Tell me of Britain and its history

Tell me of Britain and its history

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Realm of the Ring Lords

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      whatever that means

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s unironcially one of my favorite regions to read about, although I’m biased as a Britboo/Teaboo and as as an Anglo-American. I’ve read a lot of books about this region. If I were to describe its history in one sentence, the history of the British people is one of a completely irrelevant backwater rising to complete global prominence, and now back to a backwater trying to hold onto the glory days. There are so many kino moments in just Britain alone and it becomes even more expansive if you include the histories of Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, and it’s other colonies as offshoots of the British people who eventually became their own thing, which is how I think of it. Britain has been the site of many wars and invasions and the modern British person is really a mixture of ancient Britons, Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, and Normans/Frenchmen. The derogatory thing most anons would say is that the British and their culture are mutted, and to an extent that’s true, but I find it fascinating. There are so many kino moments:
    >The Roman invasion and period
    >the mysterious Anglo-Saxon invasion/settlement
    >the Viking invasions and raids and Anglo-Saxon resurgence
    >the Norman invasion
    >the Plantagenet period
    >the Magna Carta
    >the wars of Scottish independence
    >the Hundreds Years war
    >the war of the roses
    >the Tudor period
    >the English civil war
    >The sea dogs of the west counties pillaging and in the Caribbean like Francis Drake
    >worldwide exploration
    >Colonial expeditions and settlement, like the mayflower
    >The Spanish Armada
    >Henry VIII being the personification of the Norf and based moron memes
    I could go on forever, but it think you get my point. The most fascinating things for me are seeing foundational attitudes and laws that were transplanted into the US. Most legal concepts in the US have their origins in Britain, specially England.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>The Phonecian bronze age tin mining industry
      >>The Roman invasion and period
      >>the mysterious Anglo-Saxon invasion/settlement
      >>the Viking invasions and raids and Anglo-Saxon resurgence

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >>>The Phonecian bronze age tin mining industry
        *crickets*

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Solid b8
        Odd that no one has taken it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don’t even understand what his bait is supposed to be. That those periods aren’t interesting?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've been wondering the same

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, if other people don’t find some periods interesting, that’s fine. It really is to each their own.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've been wondering the same

            Phoenician tin mines that were ALL from bronze age Britons. Everyone in Europe and North Africa got tin from them. There's significant concentrations of burial and Battle sites, big bronze age barrows there in Cornwall from the Beakers onward and none of it is Phoenician.

            They even sailed into the canary islands and contributed genetically to the Guanche.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've been wondering the same

            [...]
            Phoenician tin mines that were ALL from bronze age Britons. Everyone in Europe and North Africa got tin from them. There's significant concentrations of burial and Battle sites, big bronze age barrows there in Cornwall from the Beakers onward and none of it is Phoenician.

            They even sailed into the canary islands and contributed genetically to the Guanche.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hen compared with 21 published pre-Phoenician samples from Sardinia, the Phoenician mitogenome sequences reveal a complex story: some haplogroups continue from the indigenous population, but different haplogroups linked to lineages in the Near East or North Africa and even as far away as the British Isles or Northern Europe also cropped up. Likewise, some of the Lebanese Phoenician samples contain haplogroups from southwest European lineages.

            https://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2018.4

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >ignored

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      When you lay out all the main events, it is such an interesting place

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>The Phonecian bronze age tin mining industry
      >>The Roman invasion and period
      >>the mysterious Anglo-Saxon invasion/settlement
      >>the Viking invasions and raids and Anglo-Saxon resurgence

      It's the place where the huge heavy waves of human development from the continent surfed out and splashed on the rocks, creating weird unique patterns and attitudes.

