"Britain's most formidable opponent?" Topic

Much of the military history we read is written from a British perspective and therefore we get a British perspective on the results. While British or British-led armies have certainly handed the French a few beatings in their time, the French have returned the compliment quite frequently too. There was a long-drawn-out campaign of raids against the English south coast by one Jean de Vienne during the HYW you don't hear much about, for example, and of course despite St Crispin Crispian, it was the French who won the HYW too.

Then there are the Germans. Terrific fighters, but less consistently so (against British troops anyway) than French. For one thing, Prussians were nothing special, militarily, for most of their history. Yes there was Frederick the Great, but OTOH they got comprehensively thrashed time and again during the War of Liberation which was won for them by Austria. The APW and FPW were unequal contests. The German forces of WW1 were beaten on the ground, in the air, at sea, economically, politically, and militarily, and largely by a GB that proved able to take much more of the weight of doing so than was expected.

An exceedingly honourable mention goes to the Japanese. With indifferent equipment (no SMGs, fewer SAWs, pre-WW1 artillery), they comprehensively defeated a superior force in Malaya and proved exceptionally hard to contain everywhere else. So much so that in fact I think they shade it to win the accolade of ‘most formidable enemy'.

Well my choice is less Eurocentric……I think the Zulus, the Mahdists and the Pathans were all formidable opponents with the Pathans the only ones truly going unconquered against the Brits……so you could say the Pathans of the hills of Afghanistan are the most formidable opponenst the British Army has ever faced….. handing the Brits defeats at Gandamak and Maiwand and still fighting them today in the same Helmand province they fought them in the 19th century!

Well the Americans beat them. Of course they were only enemies for a short time, but they did win, once and for all, which should count as formidable.

The Americans are way down the list.

What about the British themselves?

A few colonial battles count for little. In most cases the British wiped the floor with an opponent, including the Zulus.

Britain's most formidabl;e opponent was Gandhi, no doubt about it.

Next it has to be the Germans, no nation on Earth has caused anything like as many losses to the British army as the Germans

ISTR the Americans were beaten by British troops – on land – rather more frequently than they won, and when they did win, the crucial difference was, usually, the French. So rather than being an American victory over the British, I see the AWI as a French victory over the British in the American ToO.

Otherwise one would logically have to argue that France defeated Germany in 1944-45, when in fact, France provided the theatre in which America and the Commonwealth did so, plus some useful but inessential help. It's a shorthand way of setting it out, but it's not grossly wrong IMHO.

The Zulus are interesting because arguably they were only formidable if you underestimated them. If you treated them as potentially dangerous, it was possible to destroy Zulu armies completely with nil or almost nil losses, eg Ulundi and Nyezane River.

This can't be said of the Japanese or the Germans. Nobody underestimated the Japanese by the middle of December 1941, but it still didn't help anyone to beat them. Ditto the Germans.

The Pathans are a great example. I'd forgotten about them. I suppose in a way the question needs qualifying – who, even when you set about them properly and with good leadership, proved to be the most formidable opponent? Any army can look good if you screw up against them, but who proved a tough nut to crack even when you did everything right?

@ Mikasa – indeed, but that was industrialised warfare for you.

In WW1 Britain lost 900,000 and in WW2 about 400,000. Most were lost against Germany, but it cost Germany at least the same level of losses to do it, maybe more.

In Malaya, 60,000 Japanese defeated then captured 130,000 Commonwealth troops in the space of two months. That's ten per cent of the results for negligible loss in a fraction of the time, and they kept almost all the spoils until someone else nuked them. The Commonwealth never cam back to avenge itself against the troops who'd beaten them before.

@4th C

I suppose it depends on whether we're talking about the British army or Commonwealth armies, the Brits were a fairly small percentage of the fighting troops in the Malay peninsular.

And I'd say the Commonwealth gave the Japanese a bit of a bloody nose in Burma form 44 onwards, t was always a slightly neglected theatre however.

What about the Scots?

What about the Scots?

Ain't they British?

Ain't they British?

They like to believe otherwise.

Anyway. The Afghan tribesmen gave us a bloody nose on more than one occasion, and Britain never managed to secure a 'victory' on the North West Frontier.

"…the Americans were beaten by British troops – on land – rather more frequently than they won,"

To borrow a phrase from another, later war leader, 'that is true, but it is also irrelevant.' I have always thought winning counted for a great deal.

In terms of casualties, absolutely the Germans. In terms of length of time spent fighting against them, the French. In terms of 'hey look they won against the Brits', I still think the Americans deserve a mention.

