The English

[Tostig]

I was perusing Christopher Duffy's The Military Experience in the Age of Reason and found the following passage in a section describing the various military nations during the 18th Century:

The English
There was a clear consensus as to the military character of the English (the work "British" was little used in Europe at the time). Their materiel was of the finest: their artillery pieces were accurately bored-out and cleanly finished; their sturdy, beef-fed soldiers were clad in uniforms of good-quality cloth, and their horses were reckoned to be the fastest in Europe - equally good for moving cavalry and senior officers.

The most pronounced moral traits of the English were violence and patriotism. The street battle of the London mobs were notorious, and continental Europeans noted how the people flocked to the grizzly tragedies of Shakespeare. Among the superior orders of society, political debate appeared to run with unbridled freedom. All classes were united in their contempt for foreigners. The French renegade Bonneville had the misfortune to serve with the English on the Rochefort expedition in 1757, and 'when I summon up in my mind all the remote corners of the globe in which I have travelled, I say to myself that of all peoples I have seen there are none who are more savage or unsociable than the English' (Bonneville, 1762, I, 85).

There was nothing exceptional or extraordinary about the hatred which the English bore against the French, even though they were hereditary enemies and their nearest neighbours. The English hated everyone else as well. The American provincial troops in the French and Indian War, the German auxiliaries on the continent of Europe in the Seven Years War and again in North America in the 1770s - they all found that the English were 'amazingly proud and haughty, and imbued with a scorn for all other nations.' (Dohla, 1912, 145)

The fury and xenophobia made for an 'epidemic bravery' which was recognised as unique. It was seen in the monstrous column at Fontenoy in 1745 and again at Minden in 1759, when six battalions of English infantry attacked and overthrew seventy-two squadrons of French Cavalry.

Dr Samuel Johnson examined the matter more closely. He found that the English bravery was dispersed among the ranks, yet had nothing in common with the machine-like order that was seen amongst the Prussians. It did not proceed from the leadership of superiors (the English acknowledged no masters), nor was it inspired by any attachment to concepts of property or constitutional liberty. Johnson concluded that the bravery of the English proceeded from the Englishman's 'want of subordination' and his high opinion of his individual worth: 'they who complain, in peace, of the insolence of the populace, must remember, that their insolence in peace is bravery in war.'

...

The continental verdict is summed up by the Prince de Ligne: 'they are brave without being soldierly and gentlemen without being officers' (Ligne, 1795-1811, I, 160.)

My question is this: To what extent does this apply to England (and the rest of Britain) today? Is hooliganism no more harmful than it was then, and instead something to be proud of?

[Lord Tomyris]

This is exactly why I am glad when I hear a local chav is signing up for the British Army! Good on ya, lads!

[removeduser_487563287433]

Different times, different people.

[hunter260859]

well were sociable sometimes you must be liked though by someone from britian first then you are acceptable for friendship lol

anyway the british have always been known to be fearousious in battle particuarly at sea we were once a very pround nation and some of us still are


plus to your question on hooliganism i wouldnt call british soldiers hoolgians just hearty fighter but hooligans depends on the time football rugby and if such thing cricket lol

[the Black Prince]

some excellent descriptions in there, which to a great extent are still acurate, though the xenophobia is definately less...

[Manji]

Tostig: great post.
National bravery is, in this day and age, rather underrated, at least in Europe; it seems that of the entire Western World only America has retained the "national pride" and the "warrior nation" spirit that not so long ago was common in Europe; more, every nation has it's share of national mythos, of bravery and cunningness.
Here's a little pearl i've found written by a german historian about the not-so-famous portuguese:

Running forward

One of the techniques that the Portuguese warriors employed against their enemies who held the Moorish bow was just more than unusual.
They knew that the Moorish bow would be very effective within the range of 50 meters to 400 meters.
So when 40 Portuguese soldiers disembarked to face a first row of 300 archers also armed with bows, their first act was to run like madmen towards the archers, with their rapiers and left handlers in hand. The archers would be stunned by this totally insane act, as due to the heat, very few would wear armors. This stunning delay would again act in favour of the Portuguese who would close the 50 meters range with a few more seconds of advantage.

The Portuguese knew about the 50 meters bow effectiveness and that their only hope was to run frontward to cut that distance, after which their highly seasoned maneuver of the rapier and the left handler would destroy the bowmen in no time, one after the other. One blade would stop the archers strike and the other would dispatch the enemy, and this was done methodically in no time.

