Guest Para Astaroth Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Vikings. 'Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Are you sure about that? I mean the Mongols had basically all of Asia under their grasp back then.Britain owned more land as a whole all across the world.But the Mongols, exactly, didn't use gunpowder. The British, on the oth'r hand, often archieved victor' over the'r enemi's due to the fact that they were the only on's with guns on the battlef'eld.And many land wasn't even conquered by them. They were given as 'peace conditions' from other european nations.That's still conquered in my book. Military might is but one face of making an empire. And whats more, Britain kept its empire under better control than the Mongols. But this is about military might alone, so that's all moot inb4BritishNavyVikings. 'Nuff said.The vikings weren't even a military power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox1235 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 But the Mongols, exactly, didn't use gunpowder. The British, on the oth'r hand, often archieved victor' over the'r enemi's due to the fact that they were the only on's with guns on the battlef'eld.And many land wasn't even conquered by them. They were given as 'peace conditions' from other european nations.I was talking about the Mongols when I said the biggest country ever to be forged without guns.Also the British Empire at one point controlled a quarter of the world and had territory on every contient, including Antarctica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SCoatiH Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I was talking about the Mongols when I said the biggest country ever to be forged without guns.Ok, sorry.Also the British Empire at one point controlled a quarter of the world and had territory on every contient, including Antarctica.That's true, but as I said most of thos' terrytori's weren't even colonized by them. Canada, India... were once part o' France colonies.Britain owned more land as a whole all across the world.Yo' right, but this is 'bout the one who didn't use gunpowder.That's still conquered in my book. Military might is but one face of making an empire. And whats more, Britain kept its empire under better control than the Mongols. But this is about military might alone, so that's all moot inb4BritishNavyNot in mine's. 'Cause conquest is sending yer guys and taking over a place. The Brits, and I sa'd, gain'd many colonies by peace agreements with other Europants. They didn't even send merchants or soldi'rs until much later to those places.alsotheirnavycouldn'tsavetheirarsesintheFrenchwaragainstJoanD'Arc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Ok, sorry.That's true, but as I said most of thos' terrytori's weren't even colonized by them. Canada, India... were once part o' France colonies.Yo' right, but this is 'bout the one who didn't use gunpowder.Not in mine's. 'Cause conquest is sending yer guys and taking over a place. The Brits, and I sa'd, gain'd many colonies by peace agreements with other Europants. They didn't even send merchants or soldi'rs until much later to those places.alsotheirnavycouldn'tsavetheirarsesintheFrenchwaragainstJoanD'ArcConquered means you win, they lose, and you're in control. Political conquest is every bit as viable (and often much more reliable) than physical conquest. Why do you think the other European powers gave shit to Britain? Because they didn't want Britain to wreck their shit up. They had the largest foot army and strongest navy of their time, and probably could have gone to war with the entire world and won if they really wanted too.Also the British empire didn't exist in the 100 years war, and further more the British navy wasn't a superpower at the time because this was before they conquered the Spanish Armada and took the title from -them-. lrn2history.anditsadamnshameJoanofArccouldn'tsaveherselffromherownfuckwitcountry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shaper Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Well it's a tough stretch but I'm sticking with the Mongols on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Well it's a tough stretch but I'm sticking with the Mongols on this one.Its prepowder anyway, so the British Empire wouldn't qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SCoatiH Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Conquered means you win, they lose, and you're in control. Political conquest is every bit as viable (and often much more reliable) than physical conquest. Why do you think the other European powers gave shit to Britain? Because they didn't want Britain to wreck their shit up. They had the largest foot army and strongest navy of their time, and probably could have gone to war with the entire world and won if they really wanted too.Not ex'ctly. If you take colonies, that's not conquest. That's more like trade. "Peace for land." we coulda say. Conquest is coming with guns 'n cannons (or swords 'n catapults) and leveling the enemy fortresses if necesary. And there's no trade. You take, they don't give.Also the British empire didn't exist in the 100 years war, and further more the British navy wasn't a superpower at the time because this was before they conquered the Spanish Armada and took the title from -them-.Yo, but England was allways better at the sea.Pure logic man. Island nation = surrounded by water = you get'cha better at ships o' die.anditsadamnshameJoanofArccouldn'tsaveherselffromherownfuckwitcountryYo' right on that man. That frenchi king was a fat-ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Not ex'ctly. If you take colonies, that's not conquest. That's more like trade. "Peace for land." we coulda say. Conquest is coming with guns 'n cannons (or swords 'n catapults) and leveling the enemy fortresses if necesary. And there's no trade. You take, they don't give.Yo, but