Expansion Civilizations

Status
Not open for further replies.
abrakadabra, no need for "10chars"!

rofl:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

haha, just a few days ago, I was in a rant mood and I put my reply in by bolding the words I wrote that were in the quote. So then, I tried like twenty times to post reply until I finally figured out what to do. By then, I'd deleted most of my replies in an attempt to get it to work:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
I woulda kept the posts but thats just me,lol
 
I wasn't thinking straight because I was in a hurry and I was mad.:mad:
 
someotimes I get into rant mode as well, your not the only person like that, helps out the system, less stress, lol
 
just dont say that to an Irish guy(to which I am one) it can be taken the wrong way, and I stress that fact, just be cregful of what you say
I'm Irish Catholic and I live in the West of Scotland; I'm aware that some people have problems with that.

But my point wasn't that the Irish are British, it was that Ireland is part of the British Isles, and that Scotland and Wales are both situated (mainly) on the island of Great Britain.
Besides, Scots and Welsh- if not the Irish- are quite certainly British, and why not? There's nothing to be ashamed of. Scotland, at least, has a long history as being a major contributor to British success, a matter of national pride to all but the most anti-English nationalist. Glasgow was the "Second City of the Empire", the world's largest ship building city. Many of the most successful regiments in British military history were Scots- the Thin Red Line was comprised of Highland troops. Many of Britain's greatest scientists, engineers and inventors- Lord Kelvin, Alexander Flemming, John Logie Baird, James Watt- well, just look at the list- came from Scotland, not to mention writers like Walter Scott, philosophers like Adam Smith and architects like Mackintosh and Thompson. Hell, the British Prime Minister, tosser as he is, is Scottish.
Point being, Scotland is not- or at least, was not always some lonely province at the edge of the empire. Scotland is as much a part of Britian as anywhere in England, and the majority of Scots feel no need to deny that.
 
but thats not the way the Irish were, watch the movie braveheart(made before the controversial Mel Gibson Jewish Holocaust thing as you well know, hopefully) and do some research, Ireland had to fight for its freedom, it wasnt granted, scotland has been flimsy at times about its loyalties and priorities(nothing against them) but the Irish were treated like . .. .. .. ., watch any movie, read any book, most will agree with me, except for maybe the british stand point, but hell the USA had the Fenian raids against BNA which is now Canada

P.S. Im Irish Catholic too and I live in Canada, a nuetral country on the issue, except for Quebec, who had the anglophones asses which then they have a bias towards anybody except the french speaking people of the world
 
but thats not the way the Irish were, watch the movie braveheart(made before the controversial Mel Gibson Jewish Holocaust thing as you well know, hopefully) and do some research, Ireland had to fight for its freedom, it wasnt granted, scotland has been flimsy at times about its loyalties and priorities(nothing against them) but the Irish were treated like . .. .. .. ., watch any movie, read any book, most will agree with me, except for maybe the british stand point, but hell the USA had the Fenian raids against BNA which is now Canada
Of course, which is why the Irish are not British- Ireland was always an imperial province of Britain, and was treated as such. But Scotland recieved, by and large, the same treatment as the rest of Britain. That treatment was often pretty shoddy, but the same happened to any largely poor area; there was no particular malice in it.
 
Imperial Province? whats that
 
Imperial Province? whats that
I meant that Ireland was always treated as occupied territory, with a clear distinction between the native Irish population and the British colonists, while Scotland and Wales- medieval period aside- were treated more or less the same as any other part of Britain. An exception being the Scottish Highlands, of course, which received some pretty brutal treatment.
 
I meant that Ireland was always treated as occupied territory, with a clear distinction between the native Irish population and the British colonists, while Scotland and Wales- medieval period aside- were treated more or less the same as any other part of Britain. An exception being the Scottish Highlands, of course, which received some pretty brutal treatment.

