Who would have been better than the Brits as colonists?

dd972

Another foray into AH Flak Central.

Supposing the English/Brits never bothered with Ireland and say, the French ran things instead for X amount of years or for instance we were part of the Spanish Netherlandish empire like the Dutch were, how do you think things would have been different or better or worse than how things turned out?

artanevilla

Wouldn't have taken as long to be free. French would have surrendered straight away.

Sunnyisland

The Germans seem to be doing quite nicely with it :-)

Pilotdude5

The Swiss

The Backwards Man

As colonial empiricists go, the Brits were far from the worst, probably close to the best.

wendell borton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtzRUNyfgPo

Standard Toaster

The Spanish have a 50% military bonus against native villages.

Albert E. Arkwright

Well Irish politicians seem to be totally incapable of running our own country, never mind someone else's. Then again honest people don't go into Irish politics.

kneemos

Jamaicans would have been cool.

Latchy

If Republic of Ireland had stayed on as part of the Empire then it wouldn't have the fallout from the Celtic Tiger/ Euro bail out scene but it would now be part of the whole UK austerity measure policy instead so basically swopping one dire economic situation for another ,probably less dire one .

Chuck Stone

Awaits British Empire apologists to attempt to talk up our colonisation and talk down the fight against it.

Steve O

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Awaits British Empire apologists to attempt to talk up our colonisation and talk down the fight against it.

Amazing that a lot of those apologists are Irish.

Chuck Stone

Steve O wrote: »

Amazing that a lot of those apologists are Irish.

They're a small but vocal bunch who'd very much have been the enemy of those who aspired to Irish Independence.

Wibbs

artanevilla wrote: »

Wouldn't have taken as long to be free. French would have surrendered straight away.

Since the fall of Rome, the French have been the most successful land army in European history.

The Backwards Man

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Awaits British Empire apologists to attempt to talk up our colonisation and talk down the fight against it.

Cathal Cloch has spoken.

Chuck Stone

Wibbs wrote: »

Since the fall of Rome, the French have been the most successful land army in European history.

Get out of here with your facts Mr. Wibbs.

The Sun, Jeremy Clarkson and neocon journalists said the French were surrender monkeys and that's good enough for me.

Tabnabs

The vikings should have had another crack at it after then knocked off Brian Boru. More blondes, state controlled natural resources, progressive, liberal society. Better than that other lot...

Albert E. Arkwright

Wibbs wrote: »

Since the fall of Rome, the French have been the most successful land army in European history.

Is that why the Germans kicked their arse twice in real wars ?

Chuck Stone

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Cathal Cloch has spoken.

I don't get it!? Even after a google.

General Monck

I blame partition for the economic mess we're in. If the country wasn't divided in two by an international border, I don't think things would be half as bad.

TheLastMohican

kneemos wrote: »

Jamaicans would have been cool.

Yeah Mon! And Lee Scratch Perry sitting in de Aras, exotic types of skunk and sensie being showcased in the Botanical Gardens and a Patois/Gaelic fusion being compulsary for all entry level jobs

Hidalgo

The Spanish maybe, from a religious POV.
They also gave equal rights to native South American's also afiak,

TheLastMohican

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't get it!? Even after a google.

Brush up on your Gaelic Chuck (Cathal)

biko

If only Brian Boru hadn't defeated the Vikings a thousand years ago.
We could have been speaking Norwegian

dirtyden

Albert E. Arkwright wrote: »

Is that why the Germans kicked their arse twice in real wars ?

Which two wars did the Germans win?

sock puppet

Wibbs wrote: »

Since the fall of Rome, the French have been the most successful land army in European history.

To be fair, aren't Britain, Spain and France pretty much the only large European countries that have actually existed for most of European history?

The Backwards Man

Hidalgo wrote: »

The Spanish maybe, from a religious POV.
They also gave equal rights to native South American's also afiak,

Only to the ones that lived. . .

ToddyDoody

America of course, native American.

Chuck Stone

TheLastMohican wrote: »

Brush up on your Gaelic Chuck (Cathal)

I haven't a word of Irish. It wasn't funded in primary school in the north so I was way behind when we came south and was exempted.

Cathal Cloch. I like it. I might take it as my re-reg name.

Funfair

We were lucky the Israelites didn't take us over.. IRA man suspected of being in a house on the Falls Road the whole street would be blown to bits...

dd972

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Awaits British Empire apologists to attempt to talk up our colonisation and talk down the fight against it.

I'm not sure Ruth Dudley Westbrit posts on Boards.ie, there's some fawning garbage online somewhere from her about how the Irish had qualities that made them interesting and the Scots had qualities that made them intellectually superior and more innovative than us.

BillyMitchel

The Mongolians

NuckingFacker

The Swedish would have been nice. If for nothing else, they'd have spiced up the gene pool on the good-looking front.

Danny Boy

The Backwards Man wrote: »

As colonial empiricists go, the Brits were far from the worst, probably close to the best.

