Why do the British hate the Romans? And Napoleon?

I don't know how many British people you know, but generally we don't think too much about the Romans. When the Romans arrived there was no such poeple as the British. There were Britons, which s different, and there were Angles and Celts. Boudicca was a very valliant warrior. She led disparate tribes and defeated the Roman army time after time, like the VietCong attacked and defeated French, Australian and US troops. Your comment about rape indicates that you probably need to grow up a little; rape is rape and no means no. This is a big lesson you need to learn and understand. Further, you are wrong in your assertion that the British ignore past wrongs they may have committed. The real question is; is there any merit in apologising for the sins of our fathers? Everyone in the world is who they are because of history, and every country in the world has their own version of history.

who have you been talking to? Im not in the slightest bothered that the Romans conquered the British, and i am British. As for Napoleon, Napoleon never conquered Britain, the British beat Napoleon at the battle of Trafalgar and Waterloo, two very important battles. If anything, i think you'll find most British respect Napoleon, and you'll find they aren't bothered in the slightest about the Roman invasion, if anything, im glad it happened, as it brought over a few ideas and Technology with it. Queen Boudiccia was a freedom fighter, she died fighting for freedom, and the comment you made about the raped princesses isnt a very nice one. don't hate the British for what their ansestors did, if your great great great grandfather killed sombody, should you apoligise and let people call you a murderor, Nope! This is why i dont like it when people Get angry at the British for somthing their ansestors have done. Peace =) edit: The person below is right, Modern day Anglo Saxon English, and the rest of the British for that matter, are only slightly related to the acient celts that lived in Britain during the time of the Roman invasion, past invasions of the Vikings and the Saxons for example left there genetic mark on the English, meaning most of us are geneticly realted to the Saxon, Viking, Norman invaders... So laughing at us and saying we got invaded by........ whoever doesnt make any sence, considering we are related to the invaders.

The romans are part of our history whether we like it or not. They invaded Britain, and ruled the island for about 400 years. They killed more than 'a few' Britons in the course of their conquests, thousands were killed, and thousands more enslaved. Some of the British ruling class were quite keen to become romanised, others less so. to the average peasant farmer it probably didn't make a lot of difference who was in charge. Napoleon attempted to conquer all of Europe, and the British were not the only ones fighting him. We defeated Napoleon and ended his imperial ambitions with the help of the Germans, Spanish, etc. The Napoleonic Code is actually quite oppressive, especially towards women, and I am glad we did not have it here. Moreover, Napoleon attempted to reinstate slavery, so I don't regard him as that much of a hero. And if he was the greatest military commander ever, then how come he got so roundly defeated? Many British people speak negatively about British colonialism, so I don't know where you get the idea that all British people are in favour of it. Most people with sense will acknowledge that the British did bad things in India, Africa, etc. There is no country that doesn't have things in its history to be ashamed of, that I am aware of.

mate you are talking absolute crap. No one has ever referred to the Romans as mafia, and why would we hate the Romans, they never even took over Britain, they only ruled over England but when the Celts still lived there (England comes from Latin meaning land of the Gaelic's, en-gala-Terra) the English are anglo-saxons our ancestors went to england as mercenaries then settled there. napoleon is a hero in france and deserves to be because hes the only person to actually make them look good. He never really owned the british, and he definitely didnt take over britian...thats why we drive on the right and the rest of europe on the left. yes the british have done some terrible things but we dont really care, it happened a long time ago and its not our problem anymore. we never treated gandhi badly, the british just didnt care about him, he was no threat. The only reason the indians were given their independence because after world war 2 we wouldnt have been able to put down a rebellion like we did the first time round. britain is the most influential nation of the modern era for a reason. edit: the brian guy, you are talking rubbish, anglaland? what are you on about, if you read my comment you will see how england got is name from the romans. Napoleon was a strategic genius and his armies outnumbered the british armies, even though britain has always had one of the best armies napoleon would have probably beaten them for numerous reasons. However being an island nation our navy was always main defence, and if his troops did get to shore, the fight would be on british turf...why do you think the americans won. and we english know we are germanic, we arent stupid, the scottish reckon they are still celts though.

sounds like you're referring to a specific instance of a an english man hating the romans? they probably don't realize they they aren't actually ancient celts anymore. After the Romans Romanized (a 400 year period) most of modern day England there were still invasions from Scandinavian peoples (various Viking conquests) and of course the Germanic peoples (Anglos) from which the name England comes from itself (Ango=Angland=England) and the Saxons. The Romans did with England much the same they did with Gaul/France. If the English were to hold any grudge against the Romans it should be because of their Germanic heritage rather than their celtic. The Germanic peoples were never conquered by the Romans (thanks to Arminius), thus the reason why English (as it is a germanic language) is a Germanic language rather than a Romance language. While Spain was Romanized, it was also a colony of Carthage long before, and was used as a large retirement community by the Romans following the Punic Wars. Greece had more influence on Rome than the other way around. Barbarian peoples weren't a bunch of idiots, the romans borrowed a lot of things from various peoples from Europe (remember the Romans werent always so advanced). They even borrowed the gladius (short sword used by their infantry) from the Spaniards. They also borrowed ideas from the Gauls for their own armors. And of course the formation of the testudo and phalanx were borrowed from the Greeks. Brits have a great sense of nationalism, but like many people they dont actually know their own history, leading them to believe popular opinions like that they are still celtic peoples that stood against the mighty Roman Empire. If there is any one peoples in Europe that stood against the Roman Empire (who also ultimately defeated it, controlled it AND tried to revive it) was the Germans. Why would the english be proud of Boudicca after she lost a battle that she outnumbered the Romans 20:1? The English hated Napoleon because he upset the balance of power of European monarchs. England also lost the title as the most powerful European nation during this time to Revolutionary France. The French Revolution scared the **** out of European monarchs so much that they created a league to destroy Napoleon and his armies. The English army was no match for napoleon and if napoleon had the ability to defeat england's navy and send his troops to england they most l ikely would have been defeated on english soil. I'm sure this is offensive to the english. plus, everyone hates the french. edit: @ luke of course the name "angland" comes from the romans, although the romans DID NOT coin "england", this is because european tribes were named by the romans and roman historians. it was impossible for barbarian tribes to write their tribe's pronunciations when they didnt even have an alphabet, therefor most names for tribes are given their roman names, rather than the native names (the angles, then angle-land, angland, etc). as i was saying "Arminius" defeated the romans, but his german name was Irwinn or some variation of that. as far as napoleon goes, it would've been much easier for napoleon to supply his army in southern england being so close to france than it was for england to supply it's thinly spread army (which was spread across eastern coast of north america, let alone the whole globe) across the atlantic ocean. and although the scots were the victims of viking conquests they were not as heavily invaded as western and southern england, probably mostly to the fact that there wasnt as much loot or power to be had. im not saying you are stupid either, but that many people dont know their own history.

The Romans invaded Britain.

Bull on Boudicca. The (single) 14th Gemina Martia Victrix Legion destroyed her army at odds of between 1 to 12 and 1 to 20. Some general.