British Empire has fallen, and it is left to us, posterity, to judge it. I want you to judge it on how this event fits your morals, and overall, whether the world benefited or not.

The British Empire was cool. *shrugs* Did some good, did some bad but was an overall positive influence on the world. I really enjoy the Victorian era and feel it is very misunderstood by most people, much like the Mexican-American war.
British uniforms of that era were pretty nice looking. It saddens me they gave it up so quickly after WWII, I know they were drained and I realize the US put the clamp on their Suez operation but I just wish they had fought a little harder to keep what they had. Seems a sad, quiet ending for something once so great.

I personally believed that the British Empire was overall a more beneficial than negative force in the world. They established the eries procedures of English law as a world standard, spread their language, and opened up and explored countless miles of uncharted territory. Thousands of innovations, advances and discoveny of theories came from them. Modern capitalism, free trade, and railroads came from the Empire. Many of their colonies became modern, stable countries, a feat that was not accomplished by the other European nations.

The British Empire was undoubtedly one of the greatest. It was definatly the wealthiest, arguably the strongest, and conquered the most territory. Yet the British Empire has fallen, and it is left to us, posterity, to judge it.


The sun never set on the British Empire because God didn't trust the bastards in the dark.

The sun never set on the British Empire because God didn't trust the bastards in the dark.
I'm surprised. From my polling data, all the Brits voted against it. Have some pride in your history, please?

The British Empire was cool. *shrugs* Did some good, did some bad but was an overall positive influence on the world. I really enjoy the Victorian era and feel it is very misunderstood by most people, much like the Mexican-American war.
British uniforms of that era were pretty nice looking. It saddens me they gave it up so quickly after WWII, I know they were drained and I realize the US put the clamp on their Suez operation but I just wish they had fought a little harder to keep what they had. Seems a sad, quiet ending for something once so great.
I agree. In fact, if the British continued with the Suez operation, Arab nationalism would have never been as powerful as it was. And as a result, maybe Islamic fundamentalism would be more of a fring movement, and would have not gone mainstream, as it did in many places.

I agree. In fact, if the British continued with the Suez operation, Arab nationalism would have never been as powerful as it was. And as a result, maybe Islamic fundamentalism would be more of a fring movement, and would have not gone mainstream, as it did in many places.

I know the US and USSR stomped the French and English because they were the new big boys but it really annoys me that we did so. We should have supported the Brits more.

I'm surprised. From my polling data, all the Brits voted against it. Have some pride in your history, please?

I think it's because the British are the ones who have a first person view of their history, and so they may know a different side of it than people like me, an American, would understand.

However, I still feel proud that a single island nation could build the greatest and most influential empire since ancient Rome.

Lastly, I play as England in Civ3 and Rise of Nations, so I like them especially.

I'm surprised. From my polling data, all the Brits voted against it. Have some pride in your history, please?
yes, its easy to be proud of the British record in Ireland

i think that some of the places came out better than they were before being conquered (India, USA, Canada), but many others suffered hugely

Nevertheless, regardless of how good the Empire was in the eyes of foreign nations, in comparison to the other imperial nations of Europe they were a lot more civil towards their colonial subjects and had the most positive effect on their colonies.

yes, its easy to be proud of the British record in Ireland

i think that some of the places came out better than they were before being conquered (India, USA, Canada), but many others suffered hugely
Well, I know I'll be flamed for this, but Ireland came out fine, both north and south. The only problem were those pesky nationalists on either side. But now that they aren't a significant factor in Ireland anymore, the island is fine. Ireland proper even has the largest growing economy in Western Europe.
Besides, you are typing to me on a computer. You must also have some sort of dwelling, and as you can afford this, you can presumably afford to eat. You are better off than even some of the "better off" British colonies out there.

It also saddens me that so many Brits I meet over here have no pride in their nation's history at all. Oh, they love a lot of stuff now, especially if it has to do with benign things like that child's game soccer(tee hee, watch the flurry from that!) But most seem to know little about nor really feel any pride about the great things they accomplished in the past.

Well, I know I'll be flamed for this, but Ireland came out fine, both north and south. The only problem were those pesky nationalists on either side. But now that they aren't a significant factor in Ireland anymore, the island is fine. Ireland proper even has the largest growing economy in Western Europe.
Besides, you are typing to me on a computer. You must also have some sort of dwelling, and as you can afford this, you can presumably afford to eat. You are better off than even some of the "better off" British colonies out there.
Ireland is pretty much fine now, but it suffered alot even when it was actually a part of the UK. Famine anyone?

the north east (where the majority of the Unionists live) never really suffered from the famine, because the economy here was much more based on industry than the rest of Ireland, so the native Irish in the rest of the island got screwed over there

You must also have some sort of dwelling, and as you can afford this, you can presumably afford to eat.

Are you implying that before the British came to Ireland there were neither dwellings nor affordable food?

It also saddens me that so many Brits I meet over here have no pride in their nation's history at all. Oh, they love a lot of stuff now, especially if it has to do with benign things like that child's game soccer(tee hee, watch the flurry from that!) But most seem to know little about nor really feel any pride about the great things they accomplished in the past.
thats because the British Empire isnt really 'politically correct' anymore

Well, I know I'll be flamed for this, but Ireland came out fine, both north and south. The only problem were those pesky nationalists on either side. But now that they aren't a significant factor in Ireland anymore, the island is fine. Ireland proper even has the largest growing economy in Western Europe.
Besides, you are typing to me on a computer. You must also have some sort of dwelling, and as you can afford this, you can presumably afford to eat. You are better off than even some of the "better off" British colonies out there.

Oh Mystic, don't you know better than to deny a person their right to claim victim status. The Irish are horribly oppressed by the UK, horribly. The IRA is complete justified in killing and bombing because it's a victim. The same goes for the pro UK N. Ireland people.

It also saddens me that so many Brits I meet over here have no pride in their nation's history at all. Oh, they love a lot of stuff now, especially if it has to do with benign things like that child's game soccer(tee hee, watch the flurry from that!) But most seem to know little about nor really feel any pride about the great things they accomplished in the past.
It's especially sad for me. I regard them as one of the most positive temporal forces in the history of the world. They had their faults, and it brought them down. They were a true tragic hero. But I can't help giving them praise for the "hero" part.

thats because the British Empire isnt really 'politically correct' anymore

But politically correct people are the kind who would attack and take no pride in the history of their nation.

Oh Mystic, don't you know better than to deny a person their right to claim victim status. The Irish are horribly oppressed by the UK, horribly. The IRA is complete justified in killing and bombing because it's a victim. The same goes for the pro UK N. Ireland people.
Ireland was pretty oppressed. not anymore

Ireland is pretty much fine now, but it suffered alot even when it was actually a part of the UK. Famine anyone?

the north east (where the majority of the Unionists live) never really suffered from the famine, because the economy here was much more based on industry than the rest of Ireland, so the native Irish in the rest of the island got screwed over there
It just took some time to develope, that's all. The reason was because of the vacuum the British left, which the illiberal Sinn Fein filled.

But politically correct people are the kind who would attack and take no pride in the history of their nation.
unfortunately politically correct people also control the education system, and the BBC

Ireland is pretty much fine now, but it suffered alot even when it was actually a part of the UK. Famine anyone?


Side note: Ireland (as an island) currently has about 2 million less people living on it than during pre-Famine times.

I think that any nation should not deny its past. The US has done some very bad things in the past, but I am still proud of our nation. Because, above the evil, there is great good. While I will not deny or excuse the acts of the past, I think any nation must consider the good as well as the bad and take pride in the good.

It just took some time to develope, that's all. The reason was because of the vacuum the British left, which the illiberal Sinn Fein filled.
Ireland is only as strong as it is because of shedloads of EU money, without which it would still be nowhere

Ireland was pretty oppressed. not anymore

Yeah, I know the Brits screwed you guys over hard quite a few times, I just get tired of groups like the IRA who won't let it go. I also get pissed at the support they get from people over in the US.

unfortunately politically correct people also control the education system, and the BBC

aha! Okay, I was looking at your post from zee wrong angle. Understood now.

Are you implying that before the British came to Ireland there were neither dwellings nor affordable food?
Almost. Before the Brits came, Ireland was a feudal society with constant warfare and impoverished masses. The population was incredibally rural, and they all depended on subsistence farming. By the Industrial Revolution, this was less so, although Ireland was still pretty backwards. Still, this offers evidence to what many historians claim: Catholic societies have a harder time advancing than Protestant ones. It's a bitter but necessary pill that I, a Catholic, have to swallow.

Don't like imperialism, but they tended to leave their colonies in a semi-decent condition when they left, unlike France, Belgium, etc.

Side note: Ireland (as an island) currently has about 2 million less people living on it than during pre-Famine times.
There is a reason that I somewhat allude to in my last reply to you. Poverty and warefare make for large families. Now we see that prosperity reduces fertility rates.

Almost. Before the Brits came, Ireland was a feudal society with constant warfare and impoverished masses. The population was incredibally rural, and they all depended on subsistence farming. By the Industrial Revolution, this was less so, although Ireland was still pretty backwards. Still, this offers evidence to what many historians claim: Catholic societies have a harder time advancing than Protestant ones. It's a bitter but necessary pill that I, a Catholic, have to swallow.

Its cause we Protestants love the money. Money money money money! Remember, if you are rich it means God loves you more!

Don't like imperialism, but they tended to leave their colonies in a semi-decent condition when they left, unlike France, Belgium, etc.

All we are saaaaaaaying, is give imperialism a chaaaaaance...

oh wait. . .

Almost. Before the Brits came, Ireland was a feudal society with constant warfare and impoverished masses. The population was incredibally rural, and they all depended on subsistence farming. By the Industrial Revolution, this was less so, although Ireland was still pretty backwards. Still, this offers evidence to what many historians claim: Catholic societies have a harder time advancing than Protestant ones. It's a bitter but necessary pill that I, a Catholic, have to swallow.

Not necessarily. In the past, it was the Catholic Church that provided the impetus and preservation of knowledge to lift Europe out of the Dark ages. The same occured with the Renaissance and the expansion in to the new world. However, as the power of the church grew increasingly temporal and began to wane, they reverted in to a reactionary pose that suppressed science to hold on to their power. This occured about at the same time as the Protestant Reformation, the sweeping change that firmly placed the church in temporal decline.

Ireland is only as strong as it is because of shedloads of EU money, without which it would still be nowhere
The EU has a very small budget, half of which goes to farm subsidies, anyhow. Most of its wealth has been from its booming services sector, such as the growth in pharmaceuticals there. The US imports most of its medicine from Ireland these days. In many respects, it is now better off than the Brits themselves are today.

Not necessarily. In the past, it was the Catholic Church that provided the impetus and preservation of knowledge to lift Europe out of the Dark ages. The same occured with the Renaissance and the expansion in to the new world. However, as the power of the church grew increasingly temporal and began to wane, they reverted in to a reactionary pose that suppressed science to hold on to their power. This occured about at the same time as the Protestant Reformation, the sweeping change that firmly placed the church in temporal decline.
Good point. But at that time, protestant societies did better than Catholic ones. Compare Spain and the Netherlands. Spain was Catholic, and the Netherlands was Protestant. Spain's economy was stagnatiing, its innovation nonexistant, and its military unable to keep up with its empire in Europe and the Americas. The Netherlands defeated Spain. They went on to have a successful economy and build an empire that included modern Indonesia, one of the wealthiest colonies ever.

Almost. Before the Brits came, Ireland was a feudal society with constant warfare and impoverished masses.The population was incredibally rural, and they all depended on subsistence farming.

However, in complete contrast when the Brits came in 1172 they themselves were a feudal society with constant warfare and impoverished masses.Their population was incredibally rural, and they all depended on subsistence farming.


By the Industrial Revolution, this was less so, although Ireland was still pretty backwards. Still, this offers evidence to what many historians claim: Catholic societies have a harder time advancing than Protestant ones. It's a bitter but necessary pill that I, a Catholic, have to swallow.

I don't want to get to far into the murky waters of historical counterfactuals, but I'll point out that the indutrial revolution was not a phenomenon limited solely to the British Empire, and as such your implication that without the Brits Ireland would never have developed beyond the late medieval doesn't really hold water.

Good point. But at that time, protestant societies did better than Catholic ones. Compare Spain and the Netherlands. Spain was Catholic, and the Netherlands was Protestant. Spain's economy was stagnatiing, its innovation nonexistant, and its military unable to keep up with its empire in Europe and the Americas. The Netherlands defeated Spain. They went on to have a successful economy and build an empire that included modern Indonesia, one of the wealthiest colonies ever.

That was the result of stagnation, which came from the reactionary position the Church assumed as its power waned at the beginning of the Scientific Revolution. As a result, the ally Catholic nations also waned until the entire network really collapsed in the late 16th century.

Furthermore, the Netherlands were extremely tolerant and accomodative to the various faiths of Europe, and this attracted a varied group of people that the repressive Catholic nations could not stop.

There is a reason that I somewhat allude to in my last reply to you. Poverty and warefare make for large families. Now we see that prosperity reduces fertility rates.

The fact that roughly one million starved and another two million emigrated (mostly to the USA) has nothing to do with it?

Don't like imperialism, but they tended to leave their colonies in a semi-decent condition when they left, unlike France, Belgium, etc.

Hardly a glowing report though, is it:

THE BRITISH EMPIRE!
NOT QUITE AS BAD AS THE BELGIAN CONGO!

