Why Can't England be Invaded?!

I was reading last night about several planned invasions of England/Britian over the course of a few hundred years. the French planed to invade in the Seven Years War, the AWI, and in The War of The Third Coalition. Then there is the obvious Sea Mammal that i wont bring up....

SO why is it so hard to invade England??

All the British really need is a good navy and a decent army

aoravec75 said:

I was reading last night about several planned invasions of England/Britian over the course of a few hundred years. the French planed to invade in the Seven Years War, the AWI, and in The War of The Third Coalition. Then there is the obvious Sea Mammal that i wont bring up....SO why is it so hard to invade England??

Click to expand...

Their opponents need a better navy and a better army.

Same reason no one from Asia really suceeded in invading Japan.

Best,

aoravec75 said:

I was reading last night about several planned invasions of England/Britian over the course of a few hundred years. the French planed to invade in the Seven Years War, the AWI, and in The War of The Third Coalition. Then there is the obvious Sea Mammal that i wont bring up....

SO why is it so hard to invade England??

Click to expand...

England -was- invaded, it's doable if you have a sizable part of the nobility supporting you and you can take the side of one domestic political faction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons'_War#Louis_invited_and_welcomed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution#Invasion

You can iunvade England and it has been done in the past. You only need a navy that is comparable to the Royal Navy and an army that can beat Englands army. If the French had concentrated more on their navy than on their army, they could have done it. Especialy before the 19th century.

It actually has a number of times,

the Celtic Invasion (and if you believe myths many times before that)

the Romans Conquest

the Great Heathen Army

the William the Conqueror

the First Baron War (the actual invasion was a success)

the problem is both the English Channel is a very hazardous place, and the only thing that stopped the Spanish Armada, and the English placed most of its power in its navy, and there were actually many times in history were if the English Navy hadn't been there the army troops in England would have been able to make a dent in the apposing forces.

England could focus on building kick-ass navy and as such could scale down on army. Whoever invaded would need navy capable of taking on that navy and have strong army to land.

And in the past country was either naval power or land power, economy didn't allow you to be both. Countries that tried to strike a ballance between them ended with worst of both worlds more often than not,

pompejus said:

You can iunvade England and it has been done in the past. You only need a navy that is comparable to the Royal Navy and an army that can beat Englands army. If the French had concentrated more on their navy than on their army, they could have done it. Especialy before the 19th century.

Click to expand...

But that would place them in worse position vis-a-vis Spain ands other continental powers.

aktarian said:

England could focus on building kick-ass navy and as such could scale down on army. Whoever invaded would need navy capable of taking on that navy and have strong army to land.

And in the past country was either naval power or land power, economy didn't allow you to be both. Countries that tried to strike a ballance between them ended with worst of both worlds more often than not,

Click to expand...

You just need to make a good alliance. If the Dutch and the French would have been allied in the 17th century, the English would have been doomed.

And before the 18th century the English navy wasn't that strong. Only in the 19th century and early 20th century the British were basicly safe from invasion.

pompejus said:

You can iunvade England and it has been done in the past. You only need a navy that is comparable to the Royal Navy and an army that can beat Englands army. If the French had concentrated more on their navy than on their army, they could have done it. Especialy before the 19th century.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately if they had done that they would have left themselves open to attack over a land border. Generally being an island nation with no land borders gives you an advantage in that you can concentrate spend on your navy - hence giving at least local control of the seas. Once the Scottish threat on England's northern border was neutralised by the Union of the Crowns England was able to concentrate funds on the navy, hence giving local and then global control of the seas. The only continental power that could challenge this was really the Dutch. Interestingly, due to the geography of the Netherlands you can also look on the Netherlands as a borderline island nation too, at least until the 20th Century

aoravec75 said:

I was reading last night about several planned invasions of England/Britian over the course of a few hundred years. the French planed to invade in the Seven Years War, the AWI, and in The War of The Third Coalition. Then there is the obvious Sea Mammal that i wont bring up....

SO why is it so hard to invade England??

Click to expand...

....

you mean other then the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans?

seriously though, its a large island with a large population (compared with other island nations that cant hope to match the population of their invaders) and due to distance from Europe did not lag behind in technology, so for any French/Spanish/German invasion plan in the last 1000 years you had a peer opponent that also had the world's biggest moat that you first had to cross, which is a feat in and of iteslf to get 1) an army across, 2) overcome and opposition at sea, 3) overcome any opposition on land (the landing is the most volnurable moment for any army, since it is disorganised), and then being able to fight an opponent in home territory when you have to supply them by sea, which requires 4) a good transport fleet and considerable manpower to overcome and occupy such a large place.


the Romans were the Romans, the Normans stroke with allies and at an oppertune moment, the Vikings were sea-faring warriors so the usual defence wasnt realy good agaisnt them, and everyone else just didnt have the neccessary combination of willpower, manpower, tech-parity and control of the sea to pull it off again.

you should also remember that while England had few neighbors, and the few it shared a border with were no threat to it like the European landpowers, the landpowers also had to contend with each other.

its realy more of a lack of good oppertunities: whenever one of the landpowers gets one or more the neccessary means, be it the economy, manpower or tech advantage, it loses its edge in a different field or is stuck in a war with some other power. England simply lucked out on location.

pompejus said:

You just need to make a good alliance. If the Dutch and the French would have been allied in the 17th century, the English would have been doomed.

And before the 18th century the English navy wasn't that strong. Only in the 19th century and early 20th century the British were basicly safe from invasion.

Click to expand...

Well, there's that. But wasn't cornerstone of English foreign policy in past few centuries to prevent exactlly this kind of allience from forming? Or if it did to quickly counterballance it with their own allience so original one had to keep an eye on it?

kellineil said:

Unfortunately if they had done that they would have left themselves open to attack over a land border.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. France was surrounded by minor German and Italian states, the Netherlands and Switserland. None of those were a danger to France. Only Spain was, so the moment Spain was neutralised (because of their economic collapse or because France was allied to Spain), France didn't need a major army (except for expending France, which was OTL France's most important priority, but that could change in an ATL).

aktarian said:

Well, there's that. But wasn't cornerstone of English foreign policy in past few centuries to prevent exactlly this kind of allience from forming? Or if it did to quickly counterballance it with their own allience so original one had to keep an eye on it?

Click to expand...

Partly yes, but I think that was only a priority in the 18th and 19th century and it was failing in the late 18th century. I think I can see a Franco-Dutch alliance foriming in the 17th century, before the English can do anything about it. Luckily for the English both the Dutch and the French weren't interested in it, which lead to hostilities between France and the Netherlands that continued until the early 19th century.

Britain was blessed with a number of advantages over continental rivals which, with effort render the country very hard to invade, at least in. the C18th. There are a number of natural harbours which might have been designed to base fleets for combatting France (Devonport, Portsmouth), Holland (Chatham, Medway) or the Baltic (Scapa). Also, Britain, with no equivalent power on the same landmass does not need to spend money on an army, and after the Civil War politically is able, and indeed encouraged, to spend money on the Navy over the Army. This makes it easier for Britain to build a Navy to prevent an invasion and also engage in blockade against a continental enemy.

Previous to the C18th, there are a bunch of elements that mean invasions are possible (factions within England, less spend on the Navy, technological and tactical difficulties in detecting and preventing opposing fleets, less centralised continental powers etc. etc.) and succeeded - 100 YR War, Wars of the Roses, Roger Mortimers invasion, as well as those already mentioned.

It's worth noting that the French successfully landed in the Revolutionary / Napoleonic wars, but were defeated on land because they couldn't supply / support the invasion force. It was never a case of always preventing landing, but being able to stop the supply line.

The French were hit with bad luck during the 1700s. Plagues and storms took out invasion forces that would have worked. You don't need to send many troops, because the English tend to have a small army and send most of it away.

aoravec75 said:

I was reading last night about several planned invasions of England/Britian over the course of a few hundred years. the French planed to invade in the Seven Years War, the AWI, and in The War of The Third Coalition. Then there is the obvious Sea Mammal that i wont bring up....

SO why is it so hard to invade England??

Click to expand...

Try getting a united Scotland-Ireland north of England, and it might be able to succeed in invading England.

