Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Who would have been better than the Brits as colonists?

13

Comments

  • #62
    TheLastMohican
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭TheLastMohican


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The Vikings spoke Old Norse and were mainly from Denmark, so we'd have ended up with Danish.

    Not much difference though.

    Thank you for that Zebra3. I often wondered how Jacky Healy-Rae had such a command of this double Danish


  • #63
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Grayson wrote: »
    yep. It's worth remembering that pretty much every colonial power ever raped and pillaged their way through colonies. Everything in a colony was seen as a commodity, right down to the people. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single power that turned up somewhere and did only/mostly good. The place would have had to be uninhabited before the colonists ever arrived.

    Indeed. There'd be suffering regardless. Skipping to the "end" as it were, it would be a toss up between the Scandanavians, Germans and French.


  • #64
    Celly Smunt
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭Celly Smunt


    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.
    happened already and you're all still ugly.Not me though.


  • #65
    crockholm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,448 ✭✭✭crockholm


    pmcmahon wrote: »
    happened already and you're all still ugly.Not me though.
    Not really though, we got the modern day danes and norwegians. The Swedes went east and south. The slavs called them Rus, it's how Russia got it's name and also very similar to the Finnish word for a Swede too.

    Sincerely
    B. Killington Esq.


  • #66
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,057 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The Vikings spoke Old Norse and were mainly from Denmark, so we'd have ended up with Danish.

    Not much difference though.

    Except for the vikings in Ireland and the Atlantic isles, Greenland and America who were mainly Norwegian and direct Norwegian decent as the sagas confirm.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    pmcmahon wrote: »
    happened already and you're all still ugly.Not me though.

    Well Sorrrryyy Omar.


  • #68
    Dynamo Roller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 166 ✭✭Dynamo Roller


    Wouldn't it have been interesting if the Welsh held back the invading forces over the centuries and managed to be the dominant culture in the UK and Ireland. Always had an admiration of the Welsh considering the overwhelming amount of punishment they absorbed and still held on to their culture. The likes of the Picts and many other major tribes and factions in the UK are now only scribbles in books.


  • #69
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    But the Irish were colonists. Proportionately to our population, Ireland produced more colonial soldiers than England, Scotland or Wales. The lt.-governor of Punjab who approved of the Amritsar Massacre was Irish - and he wasn't a Belfast Protestant, but a Catholic from a small farm in Tipperary, Michael O'Dwyer.

    http://www.roguery.com/golden/east/index.htm


  • #70
    Dynamo Roller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 166 ✭✭Dynamo Roller


    goose2005 wrote: »
    But the Irish were colonists. Proportionately to our population, Ireland produced more colonial soldiers than England, Scotland or Wales. The lt.-governor of Punjab who approved of the Amritsar Massacre was Irish - and he wasn't a Belfast Protestant, but a Catholic from a small farm in Tipperary, Michael O'Dwyer.

    http://www.roguery.com/golden/east/index.htm

    ya we were but the question doesn't ask about that


  • #71
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


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

    Utter bollocks.

    Commonwealth combatants who were killed in WWII? Approx 500K.

    Soviet combatants who were killed in WWII? approx 10 million.

    The British have the Soviets (and Adolph's hubris) to thank for not being bitch slapped by The Wehrmacht


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭gallag


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Utter bollocks.

    Commonwealth combatants who were killed in WWII? Approx 500K.

    Soviet combatants who were killed in WWII? approx 10 million.

    The British have the Soviets (and Adolph's hubris) to thank for not being bitch slapped by The Wehrmacht

    Surley the amount of enemy combatants killed is the important number? Any way if it was not for german forced being spread by the British in theaters like the bob and africa the germans would have likely defeated the Russians, and certainly if it was not for the Russian contribution the war would have been lost but the victory was due to all the allied forces and your brit hate wont change that.


  • #73
    somefeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭somefeen


    Sometimes I wish the Russians kept going after Berlin.


  • #74
    Anyone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,376 ✭✭✭Anyone


    Crab people.


  • #75
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    gallag wrote: »
    if it was not for german forced being spread by the British in theaters like the bob and africa the germans would have likely defeated the Russians,

    That's rubbish.
    your brit hate

    Cop the **** on will you? I do not hate the British. Use the search function and if you can find one post where I say I hate the British I'll donate €50 to charity.


  • #76
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    biko wrote: »
    If only Brian Boru hadn't defeated the Vikings a thousand years ago.
    We could have been speaking Norwegian :(
    Vikings settled most of Europe but seemed to abandon their language fairly quickly. Much of northern Europe can be traced back to viking routes and Russia was settled by Vikings.

    I think of all the empires that we could have been oppressed by the Brits were probably the best. In the same way Rome created the Europe that came after it, Britain created the modern world through it's size and industrial revolution.

    If you look at French and Spanish colonies today they're only now beginning to catch up with the west, bar Canada there aren't that many successful modern ex colonies. Then you look at the English colonies. Parts of China, India, Ireland and of course the United States of America. English colonies seemed to fare better with the tools the British forced on them.


  • #77
    goose2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Utter bollocks.

    Commonwealth combatants who were killed in WWII? Approx 500K.

    Soviet combatants who were killed in WWII? approx 10 million.

    The British have the Soviets (and Adolph's hubris) to thank for not being bitch slapped by The Wehrmacht

    Using raw infantry numbers doesn't give the whole picture - the naval and aerial wars were also hugely important despite having far fewer people involved.


  • #78
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭gallag


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    That's rubbish.



    Cop the **** on will you? I do not hate the British. Use the search function and if you can find one post where I say I hate the British I'll donate €50 to charity.

    Hows it rubbish lol, if the german forces resources were not spread on multiple frounts obviously they would have had better resources to use on the russian frount, and yes look at your post history, you are anti British.


  • #79
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    goose2005 wrote: »
    Using raw infantry numbers doesn't give the whole picture - the naval and aerial wars were also hugely important despite having far fewer people involved.

    I think it's safe to say that had the Germans not engaged the Soviets Britain would have been quickly overrun had they been followed across the English Channel when they were run out of Europe.
    gallag wrote: »
    and yes look at your post history, you are anti British.

    Stop ffs. There are aspects of Britishness that I don't like (lauding of the British army and exaltation of British colonialism for example) just like there are aspects of Irishness that piss me off too (gombeenism, begrudgery).

    For you to say 'Chuck hates the British' is utter bollocks. You should know better.

    Read this.

    And this.

    Withdraw your comment.


  • #80
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Vikings settled most of Europe but seemed to abandon their language fairly quickly. Much of northern Europe can be traced back to viking routes and Russia was settled by Vikings.

    I think of all the empires that we could have been oppressed by the Brits were probably the best. In the same way Rome created the Europe that came after it, Britain created the modern world through it's size and industrial revolution.

    .


    ...before being surpassed by others. However for quality of life, we'd still be far better off with the influences of the three I mentioned earlier.

    Canada was French taken by the British, America was in various parts and at various times being colonised by the British, French, Dutch and Spanish.

    China was partly colonised by a number of states. Given the state of China until the communist take over, its hard to see what good came of any nations colonialism there.


  • #81
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭gallag


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say that had the Germans not engaged the Soviets Britain would have been quickly overrun had they been followed across the English Channel when they were run out of Europe.

    Thats true, its also true that without the British contribution the germans would have found more success in russia, the allied forces all had to sacrifice a lot to win the war together, even the brave irish volunteers made a difference.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If it had been the French, since say the 1300's, we would be as much french as the Bretons are now. And of course, england, boxed in on the atlantic by France would not have been able to create its empire. The New World would have been carved up between France and Spain - perhaps North America being French and South America being Spanish.


  • #83
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    gallag wrote: »
    Thats true, its also true that without the British contribution the germans would have found more success in russia, the allied forces all had to sacrifice a lot to win the war together, even the brave irish volunteers made a difference.

    Are you going to man up and withdraw your 'Brit hate' comment?


  • #84
    Standard Toaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,291 ✭✭✭✭Standard Toaster


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqWRs3w7qN4


  • #85
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,226 ✭✭✭Solair


    The Borg, by a long shot.

    I mean, think of all that amazing weird cube, mind-melding technology we'd have had.

    Not to mention how good the broadband would have been!


  • #86
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,442 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    gallag wrote: »
    Surley the amount of enemy combatants killed is the important number? Any way if it was not for german forced being spread by the British in theaters like the bob and africa the germans would have likely defeated the Russians, and certainly if it was not for the Russian contribution the war would have been lost but the victory was due to all the allied forces and your brit hate wont change that.

    Probably now (Although with any game of "What if" there's always a bit of uncertainty)

    The Germans threw pretty much everything at the Russians and got stopped by winter. More troops wouldn't have made much difference since they were all moving as fast as they could anyway. More specialized mechanized troops might have made a difference, but the Germans weren't missing much.


  • #87
    gallag
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭gallag


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Are you going to man up and withdraw your 'Brit hate' comment?

    Nope, I firmly believe your hate for the British army is clouding your opinion on their war effort.


  • #88
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    gallag wrote: »
    Nope, I firmly believe your hate for the British army is clouding your opinion on their war effort.

    Ha. You moved the goal posts. You said 'Brit hate'. Now you're saying 'hate for the British Army'.

    Btw I do not hate the BA. I hate some of the things they did to 'my crowd' but to say I hate the British Army is a distortion of my view. Actually, you're taking the piss now bro. I've told you this before.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I've never once said the BA were bloodthirsty. In many ways the BA were victims of the conflict too. I can imagine being told 'you're going to NI' was a horrible thing to hear for a young British soldier.

    Stand down Sir.


  • #89
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,156 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Never ceases to amaze me how many different topics about history/politics seem to end up turning into the carbon copy word for word same argument about who did more to defeat Germany in WW2.

    Close second is what one small battle/event/weapon was supposedly the pivotal one that had it gone the other way Germany would have won.


  • #90
    Dynamo Roller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 166 ✭✭Dynamo Roller


    CrabRevolution wrote: »
    Never ceases to amaze me how many different topics about history/politics seem to end up turning into the carbon copy word for word same argument about who did more to defeat Germany in WW2.

    Close second is what one small battle/event/weapon was supposedly the pivotal one that had it gone the other way Germany would have won.

    ****ing Discovery channel generation:D


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Stand down Sir.


    :tumbleweed:


    :P:confused::pac::D;):p:o:rolleyes::):mad::eek::cool:


Advertisement
Advertisement