I still think there is a massive and undeniable difference between India and French West Africa, or Nigeria and Belgian Congo (the Europe-sized playground of Leopold II).

I still think there is a massive and undeniable difference between India and French West Africa, or Nigeria and Belgian Congo (the Europe-sized playground of Leopold II).

Assuredly, but I think we have to ask ourselves if this is just a result of the different methods of administration that the British Empire generally favoured as compared to those utilised by other Imperial powers. Would I be going to far out on a limb if I was to suggest that the relatively good situation that India found itself in come 1950 (ignoring the whole Pakistan/Kashmir malarky) was a result of the fact that the British Empire sought to rule it by placing a massive local civil service bureaucracy at the heart of its colonial holding? If so then we see that some of the benefits that India gained from the British Empire are not ones which spring from a British well of benevolence, but instead just its particular modus operandi.

The various powers of Europe conquered and colonized eachother...

The British Empire was
1) undoubtedly one of the greatest.
2) It was definatly the wealthiest,
3) arguably the strongest...

maybe it was the wealthiest...how do we figure?

It also saddens me that so many Brits I meet over here have no pride in their nation's history at all. Oh, they love a lot of stuff now, especially if it has to do with benign things like that child's game soccer(tee hee, watch the flurry from that!) But most seem to know little about nor really feel any pride about the great things they accomplished in the past.

I must confess, I badmouth Britain a hell of a lot, but that's because I look around and see where we are today, and I never experience what we once were, but I read... and I almost weep at the thought of how far we have fallen. There's an ad campaign for Heinz brown sauce running right now, along the lines of 'Official sauce of Great Britain.'. Unfortunately, it features 'White van men', 'footballer's wives', 'hen nights', and some other completely dire group which makes me want to move elsewhere not because I like it more elsewhere, but because I like it so little here. Britain appears to be the only country on Earth where almost any stereotype one applies holds true. (To groups of people, rather than nationalities and so forth.)

We don't have anything of the glorious empire that spanned the globe. We don't have anything of the technological and cultural marvels we gave the world. (We have Damien Hurst and the Tate Modern.) We don't have any pride or respect for the monarchy, despite it being one of the most quintessentially British things we have left. If Nazi Germany arose today we'd probably fall before France; there's nothing left of our fighting spirit, of that which won the Battle of Britain for us.

That's why I am so ashamed of Britain, and why you'll rarely hear me speak well of it. Outside of the entertainment industries (Where we remain well surpassed by others.), we've done nothing of value for nigh sixty years.

We ought to be where our GDP and wealth places us; right at the damned forefront, with Japan and the US. Our companies and think tanks should be keeping both those nations on their toes. We should be putting out as much in the way of truly groundbreaking research as those two nations, indeed we probably ought to be leagues ahead in some areas. Our cultural subsidising ought to be going to 'The Douglas Adams Foundation' and so forth. Instead, our only hold on Britishness is to complain about American spelling, and claim that unmade beds and thirty foot tall conical constructions are worthwhile art.

Hardly a glowing report though, is it:

THE BRITISH EMPIRE!
NOT QUITE AS BAD AS THE BELGIAN CONGO!

A bit like the justification for the Iraq war from some people, "Well we're not as bad as Saddam"

(Note: In the case of this thread, I really don't care about the war. Sorry for the mild hijack)

Before the brits, most of Ireland was 'beyond the pale'. (I couldn't resist that. And, well, someone had to say it).

Almost. Before the Brits came, Ireland was a feudal society with constant warfare and impoverished masses.

What? Ireland still pretty much had an Ancien Regime type set up well into modern times. The North Eastern bit largely survived, but this was a special case due to the linen industry. But for many of the other part agrarian conflict was rife with organisation such as the Hearts of Steel attacking landowners over the policy of raising (expensive) cattle instead of (cheapish) crops which could feed more people. I don't believe the Nationalist Revisionist crap which romantisies the English's actions to give them higher 'victim' status, but you definetly seem to be looking at the past through rose tinted glasses.

The population was incredibally rural, and they all depended on subsistence farming.

See above, the population (outside of Dublin and the industrial cities in Ulster) were still incredibly rural for a long time after the English came, infact I think the population still is very rural.

Similarly subsistence farming continued right through the Ascendancy with famine occuring quite frequently. (This was not helped by policies of landowners designed to get as much profit as possible).

By the Industrial Revolution, this was less so, although Ireland was still pretty backwards. Still, this offers evidence to what many historians claim: Catholic societies have a harder time advancing than Protestant ones. It's a bitter but necessary pill that I, a Catholic, have to swallow.

How? The Irish were under the thumb of English Landlords, how do you expect them to advance?

I must confess, I badmouth Britain a hell of a lot, but that's because I look around and see where we are today, and I never experience what we once were, but I read... and I almost weep at the thought of how far we have fallen. There's an ad campaign for Heinz brown sauce running right now, along the lines of 'Official sauce of Great Britain.'. Unfortunately, it features 'White van men', 'footballer's wives', 'hen nights', and some other completely dire group which makes me want to move elsewhere not because I like it more elsewhere, but because I like it so little here. Britain appears to be the only country on Earth where almost any stereotype one applies holds true. (To groups of people, rather than nationalities and so forth.)

We don't have anything of the glorious empire that spanned the globe. We don't have anything of the technological and cultural marvels we gave the world. (We have Damien Hurst and the Tate Modern.) We don't have any pride or respect for the monarchy, despite it being one of the most quintessentially British things we have left. If Nazi Germany arose today we'd probably fall before France; there's nothing left of our fighting spirit, of that which won the Battle of Britain for us.

That's why I am so ashamed of Britain, and why you'll rarely hear me speak well of it. Outside of the entertainment industries (Where we remain well surpassed by others.), we've done nothing of value for nigh sixty years.

We ought to be where our GDP and wealth places us; right at the damned forefront, with Japan and the US. Our companies and think tanks should be keeping both those nations on their toes. We should be putting out as much in the way of truly groundbreaking research as those two nations, indeed we probably ought to be leagues ahead in some areas. Our cultural subsidising ought to be going to 'The Douglas Adams Foundation' and so forth. Instead, our only hold on Britishness is to complain about American spelling, and claim that unmade beds and thirty foot tall conical constructions are worthwhile art.

I agree with your assessment completely. I wonder where this malaise came from. Is it cynicism from two WW? The UK should be much greater now than it is. It should be a reall, big boy major player. I love my country, the US, but I also want to see other strong countries to give us a run! Competition and rivelry are healthy for those involved as long as it doesn't lead to conflict.

See above, the population (outside of Dublin and the industrial cities in Ulster) were still incredibly rural for a long time after the English came, infact I think the population still is very rural.
one of the few things im proud of about British rule in Ireland is Belfast. for a time it was one of the main industrial cities in the world. biggest shipbuilding yard, biggest loads of stuff. (still has the worlds biggest dry-dock)

but thats about all i can think of to be proud of. despite being a unionist.

one of the few things im proud of about British rule in Ireland is Belfast. for a time it was one of the main industrial cities in the world. biggest shipbuilding yard, biggest loads of stuff. (still has the worlds biggest dry-dock)

but thats about all i can think of to be proud of. despite being a unionist.

Wasn't the Titanic built in N.I. ?

Wasn't the Titanic built in N.I. ?
yup. built in Belfast.

pity some Englishman sank it, but thats another story ;)

yup. built in Belfast.

pity some Englishman sank it, but thats another story ;)

Well that's something else to be proud of, along with the big dry dock.

Well that's something else to be proud of, along with the big dry dock.
just a result of the industrial prowess Belfast once had...the Luftwaffe felt it worthy to fly this far enough north to bomb us because we were making so many planes and ships

its all gone now, mind

I must confess, I badmouth Britain a hell of a lot, but that's because I look around and see where we are today, and I never experience what we once were, but I read... and I almost weep at the thought of how far we have fallen. There's an ad campaign for Heinz brown sauce running right now, along the lines of 'Official sauce of Great Britain.'. Unfortunately, it features 'White van men', 'footballer's wives', 'hen nights', and some other completely dire group which makes me want to move elsewhere not because I like it more elsewhere, but because I like it so little here. Britain appears to be the only country on Earth where almost any stereotype one applies holds true. (To groups of people, rather than nationalities and so forth.)

We don't have anything of the glorious empire that spanned the globe. We don't have anything of the technological and cultural marvels we gave the world. (We have Damien Hurst and the Tate Modern.) We don't have any pride or respect for the monarchy, despite it being one of the most quintessentially British things we have left. If Nazi Germany arose today we'd probably fall before France; there's nothing left of our fighting spirit, of that which won the Battle of Britain for us.

That's why I am so ashamed of Britain, and why you'll rarely hear me speak well of it. Outside of the entertainment industries (Where we remain well surpassed by others.), we've done nothing of value for nigh sixty years.

We ought to be where our GDP and wealth places us; right at the damned forefront, with Japan and the US. Our companies and think tanks should be keeping both those nations on their toes. We should be putting out as much in the way of truly groundbreaking research as those two nations, indeed we probably ought to be leagues ahead in some areas. Our cultural subsidising ought to be going to 'The Douglas Adams Foundation' and so forth. Instead, our only hold on Britishness is to complain about American spelling, and claim that unmade beds and thirty foot tall conical constructions are worthwhile art.


Wedding punch ups. The other group in the HP sauce commercial is wedding punch ups.

As to the rest of it, I blame it on the sixties and socialism. But as I blame virtually everything on the sixties and socialism, that is hardly very edifying.

Tony Blair is a wanker too.

Edit:

Apparently building the Empire and then fighting two world wars has seriously damaged the british gene-pool, as this clip proves. British youth today (http://www.zeronews-fr.com/flash/geeks.php)

Before the brits, most of Ireland was 'beyond the pale'. (I couldn't resist that. And, well, someone had to say it).

During the time the Brits were here, shurely...

During the time the Brits were here, shurely...

They could hardly be in the bit beyond the pale. Only the bit inside.

They could hardly be in the bit beyond the pale. Only the bit inside.
but the Pale didnt exist until the Brits took Dublin and a bit surrounding it


hmm....this is incredibely pedantic

just a result of the industrial prowess Belfast once had...the Luftwaffe felt it worthy to fly this far enough north to bomb us because we were making so many planes and ships

its all gone now, mind

And now what the Luftwaffe and the paramilitaries couldn't destroy, Dunloe Ewart and the other fucking property developers will.

And now what the Luftwaffe and the paramilitaries couldn't destroy, Dunloe Ewart and the other fucking property developers will.
sadly...:(


edit: its just occured to me that the City Hall is going to be 100 next year, the council had better put on something interesting to mark it.

no doubt it will be the usual shenanigans of cheesy pop band followed by an underfunded fireworks display, perhaps with one or two local 'celebrities' making an 'appearance'

I think the British Empire was waaaay more beneficial than anything else. Just think, what would Canada and the U.S be like today had the British Empire not grown so powerful? And hey..both sides of my family are from Britain, gotta love them :) ( i'm glad none of them have the teeth, though..phew.)

They could hardly be in the bit beyond the pale. Only the bit inside.

The pale didn't exist until the Brits came.

edit: its just occured to me that the City Hall is going to be 100 next year, the council had better put on something interesting to mark it.

no doubt it will be the usual shenanigans of cheesy pop band followed by an underfunded fireworks display, perhaps with one or two local 'celebrities' making an 'appearance'

Maybe you should put in a proposal for a cross-community Goth-cull to be held in front of the City Hall?

The pale didn't exist until the Brits came.

You are correct. Just chalk it up to when good puns go bad.

Maybe you should put in a proposal for a cross-community Goth-cull to be held in front of the City Hall?
sounds like a good idea

and seeing as its cross community its bound to get funding

sounds like a good idea

and seeing as its cross community its bound to get funding

Goths? Do people still do that for real?

Goths? Do people still do that for real?
they still do it, but im not sure if theyre for real


i now find it mildly worrying that i used to spend many a saturday afternoon with goths, despite not actually being one myself.

the punks were always much more fun though

they still do it, but im not sure if theyre for real


i now find it mildly worrying that i used to spend many a saturday afternoon with goths, despite not actually being one myself.

the punks were always much more fun though

Aye, but at least here we've got real 'real' goths - as in 30 year olds who've been in the scene since it started, not punk bitches who think having a piercing and wearing black makes you goth.

I still detest the majority of them, but at least they're not fakers.



Wedding punch ups. The other group in the HP sauce commercial is wedding punch ups.

As to the rest of it, I blame it on the sixties and socialism. But as I blame virtually everything on the sixties and socialism, that is hardly very edifying.

Tony Blair is a wanker too.

Edit:

Apparently building the Empire and then fighting two world wars has seriously damaged the british gene-pool, as this clip proves.

Thanks, wedding punch ups it is. How wonderful, eh? We ought to be proud of being thuggish louts.

I can't say I hold Blair half as accountable as I hold the 60s, though. Fucking Beatles.

I'm not even going to comment on the link you posted. I don't think I'll be able to keep my breakfast down though. =/

Imperialism is NEVER good.

Listen, i gather most of u are american so you dont know much about the british empire.Even though i am not from England i come from one of its southernmost colonys, which gained independence on the 1st of jan 1901. If u havnt realised by now well im from Australia. And the british empire did help australia and the majority of the british colonys to establish and become what they are today. America wouldnt be like it is if it wasnt for the brits, it could be french for all we know. She helped Australia and New Zealand*cough* become what they r today. Now i dont like the united kingdom, i loath them, but i can still see the truth. They did help the western world develop.

