Added: 3 years ago
From: xladydaf
Views: 78,501
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (374)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • i find hard to think to Bonnie Charlie Expedition as a Fight between catholics and Protestants.

    Considering that in England (protestant) in that period was allied with the Austria (catholic) against the France (catholic) And France was allied with the Prussia (Protestant)- I think the Stuart Expedition must see as an episode of the fight between France and England in that period

  • Its a shame Scotland and England ever had too fight. So good together, as allies, but against each other...

  • If the Whig Clans of the North likes of Macleod,Sutherland,Ross,Mackay­,Munro's etc were supportive of James as they were of Protestant reform the history and current Scotland would surely have been different.SNP is Scotlands only hope now but what do i know i live in a shortbread tin

  • I don/t believe this-Even if Charles Edward Stuart had limited his claims only on the Scotland Crown . England cannot leave the Scotland to an allied of the France as was the Stuart-

  • Why did the Bonny Prince Charlie want to capture London he should of proclaimed Scotland to be Independent back then when he kicked the Royalist red coats out of Scotland that way he would of won. Loads of Troops abandoned the Jacobite cause due to Charlie wanting to march on London. Idiot :(.

  • @TheComradeRoss because our Bonnie Prince wanted to regain the Crown of Great Britain for his exiled father James.Strong support from the mainly Catholic Clans of Scotland gave Charlie the force he needed to challenge the Hanoverians.The Highland Clans of his army were loyal to the moment he left Scotlands shores.The Stuarts were direct descendents of Bruce in turn i believe are the true Monarchs of Scotland

  • @dubhlochan I understand that mate but if he didnt cross the border then alot of his troops wouldn't of abandoned him, they wanted him as King of Scotland, nae UK. I have ancestors who fought for both sides and on my mothers side (the Stewart clan) they all abandoned him when he wanted to take London.

  • @TheComradeRoss When Charlie captures Edinburgh he must of thought the best thing would be to carry on. It wouldnt of being an easy choice to make when he reached Derby to turn around but the worst thing he did was fight a superior army with cannon and musket on a flat defenceless Culloden Moor. I am like you i am a Ross but i have Maclean blood in the veins. Charlie is our King

  • @dubhlochan My friend the monarchy should be abolished just a personal point of view, I would of (if i was alive) supported Charlie if he wanted to be king of Scotland, I would how ever not og joined either if i knew he wanted to be King of the UK.

  • Seriously i had some reserve to see in Culloden an battle for the indipendence of The Scotland or a fight between catholics and protestants -The Target of Charles Edward Stuart was the reconquest of the English Crown not the reborn of a Kingdom of Scotland

  • ALEX SALMOND will lead Scotland into a new era so the Clansmen,women and children who died did not in vain.The Union is over, Scotlands sons and daughters shall be free

  • @dubhlochan This is the sort of statement that makes me embarrassed to be a modern Scot. In this time of globalisation and corporate control should we not look to the future instead of some glorified romantic vision of the past which is so far removed from the world we live in today. I should qualify this by saying that I can quite easily tear up listening to Flower of Scotland but I don't live in a shortbread tin!

  • @itsmissnotms If you are such a modern Scot why are are looking at Culloden on youtube. You dont have to teach me about being a modern Scot. Sounds to me that your are not an S.N.P voter and yes i know that Alex Salmond has nothing to do with the Jacobite rising,get a grip of yerself man i had a few beers ok

  • @dubhlochan Fair enough

  • Comment removed

  • This video haunts me as few others do. The brutality of total war.

  • ;(  song?

  • @TheTaiginator Thats because they supported him in the lowlands of scotland :P

  • Scotland forever !!!! And the spirit of Scotland is free!!!

  • The worst battle in history ever!

    I really hate those redcoats!

    Celtic Pride Forever!

  • Jacobites rock

  • There were many, many Episcopalians on the Prince's side of the field too! As a matter of fact an Episcopal priest celebrated Mass before the Battle and gave absolution and Communion to the Jacobite troops.  Catholic and Episcopalian stood shoulder to shoulder as they always should!

  • my great grandmother Mary Murray said we were only killed, not defecated ...... Scotland lost here freedom in the night 300 years ago .. it's par lament bought and sold for english gold. Scotland will be free again ... soon ... caledonianreb

  • i'm from clan campbell and clan farquharson. Campbell fought mostly for the government. But farquharson was all for the jacobites. So i'm not too biased about this war.

