Why were they so much more successfull than their continental counterparts?

Why were they so much more successfull than their continental counterparts?

Attached: uk.gif (345x339, 23K)

define success

uk is the middle of the pack in terms of living standards

they are higher in education output and the like because of early adaptation of enlightenment philosophy as an institution

basically they are successful at squandering their pocket start

Idk my teacher is making us write a paper on it, that's why i'm asking.

the only successful brits are those who went to the colonies

something something magna carta, free money for clergy class etc
can't go wrong

Well, they did conquered half of the planet and that's why I speak english

If that's not success I seriously don't know what it is.

you can say the same for portugal, if by numbers china won a long time ago

yes, but how is a country's success measured?
i would say its living standards, but many people seem to care more about historical achievements or industrial output
we are significant, but i would not say we are a success

We're everything good about the French and the Germans without anywhere near the downsides of either.

UK is the only one of the major European powers to leave a respectable colonial legacy.

>you can say the same for portugal

they were defeated by a dude with severe diarrhea, our ""revolution"" against them poortuguese was a joke

economy & overall happiness

Your country is a success mate.

i would say many indians and africans would disagree

UK is not as successful as scandinavia or germany but probably more successful than france or the meds
the only way to say the UK is successful is by looking at history between the industrial revolution and WWII

Canada, US, Australia, and NZ all make it onto lists of the top 10 best countries to live in, every year. How many French or Spanish colonies do you think there are on those lists?

>UK is not as successful as scandinavia or germany
If you're talking about modern day living standards, I'd probably agree. But how can you honestly claim that these two places have left a greater footprint on humanity than us? Or even France, for that matter.

UK is just an ancient French colony

Attached: anglos btfo.jpg (1024x892, 396K)

And France is a German colony.

having a footprint on humanity is pretty overrated, the only thing that matters is the well-being of citizens which the UK is doing pretty average at

And also a Celtic colony.

>Why were they so much more successfull than their continental counterparts?
We were the first to undergo the Industrial revolution which gave us a head start.
Plus having the Empire helped too

>which the UK is doing pretty average at
t.has never set foot outside of his country, let alone the West in general

I assume he meant average amongst developed nations.

>Navy, institutions, loyalty to the monarch, ranks, practicality, discipline and conduct
>Apathy, self-loathing, perfidy, materialism, dandy faggots and boredom
These are the principles that make up the backbone of the British Empire

I have been to many countries and the UK has some of the worst shitholes in europe easily

I don't believe you in the slightest, Bruce.

M8 there are places in Britain made of illiterates that only reproduce for more gibs living in slums eating nothing but crap.

Absolutely there are, it's not unique to us though. Pretty much every Euro cint has areas like that.

>Navy, institutions, loyalty to the monarch, ranks, practicality, discipline and conduct
>Apathy, self-loathing, perfidy, materialism, dandy faggots and boredom
all of these things are roman as fuck with the exception of the navy