Who is the greatest English commander?

Major General James Wolfe.

Alfred.

>Name: Henry Tudor
>Occupation: Based King, Compass of Anglo-Protestant morality, Supreme Head and Founder of the Holy Church of Anglo
>Current Location: Unknown. Either having tea with St.Peter or dressed up as a maid and getting pineapples stuffed up his ass in a very warm place. One can only guess.

Sir William Marshal, 1st Earl Of Pembroke, Regent Of England

He was Irish.

He was English at heart

Well, British. His parents were English iirc and he was just born in Dublin.

Harold Godwinson
>hastily assemble smelly peasants on your way north
>defeat a professional nordic army led by one of the most renowned scandanavian warriors ever
>have no time to lick wounds before rushing south
>face off against experienced norman army led by capable commander with your battered and physically exhausted smelly peasants
>hold your ground and see a glimmer of hope
>only lose because you get shot

None of these people are English, well done.

The black prince, Monmouth or Malborough

But they are the main character

Falling for feigned charges is why he got shot

The only time the english were somewhat decent in war.

Kang Wewuz I of Great Bri'un, birth name Sadiq Khan, commander in chief of the Nog Legions in the bloodless conquest of the Southeast.

Saber of course

Yet another newfag who doesn't understand that if you're going to bait, at least make it somewhat convincing

You're correct. They were all Georgian.

The word 'Georgian' pertains to the period in English history where the monarchs were a succession of four Kings called George.
Only one of the individuals in that list could be described as Georgian and that would be John Churchill. It's not a reference to nationality

Not English, bud.

Just saying, the modern English do have some ancestry of the Britons

>Born in Oxford
>Not English

Mate, they were literally all princes from Hanover

What the...no they weren't. Not one person on this thread was born in Germany or for that matter, Europe at all

#

No I mean they are from the country of Georgia. Nothing to do with those other Georgians with the name George who called themselves Germans

>Wellington was Irish

Shit I forgot to crop

All of the people in this thread (except Wellington) were born in Britain

If a dog is born in a stable foes that make it a horse?

Irish

French

Welsh

French

>being born in a stable makes one a horse

Dogs aren't even the same species as horses, stop using this shit analogy.
Every single person in this thread (except Wellington) was born in England and had parents born in England and died in England.
Stop being a brainlet and assuming ethnicity = nationality

Wellington was literally a descendant of an English family in Ireland why do you plebians pull this horse and stable crap when it makes him English?

>Irish
I will give you that

>French
*half French

>Welsh
Debatable as it is unknown, besides popular conception is that he was born in cornwall

>French
No, he was born in England from parents born in England and died and is buried in England.

Are you mis-stating the facts of the 1066 campaign because you're generally ignorant, or because you're trying to deceive people?

He's right on all accounts except claiming that the English lost because Harold was shot.
The Anglo-Saxons lost because King Harold's brother, prematurely led his contingent after the routed Normans, breaking up the shield wall.
William realised what had happened and rallied his cavalry and charged the broken ranks of the English.
Harold died in this fray, but it was over as soon as the wall broke

>He's right on all accounts except claiming that the English lost because Harold was shot.
No, he's wrong on just about everything.

He did not hastily assemble "smelly peasants" on his way north. The fyrd that fought at Stamford bridge had been in existence for some time and comprised of the richer landholders, as only the Select Fyrd would fight outside their own district.

Haardraga's force was in no way a professional army, they were comprised of the same freebooters that made up most viking raids, just a fucking lot of them.

The fyrd that fought at Stamford did not fight at Hastings, it was an entirely new formation. There is no contemporary evidence pointing to exhaustion among Godwinson's troops.

And the Normans were not routed when the charge was led; falling back, but they had fallen back before in that battle. Pretty much by definition, if they rally, they're not routing; a rout is the final retreat.

Youre wrong my dude.

In regards to the fryd we don't necessarily know the ins and outs of service. Because contingents definitely fought outside of their own districts. A lot.

