General OOC

'Murica for me.

The problem child of the British Isles

Hah nice.

Mesor wrote:

That war was a tie .

A french man managed to become king of most of France and we carried on ruling ourselves.
So hardly a victory to be proud of, it took you over 100 years to become king of your own country.

England was created by King William the Conqueror, who was French, so it can be said that the British actually owe their entire existence to France sooo....

The Romans deserve just as much credit. As do the Norse for invading and getting their arses kicked at that battle of the Bridge paving the way for William.

Personally i think the Vikings would have done a much better job.

Fun fact: Supposedly a single Viking Berserker held up the entire Saxon army on that bridge before some Saxon soldier floated down the river on a barrel and stabbed him in the testicles from between the wooden planks.

lol that poor Viking.

Yea I heard about that as well.

But the romans lol? They came, they saw, they hid behind a bloody big wall because we wouldn't lay down and die like "civilized people".
Every time they moved beyond Hadrians wall a damn sight fewer of them made it back to it afterwards and they learnt an important lesson, mess with us and you will lose.
No matter how long it might take we will keep fighting until we win.

A lesson Hitler failed to learn from when he thought they could break our will to fight in a month with bombing runs.

Nobody will make that mistake again.

Damn straight.

Anybody who thinks they are going to take this country from us is welcome to try, we'll send whats left of them home in body bags.

I believe, correct me if I'm wrong (i'm not British), modern day British owe more of there ancestry to Roman-English that the "barbarian"-English if you know what I mean by that.

Not really, the romans only ever controlled a little over about 1/3 of the population of the country.
They had a strong impact in the south but in the north? They fought the romans off until they gave up trying to expand.

brood wrote:

Not really, the romans only ever controlled a little over about 1/3 of the population of the country.
They had a strong impact in the south but in the north? They fought the romans off until they gave up trying to expand.

Yeah, well mostly because back in the rest of Rome things were going sour. They probably just decided that the man power would be used better at home then conquering more land that they really didn't even need, and would take years to convert to Roman culture and would probably rebel anyways.

Oh no it wasn't romes decline came a long time after that.

They conquered the south, moved north temporarily and built a second wall, it was smaller then the first and had more forts then Hadrians but over the years that they manned it they lost more men and more forts then in the entire time they manned Hadrians wall.

At least three times they advanced in force past Hadrians wall to try to conquer the rest of Britain, every time they did so they were fighting a never ending series of running battles against British columns, the tribes of the north learnt from the mistakes of the south and largely avoided fighting large scale fixed battles when the roman heavy infantry line would be at it's best.
Instead they constantly ambushes roman columns out of the forests falling on the flanks hacking through then vanishing again before the romans could deploy in force to face them.

They wanted the whole of Britain, the British on the other hand wanted roman heads.
Only one side got what it wanted and it wasn't the romans.

brood wrote:

Oh no it wasn't romes decline came a long time after that.

They conquered the south, moved north temporarily and built a second wall, it was smaller then the first and had more forts then Hadrians but over the years that they manned it they lost more men and more forts then in the entire time they manned Hadrians wall.

At least three times they advanced in force past Hadrians wall to try to conquer the rest of Britain, every time they did so they were fighting a never ending series of running battles against British columns, the tribes of the north learnt from the mistakes of the south and largely avoided fighting large scale fixed battles when the roman heavy infantry line would be at it's best.
Instead they constantly ambushes roman columns out of the forests falling on the flanks hacking through then vanishing again before the romans could deploy in force to face them.

They wanted the whole of Britain, the British on the other hand wanted roman heads.
Only one side got what it wanted and it wasn't the romans.

Ah ok, I'm not an expert on the subject. But if Rome truly wanted Britain, they would have gotten Britain because there is no way any one power would be able to beat the whole of Rome's legions. Rome was probably involved in so many conflicts at the time that they weren't able to divert most of there forces at one place, which proved to be a very bad strategy.

Actually rome had more of it's soldiers in Britain then anywhere else in the empire just trying to hold the land it had taken.

The best part of 3 legions and some 26 auxilary cohorts.

Thats more then double the second largest force they had deployed and it was barely able to hold hadrians wall when only 1-2 tribes were attacking it.

Rome held it's ground because the British tribes would not work together, if they had the roman force would of been swept away in under a year.
Taking Britain would of required a minamum of 6 legions and at least 50 cohorts of which 10 or more would of needed to be cavalry units and 10 or more would of needed to be archer units.

They did not have the men to take Britain from us even if they had tried, the losses would of been so extreme the British would of just rebelled a few years later and driven them back.
The invasion was flawed from the start, Ceaser tried it and his legions were decimated just making it off the beach, the follow up was done so the new emperor Claudius could claim a triumph, a few years in they announced victory and that Britain had fallen, decades later they were still having to send more and more men just to hold Hadrians wall.

They just did not grasp one simple truth, the British would rather die then surrender, even the ground they took the vast majority of the men of fighting age slipped through the wall to join the tribes still fighting, every time they killed a British warrior 2 more took his place, it was a war that rome could never have won.

brood wrote:

Actually rome had more of it's soldiers in Britain then anywhere else in the empire just trying to hold the land it had taken.

The best part of 3 legions and some 26 auxilary cohorts.

Thats more then double the second largest force they had deployed and it was barely able to hold hadrians wall when only 1-2 tribes were attacking it.

Rome held it's ground because the British tribes would not work together, if they had the roman force would of been swept away in under a year.
Taking Britain would of required a minamum of 6 legions and at least 50 cohorts of which 10 or more would of needed to be cavalry units and 10 or more would of needed to be archer units.

They did not have the men to take Britain from us even if they had tried, the losses would of been so extreme the British would of just rebelled a few years later and driven them back.
The invasion was flawed from the start, Ceaser tried it and his legions were decimated just making it off the beach, the follow up was done so the new emperor Claudius could claim a triumph, a few years in they announced victory and that Britain had fallen, decades later they were still having to send more and more men just to hold Hadrians wall.

The reason the British could do this is because the territory is perfect for guerilla warfare and ambush style fighting, which suited the British just fine as there was no way in hell they would be able to beat the British in an open battle. This of course made things easier but then again the same could be said for the American Revolution, the only difference being that we did beat you in a few open battles. It's kinda remarkable that both your ancestors and mine managed to beat back huge powers with similar fighting tactics. Albeit in different time periods but the point remains the same.

The revolotion you also had the advantage of massive numerical superiority and a near limitless supply base not to mention foreign allies.

While the British were out numbered out gunned and had almost no hope of resupply or reinforcement at all.
That was a war Britain could not win, but you have to give us credit we went down fighting even though we knew we could not win.


In that period nobody could match rome in battle on open field, they had perfected that style of warfare.
We were just the first ones to find a way to fight them and win .

brood wrote:

In that period nobody could match rome in battle on open field, they had perfected that style of warfare.
We were just the first ones to find a way to fight them and win .

Tell that to the Parthians and Crassus.

brood wrote:

The revolotion you also had the advantage of massive numerical superiority and a near limitless supply base not to mention foreign allies.

While the British were out numbered out gunned and had almost no hope of resupply or reinforcement at all.
That was a war Britain could not win, but you have to give us credit we went down fighting even though we knew we could not win.


In that period nobody could match rome in battle on open field, they had perfected that style of warfare.
We were just the first ones to find a way to fight them and win .

Not quite true that you were the first ones and the British had also perfected the style of open field fighting in the era of the Revolution. The British also had a much larger army then the Americans and they were much well equipped and trained, there was a reason they were called the worlds best army. Sure we had more civilians but so did the "barbarians" of Britain, every invaded country does. The British very much could have one the war, it just didn't work out that way and the fact that you had no reinforcement or resupply is not true. The British had control of most of Southern America plus the British had the best fleet in the world which allowed them to control the seas which in turn allowed them to get constant reinforcements and recruitment. In terms of foreign allies, yeah we did had that advantage and it did allow us to win the war but the thing that mostly stopped the British from winning is that they lost almost all of their support back home, public opinion of the war was absolutely horrible by the end of it.

Is the discussion between Ser Carax and Thedric Baras done in Yaragar yet? A part of me doesn't want to go ahead and start a new event there regarding the Mercenaries that Nickolas convinced to "join" him for continued negotiations.

Or do I just create a new scene via the Topic system?

As far as I know it isn't done yet, Marcus wanted to talk to the two squires with baras about something.

It's up to you on how you want to continue.

The best fleet was worth nothing.

Britain was at war across 3 other continents and most of it's fleet was deployed in the channel to prevent a french invasion or hunting the french navy across half the worlds oceans at the same time as that war and did not have any men at all to spare to send to America, they were being diverted primarily to fighting Napoleon, under those circumstances it was decided to let America win to focus on more important wars.
In short, America was not valuable enough to send more men to fight for.

British command had to send orders by letter which took 3 weeks with good weather, the american army was trained by British traitors so your men knew our tactics.
We were better trained but massively out numbered to the point that simple attrition was all it took for you to win, we had 10000 trained soldiers, you had hundreds of thousands of Militia, in that situation pure numbers was enough to grind us down.

Where as our war against rome the numbers were a lot more even and back then skill at arms played a much larger roll in victory.

Great. When we aren't arguing over rp fights we have them about whose country was better in the distant past.

Yup!

"Your" war against rome is a bit of a misconception. If you're a modern time british guy you are mostly descended from Angles, Saxons, Jutes (if you're from Kent), some Vikings (in the east --> "Danelaw") and Normans, which were frankicised Vikings rather than french.
The british tribes, i.e. the britons and, further north, the picts and the irish celts of Dal Riata were the ones to deal with the romans and it was on their culture that the romans had the biggest impact (even modern day welsh has a lot of words directly derived from latin). When the roman empire crumbled and the great barbarian migration swept the angles, saxons and jutes onto the british isles they mostly drove off the celtic population to the peripheric areas, i.e. Cornwall, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

PS: I'm German, so I cannot argue about whether my country is better, because history forbids me to do so.

Hey it beats all sitting staring at a blank screen waiting for something to happen.

May as well get to know each other .
Besides who's arguing? Always has been, is now and always will be the best.

Simple as that .

brood wrote:

The best fleet was worth nothing.

Britain was at war across 3 other continents and most of it's fleet was deployed in the channel to prevent a french invasion or hunting the french navy across half the worlds oceans at the same time as that war and did not have any men at all to spare to send to America, they were being diverted primarily to fighting Napoleon, under those circumstances it was decided to let America win to focus on more important wars.
In short, America was not valuable enough to send more men to fight for.

British command had to send orders by letter which took 3 weeks with good weather, the american army was trained by British traitors so your men knew our tactics.
We were better trained but massively out numbered to the point that simple attrition was all it took for you to win, we had 10000 trained soldiers, you had hundreds of thousands of Militia, in that situation pure numbers was enough to grind us down.

Where as our war against rome the numbers were a lot more even and back then skill at arms played a much larger roll in victory.

lol we did not have hundreds of thousands of militia and the fleet you had did most certainly count for something. Until the French joined the war, Britain controlled the seas and that was enough for them to get reinforcements and supplies. I also do not agree that America was not valuable to fight for since pretty much whoever controlled that area controlled most of North America which was a worthy prize in itself. Britian of course needed to protect itself, just like Rome, from Napoleon but you can't say America wasn't important enough to fight over.