England must let slip the dogs of war

First topic message reminder :

Just as the Irish dug deep into their very psyche at Lansdowne in last season's GS encounter, the English must do the same against the Welsh.

They won't need any reminders and pep-talks as to the meaning to their nation and its people for this game.

And the English must meet this patriotic verve with equal verve and resolve and fire.

The team talks and tactics will be well understood must be understood before they set set foot on the team bus. But the strategy must be positive as we are at home.

In the changing room, Brian Blessed thumps out Shakespeare:
"Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spiritTo his full height.
On, on, you noblest English.Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,And teach them how to war.
And you, good yeoman,Whose limbs were made in England,
show us hereThe mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,Straining upon the start.
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this chargeCry
'God for Harry, England, and Saint George

Meanwhile in the stands,

1. Like the Scots - let them wait an extra five minutes before England turn up.
2. Like the Irish play the National Anthem before the teams are introduced
3. Like the Welsh, play their National Anthem as a dirge or too fast
And then (also like the Irish), lets have GSTQ followed by Jerusalem.

Well, I checked the easiest source I could get my hands on regarding the long bow. According to Churchill''s History of the English Speaking Peoples, the English learned about the long bow during the wars with the Welsh in the 1200s. The longbow handled by fully professional archers first featured prominently in Europe at Crecy, where they were the difference in the outcome. This is the same battle where King Edward famously recognised his son, the Black Prince.

The French were using Genoese crossbowmen, who were decimated by the long range and lethal fire of the "English" archers. The longbow was considered to have better range and accuracy than muzzle loaded guns up through Waterloo (take that, little Nappy).

Now, that said, I read somewhere else that the Welsh contingent in the King Edward's army were invincible. Bullets would bounce off them, they could run for days without stopping, had incredible strength and had X-ray vision. They were all named.................George North.

doctor_grey wrote:I read somewhere else that the Welsh contingent in the King Edward's army were invincible. Bullets would bounce off them, they could run for days without stopping, had incredible strength and had X-ray vision. They were all named.................Terry Griffiths.

Just corrected that for you.

The Irish had Tommy Bowe and he was quite effective as an attacking weapon against the English.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:I read somewhere else that the Welsh contingent in the King Edward's army were invincible. Bullets would bounce off them, they could run for days without stopping, had incredible strength and had X-ray vision. They were all named.................Terry Griffiths.

Just corrected that for you.

Thanks! Pretty Funny.
At least you didn't replace the name with Graham Norton.

lostinwales wrote:Read the wiki on Jack Churchill - I think it actually tops my previous favourite story of British madmen in WWII - which was Walter Cowan

Jack Chirchill - I wonder what his most lethal bit of kit was that he carried into battle - the bow the claymore or the bagpipes...

lost, just reading about those two, Churchill was clearly as mad as a box of frogs! I loved this part:

"Only Churchill and six others managed to reach the objective. A mortar shell killed or wounded everyone but Churchill, who was playing "Will Ye No Come Back Again?" on his pipes as the Germans advanced. He was knocked unconscious by grenades and captured"

Did he not think that firing back might be a good idea?!

Theres a story from the Napoleonic wars, a British officer was in a cafe' after Waterloo and overheard a French calvaryman boasting how he rode down hundreds of screaming English and how the died as cowards.

The officer calnly walked over to his table, wrenched open his jaw (breaking it in the process) and spat down his throat.

Mental

munkian wrote:Theres a story from the Napoleonic wars, a British officer was in a cafe' after Waterloo and overheard a French calvaryman boasting how he rode down hundreds of screaming English and how the died as cowards.

The officer calnly walked over to his table, wrenched open his jaw (breaking it in the process) and spat down his throat.

Mental

Ouch!

When you talk about releasing the Dogs of War.

Do you actualy mean, set Manu Tualagi on them?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:IT's JUST A GAME.

It's not a war at all.

Sorry. But there will be no archers, Welsh or otherwise.

It's rugby. No need to mention wars or history or Tudors or Stuarts or Cromwells or anyone.

If we're superior athletes on the day, and have the right game plan we will win. No need for this amateur era blood and guts and pride nonsense.

Sorry, but that's a fact.

In fact that's exactly the same counter-productive nonsense that sees guys blowing the plan, doing rash stuff, getting sent off, spear tackling someone off the ball, losing composure, rushing out of the line and generally mucking things up.

Patience, composure, a clear head, confidence in the ability of your team mates, knowing the drills, remembering the calls, executing well. Precision is the answer, not bravado.

Is that not also true of war? And are Sports, particularly contact Sports, not just a surrogate for war to account for our natural patriotic and belligerent instincts?

It might be true of war, but I prefer to see that as coincidental rather than derivative. I really hope sports isn't a surrogate for war. If you've ever been to one, you'll know they're not the same thing at all.

No, and that surely is why it's infinitely better to have aggression on a national and personal level in sport and not war. If sports are a surrogate for war it doesn't make them bad, just psychologically useful/vital

No offence meant, but i've always hated the 'sport is a surrogate for war' stuff. Rugby players are absolutely awful for this type of bumpf, the worst has been hearing people like Dayglo saying it's the closest thing you can get to war without being shot at...what?! What an awful, crass, stupid thing for him to say. I appreciate your point, but isn't sport just, you know, a pastime. Yes it's competitive and can be aggressive and a way for young men to let off steam, but i don't think that makes it a surrogate for war. I think if we banned contact sports tomorrow it still remains highly unlikely we'll go to war with France!

doctor_grey wrote:Well, I checked the easiest source I could get my hands on regarding the long bow.

I bet you don't get posts like this on the Wrestling forum

HERSH wrote:We should get the guy that France got to sing the SA anthem a few years back, he was class. or it was something like that.

Yes, there was debate above as to whether the Fench butchered prisoners, but they certainly can butcher anthems (albeit through use of a rasta mercenary 'singer')

[quote="Hood83"][quote="ChequeredJersey"][quote="miteyironpaw"][quote="ChequeredJersey"]

miteyironpaw wrote:IT's JUST A GAME.



No offence meant, but i've always hated the 'sport is a surrogate for war' stuff. Rugby players are absolutely awful for this type of bumpf, the worst has been hearing people like Dayglo saying it's the closest thing you can get to war without being shot at...what?! What an awful, crass, stupid thing for him to say. I appreciate your point, but isn't sport just, you know, a pastime. Yes it's competitive and can be aggressive and a way for young men to let off steam, but i don't think that makes it a surrogate for war. I think if we banned contact sports tomorrow it still remains highly unlikely we'll go to war with France!

Fair enough. I don't see the link as glorifying sport or war or violence though really, it's more about the parallels between the 2 and the apparent need (though the nature of it is changing) for competition between factions that are otherwise at peace throughout history in utterly isolated societies. Sport between peaceful factions seems to be a constant in human nature.

But I understand your reasons for disagreement and as it is highly unlikely that either of our viewpoints will be validated, can we just agree to disagree?

let slip the dogs of war-button