PDA

View Full Version : OT: Why did the English people never have a revolution?



Feathered_IV
07-27-2006, 08:29 PM
I don't get it. The common person in England has been under the heel of the ruling class since Roman times. Their living conditions and social justice system up until the twentieth century were crushingly bad. Granted, there was that Cavalier vs Roundhead tousle, but that was just aristocracy vs middle class toffs.

So really, why didn't the English common person rise up and overthrow the tyrants?

Feathered_IV
07-27-2006, 08:29 PM
I don't get it. The common person in England has been under the heel of the ruling class since Roman times. Their living conditions and social justice system up until the twentieth century were crushingly bad. Granted, there was that Cavalier vs Roundhead tousle, but that was just aristocracy vs middle class toffs.

So really, why didn't the English common person rise up and overthrow the tyrants?

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 08:49 PM
You're kidding, right?

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 08:50 PM
I learnt of this glorious bloodless revolution in grade school once.

Feathered_IV
07-27-2006, 08:55 PM
Not at all.

The Irish, Scottish and Welsh common people all attempted to rebel against the harsh conditions imposed by the English rulers. Why not the English peasantry themselves?

Or maybe there were occaisions. The English government were much more vigilant than most when it came to detecting and stamping out dissenters. Maybe there were insurrections that have been suppressed to prevent them becomming a spur to others...

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 08:57 PM
Maybe it was too damn cloudy? I could've sworn I learned about "that" English revolution in school, though.

Feathered_IV
07-27-2006, 08:58 PM
Now that I think of it, even Australia had popular uprisings amongst convicts and workers.

Feathered_IV
07-27-2006, 08:59 PM
*Looks at watch*

All the Brits are asleep right now. We'll see what they can tell us in the morning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WarWolfe_1
07-27-2006, 09:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I don't get it. The common person in England has been under the heel of the ruling class since Roman times. Their living conditions and social justice system up until the twentieth century were crushingly bad. Granted, there was that Cavalier vs Roundhead tousle, but that was just aristocracy vs middle class toffs.

So really, why didn't the English common person rise up and overthrow the tyrants? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did. It was called the American Revolution.

Zeus-cat
07-27-2006, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They did. It was called the American Revolution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

leitmotiv
07-27-2006, 09:22 PM
Look up the "Peterloo Massacre", THE STRANGE DEATH OF LIBERAL ENGLAND by Dangerfield, the General Strike of 1926, and re-read the history of The English Civil War---the Parliamentarian side was constituted of many populist radical groups. Ye gads man, cutting off the head of Charles I, a Divine Right monarch wasn't radical enough for you?

Feathered_IV
07-27-2006, 09:28 PM
It was a fairly definite 'not now, maybe later' message to the British monarchy I guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

Do any British forum members have stories from their local area of peoples uprisings? Interested to know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

EURO_Snoopy
07-28-2006, 01:11 AM
Revolutions/rebellions in England, about three as far as I know. One giving rise to the magna Carta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta), Wat Tylers rebellion of 1381 against Richard II (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Edlaw70/wat.htm), the English Civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_civil_war) against Charles I.

Countless rebellions across UK borders, Ireland, Scotland, and in the British Empire not forgetting our non tax paying colonial cousins http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dunkelgrun
07-28-2006, 01:13 AM
It would take someone with a better knowledge of English politics than me to explain why we didn't follow the French into revolution (possibly because we didn't want to be seen to be copying the French http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ?)

Here, however, are a couple of the more famous uprisings that we did manage:

Wat Tyler & The Peasants' Revolt (Kent & Essex)

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/peasants_revolt.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/voices/voices_revolt.shtml

The Monmouth Rebellion (the West Country)

http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/stuart...view.asp?CampainId=3 (http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/stuart-rebellions/campainview.asp?CampainId=3)
http://www.allinfoabouttouringuk.com/index.php?page=34

Both of which came to a bloody end for the rebels.

Incidentally, the Battle of Sedgemoor in Somerset, which finally put paid to the Monmouth Rebellion, was the last battle to be fought on English soil.
BoB was fought over it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Cheers!

madsarmy
07-28-2006, 01:34 AM
Not really a revolution, but the village is only the size of a postage stamp. Must have been quite a sight.
The battle of Nibley Green
http://cotswoldedge.org.uk/northnibley/nibleygreen.htm

tomtheyak
07-28-2006, 01:38 AM
Errr... Oliver Cromwell anybody?!

Friendly_flyer
07-28-2006, 01:51 AM
If you look at all other European countries, the question should rather be "why did the Americans succeed in their revolution?". There has been uprising from time to time in most of Europe. The only countries where it came to an actual full revolution were France and Russia. Revolutions are the exception, not the rule.

The_JudderMan
07-28-2006, 02:03 AM
Hmmm, is it because we have it so good.....?

The only reference to anything remotely looking like insurrection in my area of these Isles, apart from the Civil War and the regular unrecorded surges of resentment caused by uncivil "queue jumpers" whilst we patiently wait in the Post Office/McDonalds/theme park lines, is this reference to the last reading of the Riot Act in the country in Droitwich, Worcestershire:

"Polling days in years gone by were notoriously difficult events to police and the 1910 General Election in Droitwich was no exception.
Rumours that the Tory candidate, the Hon J Lyttelton was about to defeat the Liberal upset locals who feared a change would lead to job losses in the salt industry.
A mob, 1,000 strong, marched through the spa damaging the Tory headquarters, the Worcestershire Hotel as they went.
The small police contingent was quickly overwhelmed and at midnight, by the light of a candle, the Mayor Councillor Gabb, at the top of his voice, attempted to read the riot act.
He was unsuccessful, but an hour later law and order was restored and eventually 12 rioters appeared before the judge at the Quarter Sessions. All were found not guilty.

http://www.thisisworcestershire.co.uk"

WOLFMondo
07-28-2006, 02:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I don't get it. The common person in England has been under the heel of the ruling class since Roman times. Their living conditions and social justice system up until the twentieth century were crushingly bad. Granted, there was that Cavalier vs Roundhead tousle, but that was just aristocracy vs middle class toffs.

So really, why didn't the English common person rise up and overthrow the tyrants? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er..we did. We've had one civil war and came close to a 2nd, about 20 uprisings from the other 2 main kingdoms and dozens of peasant revolts.

I think you also misunderstand both Magna Carta and then the Civil War which was more than aristocracy vs the middle class. It changed the governing of the country completely and remains to this day and is the model for almost every parliamentry democracy with a figure head of state ever since.

BTW living conditions were not worse or better than most other countries, remember it was the working man in the UK that led the industrial revolution, not the aristocracy or the land owners. In the 18th and 19th centuries Britain was by far the richest nation on earth and social justice was probably the same if not better than most other countries which were developing the same as the UK i.e. France, German, Holland etc.

Draughluin1
07-28-2006, 02:19 AM
1642

beefy1966
07-28-2006, 02:37 AM
the red clydesiders caused a bit of a stooshie in 1917 i think it was, the government had tanks in george square in glasgow

PikeBishop
07-28-2006, 02:51 AM
Dear All,
I think the thing to note here is that as everyone has said there have been many attempts at revolution...but they have never been successful.....probably because the government and Aristocracy were and are still past masters at 'divide and rule'. We are also an island as is, for example Japan who prefer to remain separate from countries around them and so do not change much compared to the 'outside'. Even as diplomats I see us as all smiley faces with a F****** great knife behind our backs! Just look at what happened whilst the French revolution was going on just across the channel. The Authorities saw it coming and clamped down hard on the English people in terms of crime and punishment. Now we are still stalling about joining the EU and trying to erode away he power of Brussles with lots of 'opt outs'. The Americans only got away with it because they were so far away and in a big country.
Best regards,
SLP

Feathered_IV
07-28-2006, 02:55 AM
Thanks for the links guys! Just the stuff I've been looking for http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

tjaika1910
07-28-2006, 03:03 AM
The english didnt have a revolution around the time of the french and american, because they already had went through those changes hundred years earlier. England was considered pretty good at the time, and contributed to the development of democracy and parlamentarism.

Another reason is that the english are very conservative and love to keep their traditions alive. As an outstander I both find that both curious and something to envy.

A democracy as the english is more modern than say the american with its powerfull president.

SeaFireLIV
07-28-2006, 03:26 AM
The English Civil war.

The one time true time that England actually executed its own King and had NO ruling Royal family for a few years. In many ways it was an amazing milestone. I still believe charles I couldn`t believe it happened even when they took his head.