  • my best friend is from scotland and is not catholic. im irish and i am catholic he loves my lands history as i love his lands history he often sais that the scots were bullied into changing the religon thats most where originaly catholic. anyway our religon does not matter cause he's a great guy

  • scots are in love with their country ,not religion

  • @Taiginator - "Roman imperialism" LOL when did the Romans colonise Scotland? see what a mean taiginator you really are english, cause the only country the romans took over on these islands was england. The romans couldnt take scotland or ireland, and btw scotland and ireland were catholic before england was. The Roman empire was pagan when they held england, it wasnt for a bit after it that they converted. You know fuck all about scotland taiginator - your an ulster twat

  • @Steely1888 lol we kicked the romans arse outta scotland and they had to build a wall tae stop us! :)

  • @Taiginator - Then how come your protestant and your a brainless bastard?

  • @Taiginator - You are a redcoat fuck, you express the views of an ulster loyalist as to a Scotsman. Now fuck off and die you rat. Look at the saltire flying high in the jacobite army, then the english flag in the british army. Bet you were gutted when england got put out the world cup? as the rest of scotland was partying. You are scotlands shame and a minority, once scotland is independent i will pay your ticket for you to live in the remains of the UK

  • @Taiginator - fuck off taiginator to your battle of the boyne 1690 videos you heritic cock. Your atheist so dont act the complete protestant here. True scots fell at Culloden. There were protestant jacobites u tit, it wasnt about religion, unless you were hannovarian which i knew u are cause your a saxon fuck. The Jacobites were scots loyal to the Stewarts, as to some fat german fuck. True Scots fought for the jacobites, for scotland and prince charlie

  • @Taiginator eh oh well

  • @Taiginator It caused more harm than good. Think about all the highlanders that had their homes burned and their familys slaughtered and they weren't even fighting. One of the worst men to ever live was the Duke of Cumberland

  • Aye higuma The union was organised by a parcel of rouges this is true , but the British army's indiscriminate slaughter post Culloden, on our fellow Scots and on the orders of the London government was the cut that made sure they subdued the last seed of Patriotic fight, SO FAR that is...

  • this song makes me cry every time i hear it and i feel for all who died on the day of the great battle for freedom for scotland

  • I want to grab my claymore and fall in line.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • The clan in my family is campbell im glad some of them fought fought for charlie... and the ones that did fight for william refued to murder and burn. It may have been scots vs. scots& england. But than england ordered that you can't wear a kilt, you cant own weapons or bagpipes, or you would be executed.... The english started and finished the war.....

  • The clan in my family was one of the few clans who actually got in close and took the battle to the bastards at Culloden :) Remember the forty-five!

  • Farewell catholicism in scotland :( i am catholic and my ancestors are from the scottish highlands and the republic of ireland (not north ireland) and i wish it was the majority of scotland was still catholic too bad the jacobites lost :(

  • @DrinkToIreland why does it matter that other people believe differently than you? (its not that much different anyway)

  • @sp2144 because did you learn about what they did to the highlanders and remaining catholics from the duke of cumberland? Prince william. Well they slaughtered highlanders and highland civillians not taking place in battle the scots that helped the governent were disgusted by what they did and refused to help them pillage and destoy and murder. In fact when william returned to england he outlayed "scottish weapons kilts bagpipes or any other highland garb." that why then they changed the....

  • @sp2144 highland way of life

  • @DrinkToIreland "i wish it was the majority of scotland was still catholic" Why? Catholcism has been a minority in Scotland for about 450 years and until the Irish immigration of the late 19thC it was a tiny minority. Historians suggest only about 2% of the 17th-18thC Scottish population was Catholic. That is just the way it is. Neither a good or bad thing. Why would you want Scots to be something that most of them aren't? In truth most Scots aren't particularly religious.

  • @DrinkToIreland These Wars weren't about Catholicism and Scotland has never been a Catholic Country.

    Most of the Jacobites were Episcopalians, some of their commanders were Presbyterian such as Sir Douglas Murray and John Graeme of Claverhouse (Bonnie Dundee). They didn't fight for Religion, they fought for the Stuart Kings, Scottish Independence and to Protect their lands.

  • @NoriokoTheMagicSkunk The highlanders where Episcopalian and catholic. But it was about them supporting Bonnie Prince charlies claim to the throne. But when he lost the british almost purged the highlands on orders from the Duke of Cumberland killing most of scotlands catholic and episcopalian people

  • @DrinkToIreland That is not quite the way it happened. Cumberland was a butcher, but he didn't depopulate the Highlands. What followed Culloden was the destruction of the Highland way of life, which also meant an end to the clan feudal system.

    It was the Highland Clearances, decades later, which did depopulate the Highlands, but that was as much to do with land owners, former clan chiefs, evicting their tennants to make way for cheviot sheep.