Listen, i gather most of u are american so you dont know much about the british empire.Even though i am not from England i come from one of its southernmost colonys, which gained independence on the 1st of jan 1901. If u havnt realised by now well im from Australia. And the british empire did help australia and the majority of the british colonys to establish and become what they are today. America wouldnt be like it is if it wasnt for the brits, it could be french for all we know. She helped Australia and New Zealand*cough* become what they r today. Now i dont like the united kingdom, i loath them, but i can still see the truth. They did help the western world develop.
Yup, the British invaded Australia and started out the genocide of Indigenous peoples. Great.

shut up u friggin hippie, we get enough of that crap over here, and u cant talk,after the brits left u and homosexual uncle sam went on a rampage killing every american indian!

sounds like a good idea

and seeing as its cross community its bound to get funding

Nah, 'fraid not. After a spectacular example of a junket being funded on the basis of cross-community work, doing something as a c-c venture no longer is sufficient to receive funding. IIRC it was an exchange program between a coastal town in Scandinavia and one on the NE coast of England. I kid you not.

shut up u friggin hippie, we get enough of that crap over here, and u cant talk,after the brits left u and homosexual uncle sam went on a rampage killing every american indian!
Ooh, a flame.
And some nonsense... I'm an Aussie/South African Indian you twit.

Aye, but at least here we've got real 'real' goths - as in 30 year olds who've been in the scene since it started, not punk bitches who think having a piercing and wearing black makes you goth.

Taking the release of Bela Lugosi's Dead as the starting point of your actual Goth scene, this makes the 30 year olds about 4 years old when the scene started...

Ooh, a flame.
And some nonsense... I'm an Aussie/South African Indian you twit.
crap man, how many dads do u have?

The British Empire is nothing to be proud of. Those who believe it was really need to do some research.

The British Empire is nothing to be proud of. Those who believe it was really need to do some research.

You are operating under the assumption that everybody here applies the same criterion when determining if something is truly worthwhile being proud of, and sadly that ain't the case.

The fact that roughly one million starved and another two million emigrated (mostly to the USA) has nothing to do with it?
It had to do with equalizing the overpopulation caused by the centuries of neglect before it. As cruel as it may sound, it was a triumph of laissez-faire. Nowadays, such wonders could never happen with all the damn immigration quotas and welfare around the world.

Defiantly did a lot more good than bad, which for an empire is normally a good thing. I'd say it was on par with helping its protectorates as the roman empire, and would you say the roman empire was a bad thing.

Not really.

The British empire never really Oppressed its subjects either, yes there was the occasional incident such as the revolts in India, or Africa, that were put down with a bit to much force.

But honestly what country in the world has the right to judge britian on doing that, all the countries on the world have blood on there hands on a similar nature.

I think it would probably be around today, just in a more commonwealth format (the real commonwealth is nothing really) it only really fell because of having to fight ww2 on its own for 3 years, that really drained all of our gold reserves and after the war we had to pull out, probably not as properly as we should of done.

Most certainly the liberalist empire ever, of that there is no doubt.

People in the colonies had as much freedom as they wanted as long as they paid taxes on time.

What? Ireland still pretty much had an Ancien Regime type set up well into modern times. The North Eastern bit largely survived, but this was a special case due to the linen industry. But for many of the other part agrarian conflict was rife with organisation such as the Hearts of Steel attacking landowners over the policy of raising (expensive) cattle instead of (cheapish) crops which could feed more people. I don't believe the Nationalist Revisionist crap which romantisies the English's actions to give them higher 'victim' status, but you definetly seem to be looking at the past through rose tinted glasses.
It was not as severe as before, however, now that the British could stop it. And as many Brits held land inside Ireland, there was a vested financial interest in stopping disputes.
Similarly subsistence farming continued right through the Ascendancy with famine occuring quite frequently. (This was not helped by policies of landowners designed to get as much profit as possible).

We should note that that happened after the Industrial Revolution, when progress with Ireland was just starting.

How? The Irish were under the thumb of English Landlords, how do you expect them to advance?
Well, they did. Look at the many literary mavens from Ireland, like Bram Stoker and James Joyce. Name one before 1800.
This is not economic advancement in its purest sense, but it shows something. Creative types had to spend less time worrying about dinner, and more time on other things.

Actually the Roman Empire spread it cultural traits around the World, rather like the Greek Empire, Britain did nothing of the sort, as it had no culture to spread (and I am saying this as a half English).

maybe it was the wealthiest...how do we figure?
GDP per capita in 1850 was higher than any other country on the planet. Australia and Canada were next, and they were also British colonies.

It had to do with equalizing the overpopulation caused by the centuries of neglect before it. As cruel as it may sound, it was a triumph of laissez-faire. Nowadays, such wonders could never happen with all the damn immigration quotas and welfare around the world.

1. Ireland (as an island) was never over-populated when compared to other European countries. It has a total area of about 80,000 square km, and comparing this to the UK (240,000 square km) it should be able to support a population equal to a third of the UK... that comes out at about 30 million people. Explain to me how it was over-populated when it had about 8,000,000 people living on it, would you? Or, is the UK also over-populated and in need of a good famine to sort it out.

2. It was hardly a triumph of laissez-faire when there were several failed attempts to curb the ravages of the famine.

3. So, that story about 1,000,000 people dying during the Ethiopian famine in 1984 was all just a lie then?

shut up u friggin hippie, we get enough of that crap over here, and u cant talk,after the brits left u and homosexual uncle sam went on a rampage killing every american indian!crap man, how many dads do u have?
Scnarf, knock off the personal attacks immediately.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Well, they did. Look at the many literary mavens from Ireland, like Bram Stoker and James Joyce. Name one before 1800.


Dean Swift is the first that leaps to mind.

I see alot of people talking about the irish, not one of our finest moments, and well i dont know much about it.

but my amature opinion on the matter is that.

1. i belive it was the irish who based there entire crop on poatoes, never a good idea.

2. Ireland has been under english influence for only a slighty shorter time than wales, but due to a strench of sea, they talk some whole diffrent attitude to it, that frankly ive never understood, lots of misguided nationialism.

Im no expert, but i mainly just view the problems of the irish untill recenlty being misguided nationalism.

1. i belive it was the irish who based there entire crop on poatoes, never a good idea.

Agreed, operating subsistence farming based on a single crop is not a good idea, however, Ireland was actually exporting food during the famine: other crops were not being blighted and these were being sold by the land-owners in search of continuing profits or being sold in oprder to pay off the absentee landlords.

I must confess, I badmouth Britain a hell of a lot, but that's because I look around and see where we are today, and I never experience what we once were, but I read... and I almost weep at the thought of how far we have fallen. There's an ad campaign for Heinz brown sauce running right now, along the lines of 'Official sauce of Great Britain.'. Unfortunately, it features 'White van men', 'footballer's wives', 'hen nights', and some other completely dire group which makes me want to move elsewhere not because I like it more elsewhere, but because I like it so little here. Britain appears to be the only country on Earth where almost any stereotype one applies holds true. (To groups of people, rather than nationalities and so forth.)

We don't have anything of the glorious empire that spanned the globe. We don't have anything of the technological and cultural marvels we gave the world. (We have Damien Hurst and the Tate Modern.) We don't have any pride or respect for the monarchy, despite it being one of the most quintessentially British things we have left. If Nazi Germany arose today we'd probably fall before France; there's nothing left of our fighting spirit, of that which won the Battle of Britain for us.

That's why I am so ashamed of Britain, and why you'll rarely hear me speak well of it. Outside of the entertainment industries (Where we remain well surpassed by others.), we've done nothing of value for nigh sixty years.

We ought to be where our GDP and wealth places us; right at the damned forefront, with Japan and the US. Our companies and think tanks should be keeping both those nations on their toes. We should be putting out as much in the way of truly groundbreaking research as those two nations, indeed we probably ought to be leagues ahead in some areas. Our cultural subsidising ought to be going to 'The Douglas Adams Foundation' and so forth. Instead, our only hold on Britishness is to complain about American spelling, and claim that unmade beds and thirty foot tall conical constructions are worthwhile art.
Don't be so hard on yourself. Britain is not that bad of a country. You are doing well for yourself economically, as are many of your countrymen. In the 1970s, you guys were on the brink of political and economic destruction. Now, you guys are a powerbroker to the EU, and one of the few good economies in the area. The other European nations under your rule also have good economies.
Of course, things can change. If anything made you great, it was the committment to liberty. Britain could've never exactly been called a full-fledged democracy until WWII, but that was made up for. You were one of the very first nations with checks and balances, and fair trials by jury. Economic freedoms were unparalled, leading to the many inventions Britain once produced. Yet you guys started to loose that to socialism, in order to keep up with the socialist paper tiger of Germany. Today, Britain is one of the more socialized countries on the planet.

It was not as severe as before, however, now that the British could stop it. And as many Brits held land inside Ireland, there was a vested financial interest in stopping disputes.

What wasn't as severe? The Agrarian violence?

Yes it was, English landlords treated indigenous ppulation terribly and didn't care how their policies effected the population. Which is why they tried to have cattle reared on their lands (larger profits) rather then crops (larger population). Also, absenteeism was endemic amoung the English landowners, they didn't care what happened as long as the money kept coming to the extent that it allowed them to live the life they were accustomed to.

(See, A Modest Proposal)

We should note that that happened after the Industrial Revolution, when progress with Ireland was just starting.

No it didn't. Agrarian violence reached its peak before the industrial revolution.


Well, they did. Look at the many literary mavens from Ireland, like Bram Stoker and James Joyce. Name one before 1800.

Jonathan Swift?

This is not economic advancement in its purest sense, but it shows something. Creative types had to spend less time worrying about dinner, and more time on other things.

All the 'creative types' tended to come from the Ascendancy not from the Catholics. Even the Catholic who did succeed left Ireland.

But still, you haven't answered the question. How do you expect the Irish to advance when being under the thumb of foreign landowners?

You named a few artists, but they are exceptions. They were from Dublin, which was not representive of the whole of Ireland.

Taking the release of Bela Lugosi's Dead as the starting point of your actual Goth scene, this makes the 30 year olds about 4 years old when the scene started...

*Sigh* Ok, so how about 40 year olds? There are fewer, but there still are a number. I don't think it unreasonable to think 12-14 year olds, for example, got into the scene when/soon after it started. :rolleyes: But I'm not here to defend Goths, the younger ones tend to be posers and the older ones, narcissistic, alchoholic scum. All I was saying is there's a distinction between the teenage goths seen around the world, and the goths who've been in it since at least the late 80s if not before.

Actually the Roman Empire spread it cultural traits around the World, rather like the Greek Empire, Britain did nothing of the sort, as it had no culture to spread (and I am saying this as a half English).

Actually, yes we did. But that's the operative qualifier; did. Past tense.

*Sigh* Ok, so how about 40 year olds? There are fewer, but there still are a number. I don't think it unreasonable to think 12-14 year olds, for example, got into the scene when/soon after it started. :rolleyes: But I'm not here to defend Goths, the younger ones tend to be posers and the older ones, narcissistic, alchoholic scum. All I was saying is there's a distinction between the teenage goths seen around the world, and the goths who've been in it since at least the late 80s if not before.


That was just me being needlessly pedantic, but really isn't all you are doing here just a case of attacking the young Goths because they are young? You and I, assuming that you're no longer a teenager, might not be swept away with enthusiasm by Marilyn Manson or whatever Goth star is in the ascendent right now, but we're not meant to be anyway - it isn't music made for our generation.

1. Ireland (as an island) was never over-populated when compared to other European countries. It has a total area of about 80,000 square km, and comparing this to the UK (240,000 square km) it should be able to support a population equal to a third of the UK... that comes out at about 30 million people. Explain to me how it was over-populated when it had about 8,000,000 people living on it, would you? Or, is the UK also over-populated and in need of a good famine to sort it out.
Several. The farmland was very poor. This may have been made up for in an age where food can be transported easily, but not then. There is also the poor climate Ireland has, further complicating farming. Add that up to the moist conditions that made sanitation rather tricky.
2. It was hardly a triumph of laissez-faire when there were several failed attempts to curb the ravages of the famine.

And none were large enough. I compare it to a forest fire. Let the fire burn the first time, and the problem is solved. Surpress the fire, as the US has done for the past hundred years, and eventually, the fire will burn out of control.
3. So, that story about 1,000,000 people dying during the Ethiopian famine in 1984 was all just a lie then?
How did I imply that?
Nevertheless, 1984 Ethiopia had several factors that made a famine possible. It had a socialist government that surpressed any form of liberty, and restricted travel. It was in a bloody war with Eritrea, and there were several ethnic conflicts that it also could not stop. Famine still exists, but it is not nearly as bad as that one, as many factors are no longer present.

But still, you haven't answered the question. How do you expect the Irish to advance when being under the thumb of foreign landowners?

I can answer all of the other questions, but let's answer this one. They did in Britain. They were not foreign, granted, but the landowners became more powerful just before the Industrial Revolution, forcing many to move to cities. That, my friend, is why Dublin and the cities of Ulster grew. I mean, at least the landowners were not legally obligated to keep the Irish on their land, as what happened during the feudal period of Irish history.

Several. The farmland was very poor. This may have been made up for in an age where food can be transported easily, but not then. There is also the poor climate Ireland has, further complicating farming. Add that up to the moist conditions that made sanitation rather tricky.

