The official French Newspaper, Le Moniteur, carried the accounts of his conversion to Islam in 1798, and mentions his new Muslim name which was Aly Napoleon Bonaparte. He commends the conversion of General Jaques Menou, who became known as General Abdullah-Jaques Menou, who later married an Egyptian lady, Sitti Zoubeida. Few people are aware of this aspect to the Battle of Waterloo, because as we pointed out at the beginning, the history was written by the victors
It was the Arch Bishops of European Usury, The Rothschilds, who had managed to prevent the further liberation of Jews and Gentiles alike, by successfully preventing Napoleons clear Islamic vision for Europe becoming a reality
amazing actually, that the archbishops of usury, the rothschilds were able to distort history, napolean, who converted to Islam along with his first general, Ali Napolean bonarparte had a vision of an Islamic France(some of Islams laws are alredy implemented in french law on jurisprudence) He was impressed islam's superior laws, where usury is also strictly forbidden..Napoleon tried to rid Europe of usury, but failed in what was a valiant effort
Had Napoleon won the British would have been no longer able to meddle in the afairs of mainland Europe. Mainland Europe would have been united under one flag. Russian would have been contained inside their own borders. The German states would never have united. There would have been no Franco-Prussian War. No World Wars I and II. No Holocaust. No Cold War. Possibly no rise of communism. It might have been a different and much better world.
If German states were so thankful for Napoleon 'uniting' them why were French troops garrisoning every major German city -as in occupation forces..... same as occupying Italy + Naples + Spain.... Napoleon would have wanted to occupy the whole world regardless of how many wars and invasions he created.
@waterloo2you How could one victory by a British army effectso much even if Napoleon won he would had to deal with Blucher the Russians and the Austrians then the British navy which will begind its blockades on French ports
The only thing I can't understand is why some italian still loses his time to speak to britons. In their mind there is the convinction they are something like gods. But it's not their fault. You can imagine...fog, rain, isolation. Poor britons. If someone could give them the proof that italian soldiers are brave at least like them, what could remain to do for these islanders ? The suicide. So, please, say them they are the best soldiers in the world and avoid to criticize them.
For me truly this is the beautiful thing of Rome -that was a city but with an universal ideal, and as the poet Namatianus (himself a Gaul) said, really at the end of the Empire, "she gave to different people, one fatherland":
Excusé moi je comprend le Français mais je ne le parle pas bien comme mon Anglais, que voulez-vous dire ? Si j'avais un cerveau avant, j'ai toujours le même cerveau maintenant :) J'ais jamais écrit quelque chose contre la France ? Je ne pense pas. Salutations :)
And however, I think that if it was not for the Huns, a confederation of Turk-Mongolic-Magyar tribes coming from the steppes of Asia, even the blond and warlike Germans (that the Roman legions, Teutoburg excluded, did slaughter practically always, Caesar too, when the legions were still composed of "Romans" and not of Germanic Barbarians, as in late Empire) would have been conquered or peacefully integrated in the Empire, like the Gauls.
Have you ever heard of Egidio and Ambrosio Bocanegra? Probably not -they were two Genoese Admirals of XIVth century, fighting, with Genoese ships, for the French and for the Castilians during Hundred Years' War (one of the most glorious events of English military history, despite the final defeat) -Egidio took part in the battle of Sluys, 1340, where 250 English ships completely crushed 190 French ships -only Egidio, with his squadron, escape the battle victorius, with two English ships as booty
Ambrosio Bocanegra, with 22 Castillan (Spanish) ships, defeated 50 English ships at the battle of la Rochelle, 1372, capturing "8400 English prisoners" including their commander, the earl of Pembroke. I wish to have seen a confrontation, that never happened, between the Italian Fleets of Middle Age (Genoese and Venetians) and the English Fleet of that time-a confrontation between the two greatest people of sailors in Europe (with all respect for Portuguese,Spanish,French, Dutch,and "Vikings")
Yes I know about this battle which reversed victory at the battle of Sluys? Depends which scholars you read, but generally agreed Britain lost control of the English channel, up to the Spanish Armada, 1488, where Britain retook control and held it until now. Thank God, since then, all cross channel invasions have been one way
True, but the Spanish Armada was defeated more by the fury of the elements than by the fury of the English ;) -there was never "boarding"- and the invasion of Spain by the "English Armada" of Drake was equally a disaster- but still I would say that for the Continentals was always impossible to cross the Channel with one fleet -Spanish, French or German -but if they ALL COMBINE TOGETHER?....- but yet the Continentals have never feared a mass invasion from British -of tourists, yes :)
Thats perhaps too simplistic an assessment. Yes the elements played a part, but one reason it did not decimate the Engliah fleet is because Drake was adept at using the elements as his ally. Still, it was a decisive monement because it helped shape the future of naval supremacy
It reminds me of another storm, that crushed a similar attempt of invasion -the Kamikaze ("Divine wind") of 1274 and 1281,two storms that destroyed the Mongols fleets in Japan-but I think that the Japanese would have defended themselves well in any case. Odd to say, I believe that the only weapon capable of stopping the Mongols in Europe would have been the Longbow. English longbowmen for me were the most professional and disciplined infantry of Middle Age.
I fully understnd why the Japanese herald this moment and have given the term 'divine wind' immortal status. We in Europe sometimes call it divine intervention. The elements in war must always be considered...look what the weather did to Nap's cannons at Waterloo and you know who Churchill considered as the greatest Russian General? General Winter
He he, Boney, like Hitler (and for BOTH, but ENORMOUSLY MORE FOR HITLER than for Nappy, I thank the Russian Climate that helped all europeans to get rid of 2 dictators) -broke one of the rules of War, that is: NEVER INVADING RUSSIA (or never invading Russia "too deeply")
I think a lack of fear sems from the fact they knew British ambiions were extra-European. Still. the English CHannel has been an excellent platform for raids in North European lands, think about D-Day, as well as latterly all the duty free shoppers
Eh eh, they were extraeuropean ambitions, of course, because 1) Britain never had, until recently, the population of France (was 1/3 in 1700), Germany or Spain; So "colonization" of Europe is only a joke; 2) I think that there are not many Europeans loving to become subjects of the English -the only Europeans the English ruled, the Irish, I don't think today lthey ook with nostalgy and love to their past of a colony of the British Empire... :)
Obviously, you know, Britain has always tried to keep Europe "separate" in several States, so to make business with them and sell her goods, and preventing one State -France, Spain, Germany or Russia- to become the ruler of Europe. This continues today, with the European Union of Bruxelles, that the English try to show as "corrupt, inefficient, enemy of the interests of Britain". History has not changed, the islanders will always be islanders and feel nicers and superiors.
Well the fact we're an island has shaped our outlook, the sea has taken us away from Europe and our progeny now populate several nations. Yes we have found favour historically in dividing and conquering in European affairs-thats just diplomacy-but we've always had friendly nations on our side-as opposed to other nations
Ok, that's surely the case of "Anglo-Celtic" countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but the USA were "also" -from the beginning, not from the 1900- Irish, Scottish, Germans, Dutch, French Huguenots; I would say the "pure" English were a minority- but you can say that "Irish and Scottish" are part of Britain, when they often emigrate not be such a part.
Up to lateish 18thC Americans were largely British. I was teaching at a US university recently and even the demographcs today state that the largest single ethnic group is of British descent. The hierarchy is largely of British descent too (politics, juducial, Harvard, Yale etc etc). It is essenially where the money and influence is to be found. That is not to say that many of the poorer Americans are not of British descent too, such as in the South
Fantastic! Do you teach at University? Well, I bow my head -I'm just a teacher of secondary school, with a degree in History (Modern). Great! However, I agree, of course, USA were born as mainly "British" -if with such you intend, rightly, "English"- yet they were exceeded by Irish and Germans (with also Dutch, Scandinavians, Polish, and much later Italians, Russians and Jews) during 1800; today I think American Whites have more Celtic or German blood than English; but this I cannot demonstrate.
No need to bow your head. I lecture in war studies (history and strategy) at various institutes. Don't forget that into the 19th and 20th Centuries Brits were still emigrating there. As for the hierarchy, you will know that Brits make up the WAPSs, which Americans regard as the most influential ethnic/social grouping
Well, the White Anglo Saxons Protestants perhaps are more, today, only, White Protestants or Catholics (or even Ortodox); Religion doesn't matter much today (Islam Radicals are a growing problem, not the old ridicoulous squabbles between Catholics and Protestans; furthermore, most if not all of the so called "Anglo-Saxons" possess a large amount of German, Dutch, French Huguenot and not rarely Native American blood -see the Southern Aristocracy pre-Civil War).
Also, if some "egemony" of this sort of Anglo Mafia still exists, is something most Americans today have shame about, not "pride" -see for example mr.Bush, part of this "Yankee Aristocracy"- and I wish to remember that, if this "hierarchy" of "British blood" really exists, well, ehm ehm, sorry, the Jews? Aren't the Jews in great, powerful positions (THAT THEY DESERVE, BECAUSE I SUPPORT ISRAEL) more than the old Wasp?
Or, I correct myself, not "more" than the old Wasp (or the other Whites regardless of British or German or -yes even- Italian ancestry); I mean, aren't the Jews, in comparison to other "not Anglo" ethnic groups, in percent in much more AND FULLY DESERVED places of importance and prestige? Are you sure that still today, having a surname like "Smith" and some drops of English blood, IN AMERICA, is more important than the COMPETENCE and the ABILITY in doing your PROFESSION?
However even in case the most of the White Americans (but the World is not composed only of "Whites", Afro-Americans, Latinos, Chineses and all other people are, I hope not too slowly, acquiring importance and consideration in the US) are of "British ancestry" (that's true: but considering as British even Catholic Irishmen and Scots), this, the same, doesn't mean that they simply wish to build "another Britain": the States are born in antithesis with the class-society of Britain.
Lets say the truth here. Whatever mix they are, by now they should just be called 'American'. Building another Britain? No way. Do't forget, the American revolution was fought by Brits under the banner 'Free Englishmen' who opposed repressive taxation laws from the mainland. I'm sure they're happy as they are
However, one cannot but admire and have respect for the FIRST COUNTRY in Europe, Great Britain, that achieved firm and stable Parliamentarian Rights and Freedoms -even if, with a class society (Lords, Peers, Sirs, Knights... and obviously the Queen and her court) that today appears as a relict of the Middle Age, something that I cannot understand how the British can love. Truly, I cannot understand how such an unjust system could be revered as "Tradition".
It does still hold true in politics and in the judicial system. The Jewish people have been successful in all these ares, specially in Europe. Go and see the Merchant of Venice
Listen, where do you want to arrive? To say that having an "Anglo" surname means AUTOMATICALLY being better? Do you know what's the best definition for such? MAFIA. Are you Anglos more MAFIOSI in facts and in thought that the merry, open Italians? Mm.
I never said that. I said that it so happens that the ruling class in he USA is largely made up of WASPs. I am not talking of racial supremacy here, or any kind of Uber Mensch, so please do not infer I am doing so
I never said that, I only said that it so happens that positions of power have usually been held by WASPs, I am not talking about Uber Mensch here, so please do not infer I am talking about racial supremacy because I'm not.
Ah, just a thing: in the American Supreme Court of today (2007), out of 9 judges, there are 2 Jewish, 2 Italians (Scalia and Alito), 1 Afro-American, 1 Irish (please, Irishmen are not "British"), 1 HalfAnglo-HalfCzech (John Roberts Podrasky), and 2 more or less pure "Anglos".
And you know, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Condoleeza Rice, all POSSIBLE CANDIDATES for the elections of 2008 (with Hillary), are the Anglos?
Do you know what is similar, your argument? To say that in the Roman Empire, from the II century especially, till the end (476), the most important offices in Politics, Administration, Justice, and in the Army, were kept only by ETHNIC ROMANS of ROME or DESCENDANTS of ETHNIC-ROMAN SETTLERS living in the Provinces. Anyone who knows, also only a little, the History of the Roman Empire, knows also the answer.
