Was it really true that the Brits only good at fighting Aboriginals and spear chuckers ?

Was it really true that the Brits only good at fighting Aboriginals and spear chuckers ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singeing_the_King_of_Spain's_Beard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Cádiz
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Postmaster
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_North_America#Northern_America
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_India#Wars_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Italy
>Roman Empire

That's a bit of a stretch.

TRIGGERED BRITFAGS INCOMING

Italy was never a great power, so OP probably shouldn't have even included it. Plus you could say that the area Germany conquered in WWII was technically also conquered by Italy.

Never looked at it this way before.

>Scotland
>Ireland
>Wales
though?

don't forget malta and gibraltar

Italy wasn't roman
Spain was lead by Austrian monarchs
France was lead by a Corsican
Germany was lead by an Austrian

OK lad look at that French map, that's France at it's Zenith, bought there by the brilliance of a Corsican named Napoleon Bonaparte who is regarded by many to be the most formidable tactician since antiquity, do you know what happened to him and his empire?
4 years later he surrendered to the British (for the second time in his career) and was made a prisoner on a tiny island in an irrelevant part of the world. While Britain didn't autistically annex pieces of Europe it could never hold for very long, it was recognized as Europe's first power for a century after Napoleon's surrender.
Britain did also rule parts of Europe in this era (Ionian islands, Gibraltar, Hanover etc.). Other nations were effectively suzerains, and vast parts of the continent were beholden to and dependent on the UK.

It's the same with Germany, you may also remember that the third Reich didn't last very long. It might look impressive but that map is a snapshot, by the time you pulled your camera down and looked at the screen Berlin was occupied.

Also we'd do well to remember that the UK was late to the game when it came to colonization, the dominions shown on the bottom map are as a result of

>Accomplishing what other European powers couldn't
>Defeating European powers in their colonies and wresting control from them
>Defeating European powers in Europe and receiving their colonies as reparations

So no, Brits were especially good at fighting the the backward papists of spain, the surrender monkeys of france and the autist of germany but did also mop up the primitive peoples of Africa, North American, South Asia, the middle east and Australasia.
Also, 18th century India was barely behind other European powers technologically (especially southern and eastern Europe). The Mughal empire was far more prosperous than any continental power.

>Also, 18th century India was barely behind other European powers technologically (especially southern and eastern Europe). The Mughal empire was far more prosperous than any continental power.
You're talking like you took down the Mughal Empire at it's peak and not just waiting after Aurengzab kicked the bucket (Not to mention getting wrecked in the only British-Mughal conflict there was)

im sorry, you probably forgot that the british were led by germans, not brits

this is an undeniable fact obviously. The British were terrible fighters and always relied on other allies in European wars which is why they always went with the majority.

>Also, 18th century India was barely behind other European powers technologically (especially southern and eastern Europe).
People always say this shit. We have this discussion like every week.

It's just not true, dude. India was well behind all of the notable European powers in the 18th century, scientifically, socially and technologically. It wasn't always that way - I'm not trying to imply that Indians are subhumans, that 18th century India was a shithole, or that India doesn't have plenty of amazing accomplishments to its name - but it wasn't "barely behind" Europe in the 18th century.

>Plus you could say that the area Germany conquered in WWII was technically also conquered by Italy.

Yeah, that's why no other euros bothered to go after all those resources, they were too busy fighting wars on the continent purely out of honor to decide who was the world military champion, brits formed a breakaway league

Depends on what your definition of fighting is. Fighting can also involve the logistical capacity of transporting, feeding, resupplying ones troops.

In one perspective Britain didn't even have the largest population in Europe yet they managed to project their dominance further than any other European country did.

Individuals like Robert Napier were fantastic in the sense that they were able to manage and maintain his logistics, ammunition and cohesion in countries without proper infrastructure or roads like Abyssinia. Also diseases were rife back in those days.

>India was well behind all of the notable European powers in the 18th century, scientifically, socially and technologically.
India largely was but there were a few that could match them.

Like there were plenty of muskets, and while they were initially matchlocks they were upgraded over time to flintlocks, which they traded with the European powers India for saltpeter (they were the main source for it back then).

Travancore ,for example, beat the Dutch at sea, Maratha privateers were dangerous foes, and the Mysore had managed built a navy functional enough to defeat East India Company (who were also assisted by the Maratha Confederacy and a few kings from the Deccan).

