When were Britain's lucky breaks?

The various French invasions being messed up by fluke. People mentioned 1779, but there's also 1744 to remember, where the British had hardly anyone to defend the isles but the French fleet got destroyed by a storm. Delay the storm and you could easily see London burned and the KGB broken.
 
I would call teh American revolution the thing they messed up royally. Imagine the New England states and the South staying as tow (or more) Crowns of teh English Empire with representation in the London parliament (maybe evolving into a dominion later) the Brits probably would STILL be no. I in the world.

I doubt it. No one stays #1 forever.

But that's really not relevant to whether or not England had messed up issues like Poland or Russia did OTL, or arguably France did.

Every country has made mistakes, but there's a difference between losing colonies and the core of the state being shaken to bits.
 
If we take luck as things beyond England's control.

1) Bailed out in two World Wars by USA...
2) Napoleons inability to find a stopping place that was stable...
3) Not keeping Calais...
4) Spanish Armada. Spanish leaders make better calls...
5) Catholic/Protestant religious wars centered in Germany...
6) Gross mismanagement of French finances from 1700 to 1789...
7) Inability of Germany/France to find an agreeable border after 1870...
8) Kaiser Wilhelm...
9) Three Emperors League falling apart...
10) FDR...

1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all come after the rise of the British Empire to supremacy.
 
The channel is the biggest advantage the Isles had. That keep them away from so funny experiences like the 30years wars and the funny folklore like the Schwedentrunk.
 
But what do you feel were the best "breaks" that put England/Britain on a higher trajectory than you would have expected...

Item: strict hereditary rule, which avoided the constant instability of "elective" monarchies.

Then: the general weakness of British monarchs after William III, which allowed the formation of a strong parliamentary government. The one time this was interrupted (by George III) the results were not good.

Suppose George III had died 25 years earlier, and Prinny was head of state during the Napoleonic struggle; ISTM he'd be a great handicap.
 
Thomas Boleyn's personal greed for the title of Earl of Ormonde scuppers negotiations for the marriage of his daughter Anne to the current Earl's son. Anne is therefore free to attract and later marry Henry VIII, hence the Reformation, the rise of Cromwell, the dissolution of the monasteries, and tons of money for coastline defense and a navy.
 
Spain ruled Belgium before the advent of widespread public education, which is what really created a lot of the "nation-states" we think of today. Prior to the 19th century, it was very common for European commoners to speak a different language than their rulers.

If you want a different example, I notice that Czechs are doing fine despite several centuries of Habsburg rule.
 
If you want a different example, I notice that Czechs are doing fine despite several centuries of Habsburg rule.

I don't know how strong of a counterpoint that is, because in 1910, 35% of the population of what is now the Czech Republic spoke German as their first language, and much of the rest - including virtually all educated people - spoke it as a second language. (To put that into perspective, the language demographics of France were very similar at that time - knowledge of French was by now widespread, but it was still a second language for a majority of the population.) If the Czech region had remained under Austrian rule, there's a good chance it would be heavily Germanophone today, with Czech reduced to the status of a protected regional language.
 

katchen

Banned
Scottish disorganization during the Middle Ages leading to English control of Ireland early on. England would have had a much more difficult time becoming a Great Power if Scotland and ireland had merged into one country by the 1500s. England might not have been able to conquer "Scotsieire" either and the Celtogaelic speaking nation the two would become could industrialize and create colonies just as easily as England as well due to the combination of Scottish coal deposits and rich Irish farm and sheep land. And Scotland and Ireland do come very close to joining at the North Channel (Ulster, Galloway and the Mull of Kintyre/Strathclyde).
Such an evenly divided British Isles would be analogous to the situation OTL in Scandinavia, where Sweden was forced to turn toward Europe, where it got militarily defeated because it mede too many enemies. Sweden had to turn toward Europe because the two outer Scandinavian nations, Denmark and Norway were united together against Sweden. Neither grew particularly well into a great or even a medium power by the 19th Century.
 
I would call teh American revolution the thing they messed up royally. Imagine the New England states and the South staying as tow (or more) Crowns of teh English Empire with representation in the London parliament (maybe evolving into a dominion later) the Brits probably would STILL be no. I in the world.