There is no singluar reason for the demise of the Roamn Empire, Den. Corruption, an increasing amount of enemies and social/political decay have their roots in different areas. Did the Romans fail to share their power appropriately, yes. The Romans enjoyed a very long time in the sun, it was inevitable they ceeded supremacy
Well, in this thing I don't agree. The Romans were in no way racists; they did share their power even in first century of the Empire; as you know, Italy was not "Rome", Italy was conquered by Rome during Republican time, and the several Italian people were "made" Roman Citizens, and entered in a City that, like today the USA (or New York), did received everyone and made him Roman.
Not saying they were racists, but as with all empires, the spoils would not have been shared with the populations of occupied territories. I have great admiration for the Roman Empire and many Romans enjoyed luxuries which many Europeans did not have even 50 years ago
Of particular impressive proportions was the amount of time Roma remained pre-eminent. Also, the way it administered its lands was highly skilfull. Apart the the Boudiccan rebellion, Britain posed little problem. Gaul, apart from Vercengetorix did not pose a great threat. Germany was a different story, however the Romans proved adept at invading and conquering...unsurpassed on European soil
I think that the Romans did not conquer Germany (even if you know, Bavaria and Rhineland were part of the Empire called as "Noricum" and the 2 provinces of "Germania superior" and "inferior"), not only because of the great valour of the German tribes, and their love for freedom, but also because Germany was mainly a great forest and a swamp, and it was not a great prey-read Tacitus "De Germania"- but the Germans prisoners were splendid gladiators...
I wish to say, to conquer the German tribes would have been probably THE GREATEST success for Rome; but to invade and colonize the German soil, this would not have been greatly desirable for the Romans -the Middle East was better, full as it was of wealth and luxury. However in a fight between a Roman Legion, entirely clothed in steel armours, and the almost bare Germans, the result would have been for centuries the Roman victory.
One of the first battle I ever learned about was the battle of the Teutoberg forrest in AD9. Was it not a general based in Gaul who was charged with this conquest? Actually I am reading currently a book about the Battle of Actium
The battle of Actium... The end of the civil war between Octavianus and Antony. Which marked the beginning of the Empire. For me, I prefer the Republic, most of all the "Old" Republic, defended by Cato the Elder and also Cato and Younger. I've never really enjoyed the "Empire" -Rome was much powerful, but already in full moral decadence.
Have you ever read Tacitus' account of the conquest of Britain by Agricola? It's interesting to see how the Romans saw the local people -and they arrived also in the Scottish Highlands, fighting the battle of Mons Graupius- and most of all, the speech he attributed to Caledonian leader Calgacus:
"To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they [the Romans] give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace".
yes I have. You really should visit the baths at Aqua Sulis (modern Bath), they still work to this day! You now the greatest crime of the day was the fact the Britons did not hold up the innovations brought by the Romans once they had left. They were well ahead of their time. Largely the Roman influence was very beneficial. Have you learned muc about the Boudiccan rebellion?
One of the things I cannot understand is why, when Roman legions retreated from Britannia in 410, the local Britons gave up with speaking Latin, dressing like the Romans and having Roman, and returned to their celtic customs. As you know when Anglos and Saxons landed the locals suffered a genocidium, were displaced or, more probably, they were all Germanized. However people from Wales at least should have conserved something of Roman, don't you think? 400 years aren't a couple of weeks...
I mean, having Roman institutions and laws. Yes I've read about Boudicca or Boadicea, it seems that her rebellion was motivated by the fact she was "insulted" in a severe way by the Romans..... Always the usual Latins, hot-blooded who love Nordic women :):):):)
Thats the story. It is always hard to understand the truth about people, who may have existed, yet are shrouded in myth and, lets say, falcities. Such as Boudicca, Jesus, Saint George or any other Saint, Robin Hood, Joan of Arc, In all these instances, we know they existed, perhaps even King Arthur, but where is the line between myth and reality in their deeds?
Well Varus I think was governor of Syria and used to treat his subjects in an "Oriental" way, he was a corrupted man and debauched, and was not accustomed with German sense of freedom -and he was not a military man, but however he found at least the courage to die with his sword.
popular explanations for the Roman withdrawal are emergencies elsewhere and the impending invasion of Britain by others. You can simply say 'their time had come'.
Returning to previous customs and cultures is usually attributed in post colonialism as being due to 1)the helping/oppressing hand can no longer enforce the longevity of a previous system, 2)know-how has disappeared, 3)if not everyone spoke the language, that language is unlikely to survive, because it is hard to transfer to following generations, 4)there can be deliberate attempt to throw off the old and return to an age of posterity
the last traces of Roman Wales is around 410, around the same time as the rest of Britain. There was a leader called Caractacus of the Silures (?) tribe defeated in 50 ad, taken to Rome and impressed so he was treated a hero. When you bear in mind also, 1) Welsh Roman relics are generally better preserved than English (Except Bath) and they were less prone to invasion than England, then perhaps the Roman culture may have lasted longer in Wales
Indeed, also because even France, sorry, Gaul was invaded by the Franks and other germanic tribes, but the local Gallo-Romans continued to speak Latin, "vulgar Latin" of course, just like the Spaniards under Visigoths and later the Moors; only England, and the Balkans (with Romania as exception), lost completely the Latin as widespread language; who knows? :)
you can suppose in the case of Britain, that it was extricated from Europe by the English channel, therefore would have been isolated from tracellers speaking Latin. This is a guess but would make sense
I think too, it's the more probable hypothesis. Or perhaps because Britain was the less romanized of all the provinces; but this had to be demonstrated.
I like the concept of Pax Romana. Particularly the notion that an attack on one citizen is an attack on all. This underpinned much of Pax Britannica, and has always been implied in Pax Americana
For me Julius Caesar is the greatest example of a brilliant militaro statesman. Impressive how he could turn his reputation on its head and use magnaniminity and compassion so as to turn adversaries to his own side, when others wold have used fear for the same purpose
Yes Caesar was great obviously but anyone who wish a Republican system cannot but take the parts of Brutus and of the last attempt of the Roman Senators to control the State. With his nephew Octavianus Rome became an empire but lost the ancient freedom and this marked in a certain sense the beginning of the moral decadence of the city -Rome became more and more a militaristic society where the legions were faithful to their commanders not to the city, with disastrous consequences.
Rome was the First Melting Pot! Already from the times of Caesar (who, if you have read the "De Bello Gallico", you can see that he enlisted most of his legions in Gallia Cisalpina, that is North of Italy, among Roman settlers of course, but also among local Gauls) Provincials were entering the army and this was the first possibility to acquire full Roman citizenship
There are Emperors who were Spanish (even if of Roman ancestry) like Trajan or Hadrian, already in II century; of North African origin (that is, Berber or Chartaginenses-Semitic) like the dinasty of the Severii; and after, many Illyrians -that today would be called "ex-Yugoslavians" even if they speak Slavic languages and no more "Illyrian" languages- like Diocletianus and Constantinus.
So, the only accusation one cannot make to the Romans, is that they "did not share their power appriopriately": it's the opposite. Already in Ist century, the Romans in the Empire were not in a system of Apartheid, but were intermingling with the Provincials and teaching them Roman rules and Latin. More, emperor Caracalla (himself an African-Roman born in France) gave to ALL citizens of the Empire the Roman citizenship in 212, this abolishing all differences between Romans and not-Romans.
They have not been eleceted yet. However I think incresingly power in the USA will be shared more evenly among the different ethnicities. By the way, you do realise that if an American reads this thread, they'll wonder what the hell we're talking about. I expect they consider themselves Americans and thats it.
Ok, I too think that it would be very difficult that, for example, an "Arnold" :) could be elected (also because he's born in Austria, but also because of he's not a serious option..), and for me in the US it's still to early for a Black. But in future, who knows?
HAving said that, many American commentators have said that had Colin Powell run for President he would have been firm favourite. I was in the states at the time and it seems he had cross cultural respect, deservedly so in my opinion. The Governator, an Austrian cannot be President, unless they change the parameters ofcourse
In my opinion, today one cannot speak about any "Wasp" egemony in the States -in the Politics there are more English surnames, ok, because English is the language of the States, but not all are of "English ancestry"- in business, juridical system and liberal professions, well, Anglo egemony has finished long time ago- but one can still talk of "White egemony"- a part from the "Old South", where you know already what kind of truly mixed "Anglo-Saxons" they are.
I do not agree that today "the hierarchy is largely of British descent" (what does it mean "British"? English, or also Irish and Scottish?)-today in the US, being of "British descent" has NO MEANING -we are no more in the 1776! And also many foreigners did "Anglicize" their surnames (Germans did it); moreover,"Old" Americans of the so-called "English" ancestry did intermingle with Germans, Irish and Natives at such degree that speaking today of a "British America" is an Anglo-centric fantasy.
In Politics? Well, there are Presidents of Dutch descent even in the 1800 (Van Buren -and later the 2 Roosevelts), many Scotch-Irish (Andrew Jackson) or Scot (Grant) or German (Eisenhower) and almost purely Irish (JFK, of course) -you don't know probably that there were even ITALIANS already in the "Founding Fathers" (or of Italian ancenstry), like William Paca, Caesar Rodney, and Filippo Mazzei -please see
Ok, probably we don't understand each other -I wish you to know that, for ALL Europeans, there are no "British", just "English"- United Kingdom exists only as formal definition. Anyway, when I talk of "British colonization", I talk about English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Scotch-Irish colonization; if the Welsh and English we can consider "one stock", Scots and Irish feel that they are not,"English". And most of them don't feel even "British"-otherwise, there would be no Eire today.
OK the folloing are fom the UK: Northern Irish, Scotish, Englsh, Welsh. Bristish are the above except Northern Irish, except the Preotestants who feel they are British. For foreigners, the outward projection of these islands are British not English, except in Football and rugby. But I do know foreigners often miscorrectly use the word 'English' when referring to the country as a whole
By this rationale then no one was anything, since all their blood is mixed. Ofcourse by now they should just be rightly called 'American'. The studies are from a national demographics institute, which does look beyond names. Ofcourse the British themselves are not a pure race, but ancestorily speaking, British is still the the single largest blood line (but that in itself very varied)
As for the Irish, they are an integral part in building the Empire, as much as the rest of us. They benefitted just as much-look at the Irish families, like the Guiness's who beneffited from the Empire, look at men like Wellington, born in Ireland, look at the number of Irishmen who have fought for the Empire...who still fight for Britain today
"Integral part" or "Catholics inferiors and cannon fodder"? Not sure of how the Irish felt themselves "part" of the Empire -there is a joke- British Empire was "conquered by the Irish (and Scottish) blood, administred by Scots and Welsh, and the profits went to the English (and "lost by the English" ;)) -I know, it's just a joke, but Welly himself said "being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse" :):):)
None of the working classes from ANY of the British principalities enjoyed the Empire: while profits went to the upper classes they were left to fight in disease ridden territories, work down mines16 hrs a day and in stinking factories.
These quotes do not add up. The benefits were spread by class lines, not by nations. Welly, was born aristocratic as well as Irish, which made him a darling of aristocrats over Europe. When in 1814 he entered Paris, he was treated as a hero: given Nap's house, asked to ressurect the aristocracy in France and enjoyed all that Paris had to offer him, including Nap's mistress
And anyone who wants to evoke the 'Potato famine' in their anti British diatribe must remember that simultaneously Enlish people were dying of starvation. Fact is the ruling classed despised the poor working classes of England and Ireland with equal measure
Ah yes, a thoretical battle between Genoese, Venetians and British. You know, I'm not sure that would ever have happened because traditionally Italy and Britain are not enemies, in fact Britain has usually been allied with the people of the Eastern side of the Med.
Indeed. But the Italian Sea Republics did fought each others until they destroyed their fleets; however, at Lepanto (1571) out of 212 Christian ships, 25 were Spanish, 3 of Malta's Knights, and 184 Italians -115 Venetians. Also,while Venetians were engaged for 2 centuries in bloody wars against the Turks (with mutual trade and truces), Genoeses(like Christopher Columbus) gave to Spain the fleet that built her Empire.Italians maybe aren't great fighters but as sailors, aren't the worst.
No I did not know him. Were they acting as privateers? This takes me back to a previous conversation I had with you...it looks like this time England was on the receiving end of a coalition!
and yet the flower of this Peninsular British army was defeated at New Orleans, by mere militia men and volunteers, without either drill or organization (6)
[and again]
If the Frenchmen excel them (Germans) in vivacity of onslaught,
if the Englishmen are their superiors in toughness of resistance,
the Germans excel all other European nations in that general
fitness for military duty which makes them good soldiers under
at the same time, however, they could not prevent the English, in Spain, from proving themselves their superiors under certain circumstances and in certain moments of a battle.
No doubt, the legions which Napoleon led, in 1805, from the camp of Boulogne to Austerlitz, were the finest troops of their time; no doubt Wellington knew what he said, when he called his soldiers at the conclusion of the Peninsular war "an army with which he could go any where, and do any thing;" (5)
the French of Louis XIV, and the Austrians of Eugene disputed, for a while, with each other this post of honor, until the Prussians of Frederick the Great settled the question by defeating both of them; these, again, were hurled down into utter disrepute by a single blow at Jena, and once more the French were universally acknowledged the first soldiers of Europe; (4)
Every people is jealous of its own fame; and, in the opinion of the general public, fed by narratives which, whatever they may lack in critical exactness, are amply adorned with high patriotic coloring.
The German Landsknechte of the later middle ages, the Swiss soldiers of the sixteenth century, were for a period as invincible as the splendid Spanish soldiers, who succeeded them to the rank of "the first infantry of the world;" (3)
but, in spite of a uniform system of drill, which appears to level all distinctions, every one will be good in his own way, by virtue of qualities different from those possessed by his rivals. This brings us to a question but too often mooted between the military patriots of different nationalities: which are the best soldiers ? (2)
A little contribution, upon which I wish your opinion -taken from "The Armies of Europe", Frederick Engels (Yes Engels "the Communist" friend of Marx, Putnam's Monthly, 1855 -you can find it on internet):
The Frenchman and the Hungarian, the Englishman and the Italian, the Russian and the German, under certain circumstances, may be equally good and efficient soldiers; (1)
4) No doubt Britain could not have tolerated a United Europe under Napoleon, surely she was fighting to protect her interests and for fear of a possible revolution inside her boundaries, but times were not ready for a similar idea and to Britain's merit throughout all XIXth century her sympathies went to those countries in Europe that were trying to achieve independence and to get rid of their old Ancien Regime social and political systems.
3) Despite having no fondness for Monarchies, the Royal Family is no more "debauched" than other families in the World, she has her own vices and virtues, but personally I have admiration for the present Queen and I hope that Prince William would succeed her, and take example from her dignity and integrity;
After all, after having done the necessary Apology of my country, to be honest till the end I must admit that 1) We Italians have much to learn from the British, in terms of civic behaviours and attachment to our own country (we Italians are no doubt a self-denigratory people), but not of course in terms of an acrytical promotion of ourselves; 2) a Nationalism founded on hate for the other people and countries, does not help a country and does not bring improvement to his social life;
Today, simply EUROPE HAS NO NEED OF BRITAIN, you would be only a weight -you don't want us? OK, STAY IN YOUR ISLAND WITH YOUR DEBAUCHED ROYAL FAMILY, for which ALL THE WORLD LAUGHS! AND GREET FOR ME PRINCE HARRY THE NAZI!!!
History is full of your "splendid campaigns": Walcheren (1809), Afghan's wars, Crimea, Boer War, Gallipoli in WW1, Dunkirk, Singapore in WW2, Tobruck's surrender, Operation Market Garden etc.. Some may have ended with victories, but yet, nothing allows you to say that you are so exceptional as you think!
OK, the Crimean and Boer wars were victories in the end, Gallipoli was eventually a success and Britain was on the winning side, Dunkirk troops withdrew but war was eventually won, British troops retook Singapore 3 years after the fall and Tobruk was recaptured, the German army was defeated and THE ENTIRE ITALIAN ARMY IN NORTH AFRICA surrendered to British forces.
You must be insane. I'd have many things to say to reply to your statements with FACTS but it would be useless. Just remember that in North of Italy we're much more rich and efficient than England, that today you are only the butlers of the USA, and your army, please..... You are only a tiny shit, and if you want to come to Italy to show how you are "superior", we would be glad to show you how our hospitals work.
Nothing I said can't be verified by someone with a) a library card and b) a brain. Nothing you ever said is based on FACT cos you are a cross dressing spaghetti eating mamma's boy. Infact the longer I hear from you the more I believe in abortions, in cases of incest that is
Italians "PEDOPHILES" (you don't even know how to spell, RETARD) and GAY??? HA HA you make laugh even the pebbles, ALL THE WORLD know the ITALIANS AS LATIN LOVERS, and probably we have FILLED MANY MORE ENGLISH WOMEN THAN YOU!!! HA HA!!! If there is a people on Earth that is well-know for being IMPOTENT and to need DRINK to approach women, THIS IS JUST YOU ENGLISH!!! HA HA!!! You probably know are jerking on your chair, be careful, because sperm can come out from your ass!!!
Do you know, that after Italy was occupied by the Germans, in the CENTER and NORTHERN PART, DOZENS OF THOUSANDS ITALIANS ANTI-FASCISTS, fought as PARTISANS a ferocious "NO-PRISONER" GUERRILLA AGAINST THE GERMANS???? DO YOU KNOW THAT ITALY HAD at least 459.000 DEAD DURING WW2??? DO YOU KNOW THAT UK HAD THE SAME, 450.000??? Why you "winners" are "HEROES", and we "losers" are COWARDS???? In this deformed and ridiculous logic, so, even the AMERICANS having LOST in VIETNAM, ARE ALL COWARDS????
Nowhere in the Second World War, did the British fought "ON EQUAL TERMS" with the Italians, FLEET INCLUDED (you had the RADAR, WE NOT, and also we did not have any CARRIER)- it's like if in a football match (I use this metaphor in order to be understood by people of inferior IQ like you, sufficent to say I speak 3-4 languages, you probably speak only "a version" of English) a team with 11 players plays against a team of 6, wins and then call the defeated "COWARDS"
Oh I'm sorry if we outnumbered you in your home waters. You want to use analogies, well you can only beat the team out in front of you. Besides at the same time most of the Royal Navy was engaged fighting the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic as well as the Japanese in the Pacific and Indian oceans. So lets test your IQ thick boy, how many 'versions' of English do you think there are?! I speak my language fluently, as well as French and if I need help in Italian I can always ask my finace
Well, besides accents, you know that not all the "Anglo" World speaks "Queen's English" -obviously, same grammar, same syntax, slightly different lexicon -that's what I meant.
Well in England alone there are no less than 60 ways of using the English language. The number of different ways of using French may be similar in France, perhaps in Italy too..?
An "Italian language" never existed, it is more right to be called "Tuscan language", because of the authority of 1300 writers like Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio -in Italy there are dozens of different dialects, due to the historical 1500-years old fragmentation of the peninsula; Many are mutually unintellegible.
Italians "CROSS DRESSING"? I've rarely seen an Italian "CROSS-DRESSING",mostly Southeners -GREAT PART of the Italians are "Catholics" in a very superficial way,I cannot say if it's a good or not, WE ITALIANS have SUFFERED for CENTURIES the TEMPORAL POWER of the POPE, Pope that ALWAYS CALLED FOREIGNERS in HELP when HIS LANDS WHERE IN DANGER (from Charlemagne against the Lombards kings, in 774, up to 1870-THAT's the MAIN REASON for ITALY HAVING NEVER BECOME AN UNITED NATION
The "SPAGHETTI", and PASTA and PIZZA, once typical dishes only of the South, are much better than your ROASTBEEF and FISH and CHIPS -if you disagree, surely the rest of the World doesn't. Italians "MAMMA BOYS"??? Perhaps in Italy cost of houses and rents have become so high as to discourage or to make impossible many youngs to leave family as they wished.
LOl, we kick your arse anytime. Look at your 'men' (!?) in Irak, a few set backs and they all withdraw in case the get their nails broken. And even the more deprived areas of the UK are wealthier than your backward ghetto's. So fuck off cos if it wans't for the EU you'd be picking peanuts out of shit to feed your family
WHAT? We are living in ghettos? We are "picking peanuts from shit? YOU ARE JUST A MISERABLE COWARD AND RACIST!!!! YOU'RE FULL OF RACISM AND HATE, YOU TALK ABOUT PEOPLE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN AND PLACES YOU'RE NEVER VISITED, AND THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! AND YOU ARE "PROUD" THAT BRITAIN (IT SEEMS THAT "YOU ALONE") HAS DEFEATED THE NAZI???? YOU ARE REASONING JUST LIKE A NAZI, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!
Our TOTAL CASUALTIES in IRAQ, do you know how much it is? 33 DEAD!!! And 19 in just the Nassyria attempt of 12 November 2003!!! IT IS the 3RD CASUALTY RATE AFTER USA AND UK!!! YOU MONGREL!! And REMEMBER that it was BERLUSCONI RIGHT PARTY that imitated your servile and butler-style behaviour towards USA, FRANCE GERMANY and MOST PART OF THE ITALIANS ARE AGAINST THIS ILLEGAL WAR!!! ARE YOU PROUD OF THAT??? OH MY GOD WHAT AN EXAMPLE OF DEMOCRACY YOU ARE!!!
Say what you like, bt your guys got the fuck out of there when it got too ho, right? Didn't see it through. I'm surprised they didnt join the other side, a la 1940's
Italian Constitution, you probably don't know, "repudiates War as a means to solve international controversies". You may argue it is a "coward constitution", something similar to Japan (I frankly don't believe however there is a more HEROIC people in the World, than the Japaneses -but this is another story), but that's all- Italians don't want to go to this war. If you British want, so go with the Americans. Sometime I think courage is not to consent what the strongest wants to do...
And however, Italy has still some 7000-8000 men in "mission" outside her boundaries. In Kosovo, Bosnia, Lebanon we are the leaders. Italian troops, as the Carabinieri (a kind of police and military corps) are always well-considered by the Allies and well-liked by the people. Italians don't shoot with the ease of the Americans -we are not there to be "the masters".
Italians went away when their mission ended. They stayed in Irak for 3 years. They stood where the bullets flew. The Spanish retreated "when it got too hot". I don't think the Spanish are cowards, Aznar (RIGHT) sent them, Zapatero (LEFT) recall them, after Madrid's bombs.
And in 1935-36, we conquered Ethiopia with ease!AND NOT USING GAS or COMMITTING GENOCIDE,the GENOCIDES are a SPECIALITY of YOUR PEOPLE and your "cousins" GERMANS!THERE IS ALMOST NO COUNTRY TODAY where there are Tirannies or Wars that WAS NOT ONCE PART OF BRITISH EMPIRE!WHY DON'T WE TALK of "HOW" you treated the INDIANS,or the IRISH that you tried to EXTERMINATE WITH HUNGER OR FORCED EMIGRATION?YOU SHOULD HAVE PAID WITH A "NUREMBERG TRIAL" FOR THAT!!
JUST REMEMBER, HUMAN NULLITY, that when the Wars were fought only with Swords, Spears and Shields, so WITH HUMAN MUSCLES and not with modern technology, we -MAINLY DESCENDANTS of the ROMANS, have raped your people and cut your balls for 4 centuries!!!!!!!!!!!
CRIMEA WAR was a "British victory"? Ok, 100.000 French died, 35.000 Turks, 17.500 British and DON'T FORGET 2.200 PIEDMONTESE (NORTHERN ITALIANS!!!!!), that fought in the Battle of Chernaya River (16 August 1855), PLEASE READ IF THE PIEDMONTESE WERE "COWARDS"!!!!! So, is Crimea a "British victory", or more probably, a "French" or "Allied" victory????
