I thought the geographic location counted as much as the actual named country? Where all these places currently are would be invaded during a Fashoda War just like Krygystan and Tajikistan during a war between the British Raj and Czarist Russia.
AH: The 22 countries who escaped british invasion: how could the brits get them?
- Thread starter Archon of Thessaly
- Start date
I thought the geographic location counted as much as the actual named country? Where all these places currently are would be invaded during a Fashoda War just like Krygystan and Tajikistan during a war between the British Raj and Czarist Russia.
There seems to be a very elastic definition of "invasion". I wonder how Balts made it to "invaded" list. Is it "they were part of Russia when Britain was at war with Russia"?
Because at one point it seems that reasoning is "English/British did something on the territory where in few centuries new state will be created" and at other times it "all territory that was part of a country English/British invaded"
Because at one point it seems that reasoning is "English/British did something on the territory where in few centuries new state will be created" and at other times it "all territory that was part of a country English/British invaded"
OTOH, Luxembourg was an Ally of the Burgundians and English in the Hundred Years War. It was the Count de Luxembourg who handed Joan of Arc over to the English (1).If he had been a less steadfast friend, I could see the Anglo-Burgundian forces trashing the country. But Luxembourg was always seen as being in "Burgundy's" sphere of influence.
Luxemburg wasn't on the English side at first. When the war began, the Count of Luxemburg was John the Blind, king of Bohemia, who fought and died on the French side at Crecy. He was succeeded by different sons in Bohemia and Luxemburg. His elder son, the eventual HRE Charles IV was pro-French, so I'm guessing that his younger brother (Wenceslas) was too, to the extent that he counted at all.
Even though they were on opposite sides, it's not a trivial assignment to find a sensible reason for an English army to enter Luxemburg. Maybe one of the free companies could have invaded with English approval.
Same for Moldova.
English crusaders, the future Henry IV among them, took part in the Northern crusades, which might account for Lithuania. Depends on definitions, as people have said.
Derek Pullem
Donor
The article included privateers and british "adventurers" as invasions.
I'd argue a state of de facto war existed between the Second League of Armed Neutrality and Great Britain in 1801 after first Copenhagen and Prussia's invasion of Hanover so you could argue that Sweden and Great Britain have been at war if not actually invaded.
I'd argue a state of de facto war existed between the Second League of Armed Neutrality and Great Britain in 1801 after first Copenhagen and Prussia's invasion of Hanover so you could argue that Sweden and Great Britain have been at war if not actually invaded.
Somewhat stretching the definition but the British navy supported Latvians and Estonians during their independence wars. (Or actually they thought they were supporting non-Communist and White Russian forces in the Russian Civil War but it didn't end as they had expected.)
Definitions needed all around....
Its mentioned at the start: an invasion shall count as either a full scale invasion, a large military force occupying part of the country, prolonged raids by privateers against a country.
Oh and single commando raids or the odd privateer does not constitute an invasion. It needs to be a prolonged occupation or attack.
Actually i'm surprised guatamala and paraguay wearnt invaded: Popham invaded argentina in 1806 and could easily have invaded another spanish colony. And i would have expected drake or some other british fleet to have raided or captured guatamala asnd san principe at some point.
Most of thoes are very good and accurate, but could you please come up with somthing else rather then "dost escapes to somthingstan" and somthing more original?
Dhost is obvious for the 3-stans because in OTL he did flee from the British, and look at the map, these are places right next to Afghanistan, the British could (and would probably in that period) have chased him into the border areas of all three states had he fleed there. After the first Afghan war, any British intervention in these places looks unlikely, for the simple reason that Afghanistan is in the way - some sort of support for the Whites c1919 (like the British intervention in the Armenia, etc.) is my 2nd option, but frankly not as good.
But hey, if you don't like my list - THEN COME WITH YOUR OWN!
OBTW: Burundi should say 1914, not 1944 in my list. typo
Plus country should either have clear lineage to modern state (e.g. Austria, Russia), in the past state had to be based around that people (e.g. medieval Poland counts as "Poland") or state has to largely resemble modern one (e.g. Ottoman emprie counts as Turkey).
In other words Ukraine should be on the list since Ukraine was not invaded, territory of modern Ukraine was but it was part of Russia so it doesn't count as Ukraine.
Hey, i liked all of your PODs-they were brilliant. But, considering the then overriding imperial obsession with " the great game," its is more them possible that the British may be tempted, as with afghanistan, to interevent to place their own prefered ruler in charge-and forstall any russian attempt to occupy the country. Indeed, many senior members of parliment and the ever expansionist indian govorment were calling for interevention in the area. A likely POD could be in the 1840s, 50s during the crimean war ( supporting an islamic uprising as in the caucuses OTL?), the 70s and 80s and later, during the 1919-20s in order to intervene in soviet russia ( churchill would likely have supported such a move.)
So yes, their are more PODS then just a regenade afghan king on the loose.
But that would probibly discount loads of colonial powers and former colonies who have lost thoes colonies that were attacked! This definition includes attacking land that now belongs to a modern state.
The whole Daily Mail criteria as you describe it is a pretty low bar, isn't it? It's much easier to come up with PODs to attack pre-colonial or colonial regions, especially in the late 19th Cent. when the British Empire could project power pretty much anywhere it wanted to.
Indeed. So you can't say "Mexico" just because English raided the territory on which modern Mexico will be founded in few centuries.
They did. This one is actually trivially easy - all it requires is to upgrade the Anglo-Swedish War of 1810-12 from a diplomatic fiction designed to ease French pressure on Sweden into something where some actual fighting happens and you're there.
Alternatively, there was a bizarre episode just before this when Sir John Moore at the head of an expedition of 10,000 men arrived in the Baltic to engage in joint operations with the Swedes against the French. The first attempt to plan a joint strategy ended so badly that the king of Sweden ordered Sir John to be arrested and imprisoned in a castle, from which he managed to escape (disguised as a woman) and rejoin his command, after which they all sailed home. Simply have Sir John sack a port or something in reprisal first instead of sailing straight home and you probably get Sweden on the list.
There was also a fair amount of military activity in the Baltic - including command style raids - during the Crimean War. This is probably also part of it.
Yeah, same happened in Finland. The British navy basically occupied my hometown for awhile and burned warehouses in a port.
Switzerland also "accidentally" got bombed several times during WW2. At least, the allies claimed the raids were accidents caused by navigation errors (some undoubtedly were) but there's always been a suspicion (not least on the part of the Swiss) that some raids were effectively warnings to the Swiss not to get too close to the Nazis.