Then, when Oliver Cromwell died, everyone said, "We want a King again, cos we don`t know what to do!" And they recalled the dead King`s son.

While England put itself back under Royal rule, it did curtail the power of the King as the ultimate ruler after God forver and gave parliament the kind of democratic power it has today. Which is significant.

MrBlueSky1960
07-28-2006, 04:00 AM
Hmmm... Feathered, here one that is not often mentioned... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Monmouthreb.htm

Apparently when members of the Royal Family pass through Bridgwater by train(My home town...) they draw the blinds in the coach... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

"Contributed to the development of democracy and parlamentarism."

Err... I think we were the first nation since the Greeks in the first part of your statement and definitely the first true Parliamentary System for the second…

Dunkelgrun
07-28-2006, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
Hmmm... Feathered, here one that is not often mentioned... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/ASH/Monmouthreb.htm

Apparently when members of the Royal Family pass through Bridgwater by train(My home town...) they draw the blinds in the coach... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

"Contributed to the development of democracy and parlamentarism."

Err... I think we were the first nation since the Greeks in the first part of your statement and definitely the first true Parliamentary System for the second… </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



LOL. Mentioned it on the first page http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
Didn't know that about Bridgwater though, although shutting your eyes when going through seems to me to be a bloody good idea!

Cheers!

Friendly_flyer
07-28-2006, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
Err... I think we were the first nation since the Greeks in the first part of your statement and definitely the first true Parliamentary System for the second… </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cough ... Iceland ... cough ... Norway ... cough.

WTE_Ibis
07-28-2006, 04:47 AM
They sent all the smart ones that may cause them trouble to Australia causing a brain drain that they haven't recovered from yet.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
07-28-2006, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So really, why didn't the English common person rise up and overthrow the tyrants? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We did have a revolution, back in the 1640s. Not all revolutions end well... In some senses you might say it is because it didn't end well that the American colonists had one.

Aaron_GT
07-28-2006, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Then, when Oliver Cromwell died, everyone said, "We want a King again, cos we don`t know what to do!" And they recalled the dead King`s son. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well first we had Cromwell's son, so it was beginning to look like a monarchy. Cromwell Snr. had not been a friend to individual rights of the sort that the likes of John Lillburne and Enlightenment luminaries had been hoping for.

The options seemed to be another civil war (the 1640s were a series of three in quick succession) or getting the old bunch of aristocrats back.

The revolution had, in most senses, failed before Charles II took the throne. But then look at the French Revolution - it was a series of convulsions with periods of despotism followed by, essentially, a new monarchy for a bit.

Of the western nations few (other than the USA) have managed to have a revolution and more-or-less stick to the original intention without it descending into despotism.

AlGroover
07-28-2006, 05:28 AM
As I understand it, after the death of Cromwell, everyone had had a gutfull of puritan rule and invited the king back because here at least was a guy who knew how to have a good time. The thus peeved puritans then went off to share their thoughts with the American colonies.
Conditions were once again ripe for revolution in the 19th century but this was defused thanks to Prince Albert's enthusiasm for drains. Discontent disappeared with the effluent as public health improved. Ironically, Albert died of typhoid due to the palace not being serviced by drains for security reasons. Disclaimer: Any or all of the above may be wrong.

Kernow
07-28-2006, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Of the western nations few (other than the USA) have managed to have a revolution and more-or-less stick to the original intention without it descending into despotism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seen it said that while the English Civil War was really a revolution (or ended up as one), the American Revolution was really a civil war - if by revolution you mean 'overthrow of the established order.' I think the point was that the people who ran the colonies before the revolution were essentially the same ones who ran it afterwards; they just no longer owed any allegiance to the King or UK, but were now answerable to themselves. As I'm not too sure of the political history of the War of Independence I'll use Al's disclaimer: any or all of the above may be wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WOLFMondo
07-28-2006, 06:53 AM
The American revolution was was more than a civil war or revolution, it was part of the war between Britain and France. Britain was over stretched and undermaned and France took an opportunity.

Viper2005_
07-28-2006, 07:08 AM
If one investigates any disaster or calamity in sufficient depth, there almost always emerges a reason for blaming the French. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tanimbar
07-28-2006, 07:25 AM
Okay, let's have a little perspective.

Romans conquered, 56 AD - Brits revolt and get slaughtered.

Romans leave circa 450AD- nasty germans, Anglo-Saxons, arrive (lots of people die) and eventually take over.

Then another branch of german family conquer, 1066 AD - Normans (French &gt; norsemen &gt; nordic &gt; germanic).

And it has taken just short of 1000 years, (since 1066) for the poor, cowed, enslaved "indigenous" population to overthrow (Ha! - you really think so? ) the French lords and ladies.

Why? because the lords and ladies played the game very well - never too brutal, gave way gradually and finally disappeared into the British countryside from where they peer at the aweful cities and the people within them. Now they wait, knowing that their time will come again.

Am I joking - no, not entirely, but I am having a little fun.

On a more serious point - did you know that the UK is made of approx. 60 million acres, 40 million of which are in the hands of 6,000 people (plus government (Army etc) and Crown), i.e. 70% of the land is owned by 1% of the population. A very large percentage of those 6,000 can trace their heritage back to the Norman conquest.

Tanimbar

mandrill7
07-28-2006, 07:43 AM
Oh no. Another American going on about how tyrannical and evil the British king and aristocracy were! Been watching too many Mel Gibson films!

Why did the Americans have a revolution? Was it because the common joe was being oppressed? No. It was because a bunch of Boston lawyers and Virginia planters wanted to save a little money on taxes by ousting a central government that was 3,000 miles away and couldn't effectively stop them. The ordinary joe wasn't even given the vote by the guys who actually ran the American "revolution". And then they rationalized what they had done with a lot of Volatire-ian political theorizing.

At the time, the same level of people - i.e the aristocracy - in Britain itself were pretty happy with the way things were being run. They had had the same type of "revolution" in 1688 when a bossy and obnoxious king was run out of England on a rail and a more pliable Dutch ruler was brought in instead. It was called the "Glorious Revolution".

It would be a far more interesting question to ask why the French had a genuine revolution and the British didn't.

WOLFMondo
07-28-2006, 07:59 AM
The French revolted for the same reason the English had a civil war. A king who took the piss and demanded too much on the basis he was the king. Theres obviously more to it than that but its the crux of the matter, the King was an *** and had to go. The French really went to town though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tanimbar:
Okay, let's have a little perspective.

Romans conquered, 56 AD - Brits revolt and get slaughtered.

Romans leave circa 450AD- nasty germans, Anglo-Saxons, arrive (lots of people die) and eventually take over.

Then another branch of german family conquer, 1066 AD - Normans (French &gt; norsemen &gt; nordic &gt; germanic).

And it has taken just short of 1000 years, (since 1066) for the poor, cowed, enslaved "indigenous" population to overthrow (Ha! - you really think so? ) the French lords and ladies.

Am I joking - no, not entirely, but I am having a little fun.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot the bit about creating the largest Empire the world has ever seen and being the sole superpower for 200 years. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its kinda true what you say but the Lords have no power now, the only 'lords' are political awards to long term politicians with distinguished careers but who owns the land now is less important since farming isn't the UK's main industry and hasn't been since the 1800's. Hereditary peers no longer have a say in the countries affairs thankfully!

Like France, Germany and Holland, were a collection of lots of different European ancestory. Safe to say its stayed the same for the last 1000 years though and over that time we paid back the French ten fold!

WWMaxGunz
07-28-2006, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I don't get it. The common person in England has been under the heel of the ruling class since Roman times. Their living conditions and social justice system up until the twentieth century were crushingly bad. Granted, there was that Cavalier vs Roundhead tousle, but that was just aristocracy vs middle class toffs.

So really, why didn't the English common person rise up and overthrow the tyrants? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The real question is why don't know better?

Hint: England has Parliment and a Prime Minister, not Royalty and Nobles calling the shots.

You should also check out living conditions everywhere through history.
You weren't raised under the King Reagan lack-of-educational-system were you?
During the years when the US undergoes the hugest spending in all history, they cut the
public spending on education and ensured a large underclass to the rich who are unable
to see what needs to be done and can be led around by their noses. Why put the Brits
down when right here money and power have already reversed the original directions the
country started in?

