Harvin87
The Youth
tell me how many countries invaded Germany in the past 20 years?
Most infamous ...
- Thread starter Harvin87
- Start date
tell me how many countries invaded Germany in the past 20 years?
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,524
Also, how many has the United Kingdom invaded during that same time frame?
We need a TIME Magazine cover that says "THE BRITISH - SHOULD THE WORLD BE WORRIED?" Then there can be a picture of Redcoats firing on citizens in Boston.
Harvin87
The Youth
Also, how many has the United Kingdom invaded during that same time frame?
We need a TIME Magazine cover that says "THE BRITISH - SHOULD THE WORLD BE WORRIED?" Then there can be a picture of Redcoats firing on citizens in Boston.
Haha, in deed ... but it would be more appropiate to see the White House on fire in Washington
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
If you're to believe the Irish, Oliver Cromwell tops that list. But, then, they have something of a chip on their shoulder about him...
Junuxx
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
Our traditional national 'bad guys' in the Netherlands are
- the Duke of Alva (sent by the Spanish to suppress the Dutch Revolt, a bit like William Howe for the Americans)
- Balthasar Gerards, murderer of the 'father of the nation', William of Orange
- Hitler of course
How about Atilla? Alexander the Great, in some parts of the world? Babur, Tariq, Columbus, Cortes, etc etc.
- the Duke of Alva (sent by the Spanish to suppress the Dutch Revolt, a bit like William Howe for the Americans)
- Balthasar Gerards, murderer of the 'father of the nation', William of Orange
- Hitler of course
How about Atilla? Alexander the Great, in some parts of the world? Babur, Tariq, Columbus, Cortes, etc etc.
Moggy
Warlord
Also, how many has the United Kingdom invaded during that same time frame?
We need a TIME Magazine cover that says "THE BRITISH - SHOULD THE WORLD BE WORRIED?" Then there can be a picture of Redcoats firing on citizens in Boston.
How many invaded Germany? I don't think anybody has invaded Germany in the last 20 years.
Anyway I was trying to make a mocking post before as Godwynn seemed offended by people using stereotypes of Germans, while making a nasty one about the Brits. If you don't like stereotypes, don't use them yourself!
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,524
How many have invaded the United Kingdom in the past 20 years?
Invaded Germany: 0
Germany Invaded: 0
Invaded United Kingdom: 0
United Kingdom Invaded: 1
The world has more to fear from the United Kingdom than Germany. I did not count NATO actions, as both nations are required to participate.
I do this all in jest.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
How many have invaded the United Kingdom in the past 20 years?
Invaded Germany: 0
Germany Invaded: 0
Invaded United Kingdom: 0
United Kingdom Invaded: 1
The world has more to fear from the United Kingdom than Germany. I did not count NATO actions, as both nations are required to participate.
I do this all in jest.
When did Britain invade another country? Excluding NATO?
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,524
Iraq (2003-present)
I don't think NATO approved that one, seeing as the Germans and French weren't involved. (I didn't forget Poland.)
Would you say it is undeserved, I mean more of guilt by association, since Cromwell's conquest, though bloody enough, set in motion the worst of the expulsions after he left ?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
If I've been informed correctly, Alexander is a actually greatly resprected figure in most of his former empire. After all, exchanging a Greek ruler for a Persian one only matters so much to a Mesoptamian. He was never responsible for any great massacres or atrocities, and, outside of actual warfare, his conquests were often relatively bloodless, and his reign no worse than any of his Persian predecessors, so it's understandable that his legacy would be largely positive.
I'm not attempting to justify the Protectorate's actions, but I do feel that Cromwell and his contemporaries are exagerated in their brutality and ruthlessness as compared to their contemporaries. They were, after all, brutal times, and while that certainly doesn't justify any crimes committed, it does lead me to question why Cromwell has been so villified.
I think that a large part of the problem is that people tend to view the period through a far more modern lense than is appropriate. The Protectorate was not the United Kingdom and the Confederate-Royalist alliance was not the Republic, no matter how often Irish Anglophobes of the modern era may claim it to be the case.
