U.S. Presidents Vs Kings of England

[Holacik]

Every real U.S President Vs Every King of England

H2H only no weapons.

And for this Thread Obama Counts as a President.

[Siriel]

All in their primes, I assume?

I give this to the kings, personally.

Even if the Presidents have a confirmed Shoe-timer on their side.

[Holacik]

Yes all in their Prime.

[KJ Stewart]

There've been around 10 more presidents than kings, if that makes a difference...

[T51R]

Obama cruises around in the Presedential Pimped Out Limo with his entourage, and guns the opposition down with drive-bys showing how its done IN DA HOOD. :biggrin:

[cosmic eagle]

Kings have more HTH combat experience.

[Sound Silence]

All in their primes, I assume?

I give this to the kings, personally.

Even if the Presidents have a confirmed Shoe-timer on their side.

Shoe-timing, that's classic.

[Ant Crown]

Theodore solos.

[Radioactive Zombie]

Yes. Yes he does.

Dubya's trigger happy, though.

[Phrozen]

The number of Kings depends on where you start counting.

[cosmic eagle]

There've been around 10 more presidents than kings, if that makes a difference...

Since Saxon times?

[KJ Stewart]

The number of Kings depends on where you start counting.

Of which the correct point is when it became a kingdom, which makes my point stand...

[Mr. Primetime]

Theodore solos.

Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you. In this fight, however, he's not really a factor as he'll be tied up with his closest British equivalent, William the Conqueror, for most of the match.

[Ant Crown]

Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you. In this fight, however, he's not really a factor as he'll be tied up with his closest British equivalent, William the Conqueror, for most of the match.
All the other presidents and Kings bow out because of unworthiness.

[Phrozen]

All the other presidents and Kings bow out because of unworthiness.


Not really.

William was good but he was not as good as:

Alfred the Great
Henry II
or
Edward the Longshanks.

The thing about England is that they had few great monarchs but many competent ones unlike France that seemed to teeter between great and couldn't find ass with both hands.

[Wjowski]

I'm going with the kings...more than a few of these guys have personally led armies into battle.

[Mike Smith]

Under most circumstances, I'd agree with you. In this fight, however, he's not really a factor as he'll be tied up with his closest British equivalent, William the Conqueror, for most of the match.

Andrew Jackson and Teddy fighting back to back, 80s movie style, just may make William wave a white flag.

[Mr. Primetime]

I'm going with the kings...more than a few of these guys have personally led armies into battle.

As have more than a few presidents (ex. Washington, Grant, Taylor, Roosevelt, & Eisenhower).

[mailedbypostman1]

I'll give it to the Kings. Just tougher.

[cosmic eagle]

Andrew Jackson and Teddy fighting back to back, 80s movie style, just may make William wave a white flag.

Not to a guy who rides into battle chopping up his foes and was responsible for the Harrying of the North.

[cosmic eagle]

As have more than a few presidents (ex. Washington, Grant, Taylor, Roosevelt, & Eisenhower).

They are strategists mainly. Kings have more than a few who actively were in the thick of the fighting.

[Phrozen]

Kings of England that have personally lead troops into battle:

-King Canute
-Alfred the Great
-William the Conqueor
-King Stephen
-Henry II
-Richard Couer de Leone
-John Lackland
-Edward the Longshanks
-Henry V
-Richard III
-Henry Tudor

Really, only John was bad at it. Stephen lost eventually but was able to hold off Henry II, who beat the stuffing out of his sons Richard, John, and Geoffry more then once on the field of battle, for a long time until he fell terminally ill.

[mailedbypostman1]

Not to a guy who rides into battle chopping up his foes and was responsible for the Harrying of the North.

Agreed. I mean, honestly, besides Teddy, Jackson, and maybe washington, which presidents do you think could do Highlander style swordfights with the rest of the kings?

[FalconX2000]

Arthur was King of England for a few years.

[DABishop]

Let's talk feats.

Theodore Roosevelt: Gave 90-minute speech with a bullet 3 inches in chest. Later decided to keep it. In his chest.

[Sharkerbob]

I know its suppose be the real guys, but I'd pay to see Legendary Theodore Roosevelt vs. Legendary King Arthur. :biggrin:

[Sound Silence]

I know its suppose be the real guys, but I'd pay to see Legendary Theodore Roosevelt vs. Legendary King Arthur. :biggrin:

Teddy manages to halfway legendary and real at the same time.

[Sharkerbob]

Teddy manages to halfway legendary and real at the same time.

True enough.:cool:

[Ptrvc]

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson.

Any of these guys can solo the Kings.

I just have a vision of Lincoln ripping off various King's heads while delivering the Gettysberg address.

