Why is British military history so shameful?

Because you get your 'history' from Facebook tier memes like the one you just posted.

If America HAD to win it, why did Russia win it for them?

Not an argument.

>Edward III
England lost the Hundred Years' War
>Black Prince
again, a loss
>John Churchill
Most of his forces in many of his battles were not actually British, his campaign overall also failed, The War of Spanish Succession was only really beneficial for Britain in the long run
>Horatio Nelson
I'll give you that; but it should be noted that he was fighting a rag-tag French navy which they themselves are responsible for ruining

you fucking moron
you've managed to read through the whole thread, find one you can point out as not being an argument and then decry it as such

engage with the issue of fuck off you waste of skin

You haven't given a single argument on why anything in the picture is wrong

>even with the europeans and americans fully backing the Argentinians , britain sailed halfway around the world and destroyed them with WW2 era equipment.
literal revisionism

>England lost the Hundred Years' War
Yeah, like 80 years after his death.

>again, a loss
Again, not during his lifetime.

>Most of his forces in many of his battles were not actually British, his campaign overall also failed, The War of Spanish Succession was only really beneficial for Britain in the long run
He was British himself, and he was serving the British government. That makes his actions a part of British military history. And the fact is, if he wasn't so successful France would have likely won the war.

>I'll give you that; but it should be noted that he was fighting a rag-tag French navy which they themselves are responsible for ruining
In both of his major victories (the Nile and Trafalgar) he was outnumbered, and the French navy (as well as the Spanish navy) was not as bad as it's made out. They lost against the greatest navy in the world, too (which is also to Britain's military history credit).

>be around for 1000 years
>only have four big military accomplishments, two of which were overrode later
Wow you sure showed us

Calling the Anglo-Saxon monarchy in 1066 'British' is anachronistic.

Saying that Britain had no contribution to the victory of the Sixth Coalition is laughable - also conveniently left out 1815 where Napoleon was nicely sat down by a British-Prussian force under a British commander.

1940 pretty laughable as well really. BEF had to evacuate because the French forces got cucked at Sedan so everything north of the breakthrough point was at risk of encirclement.

>Yeah, like 80 years after his death.
Sure, so all of his achievements are null
>He was British himself, and he was serving the British government. That makes his actions a part of British military history. And the fact is, if he wasn't so successful France would have likely won the war.
If he was so successful he would have been able to invade France, but he couldn't thanks to the catastrophic "victory" at Malplaquet. In fact the war was actually victory in a way to the French as well, they succeeded in expanding their influence and their army was unable to get decisively destroyed in the field.
>as well as the Spanish navy
As good as Nelson's victory was, Spain was long past it's peak, it had been following a slow decline ever since the 17th Century as was very weak.

Jealous?

>Saying that Britain had no contribution to the victory of the Sixth Coalition is laughable
Are you saying that their army did literally anything except capture a city after the war has already ended?
>also conveniently left out 1815 where Napoleon was nicely sat down by a British-Prussian force under a British commander.
Brits really like to exaggerate their role in the Hundred Days/Waterloo. In the end the most they did was have a British (Irish) commander in charge of the forces. Just about every decisive role in both Quatre Bras and Waterloo was performed either by the Dutch/Belgians, which British historians desperately try to play down and the various Germans troops.
>BEF had to evacuate because the French forces got cucked at Sedan so everything north of the breakthrough point was at risk of encirclement.
They also retreated without communicating with the French GSG and relied on French soldiers to cover their escape

>his country lost a war decades after he had anything to do with it so he's a loser

In that case we might as well expand it out to the whole of history and have him be a winner because of Waterloo.

...except he's not Prussian so...

Considering that his country lost the war that he won a battle in then yes, his achievement meant nothing.

Haha the Sixth Coalition itself was just Austria and Prussia joining the UK, Russia, Spain and Portugal who were already been at war with France. British forces had been fighting before and continued to fight during the Sixth Coalition in Spain.

Lol yeah fine Wellington was a Protestant Anglo-Irish future British PM but yeah totally not British. Can you tell me which decisive roles were performed by which Dutch/Belgian units during the battle?

Yeah you're right French troops fought valiantly as the final rearguard, but British troops were fighting in the rearguard as late as the 3rd of June (the remaining French rearguard surrendered on the 4th). Over 100k French troops were taken from the beaches at Dunkirk as well so it's not like we were just flicking the V at you as we left.

But many decades later they'd win again, so he won.

