What made the English so great?

[ZombieSlayer54]

So, this is a question that has been bugging me for a while.

Every other nation in Europe has a "hat" of sorts.

France was always the most cultured one. The Scandinavians were sea-faring, tough, strong, and hardy. The Germans were well-trained, disciplined, and pragmatically minded. The Italians were scientifically and aesthetically minded, and had great financial sense. The Spanish and Portuguese had their great fleets, navies, seafarers and explorers, and great cavalry from the Iberian plains, not to mention religious fervor. The Byzantines and Ottomans had a thousand years of tradition, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-religious realm, and an administration nobody else could match. The Dutch were the greatest merchants around, with a decent navy to boot.

Yet, the only thing I can think England has are two things:

1. A great navy, but only greater than Spain's after the famous battle that sunk the latter's.

2. Welsh Longbowmen, who aren't even technically English, and even then once muskets came into widespread usage, they sort of became a moot point.

So... How exactly were the English people capable of forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen? Sure, they entered the Industrial Revolution first, but even before they had a substantial empire, and even then, what made them able to reach the point of industrialization before other Europeans?

The English have just always seemed like, I dunno, a bland race of people to me. Nothing truly special about them. So I just don't understand how they did so well.

I was hoping somebody could enlighten me on this point.

[mowque]

Nations aren't like Civ games. They don't have unique powers or abilities or units.

As for the Empire? Lots of reasons but mostly, being an island helped.

[Basilisk]

It's the food.

[pieman97405]

Their English, that's all they need to be great.

[SavoyTruffle]

Mowque mostly nailed it; being an island and not enclosed by an inland sea meant that they had a huge advantage in creating the Pax Britannia.

Plus, they were damn lucky.

[Beedok]

Vive la France!

[Elfwine]

Mowque mostly nailed it; being an island and not enclosed by an inland sea meant that they had a huge advantage in creating the Pax Britannia.

Plus, they were damn lucky.

And took advantage of things others had discovered. They didn't need to be the first with an idea.

This isn't unique, but its one of the things successful empires tend to do.

[Typo]

The Anglo-Saxon race is superior in their blood, language, customs, culture, and spirit. This is clearly demonstrated by their ascendancy over the world despite being such small portion of the population and rightfully take their place over the lesser races and bring them civilization.

[Crazed Victorian]

Vive la France!
How is that a productive post?
The Anglo-Saxon race is superior in their blood, language, customs, culture, and spirit. This is clearly demonstrated by their ascendancy over the world despite being such small portion of the population and rightfully take their place over the lesser races and bring them civilization.

I hope this is a joke...

[Typo]

How is that a productive post?


I hope this is a joke...The British Empire ending was the greatest disaster in history, the British Empire brought modernity everywhere

[Crazed Victorian]

The British Empire ending was the greatest disaster in history

I am not sure about that. The Belgians, Mongols and plenty of others were worse.

[Typo]

I am not sure about that. The Belgians, Mongols and plenty of others were worse.Yes, the British Empire was the civilized out of all of them, bringing modernity and civilization wherever they went for the betterment of the colonized people everywhere.

[Crazed Victorian]

Yes, the British Empire was the civilized out of all of them, bringing modernity and civilization wherever they went for the betterment of the colonized people everywhere.

Well they had some good intentions I'm sure. After all, modernising nations is a good goal.

[Petros >Peter Fergus<]

One could say they got to cut their teeth at the settler/colonisation game on their neighbors, Ireland.

They were the only power close enough to Europe to take advantage of all the trade and ideas of Europe, but separate enough for them to avoid invasion and the necessity of a defensive army.

And remember, they only seem bland. Napoleon decried them as a nation of shopkeepers, failing to realise that the middle class are the modern society. They were able to effectively export their greed and violence and huddled masses (ie, security and expertise) overseas earlier and more effectively than the rest of Europe. So while their continental neighbors had large standing armies permanently located within their borders, poised to invade or repel invasion at any time, Britain's armies were small, elite, and, vitally, causing trouble thousands of miles away, not at home.

So, my short answer is, they are an island nation with the advantage of being near Europe; and my long answer is, they are a European nation with the advantage of being an island.

[Typo]

Well they had some good intentions I'm sure. After all, modernising nations is a good goal.Of course, it was truly a gift to those countries to be ruled by the British, I mean all the other colonial empires did worse!

[Crazed Victorian]

Of course, it was truly a gift to those countries to be ruled by the British, I mean all the other colonial empires did worse!

Being the least bad is good in a dark era.

[Typo]

Being the least bad is good in a dark era.
Of course, which is why it's too bad the British Empire no longer exists.

[Crazed Victorian]

Of course, which is why it's too bad the British Empire no longer exists.

It is too bad. If only the Commonwealth were stronger. :(

[Typo]

How sarcastic do you think I'm being.

[Crazed Victorian]

How sarcastic do you think I'm being.

Not sure, but a strong commonwealth would be good.

[Roger II]

Don't forget the advantage of having everything needed for industrialisation in a small area and a political system that was favorable to the growth of an industrial/mercantile class.

[Crazed Victorian]

Don't forget the advantage of having everything needed for industrialisation in a small area and a political system that was favorable to the growth of an industrial/mercantile class.

And France to distract everyone.

[SavoyTruffle]

It must be noted that England per se wasn't great until they got together with the Scots. ;)

[Elfwine]

But one has to admit that only a great nation would have convinced the Scots to join.

[MNP]

But one has to admit that only a great nation would have convinced the Scots to join.Join? As I recall they asked the Scots to tell them what to do. ;)

[Crazed Victorian]

Join? As I recall they asked the Scots to tell them what to do. ;)

And then bought the parliament.

[Elfwine]

Join? As I recall they asked the Scots to tell them what to do. ;)

No comment. :D

More to the point, the problem with things like "the Dutch were the great traders" and such is that it ignores the way...well, actual development worked. The English outDutched the Dutch when it came to the navy and commerce. That and other things like the Scots being on their side (or England being on the side of the Scots...what's that line about "you say tomato and I say tomato" again?)

How? Because, as someone said earlier, nations don't have Civilization Advantages.

[MRegent]

I suppose one could say that the English had no real advantage culturally, their main geographic advantage as an Island and lack of enemies of substance within Britain allowed them to grow as a nation.
However they also lacked any real weakness, to this day the United Kingdom, despite misadministration by the EU is still one of the best countries in the world to live in. In almost all areas (military, standard of living, health caare, etc) they are in the top ten worldwide, never the first in anything but strong enough in all areas to be considered one of the main contenders.

-MRegent

[Taktubaani]

The first page of this thread was quite... surreal to read.

[usertron2020]

What made the English so great?

Never underestimate the power of sheer dumb luck!:rolleyes:

[Rex Romanum]

So... How exactly were the English people capable of forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen?

I will say: LUCK

Seriously, it's certainly possible that in the other timelines "the English" aren't even exist at all, and in all possibilities, their place as "the greatest empire in history" could be replaced by the French/Scandinavians/Germans/Italians/Spanish/Portuguese/Byzantines/Ottomans/Dutch/anyone else, while people in those worlds will be wondering "What made the French/Scandinavians/Germans/Italians/Spanish/Portuguese/Byzantines/Ottomans/Dutch/anyone else so great?"
(especially if you are a believer of Many-Worlds theory)

And anyway, Typo, I have to beg you to stop your anti-imperialist sarcasms. It's somewhat counter-productive for the discussions in this thread (or any other ones). Please.

[I Blame Communism]

Being on an island, and repeated fortunate coincidence.

And the Scots, of course.

[Taktubaani]

Nice red jackets.

[I Blame Communism]

Sorry if I sound tert below; I'm only aiming to be informative. :)

So, this is a question that has been bugging me for a while.

Every other nation in Europe has a "hat" of sorts.

Rather, every other nation you've named has had a stereotype assigned to them in hindsight, often inaccurately.

France was always the most cultured one.

Bah. What does this world "cultured" mean? The French had the same amount of 'culture' (whatever that is) as most European peoples, there just happened to be a few centuries in which most literate political culture went on in French.

One reason for this was that the French were the most formidable land army on the continent for a long time, but that would mess with the stereotypes.

The Scandinavians were sea-faring, tough, strong, and hardy.

Saying Scandinavians are good seafarers is one sort of generalisation - it's mostly even true - but what does the supposed average physique of Norwegians have to do with anything?

The Germans were well-trained, disciplined, and pragmatically minded.