      Tell me of Britain's history in Australia

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There isn't all that much to say really, Australia's history is like the national equivalent of a stable middle-class upbringing (unless you're an Abo that is)
        >Dutch show no interest in the continent
        >Cook maps it thoroughly
        >Penal colony setup there to establish a solid British foothold
        >Free settlers also start pouring into South Australia and Victoria
        >Gold rush brings in hundreds of thousands of migrants
        >Eureka Uprising is kinda cool, but it gets defeated and nowadays only lives on in Trade Union rallies

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >There isn't all that much to say really, Australia's history

          There's heaps you can say about Australia's history

          Sydney
          Melbourne
          Perth
          Brisbane
          Adelaide
          Wallabykangrooprawnsonthebarbietown

          >tropical rainforests in the north, temperate ones in the south
          >interesting unique wildlife
          >many biomes, with the outback to tie them together
          >ties to England with many cultural differences to set it apart
          >Australia is a common vacation destination for japs
          >soulful cities: sydney, melbourne, perth
          >Outback, coral reefs, desert, plains, Sydney, coasts, beaches

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I should've worded it better, but this is British history thread specifically, so any relevance British-Australia ends with 1901 and generally speaking anything after that is treated as independent Australian history, outside of WWI engagements.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >, and now back to a backwater
      Why are people so binary about these things? Obviously Britain is not a superpower, but everyone acts like there's literally zero middle ground between being Albania and being the United States/Soviet Union. The UK remained a first world country with a nuclear arsenal and a centre of not just Commonwealth but world culture in general. It won't ever be an Empire again, but it sits comfortably in the rankings of what some would call "relevant c**ts"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They’re not Albania, but Britain is going through really hard times. 8 of the top 10 poorest cities in Western Europe are all in the UK.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        6th or 7th largest economy on the planet still today too iirc, which is pretty darn significant, especially since their social power globally is still extra elevated through the fact that their language is the global lingua franca

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. Britain’s history is incredibly rich and they built one of the all-time greatest and most influential empires. Many will try and deride and tear down the nation, claiming it has no culture, but it is because those who make such remarks are fish who do not even realize they are swimming in water — that is to say that the world has been so influenced and impacted by Britain that they cannot even recognize it, due to sheer their ignorance. They have a shallow view of Britain and no knowledge of its inventions and its history which has transcended its borders. Countless creations which changed the world were created by Brits, and their legal and philosophical advances alone have been mimicked throughout the last two centuries by numerous countries. Even just looking at sports for example, we got hockey, baseball, soccer, rugby, cricket, badminton, curling and golf from Scotland, the inventor of basketball was a first generation Canadian born to Scottish parents several years before Canadian confederation, and from well before they even had separate citizenship … All these and more being some of the most recognized and popular sports on the planet. Some of these and others like horse racing are obviously not wholly or originally British inventions because multiple cultures had similar concepts, but the standardized rules these are played with are British.

      I also like and agree with your perspective of how countries like Canada, Australia, and NZ are all offshoots. In some ways they still are very much like little Britains in their own way, and this is evidenced by each of them having the same Westminster-style parliamentary system along with their maintenances of the royal family, etc. Even the US in its own way continues to perpetuate some of its own early cultural Britishness. Lets not forget that almost the entire body of Founding Fathers were of British heritage, and their ideas were highly influenced by the likes of Smith, Locke, and others.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >I also like and agree with your perspective of how countries like Canada, Australia, and NZ are all offshoots. In some ways they still are very much like little Britains in their own way, and this is evidenced by each of them having the same Westminster-style parliamentary system along with their maintenances of the royal family, etc. Even the US in its own way continues to perpetuate some of its own early cultural Britishness. Lets not forget that almost the entire body of Founding Fathers were of British heritage, and their ideas were highly influenced by the likes of Smith, Locke, and others.

        Penal transport to Australia lasted from 1788 to 1840. There are buildings in Sydney which were built using convict labour. In addition to the convicts there were also the soldiers there to guard them, the administrators.

        Free settlers started arriving in the 1790s, although they were outnumbered by the convicts until the early 1800s. The early free settlers had to pay their own way, but then the British government promoted a scheme where free settlers would have their passage paid and they would receive land.

        What killed the convict transportation for good was likely the discovery of gold which caused a huge gold rush and made moving to Australia enticing.

        Prime Minister John Curtin said "This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."

