History pleb here. How did the brits ever become a large world power? They seem to be complete inbred losers overall

This is correct.

I believe this.

the only time the brits were actually a major power was for a short time after napoleon was defeated by russians and prussians

the rest of the time brits couldnt do shit alone and always had to come up with a perfidious act to gather some support if it was about anything but tribal ppl with sticks

u r a dum

no

1: Britain has been at least loosely connected to Mediterranean trade since Roman times, so was kept up to date technologically.

2: The heavy plow, horse collar, 3 field crop rotation and other innovations increased populations in Europe.

3: The vikings discovered how to sail the oceans. The volume of trade expanded in the 13th century creating a trade network extending from the Mediterranean to the North Sea fostering innovation.

4: From the 15th century onwards everyone in this trade network began to set itself apart, notably the explorations by the Spanish but also the large scale production of ships and cannons, innovations in clockmaking, glassware, building projects, printed works.

5: Within Europe, southern England, northern France, the Netherlands and northern Germany all had very good conditions for agriculture, dense population and high urbanization.

6: Polities in these regions would compete for their share of manufacturing and trade. France was by far the most powerful. Flanders in the Netherlands had been a manufacturing center since medieval times. However Britain was more secure being an island and due to improvements in ship building it was less burdensome to move manufacturing to Britain. This was a factor at least in the Glorious Revolution.

7: During the 18th century Britain would compete with France and assist their enemies in wars on the continent. Britain did not have to maintain a large land army. Its long coastline also helped spread the benefits of trade across the country. Britain was also quite a free country, though not the only country with an institution like parliament and some level of free speech, these liberties would be expanded greatly in tandem with economic development. This would stand in contrast to France that was quite a repressive environment. Britain enjoyed the fruits of technological progress and it is estimated by the Napoleonic era their GDP per capita was double that of France.

>What event made them stand out

The end of the last Ice Age removed the land bridge from continental Europe to Britain, physically isolating it and giving it the safety to develop relatively unmolested compared to most of Europe.

The Norman conquest imposed political unity on the country, so the nation could pull together towards a common goal far earlier than other European powers.

Magna Carta helped rein in the absolute nature of monarchical power, to some extent stopping a single king from going full retard and making too many horrible decisions.

Being an island gave Britain a +2 bonus to naval construction giving it a huge advantage once the map expanded to other continents - even previously insignificant nations with a naval focus like Portugal and the Netherlands made out like bandits during this phase

During the late 18th-19th Century Britain didn't waste any time fighting itself unlike most of the rest of Europe.

I understand, thanks user.

Most of the answers given so far seem to not have much specific knowledge of English history, and come down to 'Britain was an Island'.

>The Norman conquest imposed political unity on the country
Not really. The Normans just took advantage of a system that was already in place.

Much of the groundwork for England's success goes all the way back to Alfred the Great. He established a form of government that relied more on educated officials and less on feudal networks than most of Europe, leading to an English state that was unusually centralised and unified for the middle ages. England was also culturally more unified than other European states - there was a sense of national identity that didn't exist in France or the Holy Roman Empire. When the dispute between Edward the Confessor and the Earl of Wessex came to a head, and they started raising armies, civil war was avoided largely because their troops were extremely reluctant to fight fellow Englishmen and forced their respective commanders to come to a compromise.

This unity in some sense made England the largest state in Medieval Europe. Technically the French kings might have a bigger realm, but their authority often didn't extend much beyond the Île-de-France itself. Ditto with the Holy Roman Emperors. The English kings had direct authority over all of their kingdom (and most importantly, a centralised taxation system), hence they were able to make a serious attempt and conquering the much larger and wealthier Kingdom of France.

England started out more socially and politically developed than the rest of Europe, and it kept that lead. When European 'kingdoms' were a collection of warring vassals, England had a centralised monarchy. When European monarchies were starting to centralise, England was starting to move towards Parliamentary government (magna carta, and later the English civil war).