The Prussians were, at least until the middle of the 19th century, the exception to the prevailing stereotype of the Germans as a people who spent all their time on idealist philosophy and sentimental drinking songs. As late as Napoleon, I believe, the German was considered a vastly inferior soldier to the Frenchman or Russian.

The truth, of course, is that anyone can be a good well-disciplined soldier if that state in which he lives had the expertise and money to make him one.

The Italians were scientifically and aesthetically minded, and had great financial sense.

Well, assuming we're talking about Renaissance Italy, that depends on whether you think some of the things that crew were getting up to were worthwhile investments...

The Spanish and Portuguese had their great fleets, navies, seafarers and explorers, and great cavalry from the Iberian plains, not to mention religious fervor.

Religious fervor was if anything the hat of 17th-century western Christianity. The Scots did it as well as the Spaniards. If not better. Hemhem.

The Byzantines and Ottomans had a thousand years of tradition, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-religious realm, and an administration nobody else could match. The Dutch were the greatest merchants around, with a decent navy to boot.

These rather reveal the danger of this approach. The Ottomans did have the best administration - until they didn't. The Dutch were the greatest traders - until they weren't. And the principle, of course, applies to everyone, so that some stereotypes universal at the time have been forgotten: the French as the greatest soldiers is the obvious example.

Yet, the only thing I can think England has are two things:

1. A great navy, but only greater than Spain's after the famous battle that sunk the latter's.

Naval strengths actually fluctuated more than people often think: Britain never having been actually invaded after the Armada (Beachy Head, Fishguard, and Glenshiel don't count! :p), we simplify. But in the latter 17th century, the good navy built up by Cromwell to challenge the Dutch fell so into disrepair that the French could seriously contest the Channel. This kicked off a big building spree - but the French and Spanish together got a convincing draw in the American Revolutionary War. And of course the Napoleonic Wars and then the Crimean War so happened to see all our serious competitors kneecapped until a second generation of industrial powers - namely America, Germany, and Japan - came along. But even in the latter 19th century, it was estimated that Germany, France, and Russia together could have matched the RN.

So... How exactly were the English people capable of forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen? Sure, they entered the Industrial Revolution first, but even before they had a substantial empire, and even then, what made them able to reach the point of industrialization before other Europeans?

Ah, the great question! It's up there with the Roman Empire falling for the number of interesting, convincing, and sometimes contradictory theories about it, but a few things:

1) Geography. We pretty much lived on coal, had few large forests outside one or two areas, and needed fires in winter; this meant coal-mining, and hence steam-engines (the principle of which is of course ancient). But you shouldn't overestimate coal: many of the first textile-mills had water-wheels.

2) A political development which ensured that the essential purpose of the state was more-or-less to facilitate the making of dosh by private citizens.

3) Successful imperialism so that large markets existed and it was worthwhile to grow production exponentially.

4) An already developed network of proto-industry.

The English have just always seemed like, I dunno, a bland race of people to me. Nothing truly special about them. So I just don't understand how they did so well.

I was hoping somebody could enlighten me on this point.

There's nothing truly special about anybody, if 'special' is a magic formula for world conquest. Then again, if 'special' is a unique outlook and culture arising from a particular historical development, everybody is indeed, forgive the cliche, special.

[MNP]

Rather, every other nation you've named has had a stereotype assigned to them in hindsight, often inaccurately.Not in hindsight. Read travel books of the 1500s (even the 1400s), you'll see the stereotypes already there. Stereotyping others negatively was one part of building national consciousness. Otherwise I have no quarrel with what you said.

[I Blame Communism]

Not in hindsight. Read travel books of the 1500s (even the 1400s), you'll see the stereotypes already there. Stereotyping others negatively was one part of building national consciousness. Otherwise I have no quarrel with what you said.

Stereotypes are as old as anything, but not the same stereotypes.

Take my country, Scotland. How often these days are we stereotyped as psalm-singing Covenanters? It was a cliche that got started in 17th century England and lived into the 20th century; and these days, except for own view of the Outer Hebrides, it's dead as a doornail.

[Midas]

According to one of my poli sci profs, Canadians were- up until the '60s seen as extremely religious, sectarian and rather simple in Britain and the U.S. I find this ironic, given that Canadian's perceptions of the U.S. are now roughly inversed (though substitute 'simplicity' with 'stupid') and U.S. perceptions of us are "north", "moose" and "hockey".

I do love hockey but I've never seen a moose except on TV, and though we get TV shows making fun of Americans lacking basic geographical knowledge I've met my fair share of people in Canada who don't know who won WWII, where East Germany is and even what the capital of Quebec is *facepalm*.

[fortyseven]

A burning desire to escape the cold and damp?

[Henriksson]

A burning desire to escape the cold and damp?
I wonder why the Scandinavians didn't become great, then... :D

[fortyseven]

I wonder why the Scandinavians didn't become great, then... :D :)

Vikings, Iceland, Greenland, Vinland, Kalmar Union, a failed invasion of Russia, controlling all of the Baltic is pretty good.

[SavoyTruffle]

:)

Vikings, Iceland, Greenland, Vinland, Kalmar Union, a failed invasion of Russia, controlling all of the Baltic is pretty good.

Add to that Sweden being the Great Power of the North until a giant named Peter told them to screw off. :D

[Socrates]

I would say the English became great simply because they had a history of being a trading nation, individualism, constitutionalism, representative governance, an outward looking mindset, and an openness to a new ideas.

Most of these can be tracked back into each other, and originally to being an island people. Being exposed to Hellenic thought and the vast amount of capital that came back from the Americas also helped...

[Elfwine]

Add to that Sweden being the Great Power of the North until a giant named Peter told them to screw off. :D

Though even without that freak*, Sweden was a second rate power trying to act as if it was a Great Power. This is not meant to disrespect the Swedes - quite the opposite. But Sweden was not strong enough for to be a mighty empire in the long term.

Still, in being able to establish themselves as such for any length of time is nothing to sneeze at. A carefully administered state paid off, even if it was still too small for its ambitions.

* Peter was one of those unusual individuals who make a big splash when their rock falls into the lake. There aren't very many good words for this kind of person.

Socrates: What, looking at this in terms of national power, do "individualism, constitutionalism, and representative governance" have to do with how England was great?

[SavoyTruffle]

Though even without that freak*, Sweden was a second rate power trying to act as if it was a Great Power. This is not meant to disrespect the Swedes - quite the opposite. But Sweden was not strong enough for to be a mighty empire in the long term.

Still, in being able to establish themselves as such for any length of time is nothing to sneeze at. A carefully administered state paid off, even if it was still too small for its ambitions.

* Peter was one of those unusual individuals who make a big splash when their rock falls into the lake. There aren't very many good words for this kind of person.

Socrates: What, looking at this in terms of national power, do "individualism, constitutionalism, and representative governance" have to do with how England was great?

It must be noted that those values seen as the legacy of the Anglophone world could have developed elsewhere if history were altered slightly; in fact it is not difficult to create a more authoritarian or absolutist England as late as the 18th century, though it does get progressively more difficult after 1688.

[MNP]

I think one thing that quickened the pace of England becoming a more "modern" type state was that it embraced the infantry revolution more thoroughly than say, France. If your townsmen and farmers through pikes and longbows can give the nobles a run for their money in battle, you are going to think more about accommodating them than just ordering them to do something (of course that in itself is a simplification but...)

What I'm not sure on is why this didn't lead to massive decentralization and every town gaining its individual concessions. But maybe that's because Parliament gained concessions for all of them collectively so they stayed together.

[Elfwine]

It must be noted that those values seen as the legacy of the Anglophone world could have developed elsewhere if history were altered slightly; in fact it is not difficult to create a more authoritarian or absolutist England as late as the 18th century, though it does get progressively more difficult after 1688.

Agreed. And speaking in terms of national power, I'm not convinced that they can be taken as relevant. In terms of greatness as in This Country is Best to Live In, perhaps, but not greatness as in empire building.

[Elfwine]

I think one thing that quickened the pace of England becoming a more "modern" type state was that it embraced the infantry revolution more thoroughly than say, France. If your townsmen and farmers through pikes and longbows can give the nobles a run for their money in battle, you are going to think more about accommodating them than just ordering them to do something (of course that in itself is a simplification but...)

What I'm not sure on is why this didn't lead to massive decentralization and every town gaining its individual concessions. But maybe that's because Parliament gained concessions for all of them collectively so they stayed together.

How do the Spanish tericos relate to this? Looking at them as very fine examples of infantry in their day compared to the English army (for the most part), but Spain seems to have failed to have similar social consequences.

