"Britain's most formidable opponent?" Topic

Could you explain how Britain is not an Island nation please?

My definition of an island seems to fit what Great Britain is…

Erm… exactly when did the Dutch beat the English in 1688?

I'm intrigued, since this is a campaign I'm ignorant of.

The English army deserted en masse to side with William and Mary. That's not a defeat.

The several thousand Dutch troops were because a) William wasn't sure his welcome would be as warm as it was and he prepared for the eventuality of having to fight.

and b) the English army wasn't much cop, and there was the distinct prospect of intervention from Ireland and/or France.

Possibly the clincher is that the episode isn't really taught much in Dutch schools (having just checked with Gungnir).

Had the Dutch made a successful invasion of England, one assumes they'd remember.

And we'd have lots more bicycles.

I don't suppose that the invasion by Japan of Korea, China etc. is much taught in Japanese high schools either. Ergo, they just didn't happen.

Having your army desert en masse to the enemy is not a defeat?

How so?

That sounds like a total defeat to me. You must have some pretty lenient victory conditions when you play wargames. I guess Napoleon didn't take over France then when he came back after his first little trip away then either.

Also Great Britain is not an island because it doesn't fit the definition of an island which is:

"A land mass, especially one smaller than a continent, entirely surrounded by water."

Great Britain is not a land mass entirely surrounded by water. It currently en compasses, besides many smaller islands, the island containing scotland, england and wales as well as northern ireland.

In this sense it is sort of an archipelago nation. It isn't quite that exactly as it contains a land border with another sovereign state, that of the republic of ireland.

England is obviously not an island either as it contains land borders with scotland and wales.

So there may have been brief periods where one political entity controlled only the island that contained england, scotland and wales, then it might have been an island something, but it certainly wasn't a nation yet, at least not in the modern understanding of the word.

Mary was James' sister, not daughter if my memory serves.

Relying on memory is fraught with peril ;0) she was his daughter according to "the official website of the British Monarchy" – James II page
link

When his second (Roman Catholic) wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth on 10 June 1688 to a son (James Stuart, later known as the 'Old Pretender' and father of Charles Edward Stuart, 'Bonnie Prince Charlie'), it seemed that a Roman Catholic dynasty would be established.

William of Orange, Protestant husband of James's elder daughter, Mary (by James's first and Protestant wife, Anne Hyde), was therefore welcomed when he invaded on 5 November 1688.

They say it was an invasion.

I'm not really surprised at the confusion surrounding "The Glorious Revolution" as we were tought to call it over here. Fifty years ago I has a traditional english Grammar School education which covered most eras of our history, in some depth too. But this episode seems to have been skimmed over and it's only in later years that I read the fuller history. Modern teaching seems to focus on social history (what life was like for a land girl or evacuee during WW2) rather than the political and military aspects.

I can't decide on a most formidable opponent if the Scots aren't allowed, but an honourable mention must go to the French, for consistently turning out from 1300 – 1815, a gallant record for "our friends the enemy" :0)

Well a personal defeat for James, but not of the nation since the nation had decided to get rid of him.

A defeat entails some kind of contest…

The French nation wasn't defeated in 1814 by Napoleon was it? Because there was no fight.

A coup is different to a war. Did Romania lose when it threw out Ceaucescu?

BTW – 'island nation' means 'nation of islands' in the same way a 'regiment of horse' has more than one equine….

As for Mary – apologies for getting her Dad wrong… I was right in thinking she was next one on the rank once the decision to get rid of James had been made though.

Which makes this 'invasion' the rightful heir to the throne taking up her job – at least if you thought like most people at the time and had doubts as to his sons' legitimacy.

Germans.

No way Britain survives WWII without help…

-CH

I'd argue that….

We could survive, since we were winning the Battle of the Atlantic thanks to breaking Enigma.

So I don't think we'd have lost.

But what we couldn't do is kick Hitler out of Europe on our own.

So we couldn't have won without help, but were sufficiently strong not to lose.

In no particular order;

Germany – Play a good attacking game early on before doing on the defensive after half time. Still capable though of launching a couple of counterattacks before the final whistle.

Italy – Like to talk a good game, but if the game starts going against them they start to appear in the opposition's strip.

