AHC: More Competent English (and British) Army

As the tin says, britain usually won most of its wars (post 1500 at least) but to quote the german dreams it was always with continental armies.

So my question is, with a POD in 1400 how do you make britain have much more powerful armies (not necessarily bigger)?

Not that while britain was small, there were much smaller countries with much more powerful armies and most of them were germanic (prussia, sweden) what would it take for britain to adopt similar ground force methods while still retaining its naval supremecy?
 

Delvestius

Banned
A lot of it is based in the prestige the respective forces had. The Navy was seen as being Britain's "protective shield", as well as it's primary means of colonization and foreign domination. You'd need to find some way for the English to appreciate the army more, which is hard to do as an island nation. Perhaps if they had continental territories, such as Brittany or Flanders?
 
A lot of it is based in the prestige the respective forces had. The Navy was seen as being Britain's "protective shield", as well as it's primary means of colonization and foreign domination.
This!

You also have to remember that after the civil war the English/British grew to be very suspicious of standing armies.

I've also heard of a sort of compact between the English/British and their .govt, in essence "we (the people) pay for the Royal Navy and you (the King etc) use it instead of conscripting us into an army"

You'd need to find some way for the English to appreciate the army more, which is hard to do as an island nation. Perhaps if they had continental territories, such as Brittany or Flanders?
Yeah, maybe if Calis is not lost by Mary England/Britain is a little more interested in keeping land on the continent and, therefore, having a Prussian like force to defend it?

The only problem with this is that England/Britain may end up with the 'French problem' of having to try and invest both in armies & fleets and both will suffer from this.
 
Part of British success over history has been in not having to maintain a large standing army meaning that upgrade procurements have generally costed less allowing its armed forces to stay 'ahead of the game'.

On questions of 'competence' the British army has in general been fairly competent...except when it grew egotistical in the late years of Empire, but significantly its not been large.


Much like has been pointed out, the pride of British Nationalism was in her navy...not armed forces. To maintain a larger land army Britain would have to have shared continental territories. That is fairly difficult to change in historic terms I think without some serious butterflies that would change a lot of history.
 
Maybe earlier colonisation, especially in areas where they are surrounded either by other colonial powers or by natives. That way, there will be the need for a standing army in the colony to protect it, which would lead to developments in the army, which would more than likely in turn trickle back to the army in England/Britain, improving it in turn
 
saxony????

Hi Wasn't there a territory in germany that use to be part of the UK but with the death of a princess in childbirth along with the baby was lost . it happened just after the napoleonic war
 

Hoist40

Banned
More centralized control might help

The British Army isn’t called the British Royal Army unlike the British Royal Navy, but just the British Army because in its early years control of the Army was indirect. Colonels would be paid to raise a regiment which would be called by the Colonels name. If a individual regiment had a royal title it would have a royal as the honorary colonel.

So while the regiments would ultimately be paid for by the government, control was indirect and the colonel would have great say in the equipping and training of the regiment so that the quality of the units could vary greatly. While in the rest of Europe control moved more quickly to a more centralized and uniform standard.
 
More centralized control might help

The British Army isn’t called the British Royal Army unlike the British Royal Navy, but just the British Army because in its early years control of the Army was indirect. Colonels would be paid to raise a regiment which would be called by the Colonels name. If a individual regiment had a royal title it would have a royal as the honorary colonel.

So while the regiments would ultimately be paid for by the government, control was indirect and the colonel would have great say in the equipping and training of the regiment so that the quality of the units could vary greatly. While in the rest of Europe control moved more quickly to a more centralized and uniform standard.

Was it really that much quicker?
 
More centralized control might help

The British Army isn’t called the British Royal Army unlike the British Royal Navy, but just the British Army because in its early years control of the Army was indirect. Colonels would be paid to raise a regiment which would be called by the Colonels name. If a individual regiment had a royal title it would have a royal as the honorary colonel.

So while the regiments would ultimately be paid for by the government, control was indirect and the colonel would have great say in the equipping and training of the regiment so that the quality of the units could vary greatly. While in the rest of Europe control moved more quickly to a more centralized and uniform standard.

I thought it was due to the fact that the modern army traces it's routes back to Cromwell's 'New Model' Army, and that Charles II subsequently made use of the improvements, but didn't give a Royal appelation.
 
I thought it was due to the fact that the modern army traces it's routes back to Cromwell's 'New Model' Army, and that Charles II subsequently made use of the improvements, but didn't give a Royal appelation.

That's right. The army belongs to parliament, not to the monarchy, because the monarch can't be trusted with an army. (It's hard to do a coup with a navy or an air force.)

As for the British army more generally. British troops (of the EIC and the army proper) were renowned throughout India as being by far the most effective and disciplined.
 
Hi Wasn't there a territory in germany that use to be part of the UK but with the death of a princess in childbirth along with the baby was lost . it happened just after the napoleonic war

I think it was Hannover actually. I don't remember the exact circumstances, but it had to do with the accession of Queen Victoria to the British throne, and the accession of somebody else to the throne of Hannover.
 
I think it was Hannover actually. I don't remember the exact circumstances, but it had to do with the accession of Queen Victoria to the British throne, and the accession of somebody else to the throne of Hannover.

Hanover (one n) not permitting succession of females, so it going to the nearest male.

But it was never part of the UK, it was just in personal union with the same.
 
Hanover (one n) not permitting succession of females, so it going to the nearest male.

But it was never part of the UK, it was just in personal union with the same.
Errr... Hannover is a perfectly good, perhaps better, spelling. "Correcting" someone who's using the native forms is ... tacky, perhaps?

But the rest of your post is fine.
 
Errr... Hannover is a perfectly good, perhaps better, spelling. "Correcting" someone who's using the native forms is ... tacky, perhaps?

But the rest of your post is fine.

If we're writing in German, spelling it Hannover is correct. In English, which is the language we're using at the moment, it's one N.

So I'm not convinced of it being "tacky" to point out the customary spelling in the language we're communicating in.
 
Last edited:
Top