Maybe they were being civiilsed and welcomed them as guests to their country
Almost all, especially when you are using stone age weapons and tactics against a force armed with modern weapons ! ... Perhaps a better question would be " How many aboriginal peoples were successful in stopping an attack be an invading Army " !
866 (at least) - some, the same countries under different names, perhaps with different borders, at different times.
In the case of Britain, before the Celtic invasion/infiltration/cultural inundation, it is assumed the earlier people, whose name for themselves is long-lost, arrived over the then intact land-bridge from mainland Europe with the recession of glaciers of the last ice age maximum. The Celtic people who brought their culture into prehistoric Albion, were later unable to withstand the Roman invasion of AD43. With the withdrawal of the Roman legions from late 4th to early 5th century, the Romano-British were subject to increasingly vigorous and determined attacks by seagoing people from Scandinavia and Northern Europe, not to mention predatory incursions from the Picts and Scots living in what is now Scotland. The Celtic culture shifted towards the west, south-west, north-eastwards as the Anglo-Saxon invader gained a permanent foothold, then finally became firmly established in southern Britain.
The Norman invasion of 1066 succeeded in wresting control from these then dominant occupiers, and the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, Harold Godwinson died in the Battle of Hastings (als. Senlac).
A possible French intent to invade Britain was thwarted with the Battle of Sluys in 1340. The Spanish attempt of 1588 to invade Britain and reinstate Roman Catholicism failed. Then, with the death of Elizabeth I came a peaceful transition of English regnal authority to the Scottish king James Stuart, who became James I of England.
James I's grandson James II was removed in a popular revolution in which his daughter Mary and son-in-law William of Orange assumed the throne. There were attempts to restore the Stuart line by local insurrections in 1689-90, 1715 and 1745, all of which failed miserably. Upon the death of Queen Anne (Stuart) in 1714, the Hanoverian German, George, became George I of England by general consent, although he was involved in various scandals and was widely disliked, and didn't even speak English. The most recent attempt to subdue and invade Britain, by Adolph Hitler, in 1940, was successfully resisted.
Yes, those poor (what we now call) British, were under virtually constant threat from some outsider or other - too often succumbing to the threat.
Looking elsewhere, say, India: The fact of so many Indian sub-continental tongues being indisputably rooted in the proto-Indo-European language - these being Asami, Bengali, Bihari, Hindi, Hindustani, Gujarati, Kasmiri, Marathi, Naipali, Panjabi, Sindhi, Urdu and Uriya - suggests a massive migration of outsiders from the north in distant time, this resulting in the cultural steamrollering and forced migration of indigenous people towards the south of the sub-continent. I am aware of the coterie of current expert PC opinion that asserts no such invasion occurred, either here, or in many other places where a replacement of one culture by a completely different one occurred in distant time.
So it seems that, ignoring the incessant unstoppable confusion of intermixing within the human gene pool over the vastness of time, one may be quite certain those enjoying a comfortable modern lifestyle on the Indian sub-continent, and probably everywhere else, today, plus those reprobates who abandoned their homeland for a lazier life elsewhere, possess within their own complement, the genes of distant ancestors who ruthlessly cut down, raped, tortured, sent packing, or ate, people of the very different people they found in possession of the land when they arrived. For human behaviour has never lived up to its exalted billing.
Maybe it was because they lacked the Vauxhalls needed to do it?
In a word....NO !