On paper they really weren't that advanced. What was much more important were political maneuverings and divide-and-conquer tactics, for example, the British managed to block saltpeter around the sub-continent which led to Southern India being critically short on ammunition.

They were advanced but not enough to completely one side anything.

this is so spookily similar to what I always say when these threads come up, except maybe I'd do more emphasis on the Mysoreans
are you /me/ ?

>this is so spookily similar to what I always say when these threads come up,
It's my first time talking about this desu.

For me I usually talk about why the reason the British managed to stay so long in India, despite a massive ratio from B:I, was because that after the 1857 rebellion (and the multiple before that) they were hell bent on destroying India's original industry ASAP. This stopped any future rebellions because there was no longer a supply of high grade arms to rival Indian armies and also the massive recruitment of mercenary soldiers floating around from the collapse of the Mughal Empire.

>except maybe I'd do more emphasis on the Mysoreans
Tell me about them. I know about the Maratha's pretty well.

>are you /me/ ?
You mean an unbiased Veeky Forumstorian :^)

>Defeating European powers in their colonies and wresting control from them
>>Defeating European powers in Europe and receiving their colonies as reparations
They just defeated the unpopulated New France in a war. How impressing. Then when they tried to target a real target like ports in the Spanish empire they ended up getting fucked. Britain got just lucky to be an island and not getting ravaged in continental wars like France,Spain,the Dutch or Portugal

Are you talking about the Child's War? A war between the Mughal empire and the English EIC (not Britain)?
You're saying that armed tea merchants representing a corner of an island (with less than 5 million inhabitants) 14,000 miles away weren't able to immediately conquer the dominions of the Mughal empire which held sway over quarter of all humans and trade?
...Well there goes my national pride. Wow Veeky Forums is right, Britain is shit!
>India was well behind all of the notable European powers in the 18th century, scientifically, socially and technologically
I guess you'rte going to have to define notable there. I'm speaking generally of-course, as are you, but I think you might be underestimating how backwards a lot of Europe was at the time.

Spain didn't conquer much land in Europe, though. They inherited most of it. Most of their empire was Speer checkers, too.

>You're saying that armed tea merchants representing a corner of an island (with less than 5 million inhabitants) 14,000 miles away weren't able to immediately conquer the dominions of the Mughal empire which held sway over quarter of all humans and trade?
If you don't have the soldiers necessary to defeat a large nation then that means you're militarily weaker than them senpai. That's usually how it goes.

I don't think Britain was ever militarily stronger than India until after crippling the original industry and then post Industrial Revolution (iirc)

>what is an "alliance"

>Trying to downplay European achievements to prove your colonial state wasn't THAT weak
I'm waiting for the proof that Mughal Empire at any point was capable to defeat one of European great powers in war

What language are you using to write this shitpost?


....I thought so too.

>I'm waiting for the proof that Mughal Empire at any point was capable to defeat one of European great powers in war
Pre-Aurengzab they were pretty good. Gun powder empire and plenty of capable, trained soldiers.
They might not have been able to venture into Europe barring one of the weaker countries but I don't think a power could have invaded and conquered through military might.

>How impressing.
>Then when they tried to target a real target like ports in the Spanish empire they ended up getting fucked.
You literally posted this responding to a picture of Sir Walter Raleigh. How many Spaniards does he have to behead to impress you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singeing_the_King_of_Spain's_Beard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Cádiz
...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Postmaster
(for lels)

Spain conquered Genoa,Parma,Lombardy,Naples and Burgandy which were literally the wealthiest regions in all of Europe.

England lost that war though. And launching attacks with the United provinces(way more powerful thatn England) is barely an accomplishment

>I'm waiting for the proof that Mughal Empire at any point was capable to defeat one of European great powers in war
Are you being serious? wew

>Gun powder empire
So we make common presence of something in Asia as achievement while it's abundant in Europe? Or do you mean those useless, retarded """"inventions""""" such as Chinese rockets that fell out of use after introduction of European guns? Or maybe all those subpar copies based on European model?
>plenty of capable, trained soldiers
Something that's standard in Europe. Except when Asian "trained soldiers" defeat European colonial garrisons, they always end up having at least twice the casualties.
>inb4 military isn't anything
Asians after 16th century end up copying everything they can from the west, you don't hear about Chinese advisors in Britain, it's always the European advisors and missionaries that try to stop countries they reside in from becoming shitholes.

>So we make common presence of something in Asia as achievement while it's abundant in Europe? Or do you mean those useless, retarded """"inventions""""" such as Chinese rockets that fell out of use after introduction of European guns? Or maybe all those subpar copies based on European model?

Guns weren't really useful until late in history. Pre-late Mughal history it would been a combination of melee weapons and maybe a few guns.It took too long to reload and there was a large chance of it blowing up in your hand.

Mughal artillery included a variety of cannons, rockets, and mines. Although later the iron metal work from other civilizations surpassed the Mughal's, the Mysoreans were able to create the first ever iron-cased rockets which were a superior version of the 'cannons' tbf. So if they worked with them they might have been able to turn things around.

>Something that's standard in Europe. Except when Asian "trained soldiers" defeat European colonial garrisons, they always end up having at least twice the casualties.
The population of the Mughal army was much higher than any other European power and war is war. Like said if you don't have enough soldiers it's your own fault.

>Asians after 16th century end up copying everything they can from the west, you don't hear about Chinese advisors in Britain, it's always the European advisors and missionaries that try to stop countries they reside in from becoming shitholes.
Aurengzab started taking in advisers because his empire was rapidly disintegrating due to his oppressive policies.

>Asians after 16th century end up copying everything they can from the west, you don't hear about Chinese advisors in Britain, it's always the European advisors and missionaries that try to stop countries they reside in from becoming shitholes.
That's because we were declining with corrupt leaders and the west was beginning to rise (although they wouldn't overtake us until a few centuries after). But it's understandable. Can't stay top dog forever you know.

>guns werent useful until late in history
I am just going to ignore everything else you wrote because that is how wrong you are

Oh boy. Is this the meme for today?

I mean I agree, but how many threads will we have about the same subject for the day?

>I am just going to ignore everything else you wrote because that is how wrong you are

I read an article describing that in the Spanish conquest of America that the guns they used, while much superior to arrows, took too long to reload and in the time span that it took to put another few bullets inside, a Meso-American would have had his blade in your gut. Also how there was a big chance of it just blowing up in your hand.

Guns like those would have been much more useful in tight spaces with multiple soldiers standing behind in a column, ready to fire straight away while you reloaded. Not in the open spaces of Northern India (South India is another story).

Thats why you pair it up with a spear, or better yet, make it into a spear. They werent even close to as effective as modern guns but they were ways and ways ahead of the bow and arrow for innumerable reasons

>Thats why you pair it up with a spear, or better yet, make it into a spear. They werent even close to as effective as modern guns but they were ways and ways ahead of the bow and arrow for innumerable reasons
Well of course. I never implied that. Just saying it wasn't as much of a game changer if you're opponent doesn't have hevay weaponry.

Are you stupid? Of course it was a game changer. It was the biggest game changer since people figured out you could tie a sharp rock to a stick or metal working
It made the bow and arrow completely obsolete because it penetrates plate better but most of all; you do not have to train for years and become a medieval strongman competitor to use it

>Of course it was a game changer. It was the biggest game changer since people figured out you could tie a sharp rock to a stick or metal working

> Just saying it wasn't as much of a game changer if your opponent has heavy weaponry.

>Are you stupid?
very rude tee bee hache

>Modern Italians claiming credit for Rome
>Spaniards claiming credit for inherited land
>French claiming credit for an Italian's achievements
>Germans thinking a 4 year empire is more impressive than a 300 year one

Germany occupied Italy after the parliament deposed Mussolini

It's almost as if the British didn't have to fight other European powers in order to gain that land in North America, Africa, India, etc.

>It's almost as if the British didn't have to fight other European powers in order to gain that land in North America, Africa, India, etc.
Who? In India the EIC just got a lot of concessions from the Mughals and ended up annexing tons of states.In Africa they just occupied some land that was inhabited by Calvinist farmers and in North America they just killed some natives in the east coast and traded Curaçao for New York

You realize there was an entire theater in the 7 years war to the Dutch and British in India?

Then the Dutch attacked again in 1780.

Both times they got their ass handed to them. In South Africa too.

French had to be driven out of New France, Spaniards out of Florida.

>what are wars with the french and spanish in north america and india

By the logic of OP's image Rome only conquered spear throwing natives as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_North_America#Northern_America
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_India#Wars_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

American?

>French had to be driven out of New France
They just gave it to Spain and Spain retook Florida 9 years later
>what are wars with the french and spanish in north america and india
You can't call the skirmish between the French oriental company and the BEIC a war for the control of India.The BEIC would only get a gasp in India after the Mughal empire gave them Bengal after Buxar.
The only thing that the Brittish/English can claim to have taken from other European powers is Jamaica (after the Spanish collapse after the 30 years war) and South Africa (mostly a Dutch concession) in which the mighty Brittish empire had a hard time defeating a bunch of rednecks that lived in landlocked republics

With piplum throwing troops.

>By the logic of OP's image Rome only conquered spear throwing natives as well.
Rome defeated Thrace,Carthage,Egypt and the Selucids amongst others.The Brittish defeated the mighty Zulu,the almighty Iroquois,the unstopable Indian princes and the cunning Abos.I think this one goes to the brits desu lads

>Also, 18th century India was barely behind other European powers technologically

Long time /k poster here point to out the big issue. The areas they were behind in the most were of the military nature. They were very well behind in...

tactics
officers training
unit organization
fortification architecture
naval architecture

They were much closer in the following areas if going by a year gap...

bayonet design
field artillery

However a small 'year gap' is a bit misleading because in both of those areas there was major improvement in Europe during the 1720's and 1730's.

what they were most behind in is having a firm central authority to be loyal to at the time

brits won many of the most major battles just by making deals with the guys in charge

>tactics
>officers training
>unit organization
>fortification architecture
>naval architecture
Kinda this barring the first and last one. A lot of British officers talked about how the Maratha's were skilled in h2h and equal to the more 'modern' British trained troops but laughed at their leaders iirc.

Maratha's were declining for a while desu and like most empires at the end of their duration the corrupt and incompetent were on top.

>(especially southern and eastern Europe)
What

Just another Anglo revisionist post

prove it wrong

>scotland
went bankrupt and joined willingly, last attempt to invade was an epic failure
>ireland
only possible due to divisions and infighting, you almost lost against o'neill
>wales
literally who cares
>malta
see wales
>gibraltar
thank austria for winning the war (as usual the continental allies do everything and then you take the credit), all you did was sail in and capture a town

Your "country" is a meme and were it not for the channel and your continental allies doing all the work would be known as "northern france"

People often don't appreciate how unsophisticated vast swathes of Europe were in the early modern era. Rural, parochial, superstitious, entirely illiterate folk who spoke dialects that were essentially unintelligible for important city folk. Samuel Johnson is only half joking when he describe Highlands, the way both the French and the British describe the fanatic inhabitants of the less trodden parts of Spain is enlightening. What do you honestly think the Balkans were like in the 18th century?

Parts of India were objectively more civilised and certainly more prosperous than parts of Europe. That's not to say I think they were "ahead", I deliberately used the word "barely" because OPs image makes out as though they were proto-homonids eating scraps and living in caves until the Euros showed up.
>revisionist
Essentially everything can be substantiated.

>Spanish empire
>It's a pic of their european domains
Made me think
I'd like to recommend some good reads about this period of history, such as 'how to inherit half of europe as a de facto empire because your king happens to be a swiss noble just like the swiss nobles in austria and germany' and 'how to claim credit simply because your rulers fucked the right people'

>Italy wasn't roman
Are you retarded or just stupid?

fuck me looking over it more closely i should have recommended the final good book titled how 'half of spain is only part of spain because of a strategic marriage'

Also a fantastic read such as 'how to claim the >Holy >Roman >Empire as part of your country because the emperor is of the same dynasty'

I like how you try to sound smartass and yet, you got wrong so many things.

It doesn't trigger us any more (assuming it ever did) when you just post the same shit over and over day in day out, m8

...

quality post. I don't get why the French have such a huge chip on their shoulder. Maybe we bully them too much?

...

Maratha was not behind in the area of naval architecture when compared to 18th century Europeans?

Can anyone confirm this please.

Spain still loses a swampy area between England and Germany

italy was indeed a great power in the first half of the XXth century, get your facts straight

Not really.

I like how that's not an argument