The claim that Ireland has particulaly bad farmland doesn't hold when you actually look at the lands included in the UK figure - the Moorlands, Highlands and wetlands hardly constitute prime arable land do they?

The climate in Ireland is actually a very good one as far as farming goes: the reason it is so green is because it gets so much rain.

And none were large enough. I compare it to a forest fire. Let the fire burn the first time, and the problem is solved. Surpress the fire, as the US has done for the past hundred years, and eventually, the fire will burn out of control.

So you are no longer claiming that it was a laissez-faire treatment?

How did I imply that?

When you claimed that...

Nowadays, such wonders could never happen with all the damn immigration quotas and welfare around the world.

I can answer all of the other questions, but let's answer this one. They did in Britain. They were not foreign, granted, but the landowners became more powerful just before the Industrial Revolution, forcing many to move to cities. That, my friend, is why Dublin and the cities of Ulster grew. I mean, at least the landowners were not legally obligated to keep the Irish on their land, as what happened during the feudal period of Irish history.

So stealing their lands and their livelihoods was excused by then letting them seek work in the mills and factories which later sprang up (and were owned and controlled by the same land-owning classes)?

Actually the Roman Empire spread it cultural traits around the World, rather like the Greek Empire, Britain did nothing of the sort, as it had no culture to spread (and I am saying this as a half English).

Cricket is the most clear indicator that England/the British Empire did in fact spread its culture around the world. (Aside, of course, from the fact that English in all its myriad forms remains the most widely spread language and the lingua franca of the world: second only to Mandarin as the most spoken IIRC.)

I can answer all of the other questions, but let's answer this one. They did in Britain. They were not foreign, granted, but the landowners became more powerful just before the Industrial Revolution, forcing many to move to cities. That, my friend, is why Dublin and the cities of Ulster grew. I mean, at least the landowners were not legally obligated to keep the Irish on their land, as what happened during the feudal period of Irish history.

The only difference was that Irish catholics were treated prejucially and actively discriminated against. The British weren't. Dublin wasn't very big then (nor is it particuarly big AFAIK), with the rich being part of the Ascendancy or some of the larger merchant families. It was hardly centre of all possibility, there were no factories to speak of there. The Anglo-Irish spent more times building overly large building (eg the Customs House) than anything that would produce economic gain.

Also, after the linen industry hit Ulster it quickly hit full capacity, people moving to Ulster looking for work would be lucky if they could even be a cotier. They'd be better off staying where they were.

Also to compare Ireland to what was happening in England is unfair, largely because Ireland was run as a monopoly, only really exporting to England (except for surplus) and any industry that could compete with English industries (such as the woolen industry) were effectively taxed out of existence making them economically unviable. Not particuarly lassaiz-faire is it? If England could make its own linen then Ulster never would have taken off.

I am for imperialism but the British empire was genocidal. They attacked the chinese just because the chinese government didnt want their people high off of opium. They also didnt have a completed belt thanks to the Germans and Disrali was the only good Brit then so yeah they were mean.

The claim that Ireland has particulaly bad farmland doesn't hold when you actually look at the lands included in the UK figure - the Moorlands, Highlands and wetlands hardly constitute prime arable land do they?
The land is better for farming in the UK. As for the fact that Ireland is green, that is true. However, please note that the tall vegetation is very scattered where it exists. That means that there is a problem with growing things. Britain, on the other hand, can support forests.
So you are no longer claiming that it was a laissez-faire treatment?
There were some low level attempts to stop it. Fortunatly, it was nothing to the magnitude as it would be under modern socialism.

[quote]When you claimed that...
I meant that other famines would not have the effect of mass displacement that Ireland did, while pernamently correcting the population imbalance. Several other countries relied on emigration to the US as a safety valve on their population, like Italy (also endowed with poor soil). When the quotas went up, famines were widespread in many parts of Europe.

... and Disrali was the only good Brit then so yeah they were mean.

Cool. The only good Brit was Jewish. That's an opion we don't hear very often on these boards.

Dublin wasn't very big then (nor is it particuarly big AFAIK),
It's pretty big now considering it's in a nation of 4mil and it's got over 1milion

The land is better for farming in the UK. As for the fact that Ireland is green, that is true. However, please note that the tall vegetation is very scattered where it exists. That means that there is a problem with growing things. Britain, on the other hand, can support forests.

Irelands natural vegetation is forest

The land is better for farming in the UK. As for the fact that Ireland is green, that is true. However, please note that the tall vegetation is very scattered where it exists. That means that there is a problem with growing things. Britain, on the other hand, can support forests.
[quote]So you are no longer claiming that it was a laissez-faire treatment?
There were some low level attempts to stop it. Fortunatly, it was nothing to the magnitude as it would be under modern socialism.


I meant that other famines would not have the effect of mass displacement that Ireland did, while pernamently correcting the population imbalance. Several other countries relied on emigration to the US as a safety valve on their population, like Italy (also endowed with poor soil). When the quotas went up, famines were widespread in many parts of Europe.

The whole reason why GB wanted Ireland was because they themselves couldnt support their own population with food. The Irish were forced to grow wheat and were forced to send it to GB without keeping any. That is why millions died from the potatoe famine, it was a three year event that all the potatoes the main crop the Irish were actually allowed to keep (I think it is also the only) got destroyed by worms or some disease for three years. Laws prevented the Irish from getting meat since it was the British lords meat same with fish, wheat and everything else.

Cool. The only good Brit was Jewish. That's an opion we don't hear very often on these boards.

Well, a protestant Jew. :)

It's pretty big now considering it's in a nation of 4mil and it's got over 1milion

True. But still not a huge number for a city. It was even less back in the 18th century.

The only difference was that Irish catholics were treated prejucially and actively discriminated against. The British weren't. Dublin wasn't very big then (nor is it particuarly big AFAIK), with the rich being part of the Ascendancy or some of the larger merchant families. It was hardly centre of all possibility, there were no factories to speak of there. The Anglo-Irish spent more times building overly large building (eg the Customs House) than anything that would produce economic gain.
Cultural prejudices did exist. But Ireland was certainly better off after the British put an end to Ireland's barbaric practices.
Also, after the linen industry hit Ulster it quickly hit full capacity, people moving to Ulster looking for work would be lucky if they could even be a cotier. They'd be better off staying where they were.

Britain's capacitiy to make linen was soon filled up as well. Of course, it was the trend back then for each city to make a certaiin good. Manchester produced textiles, for example.
Also to compare Ireland to what was happening in England is unfair, largely because Ireland was run as a monopoly, only really exporting to England (except for surplus) and any industry that could compete with English industries (such as the woolen industry) were effectively taxed out of existence making them economically unviable. Not particuarly lassaiz-faire is it? If England could make its own linen then Ulster never would have taken off.
That part is not. Yet as I have explained, other elements did exist, such as the response to the Irish potato famine, and its effects of population equalization.

The land is better for farming in the UK. As for the fact that Ireland is green, that is true. However, please note that the tall vegetation is very scattered where it exists. That means that there is a problem with growing things. Britain, on the other hand, can support forests.

Ireland: forest coverage: 7%
UK: forest coverage: 12%

Hardly a massive difference.

Exactly what is the problem with growing things?


I meant that other famines would not have the effect of mass displacement that Ireland did, while pernamently correcting the population imbalance.

Once again you return to your claim about population imbalance, without realy explaining what you mean by it. The famine resulted from the potato being used excessively as the staple diet of the Irish people, not from a lack of farmable land. If there had been a true case of overpopulation, then ireland would not have been an exporter of food and goods throughout the time period before, during and after the famine.

I am for imperialism but the British empire was genocidal. They attacked the chinese just because the chinese government didnt want their people high off of opium. They also didnt have a completed belt thanks to the Germans and Disrali was the only good Brit then so yeah they were mean.
Thats a bit narrow.

Yes the opium war again not a great point as well.

Genocideal no,

Protected its interests yes.

Its hypocritical to call it so considering every country in the western world has a similar record.

Out of the empires of the world Britain was by far the most lenient and liberal

The land is better for farming in the UK. As for the fact that Ireland is green, that is true. However, please note that the tall vegetation is very scattered where it exists. That means that there is a problem with growing things. Britain, on the other hand, can support forests.

There where plenty of Forests in Ireland before People arrived on the Island so it's not because of the land that there's so few forests.

Ireland: forest coverage: 7%
UK: forest coverage: 12%


I dont know thats allmost double.

but yeah exclusively from poor diversification of crops.

We can not judge the empire by our modern standards, just as you can't judge the catholic church and the inquisition by todays standards.

We can look at what good and bad it did, and overall it did good. Look up the history of the French Colonies...It was the British empire that first stopped slavery, and then the Royal Navy that attacked ALL ships with slaves on board. However it's not politically correct to teach it in Britain, just as they don't teach that it was Black tribal chiefs who originally sold the slaves, and Arab slave masters that sold them on the Blocks at the ports. ALL races were involved in slavery, so you can't place it at the feet of just the empire.

No matter what you may think of the Empire or British, there are no people on earth more beat down than the natives of the island....The Scots/Welsh Irish have suffered more than any other group on earth, and we are regaining our freedom after the colonies.

How did the British Empire not give off any culture? What about Americans celebrating Saint Patricks day? Or Eisteddfod in the US and Australia? British culture is not just 'English'.......only close minded people see the English as masters of British culture.

Cultural prejudices did exist. But Ireland was certainly better off after the British put an end to Ireland's barbaric practices.

What were Ireland's barbaric practices?

Cool. The only good Brit was Jewish. That's an opion we don't hear very often on these boards.

He was jewish? I would think he was anglican since only anglicans were allowed in parliament and so they shouldnt want a nonanglican to be the prime minister. That is until he passed the Catholic emancipation act, a very good act for the Irish.

I dont know thats allmost double.

As a side note the average European country has 24% of their landmass covered by forests. Make of that what you will - it certainly doesn't seem to suggest to me that the UK is comprised of worse land than other European countries.

The whole reason why GB wanted Ireland was because they themselves couldnt support their own population with food. The Irish were forced to grow wheat and were forced to send it to GB without keeping any. That is why millions died from the potatoe famine, it was a three year event that all the potatoes the main crop the Irish were actually allowed to keep (I think it is also the only) got destroyed by worms or some disease for three years. Laws prevented the Irish from getting meat since it was the British lords meat same with fish, wheat and everything else.
Yes good point, Ireland was considered the "Bread basket of Britain".

He was jewish? I would think he was anglican since only anglicans were allowed in parliament and so they shouldnt want a nonanglican to be the prime minister. That is until he passed the Catholic emancipation act, a very good act for the Irish.

Jewish by heritage and upbringing during his childhood but was baptised an Anglican at age 12 or 13 IIRC.

Thats a bit narrow.

Yes the opium war again not a great point as well.

Genocideal no,

Protected its interests yes.

Its hypocritical to call it so considering every country in the western world has a similar record.

Out of the empires of the world Britain was by far the most lenient and liberal

I didnt mean the opium wars were genocidal. Lets see, during the colonization of America, they killed most of the native americans for hardly any excusable reasons, they allowed for the irish potatoe famine, I am pretty sure they killed at least one african tribe and that is all i can think.

Cultural prejudices did exist. But Ireland was certainly better off after the British put an end to Ireland's barbaric practices.

What 'barbaric practises' are you talking about? Personally I consider taking over a country, implanting your own people in possitions of authority and passing laws that actively discriminated against the vast majority of the population as quite barbaric.

Britain's capacitiy to make linen was soon filled up as well. Of course, it was the trend back then for each city to make a certaiin good. Manchester produced textiles, for example.

So? Ulster was an exception not a rule. It was the only industrialised part of Ireland. Britain also had a capitalist tradition, something that didn't really exist.

That part is not. Yet as I have explained, other elements did exist, such as the response to the Irish potato famine, and its effects of population equalization.

This happened before the famine.

Anyway. Non of this supports your idea that Britain helped Ireland developed (that Ireland needed help developing), nor have you explained how a population kept in servitude under the the legal systems can develope.

Now, here's another point that I wanted to bring up. Were the British actions in Africa justified?
I'd have to think so. There were many failures I will address in a moment, but it is superfluous to look only at that. They had many successes. For example, both French West Africa and British South Africa had potential for mining. Unlike West Africa, South Africa was allowed to start mining, which paid dividends even into the mdoern era. Today, the only fmr. British colonies that are basketcases are Zimbabwe, and those brought into the Arab sphere of influence.
Zimbabwe failed because of the Brits main weakness in Africa: rascism. The government did nothing to stop Ian Smith's rise, and also did nothing to stop apartheid. Because of British influenced ideas, both came down, though in strikingly different ways.
Nevertheless, it is the same as Ireland: look at life beforehand. It wasn't really bad in Egypt, but it was everywhere else. Tribal warfare was rife. Some tribes treated women as slaves, while others, notably the Igbo, had no government at all. And some, like the Zulu, ran absolutist states. These conflicts are not entirely resolved, but there is a higher degree of ethnic cohesion in fmr. British colonies than there is in fmr. French, Portugese, or Belgian colonies.

Now, here's another point that I wanted to bring up.

Would you address the question of 'Ireland's barbaric practices' first?

What were Ireland's barbaric practices?
Fuedalism is the biggest that leaps to mind. It was present everywhere in Europe, but in England, it ended long before it ever made advances outside of Britian. In Ireland, on the other hand, it existed even after British encroachment began in the 1600s.

