Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I can go one better, I'm scottish. But the thing to notice, how many bad guys are: English, Scottish, or European in films? hmmmmmmm how many can you name?

At 9/6/06 06:26 PM, The_Gus wrote: I can go one better, I'm scottish. But the thing to notice, how many bad guys are: English, Scottish, or European in films? hmmmmmmm how many can you name?

Because bad guys are always more interesting than the good guys.

A posh English accent sounds creepy and sophisticated and looks down on everyone and everything.

And reginal english and scottish accents can be quite mad and can display a 'hard' image.

Officers of Starwars...
Anthony hopkins
Gone in 60 seconds
xmen
Stewie griffin lol
loads more can't think

and formula 51, dont forget that one!

God, I hate the English.

At 9/6/06 06:16 PM, _holly_ wrote: The french would never of rebbelled against napoleon, they absolutly adored him.

If he launched a campain in America, he himself would have to lead it. Leaving France wide open.

France would of destoryed spain long before the americas. And if not, Napoleon would of sent huge amounts of men over.

Spain had colonies in the Americas, they would have relocated. I am sure that Napoleon would not have crossed the Atlantic.

At 9/6/06 07:47 PM, Draculea wrote:

At 9/6/06 06:16 PM, _holly_ wrote: The french would never of rebbelled against napoleon, they absolutly adored him.

If he launched a campain in America, he himself would have to lead it. Leaving France wide open.

France would of destoryed spain long before the americas. And if not, Napoleon would of sent huge amounts of men over.

Spain had colonies in the Americas, they would have relocated. I am sure that Napoleon would not have crossed the Atlantic.

Why would napoleon go to america??? he would send genrals with armys.

You would be speaking french, theres no doubt about it.

At 9/6/06 08:09 PM, _holly_ wrote: Why would napoleon go to america??? he would send genrals with armys.
You would be speaking french, theres no doubt about it.

Heres a hint, the french were nothing without Napoleon. If he sent men to the Americas they would have been slaughtered unless he either a) went there b) sent a lot of troops.

If he sent a lot of troops, France would have been invaded by neighboring regions and they would have had to recall their troops. Leaving America wide open.

We wouldnt be speaking french.

At 9/6/06 08:18 PM, Draculea wrote:

At 9/6/06 08:09 PM, _holly_ wrote: Why would napoleon go to america??? he would send genrals with armys.
You would be speaking french, theres no doubt about it.

Heres a hint, the french were nothing without Napoleon. If he sent men to the Americas they would have been slaughtered unless he either a) went there b) sent a lot of troops.

A)Wouldn't matter if he wen't there or not. B)He would of sent huge armys

If he sent a lot of troops, France would have been invaded by neighboring regions and they would have had to recall their troops. Leaving America wide open.

We wouldnt be speaking french.

France was your main allie in the war of independence, if it wasn't for the french you may not have one the war of independence. And napoleon wasn't with them then.
The french nearly conquered the whole of europe with out losing a sigle battle till Wellington stepped in. And napoleon didnt comman every battle, he had many generals.
And the french armys were huge and so was his navy until Trafalgar.
And anyway if Britain wasn't around France would of already colonised america.

Basically If Britain wasn't around France would of colonised america, You would eventuly gain independence but you'd still be talking french. Just like what happend with Britain. Spain,portugal,belgiam would be under french rule and france would of had the largest empire in the history of the world.

So thank fuck they had us as neibours.

At 9/6/06 10:08 PM, _holly_ wrote: A)Wouldn't matter if he wen't there or not.

So your just going to make a statement without any proof or reason?
Great rebuttle.

France was your main allie in the war of independence, if it wasn't for the french you may not have one the war of independence.

And that has to do with this how?

And napoleon wasn't with them then.

So? Want to know what the French supplied? Warships and Troops.
The Navy had good commanders, but the troops fought usually under American generals.

The french nearly conquered the whole of europe with out losing a sigle battle till Wellington stepped in.

You forget the major loss to Russia, which is arguably what stopped Napoleon from controlling Europe. And also the Battle of Leipzig, two years before the Hundred Days comeback.

And napoleon didnt comman every battle, he had many generals.

Napoleon controlled the Army that fought Europe and Egypt. His generals were used in defensive positions, flankings, and minor battles.

And the french armys were huge

Not after 1812.

And anyway if Britain wasn't around France would of already colonised america.

Whats the point of arguing, if your just going to say something without refuting a few of my points?
Next are you going to call me a poopy head?

france would of had the largest empire in the history of the world.

