Great Britons

[unmerged(5609)]

Re: Re: Great Britons of War

Charles Babbage deserves consideration as he invented the concept of a computer (atlhough he did not do that) and of computer programming.

But I have another question, when we consdier who the greatest Briton was do we consider who had the greatest impact on Birton (and was British) or who had the greatest impact globally. You may well come up with two different people.

 

[unmerged(4217)]

Originally posted by Emperor Gupta
What's the basis for picking Thatch? Even if you agree with her politics, nothing she has done has any global or historical resonance.

I know the Iron Lady is not popular, but I'm convinced history will find her to be one of the most significant PM's of Britain. Some of the reasons:
1. For her important contribution in winning the cold war
2. For being the first women leading a government in Europe
3. For getting and staying in power on the basis of strong and radical ideas, not on personal popularity
4. For saving and reforming the decaying British economy
5. For beating the trade unions
6. For being the longest reigning PM ever (of the whole EU)
The combination of these achievements, some more important than others, will see to it she gets a place in history.

 

[unmerged(6303)]

I would choose Wellington and Nelson. They symbolize, and are the individuals who contributed most to, British history and national character over the last two hundred years, as well as the political shape of the modern world. I think Nelson was English, and Wellington Irish (sort of).

"British" is a tricky word. My mother is English and my father Indian, so I consider myself wholly British, and not particularly English. For me it represents a certain sort of international, English speaking culture, that neatly describes my family. As a result of government propaganda, or for whatever cultural or imperial reason, "British" did become something like a nationality uniting English, Welsh, Irish and Scots, for a while. Maybe this reached its peak during the war (except for the Irish).

The etymology that I have heard is that it comes from "Prydein", which was the name given to the first Celts that the mediterranean peoples met here. It means something like "painted people" (my proto-P-celtic isn't very good.)

 

[unmerged(6116)]

Originally posted by sean9898


The official name for the country is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so "Great Britain" refers to England, Scotland and Wales.

True, but in many Atlas UK stands for GB and includes Northern Ireland, which must be an incorrection...
BTW i would like to know more about the Union Jack, and what it includes...

 

[unmerged(5609)]

Originally posted by Falcão


True, but in many Atlas UK stands for GB and includes Northern Ireland, which must be an incorrection...
BTW i would like to know more about the Union Jack, and what it includes...

The Union Jack should only be called such if it is flown from a ship, otherwise it is correctly named the Union Flag. The flag incorporates the flags of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (although originally Ireland as whole). I am not sure when it was first used but it would not have been before the early part of the C18th.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

Re: Re: Great Britons of War

Originally posted by sean9898

He was a mediocre politician,

Well, he only presuaded the parliament not to seek revenge on the united states for 1812... That came in handy during 1914 and 1939. I am no expert, but that sounds like one of the most important and wisest political decisions in Brittish history.

 

[unmerged(4763)]

I agree that Newton is probably the "greatest" (that is, the most important) Briton that has ever lived.

Beckham? That's just too funny. Allright, he's good at what he's doing, but, just like every other country in the world, Britain is loaded with people that are good at what they're doing. Policemen, nurses, teachers etc. just don't get paid that much. Still, they are the ones doing the important stuff.

 

[unmerged(3016)]

Beckham? That's just too funny. Allright, he's good at what he's doing, but, just like every other country in the world, Britain is loaded with people that are good at what they're doing. Policemen, nurses, teachers etc. just don't get paid that much. Still, they are the ones doing the important stuff

Good point , well made.I second that.Heres to the common man.On the other hand ...

Newton , Darwin , Russell , Turner.

 

[Gunny123]

Has got to be Nelson! If not for Nelson who knows how things might have turned out with France. Can't say the same for Wellington, yes he was a great leader but lets be honest by the time he faced old Nappy most of Europe new how Napoleon fought. So one might say any battle tested British general of the day would have held his ground long enough for the Prussians to arrive. Wellington did not beat Napoleon but only fought him to a draw tell the Prussians were able to flood the field!

 

[unmerged(4745)]

Newton, the first modern scientist.

Wellington, as military leader. Peninsular war !

Henry VIII or Elisabeth I, the Tudors built the cornerstones for the later development of U.K.

 

[Arkestra]

Henry VIII didn't do much for England at all, except create a massive inflation problem and blow all the money his father had saved on some ephermal victories in France in 1514. Wolsey and Cromwell should get the credit for the achievements of the reign (like the Tudor subsidy).

 

[unmerged(4745)]

He did one thing that made one of the cornerstones. He broke the band to the pope in Rome. And the reformation was one of the sparkplugs of the further development in Britain. As it was in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden. So do not minimalise the divorse between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon.

 

[Arkestra]

And yet, Mary I was able to somehow re-establish Catholicism in England without serious repercussions - the serious revolt of her reign was over the marriage treaty to Phillip (which was actually exceedingly favourable to England). Besides, Henry's motives were almost totally based on money and his need for a male heir, not out of some theoligical ideal. His church was not quite catholic, nor protestant. I believe one historian described it as a "jackdaw's nest". So, to me at least, the facts show that despite all the pageantry, Henry VIII's reign achieved very little.

 

[unmerged(4745)]

Originally posted by Arkestra
And yet, Mary I was able to somehow re-establish Catholicism in England without serious repercussions - the serious revolt of her reign was over the marriage treaty to Phillip (which was actually exceedingly favourable to England). Besides, Henry's motives were almost totally based on money and his need for a male heir, not out of some theoligical ideal. His church was not quite catholic, nor protestant. I believe one historian described it as a "jackdaw's nest". So, to me at least, the facts show that despite all the pageantry, Henry VIII's reign achieved very little.

Yes Henry VII was a weak guy compared to his contemporary Gustav Vasa.
But both of them did the reformation by same reason lack of money.

But I salute Henry VIII because he was the first European ruler who had guts enough to expell the power of the pope.

 

[unmerged(6898)]

To be, or not to be, that is a question