Ernst_Rohr
07-28-2006, 08:16 AM
Another thing, the English were pretty good about packing potential hot heads and dissenters up and shipping them off halfway around the world and dumping them in a colony some place.

After the Roundheads departed power, the English were rather fed up with the Puritans. If you recall, Massachusetts was colonized by a sizable passel of those same Puritans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Rebellious Scots, Irish, and Welsh? Debtors? Chronic repeat criminals and other malconents? All of them got a free one way ticket to Australia!

Plus, after the Civil War, the powers that be in England got to be right paranoid about potential rebellions, and had rather itchy trigger fingers. So they tended to get excited and shoot folks who got out of line, witness Ireland, Scotland, South Africa, India, Egypt, Iraq, and various and other sundry places.

The only real reason that the US successfully revolted was that the English had a bit of a tiff going with the French at the time, and were stretched rather thin. The English government at the time decided to concentrate on kicking the French out of India, since India was a FAR more lucrative market that a bunch of grubby malcontents in an undeveloped backwater in North America. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (all joking aside, that seriously was the real deal)

Xiolablu3
07-28-2006, 08:25 AM
Olivor Cromwell fought the kings army and won.

Parliament was formed and they executed the King.

Since then, Englands King/Queen has very little direct power. Although the Monarchs opinion is very important of course and is considered in new laws etc.

Very recently the Royal family started to be taxed, just like the everyone else. The Royals have to adapt, otherwise people would see them as irrelevant. They do a lot of charity work and spread goodwill over the globe nowadays.

There was a big inquiry recently over whether the Royal family gave 'value for money'. The role for the Royals in Englands future was considered.

WOLFMondo
07-28-2006, 08:56 AM
We won't get rid of the Royals. They bring in so much money of American and Japanese tourists, more then is ever spent on them. They are now the biggest tourist attraction in the UK.

Much as people think Charles is an *** I do think he's pretty positive as a potential monarch, at least he uses his position to bring attention to poverty and other issues often swept aside.

Bo_Nidle
07-28-2006, 09:12 AM
We have to have a Royal family otherwise we'd have President Blair (!!!!!!!!) and THAT is a truly chilling thought! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-28-2006, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
The only real reason that the US successfully revolted was that the English had a bit of a tiff going with the French at the time, and were stretched rather thin. The English government at the time decided to concentrate on kicking the French out of India, since India was a FAR more lucrative market that a bunch of grubby malcontents in an undeveloped backwater in North America. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (all joking aside, that seriously was the real deal) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got a 4 hour documentary about that. The whole worldwide contest went hot over one
battle here in the US at what is now Pittsburgh. No kidding! There was a very small battle
as the scale of things were where a colonial officer and his troops with native allies did
kill some French and captured the French officers. And then the native leader and his guys
murdered the French officers. When that got back to France is when things turned hot. A
later world incident that echoed that was the single murder that set off WWI. The colonial
officer was George Washington at 20-some years age.

During the first war here the colonists did up and contribute to the effort in money. At
the same time there was precedence set and recognized that money raised was voluntary.
Later on when Britain went from ask to demand is when the split was started. It wasn't
about a little bit of profit. It was about having a voice which was and is about rights
that every Brit is supposed to have. Cut the rights and you cut the people, no longer
full citizens. That business goes far deeper than any simple taxes. Britain made the
choice.

Pirschjaeger
07-28-2006, 10:17 AM
There is a reason the world is so familiar with the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh history and not so much about English history.

The French pawned England for almost 200 years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Noth'in to brag about, move along. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
07-28-2006, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
There is a reason the world is so familiar with the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh history and not so much about English history.

The French pawned England for almost 200 years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Noth'in to brag about, move along. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I'm confused...ask most folks about Bannockburn or North Inch and they'll stare at you as if you have two heads. Ask people about Cromwell and they may at least have a flicker of recognition, but if you ask what a Jacobite is, they'll say "What?"

ARCHIE_CALVERT
07-28-2006, 10:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I'm confused...ask most folks about Bannockburn or North Inch and they'll stare at you as if you have two heads. Ask people about Cromwell and they may at least have a flicker of recognition, but if you ask what a Jacobite is, they'll say "What?"

You'll know about this then... "No Quarter Given"

http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/culloden/jacobite.htm

Aaron_GT
07-28-2006, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The thus peeved puritans then went off to share their thoughts with the American colonies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The people who formed the dissent that led to the American Revolution weren't, in general, puritans. The group in the 1640s-1660s in England that believed in representative democracy (and a much broader democracy that posited in 1776, as they intended it to extend to all men, whether they had land or not) were the likes of the Levellers. These were not Puritans, and whilst the Levellers threw their lot in with Purtians under a Parliamentarian banner initially, they later found themselves imprisoned by Cromwell, who was much more of Puritan descent (being an aristocrat by descent).

In other words the politics of the period were very complex, even before you bring in things such as the Quakers, Covenanters and Diggers and the myriad other groups, Ireland, etc.

In fact I'd argue that Cromwell and his despotism and the religious intolerance of his fellow travellers (Cromwell seemed more tolerant than many over religion) were as much a factor in forcing people to move to the American colonies as Charles I. Prior to the 1640s it was the Puritans, to some extent, and Cromwell very nearly emigrated to the colonies. How different history could have been...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Parliament was formed and they executed the King.

Since then, Englands King/Queen has very little direct power. Although the Monarchs opinion is very important of course and is considered in new laws etc </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This wasn't really something that was completed until the Bill of Rights in 1689. That wouldn't have happened without the Civil War(s) but it took another 40 years and a change in dynasty and a second assertion of Parliamentary power to become a reality and a constitutional monarchy.

Aaron_GT
07-28-2006, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">. It was about having a voice which was and is about rights
that every Brit is supposed to have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But most people in England didn't get to vote at the time, only the landed, and even then some towns (e.g. Manchester) had no MPs. The colonists did have various levels of local government (the wording of the second ammendment, for example, is borrowed partly from the wording of the pre-revolutionary Virginia Colony constitution, if I remember correctly). The great mass of colonists weren't any more or less represented than the English, and they were taxed rather less. I think this is why the English aristocracy and Monarchy didn't get it, as from their perspective the well-to-do in the colonies had a pretty good.

By modern standards they had a raw deal, of course, but by the standards of the time it was much less clear-cut.

I think it is a shame that the Levellers failed in England in the 1640s, though, as they wanted a decent representative democracy with one man one vote, irrespective of land ownership. They still had a way to go on rights for women, of course, and Christianity was part of the package, although with religious tolerance too, but not yet at the level of the Enlightenment tolerance of the US Constitution.

Warrington_Wolf
07-28-2006, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Olivor Cromwell fought the kings army and won.

Parliament was formed and they executed the King.

Since then, Englands King/Queen has very little direct power. Although the Monarchs opinion is very important of course and is considered in new laws etc.

Very recently the Royal family started to be taxed, just like the everyone else. The Royals have to adapt, otherwise people would see them as irrelevant. They do a lot of charity work and spread goodwill over the globe nowadays.

There was a big inquiry recently over whether the Royal family gave 'value for money'. The role for the Royals in Englands future was considered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well they are a lot more use to this country that labour or the tories have been recently.
I swear if I see Tony Blair or David Camaron trying to act like they are "one of us" again I will throw my TV out. there's nothing worse than watching posh middle class toffs trying to look like a working class citizen for the cameras. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

P.S. does anyone else think that Prince Harry is the double of James Hewwitt?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WOLFMondo
07-28-2006, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:


The French pawned England for almost 200 years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might find that was the other way around and for about 700 years. France and Britain only saw eye to eye in 1900 or there abouts. Britain kicked Frances backside left and right, both in wars and in politics for centuries. But they have been best of freinds for over 100 years now and most Brits want it to stay that way.

DuxCorvan
07-28-2006, 02:21 PM
Everybody talks about 1642-1645, Charles I and Cromwell.

Somebody remember 1688? It was called the Glorious Revolution because things got almost definitively fixed and this time without a Civil War.