        >sydney is founded as an open prison in 1788
        >convicts who commit further crimes get banished again further up the coast
        >one of those new prisons founded in 1824 became pic related
        >now a city of 2.6 million

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wanted to add that even the US’s puritanical heritage and culture, which still shows itself in many ways today, is wholly English in origin. Obviously Calvinistic shit isn’t British, but the particular strand of Puritanism which so massively shaped what became the US was brought to it by its first English settlers. In another way, I personally it’s pretty clear that the US perpetuates the British heritage of being a fascinatingly liberal-conservative global imperial force as well.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I would not say Canada is a little Britain. I lived in both for a long time and it’s more like a little America with certain British aesthetics here and there. If Britain is Rome then Australia/New Zealand are Aquitania, a little island of proper Latin and Roman customs carved out of the hinterland. Whereas Canada would be more like Roman Britain, remote from the metropole and easily strongly influenced by outside powers in Rome’s decline.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>the wars of Scottish independence
      Literally never called that until revisionist historians after 1776 started to project a nationalist narrative into them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. And this propaganda campaign has been unbelievably successful. Somehow enough people have it in their heads that were the Jacobites (fighting for a Catholic Stuart return to the throne) successful, they would have had Bonnie Prince Charlie sever Scotland from the other three realms. Preposterous and completely baseless nonsense. And this is furthermore a completely ignorant blind eye turned to the fact that the most heavily punitive actions put upon the Jacobites were done by the lowland Protestants of Scotland.

        A lot of people need to read John Prebble’s ‘Culloden’ — either that or to watch the documentary by the same name from just a few years later.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I know, I’m just calling it what everyone knows it by today. I’ve read about it and fully understand that there’s been a lot of revision.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's the place where the huge heavy waves of human development from the continent surfed out and splashed on the rocks, creating weird unique patterns and attitudes.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    frenchies and vikings raided it because it was enormously wealthy

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    endless suffering and humiliation before they chose to sell their soul to the israelites with cromwell

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In 1688 Dutch bulls conquered England.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lmfao they wish
      >”Dutch” royals (half British royal and his British cousin wife) get invited to take the throne
      >bring an army with them but face no opposition because there was already a very large amount of supporters awaiting their arrival
      >assume the throne that they were invited to take
      >”We heckin conquered Britain guys!!!”
      You know who conquered? William I. The guy not only defeated the army of the other ruling party, but he also continued warring against the opposition thereafter and firmly established his rule over the nation. The Anglo-Saxons were defeated and subjugated; they were conquered.

      William and Mary didn’t even leave any kids, and the crown immediately went back to Mary’s younger sister, Anne, after they both passed. That, and the institution of the monarchy became less powerful, not more, after their arrival. The Dutch as such made virtually no political, legal, linguistic, or even cultural impact.

      Conquered my ass.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >bring an army with them but face no opposition
        Literally the biggest battle fought in the history of the British isles was fought in the Williamite war.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like Anglo-Saxon Britain is a period that isnt talked about but is pretty kino

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not talked about because we know little about it

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. When I read about that period, the author constantly talked about how we just don’t know most of it. We know that certain events happened like dynasty changes, but we know literally nothing about the details or how it went down.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Henry VIII is a c**t, we have no idea what Old English stuff may have been destroyed during his dissolution of the monasteries.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm American, but this is basically the general gist of it, though there's obviously important things I'll be missing:

    Before ~3000 BC - Inhabited by non-Indo-European peoples (I think the term is WHG?), of which the Picts were a remainder. Basically nothing is known about these peoples.

    ~3000-1000 BC - The Celtic peoples migrated to the British isles, slowly displacing the native inhabitants.

    ~1000 BC - 1 AD - Celts (Gaels and Britons) were masters of the British isles. This is the period where most of the Celtic mythology and folklore in the Mabinogion etc. is sometimes said to have taken place or been composed.

    ~50 AD - Emperor Claudius effectively conquers most of Britain, rendering them subjects of the Roman Empire. At roughly this same time, the captured British leader Caradog (Caractacus) is said to have been converted to Christianity by Joseph of Arimathea, and brought the religion to the British isles for the first time.

    ~100 AD - Hadrian's Wall is built, separating the northern part of Britain (Scotland and parts of North Wales) from the rest.

    ~300 AD - Constantius Chlorus becomes the western Caesar of the Tetrarchy (ruler of Britannia and Gaul), and defies the Diocletianic persecution of Christians.

    410 AD - "Look to your own salvation"; The Roman legions withdraw from Britain, effectively beginning the "Dark Ages" early in Britain as the migrating Germanic peoples ("Saxons") are beginning to settle in the land and often violently.