  • @Embers73 aye. The fighting was over then Cumberland ordered the villages surrounding the area to be sacked and burnt and the people to be killed. The scots helping him left because they were disgusted by this and his english soldiers kept going. Then he banned the wearing of kilts bonnets or anyother highland garb and that scots could not use weapons. Then, years later, the Highland clearances happened

  • @DrinkToIreland you could wear a kilt and highland dress if you joined the army back then ,and many did .there was no love lost between highland scots and lowland scots , the clearences happend to to the highlands from riseing again , blame prince charlie for that ,he souldnt of invaded england ,and flee to france afterwards ,leaving the highlands to their fate ,

  • @TheMightOfTheEnglish i know... he died a poor drunken urchin in rome

  • @NoriokoTheMagicSkunk - LOL "Scotland has never been a Catholic Country" LOL, well Scotland is not a Catholic country but for you to say it "has never" its fucking a retarded statement. Go get educated boy

  • @NoriokoTheMagicSkunk - Bonnie Dundee was Episcopalian. Which is classified as presbyterian, there just not overly "presbyterian" to be a calvanist. But I agree with you about they fought for scottish royalty and independence and to protect their lands.

  • @DrinkToIreland Catholics were not a majority during this time, the reformation in Scotland had happend about 200 years beforehand. The Jacobites were fighting for the stuart line of kings to be on the British throne

  • @dmax631 i know but this lowered it even more

  • @dmax631 lets leave religion out of the future cos should be secular imo......although when freedom truly exists there will be no state ;)

  • @dmax631 The Stuarts were Catholic by this time tougth many Higthlanders were also most Scots werent Catholic.

  • @DrinkToIreland well im protestant and preferred the Hanoverian i h8 the IRA but dont mind Catholics although h8 most catholic priests cause there pedo's so what do you have to say to that

  • @lostlaces I hate the I.R.A too. Murdering scum is what those lads are. I actually am converting protestant probably. I just don't like the way change was changed. Such as the highland clearances

  • Comment removed

  • Traitor to who?

  • @DrinkToIreland

    Oops, I meant lostlaces

    "well im protestant and preferred the Hanoverian"

    Hanoverian are German!

    So lostlaces is a traitor

  • @Reinaert53 ah ok then

  • @DrinkToIreland And that's the attitude that will keep us a segregated nation.

  • @Calummcntsh6 what attitide is that?

  • @DrinkToIreland *attitude

  • What does it matter your religion? You are either Scots or you are not. You are talking history - and it is proven we do not learn from history...all we do is keep the bile burning because of a "fond remembered" slight. I am a Brit, a Catholic, a Scot, who wears the ClanRanald with pride. People like you need to move into the 20th century, never mind the 21st. SCOTS WHA HAE

  • @TattieTam the thing is after they won at culloden then they had the clearances.. broke up clans... and lots of other stuff

  • @DrinkToIreland Agreed sir, but the greater sin was carried out by Lowland Scots moreso than the "English". It was more of a civil war than a religious/political war though politics and religion played their part in no small way. Like any "civil war" you find families smashed apart because of divided loyalties. As I said we do not learn from history and are bound to repeat the same mistakes. Slainte.

  • @TattieTam aye indeed

  • @TattieTam -drink to ireland take the ferry and stay there

  • @DrinkToIreland- Scotland woke up to the truth,Catholic church just money grabbers

  • @TheJambos1874 indeed i am now protestant. I really just don't like the way catholicism was removed ex. banning of highland garb killing innocents etc...

  • Comment removed

  • the nobles sold us out.....

  • im English and as far as i am concerned you Scots are welcome to independence. Who do you think pays for your tution fees? free perscriptions? free care homes for the elderly? London/England. You are right the union is unfair but only for England. We get none of the above. London generates over 75% of the UK's wealth, i woud like to see Scotland go it alone now. Saying that though it would a shame, given how much the England and Scotland have achieved together.

  • Freedom fighters!!  - only if we had won. we wouldnt have ; a german/english monarchy, be an english colony, and we wouldnt be waiting for an independence referendum we would already be in a free country!

  • It wasn't a fair fight! The English brought guns!

  • “For once the eagle England being in prey,

    To her unguarded nest the weasel

    Scot Comes sneaking and so sucks her princely eggs,

    Playing the mouse in absence of the cat,

    To tear and havoc more than she can eat.”

  • It seems that the rebirth of Scotland is at hand indeed! More than 250 years after the Scottish defeat at Culloden the Scots are likely to once more free themselves from English dominance; which will force the English ducks to abandon their global follies like invading China for the right to sell opium there or to get a good bloody nose at the hands of warlike Japan or Germany; as it has happened in the last great war; Shakespeare may now reminds the English of their Scottish neighbourhood:

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Hate to brake it to ya mate, but the recent polls show that a big majority of Scotlands population want to remain part of the UK which makes sense because without us you'd be fucked.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: Try Lady, Miss or Madam instead of “mate” to avoid addressing me in wrong gender form; and I did refer to the fact that now the Scottish National Party is the strongest party in Scotland; besides: We French crushed the English already in 1453 for good and lived happy ever since, safe the stupid wars your scheming did involve us with warlike Germany, which proofed really disastrous as they made the Americans the lords of Europe!

