How does one country cause so much unbridled butthurt even today?

The asspain over the Anglos never ceases to be hilarious. I seriously used to think the Eternal Anglo was just an ironic meme, but there are people who genuinely hate the Anglo sphere of influence and think they're the source of everything bad in the world today.

I'm utterly amazed that there are people that really exist that actually factually think the Industrial Revolution was a bad thing.

kek

>Now if we look only at countries Britain invaded alone, only the third world remains

You're very mean to the poor French and Spanish, what have they done to you?

Are you trying to imply that Britain ever defeated France or Spain in a war without allies?
Learn history, faggot

A lot of the problems present the modern world are the fruits of British colonialism, like Pakistan/India, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran etc.

Today I think it boils down to them so desperately trying to stay relevant. They've completely fallen off as a world power financially, militarily, and athletically.

Brexit is nothing but a publicity stunt.

You're using an unreasonable standard for Britain not ever defeating France without allies. Basically every war ever fought in that time period was a coalition vs a coalition, but most of the time, only a few countries involved were actually meaningful contributors. Countries would often simply declare support for the side they wanted to win but only ceremoniously participate.

The empire did a lot of horrible stuff user.

In Britain we've never really come to terms with our imperial past.

Also Ireland

>Basically every war ever fought in that time period was a coalition vs a coalition

But that's wrong you little shit
Just because Britain was a coward nation that never fought alone doesnt mean everyone was

That only shows two pages where the French aren't listed as having allies.

The 1202 - 1214 war included nobles with land in England fighting alongside the French crown for control of England, it was as much a civil war as anything since the English and French nobility were heavily intertwined at the time.

And there was no break in fighting between the War of the Third Coalition and the War of the Fourth Coalition, which the French lost.

So where's your successful French victories without allies again?

Oh sorry there's a third, the War of Devolution, which was also unsuccessful for France.

Are you unironically trying to imply the French had relevant allies in the Revolutionary Wars?
Explain me again how having landless Irish and Polish rebels on your side balances out being pitted against a coalition comprising every great power on the continent

Same goes for the Nine Years War with the jacobites

If you're only able to see whether the space is blank unde France on the pic instead of analyzing factions on each sides, you don't belong here you fucking 8 years old
Can't believe this shit...

Wait, are you implying the "allies" France had in some of these wars are enough to be considered a coalition?
Wow, I knew Brits were of bad faith but....wow

>war ends in a French victory
>but it was unsuccessful because I decided so

k

Convenient to stop at the "French Revolutionary Wars" when that was just the start of the Napoleonic Wars, which the French......

And as for dismissing tens of thousands of men that Napoleon praised for their military prowess as "Polish landless rebels" well that's just childish.

>Louis XIV was forced to accept that France was no match for the coalition of Spain, the Netherlands, England and Sweden,[36] and therefore announced a cease-fire until the end of March 1668 and started negotiations. In April, the parties involved met in Saint-Germain and negotiated a peace treaty by the 13th. From the 25 April onwards, a congress met, chaired by the nuntius of Pope Clement IX, in Aachen, where the treaty was finally signed on 2 May 1668 (see Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1668)).[37]

>Convenient to stop at the "French Revolutionary Wars" when that was just the start of the Napoleonic Wars, which the French......
Learn history, literal faggot
The Revolutionary Wars ended in 1802 when, seeing that all their allies had been defeated, Britain pussied out and signed the unfavorable Treaty of Amiens
The Napoleonic Wars statted in 1803 when Britain declared war on France after having managed Russia and Austria to join them

>And as for dismissing tens of thousands of men that Napoleon praised for their military prowess as "Polish landless rebels" well that's just childish.
Ten thousands in a war that involved millions
Don't get me wrong, I have huge respect for the Polish legion, but considering that them and France constitued a coalition is plain retarded
You're just a bong in denial when faced with the unimpressiveness of British military history compared to France's

>Wait, are you implying the "allies" France had in some of these wars are enough to be considered a coalition?

No I'm not merely implying that I'm outright stating that. In fact 1202 to 1204 the French Crown had major nobles with English possessions oh their side and the King John's army consisted of a few mercenaries.

>beady-eyed anglo trying to deny his thirst for aryan blood

typical perfidy

>No consensus exists as to when the French Revolutionary Wars ended and the Napoleonic Wars began. Possible dates include 9 November 1799, when Bonaparte seized power on 18 Brumaire in France;[76] 18 May 1803, when Britain and France ended the one short period of peace between 1792 and 1814; or 2 December 1804, when Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor.[77]

>Result: French victory
>Territorial changes: Armentières, Bergues, Charleroi, Courtrai, Douai, Furnes, Lille, Oudenarde and Tournai to France
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Devolution

Basically, France managed to conquer much land despite being heavily outnumbered and pitted against a big coalition
After having conquered so much, Louis XIV decided that things might take a turn for the worst if he kept pushing and proposed a ceasefire in which he would keep all his conquests
Pussy ass England, Spain and Sweden were so scared they fucking agreed with that
Nuff said

>Britain declared war on France on 18 May, thus starting the Napoleonic Wars that would rage in Europe for the following 12 years.[43]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens#Breakdown

>The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) were a series of major conflicts pitting the French Empire and its allies, led by Napoleon I, against a fluctuating array of European powers formed into various coalitions, primarily led and financed by the United Kingdom. The wars resulted from the unresolved disputes associated with the French Revolution and the Revolutionary Wars, which had raged on for years before concluding with the Treaty of Amiens in 1802.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars

The consensus is quite clear
Good luck to find any source giving a date other than 1803 for the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars

>After having conquered so much, Louis XIV decided that things might take a turn for the worst if he kept pushing and proposed a ceasefire in which he would keep all his conquests

That's not remotely what happened, the French King invaded the lands of some of his neighbours and was then kicked out of most of it and sued for peace as he was getting whupped. He didn't hold onto all of his conquests at all.

