Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
English/British defeats
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Do we make to much of our defeats?
I say this noting how much there seems to be about Dunkirk at the moment.
The most famous battle in English history is Hastings while Brunanburh is forgotten.
If you were to ask an Englishman about battles against the Scots I am sure that the battle that would be most commonly mentioned would be Bannockburn and certainly not Dunbar, for example.
In WW1 people remember Galipoli or the bloodbaths of the Somme and 3rd Ypres rather than the victories of 1918 such as Amiens (the black day for the German army).
Many British even seem to think we lost the war of 1812, those that are aware of it.
Even when we refer to victories such as Waterloo, we refer to it in the context of a defeat for Napoleon.
the net result is that it may come as a complete surprise that we have actually won far more than we lost. In a previous posting last year I made a list of my top 10 English victories over the
Scots and invited any Scot to reply with a similar list which one did, but he admitted he was having to scrape the barrol.
I keep meaning to compose a similar list of victories over the French but found there were so many that I had difficulty making up my mind.
Do other nations so dwell on their defeats, I would note for example that the most well known US Indian battle has to be the Little Big Horn. -
Message 2
Posted by dmatt74 (U1690430) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
I wouldn't agree about the defeats,if you look at the Zulu Wars then most people who probably think of Rourke's Drift. For example some defeats have ben 'heroic', Trafalgar and Khartoum spring to mind.
Some of the problems is the way history is (or is not) taught. If you look at the Second World War the 'defeats' could include Dunkirk (with a 'win' for rescuing so many), Narvik,
Dieppe and Nijmegen/Arnhem against victories such as El Alamein, Overlord and Malta.
As far as the American-Indian wars, Little Big Horn is probably most well-known because of what happened to Custer than for any other reason. You could argue whether Gettysburg was the most important battle in the American Civil War.
I agee with the Anglo-French wars but may be that is because it is seen from the English side than the French side and is not taught in schools or universities. -
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
I wouldn't agree about the defeats,if you look at the Zulu Wars then most people who probably think of Rourke's Drift. For example some defeats have ben 'heroic', Trafalgar and Khartoum spring to mind.
Some of the problems is the way history is (or is not) taught. If you look at the Second World War the 'defeats' could include Dunkirk (with a 'win' for rescuing so many), Narvik,
Dieppe and Nijmegen/Arnhem against victories such as El Alamein, Overlord and Malta.
As far as the American-Indian wars, Little Big Horn is probably most well-known because of what happened to Custer than for any other reason. You could argue whether Gettysburg was the most important battle in the American Civil War.
I agee with the Anglo-French wars but may be that is because it is seen from the English side than the French side and is not taught in schools or universities.Ìý
Trafalgar was a British defeat? I must have read the wrong books.
Responding to the main topic, I have to say it is a very valid point. Perhaps the defeats are remembered because they were so relatively rare, or perhaps because their impact was usually significant. -
Message 4
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Tim
I´m not sure but I think you are just aware of Formigny and Castellion,but no a lot of Poiters and Azincourt.
If I´m right your thesis has gone to the dogs.
Poiters,Azicourt and Waterloo are some of the greatest victories in Englands history.
Formigny and Castilion was the defeats against the ods that "forever" kicked the English out of France,and in practise ended the 100 year war.
Hasse
PS I´ve heard a saying that the English lose every battle exept the last and the peace.
Not bad at all
-
Message 5
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Hasse
you do me a great disservice, I am well aware of both Formigney and Castillion. On a point of order regarding Castillion the English had already been kicked out of France, except for Calais; Castillon was an attempt to get back in and the sort of heroic defeat we love.
"PS I´ve heard a saying that the English lose every battle exept the last and the peace"
In terms of the 100 years war we won most battles except for the last.
In reality I think you will find that England/Britain won the large majority of their battles.
cheers
Tim -
Message 6
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 5th September 2005
I wouldn't agree about the defeats,if you look at the Zulu Wars then most people who probably think of Rourke's Drift. For example some defeats have ben 'heroic', Trafalgar and Khartoum spring to mind.
Some of the problems is the way history is (or is not) taught. If you look at the Second World War the 'defeats' could include Dunkirk (with a 'win' for rescuing so many), Narvik,
Dieppe and Nijmegen/Arnhem against victories such as El Alamein, Overlord and Malta.
As far as the American-Indian wars, Little Big Horn is probably most well-known because of what happened to Custer than for any other reason. You could argue whether Gettysburg was the most important battle in the American Civil War.
I agee with the Anglo-French wars but may be that is because it is seen from the English side than the French side and is not taught in schools or universities.Ìý
Who are you refering to when you say trafalger was a defeat??