>Yeah I just used it for a lack of a better insult.
Sorry but I immediately write off people who go on about the British being 'inbred'. It's always so obvious that you think it has something to do with being on an island and the logic is so powerfully dumb it discredits anything else you have to say

Because Anglos are the master race

>what move did the brits make to start being a major figure in the world. What event made them stand out?

This is bullshit

>england was already a truly unified entity in saxon times
>last succession of a saxon king comes close to starting a civil war
pick 1

well the most bloody civil war (proportionally the most bloody war in britain's history) took place under the norman kings, so...

Explain this pic to me, plox.

The English Civil Wars took place under a Norman?

I like reading theories like this, but gonna point out that most historians would disagree. There are too many faulty assumptions to point out. Still way better post than the /pol/ vs commie stuff on this board.

>it happened once under the Normans therefore the Normans were worse for it, please conveniently ignore the 500 years of Saxon history that reads like a game of thrones script right down to the various warring factions only really uniting once the fucking white walkers start arriving en masse from Scandinavia

I think he means Steve Vs Maud

Literally just geography and that's it. Also the English language is objectively the best language man has ever produced.

It means I am intelligent.

They live in an island. Very easy to defend, but close to the continent.
They not only have acces to the Atlantic, but ales are where the North Sea and the Atlantic meet.
They have good land that gives good crops.
They have lots of metals.
They have a political tradition in which power has less inmunitiy to negligence.

>geographical determinism
Then why didn’t Carthage stay the undisputed master of the Mediterranean
>implying it’s not mixobarbaroi latin
English is good until you realise using hung instead of hanged is this deep political statement

>a truly unified entity
I didn't say that. I said it was unified /relative/ to the rest of Europe.

Your lazy strawman does raise an interesting point, though. Look at what happened to England during its various periods of civil strife vs. what happened in other European kingdoms. During the middle of the 100 years war, France had various states like Burgandy and Brittany trying to form their own separate states. The Holy Roman Empire was forever dealing with dukes and princes trying to set up their own independent areas (not to mention the Swiss confederacy).

In England, however, there were never any provinces that tried to break away. Kent or Northumbria or any of the other counties might have supported different candidates to be king of England, but they never challenged the fundamental idea that they were part of England even when they were at odds with the supposed monarch. The contest was always over who could take the throne of England, never for who could set up their own regional kingdom.

Because Anglo-Saxons and Britons are genetically superior to continental inhabitants.
For real though it's mainly due to its separation from destructive continental affairs such as wars but its connection to the culture and science of the continent with the Channel acting as a filter for all the good achievements and trade, but blocking out land invasions as continental powers had smaller navies. Furthermore the fact that Britain is relatively small means that the inhabitants are more closely related (not inbred) and so feuds between the inhabitants are less bitter than say wars between Germans and French. Another point to be raised is how the Island is dominated by England which has been nationalised for a long time and so can put off invasions from Wales and Scotland easily without much damage occuring.
The fact that England was nationalised early made it a lot more efficient. In fact it was likely the most politically and socially stable country during the middle ages.
This combined with the necessity for a navy made exploration and overseas colonisation natural and thus expanding the wealth of the nation considerbly

>How did the brits ever become a large world power?
Sigh. Ark of the Covenant below Heel Stone power
(Power = c^5 / Newtonian constant of gravitation)
Never underestimate its power. Gravity-Density

I don't see how 3 obscure sexual acts increased populations in Europe. C'mon user.

...

Following the 17th Century civil killfests, Cromwell and company killed whoever stood in their way, and established that an overclass would rule the plebs. Then in 1688 this self chosen overclass invited in foreigners to solidify their rule, and in 1746 that overclass annihilated the last challengers to their rule at Culloden, butchering the tribalist jocks and all their camp followers, hunting them down and butchering them, and then genociding them and moving them out, a pattern followed later in Eire. This iron fist allowed the rulers to economize their efforts in controlling the plebs, a state of affairs that lives on today through Mummy May and her crew of thugocrats, and don't you dare speak ill of her schemes or you'll come on her radar, pleb.

