Why is everybody so obsessed with Britain

The new pics all have British soldiers in it, I think the first pics for empire had British soldiers and ships in it. You look at everyone here, it's either German or British

CA is british

Originally Posted by Alexander of Jordan

The new pics all have British soldiers in it, I think the first pics for empire had British soldiers and ships in it. You look at everyone here, it's either German or British

For starters The Creative Assembly is headquartered in the UK and they're the ones creating these scenes. Other than that, they've been a major military power for many centuries.

'Cos Red is soooo in this year.

It's because CA is British and most Americans identify more with Great-Britain than other European nations because of the language.

Additionally history education in both countries is notoriously biased to give a very one sided account of historical events. British school children learn that Napoleon was an evil tyrant and that the noble British saved Europe. Oh and the English defeated the Spanish Armada, and they won Battle of Waterloo on their own.

Originally Posted by Tullaris

Additionally history education in both countries is notoriously biased to give a very one sided account of historical events. British school children learn that Napoleon was an evil tyrant and that the noble British saved Europe. Oh and the English defeated the Spanish Armada, and they won Battle of Waterloo on their own.

Really? Care to back that up with evidence?

Originally Posted by Markas

Really? Care to back that up with evidence?

Lets just say it is my extensive personal experience with discussing historical topics with Americans and Brits.

If you want a perfect example of this look up "The glorious revolution of 1688" in any popular British history book, then compare it with historian's accounts in scientific publications. In this particular example British have always learned that the English invited William III to sit on their thrown. That's comparable to saying the Iraqi's invited the Americans into Iraq.

Originally Posted by Tullaris

Lets just say it is my extensive personal experience with discussing historical topics with Americans and Brits.

Uh-huh. Anecdotal evidence. What a surprise. Perhaps a link to this curriculm that apparently teaches the things you describe? That might convince some of us you didn't just pull this out of your ass.

If you want a perfect example of this look up "The glorious revolution of 1688" in any popular British history book, then compare it with historian's accounts in scientific publications. In this particular example British have always learned that the English invited William III to sit on their thrown. That's comparable to saying the Iraqi's invited the Americans into Iraq.

I don't know what they teach you but he was had considerable support through a coalition of Whigs and Tories, in addition to support in the english Army. Why the hell do you think it was bloodless?

And as for your comparison to the Iraq war, well, I'd give up on that cul-de-sac whilst you can.

Originally Posted by Tullaris

Lets just say it is my extensive personal experience with discussing historical topics with Americans and Brits.

If you want a perfect example of this look up "The glorious revolution of 1688" in any popular British history book, then compare it with historian's accounts in scientific publications. In this particular example British have always learned that the English invited William III to sit on their thrown. That's comparable to saying the Iraqi's invited the Americans into Iraq.

And what glorious and neatural nation are you from, Tullaris, where everyone is fair-minded etc.? Because they obviously left you out their eutopian mix.

Well this was the British Era and one of their finest moments. What is so hard to understand about a nation taking pride in their history? Just because some might take it to a rediculous extreme doesn't make the sentiment invalid. I am sure that there are many French people who also fondly remember this period for they also had a good run for awhile. I know that many Germans and Russians have those feelings. Nothing wrong with that to my mind.

Further, I gathered that this was the Napoleonic Era which, if you had to assign it to a nation, would rather be the French era. And, of course, after that the Russians had quite a lot of prestige, what with everybody adopting their uniform style, after all. The 'British Era' didn't start until after the Crimean War, when everybody found out that Russia was a paper tiger after thirty years of stagnation.

The British became the world's foremost imperial power after the conclusion of the Seven Years' War, however. France and Russia were Britain's closest rivals, yes, but after 1763 France was almost entirely shorn of its overseas empire, hence their determination to get revenge during the American War of Independence.

Originally Posted by Tullaris

If you want a perfect example of this look up "The glorious revolution of 1688" in any popular British history book, then compare it with historian's accounts in scientific publications. In this particular example British have always learned that the English invited William III to sit on their thrown. That's comparable to saying the Iraqi's invited the Americans into Iraq.

You're comparing the Glorious Revolution to the Iraq War?

Originally Posted by Lord Tomyris

You're comparing the Glorious Revolution to the Iraq War?

It was the conclusion of the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century, resulting in a successful invasion of England and a Dutchman ascending the English throne. In the end the English throne was secured by a foreign power. So I think he is arguing that their are similarities between the two events as they both involved war, invasion, and finaly a change of government.

Originally Posted by Tullaris

Lets just say it is my extensive personal experience with discussing historical topics with Americans and Brits.

If you want a perfect example of this look up "The glorious revolution of 1688" in any popular British history book, then compare it with historian's accounts in scientific publications. In this particular example British have always learned that the English invited William III to sit on their thrown. That's comparable to saying the Iraqi's invited the Americans into Iraq.

I did a-level and GCSE at history.
Thats two qualifications below a Uni degree.
We were never told that.

Originally Posted by Markas

Really? Care to back that up with evidence?