For sure Britain had Naval dominance, but without radar how were they so certain of intercepting any invader?

Derek Jackson said:

For sure Britain had Naval dominance, but without radar how were they so certain of intercepting any invader?

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen Lord of the Rings where they light those beacons to signal Rohan for help.
That was an English thing, i believe that they did it during the Spanish armada allowing London to know the ships had been sighted 20 minutes later rather than a few hours
Also distribution of Fleets, Spy networks, Fishing boats seeing naval forces being prepared.

EDIT:
Systems of this kind have existed for centuries over much of the world. In Scandinavia many hill forts were part of beacon networks to warn against invading pillagers. In Wales, the Brecon Beacons were named for beacons used to warn of approaching English raiders. In England, the most famous examples are the beacons used in Elizabethan England to warn of the approaching Spanish Armada. Many hills in England were named Beacon Hill after such beacons. In the Scottish borders country, a system of beacon fires was at one time established to warn of incursions by the English. Hume and Eggerstone castles and Soltra Edge were part of this network.[1] The Great Wall of China is also a beacon network. In Finland these beacons were called vainovalkeat, "persecution fires", or vartiotulet, "guard fires."

pompejus said:

I don't know about that. France was surrounded by minor German and Italian states, the Netherlands and Switserland. None of those were a danger to France. Only Spain was, so the moment Spain was neutralised (because of their economic collapse or because France was allied to Spain), France didn't need a major army (except for expending France, which was OTL France's most important priority, but that could change in an ATL).

Partly yes, but I think that was only a priority in the 18th and 19th century and it was failing in the late 18th century. I think I can see a Franco-Dutch alliance foriming in the 17th century, before the English can do anything about it. Luckily for the English both the Dutch and the French weren't interested in it, which lead to hostilities between France and the Netherlands that continued until the early 19th century.

Click to expand...

It's not only the immediate neighbours that France needs to worry about. Austria and Prussia could always march through Germany to invade (as they did). Once you get into the 19th Century, even the Russians have the potential to do it.

In a word - -logistics.

An invasion, as distinct from a raid, means transporting an army across the Channel. You have to land it in one place at one time. That mean a LOT of ships, hundreds, maybe thousands.Remember, it's not just the men - you have to transport horses, cannon, powder, shot, stores, water (especially water). Unless you can rely on support from local forces you can't send a small force and reinforce it .

You won't be able to land a fleet that size in any defended harbour (assuming this is a real invasion, and you don't have local support). So you must land on beaches, as the Vikings did (or D day ). That means flat bottomed boats. Those are nasty things in waters as turbulent as the Channel. You must wait for very good conditions.And the wind must be from the right direction. It's going to take a long time for that fleet to cross, under sail in light winds. You have to be confident that those favourable winds will stay favourable until your invasion force is all safely landed. It takes a long time (days) to get the army onto the ships. Horse had to loaded in slings, for instance. Think of slinging and loading say 5000 horses! Then the voyage itself may take several days. Then disembarking takes even longer than loading, and is subject to tides. Winds don't usually remain constant that long.

So you must assemble your stores and army in camp, and wait. And wait.And wait. While you army gets restive, drunk, men desert, disease breaks out.

And the actual landing will be chaotic. Sailing ships (especially those undermanned lubberly flat bottomed boats) cannot be kept in any strict formation. So at disembarkation units will be broken up and scattered.Many men and most horses will be seasick (the voyage isn't long enough for getting sea legs).

And all this assumes that there is no attempt by the English to intervene, either at sea or at the landing site.

Generals talked lightly of invasion. Admirals knew better. Really, no one succeeded since the Norman conquest.And only two rulers were bold enough to seriously try - Phillip of Spain and Napoleon (and I guess Hitler in later days). All the others (Philip Augustus, Henry IV, William III, the Jacobite landings, the French landings in Ireland) relied on having friendly forces among the local population. They could send a small force and augment and supply it locally .Not really an invasion, more a cadre to base an uprising around.

JedidiahStott said:

You won't be able to land a fleet that size in any defended harbour (assuming this is a real invasion, and you don't have local support).

Click to expand...

What prevents one from using overwhelming force to force the harbour?