>this post

>In England, however, there were never any provinces that tried to break away.

No they just had Wales rebelling every 30 seconds.

Proofs? Also that’s Ireland

You want proofs on Wales rebelling throughout the middle ages?

Your point illustrates the bit we both agree upon, namely that England unified earlier than continental Europe. You can see evidence of pan-Bongic nationhood in the AS Chronicle so the idea had certainly been kicking around for a long time. I maintain that the Normans were responsible for the most important aspect of England's relative unity in practical terms by dividing the kingdom into more than 3 earldoms of any relevance.

>Wales rebelling
And nothing of value was lost.

>They seem to be complete inbred
And yet the UK has one of the lowest inbreeding rate in the world. Don't be fooled by the memes, the size of the country or the fact that it is an island has nothing to do with inbreeding. China has a much higher inbreeding rate than Guernesey.

>England was also culturally more unified than other European states - there was a sense of national identity that didn't exist in France or the Holy Roman Empire
It's the same today.

>Then why didn’t Carthage stay the undisputed master of the Mediterranean
Carthage doesn't even have the best geographical position to control the Mediterranean, the best position is Italy due to its central position. Also Sicily is closer to Italy. From Italy, crossing the narrow strait of messina, the Romans were able to take Sicily from the Carthaginians and gain control of the Mediterranean. It makes sense really.

>iceland

Yes

But Carthage is literally to the south of Rome, Carthage has a natural harbour to it, so still Carthage should survive

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Anglo-Welsh_wars

> Magna Carta meme

fuck off, King John disposed of it almost immediately and it held no legal weight until the civil war 400 years later

Explain, sounds interesting

He killed anyone of celtic descent

>the Anglo-Saxons were English
This is a bigger meme than the Byzantine empire, the Queen is german, or the hunnic empire

Wales actually got off pretty well considering how Royalist it was

Is... is this bait?

UK and Ireland had their 100 civil wars before everyone else which meant that it arrived at it's modern state very early (English/British civil war -> Glorious revolution). In this state it was able to rule markets around the world, war and technologically innovate with relatively few people for example being a third of France's population during the napoleonic wars and manipulating everyone else to fight them.

See

You have it backwards. The English were Anglo-Saxons.

>Britain
>peacefull
>no wars
The absolute state of Veeky Forums

My point is it’s something historians made up to more easily write history, it should be Aenglish because you don’t get a proper English identity until after the 100 YW, when you don’t have nobles of both sides of the channel owning land in the other realm, by this time also assimilating the welsh burgers and nobles
Then you get the emergence of the British identity in the 1600’s absorbed the Scots in but a shift in how the law worked shifting the culture in definitely
Alfred the Great and the Anglo Saxon chronicle is the foundation of a united Aengland, keeping all the acquired kingdoms together, whilst letting the Danes have the north
Most fags that spout that bile also think a navy is cheaper to maintain than an army and Britain (when it’s still England) had no army, despite the semi professional yeomen archers

Oh, so you're just incredibly autistic then?

...

>t. retard
Magna Carta clearly established that the King couldn't just do whatever the fuck he wanted without consequences, preventing some of the worst excesses of our less civilised Continental friends.

>They seem to be complete inbred losers overall.

And they were just that initially
But then the 1066 French colonization civilized them

>implying the English weren't more civilised than the feudal Frogs on that great cesspit that is the continent of Europe

Yeah but people giving a shit about the magna cartta was inconsistent throughout Britain's history

>Talks about the Yeomanry
>Only talks about the meme archers who were a minority of the Yeomanry
Fucking dreadful

which just highlights that there was no reason any of the English counties couldn't have rebelled to form an independent state. It wasn't just that they were kept together by the force of the English monarchy.