Sports
16 Aug 10
22 Aug 10
Originally posted by MctaytoIf you are just trying to wind us "sassenach's up "fair play to you .
Coming from a sassenach yer right what ever you say oh master - [b]NOT
But If you are so anti English i think you should find something worth while and get a life !!
I can tell you ,no English man waste's his time slagging off "north of the borderers" We have better things to do 😴😴😴
23 Aug 10
Originally posted by Mctaytohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden
shows what you know, do some research. you had us cornered in a glen and took pot shots until you massacred all those present that were not english a wipes
Not a pitchfork in sight.
...you had us cornered in a glen and took pot shots until you massacred all those present that were not english a wipes...
You sure you're thinking of the same battle Mctayto? As I read it, the English victory resulted mainly from unsound tactics on the Scottish side - the real villain of the piece is Lord Murray!
23 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatEasy see you have never visited Culloden 16 miles from my home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden
Not a pitchfork in sight.
[b]...you had us cornered in a glen and took pot shots until you massacred all those present that were not english a wipes...
You sure you're thinking of the same battle Mctayto? As I read it, the English victory resulted mainly from unsound tactics on the Scottish side - the real villain of the piece is Lord Murray![/b]
Yes we had claymores which are ineffective against a bullet.
2,00 dead Scots v 50 sassenachs sure sounds like afair fight to me.
I visit Culloden regularly to visit the graves of my kin and pray that the sassenachs will get their just desserts some day.
23 Aug 10
Originally posted by phil3000The only thing an englishman can do better than a Scot is make an a$$ of himself especially abroad 😛
If you are just trying to wind us "sassenach's up "fair play to you .
But If you are so anti English i think you should find something worth while and get a life !!
I can tell you ,no English man waste's his time slagging off "north of the borderers" We have better things to do 😴😴😴
24 Aug 10
Originally posted by MctaytoActually I have visited Culloden, although I fail to see the relevance. I have also been reading up on the battle since the subject was raised in this thread. The English forces were certainly better equipped than the Scots, but not to the extent that you seem to think. The Scots certainly didn't lack for muskets, and no more than one in five of them were equipped with a sword and for many of these it was a matter of choice. The main advantages for the English were training/discipline and far better and more numerous artillery. Even so, a brief analysis of the battle and the lead-up to it clearly reveals an array of tactical errors on the part of the Scots that would have seriously compromised a vastly superior force. The most serious error was choosing to meet the English in open battle - and this was at the command of Charles himself. This was compounded by the disastrous attempt at a night attack (Murray's idea), leaving much of the Scots force exhausted, dispersed and out of contact with each other. You may of course cling to your romanticised view of this battle, but the facts about it are clearly recorded. You are right of course that the outcome (1500-2000 Scots killed or wounded against 50 English) reveal that ultimately it was not a fair fight, but the fault for this lies not as you imagine with the English, but in fact with the Scottish commanders.
Easy see you have never visited Culloden 16 miles from my home.
Yes we had claymores which are ineffective against a bullet.
2,00 dead Scots v 50 sassenachs sure sounds like afair fight to me.
I visit Culloden regularly to visit the graves of my kin and pray that the sassenachs will get their just desserts some day.
24 Aug 10
Originally posted by MctaytoYour'e forgetting one thing here .
The only thing an englishman can do better than a Scot is make an a$$ of himself especially abroad 😛
The England football team are crap ,over paid ,over rated tossers !! but they always qualify !! What about Scotland ?😛😛
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by phil3000Ahem you did not qualify in :
Your'e forgetting one thing here .
The England football team are crap ,over paid ,over rated tossers !! but they always qualify !! What about Scotland ?😛😛
[b]1970
1974
1978
1982
etc
You have been on a lucky streak in more recent times due to seeding but get found wanting come the finals 😛
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe english had years to train and recruit and were better equipped and were soldiers
Actually I have visited Culloden, although I fail to see the relevance. I have also been reading up on the battle since the subject was raised in this thread. The English forces were certainly better equipped than the Scots, but not to the extent that you seem to think. The Scots certainly didn't lack for muskets, and no more than one in five of t ...[text shortened]... t for this lies not as you imagine with the English, but in fact with the Scottish commanders.
The scots were merely men coming from their farms etc to defend against an arrogant, devious, underhand opponent
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by MctaytoThe english had years to train and recruit and were better equipped and were soldiers
The english had years to train and recruit and were better equipped and were soldiers
The scots were merely men coming from their farms etc to defend against an arrogant, devious, underhand opponent
Of course, they were professional soldiers, no doubt.
The scots were merely men coming from their farms etc...
There were a good proportion of French, Scottish and Irish professional soldiers, but I'll grant you the majority of them were highlanders - most of whom were forced to join the cause by their clan leaders.
...to defend against an arrogant, devious, underhand opponent
If you take the time to read a bit of history, you'll find that in fact the Scots were the aggressors in this conflict. Had Charles (a French/Pole born and raised in luxury in Rome) not chosen to pursue his tenuous claim for the British throne, these 'innocent farmers' would never have had to face the professional forces sent to defend against this Jacobite aggression. Arrogant, devious and underhand? Who do you mean, the commanders? Because they won? Or because they chose to defend themselves? One might equally call the Scots commanders arrogant, naive, greedy and underhand. Let's not forget that it was only by virtue of attacking at night that the Jacobite forces beat the government army at Prestonpans. Had they not resorted to this underhand tactic, there wouldn't have been a battle at Culloden because they would have already been defeated.