England must let slip the dogs of war

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.

Henry V was a Tudor , who were Welsh

And the majority of the archers at Agincourt were Welsh- killing the French nobility on their own turf

Not the best choice of speeches

Heh Munkian, was just about to post the same thing. Not the best example at all!

Portnoy wrote: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.

Could we not just scrap this boring, unmotivating load of clap trap altogether...and just have Jerusalem..or something a litle more inspiring..

So our beef is with the Welsh, not the English? The Welsh created the mad Tudors and, in the process, the British Empire?

Noting that down for Paulie so that he can use it in his next changing room speech v Wales.

munkian wrote:Henry V was a Tudor , who were Welsh

And the majority of the archers at Agincourt were Welsh- killing the French nobility on their own turf

Not the best choice of speeches

Henry V was Lancastrian not Tudor. Henry VII was the first Tudor his relationship to Henry V was tenuous. Henry V widow ran off with a welshman and its her grandson from that marraige that was Henry VII.

Most of the Archers were welsh though. They also managed to commit a war crime by butchering loads of french prisoners. Bit of a mixed day for the welsh really.

It's a shame we don't have Haskell to 'Sound the horn of anger' for us.

Nooooo! Not more history lessons from wikipedia!

SecretFly wrote:So our beef is with the Welsh, not the English? The Welsh created the mad Tudors and, in the process, the British Empire?

Noting that down for Paulie so that he can use it in his next changing room speech v Wales.

Were the tudors bad for Ireland? I know cromwell under the stuarts was but would have thought Henry Tudor was too busy dealing with English rebels to have picked on the Irish as well.

TycroesOsprey wrote:

Henry V was Lancastrian not Tudor. Henry VII was the first Tudor his relationship to Henry V was tenuous. Henry V widow ran off with a welshman and its her grandson from that marraige that was Henry VII.

In the words of a South Park great, 'you got schooled'.

SafeAsMilk wrote:Nooooo! Not more history lessons from wikipedia!

well since I get attacked by English fans when I talk rugby its either this or being wummed.

Well, they are right on the details as far as I can see. Just need to point out that after the Tudors it was the Stuarts who were quite noticeably Scottish...

Is it not "let loose the dogs of war"

TycroesOsprey wrote:

munkian wrote:Henry V was a Tudor , who were Welsh

And the majority of the archers at Agincourt were Welsh- killing the French nobility on their own turf

Not the best choice of speeches

Henry V was Lancastrian not Tudor. Henry VII was the first Tudor his relationship to Henry V was tenuous. Henry V widow ran off with a welshman and its her grandson from that marraige that was Henry VII.

Most of the Archers were welsh though. They also managed to commit a war crime by butchering loads of french prisoners. Bit of a mixed day for the welsh really.

Were they? There might have been a relatively large number of Welsh archers (as a percentage of the population) but it was only really Glamorgan that supplied they in any large number and it wasn't as populous as it was post industrial revolution. Pretty sure this is one of those myths banded about. However the numbers are documented somewhere and I would be happily proved wrong.

If I remember correctly the King of Leinster allied with one of the Marcher Lords and the King of England was worried about a take over so he invaded Ireland. It was around 15th Centrury wasn't it?

I don't care if we have GSTQ (it is the anthem though so we probably should) but we have got to have Jerusalem- GSTQ is British not English so it's basically neutral in a Wales-England game (except it reminds people that they are part of a larger greater nation, which bizarrely upsets some)

Cowshot wrote:Well, they are right on the details as far as I can see. Just need to point out that after the Tudors it was the Stuarts who were quite noticeably Scottish...

Then we got a bit German. The concept of "English", and indeed "British" is very fluid

The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

TycroesOsprey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:So our beef is with the Welsh, not the English? The Welsh created the mad Tudors and, in the process, the British Empire?

Noting that down for Paulie so that he can use it in his next changing room speech v Wales.

Were the tudors bad for Ireland? I know cromwell under the stuarts was but would have thought Henry Tudor was too busy dealing with English rebels to have picked on the Irish as well.

I think Cromwell would be upset at being referred to as under the Stuarts!

I don't know why Frodo didn't just fly to Mount Doom on the back of a giant eagle. It would have avoided all this bloodshed and unneccessary bad feeling centuries later.

And I humbly apologise. Henry V was indeed of House Lancaster

HammerofThunor wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

munkian wrote:Henry V was a Tudor , who were Welsh

And the majority of the archers at Agincourt were Welsh- killing the French nobility on their own turf

Not the best choice of speeches

Henry V was Lancastrian not Tudor. Henry VII was the first Tudor his relationship to Henry V was tenuous. Henry V widow ran off with a welshman and its her grandson from that marraige that was Henry VII.

Most of the Archers were welsh though. They also managed to commit a war crime by butchering loads of french prisoners. Bit of a mixed day for the welsh really.

Were they? There might have been a relatively large number of Welsh archers (as a percentage of the population) but it was only really Glamorgan that supplied they in any large number and it wasn't as populous as it was post industrial revolution. Pretty sure this is one of those myths banded about. However the numbers are documented somewhere and I would be happily proved wrong.

If I remember correctly the King of Leinster allied with one of the Marcher Lords and the King of England was worried about a take over so he invaded Ireland. It was around 15th Centrury wasn't it?

12-13 century I think John and his father Henry II started most of the trouble.

We have the muster rolls of all the troops who fought in France between 1380s and 1450 which show a large percentage of welsh names among the lower ranks but I dont know what that is. 30 years later though the soldiers in teh wars of the roses were recruited in wales and the march as all the claiments were descended from welsh princes and used teh Arthur myth as a reason for their right to the throne.

TycroesOsprey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:So our beef is with the Welsh, not the English? The Welsh created the mad Tudors and, in the process, the British Empire?

Noting that down for Paulie so that he can use it in his next changing room speech v Wales.

Were the tudors bad for Ireland? I know cromwell under the stuarts was but would have thought Henry Tudor was too busy dealing with English rebels to have picked on the Irish as well.

Catholics and Protestants, and the Irish and Royalty, didn't get on so well long before the Puritan Cromwell turned up on our doorstep.

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

Not really munk, the large amount of prisoners taken during the battle was a bit scary and Henry v didnt have enough soldiers to guard them and fight the battle so midway through he ordered the bowmen to kill them and then get back in the fight. The nobles had already refused because they were unarmed and had surrendered and obviously had big ransoms. The archers didnt really care about the ransoms and just butchered them.

SecretFly wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:So our beef is with the Welsh, not the English? The Welsh created the mad Tudors and, in the process, the British Empire?

Noting that down for Paulie so that he can use it in his next changing room speech v Wales.

Were the tudors bad for Ireland? I know cromwell under the stuarts was but would have thought Henry Tudor was too busy dealing with English rebels to have picked on the Irish as well.

Catholics and Protestants, and the Irish and Royalty, didn't get on so well long before the Puritan Cromwell turned up on our doorstep.

Fair enough fly I had thought that the tudor adminstration was relatively peaceful in Ireland compared to what came before and after. I have some vague memory of Raleigh being a bit genocidal but Im not sure if that history or a heaney poem.

It was a mix of English and Welsh archers - longbow being a weapon for the peasantry who would have trained with it from an early age.

And it was the Normans who got us stuck in Ireland before that and they were sort of French. And not nice at all...

So fight, England, against Welsh Scottish and French oppression! And beat the Irish cause Guinness adverts are rubbish these days.

Cowshot wrote:And it was the Normans who got us stuck in Ireland before that and they were sort of French. And not nice at all...

So fight, England, against Welsh Scottish and French oppression! And beat the Irish cause Guinness adverts are rubbish these days.

I think welsh, English, Scots and Irish can all agree that the Normans were basically a nightmare for all of us.

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.

A fact? Strange remark and strange thing to be championing in 606v2!

TycroesOsprey wrote:

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

Not really munk, the large amount of prisoners taken during the battle was a bit scary and Henry v didnt have enough soldiers to guard them and fight the battle so midway through he ordered the bowmen to kill them and then get back in the fight. The nobles had already refused because they were unarmed and had surrendered and obviously had big ransoms. The archers didnt really care about the ransoms and just butchered them.

The archers would have cared about the bigger ransoms and slit the throats and looted the lower ranking nobles and the common soldiers.