I wouldn't say so as America remained within it's commercial empire (and eventually became an important ally) and Britain was spared the cost of administration. The colonies were never going to be a permanent part of Britain since there are just too many divergent interests ;having a colony government itself and retain great terms with the home country diplomatically is quite a boon to any country.
 
I don't know how strong of a counterpoint that is, because in 1910, 35% of the population of what is now the Czech Republic spoke German as their first language, and much of the rest - including virtually all educated people - spoke it as a second language

But these German speakers were German settlers and Germans who lived in the borders with other ethnic German territories, not Czechs who adopted a new language, for the most part.
 
Scottish disorganization during the Middle Ages leading to English control of Ireland early on. England would have had a much more difficult time becoming a Great Power if Scotland and ireland had merged into one country by the 1500s. England might not have been able to conquer "Scotsieire" either and the Celtogaelic speaking nation the two would become could industrialize and create colonies just as easily as England as well due to the combination of Scottish coal deposits and rich Irish farm and sheep land. And Scotland and Ireland do come very close to joining at the North Channel (Ulster, Galloway and the Mull of Kintyre/Strathclyde).
Such an evenly divided British Isles would be analogous to the situation OTL in Scandinavia, where Sweden was forced to turn toward Europe, where it got militarily defeated because it mede too many enemies. Sweden had to turn toward Europe because the two outer Scandinavian nations, Denmark and Norway were united together against Sweden. Neither grew particularly well into a great or even a medium power by the 19th Century.

But Scotland did try to conquer Ireland and it was a miserable failure. neither Scotland nor Ireland had any particular desire to be ruled by the other and neither (organised or not) had the resources to conquer the other. England with many times the population of both barely managed it after 500 years of intervention.
 
Also, France is much closer to London than Spain to Brussels.

One thought: If France and England would form a united state and stay like this - when would they start to dig a channel tunnel?
 
The various French invasions being messed up by fluke. People mentioned 1779, but there's also 1744 to remember, where the British had hardly anyone to defend the isles but the French fleet got destroyed by a storm. Delay the storm and you could easily see London burned and the KGB broken.

I thought it was the British fleet that was caught by the storm and the French ran before it?
 
British victories in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th Century pushed the Dutch aside and allowed the British to eventually dominate the oceans.

Political union with Scotland meant Britain itself did not need a large standing army on its own turf and could pour more resources into the navy.
 
British victories in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th Century pushed the Dutch aside and allowed the British to eventually dominate the oceans.

The only one the British won was the first Anglo-Dutch war, so that cant be it. Because britain has a higher population, better (and more) natural resources and is on an island, the Netherlands would never been able to compete with Britain. Well, maybe if an Franco-Dutch alliance would be formed.
 
The English got very lucky on this one.
220px-Irish-Invasion-Gillray.jpeg

In End of the Irish Invasion ; — or — the Destruction of the French Armada (1797), James Gillray caricatured the failure of Hoche's Irish expedition.

failed attempt to land launch a rebellion was made by a French fleet, including Wolfe Tone in December 1796. The French fleet consisting of 43 ships carrying 15,000 troops had divided mid-Atlantic into smaller groups to avoid interception by the Royal Navy with orders to reform at Bantry Bay. The bulk of the fleet arrived successfully, but several ships, including the flagship Fraternité carrying General Hoche were delayed. While awaiting their arrival, bad weather intervened and the lack of leadership, together with uneasiness at the prospect of being trapped, forced the decision to return to France. Tone wrote of the expedition in his diary, saying that We were close enough to toss a biscuit ashore in Ahabeg in Berehaven Harbour '. The square in Bantry is today named after Wolfe Tone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantry_Bay#Rebellion_of_1798
 
Geography wise, it's not only that GB is an island / archipelago, it's that it is one that controls access to the major oceans of the world from the major ports of its major competitors, stand fast Spain. Also, that it has natural harbours at just the right places to aid in the denial / control of the sea lanes for France, the Netherlands, Germany and Russia.... You couldn't put them in a better place if you tried
 
As stated before, conquering India: If the Maratha government had not outsourced so much and the Maratha military had kept pace with Western technological developments, then it would only have been a matter of time before the British - and, eventually, all European powers - would have been expelled from India. Furthermore, their would have been no Opium Wars, leaving China to industrialize on its own, perhaps with sparked by Maratha instead Western industrialization, along with its own formidable technological capacities as well, of course.
 
Top