Moreover the core of the army from Stamford fought at Hastings, that's a fact.

The Vikings, while they might have more experience and equipment I also wouldn't call them professional

Several times in the battle the Normans, or rather their Breton troops, were near breaking point or had actually began to rout and then rallied once they made it to safety so yeah, that user got stuff wrong but you aren t much better.

Exactly, so a dog cannot become a horse by being born in a stable. Just like a Georgian cannot become British just by being born in Britain or Ireland or wherever.

Actually nationality is conferred upon birth.

Maybe in muttland but not in the rest of the world.

His dad was English

>In regards to the fryd we don't necessarily know the ins and outs of service. Because contingents definitely fought outside of their own districts. A lot.
Yes we do. The Select Fyrd fought outside their districts, the General Fyrd did not. Anglo Saxon Chronicle volume D. You want to read up about it? I suggest this. karwansaraypublishers.com/medieval-warfare/mw-issue-iii-5-2013.html

>Moreover the core of the army from Stamford fought at Hastings, that's a fact.
If by "core" you mean the personal housecarls of Godwinson, then yes. But the bulk of the army that fought at Hastings was in fact a new fyrd and local lord's household troops that did not fight at Stamford.

>Several times in the battle the Normans, or rather their Breton troops, were near breaking point or had actually began to rout and then rallied
If they rallied later, they're not routing. The literal definition of "rout" is the disorderly flight of an army defeated in battle.

*blocks your path*

I have read the anglo-saxon chronicle and it doesn't differentiate between the two. It's not so simple as you make it out to be. Look at the number of times the chronicle says that Æthelred the unready and his son Edmund called upon the fryd in a short period of time. Alfred the great certainly made a distinction but it's not clear if later kings did. I mean perhaps I'm out of date on this, a lot of what I'm saying is in Hollisters "Anglo-Saxons military institutions"

As for the huscarls that's moving the goal posts what else could I mean but them? You claimed none of them fought at both battles but quite evidently that isn't the case. So the frontline of a shield wall, the main troops had taken casualties, that's a fact. They also force marched back and it is frequently believed this tired them out.

A formation can rout and reform, you're really just being quite pedantic. How else would you describe a disorganised retreat of a body of men?

Edward III

>As for the huscarls that's moving the goal posts what else could I mean but them? You claimed none of them fought at both battles but quite evidently that isn't the case
Learn to read you jackass.
>The fyrd that fought at Stamford did not fight at Hastings, it was an entirely new formation. There is no contemporary evidence pointing to exhaustion among Godwinson's troops.

Since when is "the fyrd" everyone?

>They also force marched back and it is frequently believed this tired them out.
Name one semi-contemporary chronicle that mentions this. Anything to indicate that they were tired.

>How else would you describe a disorganised retreat of a body of men?
A disorganized retreat. Falling back in disarray. "Rout" is a term of art with a specific meaning that you mis-used.

Marshal was literally a descendant of an French family in England tho
According to he was French

He was certainly of French descent, but to call him French is silly.
He may even take offence

unironically this

"YOU ONLY HAD TO WATCH THEM FOR 20 MINUTES"

>wellington wasn’t british
What is wrong with you people

>not saving the image
Why

>Henry who was born in England the son of a man who was also born in England was in fact welsh despite the welsh assimilating into English culture

>literally no one has said John Churchill
this board fucking sucks

>pretending the Anglo Saxons were fearsome warriors rather than falling for the oldest trick in the book

You’re right and wrong, the Norman forces almost routed because they fought William was dead, which is why he raises his mask, and some of the fyrd at Hastings was from the north

See

Also I said here

Ireland was part of the UK at the time

>Irish
>I will give you that
why would you give him that? Its the one he's most incorrect on.

>why would you give him that?

Because this allows you to claim all of the French knights and kings of England as English rather than French

While if you decide that being born in a stable doesn't make a dog a horse (and that Wellington thus isn't Irish), this also applies to all the French knights and kings in England between the 11th and the 15th century

I couldn't care about these retarded attempts to claim so and so was from this country to try and fell good.