I don't know enough on Spain to know much beyond the very crude outline there, but that's why I'm asking.

[Socrates]

Socrates: What, looking at this in terms of national power, do "individualism, constitutionalism, and representative governance" have to do with how England was great?

Individualism allowed for a more entrepreneurial society, for a culture of open disagreements and argument, and for a dislike of the state getting involved to enforce conformity.

Constitutionalism was important in eliminating arbitrary rule, and preventing bad rulers from stamping out things they dislike unless there was broad public support for such.

Representative governance allowed what policy that was made to reflect the views of the merchant class, and thus facilitated further money-making.

Agree with others that none of these things were certain, and with a less fortunate string of events could have gone the other way. However, I do think that by the 1700s the British were much more likely to get there than others, and in fact we had many positive aspects to help it centuries earlier.

[SavoyTruffle]

I think one thing that quickened the pace of England becoming a more "modern" type state was that it embraced the infantry revolution more thoroughly than say, France. If your townsmen and farmers through pikes and longbows can give the nobles a run for their money in battle, you are going to think more about accommodating them than just ordering them to do something (of course that in itself is a simplification but...)

What I'm not sure on is why this didn't lead to massive decentralization and every town gaining its individual concessions. But maybe that's because Parliament gained concessions for all of them collectively so they stayed together.

A simple correction, though; England embraced the infantry revolution earlier than France, which is true and which supports your point, but France embraced it more thoroughly, given their invention of the bayonet among other things ;)

Individualism allowed for a more entrepreneurial society, for a culture of open disagreements and argument, and for a dislike of the state getting involved to enforce conformity.

Constitutionalism was important in eliminating arbitrary rule, and preventing bad rulers from stamping out things they dislike unless there was broad public support for such.

Representative governance allowed what policy that was made to reflect the views of the merchant class, and thus facilitated further money-making.

Agree with others that none of these things were certain, and with a less fortunate string of events could have gone the other way. However, I do think that by the 1700s the British were much more likely to get there than others, and in fact we had many positive aspects to help it centuries earlier.

One could argue that the British mercantilist model was the cause, rather than the effect of the Anglophone political traditions.

[Elfwine]

A simple correction, though; England embraced the infantry revolution earlier than France, which is true and which supports your point, but France embraced it more thoroughly, given their invention of the bayonet among other things ;)


But who used the flintlock sooner? (Please tell me I'm not getting my head muddled or I will be very embarrassed)


One could argue that the British mercantilist model was the cause, rather than the effect of the Anglophone political traditions.

The two, from my understanding of English history, seem to have intertwined - having a lively tradition set up the circumstances in which merchants rose and merchants rising further strengthened that trend until eventually we get what we have here.

[SavoyTruffle]

Well, according to the Genocide a French courtier designed the first true Flintlock for King Louis XIII...

[MNP]

How do the Spanish tericos relate to this? Looking at them as very fine examples of infantry in their day compared to the English army (for the most part), but Spain seems to have failed to have similar social consequences.

I don't know enough on Spain to know much beyond the very crude outline there, but that's why I'm asking.First by infantry revolution I mean the one that took place from Courtrai to rougly the end of the Burgundian Wars. After that you started getting more and more gunpowder weapons which is a different stage of the revolution. This I think is key. You had infantry become powerful and before gunpowder engines were used to give kings a monopoly. Until the middle 1400s or so they were used to destroy stuff IN the towns rather than to make the walls indefensible because of technology issues. So you HAD to deal with them. Hmm, I'll have to think about the Tercios, I have some ideas but I want to check my sources to make sure I haven't forgotten anything.

[Elfwine]

Well, according to the Genocide a French courtier designed the first true Flintlock for King Louis XIII...

I said used for a reason. :p

Interesting though, assuming that the Liar-Friendly Encyclopedia that Anyone (except Turks) Can Edit is right here.

[MNP]

I said used for a reason. :p

Interesting though, assuming that the Liar-Friendly Encyclopedia that Anyone (except Turks) Can Edit is right here.
Oh for God's sake not you too. :mad:

I am the only proud wikipedian on here?

[Elfwine]

Oh for God's sake not you too. :mad:

I am the only proud wikipedian on here?

No, not me. I just was mocking it for the sake of my own amusement, no offense was meant.

I tend to look at it as the kind of source to use as a casual reference. But I wouldn't trust it on something controversial further than I can throw a dreadnought.

You personally, sure. You come off as both honest and informed.

But "wikipedia in general"? No. Its just too uncertain if it can be relied on as opposed to something you know is written by people who know their stuff and who aren't biased.

[Julius Vogel]

Stereotypes are as old as anything, but not the same stereotypes.

Take my country, Scotland. How often these days are we stereotyped as psalm-singing Covenanters? It was a cliche that got started in 17th century England and lived into the 20th century; and these days, except for own view of the Outer Hebrides, it's dead as a doornail.

Actually, growing up as I did in a largely Scots settled area in NZ (and my family primarily originating from the Outer Hebrides, the Shetlands and Orkney), the view of Scots as being Covenanters, or at least some recognisable descendent, was still apparent even as late as the 1990s. It sort of has died away though.

Raised as R Catholic (although descended from Scots Free Church/Presbyterian types), we certainly indulged in light hearted (although not so much our grandparents, as they took it more seriously) mockery of this view of Scots Presbyterians. Cheerless, dull, fun hating etc

[Sior]

So, this is a question that has been bugging me for a while.

Every other nation in Europe has a "hat" of sorts.

France was always the most cultured one. The Scandinavians were sea-faring, tough, strong, and hardy. The Germans were well-trained, disciplined, and pragmatically minded. The Italians were scientifically and aesthetically minded, and had great financial sense. The Spanish and Portuguese had their great fleets, navies, seafarers and explorers, and great cavalry from the Iberian plains, not to mention religious fervor. The Byzantines and Ottomans had a thousand years of tradition, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-religious realm, and an administration nobody else could match. The Dutch were the greatest merchants around, with a decent navy to boot.

Yet, the only thing I can think England has are two things:

1. A great navy, but only greater than Spain's after the famous battle that sunk the latter's.

2. Welsh Longbowmen, who aren't even technically English, and even then once muskets came into widespread usage, they sort of became a moot point.

So... How exactly were the English people capable of forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen? Sure, they entered the Industrial Revolution first, but even before they had a substantial empire, and even then, what made them able to reach the point of industrialization before other Europeans?

The English have just always seemed like, I dunno, a bland race of people to me. Nothing truly special about them. So I just don't understand how they did so well.

I was hoping somebody could enlighten me on this point.

They are just more efficent theives and backstabbers, speaking as a Welshman!

[Sior]

The Anglo-Saxon race is superior in their blood, language, customs, culture, and spirit. This is clearly demonstrated by their ascendancy over the world despite being such small portion of the population and rightfully take their place over the lesser races and bring them civilization.

Anglo-Saxon civilisation an oxymoron if I ever heard one!!

[Burton K Wheeler]

Vive la France!

Thank you for your contribution! You knew this was a dumb post, which you told yourself with your other account, so why did you make it?

The Anglo-Saxon race is superior in their blood, language, customs, culture, and spirit. This is clearly demonstrated by their ascendancy over the world despite being such small portion of the population and rightfully take their place over the lesser races and bring them civilization.

We've talked about trolling before. Don't troll.

Kicked for a week.

[The Professor]

I wonder if it might have something to do with a relatively smaller noble class - probably from taking primogeniture to the extreme compared to Continental Europe coupled with the thinning out caused by the Black Death.
The Black Death also caused a labour shortage allowing a rising and greater mixing of the lower classes, though this happened throughout the Continent too.

It might be worth noting that the common form of address in English is Mister which came from the Master Craftsmen, whereas on the Continent the common form are variations of Lord: Herr, Monsieur, Signor, etc.

[Socrates]

One could argue that the British mercantilist model was the cause, rather than the effect of the Anglophone political traditions.

I think it was probably a virtuous circle between the two, originally starting thanks to a mixture of being an island country and luck, but then culture and economics reinforcing each other.

[CaliBoy1990]

So, this is a question that has been bugging me for a while.

Every other nation in Europe has a "hat" of sorts.

France was always the most cultured one. The Scandinavians were sea-faring, tough, strong, and hardy. The Germans were well-trained, disciplined, and pragmatically minded. The Italians were scientifically and aesthetically minded, and had great financial sense. The Spanish and Portuguese had their great fleets, navies, seafarers and explorers, and great cavalry from the Iberian plains, not to mention religious fervor. The Byzantines and Ottomans had a thousand years of tradition, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-religious realm, and an administration nobody else could match. The Dutch were the greatest merchants around, with a decent navy to boot.