Cos from where I am standing Trafalger was a victory -
Message 7
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 5th September 2005
To be honest, I think that this preoccupation with defeats is a peculiarity of the British (and I do mean British!) mindset.
We seem to revel in our past glorious defeats and quite often seem rather embaresed by our victories, as if celebrating them is rather crass
Having said that I feel that in this day and age we need to shout our victories from the rafters ibn order to drown out the revisionist histories. I have heard said on numerous occassions that if you go to Waterloo it would appear as if we lost and Napoleon won that battle -
Message 8
Posted by Ozymandias (U1727865) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Richie said: "...We seem to revel in our past glorious defeats and quite often seem rather embaresed by our victories, as if celebrating them is rather crass...".
Somebody should tell the Northern Ireland Loyalists, then, that they are in breach of British etiquette and convention on this matter! They're annual celebration of the Battle of the Boyne appears to be a tad excessive after 300 years.
He also said: "...I feel that in this day and age we need to shout our victories from the rafters in order to drown out the revisionist histories. I have heard said on numerous occassions that if you go to Waterloo it would appear as if we lost and Napoleon won that battle..."
Why? To stick it to the French 200 years later? To my mind historical revisionism is an honest attempt to be more truthful and objective about the past. This is far better than taking the partisan, flag-waving approach that only produces tabloid history. It takes no effort to do that!
You say that you 'have heard [it] said on numerous occasions'. I wish you could be more objective here. Can you substantiate these rumours and make good your claim that the French (presumably at the Waterloo site, as you imply) are re-interpreting history so as to promote the idea that Napolean won!
Best Wishes, Oz. -
Message 9
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Well, we have a tendency to remember defeats because we have so few of them!
It's probably got something to do with the under dog complex we have in our society when it comes to turning defeats into victories. I mean, in most of the victorious defeats mentioned, we were always the underdog and did the impossible. -
Message 10
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Tim
I stand corected,for the most English I talked with are just aware of Bannokburn and Dunkirk as losses and Dunkirk is seen as a moral victory.
Y friend
Hasse -
Message 11
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Hi Oz,
I wish that I could remember where I read about the tourist reports from the Waterloo site, but the gist of the report was how I portrayed it in my post. As you look about the site and the way that the information was aligned, it made it look as if Napoleon was the victor not the Allies. I wish that this was a first hand account as I would like to visit the Waterloo site and hopefully one day I will and then I can draw my own conclusions and post them here.
As for the rest, the loyalist I have never regarded as British, most of my friends when I was at college studying history and politics were of the same persuation whenever this came up in (admitidly pub) convo's, simply that the loyalists are just irish. But to the point, yes it is a breach of what I would term British etiquette and convention. I would not deny them the right to celebrate it, but the way and manner of their "celebrations" leave a lot to be desired
I feel that we here are in serious danger of forgetting our past, and of failing to celebrate it. Revisionism often seems to just appologise for our past, making us out to be the bad guy, I think that does us a dis-service. We should be proud about our victories and while I am not above "sticking it to the French" there are ways of celebrating without having rub their faces in it. I do think that the Trafalger celebrations were a way forward (if you ignore the ludicrous "blue against red" naval re-enactment)
More should be done to make us proud of our past acheivments
Regards
Rich -
Message 12
Posted by gooserss (U1983611) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
rich
not sure on your ideas that the ulster unionists/loyalists are not british. They are not english sure, but see themselves as british, if such an identity exsists completely today in out devoluted country.
Are you saying that someone you consider irish, who lives in the uk, has the same culture and values, speaks the language, pays taxes, whose forefathers fought in all of the campaigns listed above cannot be considered british.
therefore can a person from asian or afro-caribbian roots ever be called british, or scots or welsh.
was montgomery british ? Or blair mayne ? Or wellingtons best troops ? Or the thousands who died in the somme, and at ypres ?
I think you are confusing english for britishness. -
Message 13
Posted by Battlegroup (U1908324) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
It appears, that before we Win, we have to lose as before any War, the British always seem to be un prepared, come what may, so takes time for us to get organised.
It happens time after time at significant loss of life, and expenditure.
Can anyone think of a War or Campaign that we have been ready at the Onset??? -
Message 14
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Hi Gooserss,
I'm not sure. Personally, I have always felt that the retention of Ulster was a massive mistake when we pulled out of Ireland, and its really from there that I have felt that the Loyalists since then have clung like limpits onto their previous British identity.
As for the others yes they are all British (although with the case of Blair it is rather unfortuante)
But the case of N.Ireland is one for another thread I feel as it would probably get rather involved -
Message 15
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Richie / Oz
Re message 11
I have never visited Waterloo, but if you read the novel Sharpe's Waterloo by Bernard Cornwell, there is, as always with Cornwell, a historical note at the end. I don't have it to hand, but I am positive Cornwell makes the comment that the uninitiated visitor would be forgiven for thinking that Napoleon had won the battle.
I can’t say this is surprising. Would we in Britain celebrate a victory by a foreign nation on our own soil? If we did mark the site, would we not make sure that such markings recorded the British side? -
Message 16
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Reply to Battlegroup - message 13.
The Zulu War. We were so ready, we invaded them first. I just love Sellar & Yeatman's summary of this war in "1066 And All Ahat" -
"War with the Zulus. Cause: the Zulus. Zulus exterminated. Peace with the Zulus."
Also
The attack on Mysore in India in 1799. Engineered to effect regime change, disposing of a Muslim leader. (Does that sound familiar, somehow? Maybe there's another more recent example, although viewing the MOD's attempts at equipping our troops, perhaps we weren't ready for the 2nd Gulf War) -
Message 17
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Richie / Oz
Re message 11
I have never visited Waterloo, but if you read the novel Sharpe's Waterloo by Bernard Cornwell, there is, as always with Cornwell, a historical note at the end. I don't have it to hand, but I am positive Cornwell makes the comment that the uninitiated visitor would be forgiven for thinking that Napoleon had won the battle.
I can’t say this is surprising. Would we in Britain celebrate a victory by a foreign nation on our own soil? If we did mark the site, would we not make sure that such markings recorded the British side?
Ìý
Thank you Tony
It was Cornwell's notes that I read. My FinL is a massive fan of the Sharpe series and has most if not all of the books.
Mind you Waterloo is in Belgium (although to be fair Frano-Belgium not Flanders) -
Message 18
Posted by Ozymandias (U1727865) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Hi Richie,
The apparently much maligned Waterloo Visitors Centre is accessible on-line. It caters for all visitors in four languages (English, French, Dutch and German) – you could say all interested parties! It gives details of guided tours available on site and describes the landscape of the battle, memorials to the combatants, and local museums.
More importantly, it provides a summary of the progress of the battle ending with the following paragraph:
“….With the Prussians attacking his flank at Plancenoit and the Papelotte farm, Napoleon threw his elite Old Guard forward in a final effort to break Wellington 's line. The Allies held firm and the Old Guard retreated under a storm of musketry, cannon balls and grape-shot. A general advance by the Allies turned the French defeat into a rout, with Napoleon himself barely escaping.â€
This description not only refers to the outcome of the battle as a FRENCH DEFEAT but goes one step further and calls it a ROUT. I think that is pretty unequivocal. There is absolutely no disingenuous use of language, no selectivity in the use of facts or any attempt to pervert the truth about these events. If you don’t care to believe then follow this link:-
or google: ‘waterloo visitors centre english’ and pick the first hit.
Best Wishes, Oz. -
Message 19
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
But who or what was the deciding factor at Waterloo?
Was it Wellington or was it Blücher? -
Message 20
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 7th September 2005
Dirk,
The deciding factor was the resilience of the British infantry who, after hours of pummelling by artillery and cavalry, were still able to defeat the Old Guard. Most other armies of the time would have been broken by what they suffered that day. Reportedly, it was Wellington himself who gave the order to the 1st Foot Guards as to when to fire the first of the volleys which turned back the Old Guard.
Although the Prussian attack was definitely a consideration, their first assault on Plancenoit had been easily rebuffed by the Young Guard. The defeat of the Old Guard completely demoralised the French. It was as they began to retreat that the main Prussian forces arrived and completed the rout.
To be fair, though, Wellington would not have stood and fought at Waterloo if he had not been assured by the Prussians that they would come to his aid. He doubted whether his army could withstand the French on their own as he had a lot of inexperienced battalions, and many troops under his command were protecting his lines of communication to the coast and so not involved in the battle at all. At a strategic level, it was an allied victory. At a tactical level on the day, Wellington won the battle.
For a non-scholarly but very informative account of the batttle, read Bernard Cornwell's "Sharpe's Waterloo". -
Message 21
Posted by ralphspikyhair (U1667317) on Friday, 23rd September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='HasseTh' USERID='1882612'><BR /><BR />Formigny and Castilion was the defeats against the ods that "forever" kicked the English out of France,and in practise ended the 100 year war.<BR /><BR />Hasse<BR /></QUOTE><BR /><BR />Actually they didn't kick the brits out forever. We kept Calais (and the calais pale) for another 120 years, and both Edward IV and Henry VIII won victories against the french in later invasions.
