This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

How many times have we, the Brits, had our asses handed to us?

I can only think of 5 times. In 1066 (specifically the English), the 30-Years War (English), the Hundred Years War (English), the American Revolution, and Dunkirk at the beginning of WW2. I'm sure there are more.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Dr Salt

Four of those you mentioned were wars, Dunkirk was only a single battle. If you want to list battles we have lost then I'm sure there are hundreds.

Look up Islandhwana if you want to see one where we really got our arses kicked.

Reply 2

MeAndBubbles

Suez. The WWII foreign secretary to Churchill was Prime Minister in 1950s, and sent troops to open up the Suez canal that the Eqyptians had blocked. Or something like that. We got pawned.

Edit. my bad, we won, it was a political misjudgement.

Reply 3

tyok

is anyone really british anymore? i dont think so

Reply 4

Asteron

We've one quite a few battles aswell; the Battle of Britain, defeat of the Spanish Armada, Trafalgar/Waterloo, Battle of Agincourt, Falklands War etc.

Orleans is one where we got owned. Good old Joan of Ark.

Reply 5

matt@internet

Ok not battles, just wars.

Reply 6

Asteron

Irish War of Independence, Cod Wars.

Won in the Napoleonic Wars though, that was pretty epic.

Reply 7

emmarainbow

WW2. We only finished paying back the US a couple of years ago, we lost the Empire and all that jazz.
Biggest donkey of them all, that one.

Reply 8

pendragon

I would look at who managed to conquer the Island from without, though this list starts prior to a British state or national identity. The Celtic (Welsh) Britons conquered by the Romans, the Romano-British conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the Anglo-Saxons conquered by the Normans, several dynastic changes which could be argued to Anglo-French civil wars rather than conquests, and the Glorious Revolution in which Parliamentarians invited William of Orange and his Dutch army over to assume the British throne which could be considered an invasion. That is it so far as conquests go.

We have lost many battles of course, and wars where we have failed to achieve our objectives most notably the war of American Independence, but many of the others were arguably stalemates or draws in which neither side achieved a decisive victory or comparatively small scale wars.

Reply 9

Bismarck

A quick browse through a list of English conflicts shows that England lost the War of Scottish Independence (13th century), Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars, most of the Napoleonic Wars (except the last one obviously), the First Anglo-Afghan War, and depending on how one looks at it, the loss of India (along with the conflicts already mentioned). It must be kept in mind that Britain fought few wars for territory in continental Europe, which meant it was rarely on the weaker side.

Reply 10

pendragon

Bismarck

A quick browse through a list of English conflicts shows that England lost the War of Scottish Independence (13th century), Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars, most of the Napoleonic Wars (except the last one obviously), the First Anglo-Afghan War, and depending on how one looks at it, the British lost of India (along with the conflicts already mentioned). It must be kept in mind that Britain fought few wars for territory in continental Europe, which meant it was rarely on the weaker side.

Wouldn't it be accurate to say that England/Britain were usually on the weaker side in the largest continental wars (against Napoleon and Hitler) in order to try and maintain the balance of power in Europe, but that ultimately they outlasted each of these threats and helped to build coalitions of individually weaker states in order to ultimately prevail.

Reply 11

Bismarck

pendragon

It joined the weaker side. But the act of joining was meant to tilt the balance in the side of Britain and its allies. It rarely joined a side that would not have an advantage over its adversary with Britain's presence. Plus Britain has traditionally had a very small ground force (by continental standards), which means it really was not in a position to win ground battles by itself. By the same token, England/Britain had a very strong navy, which meant that an invasion of England/Britain was all but impossible (after the 17th century or so). I should also point out that the US, which also did not share a border with any European power (well, it technically did with Spain, France, Russia, and Britain, but those countries didn't have their best troops in the Americas) didn't lose a single defensive war since the 18th century either.

Reply 12

ss7

we got our asses handed to us when we let the likes of:

- The Sun be published
- Let chavs roam the streets
- Let the BNP be a party

But in all honesy, what does it mean to be british anymore? Please elucidate

Reply 13

pendragon

Bismarck

People will argue if I bring up 1812, and I don't think either side won, though Americans claim they did, but they did fail to stop the white house being burned.

Reply 14

pendragon

ss7

Do you mean that immigration has diluted the British identity?

Britain still has a quite strong sense of nationalism, if more reflective, jocular and self critical than the Chinese, Russians or Americans.

Reply 15

Bismarck

pendragon

People will argue if I bring up 1812, and I don't think either side won, though Americans claim they did, but they did fail to stop the white house being burned.

As far as I'm concerned, it was a tie. The treaty ending it simply returned the situation to the pre-war situation (and I can't remember the Latin for the phrase, bah).

Edit: status quo ante bellum

Reply 16

StarbucK

We win most wars with Europe because we have a body of water separating us. With less actual borders, we have been largely sheltered from conflicts. When Europe focussed on land forces we had naval superiority, which served us far better.

The American revolution is a moot point, Britain did not lose the war, it opted to stop fighting. Don't get me wrong, the Americans Won, but they didn't beat Britain into submission. Ultimately the British saw little to gain from continuing the war as the only way to win was occupation which would cost them too much resource for little gains. It would also mean a large chunk of their forces wouldn’t be immediately at hand to fight the European powers. Politics ended the war, not military superiority.

Reply 17

StarbucK

pendragon

Do you mean that immigration has diluted the British identity?
I don't think that was his point. If it was then he would be in favour of the BNP by that argument.

Reply 18

pendragon

StarbucK

I go along with the interpretation that they wanted to hand over to the relatively aristocratic founding fathers rather than go for broke and risk the further radicalisation of the American Revolution.

There are also many things that could be said which might not please some Americans, that there were almost equal numbers of committed loyalists and patriots with the mass inbetween swinging each way depending on the facts on the ground (thus it was a civil war as well really), that the majority of African Americans and Native Americans supported the British (a declaration was issued from the loyalist side very similar to the emancipation proclamation at one point), and that as a bunch of rebellious slaveholders in a society with amongst the highest living standards in the world who didn't want to pay taxes they were not that different from the Confederates in the next civil war. But for all that, the patriots did win and the British and the loyalists did loose.