>if he was so successful...
And if you knew shit about history you'd know that the Duke of Marlborough not only destroyed the myth of French invincibility but also pretty much saved the Grand Alliance by keeping Austria in the war. As well as that, managing to hold together an international coalition by sheer force of personality while simultaneously directing the strategic goals of said coalition and then carrying out those goals on the field was a pretty mammoth feat. Imagine Eisenhower and Patton being one person.

>Haha the Sixth Coalition itself was just Austria and Prussia joining the UK, Russia, Spain and Portugal who were already been at war with France
Neat, I guess. It just so happened that only the fighting in France, primarily between the Russians, Prussians are French mattered.

>Can you tell me which decisive roles were performed by which Dutch/Belgian units during the battle?
The Dutch/Belgians held the French off long enough at Quatre Bras all by themselves despite being outnumbered and outstretched therefore saving the whole British forces. They also repelled the main thrust of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo by themselves at the climax of the battle.
However The Dutch/Belgians weren't the only foreigners to have an important role at Waterloo, La Haye Sainte was defended entirely by men of the King's German Legion (KGL) and mostly at Hougoumont

>100k French troops were taken from the beaches at Dunkirk as well so it's not like we were just flicking the V at you as we left.
Never claimed otherwise

You didn't say a single thing that proved wrong what I said

Did England win the Hundred Years' War?

>not mentioning the time when the British parliament surrendered to a Dutch fleet without even trying to put up a fight

>only the fighting in France mattered

Come on man it's not hard to understand that, just because the campaign in Russia and the subsequent clashes at Leipzig, Dresden etc. were more important than the Peninsular War, it doesn't complete negate the importance of the Spanish ulcer.

Napoleon himself placed a huge amount of the blame for his fall on the Spanish war.

Of course Dutch, Belgian, Hanoverian, Prussian troops were hugely influential at Waterloo, but the narrative you're presenting of British absence from the battle is just disingenuous.

ITWASAREVOLUTIONNOTAWAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not, if the Black Prince apparently lost?

Remember me again where exactly the Grand Armee, the mightiest force ever seen on earth until then, was wiped out?
Where the next and second-next attempts to rebuild the french armies out of the total mobilization of the french ressources were destroyed?
Which forces then invaded France in force and broke through to Paris, ending the war?

Protip, it wasnt Spain, (inb4 look at that one city that surrendered one day before napoleon abdicted)

I'm not arguing the primacy of 1812, Leipzig, Dresden etc in Napoleon's fall. I'm simply arguing that the Peninsular War shouldn't be roundly dismissed as unimportant.

What you said devolved into nothing more than 'if he was so great why didn't he just...' which is not a valid basis for an argument. Especially since you cite Malplaquet as the reason he couldn't invade France, which is a gross oversimplification. You're being disingenuous for the sake of advancing your own /int/-level shitpost of an agenda

>Yeah, like 80 years after his death.
>Again, not during his lifetime.

Pic related, England gloriously winning the war during their times.

This shit is starting to get old now. You don’t want to be reasoned with, you made this thread specifically so you can have another excuse to try and shit on the English. Why? I dunno, maybe the English made you jealous or butthurt in some way and you needed to vent it here

>Pierre still salty over the fact that he has to speak English on the internet

Hahaha just stop now

>the polish nigger in the last panel
Werent the polish too busy to pick the shards of their women pussies after the russian-german gangbang ?

This "great feat" is adressed in OP pic with the panel titled "1879"
You sure showed dem thirdworlders who's the boss

>Edward III

>Be king
>A bitch appear.
>"I am looking for a husband, my dot is half of France"
>"Conquered" half of France.
>Bourguignons tell him they are willing to betray the king of France and fight with him
>A territory as big as what remain of France is now an ally
>Wining the rest with a war should be easy

An entire fucking century of bloodbath after

>Still have Calais.

He literally could not invade France due to the terrible casualties from Malplaquet. It was a disaster and also resulted in opposition towards him by politicians he was also unable to destroy the French army which therefore make it so the Alliance couldn't force a favourable peace for the British on France. A symbolic victory like "destroying the myth of invincibility" is utterly irrelevant. The war ended in a stalemate with some successes for both parties.
You haven't said why any of that is false.