Yet, the only thing I can think England has are two things:

1. A great navy, but only greater than Spain's after the famous battle that sunk the latter's.

2. Welsh Longbowmen, who aren't even technically English, and even then once muskets came into widespread usage, they sort of became a moot point.

So... How exactly were the English people capable of forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen? Sure, they entered the Industrial Revolution first, but even before they had a substantial empire, and even then, what made them able to reach the point of industrialization before other Europeans?

The English have just always seemed like, I dunno, a bland race of people to me. Nothing truly special about them. So I just don't understand how they did so well.

I was hoping somebody could enlighten me on this point.

Were it not for the 13 Colonies, England never would've truly been the great power it had become. Bow down to us Americans, you Tommys, we made you what you are today. :p

[The Red]

and even then, what made them able to reach the point of industrialization before other Europeans?

Large resource base, close proximity to water basically everywhere and being able to ignore European affairs?

Of course seeing as you're ignoring Scotland, with the central belt having one of the fastest economic growths in European history, the greatness is somewhat diminished. ;)

[Lord Woodtroll]

It was all down to the power of Tea.

Blessed are the tea makers, for they will be called sons of Typhoo....:D

[Snake Featherston]

England had four things going for it:

1) It was on an island across a channel with notoriously unpredictable weather.

2) It was by the late Medieval period too weak to conquer any large-sized chunk of Europe but too strong to be conquered by invasion.

3) The core of the British Empire was the Raj, which evolved slowly, as opposed to other Empires that had relatively less overall manpower and economic power to draw from.

4) A legacy from the late Anglo-Saxon period of steady and continual development of existing government infrastructure as opposed to one wracked by repeated invasion and insurrection as in so much of the rest of Europe. This fourth one IMHO was crucial.

[Finn]

The reason behind what culture is successful is the same as that of real estate: Location, location, location. It's about the geography.

[davroslives]

here's why.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8

[Teufel Hunden]

My grandfather theorized that one of the main reasons they English were so successfully was its system of nobility. As I recall his explanation, under the continental system entire families were ennobled which created a large and ever expanding group of people who did not work and were essentially parasites sucking on the wealth of their nation without making any contributions.
Under the English system only the title holder was ennobled which meant the rest of the sons had to go out in the world and make a name for themselves on their own. As a result, in every generation you had a relatively large group of young men with the best education money could buy at the time and the vast resources of the family who had to go out and do something for a living other than sitting around in the family manor.
The end result was the English were able to produce a larger number of relatively* competent soldiers, administrators, and financiers as compared to their rivals. Basically, their system just produced better middle managers for the time.

[MNP]

Thank you for your contribution! You knew this was a dumb post, which you told yourself with your other account, so why did you make it?That guy's his sock puppet? Wow.

[jackalope]

England had four things going for it:

1) It was on an island across a channel with notoriously unpredictable weather.

2) It was by the late Medieval period too weak to conquer any large-sized chunk of Europe but too strong to be conquered by invasion.

3) The core of the British Empire was the Raj, which evolved slowly, as opposed to other Empires that had relatively less overall manpower and economic power to draw from.

4) A legacy from the late Anglo-Saxon period of steady and continual development of existing government infrastructure as opposed to one wracked by repeated invasion and insurrection as in so much of the rest of Europe. This fourth one IMHO was crucial.


Due to superior breeding and proper dental hygiene!

More seriously, a lot of it had to do with the points made. As said by a number of posts, proximity to water is a great advantage. Greece was good for that, and in the Roman times it took about a 15:1 of water vs. land ratio equivilence to transportation cost. Thus to move something 80 miles over relatively easy cross country one could take it for the same money across the whole length of the Mediterranean Sea.

In ancient days, ships were not as well built for rough seas, much less tacking against the wind. And crops were less suited for colder climes, it seems. Come the middle ages, these issues became less a trouble, in part also with the worn out lands in the south and greater competition of powerful states. The Viking's ship building technology and others improved the score as well. So instead of coast hugging, operating exclusively in the warmer half of the year, the globe was open. Need masts and other ship building wood? Get them from Scandiavia or better yet Maine. Run out of forests? Use coal and water power.

The industrial revolution happened in the UK because of the need and decentralization. France was about 3x the population and had much greater resources allocated to the developement of science during the critical 1700's. But that was all focused upon Paris, so the problem of centralization in techological issues came up. In effect, great things did happen, but the French rarely took advantage of them (minorities like the Quakers, Methodists, and freethinkers in UK did wonders) in a timely fashion. In essense, the basic sciences were superior in France, but the French did not much profit by them. Technology is far easier to have trade secrets with, commercially.

And so on. I have read that the Western European growth in power was based upon five things: A) 33% of the explosion of trade around the world, based mostly upon the superior sailing ships/combustion engine ships B) 33% superior financial and business methods, such as insurance, depreciation, stock markets, banking, etc D) 33% the industrial revolution which was a mere toy until the 1700's E) 0.5% Better Pedigrees and F) 0.5% Very Shiny Teeth which awed the rest of the world into submission.

Ok, I made the last two up. In fact the US, having far more meat, was famous in the 1700's for absolutely terrible teeth. Teeth are irrelevant, of course. But the other aspects are in books about the subject. The UK was able to capitalize on these three earlier critical things. It faltered at times, the Dutch winning a few naval wars (Readers, it has nothing to do with belly dancing!) and Napoleon giving a run for their money circa 1800 -1815, but over all the landed gentry simply were like the Romans insofar as they goofed up in managable, bite sized peices with their winning hand (Roman Legions/UK Navy) keeping the momentum steady enough with the moat surrounding the Isles, til the US/USSR took the focus away from them militarily and economically.

Yet they still are global players players of relative stature much larger than Byzantum was post 1100, and English is very much poised to dominate til a mass extinction (forget Chinese, if you ever learned it you know why). Early players like Portugal/Spain and later ones such as France/German ended up steadily losing steam or not exceeding the UK and then ebbing.

A good book to read on the subject is Guns, Sails and Empires, by C. Cipolla, but there are others.

[pa_dutch]

As far as the question of "blandness" goes, the perception that the English are bland is, in fact, simply a matter of perception. It's because the English (and their American offshoots) were so influential that they've come to be seen as bland. How can we see the English language as exotic when we're all using it right now? Traditions, institutions, music, food, law, and so many other things we take for granted as "English" in origin have been exported everywhere their empire reached, and far beyond as well.

[jackalope]

As far as the question of "blandness" goes, the perception that the English are bland is, in fact, simply a matter of perception. It's because the English (and their American offshoots) were so influential that they've come to be seen as bland. How can we see the English language as exotic when we're all using it right now? Traditions, institutions, music, food, law, and so many other things we take for granted as "English" in origin have been exported everywhere their empire reached, and far beyond as well.


Much agreed. There are many courses and books of America (&Britain)
culture and ways. There are even a half dozen books on what is
right about America, but only one or two which hit much a mark.

And the English language. Chinese comes second, with about 90,000
words. English comes first with around 600,o00, almost all nomenclature
of industrial or abstract items. Readers in those cultures know it is
a very diverse and decentralized system, full of subcultures which one
personally chooses from. Why are there Americans who do not know
where Japan is on a map or that New Mexico is not outside of the US?
Because one can look it up if going there, as Einstein did for his phone
number.

It seems bland because one does not know what goes on behind the
surface, under the veneer paneling.

