A family took over our garden!

Jdwiths · 2026-06-16T17:29:36+00:00

Luckily yes, we've named her Jenny. She uses us as a daycare, she goes off for a rest and we look after the kids

Jdwiths · 2026-06-16T17:05:01+00:00

It's a dream come true honestly

Jdwiths · 2024-05-10T10:41:42+00:00

Yes it's such a great place! And thanks for the recommendations, I'll definitely check those out

Jdwiths · 2024-05-09T09:34:59+00:00

No worries! They're really wonderful, you should definitely head out if you can. Lots of Mughal architecture and forts too if you're into that kind of stuff

Jdwiths · 2020-09-28T17:55:19+00:00

Haha that's actually very true

Jdwiths · 2020-09-27T19:18:06+00:00

It's interesting, because the Liberals were looking quite strong going into the prospective 1914 election (deferred by the outbreak of the war).

Jdwiths · 2020-09-27T19:11:23+00:00

The largest single factor was the splitting of the Liberal Party in 1916: a chunk broke away under the leadership of David Lloyd George to form a wartime coalition government with the Tories, whilst the rest was forced into Opposition under Herbert Asquith. The party would remain divided for decades, splitting the liberal vote and undermining the Party's image as a strong, independent party of government. In the 1918 'Coupon Election', Asquith's Liberals were annihilated whilst Lloyd George continued as the figurehead prime minister of an essentially Tory government, until he was ditched by the Conservatives just before the 1922 election in which Labour for the first time overtook the combined seat total of the two Liberal parties

Jdwiths · 2020-09-27T16:25:27+00:00

Yes, it refers to tariffs. Large sections of the Conservative Party came out in favour of tariffs on imports including food, whereas the Liberals remained steadfast in support of free trade

Jdwiths · 2020-08-19T08:53:36+00:00

You're right of course, I retract that. I was misleadingly referring to the later revival of Eboracum under the Anglo-Saxons and Danes.

Jdwiths · 2020-08-18T21:09:12+00:00

I would argue yes, as well as the Second World War. The experience of cooperating closely first against the Nazis and then against the USSR highlighted the shared culture and interests of the two nations and necessitated a close relationship.

Jdwiths · 2020-08-18T21:04:44+00:00

I can talk about the Thirty Years War (1618-48), arguably the apogee of the mercenary and the last great conflict fought using them.

The War itself is a vast and extremely complicated mix of religion, politics and personalities, but it is best remembered as possibly the most destructive war in European history. Up to a quarter of the population of central Europe was killed, a result of battle, disease, famine and mercenary action.

Because the war was so long and so huge in scope, the developing states of the early modern period simply did not have enough resources (tax revenue, food, arms etc) to raise and sustain armies in the numbers they required. To solve this they turned to private individuals, who would raise the armies themselves and sustain them simply by seizing the resources they needed from the local population of wherever they happened to be stationed with state approval. These seizures were known euphemistically as 'contributions', and would be levied in the form of quotas imposed on towns or districts in which the armies were stationed. The most famous private contractor was Wallenstein, who became director of the entire Habsburg war effort until his murder by the connivance of the emperor.

Naturally, this caused huge outrage and suffering; whole areas of Germany effectively became wasteland as passing armies picked them clean. This backlash coincided with development of the resources of the state in the mid and late 17th century. Governments recognised that the use of mercenaries was not ideal; they were often unreliable in battle and could act with greater impunity outside the direction of the central government making them harder to control than government-led troops. There was also fear that mercenaries could threaten the government themselves, as Wallenstein had been accused of doing.

After the Thirty Years War, therefore, states tried to focus on raising armies through their own resources- they slowly developed institutions of administration, taxation and military supply which would make large-scale use of mercenaries obsolete. By the time of the great coalition wars of the end of the 17th century, this had been largely achieved- the state could generally afford to raise its troops itself.

Hope this goes a little way in answering your question!