>England can claim all Americans, Australians and Canadians because they have the same language and culture
Absolute retard. France can't just claim William Marshal, besides that would just be massive cuckery on their side given how he BTFO'd the French invasion at the battle of Lincoln

...

Everyone involved in that battle was French tho
On both sides

You have to pick a side pierre
Besides Marshal was English (although not ethnically)
Seriously why not just have William Shakespeare while you're at it because his name is French, or perhaps you'd like Newton, maybe Nelson?
Stop with these 'claims', it's so pathetic.
If you want to look to your nation's heroes perhaps have those that were born and lived there.
Marshal was born, lived, fought for, and died in England.
Just because he has a French name doesn't make him French
It's Kingdom of England and Kingdom of France. Now choose

>all the French knights and kings in England between the 11th and the 15th century so the French lost the hundred years war
>The English lost the hundred years war

The correct answer is that the HYW was a French civil war
The French faction that owned England lost, not the English (they were only peasants, politics didn't concern them)

>French are so incompetent they lose to themselves
Hahaha. No
That's not how nationality works pal. Second generation Normans born in England can be called English as they are connected with the land more thoroughly than with France.
This is not a debate about genetics, it's nationality. By your logic the Normans should be Vikings, but they aren't because they intermarried and integrated with the French culture.
Same goes for Normsn invaders in England. They eventually adapted to a hybrid Anglo-Norman culture and intermarried with the population.
Most the Normans outside the royal court took to English as their first language.
Furthermore the Normans in England saw themselves separate from the continent and in their heads viewed themselves English
You can't just say something retarded like Henry V was French. Or Edward III was French. That's silly and no one will take you serious

>This is not a debate about genetics, it's nationality. By your logic the Normans should be Vikings, but they aren't because they intermarried and integrated with the French culture.
>Same goes for Normsn invaders in England.

Nope, the two are in no way comparable

In France, the Normans were given land after being defeated by the French king (Siege of Chartres).
In exchange, they ha to submit into vassalage and were forced to assimilate to French language, culture and religion
That's why they became completly French so quickly

In England, the Normans were conquerors
They were unchallenged and could do just whatever the fuck they wanted
That's why they removed the Anglo-Saxon nobility and imposed their own culture, refusing to assimilate to English language or culture until three centuries later

Comparing both is retarded af

That would be a really nice argument if it weren't for the fact that Normans did assimilate.
Also what do you mean by?
>refusing to assimilate to English language or culture until three centuries later
The Normans changed English culture. They assimilated to this new hybrid culture.
You can't just claim all the knights born in England as part of French heritage and absolutely nothing to do with the English.
The Normans had allegiance to the Kingdom of England. The French had alleigance to the kingdom of France.
Was George Washington an Englishman because he was culturally and genetically English? No. Of course not. He was American because that is his nationality and that is where his loyalty lay

>Was George Washington an Englishman because he was culturally and genetically English?

Yes he was

Oh dear.
Yeah I don't really get how to argue with you anymore so I will just throw this out

Of course George Washington was English. He would definitely call himself an Englishman, perhaps not a "Brit" but absolutely English.
Furthermore, was George Orwell Indian just because he was born in India? Or was he English?

George Orwell didn't live or die in India. Nor did his parents come from India. In fact he isn't even culturally tied to India.
However an individual such as William Marshal was both Born and raised in England, then died in England. His parents were born, raised and died in England. He had loyalty to the English people and was culturally similar to the English.

Oh I see what you mean.
When you say they are 'French' or 'English' you mean that is their ancestry.
So Washington is an American hero as Marshal is an English hero, they just happen to have foreign ancestry

It's not as much ancestry as the culture they lived with

William Marshal spoke French and lived as a French noble
Washington spoke British English and lived as a British aristocrat (American culture and dialects weren't a thing yet)

I place culture above political factions