"‘No Troops but the British’: British National Identity..." Topic
11 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleAfter many years of resisting the urge to start a Napoleonic collection, Monkey Hanger takes the plunge!
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 23 Sep 2016 12:19 p.m. PST |
…and the Battle for Waterloo. "In the ‘long eighteenth-century' British national identity was superimposed over pre-existing identities in Britain in order to bring together the somewhat disparate, often warring, states. This identity centred on war with France; the French were conceptualised as the ‘other', being seen by the British as both different and inferior. For many historians this identity, built in reaction and opposition to France, dissipated following the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, as Britain gradually introduced changes that allowed broader sections of the population to engage in the political process. A new militaristic identity did not reappear in Britain until the 1850s, following the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. This identity did not fixate on France, but rather saw all foreign nations as different and, consequently, inferior. An additional change was the increasing public interest in the army and war, more generally. War became viewed as a ‘pleasurable endeavour' in which Britons had an innate skill and the army became seen as representative of that fact, rather than an outlet to dispose of undesirable elements of the population, as it had been in the past. British identity became increasingly militaristic in the lead up to the First World War. However, these two identities have been seen as separate phenomena, rather than the later identity being a progression of the earlier construct…" See here PDF link Amicalement Armand |
15th Hussar | 24 Sep 2016 4:13 a.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 24 Sep 2016 10:47 a.m. PST |
A votre service mon cher ami!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
deadhead | 24 Sep 2016 1:42 p.m. PST |
This is submitted for a Masters. It is infinitely better than what was actually a submission for a Doctorate, which we saw very recently; TMP link This shows novelty in the discussion, it is far better written grammatically and it sticks to the topic. It does pass that crucial test that it adds to the current literature. This does salvage my faith in academic standards and evidence appraisal. Do I sound like a pompous prat? My three sons think so…..it goes with the job…. |
Robert666 | 24 Sep 2016 3:29 p.m. PST |
"A new militaristic identity did not reappear in Britain until the 1850s, following the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. This identity did not fixate on France, but rather saw all foreign nations as different and, consequently, inferior." Nonsense. |
Tango01 | 24 Sep 2016 11:02 p.m. PST |
Glad you like it my good friend!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Supercilius Maximus | 26 Sep 2016 1:35 a.m. PST |
Have to agree with Robert – the highest ranking British Army officer in WW1 was FM "Willie" Robertson, a former domestic servant and gardener. His mother disowned him when he joined the Army as a private in 1877, saying "…I would rather bury you than see you in a red coat." |
Gazzola | 30 Sep 2016 6:30 a.m. PST |
Robert666/Supercillius Maximus I think it depends on who you talked to or asked questions about the British and 'foreigners'. I remember having talks with people about Waterloo. They thought it was just the British beating the French. For the Crimean War some people thought it was just the British beating the Russians. And when they talked about the British fighting the Zulus, they knew all about the defence at Rorkes Drift (mainly from the film) but did not have a clue about the modern British Army being defeated by the Zulus at Isandlwana. The point I'm trying to make, is that, unlike most of us attending this website, people then and now, did not and do not study military history and, from what I can see, apart from WW1, WW2 and possibly Vietnam, very little real knowledge of military conflicts is taught at schools. And lack of knowledge helps create the myths of any so called superiority of any nation. |
Tango01 | 30 Sep 2016 11:12 a.m. PST |
Sadly truth my good friend… (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Supercilius Maximus | 06 Oct 2016 3:37 a.m. PST |
Gazzola, Sorry, I missed that there were additions to this thread. Without denying your perfectly good points, I would point out that this is true of all nations, not just the British (which is what this document seems to be suggesting). There are several comments in the piece Tango has quoted that simply do not sound right – in some cases the complete opposite of what we know the public thought about the Army (Kipling's "Tommy" was written to illustrate that very point). The author seems to have missed that nuance completely. |
Gazzola | 08 Oct 2016 7:13 a.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus I was only commenting on what I had personally experienced, which, sadly, I get the impression has still not changed that much. For those of us who are interested, if not fascinated, with history and military history, it is hard to imagine how some people find it all boring and uninteresting, but that's life, I guess. Also sadly is when the opposite effect is created when people watch such films as The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) with Trevor Howard, David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave. The film, although very enjoyable and offering a real insight into the blundering of the British Army and their basically useless commanders, there was no mention that the charge was part of the Battle of Balaclava, which also included the incredible charge of the Heavy Brigade, the French cavalry regiment the Chasseurs D'Afrique whose attack prevented further losses to the Light Brigade, and the stand of the 93rd Highlanders. Nor was there any real mention of the actions undertaken by the British allies the Turks and the French. |
|