Umm, Americans invented the internet sweetie xx

America also made English the international language
It won't stop Britbongs from claiming this achievement as theirs

The Hundred Years' war was onlyEnglish victory if you consider losing all territory in France but Calais a success

>his campaign overall also failed, The War of Spanish Succession was only really beneficial for Britain in the long run

not entirely true, militarily he was successful, unfortunately other events intervened.

specifically the elder of the austrian hapsburg heirs died, meaning that if the british-austrian alliance was successful in putting the younger on the spanish throne then the hapsburg empires would be reunited and a new dominant power in europe would be formed.

as britains primary purpose was to prevent the spanish crown being united with another european crown and preventing a dominant power arising in europe the british choice became a choice between spending shitloads of blood and treasure continuing the war and having to essentially occupy much of france, or signing a peace to ensure they got their primary objective met and kept what they had taken.

hence the french are obligated to promise that the crowns of france and spain will never unite and the british and dutch keep all or most of what they had taken.

from the british point of view the war was successful

the british invented america

1066
narrow defeat of saxon army following a day long battle by the saxons after force marching the length of the country

1337-1453
a country with far less population than france spent over a hundred years beating the shit out of french armies and at one point post agincourt had the french king legally agreeing that the english (and at this point yes the fucker was english spoke english wrote english thought in english) king was his heir, unfortunately said king died of dysentry within months of french king and french refused to acknowledge his son as heir and subsequent regency lacked the same skills, but dysentry and not french arms prevented the union.

1588
spanish fleet is destroyed by storm true, but is destroyed by storm while retreating north in defeat, it wasnt like the mongolian invasion of japan, with the storm destroying the fleet before it could strike, the spanish had tried to strike, been beaten and were retreating for home before storm and navigation errors killed most of the survivors.

1756
also Minden in which 6 british infantry regiments collapsed the entire french position by blowing right through its centre. also its not like the french didnt fight for those colonies, they just lost.

1776
only lost once the french and spanish chimed in and france bankrupted itself paying for it

1814
and the british paid for it and by that point had invaded france

1879
and this is different from the american wars with the natives, or the rest of europe in the scramble for africa? indeed the british were the only ones facing large forces of trained troops in africa.

1914
were the most effective troops in the field, not enough of them as the army had played second fiddle to the navy but in 1914 a british division was easily the match in the field for any german division, unfortunately the cheating bastards brought a lot more divisions than the british, but from mons to the marne to first ypres the british fought very well.

1940
french collapse leaves british forces mostly in a pocket, french morale collapsing on all fronts -only seems to be holding around the nucleus of a few british divisions cut off south of the pocket- british make tactical withdrawal - expressly tactical plans for relanding those troops in brittany were being drawn up as the evacuation commenced- it becomes strategic when the french fold, the british resolve to fight on rather than seek a peace which would likely have let them retain empire, and fight on.

1945
british troops have since 1940 been engaged in all theatres of the war except the eastern front, and have fought their way across north africa, up through italy and across france and the low countries and down through burma, they may be outnumbered by the americans but not outfought on a unit by unit basis, indeed the british in the interim had been both daring and dogged in their fighting

But then the English beat the French at Waterloo so they won. That's the original anons logic.

those would be the dutch that parliament invited, the dutch that were there because the next heir to the british throne was Mary the dutch kings wife and the parliament wanted rid of the current monarch?

its not a invasion if its by invitation

>1337-1453
>a country with far less population than france spent over a hundred years beating the shit out of french armies
More like a French Duchy that happened to own England and to be allied with another huge French Duchy tried hard and failed to defeat the weakened French state

>1588
>spanish fleet is destroyed by storm true, but is destroyed by storm while retreating north in defeat
Lmao, this is what Anglos axtually believe

>1756
>Its not like the french didnt fight for those colonies, they just lost.
They were outnumbered 4 to 1 in North America (pic related) yet it still took a fucking decade for Anglos to beat them

>1776
>only lost once the french and spanish chimed in
Muh excuses
The rebels had already BTFO the Brits at Saragota before France and Spain joined

>1814
>and the british paid for it and by that point had invaded france
The British had spent the entire war struggling against a second-rate French army in Spain while the Russians and Germans were doing the job against the real French army and Napoleon
By the time the Russians entered Paris, the Brits were still near the Spanish-French border

>1879
>and this is different from the american wars with the natives, or the rest of europe in the scramble for africa?
Indeed, but unlike for Britain, beating subhumans to gather an "empire" of dirt isn't these countries biggest pride

>1914
>were the most effective troops in the field
That would be the Germans
As for the Allies, France is the country that did most of the job

>Unironically using the population argument when talking about pre-modern manpower
Spot the hislet