Italy "is a shit"??? AH YES??? I really did not know, THANK YOU, that our FLORENCE, VENICE, ROME and almost ALL ITALIAN CITIES are "SHIT"??? So, if Italy is just a shit, why so many millions of Britons EVERY YEAR come in my peninsula??? Why so many of them, like Sting, have bought farm and villas in Tuscany??? They should know they are going into a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, so why they choose to come AND LIVE HERE??? WHY SOME MANY BRITISH DESPERATELY TRY TO ESCAPE FROM THEIR ISLAND??????????
Do you know that at El-Alamein, the FOLGORE paratroop division fought until the end and virtually ALL were killed or wounded?? "In a speech to the Commons, Churchill himself paid tribute to their bravery when he said "We have to bow to the remnants of the Folgore's lion". Do you know that Italian frogmen, DURAND DE LA PENNE, sank two 30.000 British Battleships in Alexandria??? DO YOU KNOW IT, HUMAN MUCK????
Ok, the Italians, INITIALLY, in 1896, were beaten byt the Ethiopians, like ad Adwa, where 10.000 Italian Nationals and 7.000 Erithreans were LITERALLY SLAUGHTERED by 100.000 ETHIOPIANS!!!And they WERE NOT ARMED WITH SHIELD AND SPEAR,but ALL WITH RIFLES, PURCHASED FROM EUROPEAN POWERS and ALSO ITALY!!! If the Ethiopians were so "inferiors", WHY YOU NEVER TRIED EVEN TO TOUCH ETHIOPIA??? And WHY, we Italians, could not have a small African Empire-Listen who's talking!The Poor English Virgins!!
You were totally welcome to it. Anyway we couldnt have anything and it was over the water from you. Anyway, why would we want Etheopia, what strategic interest did it present?
It would have been better 1) that we Italians never entered WW1 -it's not a matter of "cowardness", Italy was still a young (55 years old) country, agricultural, poor, underdeveloped, and not a rooted democracy as you -we simply "broke our bones" in that war. The gain? 2 cities (Trento and Trieste) that would have been given to us THE SAME, thanks to President Wilson "14 points" and the inevitable dissolution of Austro-Hungarian Empire,and FASCISM, 4 years after the war (1922).
Many Italians emigrated to escape Fascism. But Italian burgeoise had fear for Communism, fear of revolution Bolshevik-style. Mussolini originally was a Socialist, but wished the war, volunteered in, was wounded, founded Fascist Party after the war, started a campaign of violence against the "Reds", and that little(phisically and morally) king Vittorio Emanuele III gave him the government. Probably the Italians in those times thought that "he was the man" who could "make great" Italy.
Italy had no economic interest in Ethiopia -one of the poorest region of Africa, with no substantial mineral resources. Italy had Lybia, that was (and is) full of oil, but without technology to extract, and with few vehicles to use. It was Mussolini's megalomany and will to "avenge" our bloody defeat at Adwa that led to war. That the won. Useless victory.
I can only have SHAME for Mussolini. Ok, you British have many military heroes, but they were Admirals, Generals, commanding British Armies (and Allied), Garibaldi was just a man. He had no authority, just charisma, and a great deal of courage, because had he lost, he would have been hanged. As the Italians patriots were, by the Pope also. British,had they lost, they would not have been hanged, but treated as prisoners of war, with all regards.
I agree Garibaldi was a man of great worth. I think he was a true patriot and did much to repel the dangers on Italian borders. I would suggest one of the greeatest leaders in European history
Also, as you say, he did not have the leverage of military rank, just the trust he drew ffrom the Italian people. We know the Italians rightly have affection for him, hence the Aircraft Carrier built in his name.
What you've done is take a few set backs whics were victories in the end anyway. In all these cases Britain won in the end. BUt you wouldnt know cos you're italian. Shall we talk now about italian war successes? Didn't think so
AND YOU ARE "PROUD" TO BE BRITISH??? I WOULD HAVE SHAME TO HAVE SUCH A FELLOW-COUNTRYMAN LIKE YOU!! YOU ARE ONLY A HUMAN SCUM, A LOUD-MOUTHED COWARD, WHO HAVE NEVER TRAVELLED OUTSIDE YOUR ISLAND -COME, COME HERE IN ITALY, AND TELL THESE THINGS, BE DEADLY SURE THAT WE MAKE YOU PAY WORD BY WORD ALL YOUR VOMITABLE STATEMENTS!!! But You are only a poor, mentally sick COWARD, You're just a great warrior behind of your computer, but I CLEAN MY ASS WITH YOUR FACE!!!!
I am extremely proud to be British and would under no circumstance wish to be anything else. Oh by the way, I have been to 40 countries. THere are many countries I like, including your own, so dont assume I'm some kind of retard
Nobody ask you to become another. But I think it was one of your writers, Samuel Johnson, who wrote that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -interesting. However, I know, UK is a small-medium military power, Italy IS NOT, but still, elite troops in all World are similars, it's not training or motivation that differs, are WEAPONS. By the way, Italy has the technology to have nuclear weapons -obviously, if North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran have..- but for what?
We, IN ITALY, and I'm talking of AVERAGE ITALY, not just the North that is INFINITELY RICHER AND BETTER THAN your island, have more money, higher salaries, better houses, better cars, better clothes, better food, much more efficient services, roads and trains, and also better weather, THAN YOU!!!! YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, VERMIN??? COME AND SEE WITH YOUR EYES, BASTARD!!!
We have many problems, our economy is not running as today is England, growing immigration, not all composed of hardworking people, but still, I frankly would not say we are poor -for the salaries, it depends -Northerners are more than the rest of the country. For the cars and clothes, well, you know, the Italians love to show off...
Furthermore, just REMEMBER that 1) Rommell "AFRIKA CORPS" WAS HALF ITALIAN 2) that the LITTORIO and ARIETE Tank Division, with their obvious INFERIOR TANKS, FOUGHT SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE GERMANS AND BEAT YOU ALMOST ALWAYS BEFORE EL-ALAMEIN 3)that at El-Alamein, when your "fantastic" general Montgomery "won" with 2:1 SUPERIORITY in MEN, 2:1 in TANKS (and better), 3:1 in GUNS, 3:1 in AIRFORCE and perhaps 10:1 in MATERIALS, AMMUNITION AND FUEL, out of 116.000 Axis troops, the HALF WAS ITALIAN
In Africa you were "Superiors"??? PLEASE, MAKE AN EXCHANGE -GIVE TO THE ITALIANS the WEAPONS, MATERIALS, AMMUNITIONS and FUEL YOU HAD, together with the INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE that my country, WITHOUT NATURAL RESOURCES (NO IRON - NO COAL -NO PETROL) started really only in 1960s, and YOU TAKE OUR ITALIAN old-WW1 Weapons, our "materials" and our "fuel", with whoever of your mediocre boastful British "generals" as leader, like Wawell, Auchinleck or Monty, WHO WINS????
The Germans did not gave us "the necessary". They sent us Rommell with 2 divisions first, then submarines in the Mediterranean (but Italy submarines fleet, with 117 units, was the greatest at the beginning of the war! True! But without fuel), airforce, and then other divisions, like the para's. But Rommell depended on the supplies, and the British from Malta every day sank an Italian ship going to Lybia. That's way you were so well-fed, well-armed, well-supplied, and Italo-Germans not.
Dont agree 365. Monty was always keen to make quick headway. If you take the push up to the Battle of the Bulge, he was in favour of a lightening campaign. However he was always in conflcit with Patton. At Market Garden, it was quite audacious. It was essentially a British screw up, but not his screw up. Also at places like Monte Cassino, this was laborious but mainly due to Clarke whose actions even the Americans couldn't understand and criticised. Thats not even mentionning North Africa
It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of many scholars of WWII, Americans mainly but not only -you know. Outside Britain, Monty is not kept in great consideration as a General (15:1 General?). I don't know frankly what campaign of Monty is "remarkable" -Battle of the Bulge was a feat of American arms, Bastogne and Patton's IIIrd Army. Yet Monty tried to gain the merit for it... He would have been better considered if he kept his mouth closed.
was does 15:General mean 365? The victory at the Bulge was largely American, but I think it was the XXX corps involved thee. Much of Monty's reputation got slurred because he was always at war with US Generals, even Eisenhower at the Bulge, with whom he had previously had a good relationship. Also, I think you'll find North Africa was a very strong achievement
15:1 General I think it was a comment made by the press or by some other General (perhaps American) -you know, how Montgomery wins- with long preparation, total superiority, almost 100% chances of success, trying not to shed his men's blood uselessy, meritorious attitude, but still I can't find a great genius of war in him -Rommell attacked with all what he had, surrounded enemies, take them on flank, advanced and retreated -Monty sweat less.
music 100%
trotisk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The official French Newspaper, Le Moniteur, carried the accounts of his conversion to Islam in 1798, and mentions his new Muslim name which was Aly Napoleon Bonaparte. He commends the conversion of General Jaques Menou, who became known as General Abdullah-Jaques Menou, who later married an Egyptian lady, Sitti Zoubeida. Few people are aware of this aspect to the Battle of Waterloo, because as we pointed out at the beginning, the history was written by the victors
4unitedMAN 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It was the Arch Bishops of European Usury, The Rothschilds, who had managed to prevent the further liberation of Jews and Gentiles alike, by successfully preventing Napoleons clear Islamic vision for Europe becoming a reality
4unitedMAN 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
amazing actually, that the archbishops of usury, the rothschilds were able to distort history, napolean, who converted to Islam along with his first general, Ali Napolean bonarparte had a vision of an Islamic France(some of Islams laws are alredy implemented in french law on jurisprudence) He was impressed islam's superior laws, where usury is also strictly forbidden..Napoleon tried to rid Europe of usury, but failed in what was a valiant effort
4unitedMAN 2 years ago
world government is always gonna be a good thing at this stage of our evolution
MEKON17 2 years ago
mon personnage de l'ghistoire que je préfére ! forever !
theZibou1er 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why would someone pay respect for this person do you wish he won waterloo?
EDDPC 3 years ago
Had Napoleon won the British would have been no longer able to meddle in the afairs of mainland Europe. Mainland Europe would have been united under one flag. Russian would have been contained inside their own borders. The German states would never have united. There would have been no Franco-Prussian War. No World Wars I and II. No Holocaust. No Cold War. Possibly no rise of communism. It might have been a different and much better world.
waterloo2you 3 years ago 3
thats true , Napoleon was a flawed genius.. as he said "I should have conquered the world"
MoneyR8 3 years ago
If German states were so thankful for Napoleon 'uniting' them why were French troops garrisoning every major German city -as in occupation forces..... same as occupying Italy + Naples + Spain.... Napoleon would have wanted to occupy the whole world regardless of how many wars and invasions he created.
slizzler1 3 years ago
im guessing you dont like brits?
karshan24 2 years ago
@waterloo2you
or or the people who had been repressed by Napoleon would probably rebel and the constant French dream of a French Europe would once again end
duffer35 1 year ago
@duffer35
Well said!
slizzler1 1 year ago
@waterloo2you How could one victory by a British army effectso much even if Napoleon won he would had to deal with Blucher the Russians and the Austrians then the British navy which will begind its blockades on French ports
1Historygenius 1 year ago
Yes, I do.
IuniusPalladius 2 years ago
very gay song for the greatness of Napoleon
Napoleontas 4 years ago
Someone is angry.
Anton2004 4 years ago
Nonono no offence for you pall just a comment for the song
Napoleontas 4 years ago
Vive l'empereur forever.
130759 4 years ago
very nice video!!!!!
sixtodecimo 4 years ago
OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Acre (18 march 1799)
Cezzar Ahmet Pasha fucking = Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte is KNOCKOUT
hehehe hot reals...!
turkishthelionheart 4 years ago
Impossible chier dans les chiottes turk aussi ^^
USAndFrance 3 years ago
The only thing I can't understand is why some italian still loses his time to speak to britons. In their mind there is the convinction they are something like gods. But it's not their fault. You can imagine...fog, rain, isolation. Poor britons. If someone could give them the proof that italian soldiers are brave at least like them, what could remain to do for these islanders ? The suicide. So, please, say them they are the best soldiers in the world and avoid to criticize them.
Romangladius 4 years ago
C'est hallucinant le nombre de com' de petits puceaux.
vous devriez aller vous faire dégorger le poireau au putes ça vous ferait du bien....
bobduvar 4 years ago
lol ^^
USAndFrance 3 years ago
For me truly this is the beautiful thing of Rome -that was a city but with an universal ideal, and as the poet Namatianus (himself a Gaul) said, really at the end of the Empire, "she gave to different people, one fatherland":
"Fecisti patriam unam diversis gentibus"
Den365 4 years ago
Hé DEN365 tu t'es découverts un cerveau ?
Tu sais, ne te sens pas obligé d'en faire profiter l'Humanité. Elle te survivra lorsque tu ne seras plus de ce Monde......
bobduvar 4 years ago
Excusé moi je comprend le Français mais je ne le parle pas bien comme mon Anglais, que voulez-vous dire ? Si j'avais un cerveau avant, j'ai toujours le même cerveau maintenant :) J'ais jamais écrit quelque chose contre la France ? Je ne pense pas. Salutations :)
Den365 4 years ago
And however, I think that if it was not for the Huns, a confederation of Turk-Mongolic-Magyar tribes coming from the steppes of Asia, even the blond and warlike Germans (that the Roman legions, Teutoburg excluded, did slaughter practically always, Caesar too, when the legions were still composed of "Romans" and not of Germanic Barbarians, as in late Empire) would have been conquered or peacefully integrated in the Empire, like the Gauls.
Den365 4 years ago
Have you ever heard of Egidio and Ambrosio Bocanegra? Probably not -they were two Genoese Admirals of XIVth century, fighting, with Genoese ships, for the French and for the Castilians during Hundred Years' War (one of the most glorious events of English military history, despite the final defeat) -Egidio took part in the battle of Sluys, 1340, where 250 English ships completely crushed 190 French ships -only Egidio, with his squadron, escape the battle victorius, with two English ships as booty
Den365 4 years ago
Ambrosio Bocanegra, with 22 Castillan (Spanish) ships, defeated 50 English ships at the battle of la Rochelle, 1372, capturing "8400 English prisoners" including their commander, the earl of Pembroke. I wish to have seen a confrontation, that never happened, between the Italian Fleets of Middle Age (Genoese and Venetians) and the English Fleet of that time-a confrontation between the two greatest people of sailors in Europe (with all respect for Portuguese,Spanish,French, Dutch,and "Vikings")
Den365 4 years ago
Yes I know about this battle which reversed victory at the battle of Sluys? Depends which scholars you read, but generally agreed Britain lost control of the English channel, up to the Spanish Armada, 1488, where Britain retook control and held it until now. Thank God, since then, all cross channel invasions have been one way
cossack1001 4 years ago
True, but the Spanish Armada was defeated more by the fury of the elements than by the fury of the English ;) -there was never "boarding"- and the invasion of Spain by the "English Armada" of Drake was equally a disaster- but still I would say that for the Continentals was always impossible to cross the Channel with one fleet -Spanish, French or German -but if they ALL COMBINE TOGETHER?....- but yet the Continentals have never feared a mass invasion from British -of tourists, yes :)
Den365 4 years ago
Thats perhaps too simplistic an assessment. Yes the elements played a part, but one reason it did not decimate the Engliah fleet is because Drake was adept at using the elements as his ally. Still, it was a decisive monement because it helped shape the future of naval supremacy
cossack1001 4 years ago
It reminds me of another storm, that crushed a similar attempt of invasion -the Kamikaze ("Divine wind") of 1274 and 1281,two storms that destroyed the Mongols fleets in Japan-but I think that the Japanese would have defended themselves well in any case. Odd to say, I believe that the only weapon capable of stopping the Mongols in Europe would have been the Longbow. English longbowmen for me were the most professional and disciplined infantry of Middle Age.
Den365 4 years ago
I fully understnd why the Japanese herald this moment and have given the term 'divine wind' immortal status. We in Europe sometimes call it divine intervention. The elements in war must always be considered...look what the weather did to Nap's cannons at Waterloo and you know who Churchill considered as the greatest Russian General? General Winter
cossack1001 4 years ago
He he, Boney, like Hitler (and for BOTH, but ENORMOUSLY MORE FOR HITLER than for Nappy, I thank the Russian Climate that helped all europeans to get rid of 2 dictators) -broke one of the rules of War, that is: NEVER INVADING RUSSIA (or never invading Russia "too deeply")
Den365 4 years ago
I think a lack of fear sems from the fact they knew British ambiions were extra-European. Still. the English CHannel has been an excellent platform for raids in North European lands, think about D-Day, as well as latterly all the duty free shoppers
cossack1001 4 years ago
Eh eh, they were extraeuropean ambitions, of course, because 1) Britain never had, until recently, the population of France (was 1/3 in 1700), Germany or Spain; So "colonization" of Europe is only a joke; 2) I think that there are not many Europeans loving to become subjects of the English -the only Europeans the English ruled, the Irish, I don't think today lthey ook with nostalgy and love to their past of a colony of the British Empire... :)
Den365 4 years ago
Obviously, you know, Britain has always tried to keep Europe "separate" in several States, so to make business with them and sell her goods, and preventing one State -France, Spain, Germany or Russia- to become the ruler of Europe. This continues today, with the European Union of Bruxelles, that the English try to show as "corrupt, inefficient, enemy of the interests of Britain". History has not changed, the islanders will always be islanders and feel nicers and superiors.
Den365 4 years ago
Well the fact we're an island has shaped our outlook, the sea has taken us away from Europe and our progeny now populate several nations. Yes we have found favour historically in dividing and conquering in European affairs-thats just diplomacy-but we've always had friendly nations on our side-as opposed to other nations
cossack1001 4 years ago
Ok, that's surely the case of "Anglo-Celtic" countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but the USA were "also" -from the beginning, not from the 1900- Irish, Scottish, Germans, Dutch, French Huguenots; I would say the "pure" English were a minority- but you can say that "Irish and Scottish" are part of Britain, when they often emigrate not be such a part.
Den365 4 years ago
Up to lateish 18thC Americans were largely British. I was teaching at a US university recently and even the demographcs today state that the largest single ethnic group is of British descent. The hierarchy is largely of British descent too (politics, juducial, Harvard, Yale etc etc). It is essenially where the money and influence is to be found. That is not to say that many of the poorer Americans are not of British descent too, such as in the South
cossack1001 4 years ago
Fantastic! Do you teach at University? Well, I bow my head -I'm just a teacher of secondary school, with a degree in History (Modern). Great! However, I agree, of course, USA were born as mainly "British" -if with such you intend, rightly, "English"- yet they were exceeded by Irish and Germans (with also Dutch, Scandinavians, Polish, and much later Italians, Russians and Jews) during 1800; today I think American Whites have more Celtic or German blood than English; but this I cannot demonstrate.
Den365 4 years ago
No need to bow your head. I lecture in war studies (history and strategy) at various institutes. Don't forget that into the 19th and 20th Centuries Brits were still emigrating there. As for the hierarchy, you will know that Brits make up the WAPSs, which Americans regard as the most influential ethnic/social grouping
cossack1001 4 years ago
Well, the White Anglo Saxons Protestants perhaps are more, today, only, White Protestants or Catholics (or even Ortodox); Religion doesn't matter much today (Islam Radicals are a growing problem, not the old ridicoulous squabbles between Catholics and Protestans; furthermore, most if not all of the so called "Anglo-Saxons" possess a large amount of German, Dutch, French Huguenot and not rarely Native American blood -see the Southern Aristocracy pre-Civil War).
Den365 4 years ago
Also, if some "egemony" of this sort of Anglo Mafia still exists, is something most Americans today have shame about, not "pride" -see for example mr.Bush, part of this "Yankee Aristocracy"- and I wish to remember that, if this "hierarchy" of "British blood" really exists, well, ehm ehm, sorry, the Jews? Aren't the Jews in great, powerful positions (THAT THEY DESERVE, BECAUSE I SUPPORT ISRAEL) more than the old Wasp?
Den365 4 years ago
Or, I correct myself, not "more" than the old Wasp (or the other Whites regardless of British or German or -yes even- Italian ancestry); I mean, aren't the Jews, in comparison to other "not Anglo" ethnic groups, in percent in much more AND FULLY DESERVED places of importance and prestige? Are you sure that still today, having a surname like "Smith" and some drops of English blood, IN AMERICA, is more important than the COMPETENCE and the ABILITY in doing your PROFESSION?
Den365 4 years ago
However even in case the most of the White Americans (but the World is not composed only of "Whites", Afro-Americans, Latinos, Chineses and all other people are, I hope not too slowly, acquiring importance and consideration in the US) are of "British ancestry" (that's true: but considering as British even Catholic Irishmen and Scots), this, the same, doesn't mean that they simply wish to build "another Britain": the States are born in antithesis with the class-society of Britain.
Den365 4 years ago
Lets say the truth here. Whatever mix they are, by now they should just be called 'American'. Building another Britain? No way. Do't forget, the American revolution was fought by Brits under the banner 'Free Englishmen' who opposed repressive taxation laws from the mainland. I'm sure they're happy as they are
cossack1001 4 years ago
However, one cannot but admire and have respect for the FIRST COUNTRY in Europe, Great Britain, that achieved firm and stable Parliamentarian Rights and Freedoms -even if, with a class society (Lords, Peers, Sirs, Knights... and obviously the Queen and her court) that today appears as a relict of the Middle Age, something that I cannot understand how the British can love. Truly, I cannot understand how such an unjust system could be revered as "Tradition".
Den365 4 years ago
It does still hold true in politics and in the judicial system. The Jewish people have been successful in all these ares, specially in Europe. Go and see the Merchant of Venice
cossack1001 4 years ago
Listen, where do you want to arrive? To say that having an "Anglo" surname means AUTOMATICALLY being better? Do you know what's the best definition for such? MAFIA. Are you Anglos more MAFIOSI in facts and in thought that the merry, open Italians? Mm.
Den365 4 years ago
I never said that. I said that it so happens that the ruling class in he USA is largely made up of WASPs. I am not talking of racial supremacy here, or any kind of Uber Mensch, so please do not infer I am doing so
cossack1001 4 years ago
I never said that, I only said that it so happens that positions of power have usually been held by WASPs, I am not talking about Uber Mensch here, so please do not infer I am talking about racial supremacy because I'm not.
cossack1001 4 years ago
Ah, just a thing: in the American Supreme Court of today (2007), out of 9 judges, there are 2 Jewish, 2 Italians (Scalia and Alito), 1 Afro-American, 1 Irish (please, Irishmen are not "British"), 1 HalfAnglo-HalfCzech (John Roberts Podrasky), and 2 more or less pure "Anglos".
And you know, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Condoleeza Rice, all POSSIBLE CANDIDATES for the elections of 2008 (with Hillary), are the Anglos?
Den365 4 years ago
Do you know what is similar, your argument? To say that in the Roman Empire, from the II century especially, till the end (476), the most important offices in Politics, Administration, Justice, and in the Army, were kept only by ETHNIC ROMANS of ROME or DESCENDANTS of ETHNIC-ROMAN SETTLERS living in the Provinces. Anyone who knows, also only a little, the History of the Roman Empire, knows also the answer.
Den365 4 years ago
There is no singluar reason for the demise of the Roamn Empire, Den. Corruption, an increasing amount of enemies and social/political decay have their roots in different areas. Did the Romans fail to share their power appropriately, yes. The Romans enjoyed a very long time in the sun, it was inevitable they ceeded supremacy
cossack1001 4 years ago
Well, in this thing I don't agree. The Romans were in no way racists; they did share their power even in first century of the Empire; as you know, Italy was not "Rome", Italy was conquered by Rome during Republican time, and the several Italian people were "made" Roman Citizens, and entered in a City that, like today the USA (or New York), did received everyone and made him Roman.