[mcdnab]

For me the below are all equally important - i've picked some of the main one's though there are a load of reasons
A strong and early developed sense of NATIONALISM.... some of the records and reports of foreign visitors to England dating back to the 15th and 16th centuries are amazing in their descriptions of the a) informality and over familiarity of the English and b) their belief in how wonderful it is to be English.
That sense in part I think comes from England's early unification and identity as a nation state which many of her competitor nations didn't develop until later.
GEOGRAPHY - an island fortress - The loss of England's continental assets after the hundred years war, the Wars of the Roses and the accession of the Tudors meant England's view of herself as a continental power might have continued but it was a defunct ambition. The lands in France were gone and England's territorial ambitions were restricted. Colonial growth in the 17th, 18th and 19th century was the nation's only way of competing with her neighbours and her island status gave her domestic protection.
RELIGION - England's reformation is sort of unique - being politically motivated and not out of a great outpouring of belief that would force a religious change. It became during the 16th century inextricably linked with the crown, its creation relied on statute requiring Parliament to sit more regularly, more importantly it greatly enriched a class of people who whilst not aristocratic in the traditional or feudal sense were what is called in England a gentry class - wealthy individuals who built beautiful homes in the country, dominated and ran their local communities, and sat in and dominated the House of Commons.
England also greatly benefitted from immigration of persecuted religious minorities fleeing Catholic France who in some circumstances brought trades, ideas and ambition - of course many other minorities were also fleeing persecution to England's new colonies ironically helping England's north american colonies grow and prosper.
RESTRICTED MONARCHY - fairly obvious one I suppose - English monarch's even before the English Civil War ruled with consent rather than absolutely - the increase of Parliamentary power during the 16th century (as religious changes were translated into law, then reversed and reversed again) was significant. The linking of the crown and church initially increased royal authority but helped decrease it over time and in part led to the strife of the 17th century as religious and political attitudes hardened. From the restoration you could reasonably argue the monarchy continued its slow progress from ruler to figure head. That early revolution (the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution) gave England and Britain a relative domestic political stability that wouldn't really be shaken until the early 19th century when Parliament rather than the crown became the target for protest.
Scotland also had a long history of a comparatively weak monarchy, Scotland's reformation had been stronger and it was an attempt to reform Scots religion on English lines that caused the first rumblings of the Civil War.
A SMALLER ARISTOCRACY
The British aristocracy (like its' English and Scots predecessor) has always been fairly fluid, it was limited in number, played an active role in Government through Parliament rather than through the court and it was a model that was followed by both the gentry and rising middle-class. There was considerable social mobility especially from the 16/17th centuries onwards - it was perfectly possible for the descendants of a wealthy 16th century farmer to rise to the top of the pyramid.
The gentry and middle-class also tended towards the aristocratic practice of male preference primogeniture which provided, as has been mentioned, generations of younger sons eager to make their way in the world - whether through success in the church, the military or in colonial administration.
By the 18th century there were plenty of great families without any title who would have put many a European aristocrat to shame in terms of wealth and influence. One down side was the social stigma still attached by the well-born to those who had made their money in trade but the "shame" could be washed away by aping the aristocracy and gentry - investing in land, sitting in Parliament and a few carefully judged marriages with some of the more impecunious members of the aristocracy and gentry.
BENIGN IMPERIALISM:
A very subjective title i know but on the whole Britain was a fairly generous and benign colonial master - and by enlarge was a far more successful builder of nations than some of her continental rivals - her colonies and the wealth they generated helped improve domestic stability and wealth and drove the country's industrial and political progress.

[RMcD94]

I want to know who thinks England is an island.

Google England. First result is Wikipedia. Let's read the second sentence:

It shares land borders with Scotland to the north and Wales to the west; the Irish Sea is to the north west, the Celtic Sea to the south west and the North Sea to the east, with the English Channel to the south separating it from continental Europe.

Huh... Now, it may be that I have no idea what an island is. In which case I offer my hands up in sincere apology.

As it is, I don't believe the English were particularly great. Certainly, since 1100, England's been paired with Wales, so what England today would be like without the addition is up to butterflies. If you count Wales as part of England (which would be wrong (I think)), you've got up to 1707. So a good 600 years. I don't know that it was that successful in those years. Wasn't terrible, certainly, but the greatest? Not quite.

[corditeman]

Greatness can reside in many things, but I think you must look at personalities and statesmen. It doesn't necessarily mean that the individual is always correct, but when push comes to shove, they are hard-headed enough to bring the right result about.

'Great Britain' was originally a distinction from Britanny (Bretagne) so maybe you can blame the French for that foot in the mouth.

The nobility having an education and going out to work/govern/invent/do something productive, is an obvious advantage. Cavendish and Churchill come to mind. So does Nelson - who seized the opportunity when at sea, even if he floundered maritally on land.

Flanders & Swan were masters of the leg-pull and rather good at lampooning the self-righteous anthems of other nations. Allons-y, enfants... The truth should have been self-evident and should embarrass the BNP *evil laughter from the mighty wazir*

The great William Shakespeare may have been right -

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them."

We have a great Queen, a greatly-abused welfare service, great ideals and a greatly-understated sense of humour. And some of the greatest television programmes in the world. However, we have politicians whose greatest error is an Old Etonian/Harrovian belief that others follow our rules and that a great sense of fair play will always see us succeed.

Rather grates that such great planes as the Harrier and Concord(e) are being discarded, wouldn't you say?

Note willingness to hear others' viewpoints...

[Derek Pullem]

It was all down to the power of Tea.

Blessed are the tea makers, for they will be called sons of Typhoo....:D

.......and kippers for breakfast, don't forget the kippers.

And jam roly-poly......

As soon as the English / British learned to cook the decline of the Empire was inevitable. Now we have Jamie Oliver:eek:

[corditeman]

... The Teaman (Alias Demon of the Teas) salutes you! (cuppa in hand)

Ever thought about cricket? Only in the far-flung former Empire and Colonial Territories is it played better than on the playing fields of Eton/Harrow/MCC.

The Yanks never mastered cricket. They have to make do with a rather inflated game of rounders...:eek:

One of my happiest TV memories is of a drifting mine clean bowled into oblivion by the Chief Air Raid Warden of Warmington-on-Sea...:D

[Joyeux]

Well, the question is, are you asking about England, pre-1707. Or about the UK as a whole. If you are asking about the latter, then I advise you to stop calling the UK "England" and British people "English" it shows a somewhat high level of ignorance. If, however you were referring to England, then they didn't reach the point of industrialization at all. So I'll assume you are speaking about the UK as a whole.

2. Welsh Longbowmen, who aren't even technically English, and even then once muskets came into widespread usage, they sort of became a moot point.

Technically, they are English (maybe not ethnically), whether they like it or not, they're English. Wales was incorporated into England during the Medieval period.

what made them able to reach the point of industrialization before other Europeans?

Scotland. Scots enabled them to reach the point of industrialization before the continental Europeans.

Britain also had a large middle class, especially compared to France, and a somewhat literate working class.
Of course, being an island also helps. The constitutional monarchy is a big factor. The monarch's themselves are also a factor.
The British were also rather, fair and generous colonial overlords, especially compared to other powers, despite what the little incident of the late 1700's would have you believe.:p

It's rather unfortunate that the empire fell. I believe that Africa would be somewhat more developed today if it didn't. That's why I love a good britwank;).
But, Britain just couldn't break that historical cycle which dictates that all empires must fall eventually.:(

[Derek Pullem]

Scotland. Scots enabled them to reach the point of industrialization before the continental Europeans.



Much as I love Scotland (I've lived there for 17 years and my wife is Scottish) I'd be intrigued to see your arguments for how the Scots were the key factor in the British industrial revolution.

What about:

Richard Arkwright
James Hargreave
Samuel Compton
Thomas Newcomen
George Stephenson

Sure Watt's engine eventually replaced Newcomen's and the factories of New Lanark pioneered the later "dark satanic mills" (without being dark or satanic) but the roots of the British industrial revolution were widespread indeed.

[Joyeux]

Much as I love Scotland (I've lived there for 17 years and my wife is Scottish) I'd be intrigued to see your arguments for how the Scots were the key factor in the British industrial revolution.

What about:

Richard Arkwright
James Hargreave
Samuel Compton
Thomas Newcomen
George Stephenson

Sure Watt's engine eventually replaced Newcomen's and the factories of New Lanark pioneered the later "dark satanic mills" (without being dark or satanic) but the roots of the British industrial revolution were widespread indeed.

All those on the list definitely aided the revolution greatly (I sound like a Bolshevik) I'm not saying that Scots were the sole reason for it, or even that they contributed the most.
But without the Scots, Britain wouldn't have reached the point of industrialization before the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, I can't think of anyone at the moment, but there were plenty of other Scots who contributed greatly to the revolution.
Trains and railways in particular were influenced somewhat heavily by Scots.
Coal mining also springs to mind but I'm not sure.

[Derek Pullem]

All those on the list definitely aided the revolution greatly (I sound like a Bolshevik) I'm not saying that Scots were the sole reason for it, or even that they contributed the most.
But without the Scots, Britain wouldn't have reached the point of industrialization before the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, I can't think of anyone at the moment, but there were plenty of other Scots who contributed greatly to the revolution.
Trains and railways in particular were influenced somewhat heavily by Scots.
Coal mining also springs to mind but I'm not sure.

Sure but thats a bit like saying the Italian renaissance was only possible because of Florentines.

[Joyeux]

Sure but thats a bit like saying the renaissance was only possible because of Florentines.

My knowledge of the renaissance is small, to say the least. My history has a big blank page from the 1350's - 1650-ish. Except for a but of Byzantine stuff. So I don't really know how much the Florentines influenced the renaissance.

[Monty Burns]

I surely hope that Eggs and bacon for breakfast are the reason. For if that is the case, my way to true greatness is paved every moring...:rolleyes:

Additionally, being on an island was the main thing. Scotland, Wales and Ireland never held the populations and the centralized systems to really endanger english dominance of the British isles. That allowed the English to conquer their surrounding nations rather easily and, more important, to hold and defend them at low costs. Later, they could involve themselves in any European affaire without being threatened at home. France, Germany and Italy have their respective most valuable regions quite close to an enemy - or, to be more precise, a couple of enemies.

[archaeogeek]

I surely hope that Eggs and bacon for breakfast are the reason. For if that is the case, my way to true greatness is paved every moring...:rolleyes:

Additionally, being on an island was the main thing. Scotland, Wales and Ireland never held the populations and the centralized systems to really endanger english dominance of the British isles. That allowed the English to conquer their surrounding nations rather easily and, more important, to hold and defend them at low costs. Later, they could involve themselves in any European affaire without being threatened at home. France, Germany and Italy have their respective most valuable regions quite close to an enemy - or, to be more precise, a couple of enemies.

Easily - no
Low cost - no
Early - that's different

Overwhelming british naval power is a mid-to-late 18th century phenomenon; before that, even after the failure of the Armada, the British navy was not even second. Then it competed with the Dutch and France from the 1650s to the 1750s for that second and then first place.

It was largely the lucky break of grabbing India at a time when the Mughals were falling apart.

Otherwise, England slept at the wheel during the enlightenment and sat on the laurels of Locke and Newton until it realized that it had lost America, that France was blowing up, and that the intellectual class was threatening the same in Britain. It was a third rate power, bumped up to a second rate power under Elizabeth, and sort of a world power by the house of Hannover.

[Joyeux]

Additionally, being on an island was the main thing. Scotland, Wales and Ireland never held the populations and the centralized systems to really endanger english dominance of the British isles. That allowed the English to conquer their surrounding nations rather easily and, more important, to hold and defend them at low costs.

Low costs? No.
Scotland wasn't a conquest. If anything, it was the other way around. It was a Scottish king who ascended to the English throne, after all.

sort of a world power by the house of Hannover.

"sort of" isn't the right word.

[Sior]

Low costs? No.
Scotland wasn't a conquest. If anything, it was the other way around. It was a Scottish king who ascended to the English throne, after all.



"sort of" isn't the right word.

Ever heared of Henry (8) Tudor? a good old Welsh boy who forgot his roots!

[KCammy]

So... How exactly were the English people capable of forging the greatest empire the world has ever seen? Sure, they entered the Industrial Revolution first, but even before they had a substantial empire, and even then, what made them able to reach the point of industrialization before other Europeans?

The English never really built a powerful empire. They have not been a sovereighn state since 1707.....


(Do I really need to point out the difference between England and Britain to everyone?)

[Elfwine]

I think it has to be asked if the term English means anything for post 1707 events (and so forth) right about now.

[archaeogeek]

Low costs? No.
Scotland wasn't a conquest. If anything, it was the other way around. It was a Scottish king who ascended to the English throne, after all.



"sort of" isn't the right word.

Real world power-dom came largely after the act of union IMO. I just made the mistake of lumping William III with the germans.

[Thande]

Every other nation in Europe has a "hat" of sorts.


The reason why it seems this way for you is the same reason that humans don't have a "hat" in science fiction written by humans. 'We' (first Britain, then America) won the wars that determined linguistic and cultural supremacy over the globe, so we determine the reality of popular perception of other nations and history. And we're the "normal" ones, and they're funny foreigners with their own hats. It would be very different if the French had won the Seven Years' War or something.

[Kevin R.]

BENIGN IMPERIALISM:
A very subjective title i know but on the whole Britain was a fairly generous and benign colonial master...


The Irish, the Boers and the Mau Mau would like a word with you. Outside. In a back alley.

To answer the question, I think that the chief factors in Britain's rise were its status as an island nation combined with it having, on that island, all of the resources needed for both early and large-scale industrialization -- coal, iron, wool, water power, etc. Everything else can be traced back to those two factors, especially the first. Being an island meant that A) it never had to really worry about defense as much as the rest of Europe, which reduced the need for a large standing army and, with it, a highly centralized state, and B) it had to rely on sea trade for its livelihood. These created optimal conditions for capitalism, industry and liberalism to thrive.

[archaeogeek]

The Irish, the Boers and the Mau Mau would like a word with you. Outside. In a back alley.


As would Bengal and Orissa. China will probably not even grace you with a word and will charge the bullet to your family.

[Awilla the Hun]

Easily - no
Low cost - no
Early - that's different

Overwhelming british naval power is a mid-to-late 18th century phenomenon; before that, even after the failure of the Armada, the British navy was not even second. Then it competed with the Dutch and France from the 1650s to the 1750s for that second and then first place.

It was largely the lucky break of grabbing India at a time when the Mughals were falling apart.

Otherwise, England slept at the wheel during the enlightenment and sat on the laurels of Locke and Newton until it realized that it had lost America, that France was blowing up, and that the intellectual class was threatening the same in Britain. It was a third rate power, bumped up to a second rate power under Elizabeth, and sort of a world power by the house of Hannover.

I agree about its military weakness after the Armada (the Military Revolution hadn't done a great job over there-at least, on land, although it was generally decent at sea throughout), but I disagree with you about England having 'slept at the wheel' through the Enlightenment. Various philosophes argued that England was the model to aim for (their names escape me, sadly, which does nothing for my credibility), and it made several innovations of its own: think of Adam Smith, for example, as well as the wide assortment of British Boffins (I think this was in 'The Enlightened Economy') who, thanks to the different British system of education (with a greater focus on apprentice/master relationships than universities) were more able to innovate and improve on other people's machinery.

What made Britain/England great? Difficult to say; can you really say that it was great throughout its entire history? It had a string of powerful military leaders, as well as getting ahead in the Infantry Revolution, which let it stand up far above its weight in the Hundred Years' War; but it lost that. Alan Macfarlane argues that its early individualism gave it the edge in capitalism; whilst this is contraversial, I'd say that our island-ness and maratime nature forced Britain/England to grasp trade and seafaring early, matched only by the Dutch for much of the Early Modern period. And England had a rather larger population and resource base, as well as a far larger defensive dyke called the Channel, than the Netherlands did; it was thus able to beat its rivals in colonial warfare. What it did to the hapless/lucky natives afterwards is irrelevant to this discussion, will be doubtless argued over several times over, has already been argued over several times over, and will change exactly no one's opinions on the subject.

But, overall, I'd argue that humans don't have much of a long term hat. Italy's army in WWII is held in far less regard than Rome's Legions, for example. If a bunch of Englishmen were to be dumped onto Mars, they would do little differently with the same training to a similar sized group of the French, or some other group of strange foreigners. (Unless they had Gurkhas to guard them from aliens, that is...)

[Tyr]

England did have a 'hat'.

For the life of me I can't find the exact quote anywhere online but some 18th century German (IIRC) once wrote something along the lines of
"Every nationality has its defining motivation. In Holland this is money, in Prussia this is order, in England this is freedom, in France the honour of the king"

Anyone familiar with this quote?
Really can't remember who it was...

[corditeman]

...If you look at it carefully, we've been ruled by bloody Normans, Angevins, Welsh Tudors, Scots Stewarts, Germans (Hanoverians, Saxe-Coburgs and Windsors). Our current royalty (who reign, don't rule) are Scots, Greek and German. I'm not sure about Middleton.

The Scots, Irish and Welsh, have the cheek to accuse England of oppressing them - better look at the makeup of the ruling class, folks.

I'm a Yorkie Angle living in Scotland, still regarded as a White Settler after being here since 1988. *sigh*

[Russian Sailor]

Just wondering what made it so that England was able to create a large merchant class?

[SavoyTruffle]

The reason why it seems this way for you is the same reason that humans don't have a "hat" in science fiction written by humans. 'We' (first Britain, then America) won the wars that determined linguistic and cultural supremacy over the globe, so we determine the reality of popular perception of other nations and history. And we're the "normal" ones, and they're funny foreigners with their own hats. It would be very different if the French had won the Seven Years' War or something.