In terms of driving a fatal nail into the Empire, I'd have to go with the Japanese over Gandhi. It was them who demonstrated that Europeans, and the Brits themselves, were not invincible.

Well if we're talking about the end of Empire I'd say the Americans had as much to do with that as the Japanese. American post war prosperity was based on the wealth of the British and French Empires that was spent buying American arms.
So maybe you're right the Americans it is, but not in the AWI.

Presumably we're talking about battlefield enemies here, so in terms of perennial difficulties I'd have to go with the Pathans. And perhaps the Boers, at least until 1901 or so.

The Americans on the battlefield? They won some, but by no means all; especially in 1812 where the invasion of Canada came to nought.

The tribes on the NW Frontier were much more problematic, as the Soviets- and later NATO- have found out.

Most formidable enemy of the British, there is only one winner:

Worthy runners up are America with France helping, without them they needed a new presidential Palace.

Germany, tough, always tough but you can beat them in the end.

France, perennial rivals, always tough, never to be taken lightly.

Japanese, underestimated and highly competent, but there myth was cracked at Imphal and Khohima and totally destroyed at Mektila.

But the winner is the Irish, 1000 years of fighting and never truly beaten…

The most formidable opponent we never actually fought was the Soviet Union (well, apart from that bit of unpleasantness in 1919).

I would not rank the Japanese very high, the defeat at Singapore was no more disastrous than the defeat at Tobruk in 1942. The British have always suffered defeats, it is winning the war which counts.

The ones we've failed to defeat the most are the Pathans, but they don't compare in expenditure of blood or treasure to the Germans.

I considered the Irish, but as many more Irish fought for Britain than ever fought against it, and that actual combat was not the running sore that it was in, say, the NW Frontier, I ruled them out.

The Germans certainly rank highly.

I nominate us, the Norse/Vikings/Scandinavian Invaders in our various forms. Of course, that is before there was an actual Britan. Or a Commonwealth. When you, in fact, were the Colonials.

Clearly, it's the Normans.

As I was rather fond of telling people after 9/11 when they kept complaining that the Canadians weren't doing anything to protect the American border and all they do is sit around and rely on us for defense…Canada has been invaded three times in its history and they've beaten us every time. They hardly need us for their defense. I think they're pretty tough fighters looking at their record. The Canadians that have lost, such as those units in Hong Kong, were poorly trained reservists rather than average units.

Well the Normans fought the Saxons and then became the modern English. Not sure they count.

As for the Irish. Don't make me laugh.
Beaten whenever the Brits felt like it. Being a pain in the arse is not the same as being a true threat.

I would say its the darkness.

How many millions of Brits have died in their sleep at night?

It has yet to be beaten, or become an ally, unlike most of the nations presented above.

Electric lighting, torches, cats eyes, burning witches, beleusha beacons, the attempts at mastery continue to this day.

and is clearly the reason why Britain made such a point of having an empire on which the sun never set.

never mind God not trusting us in the dark, we are just afraid of it. Like all sensible folk should be.

Interesting thoughts – to be fair to the Royal Rifles of Canada and the Winnipeg Grenadiers – the two militia units posted to Hong Kong to relieve the British garrison, most of whom had been posted elsewhere – while this was their first time in combat, they did pretty well against a much superior opponent – 14,000 Empire troops were 52,000 veteran Japanese troops – the Empire troops fought bravely but were eventually overwhelmed – as I recall, a Sergeant in the Winnipeg Grenadiers won a Victoria Cross

In terms of colonial opponents I'd say the New Zealnd Maoris should rate a mention. They did well enough to force the British into a Treaty, arguably they were not defeated militarily. I'm no expert on the subject though, just live across the Tasman Sea from them!

"Ain't they British?

They like to believe otherwise."

British is a citizenship. Scottish is a nationality.

The Japanese were only formidable against an unprepared opponent. While their training & methodology was good, there were severe limitations too which started to show as soon as their enemies pulled their fingers out. Plus they were saddled with inferior small arms

Clearly, it's the Normans.

But isn't that pretty much covered by the French already?

And what about the Celts, Romans and Saxons – each of whom apparently was pretty capable of invading a chunk of Britain.

Trouble is, Britain was no more than a geographical expression until 1707.

Celts, Romans, Saxons, Normans and a few Norse make up the English. I wouldn't consider us one nationality until after about 1150 AD.

Re the NZ Maori.
"They did well enough to force the British into a Treaty"

No they didn't.

The treaty was signed before settlement, in an attempt to ensure British citizens arriving would be covered by British law, and to prevent claim by any marauding other power.

the fighting came much later. But they did occupy more British troops than anywhere else at the time except India (which I guess, is a vote for the Pathans, really)

Nepalese perhaps, so tough we fought them once, then hired them to do some for us?

I still rate the Irish, 1000 years and it still isn't properly over…

Re Pathans, the Irish and numerous others.

An unwillingness to accept defeat doesn't necessarily equate into an ability to do something about it.

is it just me or is this a weird sort of topic?

"Celts, Romans, Saxons, Normans and a few Norse make up the English. I wouldn't consider us one nationality until after about 1150 AD."

Yes, quite.

The Germans being our most formidable foe is a bit ironic as well, as we are essentially Germans too and we speak a bastardised form of Flemish.

France.
The traditional enemy of england.

Nobody else beat Britain ( well, England ) at any time on their own. 100YW in case you're wondering.

I count situational advantage such as mountains as being a sort of ally. The Khyber pass wouldn't be quite so scary if it was the Khyber-wide-open-flat-plain.
But for France I can't see America winning independence or retaining it.

Britons' most formidable opponents?

The arrogant ruling aristocratic class.

"Smile at us, pay us, us pass us
But do not quite forget
That we are the people of England
And we have not spoken yet."

(G.K. Chesterton)

ISTR the Americans were beaten by British troops – on land – rather more frequently than they won, and when they did win, the crucial difference was, usually, the French. So rather than being an American victory over the British, I see the AWI as a French victory over the British in the American ToO.

Bull .
The French were useful on land ONCE.
Check how useful they were at Rhode Island and Savannah. They got dirt on their pretty white uniforms and fled in horror.
Without American VICTORIES at Princeton, Trenton, Saratoga and a close call at Germantown, the French would not have had the ambition to kick Britain while down.
So, thanks for Yorktown, and the fleet, and thanks for all that nice powder and muskets. We could have done it ourselves. It would have just taken a little longer. The British government was getting more weary of it than we were.

That might be true but the Americans were wearying of war as well. Certainly the French might not have been of much use on land but their assistance, and Spain's, at Sea made much more of a difference. Naval power, at the time and at many other times, was much, much more important than land power.

So if it hadn't been for fleets tied up in the Carribbean and blocked from relieving armies in the colonies, it probably wouldn't not have been so easy for the Americans to win. Without French, Spanish and even Dutch intervention I think it is difficult to say that the Americans would have won.

I don't know that you could say they definitley would have lost either but I really don't think you can call it "bullshit" either.

Pass.

I would like to add my support for the Nepalese who's fighting spirit and determination has impressed and frightened everyone they have come up against

IR1

The average American's view of the WAI is similar to the average Soviet citizen's view of WW2. I.e. there was only one theatre and no allies.

The Soviet view is more justifiable.

And actually it is also Hollywood's view of WW2.

clearly the germans id say ..

Never came so close to a complete conquest since 1066.

"For one thing, Prussians were nothing special, militarily, for most of their history. Yes there was Frederick the Great, but OTOH they got comprehensively thrashed time and again during the War of Liberation which was won for them by Austria. The APW and FPW were unequal contests."

Strongly disagree. How were the prussian army "thrashed" during the wars of liberation? They won plenty of battles and did MUCH better than austrian during that time.

Also calling APW and FPW unequal is easy to say now. At the time everyone expected the opposition to win.

Re Pathans, the Irish and numerous others.

An unwillingness to accept defeat doesn't necessarily equate into an ability to do something about it.

Strange, I thought we won independence…….

I've been thinking about this all day now

The answer has to be Mel Gibson

Die Mannschaft?

Afghans & Japanese …

For long time emnity the french. A thousand years of on again off again fighting gives meaning to the terms of 'Get Stuck In'.

For actual handing the british a defeat, I'ld have to say the Dutch. has anyone else sailed up the Thames and burned down their fleet?

Apples or pears ? On land, sea or air ? War, conflict or violent clashes ?
On a man for man basis it is the Boers, a few thousand versus 250,000 in the Second Boer War. And coincidentally the Dutch mounted the last sucessful conquest.. but it was before the Act of Union.

clearly the germans id say ..

Never came so close to a complete conquest since 1066.

Cobblers

When did the Germans invade then?

plasticviking2 is right, the Dutch were the last to successfully launch a conquest of England, they should at least be in the running. Their conquest, and the political settlement from it, has only gradually changed over time to be the government that exists now.