    ~480-540 - The approximate period in which the historical "King" Arthur (more probably, a type of military dictator, Dux Bellorum) lived.

    ~600 AD - By this point Britain (apart from Wales) is effectively ruled by foreigners from the region of North Germany and Denmark, and is when the Anglo-Saxon period is said to truly commence, as the land is divided into several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms: Kent, Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. It is now more properly called England - Angle-land.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ~620-630 AD - East Anglian king Raedwald is the first major Saxon figure to convert to Christianity, most having been practitioners of Germanic religion (more or less the type with Thor and Odin and whatnot).

      ~700 AD - Christian missionaries have almost totally eradicated all traces of paganism in the British isles at this point.

      ~790 AD - The first Vikings (north Germanic pirates from Scandinavia, essentially the same sort of folk the Saxons were) begin raiding England even more violently than the Saxons had done to the British.

      878 AD - King Aelfred of Wessex defeats the viking warlord Guthrum, defanging Viking attempts to conquer the island by establishing the Danelaw as a compromise between Saxon and "viking" (when the northmen stopped raiding and begun settling, they ceased to be vikings) sovereignty.

      ~1000 AD - By this time, the vikings had been pretty much assimilated into England and paganism was again close to extinct.

      1066 AD - Due to the death of the childless Edward the Confessor, a war of succession breaks out in which England is raided by (Christian) vikings for the last time: the Normans, who decapitate English sovereignty and establish French rule and culture over England for the next ~300 years.

      ~1120-1160 AD - A period of brutal civil war called The Anarchy

      ~1170-1200 AD - The time period where Robin Hood was said to have lived, and when Richard the Lionheart went on crusade.

      1216 AD - The signing of the Magna Carta, which was less a matter of democracy than a matter of noblemen holding a king hostage to limit his power.

      ~1300-1330 AD - This is the period where William Wallace lived and the kings Edward II and III waged campaigns to bring Scotland under "English" (Norman) control.

      1337 AD - The Hundred Years War starts when Edward III claims the French throne and the French refuse. After this point, French language and culture becomes increasingly de-emphasized by the nobility.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ~1350-1400 AD - This is the period when Goeffrey Chaucer lived, and is where Middle English supplanted Old English, becoming more recognizably "English" to a modern reader, whereas Old English (Anglo-Saxon) is a lot more like a strangely spelled combination of Dutch and German.

        ~1400-1500 AD - This is the period many of Shakespeare's plays take place, involving the changing fortunes of the houses of York and Lancaster, and the War of the Roses, which is when the Welsh house of Tudor succeeds to the kingship.

        ~1500-1600 AD - The reigns of Henry VIII (of the many beheaded wives) and Elizabeth I, who defeats the Spanish Armada at the battle of Gravelines. This is also the period where Roman Catholicism becomes proscribed by the monarchy, as Henry VIII establishes his own church with himself as the head in order to divorce his first wife, becoming essentially a Protestant nation (though the Church of England differs little from Catholicism theologically). Additionally, the first colonization efforts by the British to the New World begin in Roanoke.

        ~1600-1640 AD - The beginnings of large-scale permanent English settlement in America.

        ~1640-1660 AD - The English Civil War, where Oliver Cromwell rebels against King Charles I and has him executed.

        ~1650-1700 AD - This is when the great philosophers and poets and intellectuals of England flourish, with the likes of John Milton, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Isaac Newton, Jonathan Swift, etc.

        ~1720-1750 AD - At some point, there's another civil war called the Jacobite Rebellion between "Bonnie Prince Charlie" who wants to restore Catholicism and the established house of Hanover (the Georges). I only know about this from reading Tom Jones. On that subject, this is where the English novel really takes off.

        1776 AD - I think you know what happens here.

        1793 AD - England declares war on France (Revolutionary France had already declared war on everybody else at this point).

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Celtic peoples migrated to the British isles, slowly displacing the native inhabitants.
      They weren't displaced, they were completely slaughtered. And hence, Celtards can't seethe about the English.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They weren't displaced, they were completely slaughtered. And hence, Celtards can't seethe about the English.
        >source: muh dick

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >they were completely slaughtered
        Obviously this isn't true if there were still pre-celtic remnants as late as the Viking era.

        ~1350-1400 AD - This is the period when Goeffrey Chaucer lived, and is where Middle English supplanted Old English, becoming more recognizably "English" to a modern reader, whereas Old English (Anglo-Saxon) is a lot more like a strangely spelled combination of Dutch and German.

        ~1400-1500 AD - This is the period many of Shakespeare's plays take place, involving the changing fortunes of the houses of York and Lancaster, and the War of the Roses, which is when the Welsh house of Tudor succeeds to the kingship.

        ~1500-1600 AD - The reigns of Henry VIII (of the many beheaded wives) and Elizabeth I, who defeats the Spanish Armada at the battle of Gravelines. This is also the period where Roman Catholicism becomes proscribed by the monarchy, as Henry VIII establishes his own church with himself as the head in order to divorce his first wife, becoming essentially a Protestant nation (though the Church of England differs little from Catholicism theologically). Additionally, the first colonization efforts by the British to the New World begin in Roanoke.

        ~1600-1640 AD - The beginnings of large-scale permanent English settlement in America.

        ~1640-1660 AD - The English Civil War, where Oliver Cromwell rebels against King Charles I and has him executed.

        ~1650-1700 AD - This is when the great philosophers and poets and intellectuals of England flourish, with the likes of John Milton, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Isaac Newton, Jonathan Swift, etc.

        ~1720-1750 AD - At some point, there's another civil war called the Jacobite Rebellion between "Bonnie Prince Charlie" who wants to restore Catholicism and the established house of Hanover (the Georges). I only know about this from reading Tom Jones. On that subject, this is where the English novel really takes off.

        1776 AD - I think you know what happens here.

        1793 AD - England declares war on France (Revolutionary France had already declared war on everybody else at this point).

        ~1800-1815 AD - England's involvement in the wars against Napoleon.

        ~1835-1900 AD - The Victorian Era, named for Queen Victoria (I can't remember the exact date of her accession and death but it was a long frickin reign). This is the period where Phileas Fogg went around the world in eighty days, and the sun never set on the British Empire because they were really damn good at subjugating savage races like the Chinese and Germans.

        1912 AD - Captain Edward Smith attempts a genocide of the Irish by his deliberate sinking of the RMS Titanic.

        1914-1918 AD - J.R.R. Tolkien decides war isn't hell, the industrial revolution is.

        1940 AD - This was their finest hour.

        1948 AD - This was their most embarrassing hour.

        2022 AD - The longest-reigning and sexiest monarch in history passes away. I mean look at the size of her rack AWOOGA!

        And that's all I can remember off the top of my head, though to be fair I'm American and my priorities and education are different from the average Englishman.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Cringe and israelite pilled.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The average 21st Englishman knows frick all about English history. And the way it is taught in school is really bad. You basically go straight from the Normans to transatlantic slavery, then a little bit on WW1 before you get into the centrepiece of GCSE history, WW2 and especially the shoah. If you do it until 18 you also learn a little about the Cold War and 20th century British politics.

          This. Britain’s history is incredibly rich and they built one of the all-time greatest and most influential empires. Many will try and deride and tear down the nation, claiming it has no culture, but it is because those who make such remarks are fish who do not even realize they are swimming in water — that is to say that the world has been so influenced and impacted by Britain that they cannot even recognize it, due to sheer their ignorance. They have a shallow view of Britain and no knowledge of its inventions and its history which has transcended its borders. Countless creations which changed the world were created by Brits, and their legal and philosophical advances alone have been mimicked throughout the last two centuries by numerous countries. Even just looking at sports for example, we got hockey, baseball, soccer, rugby, cricket, badminton, curling and golf from Scotland, the inventor of basketball was a first generation Canadian born to Scottish parents several years before Canadian confederation, and from well before they even had separate citizenship … All these and more being some of the most recognized and popular sports on the planet. Some of these and others like horse racing are obviously not wholly or originally British inventions because multiple cultures had similar concepts, but the standardized rules these are played with are British.