England was allways better at the sea.Pure logic man. Island nation = surrounded by water = you get'cha better at ships o' die.Yo' right on that man. That frenchi king was a fat-ass.The definition of conquest:1: the act or process of conquering 2a : something conquered; especially : territory appropriated in war b : a person whose favor or hand has been wonIt is both war and favor. Different sides of the same coin.And Britain didn't utilize a good navy until King Richard III and King John, and even then it wasn't -spectacular- compared to the other naval powers (Spain, Venice, Genoa).Also do you have to type like that it is seriously annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SCoatiH Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Also do you have to type like that it is seriously annoying.Yo' right, it's annoyin' but me likes it. :trollface: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shaper Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Yo' right, it's annoyin' but me likes it. I would advise you to immediately stop trying to argue with Robert. It's not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SCoatiH Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I would advise you to immediately stop trying to argue with Robert. It's not a good idea.yo, imma argues with himsel'. There's no way 'round that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shaper Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 yo, imma argues with himsel'. There's no way 'round that. I don't know what you just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the Shrooms Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 the great roman empire!!!!!!!!of the old ages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SCoatiH Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 I don't know what you just said.A joke, in which I argue with even myself about that.An' it isn't going ta' chang'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniper Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 either the spartans or the teutonic knights. let's face it... the spartans were pretty much the coolest dudes ever :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballisticwaffles Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 either the spartans or the teutonic knights. let's face it... the spartans were pretty much the coolest dudes ever Besides the fact that at a young age they were expected to form a paedophilic relation ship with another man, routinly slaughtered innocents and were xenophobic child slaughtering jerkwads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 Also do you have to type like that it is seriously annoying.I like it! Defentaly...now don't argu couse you'll loose. The papel states! The could bring down THE HAMMER ON YOU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conall Drest Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 English Longbowmen hands down. They managed to defeat a force that was both better equipped and outnumbered them. The finest French knights actually had trouble taking them down, even though the French won in the end the English managed to be quite a thorn in their side, and I believe with equal numbers the English would have won the Hundred years war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted October 7, 2010 Author Share Posted October 7, 2010 well..i thought the british were kicking ass for the first 90 years. then it went down hill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I like it! Defentaly...now don't argu couse you'll loose. The papel states! The could bring down THE HAMMER ON YOU.The Papal states weren't even a military power, they hired mercenaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SCoatiH Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 English Longbowmen hands down. They managed to defeat a force that was both better equipped and outnumbered them. The finest French knights actually had trouble taking them down, even though the French won in the end the English managed to be quite a thorn in their side, and I believe with equal numbers the English would have won the Hundred years war.It wasn't about numbers alone. If we go by fact, actually the numbers were quite fair. The thing was the 'unity' of the nation's involv'd in da war. At the feudal time, both nations depended largely on armies maintained by lords, and we know how hard to keep a united nation und'r these situations is. This is also when Joan'D'Arc kicks in; by uniting the French people, giving them a common caus', their organization was better than the English at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 It wasn't about numbers alone. If we go by fact, actually the numbers were quite fair. The thing was the 'unity' of the nation's involv'd in da war. At the feudal time, both nations depended largely on armies maintained by lords, and we know how hard to keep a united nation und'r these situations is. This is also when Joan'D'Arc kicks in; by uniting the French people, giving them a common caus', their organization was better than the English at the time.Perhaps, but several times the English managed to win against the odds, often at a disadvantage. Not to mention Joan's unifying call didn't last very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SCoatiH Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Perhaps, but several times the English managed to win against the odds, often at a disadvantage. Not to mention Joan's unifying call didn't last very long.Yo, that's true. But still, that was da first time someone tried to create some sense of national unity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Yo, that's true. But still, that was da first time someone tried to create some sense of national unity.Not..... really. At all. There's been tons of national identity before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now