Den365 4 years ago
Not saying they were racists, but as with all empires, the spoils would not have been shared with the populations of occupied territories. I have great admiration for the Roman Empire and many Romans enjoyed luxuries which many Europeans did not have even 50 years ago
cossack1001 4 years ago
Of particular impressive proportions was the amount of time Roma remained pre-eminent. Also, the way it administered its lands was highly skilfull. Apart the the Boudiccan rebellion, Britain posed little problem. Gaul, apart from Vercengetorix did not pose a great threat. Germany was a different story, however the Romans proved adept at invading and conquering...unsurpassed on European soil
cossack1001 4 years ago
I think that the Romans did not conquer Germany (even if you know, Bavaria and Rhineland were part of the Empire called as "Noricum" and the 2 provinces of "Germania superior" and "inferior"), not only because of the great valour of the German tribes, and their love for freedom, but also because Germany was mainly a great forest and a swamp, and it was not a great prey-read Tacitus "De Germania"- but the Germans prisoners were splendid gladiators...
Den365 4 years ago
I wish to say, to conquer the German tribes would have been probably THE GREATEST success for Rome; but to invade and colonize the German soil, this would not have been greatly desirable for the Romans -the Middle East was better, full as it was of wealth and luxury. However in a fight between a Roman Legion, entirely clothed in steel armours, and the almost bare Germans, the result would have been for centuries the Roman victory.
Den365 4 years ago
One of the first battle I ever learned about was the battle of the Teutoberg forrest in AD9. Was it not a general based in Gaul who was charged with this conquest? Actually I am reading currently a book about the Battle of Actium
cossack1001 4 years ago
The battle of Actium... The end of the civil war between Octavianus and Antony. Which marked the beginning of the Empire. For me, I prefer the Republic, most of all the "Old" Republic, defended by Cato the Elder and also Cato and Younger. I've never really enjoyed the "Empire" -Rome was much powerful, but already in full moral decadence.
Den365 4 years ago
Have you ever read Tacitus' account of the conquest of Britain by Agricola? It's interesting to see how the Romans saw the local people -and they arrived also in the Scottish Highlands, fighting the battle of Mons Graupius- and most of all, the speech he attributed to Caledonian leader Calgacus:
"To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they [the Romans] give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace".
Den365 4 years ago
yes I have. You really should visit the baths at Aqua Sulis (modern Bath), they still work to this day! You now the greatest crime of the day was the fact the Britons did not hold up the innovations brought by the Romans once they had left. They were well ahead of their time. Largely the Roman influence was very beneficial. Have you learned muc about the Boudiccan rebellion?
cossack1001 4 years ago
One of the things I cannot understand is why, when Roman legions retreated from Britannia in 410, the local Britons gave up with speaking Latin, dressing like the Romans and having Roman, and returned to their celtic customs. As you know when Anglos and Saxons landed the locals suffered a genocidium, were displaced or, more probably, they were all Germanized. However people from Wales at least should have conserved something of Roman, don't you think? 400 years aren't a couple of weeks...
Den365 4 years ago
I mean, having Roman institutions and laws. Yes I've read about Boudicca or Boadicea, it seems that her rebellion was motivated by the fact she was "insulted" in a severe way by the Romans..... Always the usual Latins, hot-blooded who love Nordic women :):):):)
Den365 4 years ago
Thats the story. It is always hard to understand the truth about people, who may have existed, yet are shrouded in myth and, lets say, falcities. Such as Boudicca, Jesus, Saint George or any other Saint, Robin Hood, Joan of Arc, In all these instances, we know they existed, perhaps even King Arthur, but where is the line between myth and reality in their deeds?
cossack1001 4 years ago
Well Varus I think was governor of Syria and used to treat his subjects in an "Oriental" way, he was a corrupted man and debauched, and was not accustomed with German sense of freedom -and he was not a military man, but however he found at least the courage to die with his sword.
Den365 4 years ago
popular explanations for the Roman withdrawal are emergencies elsewhere and the impending invasion of Britain by others. You can simply say 'their time had come'.
cossack1001 4 years ago
Returning to previous customs and cultures is usually attributed in post colonialism as being due to 1)the helping/oppressing hand can no longer enforce the longevity of a previous system, 2)know-how has disappeared, 3)if not everyone spoke the language, that language is unlikely to survive, because it is hard to transfer to following generations, 4)there can be deliberate attempt to throw off the old and return to an age of posterity
cossack1001 4 years ago
the last traces of Roman Wales is around 410, around the same time as the rest of Britain. There was a leader called Caractacus of the Silures (?) tribe defeated in 50 ad, taken to Rome and impressed so he was treated a hero. When you bear in mind also, 1) Welsh Roman relics are generally better preserved than English (Except Bath) and they were less prone to invasion than England, then perhaps the Roman culture may have lasted longer in Wales
cossack1001 4 years ago
Indeed, also because even France, sorry, Gaul was invaded by the Franks and other germanic tribes, but the local Gallo-Romans continued to speak Latin, "vulgar Latin" of course, just like the Spaniards under Visigoths and later the Moors; only England, and the Balkans (with Romania as exception), lost completely the Latin as widespread language; who knows? :)
Den365 4 years ago
you can suppose in the case of Britain, that it was extricated from Europe by the English channel, therefore would have been isolated from tracellers speaking Latin. This is a guess but would make sense
cossack1001 4 years ago
I think too, it's the more probable hypothesis. Or perhaps because Britain was the less romanized of all the provinces; but this had to be demonstrated.
Den365 4 years ago
I like the concept of Pax Romana. Particularly the notion that an attack on one citizen is an attack on all. This underpinned much of Pax Britannica, and has always been implied in Pax Americana
cossack1001 4 years ago
For me Julius Caesar is the greatest example of a brilliant militaro statesman. Impressive how he could turn his reputation on its head and use magnaniminity and compassion so as to turn adversaries to his own side, when others wold have used fear for the same purpose
cossack1001 4 years ago
Yes Caesar was great obviously but anyone who wish a Republican system cannot but take the parts of Brutus and of the last attempt of the Roman Senators to control the State. With his nephew Octavianus Rome became an empire but lost the ancient freedom and this marked in a certain sense the beginning of the moral decadence of the city -Rome became more and more a militaristic society where the legions were faithful to their commanders not to the city, with disastrous consequences.
Den365 4 years ago
Rome was the First Melting Pot! Already from the times of Caesar (who, if you have read the "De Bello Gallico", you can see that he enlisted most of his legions in Gallia Cisalpina, that is North of Italy, among Roman settlers of course, but also among local Gauls) Provincials were entering the army and this was the first possibility to acquire full Roman citizenship
Den365 4 years ago
There are Emperors who were Spanish (even if of Roman ancestry) like Trajan or Hadrian, already in II century; of North African origin (that is, Berber or Chartaginenses-Semitic) like the dinasty of the Severii; and after, many Illyrians -that today would be called "ex-Yugoslavians" even if they speak Slavic languages and no more "Illyrian" languages- like Diocletianus and Constantinus.
Den365 4 years ago
So, the only accusation one cannot make to the Romans, is that they "did not share their power appriopriately": it's the opposite. Already in Ist century, the Romans in the Empire were not in a system of Apartheid, but were intermingling with the Provincials and teaching them Roman rules and Latin. More, emperor Caracalla (himself an African-Roman born in France) gave to ALL citizens of the Empire the Roman citizenship in 212, this abolishing all differences between Romans and not-Romans.
Den365 4 years ago
They have not been eleceted yet. However I think incresingly power in the USA will be shared more evenly among the different ethnicities. By the way, you do realise that if an American reads this thread, they'll wonder what the hell we're talking about. I expect they consider themselves Americans and thats it.
cossack1001 4 years ago
Ok, I too think that it would be very difficult that, for example, an "Arnold" :) could be elected (also because he's born in Austria, but also because of he's not a serious option..), and for me in the US it's still to early for a Black. But in future, who knows?
Den365 4 years ago
HAving said that, many American commentators have said that had Colin Powell run for President he would have been firm favourite. I was in the states at the time and it seems he had cross cultural respect, deservedly so in my opinion. The Governator, an Austrian cannot be President, unless they change the parameters ofcourse
cossack1001 4 years ago
In my opinion, today one cannot speak about any "Wasp" egemony in the States -in the Politics there are more English surnames, ok, because English is the language of the States, but not all are of "English ancestry"- in business, juridical system and liberal professions, well, Anglo egemony has finished long time ago- but one can still talk of "White egemony"- a part from the "Old South", where you know already what kind of truly mixed "Anglo-Saxons" they are.
Den365 4 years ago
I do not agree that today "the hierarchy is largely of British descent" (what does it mean "British"? English, or also Irish and Scottish?)-today in the US, being of "British descent" has NO MEANING -we are no more in the 1776! And also many foreigners did "Anglicize" their surnames (Germans did it); moreover,"Old" Americans of the so-called "English" ancestry did intermingle with Germans, Irish and Natives at such degree that speaking today of a "British America" is an Anglo-centric fantasy.
Den365 4 years ago
In Politics? Well, there are Presidents of Dutch descent even in the 1800 (Van Buren -and later the 2 Roosevelts), many Scotch-Irish (Andrew Jackson) or Scot (Grant) or German (Eisenhower) and almost purely Irish (JFK, of course) -you don't know probably that there were even ITALIANS already in the "Founding Fathers" (or of Italian ancenstry), like William Paca, Caesar Rodney, and Filippo Mazzei -please see
Den365 4 years ago
So, I simply found that is simply absurd to say that the "Americans are British" -ask to them, listen to their answers! :)
Den365 4 years ago
I'm talking about the majority. Please note, I say British, not English
cossack1001 4 years ago
Ok, probably we don't understand each other -I wish you to know that, for ALL Europeans, there are no "British", just "English"- United Kingdom exists only as formal definition. Anyway, when I talk of "British colonization", I talk about English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Scotch-Irish colonization; if the Welsh and English we can consider "one stock", Scots and Irish feel that they are not,"English". And most of them don't feel even "British"-otherwise, there would be no Eire today.
Den365 4 years ago
OK the folloing are fom the UK: Northern Irish, Scotish, Englsh, Welsh. Bristish are the above except Northern Irish, except the Preotestants who feel they are British. For foreigners, the outward projection of these islands are British not English, except in Football and rugby. But I do know foreigners often miscorrectly use the word 'English' when referring to the country as a whole
cossack1001 4 years ago
By this rationale then no one was anything, since all their blood is mixed. Ofcourse by now they should just be rightly called 'American'. The studies are from a national demographics institute, which does look beyond names. Ofcourse the British themselves are not a pure race, but ancestorily speaking, British is still the the single largest blood line (but that in itself very varied)
cossack1001 4 years ago
As for the Irish, they are an integral part in building the Empire, as much as the rest of us. They benefitted just as much-look at the Irish families, like the Guiness's who beneffited from the Empire, look at men like Wellington, born in Ireland, look at the number of Irishmen who have fought for the Empire...who still fight for Britain today
cossack1001 4 years ago
"Integral part" or "Catholics inferiors and cannon fodder"? Not sure of how the Irish felt themselves "part" of the Empire -there is a joke- British Empire was "conquered by the Irish (and Scottish) blood, administred by Scots and Welsh, and the profits went to the English (and "lost by the English" ;)) -I know, it's just a joke, but Welly himself said "being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse" :):):)
Den365 4 years ago
None of the working classes from ANY of the British principalities enjoyed the Empire: while profits went to the upper classes they were left to fight in disease ridden territories, work down mines16 hrs a day and in stinking factories.
cossack1001 4 years ago
These quotes do not add up. The benefits were spread by class lines, not by nations. Welly, was born aristocratic as well as Irish, which made him a darling of aristocrats over Europe. When in 1814 he entered Paris, he was treated as a hero: given Nap's house, asked to ressurect the aristocracy in France and enjoyed all that Paris had to offer him, including Nap's mistress
cossack1001 4 years ago
You know French are passionate, Latins (despite being of Celtic blood), and whores. But they change idea quickly.