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Ah a French girl eh, Englands greatest and oldest enemy XD well you may have beat us in 1453 but we equally kicked your ass in 1815 aswell as saving your ass from the Germans twice so I think were even if not slightly above say 2-1 to us.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: In 1815 the only combat we have known against the English ducks was our Napoleon crushing their entire army at Waterloo, though the Prussians arrived in time to defeat Napoleon; and Marshall Bluecher made his legendary statement that he could have as well littered the roads with some barrels of water than placing an English army to stop the French! While we did have the English as our lame foot in World War I indeed but Germany had Turkey, which is even worse.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While we did kept this lame foot England and the stupid English scheming did entrap us in another devastating war with warlike Germany, which the Germans did this time win but they failed to crush the Russians and then the English surrendered to the Americans in mid 1941 (the infamous Atlantic Charta) and now the Americans have become the lords of Europe; and all because of you English types: Had you crushed the peevish New England uprisings in 1776!

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Haha what the fucl? You don't have a clue what you're talking about do you "Infamous Atlantic charter" Uh... you mean the deal the Americans signed after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in which they decided to finally become an allied power? Americans lords of Europe? Wow what do they teach you in France, have you not heard of the Special Relationship? In which the US and UK police the world together? Well maybe you do not understand the meaning of the word alliance.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Haha wow what a warped opinion you have on history, do you not know that it was the English who beat the Imperial Guard (You frog-eaters' best troops) and it was also us who led the final charge of battle so actually I think we won. WW1 wtf are you talking about?! Without our help you'd be speaking German right now you were a puny country still hurt from the Napoleonic Wars defeat and we were the mightiest empire ever seen how about you read a history book and learn the facts!

  • @NorthernerMatty123: But the peevish English never had a mighty empire! Compare their empire to any other and you see how weak and feeble the English one always was: Imagine the Romans being opposed by Gandhi in one of their provinces and think what has happened to sweet Jesus; and he did not even dare to encourage the Jews not to pay the Roman taxes, while Gandhi defied the English salt taxes; so do not brag about your empire as it is a huge disgrace for the very word of empire!

  • @NorthernerMatty123: Your base propaganda lies will be of now avail: Bluecher alone did defeat Napoleon in 1815 (and in general); which is the doom of Carl von Clausewitz: “At Leipzig Blucher alone wrested from him the victory; at Laon Blucher might have entirely ruined him, and if he did not do so the cause lay in circumstances completely out of the calculation of Bonaparte; lastly, at Belle-Alliance, the penalty of this mistake reached him like a thunderbolt.”

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While there is very little chance that we French would ever adopt the German language as we had a German invasion in 406 BC by the Franks, Goths and Burgundians and still speak our vulgar form of Latin; while Gaul is now called after the Franks. But you do indulge in the lies Churchill told the English quite a lot! But tell me: Do you think that the USA and England are equal allies or is it more the dog & master relationship?

  • @NorthernerMatty123: You know for the rest of Europe and the World too England is today no more than the bankrupt and spineless vermiform appendix of the USA! While the Scots will by your propaganda lies even less: As they are reminded above of their lost last battle against England for independence and never forget the noble deeds of their hero Robert the Bruce, who liberated them from the English tyranny and of course I will now invoke the Scottish poet John Barbour and his epic The Bruce:

  • ... And if any offered to gainsay them they would so deal that he should either lose land or life, or live in misery. For they doomed folk as they pleased, taking no heed to right or reason. Ah, how cruelly they doomed them! Good and gallant knights, for little or no cause, they hanged by the neck. Alas! that folk who had ever been free should, through their great misfortune and folly, be so wickedly treated as to have their foes for their judges. What greater wretchedness may man endure?"

  • "... These officers were so wholly cruel, wicked, and covetous, and so proud and disdainful, that Scotsmen could do nothing at any time to please them. The wives and daughters of the Scots they would often violate ruthlessly, and if any man were wroth thereat they lay in wait for him with greater harm, and soon found occasion to bring destruction upon him. And if any man had by him any thing of value, such as horse, or hound, that pleased their fancy, by right or wrong they would have it. ..."

  • "When the mighty King Edward had in this way done his pleasure on John the Baliol, so soon convicted and undone, he forthwith went to Scotland, and seized the whole country. So completely was this done that both castle and town, from Wick to the Mull of Galloway, were in his possessions and filled with Englishmen. Then he made Englishmen sheriffs and bailies and the other officers of all kinds necessary for the government of country. ..."

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Nice, so... did you just copy and paste all of that boring crap or... did you like actually type it all?

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Lol funnily enough when it comes to economics the UK came out of the recession long before the Americans and has recovered better from it too and last week the Americans reached their budget limit for the amount of debt that they could mound up. So lets face it every g8 country is struggling to recover from the biggest eco-downturn of the 21st century, not just us. Meanwhile FTSE 100 continues to grow much faster than the French CAC 40.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Lol no its more the type of relationship that stands up to a dictator who slaughtered 6 million Jews! Now we are leading the war in Libya against Col. Gaddafi whilst the Americans play a smaller role, proving that we are not the junior members of the alliance. Together the Anglo-American alliance fights tyranny and rules the world whilst France wishes it could adopt our language and share the same bond and power.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Well you are simply a fool and your views on history are warped and biased. Who had the most troops on the opposing side? The English did! (Along with a few Irish and Scots.)

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Ok now there really is no point in arguing with you maybe if I instead called it "The British Empire" (which was dominated by the English) you may be more familiar with that term, eitherway compare it to any other empire the universe has ever seen and you will find it contained the most land and people ever XD silly Frenchie.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: You don't frighten me, English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottom, son of a silly person. I blow my nose at you and your silly empire. I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

  • @NorthernerMatty123: The English Empire consisted mostly of barren and desolate wilderness such as North America and Australia and the only reason why it ruled so many people was its possession of India; while the Mongols did not only conquer India, but China, Russia, central Asia, Turkey and Persia and so the English loose against the Mongols alone; while of course in terms of enemies defeated, longevity and cultural impact the glory goes to Rome as the foremost empire.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: No excuses and anti-German cruelty propaganda! Again: Are the USA and England allies with equal strength as for example France and England were in World War I or the Crimea War or are the English nothing but American vassals? And bethink you: Not even your nuclear force is independent of American aid: The trident rocket for example; and the war against Libya is a dangerous joke but not so great a jest as your alliance offer is.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While both the English and the American economy is virtually dead, since they have scrapped most of their industries; and as soon as China destroys their aggressive mercenary forces oppressing the vital oil countries such as Libya and Mesopotamia they are done and maybe for ever: England cannot sustain 60 million people and the catastrophic English immigration policy of the recent years added to the political illness.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar China would be very stupid to start a war with the most powerful alliance the world has ever known for if they did it would probbaly be the start of ww3 (in case you hadn't noticed most countries wish to avoid that.)

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar america still has a large military and a large strategic oil supply. china may be the better power, but they have no substantial navy. even FRANCE may be able to take on the chinese navy. they also have no tomahawk missiles. sure, theyre an industrial power but since the quality of life in america and britain is 10x that of china, im not collecting chinese english dictionaries yet. how can a nation be top dog if it cant even feed most of its own people?

  • @mackshayster: Nope; since we have left only one aircraft carriers, a few cruisers and destroyers and some submarines, so the times have long post, when we could battle with the English for naval dominance, while China has a submarine fleet of unknown strength, which is maybe already able to dispatched the American aircraft carriers, without being hindered, at least there are rumours, that the Chinese submarines did get very close to them without being marked ere they made themselves known.

  • @mackshayster: Besides: China does not need a navy at all! Their army is strong enough to repulse any American landing and they can reach all their objectives via land and in fact at this very moment they are building huge roads and railway tracks in Central Asia, so ask your self how much better life will be in the USA, when the Chinese hold all the resources –a life without oil? I mean the Chinese can count even Venezuela in when battling the USA; and the food problem will be handled.

  • @mackshayster: You may see how many hundreds of millions Chinese did rise above poverty in the last decades while the USA have to hand out ever more food stamps to its ever more pauperised citizenry; not to mention that the Chinese have all the industry while the USA has only bankrupt banks left and corporations who are foolish enough to have their goods manufactured in China to their and their country’s great harm; but the Americans will not learn this due to their free trade folly.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Haha you fool we were far more powerful than you in WW1 and 2 especially for we ruled a 1/3 of the worlds land and people with the biggest military. In modern times are military has the 3rd biggest budget after the US and China, the best trained troops in the world, the best special forces in the world (SAS), and one of the most advanced in the world, so in fairness were pretty equal really and one soldier in our army is worth much more than one American.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar In ancient times... yes Rome had the biggest impact but in Modern History... this is the 21st century not the 6th you know? It is the British Empire that had the biggest impact and besides in Mongolian times the world was easier to invade because less than a billion people existed at the time whilst brave Englishmen showed their courage at the battle of Rourkes Drift, where 141 held out against over 4000 Zulu warriors.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: This reminds me (of course) of a certain part of the Chronicles of the Black Adder (also known as the secret history of England), where the Black Adder explains the difference between fighting the unarmed natives on distant continents and being confronted with the terrible German war machine in the trenches of the Great War – I may quote:

  • Edmund: Well, you see, George, I did like it, back in the old days when the prerequisite of a British campaign was that the enemy should under no circumstances carry guns -- even spears made us think twice. The kind of people we liked to fight were two feet tall and armed with dry grass.

    George: Now, come off it, sir -- what about M'boto Gorge, for heaven's sake?

  • Edmund: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand D'watushi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. (...) No, when I joined up, I never imagined anything as awful as this war. I'd had fifteen years of military experience, perfecting the art of ordering a pink gin and saying "Do you do it doggy-doggy?" in Swahili, and then suddenly four-and-a-half million heavily armed Germans hove into view. That was a shock, I can tell you.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While it is rather odd to claim that England had more impact than Rome, since even the very words English for “empire” and “colony” are of Latin origin! So far I guess the only thing why people will remember in 500 years that there ever was a nation called England is Shakespeare and maybe Milton; but no culture, language or nation is likely to influenced as much by England as the Europeans nations were; and China will wipe out your daughter-states like Australia soon.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: I doubt that since the English did win World War I due to our repulsing or Germany but lost World War II as they have to surrender to the Americans after France fell; or would you call it a victory when the consequences are the dissolution of the selfsame global empire of which you have so vainly bragged here? And if England is today so strong, why do you serve the Americans then?

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While China has no need to start a war against the dull-brained Americans and their lackeys, since China has prevailed already: In time the USA will collapse as the Soviet Union did in 1991 and since Chinas has witnessed this first hand they can be patient a little time longer; and for the insult: The glory goes to your English countrymen of Monty Python, just type in the words “Monty Python” and “French taunting” and you will see and maybe entertained.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: So far throughout human history there has not yet even lived a billion people (always remember: Just because the dull-brained Americans no not of the milliard it does not cease to exist) on earth; while Rome has defeated such foes as Carthage (and Hannibal), the Italians tribes, the Celts, the Greeks and defied such warlike foes as the early Scots, the Germans, the Huns, the Persians and many more foes; while English did subdue very weak foes like India.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: Do you deny that the Mongol Kublai Kahn ruled over all China? And that the Mughal Empire ruled nearly all of India (in fact they ruled more than the English as they failed to conquer Bactria various times, while the Mongols ruled it for centuries).

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar China had alot less people at the time (less than a hundred million) and no you are plain stupid, we ruled over 33.7 milion kilometres whilst the Mongols ruled 33.0. Obviously this is close in terms of land but in terms of people conquered our empire was much mightier.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: Fie! The English Empire was the feeblest and unstable structure ever called Empire! They could not even wage a war on their own against only one of their major detractors: Against Spain they needed the Dutch and France, against France they would have been doomed without Germany and Russia and against Russia they needed France and against Germany first France and after out downfall the English types had even to surrender to the Americans!

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar You don't have a clue what you're talking about, stick to poetry. History is not you're thing and by the way we dealt with the Spanish Armada by ourselves, (battle of Gravelines.)

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar What?! There our 7 billion people living right now, are you dumb or deluded?

  • @NorthernerMatty123: Nope, you silly old leg-before-wicket English person! Currently there are living roughly seven milliard human beings on earth, which are 7,000 million people (only the dull-brained Americans do not know that the milliard does come before the billion). While it will be of very avail to you to boast of defeating the Zulus the only thing more ridiculous would be the timid Americans bragging of their Indian genocide and consider themselves warlike because of it.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While I don’t think that our Norman vassal Guillaume le Conquérant did cowardly surrender in the battle of Hastings and then hide in London like a little girl; instead he broke the Anglo-Saxon shield wall, killed the last (true) English King Harold Godwinson in combat, whipped out the entire English nobility and installed a brutal regime of French-Norman oppression and styled himself as the new King of England.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar The Normans were not French they were Norse there is no real need to argue that case its a commonly known fact.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: That is of course wrong, since the Normans did homage to the French crown and received in return the Duchy of Normandy as vassals; so they were French subjects and not to mention Duke Guillaume did levy his army in all parts of France; and so it came to be that the new French-Norman nobility of England did bear French names like Neville, Beaufort, Beaucoup or Plantagenet; by the way: The horseback fighting the Normans learned in France as the Vikings did fight on foot.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: Nope, that battle were fought by the Dutch against us French (ere the Netherlands did revolt against Spanish rule) and the English types did only sail by with their little ships; and the Armada does nor count since the Spaniards were fighting at the same time with the Dutch and us French and of course the Turks too, so no sole glory for England here! And again: France did not surrender to Germany in 1940 but merely signed an armistice (the same Germany had to sign in 1918).

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While it would give some argument if Germany would have crushed Russia, when the timid Americans and their English lackeys would not have lurked in England and attacked their periphery and not harassed the German industrial production that fact remains that the Germans lost the war in the east and the timid Americans attacked after that to secure themselves the spoils of war; England was insignificant and completely depended on the US of A.

  • @NorthernerMatty123: As for the Atlantic Charter it did state above all else the end of the European colonial empires, saying: “Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them” – or do you think that the continued English rule over India is not contrary to that statement of then English government?

  • @NorthernerMatty123: The English were so weak in mid 1941 that they could not even limited that declaration to Europe; though their ruler Churchill suffered from the delusion that England was not bound to that declaration but the brain-sick Americans reminded his successor as soon as the war was won for them and England reduced to their vassal and of no great importance anymore; while the English fleet was a bargain during the war but not after it.

  • Comment removed

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar The French never ruled England, there is a big difference between the Normans and the rest of France, that being the Normans were originally from Scandinavia!

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While I do not know how often I have to repeat myself before those English types and their dull-brained American overlords: France did not surrender in 1940 but merely signed an armistice, roughly the same Germany had to sign herself in 1918; and again the English and their new American masters did not defeat Germany, if by any the Germans were defeated in Russia and that mostly due to the bad leadership of Hitler; so do not brag about it as it is ridiculous!

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While the main difference between the Romans and the Germans is that the Romans did invade Britain (which is only geographical identical with modern England as due to the Anglo-Saxon conquest the Britons live today in North-Western Gaul, also known as France) under emperor Claudius and crushed later the great national uprising lead by queen Boudica, though the Germans sure caused greater terror as the English did surrender due to it to the timid Americans!

  • @NorthernerMatty123: While there is no escape: The English serfdom towards the Americans is obvious and that the dull-brained Americans should take so much note of England I have never heard; and to deny that by signing the infamous Atlantic Charter the English did not surrender their precious empire and their country as well is utterly ridiculous; when I watch the English ruler Churchill later the war he always reminded me of Lepidus in Shakespeare’s Anthony & Cleopatra.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar The Atlantic Charter would only be called "infamous" by someone from the opposite end of WW2 do you not understand what this charter stated? It was an agreement that the Americans, Russians and British shared a common goal in fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, for some reason you seem to have mistaken this for a terms of surrender charter...

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar No... you surrendered Hitler marched through your precious little "Arc De Triomphe" a nation usually leads a parade once they have conquered a nation and that is what that symbolized. How were we Americas dogs? We were no dogs as we still had most of the British Empire at that time, but the war was won by 3 nations not 1, Russia wouldn't stand a chance of singlehandedly beating Germany as their military had far superior technology. Heard of D-day? Who won that? US and UK.

  • @NorthernerMatty123 Russia wldnt sigle handly have stood a chanceof beating Germany!!your hivin a laugh.. four ffiths of german manpower was directed at the soviet union, as were four fiths of their casualties sufered on the Eastern front!The german ,s never produced a practical battlefield tank like the soviet t-34. Russian tommy guns and rifles were equal if not superior to the Germans Stalingrad .kursk and even greater victories after that were achieved by the soviets.

  • @NOVATICANWARS If the soviet army was so great, why it was nearly absolutely crushed at 1941 Barbarossa-operation, why there were lend-lease-system, which kept the red army from dying in hunger and which gave them great numbers of tanks, infantry weapons and different aircrafts, why the soviet army suffered terrible casualties when fighting against germans, why the war lasted so long and why thousands of russian tanks were knocked out by german counterparts, can you explain that?

  • @CarchariasMegalodon You> as a Finn . should know! THe Finns mauled the Soviet forces and where only beaten thru sheer weight of numbers in the end, Stalin had Murdered thousands of his own Officer Corps in the thirties,killing anyone who showed ability. When war with Finland and Germany cameThe Ussr was lead by yes men and Incompetents, all the good Generals,having been anihalated by Stalin.Stalin was warned scores of times about the Nazi invasion. Stalin disbelieved warnings about the Nazi.s