-
Message 22
Posted by JeremyP (U1058055) on Friday, 23rd September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='Dirk Marinus' USERID='1648073'>But who or what was the deciding factor at Waterloo?<BR /><BR />Was it Wellington or was it Bl�cher?</QUOTE><BR />Wellington was in overall command of all allied forces including Blucher and the Prussians. If Wellington's forces hadn't held out until Blucher arrived, Blucher wouldn't have mattered. That they did hold out was largely due to Wellington's tactics particularly in choosing the defensive positions.
-
Message 23
Posted by mandlan (U2052139) on Friday, 21st October 2005
In a previous posting last year I made a list of my top 10 English victories over the
Scots and invited any Scot to reply with a similar list which one did, but he admitted he was having to scrape the barrol.Ìý
Ha ha. Congratulations. Maybe you should compose a similar list, this time of footballing victories over Andorra. -
Message 24
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Friday, 21st October 2005
<QUOTE USER='JeremyP' USERID='1058055'><QUOTE' USER='Dirk Marinus' USERID='1648073'>But who or what was the deciding factor at Waterloo?<BR /><BR />Was it Wellington or was it Bl�cher?</QUOTE><BR />Wellington was in overall command of all allied forces including Blucher and the Prussians. If Wellington's forces hadn't held out until Blucher arrived, Blucher wouldn't have mattered. That they did hold out was largely due to Wellington's tactics particularly in choosing the defensive positions.</QUOTE><BR /><BR />JeremyP<BR /><BR /> I think your wrong hear. Wellington was the commander of a coalition army including British, Germans of various groups and people from what are now the Netherlands and Belgium. However Blucher’s Prussians were a totally different army and the two acted as allies. Wellington in no way had any command over Blucher. <BR /><BR /> It required both armies to win the day. If Wellington had failed to hold then Blucher’s forces would probably have been destroyed the following day. Alternatively if Blucher’s forces hadn't arrived Wellington would almost certainly have been defeated, for all his skills in defencive actions.<BR /><BR /> Steve<BR />
-
Message 25
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 24th October 2005
In a previous posting last year I made a list of my top 10 English victories over the
Scots and invited any Scot to reply with a similar list which one did, but he admitted he was having to scrape the barrol.Ìý
Ha ha. Congratulations. Maybe you should compose a similar list, this time of footballing victories over Andorra.Ìý
Is that the English or the Scots? -
Message 26
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Monday, 24th October 2005
I wouldn't agree about the defeats,if you look at the Zulu Wars then most people who probably think of Rourke's Drift. For example some defeats have ben 'heroic', Trafalgar and Khartoum spring to mind.
Some of the problems is the way history is (or is not) taught. If you look at the Second World War the 'defeats' could include Dunkirk (with a 'win' for rescuing so many), Narvik,
Dieppe and Nijmegen/Arnhem against victories such as El Alamein, Overlord and Malta.
As far as the American-Indian wars, Little Big Horn is probably most well-known because of what happened to Custer than for any other reason. You could argue whether Gettysburg was the most important battle in the American Civil War.
I agee with the Anglo-French wars but may be that is because it is seen from the English side than the French side and is not taught in schools or universities.Ìý
Does it matter? Events are events if you try to study history ignoring those aspects that don't appeal to you or fit in with your nationalism etcthen you should be studying soemthing else -
Message 27
Posted by mandlan (U2052139) on Wednesday, 26th October 2005
Is that the English or the Scots?
Ìý
Does it matter? I hear Scotland are bringing out a video: 'Surprising Victories Over San Marino!'
Meanwhile Lennox Lewis is to release the story of his most famous victory- 'I Beat Frankie Dettori In A Fight' will hit bookstores near you any day now! -
Message 28
Posted by wargamewarwick (U2309376) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Richie / Oz
Re message 11
I have never visited Waterloo, but if you read the novel Sharpe's Waterloo by Bernard Cornwell, there is, as always with Cornwell, a historical note at the end. I don't have it to hand, but I am positive Cornwell makes the comment that the uninitiated visitor would be forgiven for thinking that Napoleon had won the battle.
I can’t say this is surprising. Would we in Britain celebrate a victory by a foreign nation on our own soil? If we did mark the site, would we not make sure that such markings recorded the British side?
Ìý
Thank you Tony
It was Cornwell's notes that I read. My FinL is a massive fan of the Sharpe series and has most if not all of the books.
Mind you Waterloo is in Belgium (although to be fair Frano-Belgium not Flanders)Ìý
I have visited the Waterloo visitors centre and the battle field several years ago and before I read Bernard Cornwalls books. I agree the whole place (not specifically the visitor centre which is quite balanced), mostly the local bars and cafe's give the impression of a victory for Napoleon. This is especially odd given that the battle wasn't won by either Wellington or Blucher but lost by Napoleon (having a bad day at the office). -
Message 29
Posted by wargamewarwick (U2309376) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Tim
I´m not sure but I think you are just aware of Formigny and Castellion,but no a lot of Poiters and Azincourt.
If I´m right your thesis has gone to the dogs.
Poiters,Azicourt and Waterloo are some of the greatest victories in Englands history.
Formigny and Castilion was the defeats against the ods that "forever" kicked the English out of France,and in practise ended the 100 year war.
Hasse
PS I´ve heard a saying that the English lose every battle exept the last and the peace.
Not bad at allÌý
Hasse,
I like the saying about not losing the last battle or the peace, however sadly there is always the exception. The obvious one is the American War of Independence in which Britsh (and German) forces almost always won the battles but lost the war and the peace! I'm surprised this defeat (including a defeat for the Royal Navy) hasn't had a mention yet. Also on memorable defeats, there was the whole series of wars with the Dutch in the 1600's, which we finally "won" by inviting a succesful invasion from the Dutch king!
Still I agree with the other contributions, we remember defeats mostly as they are so unusual. -
Message 30
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
There is also the Somme in 1916 which was described as the greatest British military disaster since Hastings. We seem to always try to forget that one.
-
Message 31
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Thursday, 27th October 2005
Hasse,
I like the saying about not losing the last battle or the peace, however sadly there is always the exception. The obvious one is the American War of Independence in which Britsh (and German) forces almost always won the battles but lost the war and the peace! I'm surprised this defeat (including a defeat for the Royal Navy) hasn't had a mention yet. Also on memorable defeats, there was the whole series of wars with the Dutch in the 1600's, which we finally "won" by inviting a succesful invasion from the Dutch king!
Still I agree with the other contributions, we remember defeats mostly as they are so unusual.Ìý
Warwick
I think with the Dutch wars we has a limited win in the 1st, under Cromwell, an embarrassing defeat in the 2nd then the 3rd we were lucky to lose in terms of failing to achieve a strategic victory. [Since the king had accepted a French subsidy, to attempt to reduce his dependence on Parliament, in return for helping Louis XIV crush the Netherlands. Fortunately the Dutch held out else we might well be speaking French now, and celebrating the crushing of democracy].
Not sure whether in the US war there were any serious naval defeats? We just failed to get a clear victory until it was too late. Partly because we had relaxed too much during the peace years as usual, as well as bad diplomacy that left us isolated while also fighting a major continental war too much of the country, on both sides of the Atlantic, was divided on.
Steve -
Message 32
Posted by wargamewarwick (U2309376) on Friday, 28th October 2005
Steve,
Fair points, the one about the deliberate "unpreparedness" for war during peace is a constant since the debates in 17th C. regarding having a standing army at all. I'm just reading "Wellington as a military commander" (Penguin Classic Military History). The description of how the various offices of Government were set up to run the military is amazing. Given the competing agengies and personalities it is staggering we managed any victories at all in the 18th & 19th Centuries.
Warwick -
Message 33
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Steve,
Fair points, the one about the deliberate "unpreparedness" for war during peace is a constant since the debates in 17th C. regarding having a standing army at all. I'm just reading "Wellington as a military commander" (Penguin Classic Military History). The description of how the various offices of Government were set up to run the military is amazing. Given the competing agengies and personalities it is staggering we managed any victories at all in the 18th & 19th Centuries.
WarwickÌý
Warwick
Apologies about the slow response but been busy the last few days. The situation was far more corrupt and amateurish in those days but Britain probably had two main advantages. The channel and strength of the fleet meant we could afford time to make mistakes and build up our resources. [Don't forget, by the peninsula period Britain had been at war for nearly two decades. Although there had been some military successes early they were relatively rare]. The other was that, after the Commonwealth and Glorious Revolution of 1688, the monarchy and aristocracy was less powerful than in any other major state expect the Netherlands. As such there were more controls on centralised excesses and hence, bad as we were the other powers were generally worse!