Running frontwards "for cover" was a tactic that brought the Portuguese warriors great fame and respect for their bravery.

[Denny Crane!]

Well I think that is partially innaccurate. The English military of that time were not as xenophobic as made out. The character of the average military man in that period of history is that of a criminal, a semi or full blown alcoholic and there most important concern was avoiding work or finding more alcohol. In the scheme of things strong xenophobic feelings did not really come into it. There was a certain amount of disdain but not hatred which is what the term implies. Amongst allied infantry the commonality of there situation lent itself to a certain amount of comraderie.

So what is it that creates the suicidal bravery that led two battalions of scots to charge 100 cannons and 30000 trained infantry at the battle of assaye and terrify them into routing. Was it the stoic stiff upper lip attitude? Well I daresay there was a certain amount of that but also in a large part the training and the situational context of the battles in which situations like this occur.

There are many examples where the French show as much stoic courage in the face of fire, so what makes Britain stand out more? The brilliance of our tactics and training mean we won more against more unachievable odds than the troops who did not train with live fire (and were more than capable of running in fear at the sound of there own volley or firing to early and thus losing the battle) or who fought in the column system. A system which proved effective against the badly trained troops of Europe but when faced with English platoon fire in line formation firing three shots a minute the mathematics beat them more than the English courage.

Although I cannot dispute that the British in particular the Scottish have an inexplicable talent for violence. To determine the root causes of this I think genetics would have to be brought into it. They have proved that violent traits can be inherited, I am not sure if it is tenous to suggest that violent traits could be an inherited behaviour on a nationwide scale but I am seeking explanations because xenophobia doesn't quite cut it with me.

Actual question I'm rambling

Hooliganism and the similar traits stem from primitive personalities and tribalism. The needs of a society are different now to what they were then and this behaviour contributes nothing now to our wellbeing on a national scale. So no don't be proud of it and be proud your not one of them instead.

Peter

[Cadmium77]

Well I think that is partially innaccurate. The English military of that time were not as xenophobic as made out. The character of the average military man in that period of history is that of a criminal, a semi or full blown alcoholic and there most important concern was avoiding work or finding more alcohol. In the scheme of things strong xenophobic feelings did not really come into it. There was a certain amount of disdain but not hatred which is what the term implies. Amongst allied infantry the commonality of there situation lent itself to a certain amount of comraderie.

So what is it that creates the suicidal bravery that led two battalions of scots to charge 100 cannons and 30000 trained infantry at the battle of assaye and terrify them into routing. Was it the stoic stiff upper lip attitude? Well I daresay there was a certain amount of that but also in a large part the training and the situational context of the battles in which situations like this occur.

There are many examples where the French show as much stoic courage in the face of fire, so what makes Britain stand out more? The brilliance of our tactics and training mean we won more against more unachievable odds than the troops who did not train with live fire (and were more than capable of running in fear at the sound of there own volley or firing to early and thus losing the battle) or who fought in the column system. A system which proved effective against the badly trained troops of Europe but when faced with English platoon fire in line formation firing three shots a minute the mathematics beat them more than the English courage.

Although I cannot dispute that the British in particular the Scottish have an inexplicable talent for violence. To determine the root causes of this I think genetics would have to be brought into it. They have proved that violent traits can be inherited, I am not sure if it is tenous to suggest that violent traits could be an inherited behaviour on a nationwide scale but I am seeking explanations because xenophobia doesn't quite cut it with me.

Actual question I'm rambling

Hooliganism and the similar traits stem from primitive personalities and tribalism. The needs of a society are different now to what they were then and this behaviour contributes nothing now to our wellbeing on a national scale. So no don't be proud of it and be proud your not one of them instead.

Peter

I suspect that Henri Beyle, Stendahl came close to it in his analysis of the English; he compared them to the Italians.

The poorest Italian lives each day under blue skies, in a poetic landscape, drinking delicious wine and eating all the fruits of nature that Italy lavishes upon its inhabitants. He has a little girlfriend that gives him love, and everywhere he goes he is surrounded by magnificent works of art.

Even the richest Englishman by contrast, gets up each day to a sky that appears to be clouded with heavy smoke, in a brutally cold, damp climate. He is forced to drink wretched beer, which is essentially rotten bread juice and eat boiled beef and hard bread, the meager fruits of a harsh climate. Everywhere he goes he is surrounded by a funereal gloomy landscape, and for the most part the women of his land are as cold as ice, given to a puritanical chastity or calculating whorishness..


