Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
England's 'last' European land battle
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Hi - another question because it's the weekend and I'm feeling greedy!
The question I'm asking is this - it occurred to me in the discussion on the causes of the Great War on the History Hub. When was the last land war on Continental Europe that England fought for a reason other than to prevent a European country becoming 'top nation' there? What I'm getting at is that the l914 BEF went to fight the Germans because Germany was too powerful, and had invaded neutral Belgium, so the British went in to redress the balance. The l792 (?) campaign in the Low Countries was to halt Revolutionary France increasing its conquests. The Marlborough campaigns were ditto, to halt Louis XIV's expansion/supremacy in Europe (were they?).
But perhaps, apart from the Hundred Years War, when the aim was territorial gain for England, Britain only fights land wars in Europe to preserve power balances? Is that so? or are you going to shoot that one down in flames. I haven't thought it through much (yes, we can tell, Eliza...) but I just wondered.
Thanks - Eliza.
(Guess William III had 'territorial ambitions' in Europe in so far as he was king of the Dutch, and didn't want Catholic Louis smashing it up.) -
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 20th January 2006
Eliza,
Apolgies I've just dropped into a Chasm of Ignorance. Can't help on this one.
Cheers AA. (Now if someone could help me out of this Chasm I'd appreciate it). -
Message 3
Posted by FEC (U2276153) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
Two ideas. Is it arguable that we fought in the french revolutionary wars (just in the early days) for the principle of monarchical solidarity rather than to stop french dominance? did we supply troops that early?
And a similarly spurious idea; if this counts as Europe, did we supply troops (i think we gave some sort of supplies) to fight the bolsheviks in the Russian revolution?
Both spurious, and the latter probably wrong. But, either may be technically correct. -
Message 4
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
And a similarly spurious idea; if this counts as Europe, did we supply troops (i think we gave some sort of supplies) to fight the bolsheviks in the Russian revolution?
Μύ
FEC, yes Britsh troops were sent to fight Bolshevism in 1919/1920 in Russia. As to why, well, still trying to get out of this chasm.
Cheers AA. -
Message 5
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 22nd January 2006
Eliza7beth,
You'd need to clarify whether you mean England or Briatin. As a Scot, I find your inter-mixing of the two terms confusing. Historically, it would make quite a difference. -
Message 6
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Yes, I'm using them interchangeably again. As usual. Well, I'm English you see..... (cheeky grin....)
But you're quite right of course. Defeated, but right (sorry...shouldn't wind you up.)(Longshanks was a psycho, can't disagree!)
Certainly Culloden is the last battle fought in these islands, I believe. A shameful victory for the English.
Eliza. -
Message 7
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Yes, I'm using them interchangeably again. As usual. Well, I'm English you see..... (cheeky grin....)
But you're quite right of course. Defeated, but right (sorry...shouldn't wind you up.)(Longshanks was a psycho, can't disagree!)
Certainly Culloden is the last battle fought in these islands, I believe. A shameful victory for the English.
Eliza.Μύ
I'm very glad Culloden was won, for all the romance of the Jacobites I believe they'd have set the country back a long way.
I wouldn't describe it as an English victory either, rather a Government victory in a British civil war. -
Message 8
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
I guess I'm going sideways here, but I always thought it was a Black Mark agasint catholics that they never considered giving up their faith to win a kingdom. Did they ever? Henri IV did the oppostie, but I suspect only a Protestant is mentally capable of being that 'real politik'?
Did old BPC never once consider converting from Rome, in order to win back his throne?
Eliza. -
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Hi Eliza,
Not entirely sure what your criteria are here. Do you mean the last time we fought a war for the purpose of conquest? IF so, I'd guess it was one of the ones against the French, but after that we seem to have aimed our expansionist tendencies further afield.
However, if you just mean the last engagement on continental Europe where British troops have fought, I'd guess that Kosovo would be the last time we've fired shots in anger (although I may be wrong, there are British troops on active service all across the Balkans on NATO operations).
Cheers
DL -
Message 10
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Eliza7beth. If you think about it, lots of Catholic rulers changed religion for reasons of realpolitik - what do you think the Protestant rulers were before they were Protestant?
It was too late for BPC to convert; he'd have lost his continental backers, and a large chunk of his domestic support (the hairy ones with kilts and claymores)and the English and Lowland elites would never have believed him - after all, James II was supposed to have been an Anglican. -
Message 11
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
to be a little Argumentative, Culloden was NOT the last battle fought within the British Isles. Easter Rising, 1916 Dublin for one. I would imagine that could fit all the criteria for an early 20th century battle, Cavalry charges, street battles, Artillery and Naval Cannon used on the "enemy" (irish volunteers and citizens army) and of course the ensuing War of Independance. don't know if WOI counts as british army battles thought - mainly royal irish constabularly and the "black and tan" paramillitaries?
-
Message 12
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Easter Rising - never thought of that (but then, the English often don't think about Ireland, except to say Bloody Irish, and get cross....). Apols.
Protestant princes - yes, never thought of them either (what a lot I don't think about...). I suppose I mean the non-first-generation of the Reformation. I think what I'm tryign to argue - mostly to myself! - is that Catholcism 'gets you' deeper than Protestantism, and therefore is harder to give up for a throne. On James II, it came home to roost, Puritan fears that if Charles I married a catholic, his children would be catholic too - I believe all of his and Henrietta Maria's children died catholics, even CII with his d/bed /conversion/. ?? (If so, he's almost a Catholic who turned Protestant to be king and not go on his travels again.)
Land battles in Europe. Again, this was an illthought out queston on my part. What I was tryign to get at was, was there a war where British troops fought on mainland Europe for any reason other than to deliberately redress an imbalance of power by continental powers. Excluding the maedival wars of conquest of France, did Britain/England ever go to war in Europe without it being in response to an 'overmighty' European power?
For the purpose of this question I discount the recent Balkan wars simply because in that instance Britain was acting as 'civilised peacekeeper' in concert with the other 'civilised nations', excruciatingly hard/impossible as that was to achieve, given the hideous restrictions placed on UN troops to prevent ethnic massacres/atrocities there.
Eliza. -
Message 13
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
ww2 is mainly to stop the sheer Evil of Nazism, possibly only, afterall we stuck to it when it was absolutely in our immediate interests to have never got involved or to have negotiated a peace treaty after Dunkirk.. continuing the war was to all intents and purposes at the time to an outside observer collective suicide.
the Crimean War seems mainly to have been about protecting the Ottoman Empire from russian aggression. -
Message 14
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Yes, I'm using them interchangeably again. As usual. Well, I'm English you see..... (cheeky grin....)
But you're quite right of course. Defeated, but right (sorry...shouldn't wind you up.)(Longshanks was a psycho, can't disagree!)
Certainly Culloden is the last battle fought in these islands, I believe. A shameful victory for the English.
Eliza.Μύ
Actually Culloden was a British victory over a rebel army which just so happened to be made up mostly of Scottish Highlanders. The presence of a French battalion is usually overlooked by Scots and English alike. Nowadays, Scottish children are told it was a battle between Jacobites and Hanoverians. How PC is that?
Your use of the term "British" to mean "English" is a well known consequence of English arrogance up here. Few English people realise the passion it arouses up here. While there are those of us who regard it merely as an example of ignorance, the Scottish media often gets incensed over incorrect use of the terms. Regrettably, it does contribute to the hatred (and I use the word carefully, but, I think, accurately) with which the English are regarded by many Scots tabloid newspaper readers. I am sure you can work out the kind of person I mean. I am also pretty sure that most English people don’t care how much offence they give.
There are, unfortunately, too many examples of it for it to go unnoticed. Union Jacks being waved at England football and rugby matches. Since when was it England's flag? It is also amusing how Scots suddenly become British in the news when there is good news to report, while revert to being called Scottish if it is bad news about their behaviour.
Anyway, rant over, and I hope you don’t take any of this personally. My reason for picking up on it was not so much the nationalistic view as the historic difference between the two terms which made your initial question ambiguous. Please do keep posting as you tend to ask quaestions which bring out some fascinating responses. -
Message 15
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Would it help if I mentioned I was married to a Scot? (who hasn't much good to say of the English - apart from the slightly better weather we enjoy). (Me, I just LURVE those cute little Scotchman....)
I'm afraid I'm simply being sloppy when I use each nationality incorrectly. Though I think it's fair to say that British foreign policy in post-Union times was essentially ENGLISH ??
As for the Jacobites - surely it was a rising, not a rebellion? So far as BCP was concerned, his father was the legitimate king of both England and Scotland.
Eliza. (in placatory mode!) -
Message 16
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
OK. I'll concede it was a rising rather than a rebellion, but other than that, you'd better stop digging that hole you are getting in to. Scotch is a drink.
-
Message 17
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 23rd January 2006
Scotch, a drink? Well, fancy that! Any minute now you'll be telling me its Scottish rain....
Eliza. -
Message 18
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
<quote user='Eliza7Beth' userid='2637732'>Though I think it's fair to say that British foreign policy in post-Union times was essentially ENGLISH ??
quote>
Surely it's more the case that English & Scottish interests were aligned by 1707. The Auld Alliance with France essentially went out of the window with the Reformation.
<quote user='Eliza7Beth' userid='2637732'>As for the Jacobites - surely it was a rising, not a rebellion? So far as BCP was concerned, his father was the legitimate king of both England and Scotland.
quote>
It was a foul & treacherous rebellion. We Hanoverians won, so we get to dish out the labels. -
Message 19
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
"Surely it's more the case that English & Scottish interests were aligned by 1707."
Yes, aligned by England, for England. (!!)
Re the victors:
"God save the King! I mean the Faith's Defender.
God bless - no harm in blessing-the Pretender.
But which Pretender is, and which is King,
God bless us all, that's quite a different thing."
By the way, was James II's second wife, Mary of Modena, the last Catholic queen of England? I think she must be.
Eliza. -
Message 20
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
<quote user='Eliza7Beth' userid='2637732'>
"Surely it's more the case that English & Scottish interests were aligned by 1707."
Yes, aligned by England, for England. (!!)
quote>
Wuuurrrrrong - the Scots forced the English to open up the Empire's trade to them as a condition of union. -
Message 21
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Yeah, but we got their oil two hundred and seventy years later ha ha.
Eliza. -
Message 22
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
Eliza,
I'm curious as to the various riders you have placed on this thread.
Firstly, do you mean the last time that either an English (pre1707) or a British (post1707) fought a land battle on Continental Europe for the purpose of geographical expansion, as you seem to have precluded any conflict which was fought to stop any other country achieving pre-eminence (right down to WWII).
Secondly, I'm a little confused by the postulations concerning the relavant stalwartiness of the different confessionals. Why should a Catholic be any more or less a believer in their version of religion than a Protestant. I know we in the post-christian era (whatever the fundies might think) have great difficulty in trying to comprehend the lack of pratical rationalism in religious choice, but real politik was not the only reason for confessional allegiance.
Look to Fox's martyrs during Bloody Mary's reign, or the recusant lords of Ireland, who forewent place and position rather than foreswear the religion of their forebears in face of Henry's reforms. Is it any coincidence that most of the dissaffection with the Catholic Church came from those lands that had no no Latin in their heritage, whilst the stalwarts did? England, that blessed contradiction, had it both coming and going. A non-latinised ex-roman colony populated by germanics and dominated by the offspring of latinised norsemen. Its no wonder that Elizabeth had to find a 'third way' that is Anglicanism.
The War of Austrian Succession is the last time that a British Monarch fought on the continent to maintain a continental landholding of the Royal Family, I think. Considering that from the seven years war onwards Britain was the 'Top Nation' there would seem to be no practical advantage to fighting on the continent with any endgoal except the mainteance of that preemince. Why rock the boat, as it were?
The whole Culloden/Easter Rising aspect are red herrings really, as I assume you are asking about continental land battles, and no matter how nationalist I wish to be I cannot claim Ireland as 'The Mainland', nor can the Scots. Even stretching the definition of European, it would be pretty hard to term what were essentially internal power struggles (esp BPC) as European Land Battles.
One would have to look back to Henry V for a meaningful 'battle' of acquisition on continental europe.
Elistan -
Message 23
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Tuesday, 24th January 2006
As you say, it was a government victory, which included scottish troops, enaglish and german troops.
Certainly not an "english victory" -
Message 24
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 25th January 2006
Elistan - I agree, it was a very vaguely formulated question, and was pretty vague in my own mind as well. I think what I was trying to work out was whether England/Britain ever goes to war on Continental Europe for any reason other than to STOP soemthing happening that is either already happening, or going to happen. (typically, whichever nation - Spain, France or Germany - is pushing the others around at the time).
In other words, our Continental engagements are always reactive rather than proactive.
This could be the equivalent of saying we only fight defensive wars in Europe, not offensive/aggressive ones. (Since the Hundred Years war, that is!!!!)
I think I can sustain that argument back to Napoleon, and the BEF's in the Low Countries and Spain, but my own black hole is the wars against the French since Louis XIV. I never studied this period formally. I believe that William III used his kingship of England to lever England into his own/Dutch war against Catholic Powers (France), but does that count in my thesis BECAUSE he had dual loyalty (or possibly primary loyalgy to the Netherlands)
In the 30 years war, for example, did England have any military engagements as part of the war in Europe? I know there were some 'adventures' like La Rochelle, but I'm not sure if Charles I was committed to either 'side' (though I appreciate the 'sides' were complex, with the Catholic Powers of Hapsburgs and Bourbons not always aligned!)
So your comments on the War of Austrian Succession are very helpful - BUT, in my ignorance, what was the continental landholding they were protecting? Hannovarian lands I assume??
As to the religious aspect qua Henri IV etc, I guess, having been raised a Protestant, I'ave always assumd it's easier pscyholgoically for a Protestant to apostase than a Catholic, because for one, protestantism is, of itself, a schism, and moreover a multiple one - there has always been huge choice as a Protestant. They can pick and choose which mini-schism they want (Baptists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Calvanists, Wee Frees - the choice is endless, and if there isn't one you like, you start your own!). Whereas Catholics are hemmed in by the one true faith bit, which must surely make it harder to apostase to Protestantism. I just get the idea that it's easier for a Protestant politican to trim to the prevailing wind, to gain his real politik ends, than it is for a Catholic. But I really don't know. (eg, it would be 'obvious' to a trimmer that the best tactic BCP and his Dad could have done was to apostase RC to CoE, yet they didn't.)(the Jesuits had 'got them' ah ha!)
As I admit, my original question was not well formulated!
Many thanks for all the points made by everyone - I now know more than I did, and that has to be a good thing!
Eliza.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.