[Siriel]

*Sigh*

America fanwanking their presidents is so annoying.

[Ptrvc]

*Sigh*

America fanwanking their presidents is so annoying.

If you want to get serious, how many English Kings count swords as standard equipmnt, and how many presidents count GUNS! as standard equipment.

And even though weapons are turned off, the President's still have guys that have some trained skill in combat guys that soak bullets, and guys that are simply fricken huge.

[Siriel]

If you want to get serious, how many English Kings count swords as standard equipmnt, and how many presidents count GUNS! as standard equipment.

And how many OP precise hand-to-hand only, no weapon?

Oh, wait. This one does.

[Ptrvc]

And how many OP precise hand-to-hand only, no weapon?

Oh, wait. This one does.

Realized that and edited.

[Siriel]

And even though weapons are turned off, the President's still have guys that have some trained skill in combat guys that soak bullets, and guys that are simply fricken huge.

Hum...

If by 'soak bullet' you mean; the bullet is stopped by an insanely huge speech paper and a bullet proof vest. The man manage to keep standing long enough to give the speech and is then hurried to the hospital. I don't really see how it's relevant, but sure.

Trained skill in combat...right. Because, you know, guys on the frontline on the battlefield have none of that whatsoever.

As for 'huge'...I'll have to get back to you on that tomorrow. I'm too tired to go check the measure for the kings and not fuck it up.

[Ptrvc]

Hum...

If by 'soak bullet' you mean; the bullet is stopped by an insanely huge speech paper and a bullet proof vest. The man manage to keep standing long enough to give the speech and is then hurried to the hospital. I don't really see how it's relevant, but sure.

Trained skill in combat...right. Because, you know, guys on the frontline on the battlefield have none of that whatsoever.

As for 'huge'...I'll have to get back to you on that tomorrow. I'm too tired to go check the measure for the kings and not fuck it up.

Soak a bullet straight up no help, Andrew Jackson.

Trained in combat, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, Jackson, and so forth.

Simply Huge, Abraham brings a large size advantage, not to mention most of these presidents have a nutritional advantage over the kings.

Not that many kings led from the front, and not that many of them were actually that good.

Washington Did
Jackson Did
Theodore Did

[Sharkerbob]

Soak a bullet straight up no help, Andrew Jackson.

Trained in combat, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, Jackson, and so forth.

Simply Huge, Abraham brings a large size advantage, not to mention most of these presidents have a nutritional advantage over the kings.

Not that many kings led from the front, and not that many of them were actually that good.

Washington Did
Jackson Did
Theodore Did

Though mind you the kings also had to train to fight in heavy, cumbersome armor. So they might have a general strength advantage, being freed from the extra weight.

[giggity]

Would you please stop making completely irrelevant/offensive posts?

Do you not understand what the implications of "royalty can only wed royalty" are?
Have you never heard of Charrles the second of spain? Or seen a picture of the royal family?


WTH?
My posts gets erased?
Please someone exxplain to me how english royalty can not be considered inbred by the defintion of the word?

[Siriel]

Do you not understand what the implications of "royalty can only wed royalty" are?
Have you never heard of Charrles the second of spain? Or seen a picture of the royal family?


WTH?
My posts gets erased?
Please someone exxplain to me how english royalty can not be considered inbred by the defintion of the word?

They might be inbred. Might not be.

Which, in no way affect this match. Let alone give the Presidents the win.

Thus, the post was irrelevant.

Possibly offensive posts are deleted. That's how it works.

[giggity]

They are inbred.

Which, in no way affect this match. Let alone give them the win.

Thus, the post was irrelevant.

No. I was pointing out that inbreeding causes various and sundry defects which the US presidents, by and large not being inbred, would not have to contend with, thereby giving the presidents the win.
Hardly irrelevant.

[Siriel]

No. I was pointing out that inbreeding causes various and sundry defects which the US presidents, by and large not being inbred, would not have to contend with, thereby giving the presidents the win.
Hardly irrelevant.

Oh?

And I suppose you possess records proving that the Kings do have those defects?

[Sound Silence]

Do you not understand what the implications of "royalty can only wed royalty" are?
Have you never heard of Charrles the second of spain? Or seen a picture of the royal family?


WTH?
My posts gets erased?
Please someone exxplain to me how english royalty can not be considered inbred by the defintion of the word?

Charles II of Spain is by no means an indicator of what every "inbred" person would be like.

Lots of the kings of England were just fine.

[Sound Silence]

No. I was pointing out that inbreeding causes various and sundry defects which the US presidents, by and large not being inbred, would not have to contend with, thereby giving the presidents the win.
Hardly irrelevant.