          I also like and agree with your perspective of how countries like Canada, Australia, and NZ are all offshoots. In some ways they still are very much like little Britains in their own way, and this is evidenced by each of them having the same Westminster-style parliamentary system along with their maintenances of the royal family, etc. Even the US in its own way continues to perpetuate some of its own early cultural Britishness. Lets not forget that almost the entire body of Founding Fathers were of British heritage, and their ideas were highly influenced by the likes of Smith, Locke, and others.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The average 21st Englishman knows frick all about English history. And the way it is taught in school is really bad.
            Yes, sadly this is a truth I’ve been made aware of too many times. If you want a proper historical education in Britain, you have to go to a boarding school, basically, since they’re the only proper educational institutions which actually give a shit about preserving the country’s culture, since of course they themselves are extensions of it. The plebeian public schools there teach history atrociously, to my understanding, which is a terrible shame given how rich and incredible England’s history is.

            I would not say Canada is a little Britain. I lived in both for a long time and it’s more like a little America with certain British aesthetics here and there. If Britain is Rome then Australia/New Zealand are Aquitania, a little island of proper Latin and Roman customs carved out of the hinterland. Whereas Canada would be more like Roman Britain, remote from the metropole and easily strongly influenced by outside powers in Rome’s decline.

            I agree. I didn’t mean to say Canada is that still in perpetuity; it has absolutely been irreversibly shaped by the US and it continues to be. It has its notable origins here and there, and some few cultural marks that are more British leaning than American, but nowadays my country is just an ever so slightly more British America Jr. Canada is not just overshadowed and enormously outpopulated by the US, but more than any other country it absorbs the influences which flow from it. And both the Canadian people and their politicians frequently adopt (sometimes consciously, sometimes not) American socio-political issues as their own. Like when BLM arose, it was almost in no time that it had its Canadian copycats, despite the fact that the rates of police shootings in Canada — let fricking alone police shootings of blacks in Canada — is drastically, enormously lower. But seemingly all leftist Canadians nowadays believe they live in the US, or that they might as well, because they certainly act like it.

            Shortly said, my country’s culture is dead, and the Pierre Trudeau generation killed it. And his nitwit shitbag son has been nailing the last spikes in the coffin to really make sure it’s buried.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Genetic evidence actually shows it wasn’t a genocide. They mixed a lot and the modern Englishman derives anywhere between 14 to 57% of his from Britons before the Anglo-Saxon invasions. Further, a study found individuals of completely Briton dna buried with all the honors a high ranking Anglo-Saxon would be buried with, both men and women. So, the period was far more complicated. As another anon pointed out as well, there’s circumstantial evidence that communities of Brythonic speakers still existed hundreds of years later. I don’t know how true that is, but the dna can’t be refuted. Basically, the Anglo-Saxons came in and dominated England’s politics and culture (but not always as in Wessex where the royal family may have been partially descended from Britons), but they mixed genetically with the Britons.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you know if it is similar with the Normans, or were they more separated from the rest of the population.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Normans were definitely more of an elite, but they brought in many lower level people and Frenchmen over time that impacted the genetics of England. While not as large of a component, every Englishman is a descendant of the Normans as well, they amount of genetic material they take from the Normans of difficult to say. The 2022 Nature study released about the genetics of England show that large components are made up of what the authors describe as “French” from after the Anglo-Saxons. They can’t pin down exactly when it came it’s likely that it came through many pulses of migration across the channel, so there’s a lot of contributing periods. The Normans would be just one period along with Carolingian, Plantagenet, and Huguenot immigration.
            However, its genealogical research shows that it’s very common to have some Norman blood. One genealogist and statistician theorized that it would be nearly impossible for a person of predominantly British descent to not be a direct descendant of Edward III (if this is true than it’s likely many are direct descendants of Normans and William the Conqueror himself). So take that as you will. The Normans had major cultural and linguistic impacts on England and probably a good deal of genetic impact, but not nearly as much as the Anglo-Saxons and Britons.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >there’s circumstantial evidence that communities of Brythonic speakers still existed hundreds of years later.
          Brythonic speakers still exist in the present, they're called Welsh. I hope you weren't talking about my 3 part effortpost. That was about PRE-brythonic speakers, the ethnic substrate that existed before the IE-speaking Celts associated with the La Tene/Bell Beaker cultures spread into the islands. The Picts were (presumptively) a member of such an ethic group that antedates the Indo-European peoples, and this group was claimed to have still existed at some point in the second half of the first millennium AD.
          Although there is a competing theory that Picts were just a primitive off-shoot of Celtic peoples that were eventually subsumed into the Gaels the way many Britons outside of Wales became English, but this doesn't change the fact that the Celts were not the first inhabitants of the British isles; only the first meaningful ones.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not referring to the Welsh, I’m talking about England. I’ve heard it said that there were some Brythonic speaking communities in places like eastern England as late as the 1100s. But I don’t know if that’s true.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If that were true the so called “Insular Celts” would be genetically virtually identical to the French but they’re not. Not just the “Insular Celts” (never even considered themselves Celts until the 18th century, let alone by anyone else including the Romans) but also the English are mostly genetically Neolithic pre-Celtic Britons.
        Plus I’m dubious these kinds of Proto-genocides ever even happened in the ancient world. The Romans tried their best to kill as many Punics as they could and they still only just about made a dent in their population. Until the past few decades we thought the Picts were dead and buried, nope, turns out they’re basically just modern Scots minus a little bit of Gaelic and Germanic blood.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This. Old conquerors loved to chalk up just how amazingly powerful and unbeatable they were. Even Caesar wrote absurdly exaggerated numbers in his Gallic Wars memories, which historians collectively dismiss as propagandistic tripe due to the ridiculously high kill counts claimed. The Anglo-Saxons most certainly fought against various Brythonic forces which opposed their expansion, but so too did they intermarry and make peace with others of them. Just look at Cerdic and Cædwalla‘s names. They’re very clearly what we would now call Welsh.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    King Arthur was real. Fact.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Incorrectly chose war in 1940. Now look at your world. That is what Britain has done

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Now look at your world
      Flawed but ultimately still a million times better than insane racist genocidal madmen running around? I bet you 98% of Britons would still choose this over your Nazi fantasy
      /pol/chuds are so detached from the real world that they really don't get it, they genuinely have no idea that everyone has black, israeli, arab, etc. friends today, people which they love and would defend.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    According to a Japanese research firm, over 40% of the world's inventions and discoveries were made in the UK, followed by France with 24% of the world's inventions and discoveries made in France and followed by the US with 20%.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Britain's history is pretty vast and complex, partly due to its island nature and periods of isolation especially pre bronze age and even after the collapse of the bronze age trade. You can really split British history in multiple ways but the best is pre-Roman Britain, post-Roman, Saxon, Norman then English. The largest and most complex is obviously the English period as it's a far larger time of frame and many evolutions of the society occur.

    There's no way you're getting a complete explanation of these on his due to its broadness but if you are interested in pre-Roman Britain you're going to run into a lot of contrary views. Like most pre-classical european civilisations, it's prone to haplo-autists chiming in on his and then people making things up outside of here. There's an entire pop-history industry devoted to depicting the late British tribes in many fanciful and absurd ways. Try looking into the actual evidence we have, from the late implementation of farming communities and the pretty incredible mega-landscaping they did, huge mounds in Sussex, Essex and other parts. There's enormous cairn burials in the north and Scotland, some pretty complex stone underground towns. There's a strong relationship between the slightly earlier farming communities of Ireland and the works in northern Britain. There's also the uniqueness of British copper and bronze, which became incredibly valuable and there's an assortment of continental valuables apparent in some sites due to it, despite the fact the mysteries of the pre-roman british cairn burials, stone mounds, enormous land-sculpting is still essentially unknown of purpose.

    Things become clearer and essentially true history with roman occupation, the stories of first contact with Cassivellaunus battling on the banks of the Thames is interesting, especially with his later lionisation as a sort of British hero of resistance.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You then get a relatively quiet period of Britain in terms of literate history due to the nature of its outwardness to the empire but we get a picture of partiality mostly from the Romans when we know from some sources and from archaeology that the island was a source of much discontent.

      The Britons took quite a long time to be pacified, the rebellions begin almost immediately with previous allies that had helped betray the fellow Britons seeing their folly. There were two invasions technically of the Isles, the second being the complete though it was established that the Britons were a rather rude and fierce group however, easy to turn against one another and this is how Ceaser succeeded, by pitting the rival tribes against one another.