Would you address the question of 'Ireland's barbaric practices' first?
I'd like to know to figuring how the Celts were the only ones besides the Germanic "barbarians" to not be conquered by the Romans. The Romans stuck Catholics in ampitheaters to be eaten by lions, had gladiators fight sometimes to the death (thumbs up and towards the heart they die, thumbs down and away they live) and then when simple "barbarians" destroyed them, they remain to be barbarians?
In conclusion, no matter what if the head culture of the world at one time calls another culture barbaric then it must be so (I was following the M guys logic :) )

Fuedalism is the biggest that leaps to mind. It was present everywhere in Europe, but in England, it ended long before it ever made advances outside of Britian. In Ireland, on the other hand, it existed even after British encroachment began in the 1600s.
In fact, the Ascendancy propagated it and kept it since it was so useful to keeping control.

So really Britain didn't stop it, if anything they prolonged its life in Ireland.

So why claim that Britain got rid of it?

Fuedalism is the biggest that leaps to mind. It was present everywhere in Europe, but in England, it ended long before it ever made advances outside of Britian. In Ireland, on the other hand, it existed even after British encroachment began in the 1600s.
Feudalism ceased in other european countries without forgien help, why would Ireland be an exception?

Fuedalism is the biggest that leaps to mind. It was present everywhere in Europe, but in England, it ended long before it ever made advances outside of Britian. In Ireland, on the other hand, it existed even after British encroachment began in the 1600s.

How is feudalism barbaric if and when it was created was made to protect the europeans from the "barbarians" such as the vikings? How about Russia, do you call them barbaric since they liberated their serfs later, I believe during the 1800s by Alexander II?

I'd like to know to figuring how the Celts were the only ones besides the Germanic "barbarians" to not be conquered by the Romans.

The Gauls were Celts ;)

The Romans stuck Catholics in ampitheaters to be eaten by lions, had gladiators fight sometimes to the death (thumbs up and towards the heart they die, thumbs down and away they live)

There is still debate over that.

We just know they gave thumbs up or down, and that one meant death and one meant life. We don't know which one is which.

Fuedalism is the biggest that leaps to mind. It was present everywhere in Europe, but in England, it ended long before it ever made advances outside of Britian. In Ireland, on the other hand, it existed even after British encroachment began in the 1600s.

Ireland, pre-British occupation, and under the rule of the High Kings wasn't a feudalist society, and then you are claiming that it was good for the Irish system to be replaced by a system which had all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of feudalism for the general populace?

In fact, the Ascendancy propagated it and kept it since it was so useful to keeping control.

So really Britain didn't stop it, if anything they prolonged its life in Ireland.

So why claim that Britain got rid of it?

Also thats how the Irish Potatoe famine got to be so bad.

I have to go but like mcCarther I shalt return except not to japan.

What 'barbaric practises' are you talking about? Personally I consider taking over a country, implanting your own people in possitions of authority and passing laws that actively discriminated against the vast majority of the population as quite barbaric.

See my response to Bodies without Organs.

So? Ulster was an exception not a rule. It was the only industrialised part of Ireland. Britain also had a capitalist tradition, something that didn't really exist.
Well it obviously mattered. Why does the IRA exist? Why did tension erupt over that area? And most of all, why do that many people live there?


This happened before the famine.
Yet none had thhe lasting effect that was caused by the Irish potatoe famine.
Anyway. Non of this supports your idea that Britain helped Ireland developed (that Ireland needed help developing), nor have you explained how a population kept in servitude under the the legal systems can develope.
I just don't see it as servitude. I mostly see it as the result of Irish unwillingness until after WWI. But as we have seen, several were willing to advance out of their barbaric existence as a subsistence farmer.

Feudalism ceased in other european countries without forgien help, why would Ireland be an exception?

Ireland is only the exception as far as it was conquered by a foreign power that consolidated feudalism whilst dismantling it in their own country.

Ireland is only the exception as far as it was conquered by a foreign power that consolidated feudalism whilst dismantling it in their own country.

Not so much 'consolidated' as 'introduced'.

How is feudalism barbaric if and when it was created was made to protect the europeans from the "barbarians" such as the vikings? How about Russia, do you call them barbaric since they liberated their serfs later, I believe during the 1800s by Alexander II?
Tsarist Russia was always barbaric.
Anyhow, as we have seen, there were many other ways that could've developed protection, such as a centralized army. But they weren't developed, as all feudalism served to do was to keep millions in bondage for the benefit of a small clique.

That was just me being needlessly pedantic, but really isn't all you are doing here just a case of attacking the young Goths because they are young? You and I, assuming that you're no longer a teenager, might not be swept away with enthusiasm by Marilyn Manson or whatever Goth star is in the ascendent right now, but we're not meant to be anyway - it isn't music made for our generation.

(I'm still a teenager for a few more months :p)

But yes, I must hold my hands up. I am unuly prejudiced against goths, of pretty much all kinds. I actually prefer the younger ones, being of my generation more, and I've seen the older group in action; mostly it's quite dire. And no, it's not fair to tar them all with the same brush, and I try not to. (Good thing about the internet, of course, is that judgements don't get made on appearances in the same way.) But I don't always succeed. I just prefer people who are comfortable being whoever they are, which tends not to be people to dress according to cliques.

Eh, generalizations have infected me. I must cleanse myself in the blood of virgins!

I have to go but like mcCarther I shalt return except not to japan.

MacArthur, and it was the Phillipines.

I just don't see it as servitude. I mostly see it as the result of Irish unwillingness until after WWI. But as we have seen, several were willing to advance out of their barbaric existence as a subsistence farmer.
What? Are you saying they chose to be farmers?

What? Are you saying they chose to be farmers?

imaginary picture of a Careers Advisory Service for the Irish during the Plantation and beyond...

Ireland, pre-British occupation, and under the rule of the High Kings wasn't a feudalist society, and then you are claiming that it was good for the Irish system to be replaced by a system which had all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of feudalism for the general populace?
First, why were their different last names in Ireland? They developed in the rest of Europe to deliniate factions. There may have not been the feudalism with lords, knights, fancy shields, damsels in distress, or anything like that. But there certainly rival factions that held deathgrips over the island. It was the same as any other society in Europe, like the Spanish, Hungarians, Slavs, and even the Italians. To claim that Ireland was some sort of a utopia before the British is simply ridiculous.

See my response to Bodies without Organs.

Replied to.
Well it obviously mattered. Why does the IRA exist? Why did tension erupt over that area? And most of all, why do that many people live there?

The tension there has little to do with the linen industry and more to do with Ulster's more 'cosmopolitan' make up.

But this is irrelevent to what I asked. I asked why Manchester mattered when it was the rule not the exception, whilst Ulster was the opposite.

Yet none had thhe lasting effect that was caused by the Irish potatoe famine.

You should try reading so nationalist histories and then tell me they have no lasting effect.

I just don't see it as servitude. I mostly see it as the result of Irish unwillingness until after WWI. But as we have seen, several were willing to advance out of their barbaric existence as a subsistence farmer.

So all the agrarian violence, all the disputes, all the secret societies geared towards independence, all the 'Patriots' etc etc are all really unwillingness? :eek:

I would think most were, but the English feudal system and the middle men system only leangthened the "barbaric existence as a subsistence farmer."

Not so much 'consolidated' as 'introduced'.
My mistake. Debating history I learned a while ago while slightly tipsy is hard as it is, trying to use proper words takes a bit more effort. :)

Tsarist Russia was always barbaric.
Anyhow, as we have seen, there were many other ways that could've developed protection, such as a centralized army. But they weren't developed, as all feudalism served to do was to keep millions in bondage for the benefit of a small clique.
Hmm, sounds like Ireland under the Ascendancy. ¬.¬

First, why were their different last names in Ireland? They developed in the rest of Europe to deliniate factions. There may have not been the feudalism with lords, knights, fancy shields, damsels in distress, or anything like that. But there certainly rival factions that held deathgrips over the island.

Under feudalism all the land is owned by the monarch... this was introduced by the Normans when they came to Ireland: under the rule of the High Kings the land was owned by the farmers and those that worked it. Pre-Norman/British invasion the absolutism which is a central part of feudalism did not exist in Ireland prior to the coming of the British.


To claim that Ireland was some sort of a utopia before the British is simply ridiculous.

This I am not doing, but you are presenting spurious cases against Ireland.

First, why were their different last names in Ireland?
Ó which goes before some last names means from
Mac (Mc in English): means son of

So thats where last names come from I'd say

Replied to.
Not that post. I was saying that feudalism was the barbaric practice.


You should try reading so nationalist histories and then tell me they have no lasting effect.

Perhaps if you can convince me that pre-British Ireland had any relevancy. Yet I do doubt that earlier famines had such a huge impact.

So all the agrarian violence, all the disputes, all the secret societies geared towards independence, all the 'Patriots' etc etc are all really unwillingness? :eek:

Yes! They existed not to truely "liberate" Ireland, but to claim it for themselves. Most every "liberation" movement exists for this same reason. Sinn Fein has, for example, taken a domestic platform of extreme socialism. How illiberal is that?

Not that post. I was saying that feudalism was the barbaric practice.

...which was introduced into Ireland by the Normans/British.

Under feudalism all the land is owned by the monarch... this was introduced by the Normans when they came to Ireland: under the rule of the High Kings the land was owned by the farmers and those that worked it. Pre-Norman/British invasion the absolutism which is a central part of feudalism did not exist in Ireland prior to the coming of the British.
Absolutism and feudalism are hardly the same thing. Feudalism is supposed to have a monarch that exists far far away, but immediate control is given to petty-dictators that can fend off other petty-dictators. That's what Ireland was like before the British.

Not that post. I was saying that feudalism was the barbaric practice.

And I agree it is. Yet that was the system that I English used in Ireland.

And since feudalism didn't really exist in Ireland the 'barbaric practises' could mean something else?

Perhaps if you can convince me that pre-British Ireland had any relevancy. Yet I do doubt that earlier famines had such a huge impact.

When have used examples of pre British Ireland?

I have only used examples of things that happened whilst Ireland was occupied.

Yes! They existed not to truely "liberate" Ireland, but to claim it for themselves. Most every "liberation" movement exists for this same reason. Sinn Fein has, for example, taken a domestic platform of extreme socialism. How illiberal is that?

Huh? You do not have to liberal to liberate something.

And all those organisations wanted to get rid of Westminster's control (ie liberate it from Westminster's control).

Yes! They existed not to truely "liberate" Ireland, but to claim it for themselves. Most every "liberation" movement exists for this same reason. Sinn Fein has, for example, taken a domestic platform of extreme socialism. How illiberal is that?
So, noone ever fights for freedom. :rolleyes:

Modern Ireland was never a dictatorship always democracy I doubt we would have gained independance without any violence but those people who fought never tried to take control

Absolutism and feudalism are hardly the same thing. Feudalism is supposed to have a monarch that exists far far away, but immediate control is given to petty-dictators that can fend off other petty-dictators. That's what Ireland was like before the British.


Absolutism is the central defining tier of feudalism: without that you don't have a feudal society. It is certainly true that within a feudal system there exist responsibilities which go both up and down through the heirarchies, but underpinning all these is the fact that an absolute monarch sits at the head of the pyramid and owns the entire land. Such was not the case in Ireland. (pre-British).

You have just described the situation post-british invasion, not pre-British invasion.

Absolutism and feudalism are hardly the same thing. Feudalism is supposed to have a monarch that exists far far away, but immediate control is given to petty-dictators that can fend off other petty-dictators.

Not really. Though Feudalism can be like that it doesn't only mean that.

You have just described the situation post-british invasion, not pre-British invasion.
No. Under the British, the Brits had to answer to their government. If it was so anarchaic, why didn't the Brits just fly to Ireland in droves? The Brits were too stuffy, anyhow :).

As for absolutism, that may sound vagely feudal, but it isn't. Feudalism allows that the king has ceremonial powers, but little power outside his own castle. For the most part, lords and barons controlled whatever they could claim or get their hands on.
In absolutism, the monarch or dictator owns everything. Any dissent by nobles is wiped out. Loius XIV brought all the nobles to Versailles for two reasons: a.) to watch them, and b.) to seize their power and land. He succeeded in reducing the nobility to an arm of his bureaocracy, and not as regional powerbrokers.

So, noone ever fights for freedom. :rolleyes:

Modern Ireland was never a dictatorship always democracy I doubt we would have gained independance without any violence but those people who fought never tried to take control
The only reason why Ireland turned out as a democracy was because the Irish government tried to please every faction. It worked, and they held off long enough.

No. Under the British, the Brits had to answer to their government. If it was so anarchaic, why didn't the Brits just fly to Ireland in droves? The Brits were too stuffy, anyhow :).

It was only English who held positions of authority. Which is why I have been refering to them throughout this thread. The Scots who came over were largely Presbyterian and were just as badly treated (simetimes worse, sometimes less) as the Catholic natives.

No. Under the British, the Brits had to answer to their government. If it was so anarchaic, why didn't the Brits just fly to Ireland in droves? The Brits were too stuffy, anyhow :).

You will see in my edit that I have described the flow of responsibilities... (made before I saw this post of yours). You are confusing feudalism with what appears to be best described as warlordism.

During the British invasion the Brits weren't answerable to their government, unless you mean their king?

No. Under the British, the Brits had to answer to their government. If it was so anarchaic, why didn't the Brits just fly to Ireland in droves? The Brits were too stuffy, anyhow :).
"Feudalism is supposed to have a monarch that exists far far away,"
We had that.