The world would be loads more Francophone for starters, and we'd consider French cultural aesthetics as the default. :)



But, overall, I'd argue that humans don't have much of a long term hat. Italy's army in WWII is held in far less regard than Rome's Legions, for example. If a bunch of Englishmen were to be dumped onto Mars, they would do little differently with the same training to a similar sized group of the French, or some other group of strange foreigners. (Unless they had Gurkhas to guard them from aliens, that is...)

That's because modern Italy has as much ties to the Roman Empire or the Renaissance city states as modern Britain has to Arthur. ;)

[Finn]

...If you look at it carefully, we've been ruled by bloody Normans, Angevins, Welsh Tudors, Scots Stewarts, Germans (Hanoverians, Saxe-Coburgs and Windsors). Our current royalty (who reign, don't rule) are Scots, Greek and German. I'm not sure about Middleton.

That's a tad bit pedantic. Those people became English in all but surname and genetic genealogy.

[SavoyTruffle]

That's a tad bit pedantic. Those people became English in all but surname and genetic genealogy.

Just like how the Qing dynasty became sinicized.

[Awilla the Hun]

That's because modern Italy has as much ties to the Roman Empire or the Renaissance city states as modern Britain has to Arthur. ;)

Yes. So for how long can we truly apply 'national hats' for?

[corditeman]

...For which I to some degree apologise.

British greatness may lie in personalities, weather, geology, tea, cricket, a useful aristocracy, the middle class - but its acts are definitive.

Wilberforce and his fellow-abolitionists ended the idea of acceptable slavery. Mind you, Hawkins started it.

Whilst the Swiss started the Red Cross, Britain developed it. Britain continues to contribute beyond its size to international disaster relief. Oxfam, Water Aid, International Disaster Institute - all UK-based.

Although the Foreign Office is famous for keeping a low profile, UK military forces continue to use small forces more effectively than anybody but the Israelis. As against that, Britain's generally needed US logistics to make things hum for the past 40 years, the Falklands being the major exception.

British culture has become the world's culture and so is too amorphous to define.

If Britain was so bad, why would millions of immigrants (and would-be immigrants) attempt to come here? There's more to it than the welfare system and health service - there's also a legal system and a social system that attempts to be fair in the face of every prejudice under the rain.

[Chirios]

What made the English so great? Really?

[Bookeater]

I would say a great contributing factor was the way in which the English were able to co-opt great ideas from other peoples, as well as the peoples themselves. If they saw a good idea, they would take it form themselves and even make it work even better.

The English also benifited from the fact that diring their history they had a number of leaders whose practicality in some areas gave them a huge advantage over their rivals.

One example of this could be Edward the III. He knew that his nation didn't have the resources or money to raise and equip thousands of knights like the rest of continental Europe. So what does he do? makes a decree that every man in the kingdom who can must train with a longbow for two hours after the Sunday church service. Wait a for a few years and you have thousands of men who can at the very least use a long with some degree of efficiancy. Use said army to kick the crap out of the French and make it clear that England is no easy target for invasion. Edward III also approached warfare with the same methods. Sure, he could abide by the laws of chivilary and fight the polite way, or he could act like a cut throat bastard and fight dirty.

That is at least one of the things that made the English so great. The ability to act like complete and utter bastards when they had to. I mean it as a compliment too, because it damn well WORKED.

[SavoyTruffle]

What made the English so great? Really?

England, by itself, was a pretty all right country (and being on Europe's periphery was not as hampered by excessive feudalism as France and Germany were). However, things began going very good for it since it united with Scotland.

[Derek Pullem]

England, by itself, was a pretty all right country (and being on Europe's periphery was not as hampered by excessive feudalism as France and Germany were). However, things began going very good for it since it united with Scotland.

Again I'm not really understanding the "How great is Scotland!" line of thought here.

After the Personal Union of the crowns we had a civil war, three major rebellions and a bankrupt parliament to sort out not to mention a considerably more complicated religious question to be resolved. Britain wasn't a major player until after Marlborough and the growth of the Royal Navy in the 1730's and 1740's

[SavoyTruffle]

Again I'm not really understanding the "How great is Scotland!" line of thought here.

After the Personal Union of the crowns we had a civil war, three major rebellions and a bankrupt parliament to sort out not to mention a considerably more complicated religious question to be resolved. Britain wasn't a major player until after Marlborough and the growth of the Royal Navy in the 1730's and 1740's

Scotland alone was not the X-factor of the Union so to speak, but it was a driving force of Britain in the 18th century.

Ultimately the Union is greater than the sum of its parts.

[Elfwine]

Certainly worth more in quality than it brought in quantity, and that's not meant as a small compliment.

[Derek Pullem]

Scotland alone was not the X-factor of the Union so to speak, but it was a driving force of Britain in the 18th century.

Ultimately the Union is greater than the sum of its parts.

Evidence?

Scotland certainly produced some notable scientists, capitalists and administrators but then again so did England. Was it really so essential to England / Great Britain / United Kingdom's rise to power?

[Elfwine]

Can't speak for anyone else, but doesn't having both count for more than England's share alone would have? Even if the Scots are only providing say, a quarter of the total, that's a nice boost.

[SavoyTruffle]

Can't speak for anyone else, but doesn't having both count for more than England's share alone would have? Even if the Scots are only providing say, a quarter of the total, that's a nice boost.

Pretty much. Despite being a tiny country population wise compared to England, Scotland was a relative intellectual heavyweight, even if it had to bear the brunt of some pretender hijinks.

And it produced David Hume and Adam Smith... ;)

[Derek Pullem]

Can't speak for anyone else, but doesn't having both count for more than England's share alone would have? Even if the Scots are only providing say, a quarter of the total, that's a nice boost.

In trade terms Scotland was significantly behind England

http://www.ianblanchard.com/Research%20IB/Med_Scot/Budapest_Full_Version.PDF

Should we attribute the decline of Ottoman empire to the inhabitants of the nations it annexed? Were Prussia and Russia made great by the annexation of Poland?

The whole argument (without evidence) smacks of a bias against the English and for anyone the English absorbed (or created) during the course of Empire.

[SavoyTruffle]

In trade terms Scotland was significantly behind England

http://www.ianblanchard.com/Research%20IB/Med_Scot/Budapest_Full_Version.PDF

Should we attribute the decline of Ottoman empire to the inhabitants of the nations it annexed? Were Prussia and Russia made great by the annexation of Poland?

The whole argument (without evidence) smacks of a bias against the English and for anyone the English absorbed (or created) during the course of Empire.

Of course it did. Scotland has but a fraction of England's population, and thus most economic power was in English hands.

[Elfwine]

In trade terms Scotland was significantly behind England

http://www.ianblanchard.com/Research%20IB/Med_Scot/Budapest_Full_Version.PDF


Scotland was significantly smaller than England. What do you expect?


Should we attribute the decline of Ottoman empire to the inhabitants of the nations it annexed? Were Prussia and Russia made great by the annexation of Poland?
What does this have to do with anything?


The whole argument (without evidence) smacks of a bias against the English and for anyone the English absorbed (or created) during the course of Empire.Or an acknowledgment of their contributions to the success of that Empire.

Scotland did not make Great Britain great on its own, but it certainly helped - and perhaps more than one would expect from a relatively small increase in population.

That's certainly all I'm arguing.

[Bookeater]

Read some of the work of Nial Ferguson to find out how much of an influence the Scots had on the rise of Great Britain. While not being the sole factor in GB's rise, theu were critically important in many places.

[Derek Pullem]

If either of you bothered to read the quoted article the relative trade per capita of Scotland was significantly lower than England.

However, things began going very good for it since it united with Scotland.

Scotland alone was not the X-factor of the Union so to speak, but it was a driving force of Britain in the 18th century

.......is what I'm replying to. I acknowledge the part that Scots played in the British Empire (good and bad). I'm questioning whether they significantly punched above their weight.

As for Hume and Smith they followed on from John Locke and Dudley North and it took Pitt to implement some of Smith's ideas. Again, what you would expect from a nation built of constituent parts. It's not as if a Scottish faction is controlling the nation's governance.

[Derek Pullem]

Read some of the work of Nial Ferguson to find out how much of an influence the Scots had on the rise of Great Britain. While not being the sole factor in GB's rise, theu were critically important in many places.

That's the Niall Ferguson who was born in Glasgow I presume ;)

[Derek Pullem]

What does this have to do with anything?



No causation shown. Just because the British Empire grew rapidly after Scotland was absorbed into the Union it does not follow that the cause of the growth was the Union.

