O'Neill At Last?

Originally posted by phil3000
Pitch forks ? We had guns and you had guns ! But we wore the trousers !!!!

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

Originally posted by Mctayto
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

I think your history is a bit wrong .

Originally posted by phil3000
I think your history is a bit wrong .

Coming from a sassenach yer right what ever you say oh master - [b]NOT

Originally posted by Mctayto
Coming from a sassenach yer right what ever you say oh master - [b]NOT

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 😴😴😴

Originally posted by Mctayto
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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden

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!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
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]

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.

Originally posted by phil3000
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 😴😴😴

The only thing an englishman can do better than a Scot is make an a$$ of himself especially abroad 😛

Originally posted by Mctayto
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.

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 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.

Originally posted by Mctayto
The only thing an englishman can do better than a Scot is make an a$$ of himself especially abroad 😛

Your'e forgetting one thing here .
The England football team are crap ,over paid ,over rated tossers !! but they always qualify !! What about Scotland ?😛😛

Originally posted by phil3000
but they always qualify !!

Who's getting their history wrong now? 😛

😉

tee hee

Originally posted by phil3000
Your'e forgetting one thing here .
The England football team are crap ,over paid ,over rated tossers !! but they always qualify !! What about Scotland ?😛😛

Ahem you did not qualify in :
[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 😛

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
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 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

Originally posted by Mctayto
Ahem you did not qualify in :
[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 😛

Not a history expert after all!

England did qualify for Mexico 70.

Originally posted by Mctayto
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

The english had years to train and recruit and were better equipped and were soldiers
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.