Herein lies the secret of British violence and ill temper. They're bloody miserable...Old Blightey indeed...

[wilpuri]

I was perusing Christopher Duffy's The Military Experience in the Age of Reason and found the following passage in a section describing the various military nations during the 18th Century:



My question is this: To what extent does this apply to England (and the rest of Britain) today? Is hooliganism no more harmful than it was then, and instead something to be proud of?

An interesting post.

I'll throw in my two cents.

It is not hooliganism, violence or stuff like that, which made the English good soldiers, it was the tribalism. Tribalism can lead to hooliganism (hardcore football firms and such), but that is not the primal cause.

Finns, who have always been relatively peaceful (when sober) fought with great valour in the Armies of Sweden and later in an army of our own. I think it is the strong feeling of "us", a strong bond and trust between individuals, that results in bravery bordering on the reckless. A sense of pride (even if misplaced) will always boost self-confidence, and when you think you can fight (even if you can't), you do fight better than if you think you can't fight.

The craziest fighters I know are either 3rd world immigrants (who are much more tribal by nature than the average Finn) or come from a certain Finnish grouping within the lumpenproletariat, who more often than not are what most people would call racist (former 'skinheads' and the like). Its grand when these two groups clash, like they did a couple of years ago. Chains, metal pipes, baseball bats, cops, the whole shebang. Awesome.

[sephodwyrm]

Lord Palmerston and his jingoism still ring rather loudly in my Chinese ears...

But of course, I have great respect for William Gladstone...and William Pickering for that matter. There are always exceptions for every group of people.

[TenkiSoratoti]

Englishness is slowly coming out of it's hermit hole now, you'll find a fair few more English patriots (including myself) out there than you would of 4 or 5 years ago. Agincourt, Halidon Hill, Flodden Field, Crecy, Balaklava, Blenheim, Minden, Queenston Heights and more demonstrate the sheer power of the English drive under pressure and the un-willingness to let a 'foreigner' win in battle.

[Custor]

Englishness is slowly coming out of it's hermit hole now, you'll find a fair few more English patriots (including myself) out there than you would of 4 or 5 years ago. Agincourt, Halidon Hill, Flodden Field, Crecy, Balaklava, Blenheim, Minden, Queenston Heights and more demonstrate the sheer power of the English drive under pressure and the un-willingness to let a 'foreigner' win in battle.

I hope the new 'English' are able to discern victories on the battlefield won by the 'British' as opposed to those won by the 'English'.
Posted evidence, it appears not.

Is Hooliganism something to be pround of? Oh yeah, makes me proud to see heads kicked in. Can;t wait till the start of the new footie season. The firms can really go to town and show us the true spirit of the Englishness.

[caratacus]

The English it seems have always had a reputation for ferocity especially under the influence of alcohol. In reading about the Hundred Years War between France and England the French often write about how the English frequently took part in violent drunken behaviour when French towns were taken( nothing new there then!!).

Whether this is genetical or cultural thing is something which has never been resolved. Although a lot less volitile than say the Latins to the extent of being described as very passive and difficult to rile in a political conflict, once quantities of beer are consumed the raw barbarian emerges. Why do you think The Royal Navy issued Rum to its sailors, ha! ha!

Most describe the English as being Anglo-Saxon or Norse, but I think We may be more similar to those mysterious fierce peoples that inhabited these Isles before the Romans came, than we may choose to admit. Certainly When compared with the typical Dutch, Dane, German or Norwegian of today we are very different, but thats just my opinion. Perhaps England was settled by Vikings who were a lot more troublesome and more adventurous than the ones that stayed in Scandanavia.??? Perhaps a land of exile for naughty Vikings like Australia was for England. This may explain why there have been cases of Britons fighting to get into IKEA stores, Who knows.

In answer to you question though. If these individuals are trained and disciplined they result in some of the finest infantrymen in the world. If allowed to waste and fester as quite often occurs in our modern progressive society, that most horrible, pathetic and violent creature the Hooligan results.

[The Alcotroll]

I hope the new 'English' are able to discern victories on the battlefield won by the 'British' as opposed to those won by the 'English'.
Posted evidence, it appears not.

You know, I'm getting tired of all this 'English' malarkey as well. I think of myself as British rather than English, and considering the diminishing nature of our international profile, I think the last thing the UK needs to be doing is spliting itself further apart.

No, you're right, that little rant had bugger all to do with the topic, but I feel so much better for it.

[TenkiSoratoti]

I hope the new 'English' are able to discern victories on the battlefield won by the 'British' as opposed to those won by the 'English'.
Posted evidence, it appears not.

Is Hooliganism something to be pround of? Oh yeah, makes me proud to see heads kicked in. Can;t wait till the start of the new footie season. The firms can really go to town and show us the true spirit of the Englishness.

Those were battles that either included almost solely the English (post Union) or included English regiments that decided the battle. Contrary to popular belief, English Regiments are given very little notice in the grand scheme of the British Army. When someone thinks best of the British Army they think kilted highlander with redcoat. Yes, the Welsh, Scottish and Irish Regiments fought in the British Army, but they never, again contrary to popular belief, outnumbered the English Regiments/soldiers. Some people seem to want to make it absolutely clear that England has a weaker gene pool than her neighbours thus leading people to presume she produced weak troops that were useless in battle. If this is correct, then how on earth did she conquer Wales and Ireland and beat Scotland in more major battles than you could shake a stick at?

There is an expression that goes something like "The Irish fought the battles, the Scottish ran the Empire and the English raked in the profits" or something to that effect. Naturally, over the past 100 years or so the English have always dismissed this as a typical chip on the old shoulder pun of jealousy and thus don't react. Now that Britain is in retirement and no longer has an Empire, this chip on the shoulder is starting to re-write history. We've already seen it in 'Braveheart'; even in the battle that the English decisively won (Falkirk) we still see a very large amount of incompetent Englishman get hacked to pieces. The film genuinely makes English soldiers look physically weak, inferior and useless (and not to mention Satanically evil) and that means everyone who watches the film thinks that way except those with a genuine interest in that sector of history.

Englishness, in my opinion, is played down by the minorities in the United Kingdom. England is by no means an angel but then niether are most nations really, it so happens that England is the biggest, most powerful segment of the United Kingdom and therefore bares the brunt of everyone else. Anyone else noticed how the USA seems to get bashed by nearly all Europeans? I can't deny that I've had a few bashes at America but what is so significant about them? Well... they are the biggest and the most powerful nation on this planet just like England is in the UK... now isn't that ironic?

This might not make any sense because I went and away and came back and got a bit lost.

[LoZz]

their is still the enjoyment of alcohol but now it comes with less violence and holganism (which is nothing to be proud of), i mean we have or did till recently one of the lowist crime rates in the western world bar a few other places like canada.

tbh i think its going back that other way, i see more and more people drinking and gettting violent, and i personaly think racism/bnp etc is on the rise. but its not as bad as it was yet, the army doesnt tolerate drunking behavour (while on duty that is) and they have to now by law treat other people with respect and not go on a blind **** up and kill them all.

[Denny Crane!]

their is still the enjoyment of alcohol but now it comes with less violence and holganism (which is nothing to be proud of), i mean we have or did till recently one of the lowist crime rates in the western world bar a few other places like canada.

tbh i think its going back that other way, i see more and more people drinking and gettting violent, and i personaly think racism/bnp etc is on the rise. but its not as bad as it was yet, the army doesnt tolerate drunking behavour (while on duty that is) and they have to now by law treat other people with respect and not go on a blind **** up and kill them all.

Well low crime rates? Not sure of the truth of this, the reason I say this is we may have had a lull in crime during the early 20th C. but Britain has before and especially recently been a very violent place.

You are more likely to get violently assaulted in Britain than in the US of A these days.

Peter

[LoZz]

Well low crime rates? Not sure of the truth of this, the reason I say this is we may have had a lull in crime during the early 20th C. but Britain has before and especially recently been a very violent place.

You are more likely to get violently assaulted in Britain than in the US of A these days.

Peter

not true - american still has more crime than us, etc

[Denny Crane!]

not true - american still has more crime than us, etc

Numbers wise yes, statistically no. Remember they have approximatley five times the population but they don't quite have five times the violent crime.

More shootings don't get me wrong, but in terms of the likelihood of crime and especially physical assault well I would appreciate living in the USA.

Not only that you know the consensus opinion of a few Americans I know who live in the UK say that the USA is a much friendlier place to live, our culture is antisocial and heavily based around alcohol.

[Manji]

Not only that you know the consensus opinion of a few Americans I know who live in the UK say that the USA is a much friendlier place to live, our culture is antisocial and heavily based around alcohol.

Americans are easier to befriend.... but hey, first of all they are like 4x your population and secondly your culture espouses a "they are out to get us" mentality.
And I would never exchange a english mate of mine for 300 americans.
Waes hael you ****s