Yes the thousands executed over the centuries for transgressing the penal laws, the over 1 million who were left to die in the gutter while 1000s of tonnes of food were exported to the empire, the brightest of a generation shot down, I'm sure all would agree with your assertion.

In 1940 the British are widely acknowledged as having saved the World from Germany tyranny.

For countries such as ours for centuries before that the British were our Germany, and no one saved us from them.

Wibbs

Albert E. Arkwright wrote: »

Is that why the Germans kicked their arse twice in real wars ?

ehhhh nope. But yep the French pretty much kicked arse in European history. Won more battles and wars than anyone else. The English may cry "Agincourt", but have a bit of amnesia over the fact that the French slaughtered them in just about all the other battles in that war and oh yea won the war outright. As wiki notes; "France has participated in 168 major European wars since 387 BC, out of which they have won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49". That's some arse kicking going on. Surrender monkeys my bollix. Look at how many military terms and ranks are French in origin. Even the word army comes by way of old French.

Hidalgo wrote: »

The Spanish maybe, from a religious POV.
They also gave equal rights to native South American's also afiak,

Hardly. They were right c*nts in the Americas.

sock puppet wrote: »

To be fair, aren't Britain, Spain and France pretty much the only large European countries that have actually existed for most of European history?

you could add Spain, Portugal and others to the list. Plus there were many powerful local states, EG in Italy who were militarily strong. Plus take somewhere like Britain, for much of it's history England, Scotland and Wales were pretty separate states.

NuckingFacker wrote: »

The Swedish would have been nice. If for nothing else, they'd have spiced up the gene pool on the good-looking front.

Maybe, though look at Iceland. Other than Columbia IIRC they have had more miss Worlds than anywhere else and you do see some serious crackers of a night out there, but genetically apparently many of the female lines are actually Irish. Must find the link. Interesting stuff.

Wibbs

Danny Boy wrote: »

Yes the thousands executed over the centuries for transgressing the penal laws, the over 1 million who were left to die in the gutter while 1000s of tonnes of food were exported to the empire, the brightest of a generation shot down, I'm sure all would agree with your assertion.

Ok but how many did they shoot down in actual numbers? Genuine question. While the British elites were right bastards(not least with their "own"), how many did they directly shoot/kill? Numbers tend to be exaggerated in the mind. Take our own civil war. Numbers killed? around 2-3 thousand, the figure is still murky. Terrible bloody tragedy and still has scar tissue down to today, but when you take the Spanish civil war not long after and see the figure of 2-3 hundred thousand it beggars belief.

In 1940 the British are widely acknowledged as having saved the World from Germany tyranny.

Hardly. At that stage they were a sideshow. The Battle of Britain was pretty unlikely to have gone any other way. Plus they(and the French and others) were roundly and rapidly thrashed by the German advances through Western Europe, even though they had numbers on their side. If Hitler had ever established a beachhead in England and brought the full force of blitzkrieg onto English soil they would have been fooked, after all they very nearly took Russia and had taken out the French, Dutch, Belgians etc, but like I said that was a very slim chance so... BTW this is not to denigrate the bravery of the (scarily young)men defending the skies(inc quite the number of Irish men), but the numbers don't quite add up to the post war hype and great story.

Plus it was the Soviets who effectively "won the war". Any other army that faced the German war machine on land in anything like decent strength got hammered. So did the Soviets, but they had the sheer numbers aren't werent afraid to hurl them at German steel. And they had a very strong ally, the weather. One of their greatest "generals" was General Winter.

Danny Boy

Wibbs wrote: »

Ok but how many did they shoot down in actual numbers? Genuine question. While the British elites were right bastards(not least with their "own"), how many did they directly shoot/kill? Numbers tend to be exaggerated in the mind. Take our own civil war. Numbers killed? around 2-3 thousand, the figure is still murky. Terrible bloody tragedy and still has scar tissue down to today, but when you take the Spanish civil war not long after and see the figure of 2-3 hundred thousand it beggars belief.


Hardly. At that stage they were a sideshow. The Battle of Britain was pretty unlikely to have gone any other way. Plus they(and the French and others) were roundly and rapidly thrashed by the German advances through Western Europe, even though they had numbers on their side. If Hitler had ever established a beachhead in England and brought the full force of blitzkrieg onto English soil they would have been fooked, after all they very nearly took Russia and had taken out the French, Dutch, Belgians etc, but like I said that was a very slim chance so... BTW this is not to denigrate the bravery of the (scarily young)men defending the skies(inc quite the number of Irish men), but the numbers don't quite add up to the post war hype and great story.

Plus it was the Soviets who effectively "won the war". Any other army that faced the German war machine on land in anything like decent strength got hammered. So did the Soviets, but they had the sheer numbers aren't werent afraid to hurl them at German steel. And they had a very strong ally, the weather. One of their greatest "generals" was General Winter.

If you think that the core point of my post was to accentuate the role of the British in WW2 then that would be a misread.

The J Stands for Jay

The Chinese. A great bunch of lads.

Manach

Chinese - might have had a reasonable national cuisine.