Steve -
Message 34
Posted by Marbot (U2348565) on Friday, 4th November 2005
Like in your impressive list of British victories over the French you tend to employ a rather reduced and empty concept of defeat or victory. There are surprisingly few victories which Britain won without the assistance of allies on the continent or - for that matter - of a continent. If you only look at Napoleon's brilliant campaign of Northern Italy you will find that France achieved an impressive series of victories singlehandedly. Well, not against the British. Sorry, I just forgot that Britain was not ready on land until 1808 and until then only suffered a few defeats in Holland. However that may be: You will admit that it is difficult to suffer defeats at the hands of the French when you are hiding on an island and leave the fight against French oppression to continental powers.
But this is not the point I am driving at. I would not be interested in your shallow quantitative question of how many victories\defeats each glorious nation won or suffered. It is much more telling to look at entire campaigns or at wars in their strategic dimension. It is here where Britain has always been exceptionally strong. And as you will agree: It takes more than a few battles to win a war. Besides a number of other important qualities Britain was always good at building strong and successful alliances before and during war. This is why Britain has won most wars into which it entered. In the end it was not so much the thin red line that made all the difference but superb diplomacy. Any doubts that this is the correct view? Look at the hundred years war. You could not resist to include a few victories over France in your list. But look at the result. Britain lost that war as a look at a map of Europe demonstrates. In conclusion: Also in view of the anniversary of Trafalgar the British people should de-emphasise the military dimension of the nation's life. May be a more political and diplomatic outlook would finally show the real strength of the European Union. Since Britain joined in 1973 it has neither lost a battle nor a war. Do we make to much of our defeats?
I say this noting how much there seems to be about Dunkirk at the moment.
The most famous battle in English history is Hastings while Brunanburh is forgotten.
If you were to ask an Englishman about battles against the Scots I am sure that the battle that would be most commonly mentioned would be Bannockburn and certainly not Dunbar, for example.
In WW1 people remember Galipoli or the bloodbaths of the Somme and 3rd Ypres rather than the victories of 1918 such as Amiens (the black day for the German army).
Many British even seem to think we lost the war of 1812, those that are aware of it.
Even when we refer to victories such as Waterloo, we refer to it in the context of a defeat for Napoleon.
the net result is that it may come as a complete surprise that we have actually won far more than we lost. In a previous posting last year I made a list of my top 10 English victories over the
Scots and invited any Scot to reply with a similar list which one did, but he admitted he was having to scrape the barrol.
I keep meaning to compose a similar list of victories over the French but found there were so many that I had difficulty making up my mind.
Do other nations so dwell on their defeats, I would note for example that the most well known US Indian battle has to be the Little Big Horn.
Ìý -
Message 35
Posted by wargamewarwick (U2309376) on Friday, 4th November 2005
I few thoughts on some of Marbot's points.
Whilst it is true that joining the European Union is a good move for the stability of Europe (and that has always been an interest of Great Britain), you need to remember the martial nature of the British (I didn't see "European" troops wading ashore in 1982 on the Falkland Isles).
Part of our success over centuries is a conviction of belief within our armed forces of superiority (sometimes this was just arrogance, but often it was the deciding factor). In most of our Napoleonic battles allies contributions were often of little help (I must exempt the Portuguese in 1810-1814 from this comment).
A classic example of my point is the battle of Albuera (1811), this was a battle that Marshal Soult by superior tactics had won (in theory), but as the English translation of his own words has it "the day was mine, but the British did not know it and would not run". In the end many British regiments lost over 66% of their men, but forced the French to retreat (as they did not believe themselves, they could be defeated).
I look forward to a less martial future, but given that British armed forces have not been "out of action" somewhere in the world for more than 1 year in last century I think this unlikely. -
Message 36
Posted by Simplicissimus (U2398521) on Friday, 4th November 2005
Following a recent TV programme (Les Racines et des Ailes) many french people now believe Napoléon lost the battle of Wareloo because of the mud. Largely because their canons got stuck in it. Of course, there was no word on how many of Napoléon's previous battles were won because the enemy got bogged down.
Revisionism is just a fancy word for how we forever respin our history to suit modern needs, and nothing needs a rethink as much as a painful defeat. If we British had only lost one battle in all our long history we would still obsess about it in endless documentarys and full colour, cut-out-and-keep commemorative teatowels. -
Message 37
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Friday, 4th November 2005
Following a recent TV programme (Les Racines et des Ailes) many french people now believe Napoléon lost the battle of Wareloo because of the mud. Largely because their canons got stuck in it. Of course, there was no word on how many of Napoléon's previous battles were won because the enemy got bogged down.
Revisionism is just a fancy word for how we forever respin our history to suit modern needs, and nothing needs a rethink as much as a painful defeat. If we British had only lost one battle in all our long history we would still obsess about it in endless documentarys and full colour, cut-out-and-keep commemorative teatowels. Ìý
No history is not set in stone, interpretations are continually being revised. History is not, as you seem to think, religious dogma.
Waterloo is open to reinterpretation as is any other event. What matters is the quality of the evidence adduced to support it, not because it spoils aomeone's cosy view of their country.
AS for making fuss of British "defeats" the whole topic is unhistorical. What defeats? Does anyone make a fuss of the battle of Maldon? Fulford Bridge? SHould people not make a fuss about the Battle of Hastings? Yorktown?
Battles like other events must be assessed in the light of their historical significance, not whether they fit into some crude nationalistic idea.
After all what was more important, Clinton's victory in NY or Washington's at Yorktown?
In fact Britain has suffered dozens of unheralded defeats and victories -
Message 38
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Friday, 4th November 2005
I think the prussians the Belgians, the Dutch and the Spanish would be amused to learn of the dismissal of their contribution to the defeat of Napoleon.
The Russians would also be interested. -
Message 39
Posted by Simplicissimus (U2398521) on Friday, 4th November 2005
"History is not, as you seem to think, religious dogma."
Where did I say that? -
Message 40
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Friday, 4th November 2005
"History is not, as you seem to think, religious dogma."
Where did I say that?
Ìý
Hence the phrase, "as you seem to think".
Of course the very idea of what constitutes a defeat is interesting.
The British campaigned very effectively on one level in the Carolinas against the Americans for example and "won" every battle, but in the end they were driven out. -
Message 41
Posted by wargamewarwick (U2309376) on Friday, 4th November 2005
I think the prussians the Belgians, the Dutch and the Spanish would be amused to learn of the dismissal of their contribution to the defeat of Napoleon.
The Russians would also be interested.Ìý
All of the above made peace with the French and left Britain to continue by itself at various stages of the wars (albeit they didn't have much choice in most cases, having been successfully invaded by Napoleon). -
Message 42
Posted by Simplicissimus (U2398521) on Saturday, 5th November 2005
"History is not, as you seem to think, religious dogma."
Where did I say that?
Ìý
Hence the phrase, "as you seem to think".Ìý
Ah. That old cop out...
...that you seem to have used -
Message 43
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Monday, 7th November 2005
Actually a quote. Pity you can't recognise it.
-
Message 44
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Monday, 7th November 2005
I think the prussians the Belgians, the Dutch and the Spanish would be amused to learn of the dismissal of their contribution to the defeat of Napoleon.
The Russians would also be interested.Ìý
All of the above made peace with the French and left Britain to continue by itself at various stages of the wars (albeit they didn't have much choice in most cases, having been successfully invaded by Napoleon).Ìý
Are you seriously saying the 1812 invasion of Russia did not end the Napoleonic empire? -
Message 45
Posted by wargamewarwick (U2309376) on Monday, 7th November 2005
I think the prussians the Belgians, the Dutch and the Spanish would be amused to learn of the dismissal of their contribution to the defeat of Napoleon.
The Russians would also be interested.Ìý
All of the above made peace with the French and left Britain to continue by itself at various stages of the wars (albeit they didn't have much choice in most cases, having been successfully invaded by Napoleon).Ìý
Are you seriously saying the 1812 invasion of Russia did not end the Napoleonic empire?Ìý
Obviously I'm not saying that (and nor did I imply it). But Napoleon, (like Hilter)invaded a Russia he had made peace with and it was in both cases a major factor that by Britain continuing a war against these protagonists, that they were robbed of sizable forces, that may have effected the outcome and timing of their invasions. If Napoleon had not lost the bulk of the Grande Armee in 1812 it is entirely possible he would been able to prevent the uprising in Prussia and other countries in 1813 and been able to halt the British invasion of the South of France in 1814. But that doesn't alter the point that Britain being an island and having martial people has consistently had to fight on with allies "coming and going" as they pleased. Sometimes without them we would have no hope of winning, even when they arrived somewhat late e.g. Prussia on the 18th June 1815, the USA in WW1 and WW2! My basic point is the British have always been good at creating alliances, but have always known we have to "underwrite them" with our own blood. -
Message 46
Posted by Simplicissimus (U2398521) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
Actually a quote. Pity you can't recognise it.Ìý
Tiresome fellow.
-
Message 47
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
Actually a quote. Pity you can't recognise it.Ìý
Tiresome fellow.Ìý
Sticks and stones, any point ie arguement ie case you want to put forward?
No, thought not -
Message 48
Posted by Simon21 (U1338658) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
"Obviously I'm not saying that (and nor did I imply it). But Napoleon, (like Hilter)invaded a Russia he had made peace with and it was in both cases a major factor that by Britain continuing a war against these protagonists, that they were robbed of sizable forces, that may have effected the outcome and timing of their invasions."