I hate to disappoint you but you've got it pretty much wrong. I'm surprised
some Scot out there hasn't bitten your head off by now. Have you actually
seen the film Braveheart? It was about William Wallace who fought against
the English in the early 13th. century. He was Scottish, wasn't he? Don't
you realize that the Scots were at war with the English right up to Tudor
times. Scotland and England were only united in 1701. And what about
Bonnie Prince Charlie. I presume you've heard of the Battle of Colloden in
1745. If the Scots were ever treated the same as the English before then,
then somebody forgot to tell the Scots. They fought against the English
for just as long and just as hard as the Irish ever did.
 
I hate to disappoint you but you've got it pretty much wrong. I'm surprised
some Scot out there hasn't bitten your head off by now. Have you actually
seen the film Braveheart? It was about William Wallace who fought against
the English in the early 13th. century. He was Scottish, wasn't he? Don't
you realize that the Scots were at war with the English right up to Tudor
times. Scotland and England were only united in 1701.
But Scotland was never conquered, and when we did join England in 1707, it was as partners in the Act of Union. The crown of England was abolished alongside that of Scotland, and a new kingdom, Great Britain, was formed out of both nations.

And what aboutBonnie Prince Charlie. I presume you've heard of the Battle of Colloden in 1745.
Culloden was part of a Jacobites uprising, not a Scottish separatist one, and was suppressed by loyalist Scottish forces. The Jacobites didn't want an independent Scotland- even if some of the cland did- they wanted the Stuarts to take the British throne. Scottish independence would just have been second place.
Remember, the majority of the Loyalist forces at Culloden were Scottish, not English- 8 English battalions to 11 Scottish, not to mention assorted Highland Loyalists.
The conflict was, essentially, one between pro-Hanoverian Lowland Presbyterians and pro-Stewart Highland Catholics and Episcopaleans, Scottish nationalism was always a minor issue.

If the Scots were ever treated the same as the English before then,
then somebody forgot to tell the Scots. They fought against the English
for just as long and just as hard as the Irish ever did.
True, we fought the English too, but the difference between us and Ireland is that we won. That's why we were partners in the Union, not a colony.
No-one ever said that Scotland didn't fight England, they just said that we were never conquered. Strangely enough, that's not something that most Scots feel like denying.
 
Vote for the Javanese.

Quite right. In fact the term British doesn't mean anything. It was coined by
the Romans as a general term to describe the people they found here. It
didn't become a general term until the Act of Union between England and
Scotland in 1701. Ask any Scots Nationalist about that. They would never
accept the term British.
I stand corrected about Stonehenge,as the Celts def. arrived later. In fact,
recent carbon dating on nearby Tilbury Hill points to about 2400BC.


Bollocks. 'Pryden' meant 'Britain' to the Welsh throughout. Bede himself called it 'Bretan'.
 
True, we fought the English too, but the difference between us and Ireland is that we won. QUOTE

Ireland won its independance you . .. .. .. .. ., 1921, or did you forget that Ireland was successful and were jealous because you still hate the british or something
 
Ireland won its independance you . .. .. .. .. ., 1921,
Not my point- Ireland only won independence after centuries of imperial rule, i.e. the period I am referring to. Scotland, on the other hand, was never conquered. That's the difference.

or did you forget that Ireland was successful and were jealous because you still hate the british or something
1) I'm Irish Catholic, why would I be jealous of Irish independence?
2) I'm British- as I've said- why would I hate them?
3) Why would I be jealous of Irish success when Scotland has had the same success- already established that I view the Union as a willing partnership- but without having to go through the centuries of oppression before hand?
 
Vote for the Javanese.




Bollocks. 'Pryden' meant 'Britain' to the Welsh throughout. Bede himself called it 'Bretan'.

Great Britain was called "Brittainia" by the Romans in the first century AD.
It's Latin, nothing to do with the Venerable Bede who was centuries later.
Maybe he couldn't spell in Latin properly. And the term "British" didn't come
into general usage until after the union of Scotland and Ireland in 1707.

Yes the Act of Union was 1707 (my lousy typing!) And of course the
Battle of Culloden was largely between Scots but an independent Scottish
Stuart kingdom was part of the Jacobite aims. All I was trying to show was
it wasn't just the Irish who had a long history of fighting for independence.
Even the Welsh fought the English until the 15th. century. There was even
a Cornish revolt over the English Book of Common Prayer in which thousands
were killed. So everybody has had a go at one time or another, haven't they?
 
