Why didn't Britain try to conquer continental Europe?

Why didn't Britain try to conquer continental Europe?

Not enough manpower and too expensive. They did own Hannover for a while.

Wars against developed nations are hard.

Remind World War 1 and 2.

What if no one stopped Napoleon, would Europe be under French rule?

Probably not. France would be a bit bigger just.

They can't win against civilized soldiers.

>conquer some fags on the mainland
>conquer the known and unknown world

t. Napoleon just before waterloo

They had pity for us

>a bit

Yes a bit. Napoleon's empire was fucking shit lmao.

They tried and got BTFO'd. Pathetic anglo.

That wasn't Britain.

why bother? not worth the effort
that was france's job and i think our way was a lot better

Name doesn't matter. Only the people are.

They tried(100 years war). The British don't really have the necessary manpower to beat the continental powers on their own soil. So once the Age of Discovery kicked in, they turned their attention elsewhere.

>Why didn't Britain try to conquer continental Europe?
the KoE had sizeable continental territory in SW and NE France for decent amounts of time
after a while they found out staying on their own island while calling dibs on relatively undefended resource-rich land elsewhere was more optimal

>only manage to get one piece of land on continental europe
>it's in a highly strategical position and probably the BEST tiny bit of land we could have
based

>didn't try
American education

>Only the people are.
Yes and some of the people that make up Britain allied with France. Stupid white nigger.

The reason they even managed to build such a large empire in the first places was because they were an island. Being an island, they don't really have to focus that much on a land army, and can have a strong navy. Every other continental European nation with a coast had to balance both, they wouldn't be able to take land on the Island, but neither the islanders would be able to take land on continental Europe again.

This was the whole reason behind the "muh balance of power" foreign policy they had for centuries

>liverpoo

their army could have been arrested by the French police.

with added spanish butthurt

That's doesn't matter.

Yes it does slavshit. It makes it a categorically retarded thing to say that Britain lost the Hundred years war when, for a start Britain didn't exist as a single political entity and one of the two kingdoms in Britain was on the French side. Fucking spanner.

they tried
got their asses kicked and sent back to their island

>England didn't lose the HYW
Oh I am laughing. British delusion at it's finest. At the beginning your side had 2/3 of France, in the end you had nothing. You got BTFO hard. No amount of Muh Agincourt spamming will change that.

Jesus Christ learn to read.

I know perfectly well how to read you chav. That's why I used the term "side" . Yours got literally BTFO of continental Europe. Nothing else to add.

>frog reading comprehension

>Constantly harass France and the Continental system by getting everyone against Napoleon
>Wonders why his empire is shit

>They did own Hannover for a while.
The rulers of Hannover owned Britain

>The rulers of Hannover owned Britain
They inherited Britain, moved to Britain, and ruled Hannover from Britain.

Britian never had an impressive land army. Even at the outbreak of WW1 when they were huge their army size was nowhere near those of the continental powers

Honestly speaking, their greatest military successes were in Afghanistan and India. The first which they lost two war (although they were weakened when it happened) and the second in which they jewed themselves into power.

If either of those two had gotten their shit together they would have booten out long ago.

They could only fight (sand)niggers

The rulers of Hannover inherited Britain, yes. That means they owned Britain. They were rulers of Hannover before and after, they just owned Britain for a time and ruled it in personal union, so the British kingdom owned nothing.

>tfw no anglo has ever set foot in Sweden
>tfw no other country has touched Stockholm, ever, since Sweden became independent

>their greatest military successes
If you don't count naval success I guess.

>That means they owned Britain.
No, because we had a parliament which was supreme. So whilst the British king did not even rule Britain, he ruled Hannover.

A land army is arguable more important. If you're trying an inland conquest.

what is somalia and iraq

the powers of the parliament were not as extensive when the welfs took over as they were later, in fact the transition started during their rule, still they ruled in personal union. britain thus never owned hannover.

>>tfw no other country has touched Stockholm, ever, since Sweden became independent
except somalia lol X---DDDD

>If you're trying an inland conquest.
Britain literally never attempted this in Europe.

This is wrong. Parliament's supremacy was established with King Charles II and reasserted with William III.

still doesn't change the fact that Britain never owned Hannover