Japan – Formidible attacking team as soon as kick off begins, but generally ground down over the course of the game. Often employs the goalie pushed up to attack in a suicidle attempt to score, often ends in tears though.

USA – Did very well in the '44/'45 Europeans and Asian seasons, but has sometimes being accused of resting on their laurels reflecting on past glories. Has done fairly well since but had a bit of trouble in the South East Asia tour.

Afghanistan – Looks poor on paper, but have won several games against a lot higher placed teams.

France – Several ups and downs over the years, often qualifies for the major European competitions but comes away with a mixed bag of results.

Spain – A big strong team a while back, but in recent years involved only in domestic fixtures in particular the '36-'39 seasons.

Russia – Initially a strong team but have gone down the table since the World Cup Final against the US in the early '90s. Despite this they are not to be underestimated.

Ezza

There was a contest. The Dutch came over with an army. The British army decided that that was a little too rich for their blood. There were a couple of fights, people died.

The King ran. His subjects rallied to him later, there was more fighting. The Dutch contender for the throne, who had taken the throne, won that fight too.

I think I understand now where your mistake is coming from though. You have an anachronistic comprehension of the government at the time.

The king was the government of England. When he was defeated it was England that was defeated. The 1660 settlement established that. It had not been long before that Charles II had dissolved parliament. That did not make his rule illegitimate.

The system of government was broken, that is why the Stuart were so ineffective at military endeavors. They were rarely able to accomplish anything. It was the system, the English system, of government that was defeated by a different system of government. A British monarchy was defeated by a Dutch republic.

There was a contest. England lost, the Netherlands won.

As with any victory one must look at what is next to decide how to exploit it. William was smart enough to compromise so that he could get what he wanted, England off of the French side in the coming European contest, and onto his own.

Whether or not Mary was next in line for the throne is somewhat irrelevant. She was certainly not leading the armies and she was not crowned queen by herself. William was crowned as well. He was not in line for succession.

"BTW – 'island nation' means 'nation of islands' in the same way a 'regiment of horse' has more than one equine…."

But it at least implies that the nation has no land borders with other political entities. It would be difficult to argue that America was an Island nation because Hawaii is an island.

For much of the history of England it was not an island. That is important in understanding it's history. The development of the idea of an island nation or of England as an island nation, was something that took a long time to arrive.

It might seems somewhat pedantic but it is not if the term contributes to a misunderstanding of the history of the country and it does. Very much so. The idea of fortress Britain is very strong in some minds and yet the waters proved more of a highway to invasion in europe than a wall to prevent it.

Ah yes but if Mary hadn't been so popular it is highly likely that the people/parliament etc would have chucked Billy out…so if the Dutch won why didn't King Billies brother/sister cousin uncle inherit the throne and the British Royal family become the House of Orange rather than the Stuarts in the form of Anne????
And if the Dutch were so strong and formidable why is it that it took a British army and General to save the Republic from nast Louis XIV????

William came over since he was told he would be welcomed and he was. The only fighting that occurred in England was between Irishmen on one side and Dutch backed up by the English on the other.

There were so far as I'm aware no isntances of the English doing anything other than welcoming William and Mary with open arms, nor did they rally to James later.

The King very much wasn't the government of England. The whole problem of balence between the King and Parliament had been going on for some time. James didn't rule without Parliament, Charles II was the last to do that.

So with respect it's not my history which is at fault.

And parliament dictated to William under which terms he'd get the throne.

And given the Stadholder was hereditary (I think… could be wrong) the Dutch Republic was only a republic in name only.

Mary certainly was not irrelvent. For a start she was next in line to the throne. For second she was specifically coronated as joint ruler with William – as can be seen by the fact she continued to rule solely after his death.

Consorts don't get to do that.

It was a popular take-over, with no conflict in England. Not a defeat of this nation, rather England throwing off a hated ruler.

I repeat, the English don't count it as a defeat, and the Dutch don't regard it as a victory. The only person who apparently does is PS.

FWIW I can't recall anyone calling England an island nation. Britain yes – which is inarguable. It's a nation composed entirely of islands, even if it shares one with another nation.

From a brief perusal of the web, it seems that in this epic invasion of the UK, sturggle indeed as Pictor calls it, fewer than 100 people died on both sides.

Mostly Irish soldiers in Reading chased out by a couple of hundred Dutchmen and the good citizens of the Thames Valley.

By contemporary standards, that's not even a decent riot.

By Pictors logic, Spain lost the Peninsular War since at the end of it, a despised ruler (Jospeh) had been deposed by the popular will backed up by thousands of foreign (and Spanish) soldiers.

Pictor's take on the events of 1688 is historically inaccurate. There were no battles between British and Dutch forces during the "invasion"; neither did the vast majority of James' subjects rally to him, except for some of the Irish catholics and some Scots. The vast majority of the people, in common with Parliament and the army, supported William and Mary, who had been invited over by Parliament.

To describe the events of 1688 as a British defeat is absurd. What happened was a coup planned and implemented by the leading people in society, backed by the majority of the population and the army.

If we want to discuss British defeats then the Norman invasion, the Hundred Years War, the Colonial Rebellion in the Americas, various 19th century campaigns in Afghanistan, and the 1940 debacle in France would be rather more relevant, as they actually were defeats. Perhaps in future years we will have to add the current Afghanistan mess to that list.

Oh yes, I nearly forgot the most formidable opponent question.

Any of these:

The Pathans
The Zulus
The Dervishes
The Boers

'The vast majority of the people, in common with Parliament and the army, supported William and Mary, who had been invited over by Parliament.'

That is the 'official version' from the old Imperial narrative in fact Pictors is about right. Try reading Duffy if you want to know more.

Oh and on question the Afghans must be a contender.

For second she was specifically coronated as joint ruler with William – as can be seen by the fact she continued to rule solely after his death.

Consorts don't get to do that.

Sorry Bangorstu, but your memory must be playing tricks again. It was the other way round, William outlived Mary by some 7 years. Mary died in December 1694 and William continued to rule until his death in March 1702. Again, this information comes from the "official website of the British Monarchy", which covers all this in some detail (and used the "invade" word). Here's the William & Mary page -
link

"I repeat, the English don't count it as a defeat, and the Dutch don't regard it as a victory. The only person who apparently does is PS."

I would suggest you read some contemporary history. I think there are a lot of people with a number of letters after their names that would disagree with you.

"The King very much wasn't the government of England. The whole problem of balence between the King and Parliament had been going on for some time. James didn't rule without Parliament, Charles II was the last to do that."

The problem was that there wasn't balance between king and parliament. The King was legally allowed to dissolve parliament as he wished. The struggle for parliamentarian rights was one that continued throughout the century. The so-called Glorious Revolution was the beginning of the end of the process that started when perpetuities lost to free alienation of land after the War of the Roses.

The fact was that the king, who ruled England, or really any government, existed to fund war. That was the mission. The Stuarts, through no fault of their own, had no ability to do this.

"And if the Dutch were so strong and formidable why is it that it took a British army and General to save the Republic from nast Louis XIV????"

Not that this really is worth a response but I'll give one anyway. The English, at the time, had one of the most flimsy methods of supporting their military in all of Europe. The system couldn't even come close to supporting a serious military effort. It wasn't that the Dutch were "so strong and formidable" it was that we English were so weak and pathetic.

On the other hand, the French, at the time, were probably the most powerful political entity in Europe. So why the tiny Netherlands couldn't stand up to France shouldn't be much of a mystery.

"And given the Stadholder was hereditary (I think… could be wrong) the Dutch Republic was only a republic in name only."

The Stadtholder (of any of the provinces) had varying levels of power through time. Sometimes he almost was as powerful as a King, during Williams' tenure, this was not the case. If you want to read about the stadtholderate and this period in general from something that is not a wikipedia article I'd recommend the Dutch Republic by Jonathan Israel. link

And to add to what Oh had to say you might also want to read Jonathan Scott's England's Troubles.

I'd go for the Portuguese and the Dutch in the Spice Islands, gave the British all sorts of problems, though I suppose we did get Manhatten out of it in the end

The trouble with James II started when he produced a male heir with his second wife, who would supplant Mary, the heir apparent. The boy was Roman Catholic.

The powers that be in Britain were prepared to accept a Roman Catholic King whose daughter was to succeed and was staunchly protestant, but not a Roman Catholic dynasty.

The Duke of Monmouth had already invaded with William of Orange's connivance and was defeated at Sedgemore.

William of Orange was half-'British', as his mother was James II's sister.

Rather than being a crap army, the British army at this time was still based on Cromwell's New Model Army and went on to prove it's mettle in Marlborough's wars.

However much the common people may have supported James II, (which is doubtful after his savage reprisals after Monmouth's defeat, the Bloody Assizes etc), clearly the establishment were against him as they invited William and Mary, and James II himself did a runner, throwing the great seal into the Thames.

Revisionist history makes for a fun read but usually doesn't have a lot of substance. If the nation had wanted James II, William of Orange would have been screwed like Monmouth was – no way he could have taken over without the acceptance of the people who ran the country and that of the majority of the masses.

"Rather than being a crap army, the British army at this time was still based on Cromwell's New Model Army and went on to prove it's mettle in Marlborough's wars."

Yeah? How was it funded?

It's perhaps worth bearing in mind that this was really all just a family squabble, backed up with soldiery, rather than a 'nation against nation' war. When James II was still on the throne, his daughter Mary was heir and William himself was third in line, in his own right. He was nephew to James II as well as son-in-law. William and Mary were cousins and were both grandchildren of Charles Ist.

Stuart family tree -
britroyals.com/stuart.htm

As usual with these endless bloody Stuart squabbles, they tended to drag on. Charles Ist wasn't content with one English Civil War, we had to have three. And the (almost bloodless) 1688 Glorious Revolution continued to spill much blood in Scotland in 1689 at Killiecrankie and Dunkeld, and yet more in Ireland from 1689 – 1691 at Londonderry, the Boyne, Limerick and Aughrim. Thousands of lives in all, before the issue of James II was settled. The consequences linger on, as the 12th July parades remind us to this day.

Later we had the 1715 Jacobite rising and later still the 1745 one. Culloden finally settled the Stuart argument, and resulted in the destruction of the Highland clan system and way of life.

As an Englishman with an Irish girlfriend (and a Scottish ex) I'm often reminded of the different versions of our history as taught in different places.

So I think I've decided who was the most formidable enemy after all. The Stuarts and their romantic lost causes.

Calmarac – thanks, I was thinking of Anee…. Doh!

Pictors – care to name these estemmed authors who disagree with the way the Glorious Revolution is remembered? As I say, had it been a Dutch victory, I'm sure they'd be doing some justified crowing – which they ain't.

Given Parliament instigated a conspiracy that deposed one king and enforced strict conditions on the enxt one, I suggest that neatly shows where the power in the land lay. 1688 is the beginning of the Constitutional Monarchy – Parliament won.

Monophagos – thanks for reminding me that William was James' nephew. I knew his sister came into this somehow.

But for England to have been defeated, she would need to have fought. And since no fight took place, I suggest replacing one Stuart with another doesn't count as a defeat.

So, prove me wrong. Which battles did the English fight against the Dutch in 1688?

Pictor's Studio wrote:

But it at least implies that the nation has no land borders with other political entities.

The UK had no land borders with any fully independent political entities until (from memory) 1939, and GB still hasn't. So even your somewhat contrived definition is largely satisfied.

Moreover, using your definition, Cuba is not an "island nation" either, and neither was Japan until the Russians occupied the whole of Sakhalin. Presumably, on the same principle, Spain is not a European nation, as it has land borders in Africa.

You might want to reconsider your definition, as it seems to produce obvious nonsense when applied.

It would be difficult to argue that America was an Island nation because Hawaii is an island.

I doubt anyone would try it; and I doubt if anyone would see much of an analogy with the British Isles, either.

For much of the history of England it was not an island.

England still isn't an island. So what?

That is important in understanding it's history. The development of the idea of an island nation or of England as an island nation, was something that took a long time to arrive.

The idea of the nation state took a while to become popular, too. So what? The idea of Britain as an island nation was probably not new when Shakespeare wrote about it, so Britain has been regarded as an island for centuries longer than the USA has been around. It might be time to stop thinking the idea is in some way controversial.

It might seems somewhat pedantic but it is not if the term contributes to a misunderstanding of the history of the country and it does.

There's nothing wrong with pedantry, but extreme precision does not really compensate for being howlingly wrong.

The idea of fortress Britain is very strong in some minds and yet the waters proved more of a highway to invasion in europe than a wall to prevent it.

This is a much better point than silly attempts to reclassify the British Isles to non-insular status. To a nation with salt water in its veins -- as Britain used to be within living memory -- "the sea is a magic carpet". Mahan always beats Mackinder, the Heartland theory fails because "the centre cannot hold", and the shark wins in a battle with the tiger.

And, bringing us back by a commodious vicus of recirculation to the title of the thread, that is why I would say that the most dangerous enemy was the U-boat arm.

All the best,

John.

Martin Rapier wrote:

I am persuaded by Andys arguments, the French have certainly been our most tenacious foe, if not the most successful;-)

Whaddaya mean, not successful?

They've still got Calais, dammit.

All the best,

John.

"The idea of Britain as an island nation was probably not new when Shakespeare wrote about it, so Britain has been regarded as an island for centuries longer than the USA has been around."

Actually it was new when Shakespeare wrote about it, brand new. John Dee was one of the first people to come up with the idea, or at least implement it politically.

"Moreover, using your definition, Cuba is not an "island nation" either, and neither was Japan until the Russians occupied the whole of Sakhalin. Presumably, on the same principle, Spain is not a European nation, as it has land borders in Africa."

And that is another good point. Spain is not as much a European nation as it is a mediteranean nation for much of it's history. Certainly the history of Spain goes back further than Britain's because of it's connection to the mediterranean and to Africa. You are making my point for me.

The point is that the places are connected by waterways much more so than land. Water doesn't protect anyone, the islands and penninsulas that make up Europe are way more vulnerable to attack than the mountainous regions, those were the places that were difficult to get to.

So the idea of the island nation came from somewhere, despite obvious geographical evidence to the contrary you are still convinced of this misnomer.

"The UK had no land borders with any fully independent political entities until (from memory) 1939, and GB still hasn't. So even your somewhat contrived definition is largely satisfied. "

This is just straight up not true. The UK had land borders with all kinds of other countries for much of that time. It had a large land border with the United States, for example. British territory connected to many other places in the world too. So I'm not sure what you are talking about there.

" care to name these estemmed authors who disagree with the way the Glorious Revolution"

I already named one, go back and read my post. You can read Old 's too.

"But for England to have been defeated, she would need to have fought. And since no fight took place, I suggest replacing one Stuart with another doesn't count as a defeat.

So, prove me wrong. Which battles did the English fight against the Dutch in 1688?"

I have named one, Reading. Forces of the English government met forces of the Dutch government and were defeated.

Besides that, I don't know what more you want. One nation got together a large army, invaded another nation, with the connivance of some of it's citizens to be sure, but if that disqualified something as a victory then there were no victories in the Peloponnesian War, and overthrew it's government.

The force that invaded the country was large enough to overawe the leadership of the country invaded and cause the army to fall apart before facing them.

According to your definition the Scot's didn't win when they invaded England in the 2nd Bishop's War. There wasn't a battle was there? And yet how can you say that was not a Scottish victory?

The situation is almost identical. A foreign power invades England, the English put up no resistance because they feel like they can't or don't want to, and the foreign power occupies the country.

At least in the Bishop's war the king was not actually replaced.

Pictor -you really should perhaps stop digging.

It is, for example, perfectly possible for a nation to be both European and Meditteranean since the northern half of that sea is, erm.. European.

And Britains history goes back to the neolithic, as does every nation in Europe… Depending of course on how you define 'Britain'.

Water doesn't protect anyone? Strange how castles tended to have moats. Odd indeed how the panzers didn't roll straight from Calais into Dover.

The sea protects, so long as you have mastery over it. Which we've usually had. Certainly between the English and French, mastery of the Channel wasn't an issue vis a vis the Dutch.

And exactly what happened to the Atlantic when Britain had a land border with the USA? I think you're confusing Canada with Britain… I'd take a look at a good atlas.

Colonies and Dominions have never been regarded as part of Britain.

You still haven't named a battle where the English fought the Dutch. The minor skirmish in Reading was between the Irish and the Dutch, supported by the good people of Berkshire.

So the only example you've come up with shows the English fighting WITH the supposed invaders.

BZZZZT! try again.

I think you'll find in the Peloponnesian war there was actual extensive fighting.

The army didn't fall apart in the face of the Dutch – and in any case 20K Dutchmen wouldn't have been enough. It defected en masse. There is a big difference.

The English didn't want to fight for James and did want to fight for William. That quite simply isn't a defeat for the army.

There was a battle in the Second Bishops War – Newburn. A minor one to be sure but unlike Reading, it did involve English troops on the losing side.

I repeat my question – when did the English fight William?

The French win hands down. The two Hundred Years Wars (1337-1453) and (1689-1815) good indications of that.

As one of the Welsh, for the English, before 1707 it's got to be the Scots always read with a friendly stab in the back.

It's important to remember that England wa son the brink of Revolution anyway – which is what lead to the invitation of Williams' intervention.

At the time the Dutch landed, England was in the grip of anti-Catholic rioting and a Constitutional crisis as the King and Church were at odds.

What would make an interesting campaign on the wargames table would be what would have happened had the Young Pretender not been born and William invaded anyway – which is what we was planning.

Then you'd have had Anglo-French forces against the Dutch. I suggest the Dutch would have lost, but we'll never know.

As it was, the Dutch were welcomed as liberators throughout the country, as evidenced by the total lack of any action by the English army against them, and indeed the wholesale defections to William.

I accept the situation was different in Ireland and Scotland, but these were different countries at the time (and here we enter the problem of defining 'Britain'….).

Even James acknowledged this, turning down the offer of French support in England as he knew the English people would turn on him as a tyrant backed up by foreign muskets – an opinion they never formed of William and Mary.

So, not regarded as a foreign invasion at the time, or since by either the English or Dutch. Given the fuss the Dutch (rightly) make about their admirals who dealt the Royal Navy a series of splendid kickings througout the 17th century, one would imagine they'd do the same for the generals who beat the English….

But they don't. Because they didn't.

Except that the General who was beating the English was a major pita to the states general at the time. One big advantage the states general got from this was getting William some other things to deal with at the time.

"Colonies and Dominions have never been regarded as part of Britain."

Yes they have. Very much so, they have been critical in the economic and political development of the nation and while priority may have been put on the home islands, certainly colonies were British territory. I don't need the atlas, you need a new history book. I think your elementary school one might have over simplified things for you.

"Even James acknowledged this, turning down the offer of French support in England as he knew the English people would turn on him as a tyrant backed up by foreign muskets"

Charles II had been getting subsidies from the French for much of his reign. He was not turned on as a tyrant. It was Stuart policy to take French support in the 2nd half of the century.

If Newburn counts as a battle then surely Reading does too. The Irish were fighting for the English, they were English troops in that sense. I'm sure you're ignorant of this but during that period many nations had troops fighting for them that were not born within that state. The Dutch actually had a large contingent of British under arms in their country. Those that wanted to be were released to go home and join the army. Not many of them did, preferring to remain under Dutch arms. They were Dutch troops.

I know this might be a little complicated for you to conceive but when troops fight for one country they are essentially that country's troops wherever they were born, not always, of course, allies may take orders from another country's general but that wasn't the case here. They were a troop that were under dutch command. Just like the Irish weren't fighting for the Ireland, they were fighting for an English king as part of an English army and they were defeated.

Do you want me to answer your question again? I suppose I might have to do it three or four more times before it sinks in.

"It is, for example, perfectly possible for a nation to be both European and Meditteranean since the northern half of that sea is, erm.. European."

Yes, it is both. So saying that Spain is a European nation is missing half of the truth and can misdirect thinking in a euro-centric direction.

Am very interested in people naming the Afghans / Pathans as Britain's most formidible foe. A week or two ago, I would have fully agree with this, but I am 4/5's of the way through 'The Great Game' and my former view that 'we always got beaten in Afghanistan' seems to be incorrect.
Sure, the retreat from Kabul in the 1st Afghan War was a hammering, but this was avenged by Knott and Pollock. The 2nd Afghan war seems to have gone pretty much to plan for the British and I am yet to read about the later conflicts.

I do not, however, claim to be an expert, but is this synopsis about right?

As for the Boers – they were formidible in their own way, but – if we look at the 2nd Boer War – the British had relieved the three besieged towns of Ladysmith, Kimberley and Mafeking, captured 5000 Boers under Cronje and conquered both Boer Republics within the first 9 months of the war. From then on it was what would be now called a terrorist campaign which was only ever going to end in Imperial victory.

Colonies have been regarded as part of Britain proper?

Really? Please elucidate. Because if they were part of Britian, they've have MPs and that could have saved us a lot of bother in the 1770s.. when incidentally slavery would have been abolished in the USA and across the Empire if what you said was true.

Being a British possession never was (and isn't today) the same as being part of Britain. A Falkland Islander isn't British for example.

And there is a difference between taking cash from a foreign power, and having foreign troops on your soil. James knew the British wouldn't put up with French boots on the ground. But we accepted Dutch ones with open arms – at a time when the English Army outnumbered the Dutch Expeditionary Force by 2:1, so it's not as if we couldn't have beaten them if we wanted.

Newburn invovled several thousand men a side. Reading less than a thousand all told. Reading has seen bigger pub fights.

Given the Act of Union with Ireland wasn't until 1800, I think (but could be wrong…) Irish troops weren't part of the English establishment, in the same way Scottish regiments weren't either. It was called the Triple Crown for a reason.

In the same way today Canadian troops aren't part of the British Army, even if both are in the same theatre of war.

Could be wrong, but either way the Irish troops were fighting for a King who had already effectively lost his crown in a popular revolution – which is what 1688 was.

So James lost, undoubtedly. But if the British lost in 1688, the French lost a war in 1944.

As regards Britain being an island nation or not, I think there is a lot of hair-splitting going on here. I don't think anyone with half a brain would say that England was an island, but I think that it is perfectly fair to describe 'Britain' as an island nation – given that it is made up of the British Isles and despite the land border with Ireland.
I am sure there is a very precise and technical definition of what constitutes an island, but if the British are not to be considered an island race, then it would be hard to think of a nation that can be. For example, if we want to be this pedantic, neither Australia or New Zealand could be considered island nations, nor could Japan or Sri Lanka, given that none of those are made up of a single island.

If common sense is allowed to intrude into the debate, then it is obvious that the geography of the UK – ie. that is is surrounded by water however you want to split hairs – has historically influenced the outlook of its people / leaders and has long had an impact on military priorities / decisions. This to me is reason enough to say the British are an island race – whether or not this is important / relevent to this debate is a different matter.

Perhaps those who maintain that the British are not an island race (and you might very well be technically correct) can give an example of a nation that is?

Bulldog – contrary to what you here in the media these days, we usually win in Afghanistan.

We lsot the 1st Afghan War and won the 2nd and 3rd – though in the 3rd we gave up control of Afghan foreign policy because frnakly after WW1 the game wasn't worth the candle.

That said, we managed to lose a big battle in the 2ns as well.

Thinking about it, taking Britain to mean post-1707 (when the term becomes meaningful)the honour goes to either the French or germans. Probably the Germans because they came clsoest to defeating us.

Before 1707 the French were of course allies of the Irish, Scots and Welsh (Glyndwr revolt) which makes things more complex….

BangorStu,

Yes – that is pretty much my understanding, though I would suggest even the 1st Afghan War could be considered an honourable draw, given the punative thrashing meted out to the Afghans after the disastrous retreat from Kabul.

On reflection, I will vote the EEC / EC / EU (or whatever it is called this week) to be the most formidable threat British Sovereignty has faced.

BangorStu is correct in that colonies were not considered part of the UK. The French incorporated their overseas colonies as part of France, but the British – rightly or wrongly – didn't. I believe Sir Winston Churchill was in favour of establishing a 'Greater Britain' whereby the Dominions would send representatives to a senate in London, but this never happened.

I considered the EU – but that would be politics and isn't allowed… :)

I think I'm right in saying citizens of Crown colonies don't have a right to live in the UK even today. I do know they have a slightly different passport.

BangorStu

You are correct indeed re. rights of Colonials to live in the UK. You may recall the furore over the rights of the residents of Hong Kong in 1997? There was talk of millions (literally) wishing to relocate to the UK, but they had no automatic right so to do.

Still don't think we'll convince PS though… :)

Good Points about the Evil Empire of Brussels (aka EU) – but we all live in fear of the heavy hand of The Blue Fez…….

Pictor's Studio wrote:

And that is another good point. Spain is not as much a European nation as it is a mediteranean nation for much of it's history.

And the Mediterranean has been a European lake pretty much since the final defeat of the Carthaginians. Moerover, ignoring Spanish conquests across the Atlantic seems to disregard a much more important part of Spanish history.

You are making my point for me.

I really don't think I am, at least, not to anyone but you. You may perhaps consider it reasonable to state that Spain is not a European country; I think practically everyone else on the planet would consider such a statement self-evidently false, if not barking mad.

And I notice you didn't even attempt to deal with the cases of Cuba and Japan.

The point is that the places are connected by waterways much more so than land. Water doesn't protect anyone, the islands and penninsulas that make up Europe are way more vulnerable to attack than the mountainous regions, those were the places that were difficult to get to.

Agreed; but those fact do not miraculously cause a nation surrounded by sea to cease to be an island.

So the idea of the island nation came from somewhere, despite obvious geographical evidence to the contrary you are still convinced of this misnomer.

What "obvious geographical evidence"? All I've seen is deperate logic-chopping, based on your own Humpty-Dumpty definition of "island nation", which you have failed to defend against my demonstration that it produces nonsenses. You've produced an argument; geographical evidence, I have yet to see.

"The UK had no land borders with any fully independent political entities until (from memory) 1939, and GB still hasn't. So even your somewhat contrived definition is largely satisfied. "

This is just straight up not true. The UK had land borders with all kinds of other countries for much of that time. It had a large land border with the United States, for example.

OK, so tell me exactly when and where the UK (qua UK) had a land border with the USA. I simply don't believe you.

British territory connected to many other places in the world too. So I'm not sure what you are talking about there.

I am talking about the UK and the GB, which is why I used those terms. "British territory", in the sense of British overseas possessions (notice that nice insular word "overseas") are a different category, and you must have a very low opinion of my basic thinking skills to imagine that you can get away with such an elision unchallenged.

Indeed, since all embassies are regarded as extensions of the sovereign territory of the countries they represent, it would be easy, based on the mode of reasoning you have adopted, to demonstrate the complete non-existence of any island, continental, European, African, Asian, American or Australasian nations. And yet, curiously, people still carry on using those categories and finding them useful.

All the best,

John.

I think I'm right in saying citizens of Crown colonies don't have a right to live in the UK even today. I do know they have a slightly different passport.

I believe the rules changed in 2002. Since then citizens of all fourteen British Overseas Territories (formerly Crown Colonies) have had an automatic right to British citizenship.

Bulldog--While Afghanistan is an easy country to invade, it is almost impossible to pacify and therefore rule/control…Britain found it easier to have a friendly ruler in Kabul a few forts on the borsers and leave the hinterland to its own devices…I think only Alexander the Great actually managed to pacify Afghanistan and then only for a short period….

I learned long ago not to try to debate with the wilfully ignorant. When people choose to ignore facts in favour of their prejudices, there is no point engaging with them.

Sadly, some of the recent trends in history have resulted in attempted rewritings of events to suit particular agendas, often involving reinterpretations that are not supported by known facts. Pictor's claims for the events of 1688 fit into this category.

Of course, the writing of history has always been informed by prejudices and agendas but most biased historians have at least tried to build their narratives around accepted facts.

Pictor has put forward an hypothesis for which he has provided no evidence.

Colin
Who is an historian and who does have a lot of letters after his name;).

So Colin are you telling us you diagree with Christoper Duffy? If so do you want to tell us on what and why?

OB Who occasionaly enjoys poking the wilfully ignorant with a stick.