TheGozr
07-28-2006, 02:28 PM
WarWolfe_1 The English were the bad guys in the collonial Revolution... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
----
English revolutions failed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
07-28-2006, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warrington_Wolf:


P.S. does anyone else think that Prince Harry is the double of James Hewwitt?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Crikey! I wonder why that is? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tagTaken2
07-29-2006, 12:31 AM
I had to write an 3000 word essay on this topic in first-year history- why the French did, and the English didn't.
Was 8 years ago, and can't find it to post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but I recall it had something to do with the permeability of English society. If you made money, you would eventually move into the upper echelons of society, to hold titles and power. Whereas in France, you just wound up with an educated and wealthy, but relatively powerless and frustrated bourgeoise.
Got a B+, and got ticked off for doing only half the reading.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warrington_Wolf:

P.S. does anyone else think that Prince Harry is the double of James Hewwitt?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I heard that he'd taken a DNA test to shut the rumours down... uncanny, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Pirschjaeger
07-29-2006, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:


The French pawned England for almost 200 years. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might find that was the other way around and for about 700 years. France and Britain only saw eye to eye in 1900 or there abouts. Britain kicked Frances backside left and right, both in wars and in politics for centuries. But they have been best of freinds for over 100 years now and most Brits want it to stay that way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just trying to get my Brit friends going. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Capt.England
07-29-2006, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
It was a fairly definite 'not now, maybe later' message to the British monarchy I guess http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

Do any British forum members have stories from their local area of peoples uprisings? Interested to know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a uprising per se, but here's a link: Amos Sheriff is my related to me! (http://www.le.ac.uk/pluralism/Donaldson%2061.pdf)

ploughman
08-01-2006, 03:42 PM
After the terror in France during the 1790s England, or rather Britain, was so horrified by the chaos (we fear change) that it engendered that there was a backlash against even significant political evolution. The revolution in America had been an impetus to change in Britain and there was a very significant level of republicanism in the country that married well with the anti-Hanoverian sentiment at large, however the excesses and threat of French Republicanism and Bonapart pretty much solved that one for the liberals of the time, better the devil you know than the Republican tyrant you don't.

During the 19th Century tryannies that were evolved from republican goverments where a figure from the army takes control were known as Caesarist rather than Bonapartist states, the lesson wasn't lost on the whigs of the time. We had been moving away from absolutist monarchy since the magna carter, and had killed and deposed monarchs who thought otherwise, replacing them with incrementally more acceptable kings and queens. Nevertheless the lesson of America, which had a tremedous ammount of appeal throughout the British Isle during the 1780s and 1790s, was somewhat spoiled by the reality of the French Revolution and the memory of our own descent into Caesar like dictatorship in the 1650s.

The twenty years of almost continuous war with France and her allies from 1793 to 1815 pretty much sealed the deal and the Congress of Vienna was an expression of European exhaustion with the republican ideal and the perversion of Bonapartism. Revolution became a dirty word in Europe and republicanism a recipe for anarchy, a view that still lingers in the political consciousness of many European states. Today, revolution means Bolsheviks and Communism, or perhaps, Vlaclev Pavel or the Gdansk Shipyards, not whigs and Boston Harbor.

Fox_3
08-01-2006, 05:28 PM
A recent documentry on British TV revealed that the UK nearly witnessed a military coup in the late 1960s. The primeminister at the time Harold Wilson was suspected by MI5 of being a KGB agent! Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma was to have been his replacement.

Feathered_IV
08-01-2006, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fox_3:
A recent documentry on British TV revealed that the UK nearly witnessed a military coup in the late 1960s. The primeminister at the time Harold Wilson was suspected by MI5 of being a KGB agent! Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma was to have been his replacement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

fordfan25
08-01-2006, 11:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I don't get it. The common person in England has been under the heel of the ruling class since Roman times. Their living conditions and social justice system up until the twentieth century were crushingly bad. Granted, there was that Cavalier vs Roundhead tousle, but that was just aristocracy vs middle class toffs.

So really, why didn't the English common person rise up and overthrow the tyrants? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did. It was called the American Revolution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LMFAO

Kurfurst__
08-02-2006, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I think you also misunderstand both Magna Carta and then the Civil War which was more than aristocracy vs the middle class. It changed the governing of the country completely and remains to this day and is the model for almost every parliamentry democracy with a figure head of state ever since. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err... no. I think you don't know the history of other European countries very well and their internal politics structure and greatly overstate the Magna Carta world-scale significance - many similiar documents unknown to you perhaps emerged in the major kingdoms at the period irrespective of what was happening in England, it was the same mechanisms that led to laying down the rights of the King vs. Nobility. The reason was the same everywhere, weak King/Emperor and it's declining central power, and the rise of the high nobility.

As for early democratic models, I suggest you look up the history of Poland, Swiss cantons and especially - Holland.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW living conditions were not worse or better than most other countries, remember it was the working man in the UK that led the industrial revolution, not the aristocracy or the land owners. In the 18th and 19th centuries Britain was by far the richest nation on earth and social justice was probably the same if not better than most other countries which were developing the same as the UK i.e. France, German, Holland etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think again you romaticize it a bit. The industrial revolution was led by investors, who made use of the cheap labour offered by the landless free peasantry migrating into the cities - special attributes of the british isles (being an island with poor conditions for agriculture, but good for wool trade) were also catalysers of this. Britiains early rise as an industrial power rested exactly on the poor social justice and poor living conditions and exploitations of the large working class, with the riches concentrating in a few hands - Marx and Engels anyone? The labour class was at the mercy of their employers and had to work under horrific conditions (child labour, shop accidents, 12-14-15 hour shifts etc.), as opposed to the well laid down rights and obligations in those 'obsolate' medieval guilds and such (hence the rise of the first labour unions to improve these poor conditions in England). Others faced of course similiar problems of course with a bit of lag, however the solutions to the poor conditions were more centralised building from above, and I feel, more definiative overall as opposed to Britain where the improvement of social conditions was achieved in individual contracts which as such showed large disperancies.

Also, afaik the 'classic', vastly sized British Empire did not come into existance until after the Napoleonic wars that temporarily paralyzed the greatest european power ever since the 17th century, France. Britain lived it's zenith as a great power at short period of Victorian era when it greatly extended it's influence compared to previous centuries, but even then I'd not call it a superpower. By the 1870s it began to fall behind in the industrial race it pioneered vs. the competion, and while it was exceedingly successful colonizing technologicall backwards 3rd world countries in the 19th century, but the first clashes with other european or similiar powers (see WW1) showed how fragile the basic foundation was. After all, Britiain sought to expand it's power elsewhere than on the continent in the first place after having tried and failed at that (aka Hundred Years war). Sure they had a great 50-70 years or so, like all Empires do, but to describe England as the same thing in 1700 as in 1890 is greatly misleading imho.

WOLFMondo
08-02-2006, 05:15 AM
Agriculture is pretty good in the UK because of our climate Kurfy. Long summers and mild winters. Sheep farming for wool was good because of the mild weather and plenty of rich land, the soil got bad because of sheep farming. Look at north wales. Its the state its in now because all the sheep ate all the brush and sapling trees and caused massive errosion.

Sheep farming was a fad, look at all the sheep now in the UK. I went climbing a few years back in Torridon, North West scotland and we found a lamb with a broken leg, it had the farmers mark on it so we went to the local pub with the lamb on my mate daves shoulders and got the number of the farmer. He refused to come and get it stating the bullet to kill it and the petrol to get there was worth more than the lamb! Its been that way since the beginning of the 20th century according to the locals we spoke too.

Your partly right about investors, all business needs investors but changes didn't come from Lords or the king, but inventions made by working men. The industrial revolution was the first time since the printing press that a working man could make his name and make a bucket load of cash from a good idea.

Aaron_GT
08-02-2006, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for early democratic models, I suggest you look up the history of Poland, Swiss cantons and especially - Holland. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also 14th century Italy in some city states.

However I'd agree with WOLFMondo on farming. Whilst conditions in Britain are rarely as warm as in Europe, the winters are also not as severe and crops can (and could) be planted relatively early. So whilst in the 18th century (start of the industrial revolution, and a temperature minimum) you didn't get good quality English wine, there was plenty of scope for growing a good variety of crops. For some reason in late Victorian times the British seemed to decide not to grow any tasty good (maybe it was seen as scandalously sinful by the Victorians to enjoy food?) and British cooking went into a decline of boiled vegetables until the 1980s...

I'm a bit nonplussed by the suggestion that England has long winters, though. I thought that until the recent advent of global warming we just got long springs and early autumns and summer for three days in July if at all.