Why cite pages you haven't read about things you know nothing about and then just misrepresent what they say? It's an idiotic thing to do, not all of us can't read and write like yourself.

I was obviously talking about about the 9 years war, the french revolutionary wars and the 7th coalition, mong

Since when
>France + a few jacobite rebels
>France + polish and irish rebels
or
>France+ Naples (lmao)

= a coalition?

> mfw Denmark is forced into the Napoleonic wars against our will
> mfw we stand alone against Britain and Sweden because France won't even help us
> mfw the perfidious Albion steals our fleet and slaughters our innocent civilians in barbaric bombardments
> mfw Norway is taken from us against their will
> mfw 200 years later the French pretend we weren't a relevant ally when we could have provided them with the naval support they needed to win the war, if only they had helped us.

Mocking France's allies doesn't mean they didn't have any and we've already established, for example, the Polish forces you're mocking consisted of tens of thousands of troops.

But Denmark really wasnt a relevant ally during the Revolutionary Wars
They joined France's side at the very end (1801) and only because retarded Brits attacked them while they were neutral

Poles and Irishmen were France's only true allies during the revolution

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars
>The consensus is quite clear
>Good luck to find any source giving a date other than 1803 for the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars

Still failing to read your own sources? I suggest scrolling down the page a little bit.

>No consensus exists as to when the French Revolutionary Wars ended and the Napoleonic Wars began. Possible dates include 9 November 1799, when Bonaparte seized power on 18 Brumaire in France;[76] 18 May 1803, when Britain and France ended the one short period of peace between 1792 and 1814; or 2 December 1804, when Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor.[77]

fair point

You're just being of bad faith
You claimed every wars was coalition VS coalition, which clearly wasn't the case since all the wars described were basically
>France + a landless rebel faction VS a coalition of Great Powers

This is why no one takes Bongs seriously

I'll take this shitposting as an ungracious acknowledgement I am correct, thanks, user.

I haven't said any such thing at any point.

This discussion started with a claim that France had won wars without any allies. I've never used the word "coalition" at any point and what would specifically constitute a "coalition" is completely subjective anyway,

>I haven't said any such thing at any point.
>This discussion started with a claim that France had won wars without any allies. I've never used the word "coalition" at any point and what would specifically constitute a "coalition" is completely subjective anyway,

Rolf, get a load of this lying bong
Here's the post in question I'll quote
>Basically every war ever fought in that time period was a coalition vs a coalition

Not my post. I have been responding to this..

Werent the Normans not really French though, but really displaced vikings?

someone post the
>WE WUZ VIKINGS AND SHEIT
pasta.

>i-it wasnt me guys!!!

You're getting pathetic, Lindy

Any country that inherited the Brittish values of rule of law and protection of private property is better off for it. Even better if they get the limited government part.

1066 Normans were Frenchmen with far off viking ancestry

Ahh, I wasnt really refering to the lineage but rather was more interested in the culture of the normans. Was there any cultural differences between the normans and the rest ofvFrance?

>Ahh, I wasnt really refering to the lineage but rather was more interested in the culture of the normans
Their culture was completly French by 1066
They had French names, spoke French, adopted French religion, lived through the French feudal system, fought like the French (and not like vikings)
They were basically undistinguishable from the rest of Northern France

>Was there any cultural differences between the normans and the rest ofvFrance?
They were identical as the rest of Northern France, but Southern France and some regions (like Brittany) had their own culture and language back then

Pic related, in blue the part that spoke French as we know it
The rest only adopted French much later (sometimes as far as the Revolution)

>The former should be grateful, the latter humble. But since foreigners are incapable of higher thought, these congeal into jealousy.

ETERNAL PERFIDION

Jus kidding. the pakis and poles are colonising the shit out of the island and the world is grateful for the extermination of the yellow teethed albion

Industrial revolution was good. Colonial exploitation was bad. You can hold both views lad

Can someone remind me again why fighting as part of a coalition is a bad thing? People seem to chimp out over it all the time but I'm confused as to why that is. Surely having allies is a sensible thing if you want to win?

Because the merit is shared and sometimes, countries that contributed a little gets too much credit (like Britain in most major wars they took part in).

Also, standing alone against everyone else (like Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany) is heroic and impressive

White people should be eradicated.

Define white.

you posted the wrong flag boy

>How does one country cause so much unbridled butthurt even today?

It's not butthurt, but laughing at a has-been empire that still operates under the delusion that it can successfully go it alone.

...