Sadly most people only learn basic things about history in school. Napoleon being somebody conquering large portions of Europe, thus many assume he was a bad guy. His demise at Waterloo with Wellington named as the winner of that fight. Wellington was British. Hence, people think Britain won Waterloo and were the major factor that defeated Napoleon.

People interested in history will probally read evidence and have a diffirent view on the napoleonic era.

Originally Posted by Markas

Really? Care to back that up with evidence?

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole...ST_VICTORY.htm

Originally Posted by Kolyan

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole...ST_VICTORY.htm

Asides from using a shameless Napoleon fanboy site, your link does not answer my question.

Again, Please provide evidence that the British are taught that-

Additionally history education in both countries is notoriously biased to give a very one sided account of historical events. British school children learn that Napoleon was an evil tyrant and that the noble British saved Europe. Oh and the English defeated the Spanish Armada, and they won Battle of Waterloo on their own.

A link to the curriculum of British schools, for example. You know, something relevent.

Originally Posted by Markas

Asides from using a shameless Napoleon fanboy site, .

It is very entertaining to see how often a proud British patriot with a Napoleonic history knowledge from a book written British author and historically ridiculous Sharpe TV series comes up on the forums with a statements like "our army was the best", "we are the best" “best quality” “able to withstand more than other European armies” of the time or similar. Glazing through this topic you can easily lose count of these statements. As expected the topic turned to be an ongoing self-flattering, worshiping of “glorious” British military and anything British, including very remotely related to the British participation in Napoleonic wars things like MP3 player invention.

Some people here are genuinely believe that British military during Napoleonic wars was the best and even if angels were to come down to them to prove the opposite they would not have believed them anyway. Obviously any source apart from Sharpe series and British history textbooks will be marked as “shameless Napoleon fanboy source” (the website) or “shameless German fanboy source” (Peter Hofschrer ) or “shameless Russian fanboy source” (Sokolov). For that matter these British patriots are very selective in what they consider “good British source” and if need be even “The Times", The Sunday Times” and "Sunday Telegraph” can become “shameless Napoleon fanboy source”

No wonder it is the case as for two centuries generations of British children have been brainwashed with a certain agenda. It reminds me the generation of Russians born in 1920-30th with many of them genuinely believe that Stalin was a caring and loving father of all nations lived in Soviet Union. Tons of documents, years of research, millions of witnesses and millions of perished prove nothing to them as they simply refused to believe.

I have seen evidence (including on this forum) that no matter how well you present and back up your argument majority British here who refuse to take anything proving that British army was in fact not that superior as British official history likes to portrait.

Nevertheless soon I will have a few things to say on this topic in a detail- something that I accumulated over the years of reading with majority being in fact western sources. I guess that some proud British patriots will not be comfortable to read what I have ready so far but I hope they will not take it personally and will have fun as learning on "other perspective" is that what makes history objective.

My essay should be ready in 3-4 month as I still have to complete reading two books with very detailed analysis on Napoleon’s 1805 campaign and 1809 Austrian camping which will help in the comparison of British “superior” army to other European nations.

Having said that statements found on this topic make me mostly laugh and to my mind either belong to heavily brainwashed people (which is not surprising) or teenagers or heavily brainwashed teenagers. This all makes me anxious to share with you the information I have so far but I will be patient so for you Markas I will make sure to send a private message to you profile so you will not miss it. Although I doubt that you will miss it anyway as I already see how great-great-great…children of “superior nation soldiers” will be posting here in dozens in a fit of righteous anger. Should be fun….

Originally Posted by Tullaris

It's because CA is British and most Americans identify more with Great-Britain than other European nations because of the language.

Additionally history education in both countries is notoriously biased to give a very one sided account of historical events. British school children learn that Napoleon was an evil tyrant and that the noble British saved Europe. Oh and the English defeated the Spanish Armada, and they won Battle of Waterloo on their own.

Not really, I think you are just pulling things out of mid air old chap.
Trust me, other countries education system isn't some shining beacon of neutrality whilst those dastardly Brits teach that they are masters of the universe.

Originally Posted by Tullaris

It's because CA is British and most Americans identify more with Great-Britain than other European nations because of the language.

Additionally history education in both countries is notoriously biased to give a very one sided account of historical events. British school children learn that Napoleon was an evil tyrant and that the noble British saved Europe. Oh and the English defeated the Spanish Armada, and they won Battle of Waterloo on their own.

And what is wrong with that then ?????

Actually its complete rubbish, the British have a very healthy respect for Napoleon and everybody knows that the weather and good luck played a part in defeating the armada

Now Tullaris what is your problem ???? as you seen to have an enormous chip on your shoulder

Originally Posted by Tullaris

Additionally history education in both countries is notoriously biased to give a very one sided account of historical events. British school children learn that Napoleon was an evil tyrant and that the noble British saved Europe. Oh and the English defeated the Spanish Armada, and they won Battle of Waterloo on their own.

Actually we are taught nothing of the Napoleonic time period, and what we learn about the Armada is that there was wind and fireships...

My source

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I am a British School Child...