" but immediate control is given to petty-dictators that can fend off other petty-dictators. "
Yeah British lords where given control to pay them for fighting against the Irish.

I had to vote saying that it benefitted some colonies while others suffered. I'm from Canada, and our history as a colony and then a Dominion has been so closely tied to that of Britain that it's impossible to examine without them. Our nation was built on British traditions, I love our parliamentary system, I love my country and a good portion of that exists because of the British Empire. I'm also proud to say that once Canada became a Dominion, we became increasingly friends to Britain, not simply dependant children, and Canada was a big part of British victories in the first and secon World Wars.

That being said, I know Canada probably benefitted the most from British involvement. I doubt the Boers in 1899 would have thought much of British Imperialism and concentration camps. It caused harm, but all Imperialism does, this isn't excusing the crimes, it is simply a fact. When it came down to it, the British slowly, but thoroughly relinquished control of the foreign empire. Outside conditions dictated this, but it doesn't diminish the honourable and respectful way that the British moved beyond their pride for the Empire that had essentially ruled the world.

"Feudalism is supposed to have a monarch that exists far far away,"
We had that.

" but immediate control is given to petty-dictators that can fend off other petty-dictators. "
Yeah British lords where given control to pay them for fighting against the Irish.


...and said system was not introduced until the C12th and the coming of the British in the territories they held.

As for absolutism, that may sound vagely feudal, but it isn't. Feudalism allows that the king has ceremonial powers, but little power outside his own castle. For the most part, lords and barons controlled whatever they could claim or get their hands on.
In absolutism, the monarch or dictator owns everything. Any dissent by nobles is wiped out. Loius XIV brought all the nobles to Versailles for two reasons: a.) to watch them, and b.) to seize their power and land. He succeeded in reducing the nobility to an arm of his bureaocracy, and not as regional powerbrokers.


Here's where it starts getting messy with answering to edits: I am using 'absolutism' here to describe the absolute ownership of the lands by the monarch and the flow of all authority from the monarch. Under feudalism he grants the rights to the wealth generated by lands to a nobility who are in turn responsible for passing some of that wealth on up to the monarch and providing their support in matters military. Which is the system which was introduced by the British in Ireland...

You will see in my edit that I have described the flow of responsibilities... (made before I saw this post of yours). You are confusing feudalism with what appears to be best described as warlordism.

During the British invasion the Brits weren't answerable to their government, unless you mean their king?
I edited my post, but anyhow...
They are the same. The only difference is that feudalism is more formal, as feudal lords tend to be vaguely bounded by a code of conduct. Warlords have their own agendas, whereas feudalism has a vague sense of cohesion. However, I can't find any real differences beyond that, except maybe that feudalism almost always involves serfs.

Here's where it starts getting messy with answering to edits: I am using 'absolutism' here to describe the absolute ownership of the lands by the monarch and the flow of all authority from the monarch. Under feudalism he grants the rights to the wealth generated by lands to a nobility who are in turn responsible for passing some of that wealth on up to the monarch and providing their support in matters military. Which is the system which was introduced by the British in Ireland...
And if the feudal lord doesn't want to, no one can stop him. John II of England was unable to fend off the various lords in order to sign the Magna Carta. Under absolutism, these lords had minimal impact.
And the British did indeed introduce it, but it died out in the early 19th century. Otherwise, by this logic, all capitalism is feudalism.

Now, here's what I will say: you win, I loose. Arguing about some puny little island of little relevancy is no fun to me.
Here's something else that I wanted to talk about.

Now, here's another point that I wanted to bring up. Were the British actions in Africa justified?
I'd have to think so. There were many failures I will address in a moment, but it is superfluous to look only at that. They had many successes. For example, both French West Africa and British South Africa had potential for mining. Unlike West Africa, South Africa was allowed to start mining, which paid dividends even into the mdoern era. Today, the only fmr. British colonies that are basketcases are Zimbabwe, and those brought into the Arab sphere of influence.
Zimbabwe failed because of the Brits main weakness in Africa: rascism. The government did nothing to stop Ian Smith's rise, and also did nothing to stop apartheid. Because of British influenced ideas, both came down, though in strikingly different ways.
Nevertheless, it is the same as Ireland: look at life beforehand. It wasn't really bad in Egypt, but it was everywhere else. Tribal warfare was rife. Some tribes treated women as slaves, while others, notably the Igbo, had no government at all. And some, like the Zulu, ran absolutist states. These conflicts are not entirely resolved, but there is a higher degree of ethnic cohesion in fmr. British colonies than there is in fmr. French, Portugese, or Belgian colonies.

I edited my post, but anyhow...
They are the same. The only difference is that feudalism is more formal, as feudal lords tend to be vaguely bounded by a code of conduct. Warlords have their own agendas, whereas feudalism has a vague sense of cohesion. However, I can't find any real differences beyond that, except maybe that feudalism almost always involves serfs.


Which works apart from the fact that it doesn't actually describe the system of governance of Ireland pre-Norman invasion.


It seems to me that you, in your points about feudalism, are concentrating on where it breaks down - ie. when the barons or nobles revolt - rather than on the much more normal state of affairs where it does actually work (in so far as it achieves the aims set out for itself, even though we might disagree with them).

1. Ireland (as an island) was never over-populated when compared to other European countries. It has a total area of about 80,000 square km, and comparing this to the UK (240,000 square km) it should be able to support a population equal to a third of the UK... that comes out at about 30 million people. Explain to me how it was over-populated when it had about 8,000,000 people living on it, would you? Or, is the UK also over-populated and in need of a good famine to sort it out.

2. It was hardly a triumph of laissez-faire when there were several failed attempts to curb the ravages of the famine.

3. So, that story about 1,000,000 people dying during the Ethiopian famine in 1984 was all just a lie then?

BWO, really, now. That is a hugely conterfactual claim. You are suggesting that in 1847* the population of the mainland was 90,000,000.

*I went to a black 47 concert... meh..

Edit: on further thought, didn't the pope give ireland to the english?

The only way feudalism broke down was through the middle classes and the rise of guilds and cities during the Renaissance. They had more power, more money, and more contact with other regions and countries, so the cities were much harder to control in the manner of the feudal system, which required a spread out agrarian population that was stationary. The hundreds, if not thousands, of noble revolts did little more than replace one feudal system with another for the enrichment and power of the new ruler.

BWO, really, now. That is a hugely conterfactual claim. You are suggesting that in 1847* the population of the mainland was 90,000,000.

*I went to a black 47 concert... meh..


Ooops. That was a typing slip. 20,000,000 was what I intended to type - a figure which I readily admit is based on the current UK population, but is still sufficiently above 8,000,000 to show that Ireland wasn't overpopulated.

A quick search gives us about 32,000,000 recorded on the UK (actually Great Britain) census in 1881, which even if we don't estimate some missing people there suggests that if Ireland had had a population of about 10/11 million, then it would have been as equally 'over-populated' as Great Britain.

Curse you, stupid fingers.

BWO, really, now. That is a hugely conterfactual claim. You are suggesting that in 1847* the population of the mainland was 90,000,000. Edit: on further thought, didn't the pope give ireland to the english?

Part 1 :If it was 90,000,000, I don't think England would care about Ireland. They would be able to conquer all of America with the amount of manpower they could mobilize. :D

Part 2: Effectively. The pope promised Ireland to England in exchange for the supression of the ancient Celtic church.

When King Henry II of England landed with an army of 4,000 at Waterford in October 1171, he came at the Pope's behest and carrying as his authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, by which the Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bestow Ireland as a gift to the English King on condition that he suppressed the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church, and brought the island and its people into submission to Rome.

Ooops. That was a typing slip. 20,000,000 was what I intended to type - a figure which I readily admit is based on the current UK population, but is still sufficiently above 8,000,000 to show that Ireland wasn't overpopulated.

A quick search gives us about 32,000,000 recorded on the UK (actually Great Britain) census in 1881, which even if we don't estimate some missing people there suggests that if Ireland had had a population of about 10/11 million, then it would have been as equally 'over-populated' as Great Britain.

Curse you, stupid fingers.

Not to be a pedant, but........

really, that is comparing apples to oranges. 1881, England was highly industrialized*. &ct, so naturally its carrying capacity was much higher.

I am not taking any stance on the overpopulation issue, but I think it needs a little more research before you all can debunk it.

*and allegedly the centre of a great empire.



Plus, as a half-geordie, the london government has been trying to depopulate us since 1066. The trick is not to let it worry you.

Not to be a pedant, but........

really, that is comparing apples to oranges. 1881, England was highly industrialized*. &ct, so naturally its carrying capacity was much higher.

Industrialisation may improve the standard of living (for some classes) but it doesn't really increase the food yield as a national whole, and so is something of a red herring when it comes to the Irish over-population claim.* Add to this the fact that Ireland was an exporter of food before, during and after the Famine, and the over-population claim looks even more spurious.

I am not taking any stance on the overpopulation issue, but I think it needs a little more research before you all can debunk it.

The over-population issue only arose because MM claimed there was one: the first such claim I have ever heard.

Plus, as a half-geordie, the london government has been trying to depopulate us since 1066. The trick is not to let it worry you.

Ah: where were you when we discussing the harrowing of the North in the GB vs France thread a few days back? And, come to that, wouldn't it have been the Winchester government at the time of the Norman conquest?


* kewl, from apples and oranges to a red herring.

Industrialisation may improve the standard of living (for some classes) but it doesn't really increase the food yield, and so is something of a red herring when it comes to the Irish over-population claim.




The over-population issue only arose because MM claimed there was one: the first such claim I have ever heard.



It's not worth arguing over, but my understanding has always been that industrialization does indeed increase the carrying capacity. (At least insofar as more food can be exchanged for finished goods than the labour force could otherwise produce: Which, IIRC, was the case on the mainland at that point)

Ah: where were you when we discussing the haroowing of the North in the GB vs France thread a few days back?

At the blaydon races.

Industrialisation may improve the standard of living (for some classes) but it doesn't really increase the food yield, and so is something of a red herring when it comes to the Irish over-population claim.


Not really. Industrialization increases food yields because it mechanizes farming, with implements, machinery, and manufactued goods cheaper as a result. Plus, the production of fertilizers, pesticides, and so on are cheaper and more available because chemical plants can produce them in much greater quanitity. So, the actual farming becomes cheaper, so farmers can produce more, and this spurs a population increase, and so on until production maxes out and you hit overpopulation, the population growth tapers and prices fall, or the best scenario, the entire system reaches equilibrium.

Not really. Industrialization increases food yields because it mechanizes farming, with implements, machinery, and manufactued goods cheaper as a result. Plus, the production of fertilizers, pesticides, and so on are cheaper and more available because chemical plants can produce them in much greater quanitity. So, the actual farming becomes cheaper, so farmers can produce more, and this spurs a population increase, and so on until production maxes out and you hit overpopulation, the population growth tapers and prices fall, or the best scenario, the entire system reaches equilibrium.

Ah, I added in as an edit "doesn't really increase the food yield as a national whole" - I am aware that the industrial revolution was not solely an urban phenomenon - take your Uriah Heep's and similar agricultural industrialisers, but in effect these just mean that less people work the land and so are displaced into the DSMs. Net result: a marginal increase in foor yield as a national whole. Also note that under discussion here is industrial revolution industrialisation, rather than today's agri-business, and as such pesticides and chemical sprays aren't immediately relevant.

Ah, I added in as an edit "doesn't really increase the food yield as a national whole" - I am aware that the industrial revolution was not solely an urban phenomenon - take your Uriah Heep's and similar agricultural industrialisers, but in effect these just mean that less people work the land and so are displaced into the DSMs. Net result: a marginal increase in foor yield as a national whole. Also note that under discussion here is industrial revolution industrialisation, rather than today's agri-business, and as such pesticides and chemical sprays aren't immediately relevant.

Yes, you're correct. I posted before I saw the edit. Those products didn't come in to use until much later. However, there was also the scientific farming that occured at the time, which may have contributed to food yields, but wasn't linked to the IR.

All empires suck, including the British empire. Sorry, but that's just my policy.

All empires suck, including the British empire. Sorry, but that's just my policy.
I agree.

Now, you may wonder why I asked this. The reason why is because I am writing a practice research paper. I wanted to go against the grain of popular opinion, and say that the British Empire was a good thing. Yet I reaklize how popular it was. I guess I will have to find something else.

Now, you may wonder why I asked this. The reason why is because I am writing a practice research paper. I wanted to go against the grain of popular opinion, and say that the British Empire was a good thing. Yet I reaklize how popular it was. I guess I will have to find something else.

Why find something else? It is a good topic for a paper and certainly doesn't follow popular thinking. These days we are conditioned in school to believe things like the British Empire are inheirently (spl?) evil. Fight the power!! Stick it to the man (PC college profs) and strike a blow for freedom of thought.

Write the paper! aw, com'on. . .

Why find something else? It is a good topic for a paper and certainly doesn't follow popular thinking. These days we are conditioned in school to believe things like the British Empire are inheirently (spl?) evil. Fight the power!! Stick it to the man (PC college profs) and strike a blow for freedom of thought.

Write the paper! aw, com'on. . .
Maybe. How about I write something even more contraversial. I know someone who wrote something on how recycling hurts the environment.

All empires suck, including the British empire. Sorry, but that's just my policy.

Care to explain that policy?