Inbreeding still depends on the people passing on the bad genes. It just means the chances of that happening are greater.

[DABishop]

*Sigh*

America fanwanking their presidents is so annoying.

So? Fanwank your guys. Kinda the point of the thread.

Oh, and Taft is the sumo wrestler of American Presidents.

[giggity]

Charles II of Spain is by no means an indicator of what every "inbred" person would be like.

Lots of the kings of England were just fine.

Im sorry? How many went mad? Were infertile? Were drooling idiots? etc?
Quite a few if Im not mistaken.

Im just a bit hardpressed to see how being inbred to any extent could offer any advantages.

[Siriel]

Im just a bit hardpressed to see how being inbred to any extent could offer any advantages.

None.

Which, y'know, is irrelevant. Since as far as I know, none of them actually suffered from those side effects.

(Except maybe infertility, but we'd never know about that anyway, and it's irrelevant to a fighting thread)

[Sound Silence]

Im sorry? How many went mad? Were infertile? Were drooling idiots? etc?
Quite a few if Im not mistaken.

Im just a bit hardpressed to see how being inbred to any extent could offer any advantages.

Mad, infertile, drooling idiots are not in the habit of leading armies successfully.

[Sharkerbob]

Though mind you the kings also had to train to fight in heavy, cumbersome armor. So they might have a general strength advantage, being freed from the extra weight.

Yes? No? Maybe?

[Siriel]

Yes? No? Maybe?

Yes, very much so.

[giggity]

So then noone here has ever heard of King George the 3rd?

[mailedbypostman1]

(Except maybe infertility, but we'd never know about that anyway, and it's irrelevant to a fighting thread)

It would in the event that it would you know...
end in sex.

[Sound Silence]

So then noone here has ever heard of King George the 3rd?

Okay, so that's one guy.

[Phrozen]

So then noone here has ever heard of King George the 3rd?

Went mad because he was bi-polar. Nothing to do with genetics. By and large the English royal family never really inbred mostly getting their spouses from the nobility rather then the other monarchs of Europe.

Not to mention while their is a line of descent from William the Conqueor to the current Elizabeth II it is in no ways direct and skips around quite a bit going from the Normans to the Angivins to the Tudors (Welsh) to the Stuarts (English) to the Saxe-Coburg/Windsors (German).

Also, hte English crown can be inherited from either side of the family making inbreding alot less prevalent.

[cosmic eagle]

Soak a bullet straight up no help, Andrew Jackson.

Trained in combat, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grant, Teddy, Jackson, and so forth.

Simply Huge, Abraham brings a large size advantage, not to mention most of these presidents have a nutritional advantage over the kings.

Not that many kings led from the front, and not that many of them were actually that good.

Washington Did
Jackson Did
Theodore Did

William alone is very likely superior in HTH than any of these guys. As was Alfred the Great and most of the Saxon kings.

Even counting the number of presidents that actually fought, the number of warrior kings still outnumbers them.

If you say few kings were actually that good, the same can be said of presidents. It is rare that people actually pull feats like engaging an entire group of enemies in HTH and winning.

[jhota]

i don't really care about this topic at all.


... to the Stuarts (English) ...

but the Stuarts were Scots (by way of Brittany, ca. 1100).

[master of read]

loop hole question: are we talking about all the president that have served in the contienental united states?

[Wjowski]

As have more than a few presidents (ex. Washington, Grant, Taylor, Roosevelt, & Eisenhower).

There's a world of difference between how wars were fought during the 1800's and onwards and how wars were fought during the crusades. There's just too many veterans with face-to-face fighting experience on the kings' side.

[mailedbypostman1]

loop hole question: are we talking about all the president that have served in the contienental united states?

It says U.S presidents.

[moonknight11]

Fuck Yeah Richard the Lionheart!

Kings FTW!

[Holacik]

loop hole question: are we talking about all the president that have served in the contienental united states?

.....I'm curious to where your going. The U.S presidents, The Confedert (I think I totally mis-spelled that) states don't count.

[master of read]

.....I'm curious to where your going. The U.S presidents, The Confedert (I think I totally mis-spelled that) states don't count.

not talking about the rebels. talking about sam. he was the first and third president of the republic of texas.

[Holacik]

not talking about the rebels. talking about sam. he was the first and third president of the republic of texas.

No he's not in as that is a different country the Republic of Texas, not the United States.

[master of read]

No he's not in as that is a different country the Republic of Texas, not the United States.

damn. well it was worth a try.

