The absolute might of France and Spain

>uses "dunkirked" as an insult to allude to British martial inferiority yet dunkirk happened because of France's incompetence.

And whose incompetence was at fault when you singapored out of Asia in 1942?
Stop making excuse, Dunkirk was like the 6th time in less than two centuries British forces cowardly run away from the continent when faced with an enemy force

I assumed you meant person for person, not country for country, post battles fought only between Britain and France where the numbers of men present are very close.

kek, are we really pretending the British had a worse show in WWII than the French?
> Dunkirk was like the 6th time in less than two centuries British forces cowardly run away from the continent when faced with an enemy force
Name the other 5 times.
Name 1 time in which the British didn't return and win.

>kek, are we really pretending the British had a worse show in WWII than the French?
It's French propaganda, old bean
They get all puff and bluster to hide the fact that a) half the country sided with the Nazis, and b) their country was overrun by gosh darn bloody Germans whilst Britain remained free

>ooh perfidy! perfidy! look how ze english put zemselves and zer citizens before us pathetic, arrogant cretins!

>kek, are we really pretending the British had a worse show in WWII than the French?
Nope, only that Britain was shit (although I agree France was worse)
I don't give a crap about France, I'm here to put Brits back in their place

>Name the other 5 times.
The three mentioned there + Corunna (1809) and Bergen Op Zoom (1814)

>Name 1 time in which the British didn't return and win.
Just because Russia is always there to defeat the enemies you fail against doesnt mean you're strong

>put the Brits back in their place
you didn’t arrive until halfway through the war, kindly fuck off

>The French forces were commanded by Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, who had just been stripped of his command after disobeying orders at Wagram. Dismissed from Napoleon's Grande Armée, Bernadotte returned to Paris and was sent to defend the Netherlands by the council of ministers

Holy shit, bongs were so insignificants the french sent literal rejects from their main army to fend off their pathetic invasion attempts

>Holy shit, bongs were so insignificant

Strange, considering Napoleon openly said Britain was his main enemy.

Really sizzles the synapses.

>Americans LARP'ing as French arguing with brits

Stop falling for it

> I'm here to put Brits back in their place
The top? No country has a more impressive martial history.

You mean when he called them a nation of shopkeepers?
If he really thought they mattered he'd have showed up in Spain to face them between 1809 and 1812, instead of starting a new war in Russia as if the Brits chimping out in Spain were an irrelevant unpressing matter

>No country has a more impressive martial history.

Lmao
Germany, Spain, France, Russia and America all easily have a more impressive military history than Britain
Sure you had a big empire, but it was built fighting third worlders
Reminder that you have literally never won a war in Europe on your own

That general became the king of Sweden lmao

>Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte
> the french sent literal rejects from their main army to fend off their pathetic invasion attempts
Bernadotte was a soldier of such distinction he was made Marshal of the French Empire and was given the throne of Sweden and Norway. A man of humble origin who had enlisted as a private, he's everything Napoloboos wish Napoleon was.

Do people really believe this pic?

It's actually pretty accurate
Explain what part you disagree with

>1066
>Equating the saxons with modern English People

>1453
>Implying the kings of England were French after Henry IV

>1588
>Being so upset by an English Victory you have to use le weather excuse

>1756
>Not understanding the colonial theaters were also against the entire Spanish Empire, as well as fighting on land in the Portuguese Theater

>1776
>le epic trump meme
>failing to point out England was attacked by France, Spain and the Netherlands at the same time

>1814
>Not understanding Napoleon's invasion of russia was devised to economically starve Britain, and the British were literally the only country stopping his European domination until 1812.

>1879
>not knowing Britain actively had to fight for its colonial holdings and underestimating the difficulty in controlling 25% of Earth's population

>1940
>Blaming England for french Military Failure when the British made up less than 10% of the troops

>1945
>Not knowing the british were integral to the Western Front and took more casualties than the US

All in all, this image is made by a rather dumb Polish nationalist and shows pretty deep seated issues.

t. someone who doesn't know why he started a war with Russia.
>Germany
hmm, there's a conversation to be had.
>Spain
No
>France
kek, this is bait
>Russia
No
>and America
Oh it all makes sense now.
>you have literally never won a war in Europe on your own
So because when Britain fights on the continent it invariably finds allies they can never lay claim to winning wars on the continent despite winning most of the major wars on the continent.
Brilliant.

>>Not knowing the british were integral to the Western Front and took more casualties than the US

>we totes were relevant on an insignificant side front in a war that was won by russians and americans in the east
>also implying that british being so shit that they got more of themselves killed than yanks even when americans and canadians did the real fighting is something to be proud of

>also implying that british being so shit that they got more of themselves killed than yanks even when americans and canadians did the real fighting is something to be proud of

This basically shows you don't know what you're talking about, since the British had a better rate of inflicting casualties, too.

>1066
The Saxons were the native English people who got turned into a French colony

>1453
The """English"""" Kings were certainly never English

>1588
The Spanish won that war, their armada was more destroyed by weather than the English

>1756
The English "victory" in that war was entirely due to the prussians, the English contribution was minimal

>1776
And the English lost, they struggled against the American colonists from the beginning

>1814
And thus the glorious British contribution to the Napoleonic Wars, hiding on their island and allowing the French to get beaten by their allies on the continent, then claiming victory

>1879
Wow, they managed to defeat non-industrialized societies with overwhelming force, color me impressed

>1940
The English failed to provide any meaningful support to the French and then ran away, while the French died at Dunkirk to enable the English to run back to their isles

>1945
Taking casualties isn't a bonus Nigel, and being a marginal part of the less important front isn't either.

also nice jab in that everybody who doesn't like the British must be Polish/French

You haven't actually made any arguments, just restated what the image says.

what did the Engineer class in this battle do?

Spoken like a true product of the American education system

Bernadotte was hardly a literal Who, the guy would go on the become King of Sweden. His house still rules the country.

>Russia

listverse.com/2014/02/02/10-epic-russian-military-disasters/

And it doesn't even include that one time when they literally burnt their own country to stop bad boy Napoleon. Truly the most pathetic European army.

t. anglo

Its a work of genius, no need to move beyond it.

>mfw I was reading listverse before it became cracked 2.0

Le eternal anglo xD amirite fellow reddi- uh, 4channers?

>The Saxons were the native English people who got turned into a French colony
1. Normandy is not French
2. Modern Britons are descended from the Normans

>The """English"""" Kings were certainly never English
1. You don't know how monarchies work, do you
2. William the Conqueror is the only king that England/United Kingdom has had since 1066 who has not been a descendant of Alfred the Great and the House of Wessex
3. The modern Briton is descended from the Normans, and there were huge celebrations last year for the 950th anniversary of Hastings - what makes you think they are 'ashamed' or 'humilated'?

>The Spanish won that war, their armada was more destroyed by weather than the English
ENGLISH VICTORY
N
G
L
I
S
H

V
I
C
T
O
R
Y

And then for the other six points, we need only see your use of the moniker 'English' to describe the people of the United Kingdom to know how educated you are

Damn, didnt knew about that
Truly pathetic

>counter-example is an extremely defensible fortification with direct access to the sea

>pic related
>lower-class cockney moron
>descended from byzantine emperors whose mosaics decorate the hagia sophia

>1. Normandy is not French
It was overwhelmingly French both culturally and genetically by 1066
>2. Modern Britons are descended from the Normans
So you're a bunch of Frenchmen?
As hilarous as it'd be, the truth is that Normans had a small impact on the British genepool

>ENGLISH VICTORY
Thank to the weather

Built sentries at spawn and stayed there

>It was overwhelmingly French both culturally and genetically by 1066
But it was a distinct state at the time
That's why we say the Romans conquered Britain in 43 AD, not the Italians

And no, tracing your origin back to a few people from Normandy - which we can, despite the limited genetic impact - doesn't make you a cum-guzzling, cock-bothering Frenchman

Though saying that, the people of what we now call Britain and Northern France have always been very closely linked, genetically and culturally

>But it was a distinct state at the time
So what?
Two states can be of the same ethnicity
And anyway it was a vassal state

>That's why we say the Romans conquered Britain in 43 AD, not the Italians
Not comparable, one is ancestor to the other, they didnt coexist
Normandy and French Kingdom are more like CSA/Republic of Texas and USA
Would you deny that people in the CSA or the Republic of Texas were Americans?
Political border don't always match with ethnicity

im sorry but i cant take seriously any nations that lost to niggers with spears while armed with firerms and then proceeds to boast and spread propaganda about how it was some sort of superhuman niggers to justify their humiliating defeat

>who would plan an invasion of Britain every generation

There's no need to invade Britain anymore tho

Ah yes, the glorious british army

The point stands: Britain never won a war in Europe on it's own.

British military history can be summarized as slurping semen from this or that or those conquerors until obtaining naval primacy in the XVIII then sailing away to attack colonies overseas (and get btfo half of the times in spite of that overwhelming superiority) and/or niggers with spears, with a period of rampant piracy in between. Then slurp american semen in the XX to get by.

If its so defensible how did it become British to begin with? It's over a thousand miles from the UK and had barely been fortified at this point.
Seems odd for Europes 4th/ 5th/ 10th (whatever hislets have decided on lately) most powerful country to see off Europe's two greatest powers at a time when the UK had an awful lit of plates to spin.

>Blenheim
>A coalition victory
>Counted as a British one

t. eternal anglo

Kek
Napoloboos: "w-we didn't even want to conquer GB"
That pie chart is a meme btw, weighted for circluation the majority of spoken english has roots in old English.
Most of the inkhorn words that defile our speech are a result of pretentious academics and celibate clergymen, not warriors.
>6% Greek.
If the measure of victory is impact on speech though, then the anglo has certainly won history.

>If the measure of victory is impact on speech though, then the anglo has certainly won history.

But English only became a relevant language after WW2 thank to a country that exists because Britain lost a war to France and Spain...

I hope you're not american because they can't seem to win against the viet-kong or the Taliban even leading enormous coalitions.
Come to think of it, has the US ever won a war by itself?
How many wars did Britain fight between the surrender of Napoleon and outbreak of WWI? How did they fair? That's a superpower lad.
Moreover I hope you're not French because Napoleon IV was killed by "niggers with spears"
Whatever nationality you are, you're an idiot - that was a really interesting read though, transposing actual historic knowledge for your supressed gay fantasies.

>How many wars did Britain fight between the surrender of Napoleon and outbreak of WWI? How did they fair?
So your proudest moment is when you machine-gunned niggers?

>That's a superpower lad.
Now it's not
Britain was far from a superpower, and even at height couldnt face another european country alone
That's why they needed France and Turkey to beat Russia in Crimea, and that's why they needed France, America and Russia to barely beat Germany in WW1

It wasn't even remotely as well fortified when the British first captured it, the defenders didn't even number a 1/10th of the British force in the great siege. But the more relevant point anyway is that Gibraltar really is that the capture or defence of Gibraltar is really depended on naval force and its entire value to the British is its position between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and its value as a naval base. It's not a good example of British quality on land.

>But the more relevant point anyway is that the capture or defence of Gibraltar is really depended on naval force
Whoopsy daisy

>How many wars did Britain fight between the surrender of Napoleon and outbreak of WWI?
The Crimean War?
>How did they fair?
Let's google it, shall we.

Top kek.

>But English only became a relevant languageafter WW2
You're such a pleb.
Ignoring the fact that the inhabitants of NA speak English because of victories over the spanish and French, English as a langauge was by that point the only tongue worthy of antiquity and was widely spoken.
The sturm und drang movement revered Shakespeare, Newton - the greatest mind this world has ever produced knew English, Latin and Greek (two of those languages were'nt spoken). The reason you learnt the classics was because up until the English ascent in the world they marked the highpoint of human civilization.
While Newton kept tradition and published in latin he conversed in English and anyone who wanted to understand the world was obliged to learn English first.
The bible was re-written in English and bares the name of an English king. Most internationals best-sellers are not only in English but by English people, many of whom wrote before the end of WWII.
There was never a massive movement to have the world speak as we do, members of the British civil service typically spoke several langauges as opposed to their US counterparts who zealously only spoke and promoted English. Examples as late as Enoch Powell took pride in knowing more than 10.
Ofcouse the US has accelerated the languages proliferation but to say they made it relevant is ridiculous.

>Newton - the greatest mind this world has ever produced knew English, Latin and Greek (two of those languages were'nt spoken)
You misspelled Leibniz.

>WhenSir A. Fountainewas at Berlin with Leibnitz in 1701, and at supper with theQueen of Prussia, she asked Leibnitz his opinion of Sir Isaac Newton. Leibnitz said thattaking mathematicians from the beginning of the world to the time whenSir Isaaclived, what he had done was much the better half; and added that he had consulted all the learned in Europe upon some difficult points without having any satisfaction, and that when he applied to Sir Isaac, he wrote him in answer by the first post, to do so and so, and then he would find it.
Get over it.

Defending is easy

Because they lost nearly every one of their continental holdings in the 15th century.

Unless Cartagena de Indias is a disease free promontory in Scotland or Northern England, this is a silly comparison to make.

chocolate biscuits aren't sentient, moron