Not even close. Britian didnt defeat France first, Russia did.

At 9/6/06 10:45 PM, Draculea wrote:

france would of had the largest empire in the history of the world.

Not even close. Britian didnt defeat France first, Russia did.

Britain did defeat France. Trafalgar Britain destroyed the spanish and french navy .
Britain pushed France back through portugl spain and then invaded spain. And Napoleon surrended then A year later Napoleon escaped and within months raised
an army 73,000 strong. And who defeated that army at Waterloo? the British and the Prussians(germans) Theres no way russia defeated france.

The Battle of Leipzig wouldn't of happened because before Britain stepped in, most of the allied forces in that battle were on napoleons side.

Russia managed to push france out of russia. (at the early stages of the war) If Britain hadn't stepped in, Spain,Portugal,germany,belgian, and france would of quite easily destroyed russia!

If Britain were not around, france would of taken there place and of had much bigger armys,

I' sorry but if Britain never was, french would be your national language.

Not spanish...

Ment to say invaded france, not spain

There are some people who say that Trafalgar had a direct impact on Napoleons eventual total defeat.

1. Firstly, Napoleon is defeated at Trafalgar. This means that Napoleon's vision of invading Britain was crushed and he could no longer have his way on the sea.

2. So this forces Napoleon to come up with the Continental system, to try and starve Britain of supplies. This system forces other countries in Europe to comply.

3. Russia breaks the continental system. Napoleon leads an army to invade Russia. The Prussians don't intervene on him going through their country (but special mention to Clausewitz). Anyhow, Napoleon eventually admist defeat and retreats. This is arguably the breaking point of Napoleons antics. Eventually, he is totally defeated at Waterloo, with the Prussians making a timely intervention to help us.

So maybe the victory at Trafalgar had more consequences than previously thought though. I don't personally hold with that theory, there is just too much time in between.

At 9/7/06 11:22 AM, _holly_ wrote: Britain did defeat France. Trafalgar Britain destroyed the spanish and french navy .

Did I say they didnt?

The Battle of Leipzig wouldn't of happened because before Britain stepped in, most of the allied forces in that battle were on napoleons side.

What do you mean it wouldnt have happened? Britain wasnt involved in it. France lost a major defeat there, possibly one of the largest before WW1.

Russia managed to push france out of russia. (at the early stages of the war) If Britain hadn't stepped in, Spain,Portugal,germany,belgian, and france would of quite easily destroyed russia!

You must not know much of the conflict, because Russia had decimated Napoleons army with just their weather. Technically Napoleon won the war, but he couldnt control the vast country and on his way home he lost more than 97% of his 691,500 manned army. If he had maintained the allied status with Russia, he could have focused his eyes on Britain, which he might have been able to defeat.

I' sorry but if Britain never was, french would be your national language.
Not spanish...

Go watch the history channel sometime, or do they not have that in Britain (or were you are from).

England's cool.

It's like Scotland, but with uglier chicks.

At 9/8/06 01:28 AM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: England's cool.

It's like Scotland, but with uglier chicks.

And full of fail.

At 9/8/06 01:33 AM, JMHX wrote:

At 9/8/06 01:28 AM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: England's cool.

It's like Scotland, but with uglier chicks.

And full of fail.

and chavs or am I mistaken with that one?

Chavs enhance the fail.

I'm just glad people 60 years ago weren't arguing over who's country contributed more to the war effort, and just FOUGHT the DAMNED WAR!

Seriously, everyone who's arguing WWII right now:

Shut up. Group effort. Yay ALLIES!

There's absolutely no discernable way to measure a country's contribution. You can sit there all day trying, but the fact is: All the Allies contributed.

And everyone underappreciates the Polish and Free French resistance forces......

Nuff said.

At 9/7/06 10:13 PM, Draculea wrote:

At 9/7/06 11:22 AM, _holly_ wrote: Britain did defeat France. Trafalgar Britain destroyed the spanish and french navy .

Did I say they didnt?

The Battle of Leipzig wouldn't of happened because before Britain stepped in, most of the allied forces in that battle were on napoleons side.

What do you mean it wouldnt have happened? Britain wasnt involved in it. France lost a major defeat there, possibly one of the largest before WW1.

Russia managed to push france out of russia. (at the early stages of the war) If Britain hadn't stepped in, Spain,Portugal,germany,belgian, and france would of quite easily destroyed russia!

You must not know much of the conflict, because Russia had decimated Napoleons army with just their weather. Technically Napoleon won the war, but he couldnt control the vast country and on his way home he lost more than 97% of his 691,500 manned army. If he had maintained the allied status with Russia, he could have focused his eyes on Britain, which he might have been able to defeat.

I' sorry but if Britain never was, french would be your national language.
Not spanish...

Go watch the history channel sometime, or do they not have that in Britain (or were you are from).

France suffered huge defeat in russia but after russia napoleon regrouped with huge armies. The french loved him!
Britain Defeated Napoleon twice. They captured him twice. The British Embassy in france today is napoleons house!
Napoleon used a tactic in his armies that no other armie could withstand, the coloum, which was a huge block of men which just marched strait into the enemys formation and most just ran. These Coloums had 10's of thousands of men in,marching strait towards you would be incredibly frightning. They Defeated Prussians, spanish, portugese, Russians! But the British who had the best Infantry In the world (and the shittest cavalry)
Stood in line 3-4 ranks thick and the huge french coloums would march towards the lines which looked so weak and frail, and then the British would start firing Platoon fire 4-5 shots a minute which eventually destroyed the french coloums.
Welligton also had a number of german calvalry regiments which were the best in the world. The British Grenadiers and the Highlanders proved to be the very best Infantry And the royal green jackets.

Anyway the whole point of this was that you would be speaking french if it wasn't for the British, and you would of because instead of Britain being the dominant power of north america it would of been the french.

At 9/8/06 10:28 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm just glad people 60 years ago weren't arguing over who's country contributed more to the war effort, and just FOUGHT the DAMNED WAR!

Seriously, everyone who's arguing WWII right now:

Shut up. Group effort. Yay ALLIES!

Well said, I couldn't agree more. This isn't intelligent discussion about WWII, its just arguing over bragging rights.

The Scots saved everyone’s asses.

You guys are just too afraid to admit it.

Well said, I couldn't agree more. This isn't intelligent discussion about WWII, its just arguing over bragging rights.

The only "winners" are unfortunately the heroic dead, for they don't have to see their ancestors squabbling over something they didn't even take part in......

I'm just glad the Vets don't frequent NG.......

Fuckin kids....stay in school, ans STFU!

I like my auntie ann.
Sometimes if I'm a good boy at the mall she let's me pick out granny smith apples.

At 3/10/06 07:21 PM, Undesigned_Spirit wrote: Im from England and alot of people on NG hate us,why?

Who the fuck said people hated England?
England is America's best friend.

At 9/8/06 01:13 PM, _holly_ wrote: Napoleon used a tactic in his armies that no other armie could withstand, the coloum, which was a huge block of men which just marched strait into the enemys formation and most just ran.

How would that work in the dense forests of America?

Anyway the whole point of this was that you would be speaking french if it wasn't for the British, and you would of because instead of Britain being the dominant power of north america it would of been the french.

No, France had no incentive to invade America after the rebellion.
France would have pulled back their troops during the rebellion, leaving America wide open to any country.
If they did quench the rebellion, they would have stayed home for enough time for the Spanish to control America.
If they lost the rebellion, they would have conquered Europe. If they would have left for America, France would have been invaded.

We would not be speaking French, end of discussion.

At 3/10/06 07:21 PM, Undesigned_Spirit wrote: Im from England and alot of people on NG hate us,why?

America doesn't hate England. We hate everyone. It's plain and simple... we hate the horrible past that we had to excape by coming to America and thinking of other countries reminds us of our past origins.

At 3/10/06 07:21 PM, Undesigned_Spirit wrote: Im from England and alot of people on NG hate us,why?

I like British accents.

right america hate praticly every country espily france which is a okay country and the resoun the rest of britian hates england is they just want independce britian could be reunited by dyplomicy instead of war i mean would it be so bad if they were independant and im welsh but i like england i just dont like it when they insult us

At 10/22/06 12:21 PM, shorty10 wrote: right america hate praticly every country espily france which is a okay country and the resoun the rest of britian hates england is they just want independce britian could be reunited by dyplomicy instead of war i mean would it be so bad if they were independant and im welsh

Well, the thing is, each country in Britain does have some form of independence. There's a scottish parliament and welsh parliament in which the English have no say..

i like england i just dont like it when they insult us

I'm English and i don't like it when people insult the Welsh. In fact, i'm going to university in wales.

I dont know why America hates England if anything they should like England for backing them in the war and all.......

I personally hate England but I'm from Ireland and i think everyone knows why I do.