What drove 'peasants' into the cities wasn't the poverty of the climate, but the loss of communually held agricultural land through enclosure and corn laws. The land was fine, it was often that the peasants could no longer get access to farm it, and so could not make ends meet and had to move. It makes an interesting comparasion to the Diggers of the 17th Century.

bolox00
08-02-2006, 11:23 AM
another english rebellion
http://www.learnhistory.org.uk/cpp/kett.htm

Kernow
08-02-2006, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

Your partly right about investors, all business needs investors but changes didn't come from Lords or the king, but inventions made by working men. The industrial revolution was the first time since the printing press that a working man could make his name and make a bucket load of cash from a good idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like John Harvey, blacksmith:

"Harvey & Co of Hayle, who were one of Cornwall’s most important industrial concerns...

The company was founded in 1779 by John Harvey, a village blacksmith who set up a foundry to supply water pipes for the tin mines. To ensure a regular supply of pig iron he bought his own ship. To fill the ship up on its outward voyages he started to trade agricultural produce. Because this demanded more voyages he also started to import Welsh coal and timber for the mines. And so the company grew -- by 1847 Williams’ Commercial Directory described the Company as “Millers, Engineers, iron founders, iron and coal merchants, Ship-builders, ship-owners Ironmongers, Wholesale grocers, Tea-dealers, and General merchants and Rope-makers.”

Their papers provide a view of the Industrial Revolution in microcosm and show how a small local company grew to be an international concern, with steamships sailing around the world and with contracts to drain the polders in the Netherlands and to supply engines to mines in Mexico."

Something I just Googled up.

Oh, and while we're talking of rebellions here's (http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/cornish_rebels_1497.html) another.

stathem
08-02-2006, 02:05 PM
Great link Kernow, really interesting, many thanks.

ploughman
08-02-2006, 06:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Err... no. I think you don't know the history of other European countries very well and their internal politics structure and greatly overstate the Magna Carta world-scale significance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Magna Carter is the basis for English Common Law which is the basis for the legal systems of most Commonwealth Countries and the United States. That includes India which is the largest democracy on Earth. Nearly 2 billion people enjoy legal systems predicated on common law notions that have their source in the Magna Carter. Whilst there may be other earlier and more liberal documents in existence, there are fewer that are quite so significant.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The industrial revolution was led by investors, who made use of the cheap labour offered by the landless free peasantry migrating into the cities - special attributes of the british isles (being an island with poor conditions for agriculture, but good for wool trade) were also catalysers of this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting you should bring this up. As a result of the extensive highlands that exist throughout the UK the Wool trade has long flourished here, but it is not at the expense of other agriculture. England, especially, has extensive and profitable arable land and is 'fat' in this regard. The wool trade was in surpless in 1600 and it was hoped that wool might form the corner stone of a trading cycle that was initially hoped to be centred on Japan, the realities of the day (Dutch supremacy in the Indies) meant that, in the end, silver bullion was exported for spices and goods from India and China. This was contrary to the 'mercantilist' notion of trade that was accepted at the time and laid the foundations of the first burst of liberal trade that we are begining to know as the first period of globalisation and led, ironically, to the development of sophisticated trading networks that formed the basis for the modern systems of international trade.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Britiains early rise as an industrial power rested exactly on the poor social justice and poor living conditions and exploitations of the large working class, with the riches concentrating in a few hands - Marx and Engels anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubt it. Let's have a look at, say, Imperial Russia which had much greater social injustice and much larger concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. Compare and contrast...I think we can lay this one to rest pretty quickly. Marx, a political refugee made good use of the statistics the were freely available in the UK and were enthusiastically gathered by benevolent industrialists such as J R Rowntree to predicate his theories on, but to mistake this data as evidence that Britain was more social unjust than other states that didn't collect such data, or didn't appear in Das Kapital, is a little unsophisticated.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The labour class was at the mercy of their employers and had to work under horrific conditions (child labour, shop accidents, 12-14-15 hour shifts etc.), as opposed to the well laid down rights and obligations in those 'obsolate' medieval guilds and such (hence the rise of the first labour unions to improve these poor conditions in England). Others faced of course similiar problems of course with a bit of lag, however the solutions to the poor conditions were more centralised building from above, and I feel, more definiative overall as opposed to Britain where the improvement of social conditions was achieved in individual contracts which as such showed large disperancies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems more like a criticism of post-Thatcherite Britain vs the Socialist continental model to me.

However, Britain's rise as a world power can be most centrally attributed to it's ability to raise and manage capital through a sophisticated financial system that no other nation could match, that's for sure, and it's dominance of the sea lanes that it enjoyed from the begining of the 18th Century to the beginning of the 20th Century. As to it's ability to transfer manpower from agriculture to industry, increasingly efficient agriculture released manpower to the cities, as did population growth which was phenomenal. Also, don't forget that one of the largest single movements of people in history is the Anglo-Irish Diaspora, whereby nearly 20 million people left Britain to found new nations throughout the globe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, afaik the 'classic', vastly sized British Empire did not come into existance until after the Napoleonic wars that temporarily paralyzed the greatest european power ever since the 17th century, France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, lots of the bollocky stuff in Africa didn't become 'pink' until the 1880s and 1890s when the European powers decided to roll up some real estate. And the East India Company was rolling it's way through the sub-continent all the way up until 1857. But large ammounts of India had already come under the administration of the East India Company before 1789 and Canada, and Australia were already firmly established as British possessions. As to the 'Greatest European power since the 17th century, well France was the nation to beat since Spain went south, so to speak, but it was beat in the 18th Century and while British peasants went to the factories French peasants went to the army and Napoleon pretty much did for them. France was a second rate power for much of the 19th Century.

[/QUOTE]Britain lived it's zenith as a great power at short period of Victorian era when it greatly extended it's influence compared to previous centuries, but even then I'd not call it a superpower.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Britain's power was unrivalled from 1815 to 1914. That's 99 years. Sure Britain couldn't field an army of continental size but everyone knew it could finance a war that no other nation could win. Size isn't everything, but endurance is. I wouldn't compare it to the USA today, which is pre-eminent in all spheres, but it was able to compete against even a pan-continental grouping (as acheived under Napoleon) and come out on top, through its dominance of the sea, in matters of finance, and its ability to endure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the 1870s it began to fall behind in the industrial race it pioneered vs. the competion[QUOTE]

Fall behind, or they're catching up? The zenith of British industrial power was during the Edwardian, not the Victorian era.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>...And while it was exceedingly successful colonizing technologicall backwards 3rd world countries in the 19th century, but the first clashes with other european or similiar powers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Load of sh1t this bit. Beat France in the Napleonic wars, beat the Russians, beat the Boers. That top and tails the 19th Century, also, you might want to put Kalsah into your search engine. If you knew anything about British overseas armies during the 19th Century you would know that they, mostly, weren't British, they were hugely outnumbered and genereally out gunned and yet they generally prevailed. There are some cringingly bad performances, of which Iskandalwana isn't actually one (you try facing 15,000 Zulus with 800 mates and a rifle that jams when its hot) and the finest general of the 19th Century was a man called Grant, but he wasn't an American.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(see WW1) showed how fragile the basic foundation was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bit unsure of what you mean here? Do you mean Britain financing most of the war?. Or is it a manpower thing? Britain has never had the manpower to fight both a continental European war on the same scale as a European power and maintain a large fleet. During World War One nearly 4 million men were employed in the fleet alone. That fleet's blockade of the Central Powers was instrumental in their defeat. Also, the Commonwealth Armies were the ONLY army capable of fighting and winning at the end of the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After all, Britiain sought to expand it's power elsewhere than on the continent in the first place after having tried and failed at that (aka Hundred Years war). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. Well, Britain in the modern sense is Scotland and England merging after 1603 and becoming a United Kingdom, a merger that was finally concludedin 1707 with Act of Union which brought the two parliaments together. Ireland, poor sods, became part of the Union in 1800(ish) and something, mostly as a result of the threat represented by France and the Bonapartists. YOu will note that Britain in any political sense, was not extant during the Hundred Years War.

Medieval king**** aside British foreign policy since Elizabeth I has been.

1. To secure the flank states; Ireland, Scotland and the Low Countries.

2. To prevent the emergence of pan-European hegemon based on the premise that only a pan-European hegemon could seriously threaten Britain. Knowing this you can begin to understand our interst in Holland and Belgium.

The conquest and/or annexation of European soil, with the exception of strategically significant bases like Gibraltar, has not really been part of British or English foreign policy for going on 500 years.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure they had a great 50-70 years or so, like all Empires do, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More like 250 years, from up to down. But the transitory nature of much of the British Empire is intersting and demonstrates, I think, the gossamer touch that was British rule. India, a nation of some 400 million people in 1947 was administered by only about 1,000 British civil servants, each one the best this nation could provide and drawng from its finest Universities.
The Empire was almost an illusion. Having said that it left institutions in its wake that have been some compensation to the peoples who endured it. Additionally, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and to a lesser extent the United States, South Africa and the Sub-continent, are by products of the Empire. This is not the nullify the acheivements of the peoples of those countries in the creation of their nations but more to acknowledge a common heritage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a but to describe England as the same thing in 1700 as in 1890 is greatly misleading </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree with you here. England in 1700 was a nation on the cusp, by 1890 it was at the top of its game.

Blutarski2004
08-02-2006, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
The only real reason that the US successfully revolted was that the English had a bit of a tiff going with the French at the time, and were stretched rather thin. The English government at the time decided to concentrate on kicking the French out of India, since India was a FAR more lucrative market that a bunch of grubby malcontents in an undeveloped backwater in North America. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (all joking aside, that seriously was the real deal) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Great Britain was certainly stretched thin in the War of the American Revolution (1775-1782), but it is incorrect to say that America gained its independence due to a British decision to concentrate on India. Both sides treated India as a secondary theater of operations and basically fought each other to a standstill on the Coromandel coast. Viewed from the perspective of military force commitments, by far the greatest efforts on the parts of both France and Great Britain were concentrated upon the West Indies, whose islands were at the time the most valuable commercial real estate on the face of the earth (sugar, tobacco, and spice trades).

America's successful establishment of independence from Great Britain was (IMO) entirely due to the military and financial support provided by France. French money and military supplies supported the Colonial war effort, large numbers of French troops fought alongside the American Colonial Army (check the orders of battle at Yorktown for example), and the decisive battle of the war, Yorktown, was won by the Americans expressly as a result of the French navy driving off the British naval attempt to re-supply Cornwallis. When the Royal Navy lost control of the Atlantic coast, it lost the colonies.

Blutarski2004
08-02-2006, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Err... no. I think you don't know the history of other European countries very well and their internal politics structure and greatly overstate the Magna Carta world-scale significance - many similiar documents unknown to you perhaps emerged in the major kingdoms at the period irrespective of what was happening in England, it was the same mechanisms that led to laying down the rights of the King vs. Nobility. The reason was the same everywhere, weak King/Emperor and it's declining central power, and the rise of the high nobility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Continental European monarchies were, by and large, absolutist in nature. The monarchy of Great Britain was more restricted in power. One limit was found in the Magna Carta, another in the ability of Parliament to influence matters of national taxation. By way of comparison, the monarchy of France had no such rstrictions upon it.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for early democratic models, I suggest you look up the history of Poland, Swiss cantons and especially - Holland. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Agree re Holland, which exhibited Republican sensibilities even as early as its struggle for independence from Spain. I attribute this to the historic existence of a strong merchant and trading middle-class.

The Cantons of what became Switzerland also led the way in the formation of the republican form of governance, perhaps because they shared many of the geographical conditions of anciewnt Greece - but that's just a speculation on my part.

Poland is a more difficult subject. For so much of history, the region has been divided and under a succession of various foreign rulers.

One of the great ironies of history is that Bismarckian Prussia and the proto-modern German nation which it begat perhaps led Europe in the establishment of a benevolent social contract with its laboring classes. IMO, the popular views among the English-speaking world of Bismarck and his legacy are quite unfair to the man and his accomplishments.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think again you romaticize it a bit. The industrial revolution was led by investors, who made use of the cheap labour offered by the landless free peasantry migrating into the cities - special attributes of the british isles (being an island with poor conditions for agriculture, but good for wool trade) were also catalysers of this. Britiains early rise as an industrial power rested exactly on the poor social justice and poor living conditions and exploitations of the large working class, with the riches concentrating in a few hands - Marx and Engels anyone? The labour class was at the mercy of their employers and had to work under horrific conditions (child labour, shop accidents, 12-14-15 hour shifts etc.), as opposed to the well laid down rights and obligations in those 'obsolate' medieval guilds and such (hence the rise of the first labour unions to improve these poor conditions in England). Others faced of course similiar problems of course with a bit of lag, however the solutions to the poor conditions were more centralised building from above, and I feel, more definiative overall as opposed to Britain where the improvement of social conditions was achieved in individual contracts which as such showed large disperancies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... The British economic period which you describe sounds more like the mid-19th century, when Great Britain essentially founded and came to dominate the global textile trade, which was one of the dominant global economic activities of the era. British production represented something like 90 pct of global output at one point. This was not achieved because Great Britain enjoyed a great surplus of cheap labor, but as a result of the great technological advantages it enjoyed as a result of its development of the power loom. An investigation into the repercussions and effects of the "Great Cotton Famine" in Britain is very illuminating.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Also, afaik the 'classic', vastly sized British Empire did not come into existance until after the Napoleonic wars that temporarily paralyzed the greatest european power ever since the 17th century, France. Britain lived it's zenith as a great power at short period of Victorian era when it greatly extended it's influence compared to previous centuries, but even then I'd not call it a superpower. By the 1870s it began to fall behind in the industrial race it pioneered vs. the competion, and while it was exceedingly successful colonizing technologicall backwards 3rd world countries in the 19th century, but the first clashes with other european or similiar powers (see WW1) showed how fragile the basic foundation was. After all, Britiain sought to expand it's power elsewhere than on the continent in the first place after having tried and failed at that (aka Hundred Years war). Sure they had a great 50-70 years or so, like all Empires do, but to describe England as the same thing in 1700 as in 1890 is greatly misleading imho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... I would mark Great Britain's ascencion to empire status from the end of the Seven Years' War, when it achieved colonial dominance on the Indian sub-continent and in North America, both at the expense of France, and had decisively seized command of the seas. At this point, there were no other viable contenders physically able to vie for global hegemony. World War One realistically marked the tipping point of the British global empire - in the sense that everything thereafter was a slow downhill slide. That's about 250 years by my count.

As for British 19th century expansion into the "Third World", I suggest that any appraisal of its action must be viewed in context. France, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Italy were all enthusiastic participants in such ventures. Great Britain's behavior hardly stands out as terribly extreme in comparison to the behavior of its contemporaries. Belgium's atrocities in the Congo are an example. In fact, Great Britain must be credited as one of the very few powers to actively campaign against the massive Arab slave industry which had historically preyed upon the African native population and continued to do so throughout the 19th century.

WWMaxGunz
08-02-2006, 09:34 PM
James Burke, in his Connections series set the real beginning of textiles as big money
much earlier, IIRC right after the Black Death hit Europe... 16th century? As he put
it, if your last name is Draper you probably still aren't doing badly. It was the Dutch
who got it going including the finance side. Somewhere in there he also showed how the
Dutch Flotte (sp) ship revolutionized trade but that was later if I haven't blown the
first dates. And then the French came in with the Jacqaurd looms driven by river power
and made exquisite detailed cloth fast and cheap... which later led to the US 1890 census
being done by punchcards and the big success of IBM. Burke did do a wonderful series, IMO.

If Britain didn't fare so well in WWI then what about Germany and France????

Holland... the more I learn the more I like. Individual freedom to put US to shame! At
least in practice it has. I sorrow that terrorists may threaten the openess there.

Obi_Kwiet
08-02-2006, 09:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
Oh no. Another American going on about how tyrannical and evil the British king and aristocracy were! Been watching too many Mel Gibson films!

Why did the Americans have a revolution? Was it because the common joe was being oppressed? No. It was because a bunch of Boston lawyers and Virginia planters wanted to save a little money on taxes by ousting a central government that was 3,000 miles away and couldn't effectively stop them. The ordinary joe wasn't even given the vote by the guys who actually ran the American "revolution". And then they rationalized what they had done with a lot of Volatire-ian political theorizing.

At the time, the same level of people - i.e the aristocracy - in Britain itself were pretty happy with the way things were being run. They had had the same type of "revolution" in 1688 when a bossy and obnoxious king was run out of England on a rail and a more pliable Dutch ruler was brought in instead. It was called the "Glorious Revolution".

It would be a far more interesting question to ask why the French had a genuine revolution and the British didn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it was because the English King was employing ******edly mercinteal pollicies on the colonies, and we got ticked off. We had no one to properly represnt us in parliment, so the colonies were inevitibly taken advantage of.

scaredycat1
08-02-2006, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">England was considered pretty good at the time, and contributed to the development of democracy and parlamentarism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And still IS! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Lucius_Esox
08-03-2006, 02:42 AM
What about he engineers I say....

stathem
08-03-2006, 03:03 AM
Ploughman http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif great stuff!

and Blutarski http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
What about he engineers I say.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye, they were my thought.

