"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
In article , Errol Cavit
writes

"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
snip

Because it's the ultimate test of foreignness: English v. French.

It's also a big psychological barrier. The Romans/Angles, Saxons,
Jutes/Normans managed to invade or just get across it and the North
Sea,
but no-one's crossed it successfully with evil intent since 1066.
(Except the Aussies coming for the Ashes, of course.)

Bzzzt wrong. While that might be a often repeated 'fact', there's a list
in
msg id


Note the word "successfully" in my post. The point was also made in the
message to which you referred.


"I think that
makes the point that invading England was relatively easy. Taking
control once you'd landed was somewhat more difficult."

That's a literal statement, not understatement for effect. The channel
wasn't what caused those invasions (or rather some of them) to fail.
Successful landing was followed by defeat (or success) on land (supply lines
not being required to cross the water after transport for much of history.)


--
Errol Cavit | to email, my middle initial is G | von Sanders (8/8/15):
"What can be done to save the situation?" Kemal: "We must place all the
commands under one commander." "Is there no alternative?" "No. No
alternative. You must place all the forces under my command." "But surely
there are too many." "Too few" replied Kemal and hung up.