Wibbs

Danny Boy wrote: »

If you think that the core point of my post was to accentuate the role of the British in WW2 then that would be a misread.

Merely correcting the history, but my original question remains, how many did they shoot down in actual numbers? Your post suggests the brightest of a generation. Who were they? How many? How were they the brightest of a generation? Like I say genuine question. Compared to what the imperial pricks got up to in places like India one could argue we got off pretty lightly.

Danny Boy

Wibbs wrote: »

Merely correcting the history, but my original question remains, how many did they shoot down in actual numbers? Your post suggests the brightest of a generation. Who were they? How many? How were they the brightest of a generation? Like I say genuine question. Compared to what the imperial pricks got up to in places like India one could argue we got off pretty lightly.

They had over 90 marked for execution in 1916, before the outcry prevented it from happening. Again the 1 million who were expendable, much as the nazis treated the poles, would suggest we did not get away "lightly", no matter what horrors the Indians endured. There are mass graves all over this country with men women and children by the thousand, all who died under the "protectorate"of Great Britain. It never happened on the "mainland" for a reason.

up for anything

NuckingFacker wrote: »

The Swedish would have been nice. If for nothing else, they'd have spiced up the gene pool on the good-looking front.

Whatever gives you that idea? The men here are bad enough already.


No thanks.

NuckingFacker

up for anything wrote: »

Whatever gives you that idea? The men here are bad enough already.


No thanks.

Yeah, but I like that bloke in the blue and white dress. Muchly.

Hidalgo

Wibbs wrote: »

ehhhh nope. But yep the French pretty much kicked arse in European history. Won more battles and wars than anyone else. The English may cry "Agincourt", but have a bit of amnesia over the fact that the French slaughtered them in just about all the other battles in that war and oh yea won the war outright. As wiki notes; "France has participated in 168 major European wars since 387 BC, out of which they have won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49". That's some arse kicking going on. Surrender monkeys my bollix. Look at how many military terms and ranks are French in origin. Even the word army comes by way of old French.

Hardly. They were right c*nts in the Americas.

you could add Spain, Portugal and others to the list. Plus there were many powerful local states, EG in Italy who were militarily strong. Plus take somewhere like Britain, for much of it's history England, Scotland and Wales were pretty separate states.

Maybe, though look at Iceland. Other than Columbia IIRC they have had more miss Worlds than anywhere else and you do see some serious crackers of a night out there, but genetically apparently many of the female lines are actually Irish. Must find the link. Interesting stuff.

They did bestow equal rights to natives as to those who left Spain to live in the 'new world'.
Also, they didn't (when they easily could have) employ straight out slave labour, natives were provided with housing in villages (mainly as attempt to Christianise them), regarding work for crop growing/gathering etc, once the natives did the set down hours, they could either do more hours for payment/extra food etc or not. Or at least they were the provisions set down in tract in the motherland, of course putting what was written down into practice was a different story.

So where did things go wrong here if the Icelandic have some of our genes, we got the raw deal :pac:

up for anything

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Yeah, but I like that bloke in the blue and white dress. Muchly.

He's a bit obvious. Not my type.

For Forks Sake

BillyMitchel wrote: »

The Mongolians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkyvLD3UJVk

TheUsual

Italy would have been cool. Coffee, fiats and mafia.

Romans they go home

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI

RUSTEDCORE

Dublin needs to colonise the farmers

Wibbs

Danny Boy wrote: »

They had over 90 marked for execution in 1916, before the outcry prevented it from happening. Again the 1 million who were expendable, much as the nazis treated the poles, would suggest we did not get away "lightly", no matter what horrors the Indians endured. There are mass graves all over this country with men women and children by the thousand, all who died under the "protectorate"of Great Britain. It never happened on the "mainland" for a reason.

90? Out of a population north of four million at the time. Hardly a generation, never mind the brightest lights of same. Oh and it didn't happen to boot? You mentioned the nazis? On more than one occasion they shot that many and many more in the course of a single day.

Comparing the Nazi's direct and practically expressed genocidal actions to blinding stupidity, mismanagement and yep in some a daft racial notion is hardly equivalent. I'm not suggesting it wasn't a tragedy of monumental proportions for the people of this nation, but let's dial back the hyperbole, the grey areas of the truth are easier to reveal that way. Yes make no mistake, the British government of the time failed in its political and moral duty to prevent the failure of a staple crop turning into a disaster and they should hang their heads in shame because of that, but to call it deliberate genocide akin to nazi stated aims and practical attempts and successes at following through with their aims is just daft, historically, philosophically and logically. Then again those three subjects are often skimmed over with those expressing agendas. On all sides of a debate, wherever you are.

getzls

realies wrote: »

The Germans seem to be doing quite nicely with it :-)

And the Germans would have colonised Ireland if it wasn't for the Brits in WW2;)

getzls

General Monck wrote: »

I blame partition for the economic mess we're in. If the country wasn't divided in two by an international border, I don't think things would be half as bad.

It's over 90 years ago, get over it.

If you lost your wages in the Bookies you would blame the Brits for it.