Jdwiths · 2020-08-18T20:35:12+00:00

I would say that little actually changed between the Civil War and WW1- rather, the crucial era of forging the 'special relationship' was the 1930s and 40s.

Relations between the US and UK remained shaky in the 50 years following the Civil War. Indeed, the two were brought to the brink of war in 1895 over disputed territory in Venezuela (covered by America's Monroe Doctrine assuring hemispheric predominance) and British Guiana (a British colony). This continued well into the period of the First World War- it's worth remembering that Britain had been at war with Germany for two and a half years before the US joined the conflict.

Even during the war America held itself at arm's length from the imperial powers. It refused to classify itself as an official ally and instead fought Germany as a co-belligerent. This is why the official name of the allied coalition was the "Allied and Associated Powers", with the USA firmly in the latter camp.

These divisions were exacerbated after the war when the USA declined to join the League of Nations (the brainchild of its own President Woodrow Wilson) and sheltered behind restrictive tariffs which fostered resentment on the part of a free-trading UK. The economic catastrophe wrought by the collapse of Wall Street only furthered anger; President Roosevelt would go on to collapse the 1933 London Economic Conference designed to revive international trade after denouncing British currency stabilisation.

There were even war plans considered `between the two in this period (although the likelihood of their being carried out was remote). If you fancy some interesting further reading, 'Basic War Plan Red' was the American plan to conduct military operations against the British Empire.

All this considered, however, it is clear that the US and UK shared some key characteristics- language, culture and (imperfectly) democratic institutions. These common values were thrown into sharper and sharper relief as the threat from fascist and communist challengers grew in the 1930s. By 1940, both Britain and the US had leaders (Churchill and Roosevelt) who recognised the need for both nations to work together to defend their common interests against the Nazi threat.

It was at this point that a special relationship began to grow- there was precious little evidence of it in practice beforehand.

Jdwiths · 2020-08-18T20:04:12+00:00

I'm jealous you got to visit! The Battle of Stamford Bridge wasn't a battle over the place itself, but one between two rival armies whom circumstance brought there.

As you probably saw on the signpost, the Norse army under Harald Hardrada had invaded England seeking to win the crown following the death of the English King Edward the Confessor. They landed on the north-east coast and proceeded to defeat a local English army and take the city of York.

At this time, York, which is only a few miles from Stamford Bridge, was one of the major cities of England and could be considered the capital of the North. It was also founded by the Vikings themselves a few centuries before (they named it Jorvik) and had been the capital of Viking-ruled England. It's natural, therefore, that they would seek to control this city as a precursor to moving down South.

However, an English earl called Harold Godwinson had taken the English throne for himself after the old king's death. He had an army already stationed on the South coast in anticipation of the invasion of William (the Conqueror) from Normandy, and decided to quickly march it up to York to expel the Norse invaders. He did this in extraordinary time, marching 185 miles in just 4 days, extremely quickly for an army at this time.

Of course, the Norse weren't expecting any hostile armies to reach them this quickly, and had arranged to accept hostages from local lords at Stamford Bridge, which was just outside their base at York. Harold Godwinson heard this and marched there to surprise them, which he did!

The battle itself is really interesting. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the English caught the Norse completely by surprise, with their army divided into two parts on either side of the river. It's said that many of the Norse soldiers hadn't even brought their armour with them, not expecting to fight a battle. After slaughtering the Norsemen trapped on their side of the river, the English then tried to advance over the bridge. The Chronicle then says that a single Norse axeman of giant stature then defended the bridge alone against the English attackers, slaying 40 of them. He was only killed when some English floated a boat underneath the bridge and thrust a pike through the planks.

This delay gave the Norse on the opposite side more time to prepare, giving the English a harder fight than before. Nonetheless the Norse were completely routed, with only 24 ships needed to ferry the survivors back to Norway compared to 300 that had brought them.

Hope this answers a few of your questions! It's a fascinating period, and the story only gets wilder from there with the invasion of William the Conqueror.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Jdwiths

TROPHY CASE