Junuxx
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
I think enough people would argue that he burned Persepolis. Plenty of people probably just dislike him because he hurts their national pride, regardless of the benevolence of his rule. And moreover, Zoroastrians seem to especially hate him because they identify more with Achaemenid Persia than with Islamic Iran. See an example here.
Also, didn't Iran ban the recent Alexander and 300 movies?
Because after the restoration everybody was against him (or ready to be killed if they spoke up). I am sure the royalists tried to claim how horrible he was, so the Irish should support the king and stuff like that.
Not sure about the first, but I remember hearing about the second, but this is simply them not wanting to show themselves losing to Westerners, probably. It doesn't mean the people particularly hate or view Alexander as evil.
plarq
Crazy forever
What about republicanist in UK?
Er, it's just a trick to appease Iranian nationalism, because some of those nationalists don't like the foreign Islamic variant of the government, so it tries to be as Iranian as Islamic.
I thought the new government pretty much shut them up afterward. There was nobody in a high position to defend him and attacking him probably was quite popular to make yourself look better to the government. And after hundreds of years it has become ingrained.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Hm, I suppose that's probably a point. Iran can be quite touchy about that sort of thing. I was thinking more about Arabic countries, really. And, as you say, religion plays a part- IIRC, Alexander is even mentioned in the Koran, and is presented as a monotheist. I'm not sure of the history behind that, but I suppose it probably follows a similar logic to the western concept of the "virtuous pagan". After all, as much as people forget it, Arab civilisation drew as much on Classical civilisation as it did on Persian.
I don't think that either were banned, but 300 certain generate a lot of controversy over there, and I think that there were some major boycots. Alexander, I think, tended to recieve criticism of a more academic nature; after all, the Persians weren't illustrated as particularly villainous, at least no more than one would expect from an historical epic.
Well, certainly that's the start of his infamy, but I am more confused by the extent to which it has been maintained to the present day, when even the most cursory look reveals his regime, whatever it's flaws, to be not nearly half as "evil" as is traditionally held.
Besides, as I said, part of the problem is that people impose the ideological conflicts of the modern era onto the period, which must have emerged at a later date. The modern Irish image presents Cromwell as an imperialistic conqueror supressing a nationalisitic, republican rebellion, which, of course, is entirely untrue, and as much at odds with the traditional British view of the "regicide", in which he is seen as a dour pinko who didn't know his place, as with a sympathetic one.
I simply wonder why Cromwell, in particular, is held in such disdain, when figues such as William of Orange did as much to supress the country. I can't help but feel that part of it is that Cromwell, who was a military dictator, is seen as a fundamentally modern figure, and therefore can be held to modern standards, while monarchs are seen as "ancient" and therefore exempt from judgement. It sometimes seems as if opression is to be condemed when it occurs at the hands of a politician (and quite rightly so), yet expected and even accepted when it is at the hands of a monarch. Even such staunchly republican peoples as the Americans and French are not immune to this if you present an example set far enough back in time, seeming to forget the disdain for monarchy the moment that you exchange a powereded wig for a tilting helm.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Perhaps, but that still doesn't explain why the Irish despise him so greatly, given that anti-Cromwellian sentiments typically go hand-in-hand with anti-Royalist, pro-Republican ones. After all, the Irish forces who fought Cromwell were not all that different in motivation or ideology than those who fought Britian in the Williamite a couple of generations later, or even those of the eighteenth century, yet no monarchs from that period- even William, who conducted his campaign personally- are held in anything approaching the same disdain as Cromwell, despite being at least as ruthless and brutal, and often far more unpleasant as individuals. You would think that Cromwell's republican, proto-nationalist leanings may earn even a tad of sympathy among the Irish, yet he is more despised than every monarch in English history combined.
While the Irish may not have supported the Royalists, the Royalists likely had a good propaganda machine (once again, make Cromwell look really bad to make yourself look better so people don't hate you quite so much), and the government wouldn't mind if the Irish were insulting Cromwell, but if a organized group was posting things against the King, it may not end happily. As throughout history Cromwell wasn't a threat, the Kings were.
Perhaps at the time they thought Cromwell should be sympathetic to them and viewed him as betraying them by not being supportive? That may create some bad views.
Perhaps at the time they thought Cromwell should be sympathetic to them and viewed him as betraying them by not being supportive? That may create some bad views.
Similar threads
