Turn on thread page Beta

Worst or Most Relavent British Defeat in History? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    lucky bugger, i'd love to do the hanoverian dynasty - though i did from 1815-1837,

    do you do the later hanoverian period also?
    Yes - I'm not entirely sure of the specifics regarding the A2 course, but I know that we study Pitt the Elder in some depth and Module 5 looks particularly interesting: Britain 1748-1802 including:
    • The reasons for GB defeat in The American War of Independence
    • The Fox-North coalition and Pitt the Younger's administration
    • The Threat of Revolution in GB in the 1790s
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    Yes - I'm not entirely sure of the specifics regarding the A2 course, but I know that we study Pitt the Elder in some depth and Module 5 looks particularly interesting: Britain 1748-1802 including:
    • The reasons for GB defeat in The American War of Independence
    • The Fox-North coalition and Pitt the Younger's administration
    • The Threat of Revolution in GB in the 1790s


    damn - you b*stard lol, i would have loved to have done that , i do Britain, 1815-85,

    i like it up to about 65,

    haha we do about how corrupt, inefficient parliament is, and how they only really passed reform for the benefit of the landed aristocratic MPs lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, the attempted Jacobite/Tory plots and the Jacobite rebellions keep the whole Hanoverian period ticking over nicely, it really is quite eventful - and where else would you encounter The War of Captain Jenkins's Ear? lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    Ah, the attempted Jacobite/Tory plots and the Jacobite rebellions keep the whole Hanoverian period ticking over nicely, it really is quite eventful - and where else would you encounter The War of Captain Jenkins's Ear? lol


    hahahahah yeh i read something about that, it takes the piss lol,

    sounds like a war-filled period, damn the only wars in my period take place between 1850s/1860s and we miss that period coz the politics of that time were very boring and muddled,


    and for A2, the only foreign policy stuff we do is based around british attitudes and Gladstones/Disraelis attitude to the Russ-Turkish war of 1870 and the bulgarian atrocities,

    so boring !
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Waterloo was a large defeat for Napoleon.

    Living up to your name I see.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    hahahahah yeh i read something about that, it takes the piss lol,

    sounds like a war-filled period, damn the only wars in my period take place between 1850s/1860s and we miss that period coz the politics of that time were very boring and muddled,


    and for A2, the only foreign policy stuff we do is based around british attitudes and Gladstones/Disraelis attitude to the Russ-Turkish war of 1870 and the bulgarian atrocities,

    so boring !
    It's a pretty peaceful period to begin with (in terms of European affairs). Britain and France lay down their arms for 15 years (a phenomenal amount of time).

    Then comes the latter part of Walpole's tenure and it is very much a case of action stations, lol. The Spanish start to throw all kinds of spanners in the works, and then France (after recovering from their exertions prior to the Hanoverian period) decide that they are finished with peace and become a dominant economic power - with the best army and the best West Indian sugar islands to boot. Naturally, Britain and France clash swords, yet again. And then we have the small matter of the 13 colonies, lol.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    It's a pretty peaceful period to begin with (in terms of European affairs). Britain and France lay down their arms for 15 years (a phenomenal amount of time).

    Then comes the latter part of Walpole's tenure and it is very much a case of action stations, lol. The Spanish start to throw all kinds of spanners in the works, and then France (after recovering from their exertions prior to the Hanoverian period) decide that they are finished with peace and become a dominant economic power - with the best army and the best West Indian sugar islands to boot. Naturally, Britain and France clash swords, yet again. And then we have the small matter of the 13 colonies, lol.

    yeh the French and Spanish were right *******s, i'd love to do lots of things relating to colonialism of the 18th century,

    the french the best?? damn - sounds a right dire state, they had all of louisiana and surrounding territory didn't they?

    do you do about the 7 years war?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    yeh the French and Spanish were right *******s, i'd love to do lots of things relating to colonialism of the 18th century,

    the french the best?? damn - sounds a right dire state, they had all of louisiana and surrounding territory didn't they?

    do you do about the 7 years war?
    We cover that in background next year, but the division of the Americas by the colonial powers is something that interests me. Some of the colonies changed hands an innumerable amount of times and the same goes for Caribbean islands. The tussle for colonial supremacy gave rise to big the naval battles of the era, some of which it seems come just before your period of study?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    We cover that in background next year, but the division of the Americas by the colonial powers is something that interests me. Some of the colonies changed hands an innumerable amount of times and the same goes for Caribbean islands. The tussle for colonial supremacy gave rise to big the naval battles of the era, some of which it seems come just before your period of study?

    yes it does unfortunately,


    yeh im very interested also in the North America of colonial powers,


    Britain with East canada and 13 colonies,
    France with Louisiana and quebec, but then lost quebec then lost Louisiana to spain, then spain cede it back to France in a secret treaty and then Napoleon sold it to USA to stop UK getting it - apparently Napoleon wanted to carve a massive french empire in North America, that would have been very interesting !

    and britain who gained florida from spain after 7 years war then lost it back to spain then it went to USA etc...

    i actually have a book called 'For Want of a Nail: If Burgoyne had won at Saratoga' - its an alternative history book , based on if the British won the war, and then all the rebels left and went west to middle america/spanish california and formed their own country the Unites States of Mexico and incorperated themselves into Mexico - really interesting stuff,

    i would have loved to have fought the rebs ! lol, kick ass in a redcoat :cool:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I watch this history program called, Historyonics. Apparently after the Vikings tried to invade England we went off for the Normans straight after. If we waited and regrouped, we might have won.

    Also on the Romans on the same program were were literally supplying them with spears and that. Doesn't help when we fight against them? Although this is common for us, give them the weapons and fight against them so we have a fight on our hands. Why do I get the feeling we still have that habit now? I never know the Romans tried invading us twice before and lost.

    Seems like quite a few battles where we have been defeated, if we had actually thinked back then we could have won, oh well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I watch this history program called, Historyonics. Apparently after the Vikings tried to invade England we went off for the Normans straight after. If we waited and regrouped, we might have won.

    Also on the Romans on the same program were were literally supplying them with spears and that. Doesn't help when we fight against them? Although this is common for us, give them the weapons and fight against them so we have a fight on our hands. Why do I get the feeling we still have that habit now? I never know the Romans tried invading us twice before and lost.

    Seems like quite a few battles where we have been defeated, if we had actually thinked back then we could have won, oh well.

    damn, i missed out on that program !

    yeh - 2 seperate forces attacking us from different places, not the best situation to be in , but wouldn't have we just been attacked by both in the same place?

    hahaha yeh i heard something about us supplying the Romans a bit silly really - you could draw the weapon parallels with Iraq as you aptfully pointed out !


    yeh, we could have defeated the Indian Rebels during the Mutiny, and could have completly avoided the American Rev. through appeasment, if it wasn't for the backwards and selfish government at the time
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As both armies at Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn were British, they're irrelevant.If you're going to include internal battles, Flodden, the battles of the parliamentary wars and the Jacobite rebellions and Vinegar Hill matter more. Suez wasn't a military defeat. the military operations were completely successful. It was a political blunder and a political retreat.
    No mention of the Somme- "the blackest day in the history of the British army"
    No naval battles either.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Britain wasnt conquered in 43AD...Britain has never been conquered.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Why are battles which dont involve a British army on this list?(any which come before the act of union)
    The most relevant defeat has to be to the Colonists during the Revolutionary War.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    [pedant mode]

    There are more that "1000 years" between AD43 and AD1940.

    [/pedant mode]

    Anyway, surely this is impossible to say which defeat was worse, because we don't know what the alternative future was for Britain if the outcome of each had been different?

    To answer the question: clearly by sheer numbers, a modern defeat will win, as they have the technology for greater destruction through more powerful weapons and greater concentrations of people.

    It's hard to be objective about what consequences of these defeats are "worse" than one another.

    Also, perceptions will always be coloured by the overall outcome of conflicts at the time, rather than just that conflict, which it is hard to isolate.

    I'd say Dunkirk - huge loss of equipment, though less morale damage than might have been expected. Very bleak outlook for Britain at the time with the success of "Blitzkrieg" and the US still not in the war, and the U-boats cutting off our supplies.

    By comparisson the Roman annexation of [b]England[/b[ (not Britain!) was hugely beneficial, bring a leap forward in development in everything from architecture to ore mining. We really weren't "conqured" - many local leaders could see woad warrirors weren't going far against legions, and accepted positions in the Roman hierarchy of English governance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    mobbdeeporb wrote:
    I feel that too much emphasis is placed on Modern European History.
    I agree, my school efectively only does 20th century european for AS.



    For worst defeat, if we take it as english, it has to be stirling, as it was a complete and utter English ****-up, more so than the other ones, as stirling was so big an upset it dwarves everything else really
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I put Hastings, because of the difference it would have made, had the battle gone the other way. I think The Roman conquest was inevitable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say Hastings was probably most relevant, but the poll is specific with 'worst' so I say Stirling for that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sophetta)
    Yeh I think you may be better changing the title of your poll to English Defeats. Bannockburn was a great victory for the Scots after all. Hastings was an English defeat as well.

    The Somme is probably the greatest British defeat that I can think of.
    I agree Somme though not classed as a defeat (they gained i believe 3miles) the brits lost huge amounts of men 57,000 men in the first day alone. otherwise out of your list i'd say dunkirk cos lets face it the brits got stuffed and were only saved by hitler's fondness of his panzers (he didn't want to risk them over boggy terrain giving the brits valuable time)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Britain wasnt conquered in 43AD...Britain has never been conquered.
 
 
 

2,031

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.