That was exactly your implication or what was the point of the posting?
And where has any historian suggested that Napoleon lost in Russia because of what was going on in Spain?
Or that Hitler lost Barborossa because of the BoB.
In both cases Britain was a sideshow. Napoleon and Hitler were defeated in Russia by the Russians.
"If Napoleon had not lost the bulk of the Grande Armee in 1812 it is entirely possible he would been able to prevent the uprising in Prussia and other countries in 1813 and been able to halt the British invasion of the South of France in 1814. But that doesn't alter the point that Britain being an island and having martial people has consistently had to fight on with allies "coming and going" as they pleased. "
What point are you making? If Napoleon had returned from Russia victorious He would have certainly reconquered Spain and Britain would eventualy have had to make peace. Unless it was planning only to trade with the US and its colonies, hardly a feasible prospect.
And at least one British ally in WWII thought Britain's "martial spirit" consisted of doing very little while they defeated army groups in the field.
Sometimes without them we would have no hope of winning, even when they arrived somewhat late e.g. Prussia on the 18th June 1815, the USA in WW1 and WW2! My basic point is the British have always been good at creating alliances, but have always known we have to "underwrite them" with our own blood.</quote>
What point is this? Most militatry alliances are "underwritten in blood" what a queer phrase. And how do you judge if a country is "good at creating alliances"? Stalin's Soviet Union wasn't bad the molotov pact was a masterstroke, at least in its initial stages.
And not forgeetting a lot of French accused the British of running from their obligations in 1940 and of being anything but good allies. Lot of Poles weren't exactly impressed with the way they were abandoned both in 1939 and 1945, or the Czechs too for that mater. -
Message 49
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Friday, 11th November 2005
Reply to message 34
My impressive list of victories included a significant number of Naval victories and all except one were won by the Royal Navy without the help of Allies.
Like in your impressive list of British victories over the French you tend to employ a rather reduced and empty concept of defeat or victory. There are surprisingly few victories which Britain won without the assistance of allies on the continent or - for that matter - of a continent. If you only look at Napoleon's brilliant campaign of Northern Italy you will find that France achieved an impressive series of victories singlehandedly. Well, not against the British. Sorry, I just forgot that Britain was not ready on land until 1808 and until then only suffered a few defeats in Holland. However that may be: You will admit that it is difficult to suffer defeats at the hands of the French when you are hiding on an island and leave the fight against French oppression to continental powers.
But this is not the point I am driving at. I would not be interested in your shallow quantitative question of how many victories\defeats each glorious nation won or suffered. It is much more telling to look at entire campaigns or at wars in their strategic dimension. It is here where Britain has always been exceptionally strong. And as you will agree: It takes more than a few battles to win a war. Besides a number of other important qualities Britain was always good at building strong and successful alliances before and during war. This is why Britain has won most wars into which it entered. In the end it was not so much the thin red line that made all the difference but superb diplomacy. Any doubts that this is the correct view? Look at the hundred years war. You could not resist to include a few victories over France in your list. But look at the result. Britain lost that war as a look at a map of Europe demonstrates. In conclusion: Also in view of the anniversary of Trafalgar the British people should de-emphasise the military dimension of the nation's life. May be a more political and diplomatic outlook would finally show the real strength of the European Union. Since Britain joined in 1973 it has neither lost a battle nor a war. Do we make to much of our defeats?
I say this noting how much there seems to be about Dunkirk at the moment.
The most famous battle in English history is Hastings while Brunanburh is forgotten.
If you were to ask an Englishman about battles against the Scots I am sure that the battle that would be most commonly mentioned would be Bannockburn and certainly not Dunbar, for example.
In WW1 people remember Galipoli or the bloodbaths of the Somme and 3rd Ypres rather than the victories of 1918 such as Amiens (the black day for the German army).
Many British even seem to think we lost the war of 1812, those that are aware of it.
Even when we refer to victories such as Waterloo, we refer to it in the context of a defeat for Napoleon.
the net result is that it may come as a complete surprise that we have actually won far more than we lost. In a previous posting last year I made a list of my top 10 English victories over the
Scots and invited any Scot to reply with a similar list which one did, but he admitted he was having to scrape the barrol.
I keep meaning to compose a similar list of victories over the French but found there were so many that I had difficulty making up my mind.
Do other nations so dwell on their defeats, I would note for example that the most well known US Indian battle has to be the Little Big Horn.
Ìý Ìý
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 Ìýto 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
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ 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.