  • @NOVATICANWARS They had bad commanding systems just because Stalin killed so many skilled officers. However, Germany conquered the most important farmlands of the soviet russia, so they didn't have enough food produtcion to feed their soldiers. Russians moved the factories, but their material casualties were still so high, that they needed the lend-lease-system to manage. If the allies haven't helped them, russia would have fell to germans just because of the lack of food and war equipment.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar What?! Are you dumb or just deluded... there are 7 billion people alive today every educated person knows that. You mention this warlike crap again haha hilarious ironic and hippocritical 141 men against 4000 Zulus! Who cares if we had guns and they had spears the numbers speak for themselves. You French would never be capable of such courage and heroism as you are known for being cowardly surrenderers whose leader had to hide in London like a little girl.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar You surrendered to Nazis after fighting for less than a year! Thats what I call cowardly, and you use this stupid "warlike" term well when we go into modern history I think you'll find that Napoleon was pretty damned warlike! But he got beat didn't he? You'll find that Nazi Germany was warlike but that we also managed to beat them. The only difference is the Romans had pointy sticks thrown at them whilst we had bombs rained upon us by the "warlike Germans".

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar We dont serve the Americans you idiot! The Americans our closest allies and we have the strongest historical ties with them than any other country, we see each other as cousins. In WW1 our empire didnt dissolve you stupid Frenchie! It dissolved after WW2! When was India given independence? After WW2, the main effect of WW1 was that after we spent our resources trying to save your cowardly asses we were economically broke, nevertheless we commanded the biggest military.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar You fucking moron! France was a puny country still recovering from the battering it received in WW1, the Americans didn't enter the war until late 1941, two years after we did! They entered because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, when did we ever surrender to the lesser power that was the United States at the time? Why would we surrender if we were allies? Do you not understand what an alliance is? It means we share the sam enemies, France fell we didn't simple as.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar No its not odd tbh, in reality the Ancient Greeks had more impact than Rome as they created many things such as: Medical science, Philosophy, The Olympics, historiography, and modern mathematical principles. So in reality the Romans copied most of their knowledge and customs from the Greeks. Without a doubt in modern times we have been much more infleuntial which is why our language is the universal and most spoken language in the world.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Lol well consider the fact that at the time of the Romans there was only about 40 million people in the world during the early Roman empire and about 200 million at its peak. But we managed to conquer billions and billions of people! For obvious reasons our achievements were greater.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Learn your're history, what you say is hilariously ironic because 1. The Mongols never conquered India or the whole of China. 2. Most of the Mongols empire comprised of the Barren, lowly populated, plains of the Eurasian Steppe. 3. The other main area of conquest was also the barren desert areas of the Middle East. So what you said is full of irony and bullshit XD.

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Lol well if there was an award for the worst insult ever, you'd win! XD

  • @FireEyedMaidOfWar Whats the fuck in argueing with someone who is completely out of their depth? Get a clue you dumb Frenchie Scotland and England signed the Act of Union in 1707 which recognized the UK & Ireland as a sovereign state, but they were just as eager to sign as we were so they're hardly enslaved are they?

  • I'm not sure what charge was more foolhardy, the Highland Charge at Culloden or Pickett's Charge in the American Civil war. Thoughts anyone?

  • @Protojoe912 The british isles are the mainland and surrounding islands, Ireland is Ireland. Scotland was never beaten in a war, ((you, thick cunt, probably mean Culloden, which was a battle between Scottish clans, with English soldiers on one side)), it was betrayed by politicians. Scotland's soldiers have been winning wars for the 'British' army for centuries. As for the "Think ur hard" part, you sound about fucking 12 mate, get a grip.

  • @Clarkson1977 If Scotland was never beaten in a war, how come the English gobbled it up into their kingdom? Surely they didn't achieve this by negotiations and playing nice.

  • @higuma75 actually the 'union' was negotiated by corrupt politicians....

  • @higuma75 its not englands kingdom

    in 1707 scotland and england signed the act of UNION

  • @higuma75 .The English b's used the greed and trickery of some aristocracy to join the parliaments. That is the ONLY WAY they could overcome us.

  • @Clarkson1977 Don't make excuses, you beat us during the WIlliam Wallace era but we kicked your ass during the Jacobite Uprising (Scotland wanted to return a Scottish royal House to power, which means we beat your country and not a few clans.)

  • @Protojoe912 take your head out your arse and that false flag off your profile mate !! Ireland / eire is not part of the british isles, it is a separate country. one day hopefully all of the people of Scotland will grow a backbone and stand up to the Oppression of the 'United' Kingdom / England's Government and we will also be a completely Free and separate country.....vote SNP in the Scottish Elections on May 5th 2011, to get your chance to vote in a referendum on Scottish independence.

  • @Clarkson1977 Scottish Independence that will be financed with EU money. Just like in Ireland.

  • @higuma75 Scotland has it's own money, only difference is we will keep 100% of it as an independent country, not get back the 2% we get from the westminster government, why do you think they don't want us to be free....or did you think England wanted us for our beautiful hills and mountains!!