Not my point- Ireland only won independence after centuries of imperial rule, i.e. the period I am referring to. Scotland, on the other hand, was never conquered. That's the difference.


1) I'm Irish Catholic, why would I be jealous of Irish independence?
2) I'm British- as I've said- why would I hate them?
3) Why would I be jealous of Irish success when Scotland has had the same success- already established that I view the Union as a willing partnership- but without having to go through the centuries of oppression before hand?

protestant Britain treated Irish catholics like . .. .. .. ., they treated most Irish like . .. .. .. . before that, they(british) did not have control of Ireland all the time, and make up your mind, are you British or Irish, and Scotland I beleive was annexed when Elizabeth the 1sts nephew became king, and he was Mary queen of scots son, Henry Tudor(the 8th?)'s grandson
 
Great Britain was called "Brittainia" by the Romans in the first century AD.
It's Latin, nothing to do with the Venerable Bede who was centuries later.
Maybe he couldn't spell in Latin properly. And the term "British" didn't come
into general usage until after the union of Scotland and Ireland in 1707.

Yes the Act of Union was 1707 (my lousy typing!) And of course the
Battle of Culloden was largely between Scots but an independent Scottish
Stuart kingdom was part of the Jacobite aims. All I was trying to show was
it wasn't just the Irish who had a long history of fighting for independence.
Even the Welsh fought the English until the 15th. century. There was even
a Cornish revolt over the English Book of Common Prayer in which thousands
were killed. So everybody has had a go at one time or another, haven't they?

My point was that some variant of the word 'Britain' has been used for the island of Britain since at least the time of the Romans. The modern state doesn't predate the C17 but even the Anglo-Saxon kings styled themselves 'rex totius Britanniae insulae'. It might have been an honorific but the fact remains that word was in use long before the modern age.
 
protestant Britain treated Irish catholics like . .. .. .. ., they treated most Irish like . .. .. .. .
Which only goes to prove my point that Ireland was treated as an imperial colony, not as part of Britain.

before that, they(british) did not have control of Ireland all the time,
True, Britain did not maintain total control of Ireland, but they controlled enough to say that the Irish were not independent until 1921.

and make up your mind, are you British or Irish,
British, as I've said- "Irish Catholic" is my ethnicity, not my nationality. Unlike some North Americans, I don't feel the need to define myself based on where my great-great-grandfather was from.

and Scotland I beleive was annexed when Elizabeth the 1sts nephew became king, and he was Mary queen of scots son, Henry Tudor(the 8th?)'s grandson
James may have has an English maternal grandfather, but his father, grandfather, great-grandfather were all Scottish kings. He was a member of the Scottish House Stuart, a family distinct from the English Tudors. How does that equate to English annexation of Scotland?
 
he was the king of the scots before the king of Britain so he combined both and tada, Great Britain, and Ireland was independant, just not seen as that on the global stage, because there was no obeidience to the british laws,no respect for the british, so they were almost like Canada up to like WW2, independant of Britain(not actually but bear with me), but were still being maintained remotley by the British Empire, Ireland was sort of in the same boat, just not seen on a global stage that they were a seperate Identity from Britian and not part of the national British identity
 
he was the king of the scots before the king of Britain so he combined both and tada, Great Britain, and Ireland was independant, just not seen as that on the global stage, because there was no obeidience to the british laws,no respect for the british, so they were almost like Canada up to like WW2, independant of Britain(not actually but bear with me), but were still being maintained remotley by the British Empire, Ireland was sort of in the same boat, just not seen on a global stage that they were a seperate Identity from Britian and not part of the national British identity
Firstly, the Act of Union did not occur until 1707, over 100 years after James gained the English throne. Until the Act, the King simply maintained two titles and ruled two effectively separate nations.
Secondly, Ireland was not quite the same as Dominion Canada. While the Protestant-dominated Parliament- under the English/British King as "King of Ireland" until the second Act of Union in 1801- did have nominal control, this didn't amount to much, and the country was largely English/British dominated.
Thirdly, what's your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom