I'm interested in the idea of England. How did it come about...

>How did it come about

Local Britons (Welsh) hire a bunch of Saxons from the mainland to help them fight off the Picts and Irish after the Romans get thrown out. Said mercenaries end up, after a series of unfortunate events, seizing control of Kent, colonising the coast en-masse and slowly wiping out the local Celtic polities until they are pushed back into Cornwall, Wales and Strathclyde. In the 9th century the Vikings destroyed or conquered all of the various English kingdoms bar one in the south called Wessex. Under Alfred the Great, the king of Wessex, the English launched a steady counter-offensive and over the following decades seized control of what is now England. In the early 10th century the king Athelstan crushed a massive coalition of Vikings, Scots, Irish and Welsh at the battle of Brunanburh and from that point the independence of a single English kingdom was assured. The following 150 years was a bit of chaotic with Viking counter-attacks and depositions, but generally England was peaceful and prosperous. Then in 1066, the Norman nation attacked.

Normans are more English than French.

>They have a rich history, probably the richest
Based on what?

>People make posts like these thinking it is unbiased

This Anglo revisionism is hilarious

beaker folk were celts

>things that never happened

England as a nation is largely the creation of Edward III and the Hundred Years War.

Paradoxically Edward was extremely French in his way of thinking. He was tired of being a vassal of the king of France and of his kingdom being just an extension of France. So he did what his ancestors like Philip Augustus and Saint Louis had done as kings of France, he forged an English nation. A key point of this was encouraging the use of the English language, and through his efforts English had replaced French as the language of the government and nobility by the 15th century. He also began the Hundred Years War, which, ironically since Edward was trying to become king of France, separated the two nations more than anything by giving English popular nationalism a foundation of hatred for the French. In the process, the English crown lost almost all lands it owned in France, thus breaking the relationship of vassalage, and severing the connection between the English and French nobilities.

Basically the English nation was created as a kind of simultaneous imitation and rejection of France.

Wow an unbiased post.

But yeah, this is pretty much correct. The end of the hundred years war and ascension of the Tudors is the marking of when England became its own real kingdom.

>the English nation was created as a kind of simultaneous imitation and rejection of France

Funny how this is exactly how the German nation was created too, but much much later in the 19th century.

The French lost real influence over Germany after Otto the Great

CotR was a 10 year return of that influence

CotR?

But I'm talking about the 19th century, when Germany was unified mostly out of resentment for France (especially from the Napoleonic Wars) and in fact through a war against France, but the resulting German Empire was mostly a copy of France (also especially from the Napoleonic Wars).

Confederation of the Rhine

>but the resulting German Empire was mostly a copy of France (also especially from the Napoleonic Wars).

Elaborate

This sounds like Franco revisionism

That must be why they made French the official language of the English court

What does based Francisco have to do with this?

Seriously? The Prussian and then German military adopted everything from France, right down to using French names and mottos for everything. Germany was organised as a centralised unitary state, the complete opposite of German character but a clear imitation of France. It adopted Napoleonic law and plenty of other administrative systems taken from the confederation of the Rhine. Not to mention the entire concept of political ethnic nationalism itself had been created and propagated by the French Revolution.

Shit nigger the only sound recording we have of Bismarck is him singing the Marseillaise.

>Germany was organised as a centralised unitary state
Because it was quickly industrializing. It needed a unitary state.

>the complete opposite of German character but a clear imitation of France
Decentralization wasn't an aim in the Holy Roman Empire but rather an unwanted ill caused by Princes bickering over power and religious divudes. It's like saying dying of starvation is russian culture.

> It adopted Napoleonic law and plenty of other administrative systems

This is correct. though everyone did.

>Not to mention the entire concept of political ethnic nationalism itself had been created and propagated by the French Revolution.

Yes, though once again this isn't applicable exclusively to Germany. Also i'd argue the 1848 revolutions solidified the concept much more.

What? Everything i've just said is indisputable historical fact. Even the Early Middle Ages stuff which we hardly know shit about.

