Why was England never able to conquer Scotland?

KCammy

Banned
What were the reasons for England never really being able to conquer Scotland?

Anyone looking at only figures might think it ASB-ery.
 
It's a very mountainous country with a very narrow border that's a long way from the English centre of power in London. There's also a question of incentive: it would be a nightmare trying to occupy a hostile mountainous country and not worth the expense. If that's the case, you may as well try to fix the most defensible border, which is where the present border is.
 
Simply put, before Field Marshal George Wade came along a mapped the highlands and put a series of roads, bridges and forts through them they were not easilly accessable nor would it have been practical to try and subdue them given that inaccessability. So while men like Edward Longshanks, Edward III and Oliver Cromwell could subdue the Lowlands the Highlands could remain a bastion of Scottish nationaility and independent thought. William III (of Orange) was able to bring the Highlanders to heel by making an example of the MacDonalds of Glencoe but it would not be until Wade's road network was in place that the British could totally dominate the highlands following Bonnie Prince Charlies uprising in 1745.
 
It didn't help when English troops would loot farms and all they could find to eat was haggis. The known use of Gastronomical Warfare
 
Cromwell did conquer Scotland. There was no meaningful resistance to the conquest. The conquest was only reversed after the restoration
 
Plus most Monarchs of England were simply happy with making Scotland a lesser threat. Edward III and others went in, killed lots of people and made sure Scotland wouldn't pose too much of a threat for the foreseeable future. Was all round easier to do that as opposed to conquer another country.
 
Cromwell did conquer Scotland. There was no meaningful resistance to the conquest. The conquest was only reversed after the restoration

That's cause Cromwell drove the leaders of his opposition out of the country while simultaniously crushing their armies in the field plus he didn't actually take war to the Highlands, he sealed them off and fortified the frontier. The Highlands remained Royalist during the Commonwealth/Protectorate era and rebelled again in 1653 to 1655.
 
It's kind of like trying to occupy Afghanistan now. Climactic extremes, mountains, sparse population (generally), complex clan politics, and a group of warriors who will never, ever, ever, give up fighting until you're off their land and give them room to kill each other in peace.
 
No, England was inherited. ;)

It were the Stuarts (Scottish from Breton descent), which inherited England from the Tudors (with a Welsh heritage); the last Stuart after a brief Orange-Nassau intermezzo (though he (William/Willem III the king-stadtholder) had a Stuart mother and wife) managed the final union, after which Great Britain was inherited by the German (Hanoverian) Welfs (with Frankish and maybe even Lombard heritage).
 
It's kind of like trying to occupy Afghanistan now. Climactic extremes, mountains, sparse population (generally), complex clan politics, and a group of warriors who will never, ever, ever, give up fighting until you're off their land and give them room to kill each other in peace.

Agreed. Not to mention the fact that Scotland was often quite profitable for England, when the two countries weren't at each other's throats.
 
Top