Den365 4 years ago
And anyone who wants to evoke the 'Potato famine' in their anti British diatribe must remember that simultaneously Enlish people were dying of starvation. Fact is the ruling classed despised the poor working classes of England and Ireland with equal measure
cossack1001 4 years ago
Which Europeans would like to be the subjects of another country anyway, Bristish or anythin else?
cossack1001 4 years ago
Ah yes, a thoretical battle between Genoese, Venetians and British. You know, I'm not sure that would ever have happened because traditionally Italy and Britain are not enemies, in fact Britain has usually been allied with the people of the Eastern side of the Med.
cossack1001 4 years ago
Indeed. But the Italian Sea Republics did fought each others until they destroyed their fleets; however, at Lepanto (1571) out of 212 Christian ships, 25 were Spanish, 3 of Malta's Knights, and 184 Italians -115 Venetians. Also,while Venetians were engaged for 2 centuries in bloody wars against the Turks (with mutual trade and truces), Genoeses(like Christopher Columbus) gave to Spain the fleet that built her Empire.Italians maybe aren't great fighters but as sailors, aren't the worst.
Den365 4 years ago
No I did not know him. Were they acting as privateers? This takes me back to a previous conversation I had with you...it looks like this time England was on the receiving end of a coalition!
cossack1001 4 years ago
Another small contribution -
The attack was the natural way for Frenchmen to fight.
British beef and German sausage might create specialists
in the art of standing still under fire but the mercurial
Frenchman could not be so inhibited."
- P. Griffith "Military Thought ..."
"... the most militarily successful nation, the French ..."
- B.H. Liddell Hart
Den365 4 years ago
and yet the flower of this Peninsular British army was defeated at New Orleans, by mere militia men and volunteers, without either drill or organization (6)
[and again]
If the Frenchmen excel them (Germans) in vivacity of onslaught,
if the Englishmen are their superiors in toughness of resistance,
the Germans excel all other European nations in that general
fitness for military duty which makes them good soldiers under
all circumstances.
Den365 4 years ago
at the same time, however, they could not prevent the English, in Spain, from proving themselves their superiors under certain circumstances and in certain moments of a battle.
No doubt, the legions which Napoleon led, in 1805, from the camp of Boulogne to Austerlitz, were the finest troops of their time; no doubt Wellington knew what he said, when he called his soldiers at the conclusion of the Peninsular war "an army with which he could go any where, and do any thing;" (5)
Den365 4 years ago
the French of Louis XIV, and the Austrians of Eugene disputed, for a while, with each other this post of honor, until the Prussians of Frederick the Great settled the question by defeating both of them; these, again, were hurled down into utter disrepute by a single blow at Jena, and once more the French were universally acknowledged the first soldiers of Europe; (4)
Den365 4 years ago
Every people is jealous of its own fame; and, in the opinion of the general public, fed by narratives which, whatever they may lack in critical exactness, are amply adorned with high patriotic coloring.
The German Landsknechte of the later middle ages, the Swiss soldiers of the sixteenth century, were for a period as invincible as the splendid Spanish soldiers, who succeeded them to the rank of "the first infantry of the world;" (3)
Den365 4 years ago
but, in spite of a uniform system of drill, which appears to level all distinctions, every one will be good in his own way, by virtue of qualities different from those possessed by his rivals. This brings us to a question but too often mooted between the military patriots of different nationalities: which are the best soldiers ? (2)
Den365 4 years ago
A little contribution, upon which I wish your opinion -taken from "The Armies of Europe", Frederick Engels (Yes Engels "the Communist" friend of Marx, Putnam's Monthly, 1855 -you can find it on internet):
The Frenchman and the Hungarian, the Englishman and the Italian, the Russian and the German, under certain circumstances, may be equally good and efficient soldiers; (1)
Den365 4 years ago
4) No doubt Britain could not have tolerated a United Europe under Napoleon, surely she was fighting to protect her interests and for fear of a possible revolution inside her boundaries, but times were not ready for a similar idea and to Britain's merit throughout all XIXth century her sympathies went to those countries in Europe that were trying to achieve independence and to get rid of their old Ancien Regime social and political systems.
Den365 4 years ago
3) Despite having no fondness for Monarchies, the Royal Family is no more "debauched" than other families in the World, she has her own vices and virtues, but personally I have admiration for the present Queen and I hope that Prince William would succeed her, and take example from her dignity and integrity;
Den365 4 years ago
After all, after having done the necessary Apology of my country, to be honest till the end I must admit that 1) We Italians have much to learn from the British, in terms of civic behaviours and attachment to our own country (we Italians are no doubt a self-denigratory people), but not of course in terms of an acrytical promotion of ourselves; 2) a Nationalism founded on hate for the other people and countries, does not help a country and does not bring improvement to his social life;
Den365 4 years ago
Today, simply EUROPE HAS NO NEED OF BRITAIN, you would be only a weight -you don't want us? OK, STAY IN YOUR ISLAND WITH YOUR DEBAUCHED ROYAL FAMILY, for which ALL THE WORLD LAUGHS! AND GREET FOR ME PRINCE HARRY THE NAZI!!!
Den365 4 years ago
Britain would be welcomed if she decides to join EU. But she will never do that.
Den365 4 years ago
Britain is in th EU
cossack1001 4 years ago
In the Euro, I mean.
Den365 4 years ago
History is full of your "splendid campaigns": Walcheren (1809), Afghan's wars, Crimea, Boer War, Gallipoli in WW1, Dunkirk, Singapore in WW2, Tobruck's surrender, Operation Market Garden etc.. Some may have ended with victories, but yet, nothing allows you to say that you are so exceptional as you think!
Den365 4 years ago
OK, the Crimean and Boer wars were victories in the end, Gallipoli was eventually a success and Britain was on the winning side, Dunkirk troops withdrew but war was eventually won, British troops retook Singapore 3 years after the fall and Tobruk was recaptured, the German army was defeated and THE ENTIRE ITALIAN ARMY IN NORTH AFRICA surrendered to British forces.
cossack1001 4 years ago
You must be insane. I'd have many things to say to reply to your statements with FACTS but it would be useless. Just remember that in North of Italy we're much more rich and efficient than England, that today you are only the butlers of the USA, and your army, please..... You are only a tiny shit, and if you want to come to Italy to show how you are "superior", we would be glad to show you how our hospitals work.
Den365 4 years ago
Nothing I said can't be verified by someone with a) a library card and b) a brain. Nothing you ever said is based on FACT cos you are a cross dressing spaghetti eating mamma's boy. Infact the longer I hear from you the more I believe in abortions, in cases of incest that is
cossack1001 4 years ago
Italians "PEDOPHILES" (you don't even know how to spell, RETARD) and GAY??? HA HA you make laugh even the pebbles, ALL THE WORLD know the ITALIANS AS LATIN LOVERS, and probably we have FILLED MANY MORE ENGLISH WOMEN THAN YOU!!! HA HA!!! If there is a people on Earth that is well-know for being IMPOTENT and to need DRINK to approach women, THIS IS JUST YOU ENGLISH!!! HA HA!!! You probably know are jerking on your chair, be careful, because sperm can come out from your ass!!!
Den365 4 years ago
Do you know, that after Italy was occupied by the Germans, in the CENTER and NORTHERN PART, DOZENS OF THOUSANDS ITALIANS ANTI-FASCISTS, fought as PARTISANS a ferocious "NO-PRISONER" GUERRILLA AGAINST THE GERMANS???? DO YOU KNOW THAT ITALY HAD at least 459.000 DEAD DURING WW2??? DO YOU KNOW THAT UK HAD THE SAME, 450.000??? Why you "winners" are "HEROES", and we "losers" are COWARDS???? In this deformed and ridiculous logic, so, even the AMERICANS having LOST in VIETNAM, ARE ALL COWARDS????
Den365 4 years ago
Nowhere in the Second World War, did the British fought "ON EQUAL TERMS" with the Italians, FLEET INCLUDED (you had the RADAR, WE NOT, and also we did not have any CARRIER)- it's like if in a football match (I use this metaphor in order to be understood by people of inferior IQ like you, sufficent to say I speak 3-4 languages, you probably speak only "a version" of English) a team with 11 players plays against a team of 6, wins and then call the defeated "COWARDS"
Den365 4 years ago
Oh I'm sorry if we outnumbered you in your home waters. You want to use analogies, well you can only beat the team out in front of you. Besides at the same time most of the Royal Navy was engaged fighting the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic as well as the Japanese in the Pacific and Indian oceans. So lets test your IQ thick boy, how many 'versions' of English do you think there are?! I speak my language fluently, as well as French and if I need help in Italian I can always ask my finace
cossack1001 4 years ago
Well, besides accents, you know that not all the "Anglo" World speaks "Queen's English" -obviously, same grammar, same syntax, slightly different lexicon -that's what I meant.
Den365 4 years ago
Well in England alone there are no less than 60 ways of using the English language. The number of different ways of using French may be similar in France, perhaps in Italy too..?
cossack1001 4 years ago
An "Italian language" never existed, it is more right to be called "Tuscan language", because of the authority of 1300 writers like Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio -in Italy there are dozens of different dialects, due to the historical 1500-years old fragmentation of the peninsula; Many are mutually unintellegible.
Den365 4 years ago
Italians "CROSS DRESSING"? I've rarely seen an Italian "CROSS-DRESSING",mostly Southeners -GREAT PART of the Italians are "Catholics" in a very superficial way,I cannot say if it's a good or not, WE ITALIANS have SUFFERED for CENTURIES the TEMPORAL POWER of the POPE, Pope that ALWAYS CALLED FOREIGNERS in HELP when HIS LANDS WHERE IN DANGER (from Charlemagne against the Lombards kings, in 774, up to 1870-THAT's the MAIN REASON for ITALY HAVING NEVER BECOME AN UNITED NATION
Den365 4 years ago
The "SPAGHETTI", and PASTA and PIZZA, once typical dishes only of the South, are much better than your ROASTBEEF and FISH and CHIPS -if you disagree, surely the rest of the World doesn't. Italians "MAMMA BOYS"??? Perhaps in Italy cost of houses and rents have become so high as to discourage or to make impossible many youngs to leave family as they wished.
Den365 4 years ago
LOl, we kick your arse anytime. Look at your 'men' (!?) in Irak, a few set backs and they all withdraw in case the get their nails broken. And even the more deprived areas of the UK are wealthier than your backward ghetto's. So fuck off cos if it wans't for the EU you'd be picking peanuts out of shit to feed your family
cossack1001 4 years ago
WHAT? We are living in ghettos? We are "picking peanuts from shit? YOU ARE JUST A MISERABLE COWARD AND RACIST!!!! YOU'RE FULL OF RACISM AND HATE, YOU TALK ABOUT PEOPLE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN AND PLACES YOU'RE NEVER VISITED, AND THINGS YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! AND YOU ARE "PROUD" THAT BRITAIN (IT SEEMS THAT "YOU ALONE") HAS DEFEATED THE NAZI???? YOU ARE REASONING JUST LIKE A NAZI, MOTHERFUCKER!!!!
Den365 4 years ago
Our TOTAL CASUALTIES in IRAQ, do you know how much it is? 33 DEAD!!! And 19 in just the Nassyria attempt of 12 November 2003!!! IT IS the 3RD CASUALTY RATE AFTER USA AND UK!!! YOU MONGREL!! And REMEMBER that it was BERLUSCONI RIGHT PARTY that imitated your servile and butler-style behaviour towards USA, FRANCE GERMANY and MOST PART OF THE ITALIANS ARE AGAINST THIS ILLEGAL WAR!!! ARE YOU PROUD OF THAT??? OH MY GOD WHAT AN EXAMPLE OF DEMOCRACY YOU ARE!!!
Den365 4 years ago
Say what you like, bt your guys got the fuck out of there when it got too ho, right? Didn't see it through. I'm surprised they didnt join the other side, a la 1940's
cossack1001 4 years ago
Italian Constitution, you probably don't know, "repudiates War as a means to solve international controversies". You may argue it is a "coward constitution", something similar to Japan (I frankly don't believe however there is a more HEROIC people in the World, than the Japaneses -but this is another story), but that's all- Italians don't want to go to this war. If you British want, so go with the Americans. Sometime I think courage is not to consent what the strongest wants to do...