      The great rebellion of the Iceni was probably the most famous and destructive, after a period of relative adjustment and construction of Roman foundations, the Iceni tribe went on the warpath for reasons given both as myth, story and probably some partial truth. The sack of Colchester was exceptionally brutal, we have intact archaeological remains of slain children, babes, flames that have scorched bone and stone. This rebellion extended further, inciting some other minor tribes to the Iceni cause, it was however pacified after a final battle, there is claim that the Roman policy of disarmament of hostile tribes was reason for this victory but none-the-less, it was the final end of the pre-Roman briton.

      The next big event really is the collapse of a unified structure of Roman power and the abandonment of Britain, leaving a vacuum of authority and most importantly an abyss of cultural unity, the Romanised populace were adrift whilst some of the less romanised were stragglers at best, the introduction of christianity was quite early in Britain and adopted by these stragglers in what we know as Wales today, the more romanised of them like Nennius and Gildas giving the few glimpses of post-Roman britain.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        From the only really native sources we must piece together the reliable, the sacral and conjecture into a shoddy examination of, arguably the most anarchic time of British history.

        Nennius details arguably the best goings on at that moment; the British become once again insular, and in usual fashion of the epistle, chastises the britons for reverting to pagan ritual and immoral attitudes, this is a large time period in which tribes re-emerge, perhaps it's more accurate that its tribes associated with Roman town foundations, though we know many isolated parts of Briton were little more than known tributaries and not extensively pacified in habits. You get tales of the marauding of Irish warriors, rampaging picts from the north and raiders of the coast, largely Frisian and probably early pirates of the Scandinavian.

        Throughout this period, it's a mix of battles between native britons and an establishment of an "otherness" to the south of Briton to the north, namely modern day Scotland. Scotland was never colonised by the Romans, the closest they got were partial encroachments into the tip of the lowlands, due to this the Picts (a people of which we know very little, there's myths and speculation, some ranging from them being more associated with early iron age germanics that colonised the land to being indigenous etc) - were a outsider race, despite being British, they were an other and the boundaries of Britishness were being formed as a collective culture again, namely, christianised peoples which understood some of the romanised precepts of civilisation.

        The most important story here is that of Vortigern and Hengist and Horsa. Vortigen was either a king of the Britons entirely, perhaps analagous to the high kingship of Ireland or an embellishment by the authors, however, Vortigen was a British king whose power atleast, resided later in Wales. Supposedly he invited in Hengist and Horsa, the progenitors of Saxon conquerors.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hengist and Horsa were to run off the rampage of the Picts and other invaders, in turn, they were to be given settled land. We're not entirely sure where or the land promised was, likely Essex or Kent, due to the the fact it was pretty unproductive land, being still a large morass up till the middle of the 12th century.

          Either way, this did not go to plan, according to the legends, Hengist and Horsa brought over many more of their kin and were able to push off the marauders, however Vortigern learned that to give away your protection to wolves only encouraged them to sup on you next. The proceeding history is a culminative and eventual conquest of the Britons by Saxons, Jutes and Angles. There's many theories regarding the true historicity of why these germanic peoples migrated, the story of Hengist, Horsa and Vortigern is more legend than truth, in the same vein as Ragnar Lodbrok.

          Either way, over time, the Anglo-Saxons created their own realms from the ruin of the Britons, and despite another (legend rather than certified history) supposed rebellion, the last infact of the Britons, by none other than the mythical Arthur, the Saxons came into supremacy of Briton and the last of the Britons fled to the mountains of Wales or remained shrouded north of Hadrian's wall. This therefore begins the Saxon period.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll write up the next part of this very brief history of the Saxon period later, if the OP is interested.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Saxons came into supremacy of Briton and the last of the Britons fled to the mountains of Wales or remained shrouded north of Hadrian's wall.
            They killed the men, not the idea.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just for everyones edification

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don’t buy into these photos and all this race science shit much ever but goddamit that guy looks just like me (and like 7/8ths of my ancestors are from the isles)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Poland, Baltic states, and Finland not included
      Whoever made this image needs to get out a little more. I've visited all three regions and can tell you there are definitely dudes and ladies who have this look, albeit they're not the majority.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russia too for that matter. I knew a ton of Russians growing up, and both the man and woman in that picture could certainly pass for Western (proper ethnic) Russians.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *