Who does not know what D day was?

To clarify, there is no recorded instance of one section all being wiped out and it being regarded as a recognised battle, while at the same time also having an incredibly low population of England so it can be regarded as "our bloodiest war."
You mean the battle didnt have a name? You are aware a battle doesnt always need a name to be a battle?
People battle cancer, they dont have a special name for it.


Wrong again.

1. You asked



Not "what was the bloodiest battle some kind of army was in."
I know what I asked, but you just wanted to be a smart arse didnt you?
It was decided people should learn soldiering and do nothing else like any other profession. For that. it means taxation. Paying people to learn soldiering when there is no war happening was regarded as a waste. There is also issues in that a standing army might overthrow government. Hence why the UK Parliament approves the continued existence of the British Army by passing an Armed Forces Act at least once every five years, as required by the Bill of Rights 1689. It also was the start of people being promoted on merit rather than wealth being used to buy ranks or ranks being given as you happened to be a Lord or Prince.
Although we did frequently have armies for various reasons didnt we? But thanks for the irrelevant bit of history
I did it. It returned nothing, so you made it up. I'm not ignoring it. It isn't a fact.
You googled the Norman invasion and the Roman conquest of Britain and it returned nothing? Really?
Google Broken at your end of the internet is it or are you just fibbing
The Norman Conquest in Numbers – Historia Magazine
Oh look they managed to crowbar in a proportion reference

The Harrying saw William ravage Yorkshire in retribution for the northern rebellion of 1069. (To put that figure in perspective, the total population of England at the time was probably only about 2 million.)


No. This might be difficult for you, but some people have an education. Why do you think I didn't even post the link to QI at first?

Also at what point will you realise absolutely everything including QI says you are wrong and you are still yet to come out with anything.
You would think people with an education would know more about the Roman conquest of Britain or the Norman invasion. Unless of course they are blagging and just get their information from TV shows.
 
For Christ's sake you two, give it a rest please. We all know that neither of you are willing to back down. But you are both making complete fools of your self's. So please quit your both ruining a perfectly good thread.
 
For Christ's sake you two, give it a rest please. We all know that neither of you are willing to back down. But you are both making complete fools of your self's. So please quit your both ruining a perfectly good thread.

On the contrary this was my thinking many pages ago, when it degenerated into a war of handbags, but now it has escalated into a history lesson, many facts and figures from our wonderful British history are emerging, to the wonderment and astonishment of all, these two need a platform of their own, alongside Tony Robinson, and Dan snow, its all riveting stuff. ( Failing that, the platform that Albert Pierrepoint stood the condemned on)
 
On the contrary this was my thinking many pages ago, when it degenerated into a war of handbags, but now it has escalated into a history lesson, many facts and figures from our wonderful British history are emerging, to the wonderment and astonishment of all, these two need a platform of their own, alongside Tony Robinson, and Dan snow, its all riveting stuff. ( Failing that, the platform that Albert Pierrepoint stood the condemned on)
If you can be bothered to go through every quote and counter quote.......


Has the paint dryed yet dear......??????
 
The OP is conspicuous by his silence, is this how his thread was envisaged? and now a few words from our sponsor..." On the first day, god invented Arrse, and all was good with the world, on the second day, it all went to rats shit ........."
 
You might want to look at the huge shafting the Russians gave the Germans in June 1944 - Operation Bagration.

23 June and 19 August 1944 ........The Soviet Union inflicted the biggest defeat in German military history by destroying 28 out of 34 divisions of Army Group Centre and completely shattered the German front line.”

Operation Bagration - Wikipedia
At what cost to the Russians? Wonder what the ratio of killed and wounded was compared to the heavily outnumbered Germans? Was there much in the way of strategy and tactics with the Russians in WW2 or was it just one massive wave of meat (and later lots and lots of cheap tanks)? I wonder if a lot of previous generals etc. were murdered during the during the revolution? Although I could be entirely wrong.
 
At what cost to the Russians? Wonder what the ratio of killed and wounded was compared to the heavily outnumbered Germans? Was there much in the way of strategy and tactics with the Russians in WW2 or was it just one massive wave of meat (and later lots and lots of cheap tanks)? I wonder if a lot of previous generals etc. were murdered during the during the revolution? Although I could be entirely wrong.
D Day was the start of rescuing Western Europe from a Totalitarian Socialist Dictator.
Bagration was another step in Eastern Europe swapping one Socialist dictator for another.
As for your comment on casualties, Napoleon also famously didn't give a damn about his own casualties. It is a totalitarian hallmark.
 
I backed up what I said. You do realise anyone can check it?

The English Civil War was our bloodiest war. The reason was we had a small population, a huge amount of fighting and the belief that the other side was so wrong the only answer was to wipe them out. It involved parliament vs royalists.

It involved religious beliefs so strongly held they would be considered extremist today. All of this resulted in the country tearing itself apart and dragging Wales, Scotland and Ireland into it.

The best you came out with was that it wasn't even close without the slightest shred as to why.

Again anyone can read your posts.

It's not opinion. It's fact. It was our bloodiest war. Would you like a list of the books I've read on it?

Perhaps you can say why everyone is wrong?

If lots of people die in your population that's it.

Wrong again. You posted a link that didn't even agree with you!
I think it's obvious you aren't. Want to dig yourself in deeper?

Let's ask Stephen Fry.

I think you will find the Civil War cycle started in Scotland with the Bishops' Wars.

Edited to Add further, a significant proportion of belligerents on both sides though higher on the Parliamentarians at Marston Moor weren't English.
 
Last edited:
D Day was the start of rescuing Western Europe from a Totalitarian Socialist Dictator.
Bagration was another step in Eastern Europe swapping one Socialist dictator for another.
As for your comment on casualties, Napoleon also famously didn't give a damn about his own casualties. It is a totalitarian hallmark.
So it would seem the Soviets just kept throwing Russian lives at it (and many other 'Auxiliary' types I bet) until the Germans broke. So no tactics or strategy.
 
I think you will find the Civil War cycle started in Scotland with the Bishops' Wars.

Edited to Add further, a significant proportion of belligerents on both sides though higher on the Parliamentarians at Marston Moor weren't English.
Yep, but I was trying to not make this any more painful. It is usually known as "The English Civil War," but it didn't involve just English, wasn't Civil and wasn't just one war either.

So technically none of it is 100% correct and is sometimes known by other terms. As colloquially it goes by that name I was keeping with it.
 
You mean the battle didnt have a name? You are aware a battle doesnt always need a name to be a battle?
You made it up. Please tell me which recognised battle meant the loss of only section and is regarded as a battle.
People battle cancer, they dont have a special name for it.
They do, but then we were talking about your own make believe.
I know what I asked, but you just wanted to be a smart arse didnt you?
No. You asked a question. I gave you a factual answer.

Your problem is you don't actually deal in facts and when someone does you call them "a smart arse." Correct though, as I am much smarter than you.

What you said was, what was the bloodiest battle the British Army was involved in, I answered, now it seems it can mean any battle including any of those you've made up, and could be comprising of militia, peasants, a standing army or a couple of blokes outside a pub. In fact I'm surprised it still includes humans. Ants form armies to fight each other. Want to include them too?
Although we did frequently have armies for various reasons didnt we? But thanks for the irrelevant bit of history
We did, but you were talking about "The British Army." Not any army.

You could ask what was the fastest car, get an answer, but then decided you could also include aircraft...
You googled the Norman invasion and the Roman conquest of Britain and it returned nothing? Really?
As it being our bloodiest war, yes.
Google Broken at your end of the internet is it or are you just fibbing
Google is fine.
The Norman Conquest in Numbers – Historia Magazine
Oh look they managed to crowbar in a proportion reference

The Harrying saw William ravage Yorkshire in retribution for the northern rebellion of 1069. (To put that figure in perspective, the total population of England at the time was probably only about 2 million.)
Not the same thing. The Harrying of the North is William The Bastard putting down rebellions by persistent attacks to consolidate his power. It's not considered "a war." It's closer to dealing with insurgency in Iraq after the Gulf War 2.

I've looked through the link. Please show me where it says that was "our bloodiest war." Also note, the people being persecuted by William The Bastard don't even qualify as being "soldiers." They were largely all civilians. Killing civilians for being rebellious is genocide, ethnic cleansing, or whatever else but not exactly "a war."
You would think people with an education would know more about the Roman conquest of Britain or the Norman invasion.
I do. If I were you I wouldn't go there as you will rapidly show your ignorance and I will run rings round you again.
Unless of course they are blagging and just get their information from TV shows.
Says the guy who finally resorted to using Google.
 
You made it up. Please tell me which recognised battle meant the loss of only section and is regarded as a battle.

They do, but then we were talking about your own make believe.
Of course its make beleive, I made it up to show that percentages and/or proportions can make things look worse than they are.
However if you would like a real battle with a higher percentage of casualties you can try the Battle of Isandlwana, or the Battle of Intombe, Im sure an educated bloke such as yourself knows all about it and you wont frantically be searching for it online.

No. You asked a question. I gave you a factual answer.
Still a smartarse answer.
Your problem is you don't actually deal in facts and when someone does you call them "a smart arse." Correct though, as I am much smarter than you.
The fact being your original comment was not correct.
What you said was, what was the bloodiest battle the British Army was involved in, I answered, now it seems it can mean any battle including any of those you've made up, and could be comprising of militia, peasants, a standing army or a couple of blokes outside a pub. In fact I'm surprised it still includes humans. Ants form armies to fight each other. Want to include them too?
We did, but you were talking about "The British Army." Not any army.

So you have googled Zulu wars?

You could ask what was the fastest car, get an answer, but then decided you could also include aircraft...
As it being our bloodiest war, yes.


Google is fine.

Not the same thing. The Harrying of the North is William The Bastard putting down rebellions by persistent attacks to consolidate his power. It's not considered "a war." It's closer to dealing with insurgency in Iraq after the Gulf War 2.

I've looked through the link. Please show me where it says that was "our bloodiest war." Also note, the people being persecuted by William The Bastard don't even qualify as being "soldiers." They were largely all civilians. Killing civilians for being rebellious is genocide, ethnic cleansing, or whatever else but not exactly "a war."
We have now changed they definition of war have we? All those Brits bombed in the blitz didnt actually die in the war.
I put the link up so you can see the figures, which you have now decided to ignore.

Any comment on the Roman invasion of Britain? Perhaps you want change the definition of war again?
I do. If I were you I wouldn't go there as you will rapidly show your ignorance and I will run rings round you again.
Says the guy who finally resorted to using Google.
Run rings? Im quite honest about google, thats why I dont look a twat by claiming I cant find anything on the Roman invasion or Norman conquest.

So what does your education (and definitely not google) say about the Zulu battles?
 
Last edited:
Of course its make beleive, I made it up to show that percentages and/or proportions can make things look worse than they are.
You don't need to make things up. We live in the real world with actual facts.
However if you would like a real battle with a higher percentage of casualties you can try the Battle of Isandlwana, or the Battle of Intombe, Im sure an educated bloke such as yourself knows all about it and you wont frantically be searching for it online.
I've been in the army a long time. I joined because I was interested in it. I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult that someone in the army is interested in the British army, history, battles or war.

If you had someone interested in cars, it's possible they might work in a garage, own cars, do them up, read about them.
Still a smartarse answer.
I make no apologies for being smarter than you.
The fact being your original comment was not correct.
You wouldn't know a fact if it marched up to you. I have provided you with why it is correct.
So you have googled Zulu wars?
No. Years ago we had things called books. We used to read them. Some of us still do.
We have now changed they definition of war have we? All those Brits bombed in the blitzed didnt actually die in the war.
They died in a war. As previously explained to you.

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...ow-what-d-day-was.293046/page-15#post-9316342

In seven years, between 1642 and 1649, one in ten of the adult male population died. That is more than three times the proportion that died in WWI and five times the proportion of those who died in WWII.

The total UK population in 1642 was five million. Of that roughly two million were men of fighting age. 85,000 died on the battlefield. Another 100,000 died of wounds or disease.

It was the biggest mobilisation in English history with a quarter of those eligible to fight in uniform.

In Ireland it then also merged into a doomed battle for Independence.

Some think half the Irish population was gone after Cromwell's expedition in 1653.

You have a huge war combined with a small population in a war where both sides were so convinced they were right they thought the only solution was to wipe out the other. A war which split families.

Hence our bloodiest war.

10 myths about WW1 debunked

Although more Britons died in WW1 than any other conflict, the bloodiest war in our history relative to population size is the Civil War, which raged in the mid-17th Century. A far higher proportion of the population of the British Isles were killed than the less than 2% who died in WW1. By contrast, around 4% of the population of England and Wales, and considerably more than that in Scotland and Ireland, are thought to have been killed in the Civil War.
I put the link up so you can see the figures, which you have now decided to ignore.
And everyone else also seems to not be considering it. Probably as we are talking about a thousand years ago, and there are no reliable figures.
Any comment on the Roman invasion of Britain? Perhaps you want change the definition of war again?
Which invasion? Julius Caesar's raids? Aulus Plautius? Petilius Cerealis? Gnaeus Julius Agricola? You are talking about 41 years before Britain was finally conquered.
Run rings? Im quite honest about google, thats why I dont look a twat by claiming I cant find anything on the Roman invasion or Norman conquest.
I've found nothing about them being considered as our bloodiest war.
So what does your education (and definitely not google) say about the Zulu battles?
A lot.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top