Maybe. How about I write something even more contraversial. I know someone who wrote something on how recycling hurts the environment.

I once wrote that cell phones were a worse threat to humanity than nuclear weapons. Wow, did I ever score poorly!!
How about writing a paper titled, "Communist Pigs! Threat to the World or Just Evil?" or "Is My Proffesor a Paedophile?"

Now, you may wonder why I asked this. The reason why is because I am writing a practice research paper. I wanted to go against the grain of popular opinion, and say that the British Empire was a good thing. Yet I reaklize how popular it was. I guess I will have to find something else.

The Empire was, in theory, a good thing. Unfortunately, it didn't work in practice. Bit like communism.

The idea was that we, the enlightened British, would modernise the developing world, encourage mass trade, protect the world from the dastardly French, and generally make everyone better off, better educated and just happier.

In practice, the Empire protected British industry by destroying pretty much all of India's manufacturing base, ruthlessly supressed indigenous populations, sold drugs willy-nilly, and ended up as a corrupt leech draining resources from the entire world. It set up dictatorships in all the colonies, under the mistaken belief that because WE were a democracy in Britain, no-one else in the world would mind not having a vote. Taxation with representation, anyone? No?

Oddly enough, it was still probably the most benevolent of the European powers. The Belgians were probably the worst, followed by the Spanish, then the French, the Netherlands and then the Ottomans, with Britain taking the dubious honour of "Least crap overlord". The 'Empires' of Russia, Germany, Italy and Austria can't really be counted, as they were either pathetically small (Ethiopia? Call THAT an Empire, Italy?) or essentially just acted entirely as a country (Russia and Austria. Why have an Empire when you can just annex?).

It's pretty much inevitable that Empires will go this way. Unless you give countries within the Empire political freedom. In which case, you're not an Empire any more.

As a keen student of history, I try not to 'judge' anything, just learn about it. And frankly speaking, judging an empire which began in dramatically different times is pointless; when the British Empire was around, people had drastically different view of what they were doing, politically and morally. I do not doubt that some of the people involved genuinely thought that the Empire was doing good work, even when people in modern times would regard certain acts as despicable. Casting moral judgement on the British Empire is no different than casting moral judgement on the Aztecs or the Ancient Egyptians.

Care to explain that policy?
Empires are about the Strong military country exploiting the litle countries

As a keen student of history, I try not to 'judge' anything, just learn about it. And frankly speaking, judging an empire which began in dramatically different times is pointless; when the British Empire was around, people had drastically different view of what they were doing, politically and morally. I do not doubt that some of the people involved genuinely thought that the Empire was doing good work, even when people in modern times would regard certain acts as despicable. Casting moral judgement on the British Empire is no different than casting moral judgement on the Aztecs or the Ancient Egyptians.

Well, I think I justified my comments pretty fairly and in context of the time. The Empire didn't merely do things which would be considered despicable now, it also completely failed to achieve what it hoped for. All the good that was supposed to come of it failed to appear, all the governments in ex-colonies were destroyed, resulting in the chaos of Africa and the dictatorships and Theocracies of the middle east, the industries of many colonies were broken apart to protect British industry....

Basically, let's just say this: Countries which used to be part of the British Empire are weaker now than they would have been without it. The world is, essentially, a worse place because of it. It's because of the British Empire that everything has become so focused on the West, it's because of ALL the European Empires that Africa's headed for a total implosion, and it's because of Imperialism in general that 90% of the world's wealth lies in 10% of it's population's hands.

As a keen student of history, I try not to 'judge' anything, just learn about it. And frankly speaking, judging an empire which began in dramatically different times is pointless; when the British Empire was around, people had drastically different view of what they were doing, politically and morally. I do not doubt that some of the people involved genuinely thought that the Empire was doing good work, even when people in modern times would regard certain acts as despicable. Casting moral judgement on the British Empire is no different than casting moral judgement on the Aztecs or the Ancient Egyptians.
That may be useful if one is studying history for the sake of history. However, most people look to history to vindicate or disprove pratical purposes. For me, it is to support my ideaology. I'm a bit of a political animal, and I'm sure many politicians do the same.
I see history as a trend. Between the neolithic revolution and the fourteenth century, there was a patter of barbarism, empire building, and absolutism. Then, it changed. Technology made leaps and bounds, governments became more stable and powerful, the world grew more prosperous, and the human population sextupled while still producing far more food. This is no accident. The trend toward political and economic liberty in Europe is what I believed advanced that continent, and it later spread throughout the planet.

The trend toward political and economic liberty in Europe is what I believed advanced that continent, and it later spread throughout the planet.

Eh? WHAT? Political and economic liberty in Europe? Britain, yes; France, OK, perhaps I'll even let you have Prussia on that one. None of the other bits had any of that until after 1918. And most of them spent the following three-quarters of a century trying to get rid of it.

As for it traveling around the globe, I feel I must have missed that bit too. Japan, India, Egypt, Australia, America, Canada. That's where it spread to. Political liberty is not currently widely found in China. Economic freedom isn't really something Saudi Arabia is famed for.

You've got maybe fifty countries out of several hundred with 'political and economic liberty' today. More than half the population of the planet have neither.

Anyway, what's to say the pattern changed? You had vast technological advance before the Dark Ages, too. The Greeks had steam power (albeit on a tiny scale). Mesopotamians invented electrolysis 3000 years ago. The science of smelting that brought us out of the stone age and into the bronze should still be recognised as a massive advance of a scale you almost can't understand now.

Frankly, a new Dark Age is almost certainly inevitable. There was 1000 years of darkness between the fall of Rome and the rise of new civilisations (or at least CIVILISED civilisations). What's to say we don't get 1000 years of technological advancement (pretty much the time it took for Greece to rise until Western Rome fell) followed by the 1000 years of night?

Eh? WHAT? Political and economic liberty in Europe? Britain, yes; France, OK, perhaps I'll even let you have Prussia on that one. None of the other bits had any of that until after 1918. And most of them spent the following three-quarters of a century trying to get rid of it.

As for it traveling around the globe, I feel I must have missed that bit too. Japan, India, Egypt, Australia, America, Canada. That's where it spread to. Political liberty is not currently widely found in China. Economic freedom isn't really something Saudi Arabia is famed for.
It still needs time to spread. But it is spreading rapidly. Look at the fall of communism, and the recent wave of liberalism in the Middle East. It is spreading faster than at any other time in history.
And btw, where the hell did Egypt come from? They are opening up a bit, but they still have a long, long way to go.

Anyway, what's to say the pattern changed? You had vast technological advance before the Dark Ages, too. The Greeks had steam power (albeit on a tiny scale). Mesopotamians invented electrolysis 3000 years ago. The science of smelting that brought us out of the stone age and into the bronze should still be recognised as a massive advance of a scale you almost can't understand now.
Advancement did happen, but far more slowly than in the past 500 years. China was particular advanced before then, but they were too concentrated on fending off foreign invaders, and their Confuscian philosophy gave them the wrong attitude.
Frankly, a new Dark Age is almost certainly inevitable. There was 1000 years of darkness between the fall of Rome and the rise of new civilisations (or at least CIVILISED civilisations). What's to say we don't get 1000 years of technological advancement (pretty much the time it took for Greece to rise until Western Rome fell) followed by the 1000 years of night?
Maybe it will happen. But personally, I see it likely only if the aliens attack.

Empires are about the Strong military country exploiting the litle countries
Exploiting resouces and labour, as well as imposing their laws and values from above, often with the use of great force. By nature imperialism creates a stratified society, with the colonisers at the top, and the colonised at the bottom. Not nice.

Exploiting resouces and labour, as well as imposing their laws and values from above, often with the use of great force

And flags.

Exploiting resouces and labour, as well as imposing their laws and values from above, often with the use of great force. By nature imperialism creates a stratified society, with the colonisers at the top, and the colonised at the bottom. Not nice.

It's definitely bad in the real world, but in the world of Civilization III, it's excellent.

It's definitely bad in the real world, but in the world of Civilization III, it's excellent.
Yeah. For some reason whenever I play I have super culture, and cities always defect to me. :D

Yeah. For some reason whenever I play I have super culture, and cities always defect to me. :D

Same here... Same here...

*wishes he could get a military victory for once*

Anyway, I think the British Empire did some good things. Still, it was oppressive and far too militaristic. I voted "other", and I can safely say that I do not like it. Much like Ancient Rome.

It still needs time to spread. But it is spreading rapidly. Look at the fall of communism, and the recent wave of liberalism in the Middle East. It is spreading faster than at any other time in history.

Which wave of Liberalism is that, then? Do you mean the bits of it we invaded and destroyed, and then remade in our image? Unfortunately, that doesn't work. As for the fall of Communism, Russia's hardly very free at the moment. Free-er, but not free.

And let's see what else we've had recently, shall we? Ukraine's elections, rigged AND with an attempt to poison the opposition leader. Pakistan's military dictator refusing to step down as they're still 'not ready' for democratic leadership. Let's not even mention anywhere south of the equator, either; it'd only be embarrassing.

And btw, where the hell did Egypt come from? They are opening up a bit, but they still have a long, long way to go.

Egypt's got economic freedom. And they're not too bad on the political side. It's the most Western-influenced of all countries outside Europe and North America, aside from Japan.

Advancement did happen, but far more slowly than in the past 500 years. China was particular advanced before then, but they were too concentrated on fending off foreign invaders, and their Confuscian philosophy gave them the wrong attitude.

That's hard to back up. We don't actually KNOW how fast things were advancing; it's entirely possible that all the great advances of Greece and Rome were made on one Thursday afternoon in January 303 B.C. The only massive achievement we've made, and the one which all else rests on, is the Scientific Method laid down by Descartes. And we now believe that the ancient Greeks had a similar idea. Much of the other stuff we 'invented' before about 1750 was re-invention of Greek, Roman and Mesopotamian ideas. Event Democracy was thought up long beforehand.

Maybe it will happen. But personally, I see it likely only if the aliens attack.

We don't need aliens. Human nature will get us in the end, and Chaos Theory says it's a certainty.

Egypt's got economic freedom. And they're not too bad on the political side. It's the most Western-influenced of all countries outside Europe and North America, aside from Japan.


Australia? New Zealand?

The only massive achievement we've made, and the one which all else rests on, is the Scientific Method laid down by Descartes.

Eh? I haven't heard Descartes called the father of modern science before: care to elucidate?

Egypt's got economic freedom. And they're not too bad on the political side.
Elections in Egypt are all rigged to favor Mubarak. Recently the president announced "free" elections but immediately imprisoned the leading opposition candidate. Egypt is not democratic at all.
It's the most Western-influenced of all countries outside Europe and North America, aside from Japan.

You are forgetting Australia, South America (nations were all founded by the Europeans), India (much more democratic and free than Egypt), Phillippines (a Catholic Hispanic nation), South Korea, etc.

That's hard to back up. We don't actually KNOW how fast things were advancing; it's entirely possible that all the great advances of Greece and Rome were made on one Thursday afternoon in January 303 B.C.

Given that we have almost a surfeit of written records from Ancient Greece and Rome, we can be certain that this was not the case.

Which wave of Liberalism is that, then? Do you mean the bits of it we invaded and destroyed, and then remade in our image? Unfortunately, that doesn't work. As for the fall of Communism, Russia's hardly very free at the moment. Free-er, but not free.

And let's see what else we've had recently, shall we? Ukraine's elections, rigged AND with an attempt to poison the opposition leader. Pakistan's military dictator refusing to step down as they're still 'not ready' for democratic leadership. Let's not even mention anywhere south of the equator, either; it'd only be embarrassing.
I'd like to mention Latin America. Brazil and Mexico made the biggest strides, but many others have gotten there. And while Russia itself did not benefit from the fall of communism, many Eastern European nations did. South Korea is nothing like it was twenty years ago, and neither is Taiwan.
That's hard to back up. We don't actually KNOW how fast things were advancing; it's entirely possible that all the great advances of Greece and Rome were made on one Thursday afternoon in January 303 B.C. The only massive achievement we've made, and the one which all else rests on, is the Scientific Method laid down by Descartes. And we now believe that the ancient Greeks had a similar idea. Much of the other stuff we 'invented' before about 1750 was re-invention of Greek, Roman and Mesopotamian ideas. Event Democracy was thought up long beforehand.

There are a bunch of dead Greek guys whose names I can't remember, but I do know one thing: they lived in different time periods and cities in Greece, and each had their own achievements. It is impossible that all of the inventions were invented in a short period of time.
I could say the Romans were better, but I don't want to turn this into a Greece vs. Rome thread. Nevertheless, the advancements under the Roman Republic are very similar to what is happening today. I believe that was the greatest time for anyone to be alive before 1400.
And the scientific method, while great, was not the only great achievement. The developement of capitalism was just as great, but that grew organically, and not as the result of some laboratory work.So were the Enlightenment ideas. Many were from Greek and Roman ideas, but not all.

I'd like to mention Latin America. Brazil and Mexico made the biggest strides, but many others have gotten there. And while Russia itself did not benefit from the fall of communism, many Eastern European nations did. South Korea is nothing like it was twenty years ago, and neither is Taiwan.

Latin America is poverty-stricken and backward, and democracy there is a joke. I'll give you Mexico, but Brazil's nowhere near. It doesn't even match up to Egypt.

There are a bunch of dead Greek guys whose names I can't remember, but I do know one thing: they lived in different time periods and cities in Greece, and each had their own achievements. It is impossible that all of the inventions were invented in a short period of time.

I was only taking the piss.

I could say the Romans were better, but I don't want to turn this into a Greece vs. Rome thread. Nevertheless, the advancements under the Roman Republic are very similar to what is happening today. I believe that was the greatest time for anyone to be alive before 1400.
And the scientific method, while great, was not the only great achievement. The developement of capitalism was just as great, but that grew organically, and not as the result of some laboratory work.So were the Enlightenment ideas. Many were from Greek and Roman ideas, but not all.

That's not entirely right, though, is it? The Romans made huge leaps and bounds in engineering. Engineering's great, cos you can see what you've built and it lasts forever. The Greeks weren't natural engineers. They had a few handy chaps for it, but they were theorists. They discovered Pi, and nearly got it right (much more so than the Romans). They calculated the circumference of the Earth, and were only about 1000 miles out. They, in fact, did most of the theoretical work that was re-invented in Europe between 1400 and 1750. It doesn't record well, but looking at the devices they used shows that they must have known various concepts simply to be able to build. They may have even had clockwork, but that's uncertain. They certainly knew how to build boats bigger than anything until British Naval Frigates in 1730.

China's been using capitalist systems remarkably similar to those used today for over 3000 years, so that's a pre-enlightenment one.

I don't particularly thing we're advancing faster now than they were then. We're doing much better than the point where religion supressed science, but considering the size of the population we're crawling along by comparisson.

They certainly knew how to build boats bigger than anything until British Naval Frigates in 1730.


Eh? Frigates, as the smallest class of ship of the line would have been dwarfed by other classes at the time, never mind massive examples like the Grace Dieu (66.4m × 15.2m × 6.5m) built in 1418.

Latin America is poverty-stricken and backward, and democracy there is a joke. I'll give you Mexico, but Brazil's nowhere near. It doesn't even match up to Egypt.
Utterly laughable, especially when you throw Egypt in the mix.
That's not entirely right, though, is it? The Romans made huge leaps and bounds in engineering. Engineering's great, cos you can see what you've built and it lasts forever. The Greeks weren't natural engineers. They had a few handy chaps for it, but they were theorists. They discovered Pi, and nearly got it right (much more so than the Romans). They calculated the circumference of the Earth, and were only about 1000 miles out. They, in fact, did most of the theoretical work that was re-invented in Europe between 1400 and 1750. It doesn't record well, but looking at the devices they used shows that they must have known various concepts simply to be able to build. They may have even had clockwork, but that's uncertain. They certainly knew how to build boats bigger than anything until British Naval Frigates in 1730.
The Romans did advance in engineering, but they did more. Their government was far more advanced than anything the world ever did see. They had a rapdily growing middle class by the end of the Punic Wars. And of course, their military in the ancient world was second to none. It was Julius Caesar and the advent of socialism that destroyed it all.
China's been using capitalist systems remarkably similar to those used today for over 3000 years, so that's a pre-enlightenment one.
It made appearances during the Han and Song dynasties, but it fell. Why, I am still looking into. But I bet that Chinese ethnocentrism had something to do with it. Parts of the West may have it, but that hasn't stopped it from spreading.
Also, Chinese capitalism did not spread. The English system of capitalism developed independently.
I don't particularly thing we're advancing faster now than they were then. We're doing much better than the point where religion supressed science, but considering the size of the population we're crawling along by comparisson.
I'll be blunt here. That's their fault. There were plenty of resources to make the world little USes fifty years ago, but not today. It iis because of the same illiberal factors that existed in antiquity: warlords, tribalism, and surpressive mysticsm. Then there's the only advancement that seems to have trickled to the developing world, being the Green Revolution. I personally think that the developement of AIDS, while sad on an individual basis, is exactly what we all need if anyone hopes for a bright future for everyone.

Eh? Frigates, as the smallest class of ship of the line would have been dwarfed by other classes at the time, never mind massive examples like the Grace Dieu (66.4m × 15.2m × 6.5m) built in 1418.
What's the fascination with boats?

What's the fascination with boats?

No particular fascination: I just sniff a spurious claim.

No particular fascination: I just sniff a spurious claim.
I see. Was it Irish?

I see. Was it Irish?

No, built by Henry V of England and Wales.

The Romans did advance in engineering, but they did more. Their government was far more advanced than anything the world ever did see. They had a rapdily growing middle class by the end of the Punic Wars. And of course, their military in the ancient world was second to none. It was Julius Caesar and the advent of socialism that destroyed it all.

Roman government was modeled entirely on that of Carthage. They made no significant advance on the Carthaginian system at all, and then they destroyed it and fell back on the outmoded totalitarian dictatorship system. Marvelous.

It made appearances during the Han and Song dynasties, but it fell. Why, I am still looking into. But I bet that Chinese ethnocentrism had something to do with it. Parts of the West may have it, but that hasn't stopped it from spreading.
Also, Chinese capitalism did not spread. The English system of capitalism developed independently.

Let's be honest, old son; everything China did spread. The Silk Route is the oldest trade rout in the world, and anything China did ended up in Persia within a few years. I do conceed that only the British were able to come up with the stock market and the South Sea trading company. Both of which I've always felt show a very poor design compared to the ancient Chinese ideas. Oh, and the Chinese did paper money, too.

I'll be blunt here. That's their fault. There were plenty of resources to make the world little USes fifty years ago, but not today. It iis because of the same illiberal factors that existed in antiquity: warlords, tribalism, and surpressive mysticsm. Then there's the only advancement that seems to have trickled to the developing world, being the Green Revolution. I personally think that the developement of AIDS, while sad on an individual basis, is exactly what we all need if anyone hopes for a bright future for everyone.

The world today produces more than it ever has. How can you claim there are fewer resources to modernise with?

And if we're talking about suppressive mysticism, the US has it's fair share. Abortion, anyone?

Oh, and please, God, man, never say that AIDS is a bright hope for us all. That's the kind of thing which destroys your credability.

OH, and Bodies? The Persians used boats measuring over 100m long when defeated by Greek forces. No-ones completely sure how big Greek Quinquiremes were, but given room for four decks of rowers, a catapult, and an entire Phalanx of men, they were possibly even bigger. The claim they were the biggest boats until the 1730s comes from 'What the Ancients Did For US', on BBC2 at 8 o'clock Wednesdays. It's accurate about most stuff I know myself, but I've never been one for the history of naval warfare. I prefer land war; you get to keep the ground you're fighting over.

No, built by Henry V of England and Wales.
Thus proving the superiority of the British :).

Thus proving the superiority of the British :).
if we really want to go by the largest ship built at any specific point in time, then surely the Titanic proves the superiority of the Irish?

Thus proving the superiority of the British :).

Superiority of the British? What superiority of the british? The Irish Duke of Wellington defeated Napolean. The British couldnt even support their own population with food.

Roman government was modeled entirely on that of Carthage. They made no significant advance on the Carthaginian system at all, and then they destroyed it and fell back on the outmoded totalitarian dictatorship system. Marvelous.



Let's be honest, old son; everything China did spread. The Silk Route is the oldest trade rout in the world, and anything China did ended up in Persia within a few years. I do conceed that only the British were able to come up with the stock market and the South Sea trading company. Both of which I've always felt show a very poor design compared to the ancient Chinese ideas. Oh, and the Chinese did paper money, too.



The world today produces more than it ever has. How can you claim there are fewer resources to modernise with?

And if we're talking about suppressive mysticism, the US has it's fair share. Abortion, anyone?

Oh, and please, God, man, never say that AIDS is a bright hope for us all. That's the kind of thing which destroys your credability.

OH, and Bodies? The Persians used boats measuring over 100m long when defeated by Greek forces. No-ones completely sure how big Greek Quinquiremes were, but given room for four decks of rowers, a catapult, and an entire Phalanx of men, they were possibly even bigger. The claim they were the biggest boats until the 1730s comes from 'What the Ancients Did For US', on BBC2 at 8 o'clock Wednesdays. It's accurate about most stuff I know myself, but I've never been one for the history of naval warfare. I prefer land war; you get to keep the ground you're fighting over.

Naval superior. If you get yourself an island and a really good fleet of ships then you cant go wrong espicially with a lot of submarines and tons of aa guns on the mainland.

OH, and Bodies? The Persians used boats measuring over 100m long when defeated by Greek forces.


Is this at the battle of Salamis?

No-ones completely sure how big Greek Quinquiremes were, but given room for four decks of rowers, a catapult, and an entire Phalanx of men, they were possibly even bigger.

There remains debate as to whether quinquireme refers to the number of banks of rowers, or to the number of people per oar. What's a persian phalanx? A hundred men, isn't it?

Thus proving the superiority of the British :).

Ah, now the real trick is to avoid getting into the position where you have to build such ostentatious white elephants. I believe it managed to sail a total distance of less than a hundred miles.

Roman government was modeled entirely on that of Carthage. They made no significant advance on the Carthaginian system at all, and then they destroyed it and fell back on the outmoded totalitarian dictatorship system. Marvelous.
The Carthagians had a few democratic systems, they did not have the sophistication of the Roman Republic.


Let's be honest, old son; everything China did spread. The Silk Route is the oldest trade rout in the world, and anything China did ended up in Persia within a few years. I do conceed that only the British were able to come up with the stock market and the South Sea trading company. Both of which I've always felt show a very poor design compared to the ancient Chinese ideas. Oh, and the Chinese did paper money, too.

Did the wheelbarrow or chain pump end up in Persia? No, nothing did. Some things spreaded, but not all by a longshot.

The world today produces more than it ever has. How can you claim there are fewer resources to modernise with?
They just aren't enough yet.

Oh, and please, God, man, never say that AIDS is a bright hope for us all. That's the kind of thing which destroys your credability.

I compare the human population to a forest. Let one fire burn, and another one won't come for a while. Surpress it, and larger ones will burn. That's what we are seeing with AIDS. If we surpress it, than something far worse will inevitably develope. I believe that China will also develope something, though it will be far more infectious than AIDS. They were, afterall, the breeding ground for SARS.
OH, and Bodies? The Persians used boats measuring over 100m long when defeated by Greek forces. No-ones completely sure how big Greek Quinquiremes were, but given room for four decks of rowers, a catapult, and an entire Phalanx of men, they were possibly even bigger. The claim they were the biggest boats until the 1730s comes from 'What the Ancients Did For US', on BBC2 at 8 o'clock Wednesdays. It's accurate about most stuff I know myself, but I've never been one for the history of naval warfare. I prefer land war; you get to keep the ground you're fighting over.[/QUOTE]

bump

I had this argument in a pub a month back.

My friend a native of bejing and a bit of a commie at times, and i getting drunkish and so increseingly patriotic, were arugeing about which country invented the most things.

Yeah sure china had lots of ideas thats all they were, they very rarely put them intro practical aplication.

like gunpowered, of yeah its great for attack rockets, sure thats cool. but why not put it in a metal tube and put a big ball of metal infront of it and light it.

Yes the Empire raped it's colonies but:

When WE where running Africa, was there famine? Was there knackers!
Was there rampant aids? Hell no!

And America has just gone down hill since they chucked us out, I mean governer of California anyone?

Yes the Empire raped it's colonies but:

When WE where running Africa, was there famine? Was there knackers!

*cheesy voice over voice* Britain, largest empire since Rome, ruler of the high seas, controller of weather on the African continent.

Was there rampant aids? Hell no!

Everyone knows that AIDs was caused by Switzerland giving women the vote. Before Swiss women had the vote, no AIDs. After they got the vote, AIDs appeared. Coincidence, I think not

And America has just gone down hill since they chucked us out, I mean governer of California anyone?

Yes, they went from being 13 disunited colonies who could barely decide which way the wind blew and who had no representation in the mother parliament to being the sole superpower.


Oh, wait. You'r taking the piss.

I had this argument in a pub a month back.

My friend a native of bejing and a bit of a commie at times, and i getting drunkish and so increseingly patriotic, were arugeing about which country invented the most things.

Yeah sure china had lots of ideas thats all they were, they very rarely put them intro practical aplication.

like gunpowered, of yeah its great for attack rockets, sure thats cool. but why not put it in a metal tube and put a big ball of metal infront of it and light it.

Changing the goal posts is not a good tactic to use in a debate.

Changing the goal posts is not a good tactic to use in a debate.
They were drunk. Give them a break.

About that research paper, btw, I'm not doing the British Empire anymore. Too many people hold my position. Instead, I'm arguing why the Roman Republic was the best civilization of antiquity.

They were drunk. Give them a break.
Sorry.

It isn't as if I am completely innocent of doing this.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never (never never never..) shall be slaves!

Something happened in Europe around 1500. The various powers of Europe conquered and colonized eachother, and overseas territories. They had different ideaologies for doing this, but it all prolonged imperialism until the 20th century.
The British Empire was undoubtedly one of the greatest. It was definatly the wealthiest, arguably the strongest, and conquered the most territory. Yet the British Empire has fallen, and it is left to us, posterity, to judge it. I want you to judge it on how this event fits your morals, and overall, whether the world benefited or not.

The world benifitted, but some colonies lost a part of their culture. But over all, they weilded their power well and responsibly.

Intresting question.

The Soldier - Rupert Brooke


If I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England's, breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.

And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.

English Common Law and the English Language are arguably the greatest gifts ever bestowed by one nation to the world,

rivaling even rome and greece.

English Common Law and the English Language are arguably the greatest gifts ever bestowed by one nation to the world,

rivaling even rome and greece.
I agree.