>Because it was quickly industrializing. It needed a unitary state.
lol wut

>Decentralization wasn't an aim in the Holy Roman Empire
It's what the Germans have always done and are still doing today, in fact even modern Germans consider it the pinnacle of political organisation and try to push it on everyone else too.

>lol wut
When a country hits industrial revolution, the economic prosperity centralizes in the major cities, so of course the government centralizes also.

>It's what the Germans have always done and are still doing today, in fact even modern Germans consider it the pinnacle of political organisation and try to push it on everyone else too.
That's more to do with their massive population density than anything else.

>When a country hits industrial revolution, the economic prosperity centralizes in the major cities, so of course the government centralizes also.
That makes nos sense whatsoever. Why would "prosperity" centralise in a single city? In fact history shows it doesn't, the most industrialised countries like Britain and Germany had most of their industry far from their capitals, in places like Manchester or the Ruhr region, same with the Rust Belt in America.

>That's more to do with their massive population density than anything else.
Again I don't really see how that factors in. England has a far higher density and is still politically centralised.

Time to lay off the historical materialism I'd say.

>It's like saying dying of starvation is russian culture.
That's really funny.

>Why would "prosperity" centralise in a single city? In fact history shows it doesn't, the most industrialised countries like Britain and Germany had most of their industry far from their capitals, in places like Manchester or the Ruhr region, same with the Rust Belt in America.

Are you fucking kidding me? 19th century england had Businesses overwhelmingly based In London. The cities such as Cardiff and Manchester were sideshows. In just 90 years, the population of London Sextupled. Yet the population of regions in the country moved to much less of an extent. I genuinely can't tell if you're baiting here.

Germany also centralized, just in more regions due to a larger population and land size. The country went from a relatively even distribution to be concentrated in Saxony, Brandbenburg, the Ruhr and Munich.

>England has a far higher density and is still politically centralized.
Because England only really centralized in one region.

>In just 90 years, the population of London Sextupled.
And by how much did Manchester grow? And as we all know Berlin grew into a gigantic metropolis overshadowing every other city in Germany right?

>Germany also centralized, just in more regions
>Germany is centralised
>into several regions
I'm beginning to think you just don't know what those words mean.

>And by how much did Manchester grow?
From 10,000 to about 90,000. Meaning it was still tiny compared to London, at around a 70th of the size.

>I'm beginning to think you just don't know what those words mean.

In the sense Munich centralized to Bavaria. Brandenburg centralized to Berlin. The rhine centralized to Cologne.

Remember Germany was 3x the size of the UK.

>From 10,000 to about 90,000.
So it grew faster than London did. So when comparing London and Manchester the Industrial Revolution not only didn't have a centralising effect, it even had a slightly decentralising effect.

>In the sense Munich centralized to Bavaria. Brandenburg centralized to Berlin. The rhine centralized to Cologne.
That means GERMANY WASN'T CENTRALISED. We're talking about Germany here, the country of Germany, not Brandenburg.

Be honest do you seriously not realise you've lost the argument or are you just going on out of spite?

>Using ratio over actual numbers
Seriously?
7 million - 90,000 is a far higher numerical difference than 1 million vs 1 million - 10,000.

>That means GERMANY WASN'T CENTRALISED.
Except it does. Germany centralized in that the population was concentrated from hundreds of towns to a handful of cities. how is that not centralization? Do you think centralization must be under a single city?

>>Using ratio over actual numbers
Yes, because we're talking about comparative growth so ratios is what matters.

>Do you think centralization must be under a single city?
Yes, since we were talking about Germany being politically centralised on the French model. This means a single city. Berlin. That's where all the political power of the German Empire was concentrated. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution.

Since you didn't answer my question I'm going to assume it's the latter and stop dragging this on because it's just getting far too silly.

>Yes, because we're talking about comparative growth so ratios is what matters.

We're talking about where most of the population lived.

A quarter of people in the uk in the 1890's lived in london.

>And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution.
Then we're debating different things.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pour_le_Mérite

Why were Prussians such Frenchboo?

Quality shitpost