This was nothing new in war at the point though, Alexander massacred thousands of prisioners

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?

And all these wars are the reason that everybody "wants to beat the English" anyway and why our relationship with the French is... interesting

We need to call up Beowulf Twelvetrees to fight off Grendel North.

Twelvetrees couldn't fight off a cold

Yaay! Let's go and beat up the French!

Still think the French are going to win it this year. They look very ominous to me. I think the WC final has miffed them thoroughly and they have every intention of taking it out on the rest of us cos we're not French so we might as well be Kiwis...

munkian wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

Not really munk, the large amount of prisoners taken during the battle was a bit scary and Henry v didnt have enough soldiers to guard them and fight the battle so midway through he ordered the bowmen to kill them and then get back in the fight. The nobles had already refused because they were unarmed and had surrendered and obviously had big ransoms. The archers didnt really care about the ransoms and just butchered them.

The archers would have cared about the bigger ransoms and slit the throats and looted the lower ranking nobles and the common soldiers.

This was nothing new in war at the point though, Alexander massacred thousands of prisioners

ransoms werent paid to non nobles. If an archer captured a nobleman his noble captain got the ransom not the archer, the captain would then give the Archer a bit of cash for it but nothing as significant as the ransom itself.

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.

Can we have a British and Irish Lions game against the French to stop their Grand Slam in Cardiff ?

TycroesOsprey wrote:

Cowshot wrote:And it was the Normans who got us stuck in Ireland before that and they were sort of French. And not nice at all...

So fight, England, against Welsh Scottish and French oppression! And beat the Irish cause Guinness adverts are rubbish these days.

I think welsh, English, Scots and Irish can all agree that the Normans were basically a nightmare for all of us.

And for the French, as they were from Scandinavia. Do Norway play rugby?

God, this thread reads like an episode of QI or Mastermind...

heavy going considering I'm at work.

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

munkian wrote:Can we have a British and Irish Lions game against the French to stop their Grand Slam in Cardiff ?

In the England game we'll just do what we usually do an put out a full-Commonwealth XV and say it's in the rules

ChequeredJersey wrote:

munkian wrote:Can we have a British and Irish Lions game against the French to stop their Grand Slam in Cardiff ?

In the England game we'll just do what we usually do an put out a full-Commonwealth XV and say it's in the rules

ChequeredJersey wrote:

munkian wrote:Can we have a British and Irish Lions game against the French to stop their Grand Slam in Cardiff ?

In the England game we'll just do what we usually do an put out a full-Commonwealth XV and say it's in the rules

I guess it's better whan when the Welsh did it and it wasn't in the rules

TycroesOsprey wrote:

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

Not really munk, the large amount of prisoners taken during the battle was a bit scary and Henry v didnt have enough soldiers to guard them and fight the battle so midway through he ordered the bowmen to kill them and then get back in the fight. The nobles had already refused because they were unarmed and had surrendered and obviously had big ransoms. The archers didnt really care about the ransoms and just butchered them.

Didn't the same happen under Edward III at Crecy quite a few years prior?

Wasn't the first Norman Duke (as in vicking) called Rollo? What a terrifying name

HammerofThunor wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

munkian wrote:The French butchered the sick and injured left at the English/British (?) camp along with a load of young squires and stable hands.

Wasn't the massacre of French prisioners in retaliation of this ?

Not really munk, the large amount of prisoners taken during the battle was a bit scary and Henry v didnt have enough soldiers to guard them and fight the battle so midway through he ordered the bowmen to kill them and then get back in the fight. The nobles had already refused because they were unarmed and had surrendered and obviously had big ransoms. The archers didnt really care about the ransoms and just butchered them.

Didn't the same happen under Edward III at Crecy quite a few years prior?

Wasn't the first Norman Duke (as in vicking) called Rollo? What a terrifying name

not that i had heard and yes thunor.

Funny how things get taken out of context. I was opining that England ought to use a few psychological tactics like everyone else does and suddenly there's a nit-picking debate about the historical authenticity of a speech thrust into a king's mouth centuries later by an English scribbler.

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.

The bloke who owned my old village was a Norman called Rogus, I think. It's in the Doomsday Book and everything

Maybe we should get Tindall and his horse (Zara) to do the handshakes on the red carpet?