[Elfwine]

Yeah, its not as if English competition and ability to dominate the sea are playing any role in weakening an independent Scotland relative to England.

Scotland's role as part of the British Empire cannot be determined solely based on independent Scotland relative to independent England.

No causation shown. Just because the British Empire grew rapidly after Scotland was absorbed into the Union it does not follow that the cause of the growth was the Union.

It does have to be noted that it played a role owing to the Scots named and others, despite the population difference, which would mean one would expect Scotland to be fairly minor.

[Inarius]

Cultural traits are for Civilization players.
England had good kings/queens when it had too. They played a big role in many things.
It is on an island. Very important.
And they had luck.

Trying to say "French are like this, German like that, etc." is pointless.

[Elfwine]

Other countries also had good rulers. I think England benefited more from a shortage of disasterously bad ones than from having good ones, over all.

[SavoyTruffle]

Cultural traits are for Civilization players.
England had good kings/queens when it had too. They played a big role in many things.
It is on an island. Very important.
And they had luck.

Trying to say "French are like this, German like that, etc." is pointless.

Attempting to reduce peoples to hats (or caps, if you understand Swedish history) is at best a futile exercise that does not do them dignity.

Other countries also had good rulers. I think England benefited more from a shortage of disasterously bad ones than from having good ones, over all.

Yeah, they were lucky that their Charles II was far more competent than Spain's monarch of the same name. Plus, Parliament was enough of a counterweight to royal misadventures, and the English Civil War showed that Parliament was the ultimate boss of the land.

[Elfwine]

Attempting to reduce peoples to hats (or caps, if you understand Swedish history) is at best a futile exercise that does not do them dignity.


I vaguely grasp the reference - wasn't that some 18th century political thing?

Royal supporters (for some issue I can't remember now) and revolutionaries (might be a bit strong a word)?


Yeah, they were lucky that their Charles II was far more competent than Spain's monarch of the same name. Plus, Parliament was enough of a counterweight to royal misadventures, and the English Civil War showed that Parliament was the ultimate boss of the land.

In fairness to Carlos, he seems to have tried. Unfortunately, he was completely incapacitated in just about every way.

[SavoyTruffle]

I vaguely grasp the reference - wasn't that some 18th century political thing?

Royal supporters (for some issue I can't remember now) and revolutionaries (might be a bit strong a word)?

They were more like the Whigs and Tories, in that they were de facto political parties during the Age of Liberty.



In fairness to Carlos, he seems to have tried. Unfortunately, he was completely incapacitated in just about every way.

Although Carlos II is the poster boy for royal inbreeding, I tend to group him with Ferdinand of Austria - well meaning, but with ailments that prevented them from being capable monarchs.

Plus, there's that sad look in his portrait, or that's the Habsburg lip being too exaggerated.

[Derek Pullem]

Other countries also had good rulers. I think England benefited more from a shortage of disasterously bad ones than from having good ones, over all.

One thing that should not be underestimated is the "constitutional" element of a constitutional monarchy. From 1704 onwards the key decisions were made by ministers rather than kings and ministers could be removed / replaced as they made mistakes unlike monarchs.

The rest of Europe didn't catch up with this for over a century which meant the fledgling middle classes and technocrats of the British Empire could increasingly use their freedom from aristocratic control to advance their own and the Empire's status.

[Elfwine]

They were more like the Whigs and Tories, in that they were de facto political parties during the Age of Liberty.


Ah. I got it partially right.



Although Carlos II is the poster boy for royal inbreeding, I tend to group him with Ferdinand of Austria - well meaning, but with ailments that prevented them from being capable monarchs.

Plus, there's that sad look in his portrait, or that's the Habsburg lip being too exaggerated.

Agreed. I think its both in the case of the portrait - he looks like someone you want to put out of their misery.

When even portraits presumably not meant to make him look bad make him look bad, you know things have gotten out of hand.

[SavoyTruffle]

One thing that should not be underestimated is the "constitutional" element of a constitutional monarchy. From 1704 onwards the key decisions were made by ministers rather than kings and ministers could be removed / replaced as they made mistakes unlike monarchs.

The rest of Europe didn't catch up with this for over a century which meant the fledgling middle classes and technocrats of the British Empire could increasingly use their freedom from aristocratic control to advance their own and the Empire's status.

And thus the "nation of shopkeepers" a certain Corsican derided took its turn as the Empire Upon Which The Sun Never Set


Agreed. I think its both in the case of the portrait - he looks like someone you want to put out of their misery.

When even portraits presumably not meant to make him look bad make him look bad, you know things have gotten out of hand.

I kinda feel sorry for him, though. Then again, he was a contemporary of his nephew/half brother in law, who was the most ambitious king of France (note the words).

[Elfwine]

I kinda feel sorry for him, though. Then again, he was a contemporary of his nephew/half brother in law, who was the most ambitious king of France (note the words).

Yeah. Carlos deserved better. And does this mean Louis the Archetypal Absolute Monarch?

[jackalope]

Just wondering what made it so that England was able to create a large merchant class?


England got a large merchant class by trading, RS. So many groups in the world have a keen reputation of being merchants, such as the Lebanonese, Cantonese, Jewish, Janists. In Mexico it is the group on the Pacific side of the isthmus, in Alaska it was the Tlinglit, in Zambia it is one tribe named ... For what ever reason, these groups were favorably situated and took advantage of the opportunity, making a culture of trading. That culture was handed down in some families and through other formal/informal subgroups.

The British merely did the same. Other groups in Europe did as well, Napoleon's comment of a nation of shopkeepers was widely use to describe a variety of places, like for Holland, at the general time. But every nation in the continental side of Europe got used up by the constant wars and trouble, even Switzerland was taken over in the early 1800's. In Britain, the merchant class had time to recooperate and develope outside of Europe.

Regarding the idea that the English took over Scotland, etc., there is a bit of truth in that. In the Channel Islands, it is still locally said that they are not the last remnant of English French holdings, but rather the other way around. The Normans invaded England from there, you see, and Ireland has broken from the fold.

[Awilla the Hun]

Strange thing about the Celts in the Empire. When the time comes for this sort of thread, everyone pipes up about how much of Britain's soldiers were Irish, and how many clever chaps were Scots-but in Hollywood, the evil British general is always English.

[SavoyTruffle]

Strange thing about the Celts in the Empire. When the time comes for this sort of thread, everyone pipes up about how much of Britain's soldiers were Irish, and how many clever chaps were Scots-but in Hollywood, the evil British general is always English.

The Scots were the elite troops, the Irish the Red Shirts (in a literal as well as figurative manner), and of course the English were the elites.

[Awilla the Hun]

Until someone mentions the Connaught Rangers, the Duke of Wellington, and goodness knows who else.

[SavoyTruffle]

Until someone mentions the Connaught Rangers, the Duke of Wellington, and goodness knows who else.

Yup. The British army was more nuanced than its stereotype, but hey.

[Sior]

The Scots were the elite troops, the Irish the Red Shirts (in a literal as well as figurative manner), and of course the English were the elites.

And the Welsh stayed at home and drank you beer and fornicated with your women!

[SavoyTruffle]

And the Welsh stayed at home and drank you beer and fornicated with your women!

But I thought they manned the longbows! :p

[corditeman]

... Hollywood needed a new source of villains after it became politically incorrect to have German, Russian and Japanese WW2 stereotypes and too worried about oil to choose any Middle Eastern state. Bearing in mind 1776, the result was inevitable and the British/English are too polite to protest...

...Until NOW...:mad:

[T3h_shammy]

The Anglo-Saxon race is superior in their blood, language, customs, culture, and spirit. This is clearly demonstrated by their ascendancy over the world despite being such small portion of the population and rightfully take their place over the lesser races and bring them civilization.

We do in fact win.

[Chookie]

The Anglo-Saxon race is superior in their blood, language, customs, culture, and spirit. This is clearly demonstrated by their ascendancy over the world despite being such small portion of the population and rightfully take their place over the lesser races and bring them civilization.

We do in fact win.
In fact, you lose. Unless and until you define the "Anglo-Saxon" race by both historical and DNA analyses and account for the fact that the early Christian chronicles from what is now England refer to both Angles and Saxons as pirates, you lose.

[T3h_shammy]

In fact, you lose. Unless and until you define the "Anglo-Saxon" race by both historical and DNA analyses and account for the fact that the early Christian chronicles from what is now England refer to both Angles and Saxons as pirates, you lose.

Sorry, I lost my DNA analysis* the other day. Could you supply me with yours. If not you "lose".