Den365 4 years ago
And however, Italy has still some 7000-8000 men in "mission" outside her boundaries. In Kosovo, Bosnia, Lebanon we are the leaders. Italian troops, as the Carabinieri (a kind of police and military corps) are always well-considered by the Allies and well-liked by the people. Italians don't shoot with the ease of the Americans -we are not there to be "the masters".
Den365 4 years ago
Italians went away when their mission ended. They stayed in Irak for 3 years. They stood where the bullets flew. The Spanish retreated "when it got too hot". I don't think the Spanish are cowards, Aznar (RIGHT) sent them, Zapatero (LEFT) recall them, after Madrid's bombs.
Den365 4 years ago
Yes the Madrid Bombs were the catalyst for Spanish troop withdrawals. This proved to be a very very very dangerous precedent
cossack1001 4 years ago
And in 1935-36, we conquered Ethiopia with ease!AND NOT USING GAS or COMMITTING GENOCIDE,the GENOCIDES are a SPECIALITY of YOUR PEOPLE and your "cousins" GERMANS!THERE IS ALMOST NO COUNTRY TODAY where there are Tirannies or Wars that WAS NOT ONCE PART OF BRITISH EMPIRE!WHY DON'T WE TALK of "HOW" you treated the INDIANS,or the IRISH that you tried to EXTERMINATE WITH HUNGER OR FORCED EMIGRATION?YOU SHOULD HAVE PAID WITH A "NUREMBERG TRIAL" FOR THAT!!
Den365 4 years ago
JUST REMEMBER, HUMAN NULLITY, that when the Wars were fought only with Swords, Spears and Shields, so WITH HUMAN MUSCLES and not with modern technology, we -MAINLY DESCENDANTS of the ROMANS, have raped your people and cut your balls for 4 centuries!!!!!!!!!!!
Den365 4 years ago
CRIMEA WAR was a "British victory"? Ok, 100.000 French died, 35.000 Turks, 17.500 British and DON'T FORGET 2.200 PIEDMONTESE (NORTHERN ITALIANS!!!!!), that fought in the Battle of Chernaya River (16 August 1855), PLEASE READ IF THE PIEDMONTESE WERE "COWARDS"!!!!! So, is Crimea a "British victory", or more probably, a "French" or "Allied" victory????
Den365 4 years ago
Italy "is a shit"??? AH YES??? I really did not know, THANK YOU, that our FLORENCE, VENICE, ROME and almost ALL ITALIAN CITIES are "SHIT"??? So, if Italy is just a shit, why so many millions of Britons EVERY YEAR come in my peninsula??? Why so many of them, like Sting, have bought farm and villas in Tuscany??? They should know they are going into a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY, so why they choose to come AND LIVE HERE??? WHY SOME MANY BRITISH DESPERATELY TRY TO ESCAPE FROM THEIR ISLAND??????????
Den365 4 years ago
Do you know that at El-Alamein, the FOLGORE paratroop division fought until the end and virtually ALL were killed or wounded?? "In a speech to the Commons, Churchill himself paid tribute to their bravery when he said "We have to bow to the remnants of the Folgore's lion". Do you know that Italian frogmen, DURAND DE LA PENNE, sank two 30.000 British Battleships in Alexandria??? DO YOU KNOW IT, HUMAN MUCK????
Den365 4 years ago
Yes, the midget submarines were great inventions
cossack1001 4 years ago
Ok, the Italians, INITIALLY, in 1896, were beaten byt the Ethiopians, like ad Adwa, where 10.000 Italian Nationals and 7.000 Erithreans were LITERALLY SLAUGHTERED by 100.000 ETHIOPIANS!!!And they WERE NOT ARMED WITH SHIELD AND SPEAR,but ALL WITH RIFLES, PURCHASED FROM EUROPEAN POWERS and ALSO ITALY!!! If the Ethiopians were so "inferiors", WHY YOU NEVER TRIED EVEN TO TOUCH ETHIOPIA??? And WHY, we Italians, could not have a small African Empire-Listen who's talking!The Poor English Virgins!!
Den365 4 years ago
You were totally welcome to it. Anyway we couldnt have anything and it was over the water from you. Anyway, why would we want Etheopia, what strategic interest did it present?
cossack1001 4 years ago
It would have been better 1) that we Italians never entered WW1 -it's not a matter of "cowardness", Italy was still a young (55 years old) country, agricultural, poor, underdeveloped, and not a rooted democracy as you -we simply "broke our bones" in that war. The gain? 2 cities (Trento and Trieste) that would have been given to us THE SAME, thanks to President Wilson "14 points" and the inevitable dissolution of Austro-Hungarian Empire,and FASCISM, 4 years after the war (1922).
Den365 4 years ago
Many Italians emigrated to escape Fascism. But Italian burgeoise had fear for Communism, fear of revolution Bolshevik-style. Mussolini originally was a Socialist, but wished the war, volunteered in, was wounded, founded Fascist Party after the war, started a campaign of violence against the "Reds", and that little(phisically and morally) king Vittorio Emanuele III gave him the government. Probably the Italians in those times thought that "he was the man" who could "make great" Italy.
Den365 4 years ago
Italy had no economic interest in Ethiopia -one of the poorest region of Africa, with no substantial mineral resources. Italy had Lybia, that was (and is) full of oil, but without technology to extract, and with few vehicles to use. It was Mussolini's megalomany and will to "avenge" our bloody defeat at Adwa that led to war. That the won. Useless victory.
Den365 4 years ago
I can only have SHAME for Mussolini. Ok, you British have many military heroes, but they were Admirals, Generals, commanding British Armies (and Allied), Garibaldi was just a man. He had no authority, just charisma, and a great deal of courage, because had he lost, he would have been hanged. As the Italians patriots were, by the Pope also. British,had they lost, they would not have been hanged, but treated as prisoners of war, with all regards.
Den365 4 years ago
I agree Garibaldi was a man of great worth. I think he was a true patriot and did much to repel the dangers on Italian borders. I would suggest one of the greeatest leaders in European history
cossack1001 4 years ago
Also, as you say, he did not have the leverage of military rank, just the trust he drew ffrom the Italian people. We know the Italians rightly have affection for him, hence the Aircraft Carrier built in his name.
cossack1001 4 years ago
Unfortunately today there are some Italians, mainly in the North, that "curses" Garibaldi for having liberated the South....
Den365 4 years ago
What you've done is take a few set backs whics were victories in the end anyway. In all these cases Britain won in the end. BUt you wouldnt know cos you're italian. Shall we talk now about italian war successes? Didn't think so
cossack1001 4 years ago
AND YOU ARE "PROUD" TO BE BRITISH??? I WOULD HAVE SHAME TO HAVE SUCH A FELLOW-COUNTRYMAN LIKE YOU!! YOU ARE ONLY A HUMAN SCUM, A LOUD-MOUTHED COWARD, WHO HAVE NEVER TRAVELLED OUTSIDE YOUR ISLAND -COME, COME HERE IN ITALY, AND TELL THESE THINGS, BE DEADLY SURE THAT WE MAKE YOU PAY WORD BY WORD ALL YOUR VOMITABLE STATEMENTS!!! But You are only a poor, mentally sick COWARD, You're just a great warrior behind of your computer, but I CLEAN MY ASS WITH YOUR FACE!!!!
Den365 4 years ago
I am extremely proud to be British and would under no circumstance wish to be anything else. Oh by the way, I have been to 40 countries. THere are many countries I like, including your own, so dont assume I'm some kind of retard
cossack1001 4 years ago
Nobody ask you to become another. But I think it was one of your writers, Samuel Johnson, who wrote that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -interesting. However, I know, UK is a small-medium military power, Italy IS NOT, but still, elite troops in all World are similars, it's not training or motivation that differs, are WEAPONS. By the way, Italy has the technology to have nuclear weapons -obviously, if North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran have..- but for what?
Den365 4 years ago
We, IN ITALY, and I'm talking of AVERAGE ITALY, not just the North that is INFINITELY RICHER AND BETTER THAN your island, have more money, higher salaries, better houses, better cars, better clothes, better food, much more efficient services, roads and trains, and also better weather, THAN YOU!!!! YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, VERMIN??? COME AND SEE WITH YOUR EYES, BASTARD!!!
Den365 4 years ago
You must be joking, Lol...the salaries, cars, clothes...dear oh dear. Go back to sleep
cossack1001 4 years ago
We have many problems, our economy is not running as today is England, growing immigration, not all composed of hardworking people, but still, I frankly would not say we are poor -for the salaries, it depends -Northerners are more than the rest of the country. For the cars and clothes, well, you know, the Italians love to show off...
Den365 4 years ago
Furthermore, just REMEMBER that 1) Rommell "AFRIKA CORPS" WAS HALF ITALIAN 2) that the LITTORIO and ARIETE Tank Division, with their obvious INFERIOR TANKS, FOUGHT SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE GERMANS AND BEAT YOU ALMOST ALWAYS BEFORE EL-ALAMEIN 3)that at El-Alamein, when your "fantastic" general Montgomery "won" with 2:1 SUPERIORITY in MEN, 2:1 in TANKS (and better), 3:1 in GUNS, 3:1 in AIRFORCE and perhaps 10:1 in MATERIALS, AMMUNITION AND FUEL, out of 116.000 Axis troops, the HALF WAS ITALIAN
Den365 4 years ago
In Africa you were "Superiors"??? PLEASE, MAKE AN EXCHANGE -GIVE TO THE ITALIANS the WEAPONS, MATERIALS, AMMUNITIONS and FUEL YOU HAD, together with the INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE that my country, WITHOUT NATURAL RESOURCES (NO IRON - NO COAL -NO PETROL) started really only in 1960s, and YOU TAKE OUR ITALIAN old-WW1 Weapons, our "materials" and our "fuel", with whoever of your mediocre boastful British "generals" as leader, like Wawell, Auchinleck or Monty, WHO WINS????
Den365 4 years ago
Result still the same, because the Germans gae you the necessary anyway. OK Wavell and Auchinleck were not great, but Monty, well he was Monty
cossack1001 4 years ago
The Germans did not gave us "the necessary". They sent us Rommell with 2 divisions first, then submarines in the Mediterranean (but Italy submarines fleet, with 117 units, was the greatest at the beginning of the war! True! But without fuel), airforce, and then other divisions, like the para's. But Rommell depended on the supplies, and the British from Malta every day sank an Italian ship going to Lybia. That's way you were so well-fed, well-armed, well-supplied, and Italo-Germans not.
Den365 4 years ago
Monty? 50% of Rommell? 50% of a Rommell, Patton, Guderian, von Kluge, Model, Zhukov, MacArthur... Or even less. Too slow to be a great general.
Den365 4 years ago
Dont agree 365. Monty was always keen to make quick headway. If you take the push up to the Battle of the Bulge, he was in favour of a lightening campaign. However he was always in conflcit with Patton. At Market Garden, it was quite audacious. It was essentially a British screw up, but not his screw up. Also at places like Monte Cassino, this was laborious but mainly due to Clarke whose actions even the Americans couldn't understand and criticised. Thats not even mentionning North Africa
cossack1001 4 years ago
It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of many scholars of WWII, Americans mainly but not only -you know. Outside Britain, Monty is not kept in great consideration as a General (15:1 General?). I don't know frankly what campaign of Monty is "remarkable" -Battle of the Bulge was a feat of American arms, Bastogne and Patton's IIIrd Army. Yet Monty tried to gain the merit for it... He would have been better considered if he kept his mouth closed.
Den365 4 years ago
was does 15:General mean 365? The victory at the Bulge was largely American, but I think it was the XXX corps involved thee. Much of Monty's reputation got slurred because he was always at war with US Generals, even Eisenhower at the Bulge, with whom he had previously had a good relationship. Also, I think you'll find North Africa was a very strong achievement
cossack1001 4 years ago
15:1 General I think it was a comment made by the press or by some other General (perhaps American) -you know, how Montgomery wins- with long preparation, total superiority, almost 100% chances of success, trying not to shed his men's blood uselessy, meritorious attitude, but still I can't find a great genius of war in him -Rommell attacked with all what he had, surrounded enemies, take them on flank, advanced and retreated -Monty sweat less.
Den365 4 years ago