Francis Bacon, Jethro Tull, Hargreaves, Arkwright, Jesse Ramsden, Savery, Newcomen, Watt, Trevithick, Henry Cort, Joseph Whitworth.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Nick_Toznost
08-03-2006, 04:13 AM
Oliver Cromwell is the closest thing to the Grinch the world has ever seen.

He banned Christmas and probably thought about blotting out the sun many times.

Aaron_GT
08-03-2006, 04:27 AM
Myth.

Feasting and extravagances at Christmas (but not the day itself) were banned by Ordinance in 1647. Cromwell did not become Lord Protector until 1653. No Act of Parliament ever banned Christmas or celebration at Christmas.

Nick_Toznost
08-03-2006, 05:25 AM
I was just being silly. A myth indeed.

Still, if you can't feast or be extravagant at Christmas.....

Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits:

Napoleon: "Oliver Cromwell, the only man with any GUTS (slams fist on table) in British history.....one inch shorter than me"

Kernow
08-03-2006, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick_Toznost:
Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits:

Napoleon: "Oliver Cromwell, the only man with any GUTS (slams fist on table) in British history.....one inch shorter than me" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye, small man syndrome has a LOT to answer for. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kernow
08-03-2006, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
James Burke, in his Connections series ... Burke did do a wonderful series, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, that was a long time ago. Or is it repeated on satellite? Interesting and clever series though. AFAIK it was never repeated in UK.

F19_Orheim
08-03-2006, 10:23 AM
??? http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/~glorious/charles1_behead.jpg

WWMaxGunz
08-03-2006, 12:50 PM
First Connections series is extremely difficult to find but there is a 5 DVD set out.
The reprinted book from 1995 (original series was 1978, when was original book?) can
be found for $15 at Amazon. Connections 2 and 3 are easy to find but what I saw of
the 2 series, it lacks in pace and flow to the original. Perhaps you need to have
seen the first somewhat recently to seeing the second, it reminds me of fast poorly
taught math at a small college I GI billed at.

Petey78
08-03-2006, 04:44 PM
If Blair carries on the way he's going, I'd say we have time for a real revolution yet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bo_Nidle
08-03-2006, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Petey78:
If Blair carries on the way he's going, I'd say we have time for a real revolution yet! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that! Wheres Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him?

The real reason the British people haven't had many revolutions is that its just awfully impolite and rather undignified. The noise disturbs the neighbours.

leitmotiv
08-03-2006, 11:59 PM
May disrupt supply of lager.

RAF74_Poker
08-04-2006, 12:17 PM
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/tooting/images/citizensmith_3.gif

Blanche2005
08-04-2006, 01:08 PM
Sir... Its the rebels, sir... they're here..

Well do they have a flag?

On a serious note, i feel Britains big revolution is yet to come. I certainly hope so anyway.

Ernst_Rohr
08-04-2006, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">.... Great Britain was certainly stretched thin in the War of the American Revolution (1775-1782), but it is incorrect to say that America gained its independence due to a British decision to concentrate on India. Both sides treated India as a secondary theater of operations and basically fought each other to a standstill on the Coromandel coast. Viewed from the perspective of military force commitments, by far the greatest efforts on the parts of both France and Great Britain were concentrated upon the West Indies, whose islands were at the time the most valuable commercial real estate on the face of the earth (sugar, tobacco, and spice trades).

America's successful establishment of independence from Great Britain was (IMO) entirely due to the military and financial support provided by France. French money and military supplies supported the Colonial war effort, large numbers of French troops fought alongside the American Colonial Army (check the orders of battle at Yorktown for example), and the decisive battle of the war, Yorktown, was won by the Americans expressly as a result of the French navy driving off the British naval attempt to re-supply Cornwallis. When the Royal Navy lost control of the Atlantic coast, it lost the colonies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the French conneciton on both sides is the tipping point in the balance of power, but its also a prime example where the focus of British interests lay as well.

It is pretty clear from both British sources and the dispostion of forces that the future US wasnt a major focus of attention. While valuable, Canada and its fur trade, the West Indies and its sugar trade, and India and the East Indies were much more important to England.

The British had clearly overextended themselves over the last 20 years prior to the Revolution, and had spent a lot of money dealing with colonial squabbles, particularly in India. As a result, the First Lord of the Admiralty had reduced funds to the navy for maintainence, and the entire British army was around 40,000 regulars, scattered all over the nascent empire. The small size of the army, and the lack of funding were cost savings measures, and it hurt the British badly at the start of the Revolutionary war, and the subsequent wars that followed.

The Revolutionary war was also just ONE of several wars the British were involved in. Just prior to the Revolutionary war, the British had just finished up the Anglo-Mysore war, between the East India company and Mysore, a French ally.

Just before the "offical" start of the Revolutionary war, another conflict brewed up in India, the Anglo-Maratha, which was another British-French proxy fight in India.

The Revolutionary war then kicked off, and the after the US victories in 1777, the French offically allied with the US and joined in, followed by the Spanish in 1779, and the British declared war on the Dutch in 1780 for trading with the Americans. 1780 saw India heat up further with the Anglo-Mysore war picking up again as well.

The British focus was on retention of Canada, siezure of property in the West Indies, supporting the confict in India, and retention of continental possessions, and holding onto other North American possessions.

The Britsh were spread incredibly thin at the start of the conflict, and never really manged to keep up with the manpower demands that expanding the navy and the fleet demanded. When push came to shove, the navy got preferential treatment. Army manpower was such an issue that the British heavily recruited German mercenaies, with almost one third of British forces in North America winding up as German mercenaries, the famous Hessians.

The French were focused on grabbing territory in the West Indies, expanding their influence in India, and trying up the British in North America and trying to maintain their remaining holdings in Louisiana.

The Spanish wanted a return of the continental properties they lost during the War of Spanish Succession, increasing their holdings in the West Indies, and expansion of their holdings in North America.

The Dutch were caught by surprise by the declaration of war and were almost completely unprepared. Their only goal was to hang on to what they had.

End results?
Canada: British Decisive Win
England held Canada easily. The American campaign against Canada was a disaster, and there was never a subsequent threat to Canada.

West Indies: Draw
The French and Spanish hopes to take lucrative Jamacia were dashed with the Battle of Saintes in 1782. The Atlantic squadrons of the British navy concentrated in the West Indies and smashed the Franco-Spanish fleet. Despite the French siezing of Tobago, and the Spanish capture of the British Naval base in the Bahamas, the overall situation was a loss for the French and Spanish, as they failed to capture any major territory or disrupt the incredibly lucrative West Indies trade.

India and East Indies: British Decisive Win
The British handily won. Mysore was defeated and dismembered, ending any major threat to British interests in south India. The French were forced out of the subcontinent, and the Dutch lost their colony to British. The British also siezed Ceylon from the Dutch and forced the Dutch to open their East Indies ports to British interests.

North America: British loss
The Revolution succeeded, the US got their independance.
The Spanish siezed western Florida and the Gulf Coast stats from England, and kept them. Eventually bringing Spain into conflict with the US.
France expanded her possessions north in the Mississippi river basin, but the territory was effectively worthless.

Continent: British minor loss
The Spanish managed to retake Minorca from England, but failed to capture Gibralter.

Overall, the British came out of the wars in better shape. Despite the loss of the American colonies, and minor losses in the West Indies, they were uncontested in the East Indies and had India locked up. The gains in the East Indies trade and in India more than made up for losses in the Americas, and within a few years, the former American colonies were trading with England again. This time they were doing so under a heavy tariff!

Spain came out a big winner, which was the last gasp of the Spanish empire before collapsing in the 19th centure. Interestingly enough, Spain never allied with the US, and refused to recongnize the new country. Spain saw the whole revolutionary concept as incredibly dangerous, especially since it might give their South American colonies ideas (which it did).

France and the Netherlands really lost badly. Despite French gains in the Mississippi, it was worthless. The lost of the India trade was a disaster, and French revenue took signifigant losses. That in turn lead to the economic crisis that presaged the French Revolution a few years later.

The Dutch lost territory, and the conclusion of the war pretty much ended any Dutch challenge to British mercantile interests globally. While the Netherlands held onto the East Indies, the concessions they had to give the British were economically disasterous.

All in all, the British came out of the war very well, and they concluded that they had the opportunity to redress the American balance somewhat later, after the army and navy recovered and British coffers were replenished.

Blutarski2004
08-04-2006, 08:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ernst_Rohr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">.... Great Britain was certainly stretched thin in the War of the American Revolution (1775-1782), but it is incorrect to say that America gained its independence due to a British decision to concentrate on India. Both sides treated India as a secondary theater of operations and basically fought each other to a standstill on the Coromandel coast. Viewed from the perspective of military force commitments, by far the greatest efforts on the parts of both France and Great Britain were concentrated upon the West Indies, whose islands were at the time the most valuable commercial real estate on the face of the earth (sugar, tobacco, and spice trades).

America's successful establishment of independence from Great Britain was (IMO) entirely due to the military and financial support provided by France. French money and military supplies supported the Colonial war effort, large numbers of French troops fought alongside the American Colonial Army (check the orders of battle at Yorktown for example), and the decisive battle of the war, Yorktown, was won by the Americans expressly as a result of the French navy driving off the British naval attempt to re-supply Cornwallis. When the Royal Navy lost control of the Atlantic coast, it lost the colonies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the French conneciton on both sides is the tipping point in the balance of power, but its also a prime example where the focus of British interests lay as well.

It is pretty clear from both British sources and the dispostion of forces that the future US wasnt a major focus of attention. While valuable, Canada and its fur trade, the West Indies and its sugar trade, and India and the East Indies were much more important to England.

The British had clearly overextended themselves over the last 20 years prior to the Revolution, and had spent a lot of money dealing with colonial squabbles, particularly in India. As a result, the First Lord of the Admiralty had reduced funds to the navy for maintainence, and the entire British army was around 40,000 regulars, scattered all over the nascent empire. The small size of the army, and the lack of funding were cost savings measures, and it hurt the British badly at the start of the Revolutionary war, and the subsequent wars that followed.

The Revolutionary war was also just ONE of several wars the British were involved in. Just prior to the Revolutionary war, the British had just finished up the Anglo-Mysore war, between the East India company and Mysore, a French ally.

Just before the "offical" start of the Revolutionary war, another conflict brewed up in India, the Anglo-Maratha, which was another British-French proxy fight in India.

The Revolutionary war then kicked off, and the after the US victories in 1777, the French offically allied with the US and joined in, followed by the Spanish in 1779, and the British declared war on the Dutch in 1780 for trading with the Americans. 1780 saw India heat up further with the Anglo-Mysore war picking up again as well.

The British focus was on retention of Canada, siezure of property in the West Indies, supporting the confict in India, and retention of continental possessions, and holding onto other North American possessions.

The Britsh were spread incredibly thin at the start of the conflict, and never really manged to keep up with the manpower demands that expanding the navy and the fleet demanded. When push came to shove, the navy got preferential treatment. Army manpower was such an issue that the British heavily recruited German mercenaies, with almost one third of British forces in North America winding up as German mercenaries, the famous Hessians.

The French were focused on grabbing territory in the West Indies, expanding their influence in India, and trying up the British in North America and trying to maintain their remaining holdings in Louisiana.

The Spanish wanted a return of the continental properties they lost during the War of Spanish Succession, increasing their holdings in the West Indies, and expansion of their holdings in North America.

The Dutch were caught by surprise by the declaration of war and were almost completely unprepared. Their only goal was to hang on to what they had.

End results?
Canada: British Decisive Win
England held Canada easily. The American campaign against Canada was a disaster, and there was never a subsequent threat to Canada.

West Indies: Draw
The French and Spanish hopes to take lucrative Jamacia were dashed with the Battle of Saintes in 1782. The Atlantic squadrons of the British navy concentrated in the West Indies and smashed the Franco-Spanish fleet. Despite the French siezing of Tobago, and the Spanish capture of the British Naval base in the Bahamas, the overall situation was a loss for the French and Spanish, as they failed to capture any major territory or disrupt the incredibly lucrative West Indies trade.

India and East Indies: British Decisive Win
The British handily won. Mysore was defeated and dismembered, ending any major threat to British interests in south India. The French were forced out of the subcontinent, and the Dutch lost their colony to British. The British also siezed Ceylon from the Dutch and forced the Dutch to open their East Indies ports to British interests.

North America: British loss
The Revolution succeeded, the US got their independance.
The Spanish siezed western Florida and the Gulf Coast stats from England, and kept them. Eventually bringing Spain into conflict with the US.
France expanded her possessions north in the Mississippi river basin, but the territory was effectively worthless.

Continent: British minor loss
The Spanish managed to retake Minorca from England, but failed to capture Gibralter.

Overall, the British came out of the wars in better shape. Despite the loss of the American colonies, and minor losses in the West Indies, they were uncontested in the East Indies and had India locked up. The gains in the East Indies trade and in India more than made up for losses in the Americas, and within a few years, the former American colonies were trading with England again. This time they were doing so under a heavy tariff!

Spain came out a big winner, which was the last gasp of the Spanish empire before collapsing in the 19th centure. Interestingly enough, Spain never allied with the US, and refused to recongnize the new country. Spain saw the whole revolutionary concept as incredibly dangerous, especially since it might give their South American colonies ideas (which it did).

France and the Netherlands really lost badly. Despite French gains in the Mississippi, it was worthless. The lost of the India trade was a disaster, and French revenue took signifigant losses. That in turn lead to the economic crisis that presaged the French Revolution a few years later.

The Dutch lost territory, and the conclusion of the war pretty much ended any Dutch challenge to British mercantile interests globally. While the Netherlands held onto the East Indies, the concessions they had to give the British were economically disasterous.

All in all, the British came out of the war very well, and they concluded that they had the opportunity to redress the American balance somewhat later, after the army and navy recovered and British coffers were replenished. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Respectfully disagree. The American colonies were very high on the list of British priorities. When Howe's squadron was driven out of Boston and Newport by the arrival of the French fleet, he did not withdraw to cover Halifax, but withdrew to protect New York. Burgoyne's army, which was ultimately destroyed at the Battle of Saratoga, was sent south from Canada to aid in the British offensive against the northern colonies.

At the end of the War of American Independence, the British position on the Coromandel Coast of India was by no means propitious. They had failed in their attempt to seize Cuddalore and the forces of Tipoo Sahib remained powerful. Just prior to Cuddalore, Tipoo had in fact destroyed Matthews' force. Matters ultimately turned to the favor of British interests, but that was some years after the end of the war in question.

Great Britain functionally lost the war. By the terms of the treaty which was signed, the British lost all their colonial position in North America with the exception of Canada. Even Florida was ceded to the Spanish, who had seized it during the war. The loss of Minorca and its fortified harbor of Port Mahon was a tremendous loss; More money had been spent by Great Britain to fortify Port Mahon than was spent by them upon any other locality in the possession of Great Britain, including Gibraltar.

The British suffered great losses in the West Indies, and were fortunate to have had most of them returned by the terms of the treaty. This was, however, not unusual in the more gentlemanly terminations of conflict which prevailed in that era.

British possessions in the W Indies qs of 1777:

DOMINICA
captured by France, returned by treaty.

ST VINCENT
captured by France, returned by treaty.

GRENADA
captured by France, returned by treaty.

TOBAGO
captured by France and retained.

ST KITTS
captured by France, returned by treaty.

NEVIS
captured by France, returned by treaty.

MONTSERRAT
captured by France, returned by treaty.

Of the W Indian islands captured by Great Britain, only ST LUCIA was still held by them at the end of the war, and it was returned to France by the terms of the treaty. All the other islands seized by Great Britain during the war had already been re-captured by France.

As for the Dutch, any pretensions they might have had to challenge Great Britain at sea had been destroyed as a result of the Anglo-Dutch Wars many decades before. Neither did the Dutch lose any possessions as a result of this war. All the islands and possessions seized by the British had been re-taken by the Allies before the end of the war.

ModelNo
08-04-2006, 09:19 PM
They did have a revolution *******, that is why there is a United States of America, and a free every other country that used to be ruled or a part of the United Kingdom. Pick up a history book newb.

Kernow
08-05-2006, 03:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ModelNo:
They did have a revolution *******, that is why there is a United States of America, and a free every other country that used to be ruled or a part of the United Kingdom. Pick up a history book newb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At last, an expert analysis. Glad we got that one cleared up.