[The Beekeeper]

So Teddy and FDR would be in the fight? That'd be one amazing fastball special... :biggrin:
However, as much as I'd like to give it to the presidents, this fight is HTH and even the presidents that were badasses (namely Jackson) were used to fighting with pistols/rifles. The English kings have the advantage of, you know, actually fighting with their fists/things you have to swing around rather than aim.

[The Zapper]

George Washington solos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA

[Captain England]

I gather that they must not teach history in American schools, else you would be aware that the lineage of the English throne goes back more than a thousand years.

And that you poor colonial fools, is why you lose.

[The MunchKING]

It says U.S presidents.

Dang, if it had just said "american" I would have brought up not just the CSA but the various "presidents" of those banana republics in South America. ;)

[Ant Crown]

I gather that they must not teach history in American schools, else you would be aware that the lineage of the English throne goes back more than a thousand years.

And that you poor colonial fools, is why you lose.

IIRC....A thousand years you say?

Last time I checked...It was Roman Territory.

[Sharkerbob]

I gather that they must not teach history in American schools, else you would be aware that the lineage of the English throne goes back more than a thousand years.

And that you poor colonial fools, is why you lose.

I was gunna say... pretty sure the kings would take this on numbers alone.

[The MunchKING]

EDIt; Never mind, misremebered.

[Phrozen]

Batlle of Hastings was in 1066. If you count that as the start of England, then that is only 942 years.

So now WHO's nation isn't teaching them enough history OR math??

England existed before that. That is just when our records get alot clearer. Before that we have the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of which we have I believe one complete copy and several parts of a few. The chronicle was distributed to various places in England to record the goings on there.

The problem with the chronicle is that it goes into detail on some things and just has a sentenace or two on others depending on who was doing the recording.

[Captain England]

EDIt; Never mind, misremebered.

No worries. For anyone who is interested wikipedia isn't god awful on the subject...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_England

[Ghost]

-King Canute

I think this was probably the last thread I expected to find a manga spoiler. :tongue:

And yes, I know history doesn't count as spoiler.


-King Stephen

I actually read that as Stephen King at first glance. :redface:


*Sigh*

America fanwanking their presidents is so annoying.

Normally, I'd agree, but I think Roosevelt's awesomeness is pretty firmly established.

[Captain England]

Normally, I'd agree, but I think Roosevelt's awesomeness is pretty firmly established.

Almost, but not quite being able to walk impresses you?

[moonknight11]

Almost, but not quite being able to walk impresses you?

Someone doesn't know American presidents. Theodore Roosevelt not F.D.R.

[Captain England]

Someone doesn't know American presidents. Theodore Roosevelt not F.D.R.

Yeah, I knew. I just wanted to make a lame joke.

Get it?

Lame?

FDR?

Huh?

Huh?

Yeah you get it.

[The MunchKING]

Almost, but not quite being able to walk impresses you?

Bah, FDR was still pretty tough. ;)

Now you want to talk about STUPID rulers, America once elected a president who was too dumb to come in out of the rain.

Democracy is not foolproof people. ;)

[Wjowski]

Normally, I'd agree, but I think Roosevelt's awesomeness is pretty firmly established.

Normally I'd agree with that as well but in this particular instance I think he's outmatched (in a fight, anyways) by guys like Richard I.

[Ptrvc]

Bah, FDR was still pretty tough. ;)

Now you want to talk about STUPID rulers, America once elected a president who was too dumb to come in out of the rain.

Democracy is not foolproof people. ;)

The ironic part is he was trying to prove he was not dumb at the time.

[The MunchKING]

Normally, I'd agree, but I think Roosevelt's awesomeness is pretty firmly established.

Ah but even the great and legendary President that is Teddy Roosevelt couldn't beat the MunchKING. And I din't just beat him bad, it was Unanimous. Every state in the Union voted for me over him.











Don't beleave me?? Want proof??


Look no further!! http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/5285/munchbeatsrooseveltth1.jpg

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/9403/mvrexitpollsyf5.jpg

[Dalak]

Ah but even the great and legendary President that is Teddy Roosevelt couldn't beat the MunchKING. And I din't just beat him bad, it was Unanimous. Every state in the Union voted for me over him.

When he spent NO political clout or anything spent, while you spent your ass off. Not exactly a even contest :tongue:

[The MunchKING]

When he spent NO political clout or anything spent, while you spent your ass off. Not exactly a even contest :tongue:

Well it's not MY fault he spoke too softly and didn't carry a big enough stick. ;)

[Ptrvc]

Well it's not MY fault he spoke too softly and didn't carry a big enough stick. ;)

The real question, how many times did your supporters vote for you?

And how many of them were dead?

No president has ever one since 1920 without getting at least half of the dead vote:biggrin:

Wait a second..:frown: