This question may already have been answered but my son was wondering why, after William the Conqueror annexed Britain, there were various wars between France and England but none of them resulted in a takeover again. Did none of these wars change anything substantial?

I think France was originally Ile-de-France the area near the confluences of the Oise and Marne with the Seine and independent of the dukedom of Normandy at the time of the conquest.  The holdings that Norman and later Angevin kings of England held in what is nowadays France they held by descent from the nobility in Normandy and Anjou and not by right of conquest.  Over time kings of France wanted to expand their territory and maybe the fact that some territories on the French-speaking part of mainland Europe were by that time being administered by a ruler in an overseas island made them tempting....and then when the Capetian male line of kings died out there was dispute as to whether the throne should go through the male line to a cousin or to Edward III of England who was the grandson of Philip the Fair of France. The cousin got it as we know but the 100 years war ensued.

I think LiR is absolutely correct to question your definitions.

Did William "annex Britain" as your son is apparently presuming? The Scots would definitely beg to differ. Even the Welsh might justifiably question this phraseology. The Irish would have to wait another three centuries before even a retrospective claim on William's behalf was made publicly. In fact, one had to wait an equally long time before the Normans even made that retrospective claim for the entirety of England.

I think if you project yourself back to the 11th century and how people then (including William) classified territory, or how those who had forcibly attained the right to rule it tended to self-identify anyway, then your son's question comes with its own self-evident answer. Starting of course with what was later classified as warfare between "England" and "France" and to what extent such classification might merely have been spin to encourage public engagement in what was definitely a series of military engagements, but not so definitely between "nations" at all.

Thanks for your replies, LIR and Nordmann,

I wasn't actually quoting my son in those remarks and did wonder if annex and Britain were the right words to use.

Then it's hard to know what "takeover" means in the context of the question. Both the failed rebellion in Normandy during William Rufus's reign and the various Vexin conflicts are all classified as England V France encounters and the takeover of Normandy by the "French" certainly occurred (which is what the "English" faction was trying to avoid in both cases).

The 100 Years War, a bloody succession of extremely violent encounters grew into more organised, and more nationally identifiable, conflict as it progressed, and though it didn't result in one side "taking over" the other's territory it ended up largely defining the modern definitions of both states, especially England. By tweaking the interpretation of events only slightly one could say that the true Norman "takeover" of England wasn't really seen as such until these conflicts finally ended. Up to then the fate of English identity was not as cut and dried as traditional retrospective attribution might aver.

Of course if you look at the individual smaller territories within greater France then these conflicts, and those for the next 200 years or so, certainly ended up in many "takeovers" some of which had profound political implications still visible today, though not necessarily by sovereign states identifiable as either "England" or "France" by modern, or even contemporary, definitions of either term.

Caro, I hope my comment upthread didn't come across as snooty.  That was not my intention.  I've given myself a very brief revision of "The Anarchy" the civil war in England in the latter part of the 12th century. I know |I should take newspaper gossip with a very large dose of salts, but I remember their being some chat around the time the late Princess Diana gave birth to Prince William that she wanted to call him John but that "John" and "Stephen" are deemed to be names belonging to bad kings in the past.  But was Stephen really a very bad king?  The other claimant to the throne, Empress Matilda, seems to have had a selfish and greedy side to her personality.  Of course as ever it was the poor folk who suffered most during the Anarchy.  From one point of view might it be argued that the Angevin succession to the English throne was a takeover?  It wasn't a takeover in the same way as in 1066 because it wasn't a case of a French speaking person from overseas taking the throne of England from the native English nobility - more a case of one French speaking house taking over from another French speaking house.  Both sides might have been wearied by war.  Stephen might have been suffering with grief following the death of his eldest son so that his heart wasn't in it anymore and he was willing to agree to the crown bypassing his second son.  Anyway, the Angevin house succeeded to the throne (says she stating the blatantly obvious again) and those who succeed get to write the history books (well history may be written a little more objectively nowadays).

I haven't made a study of writings about the Anarchy even in translation so there MAY be chronicles written which were favourable to Stephen and I am not aware of them.

Addendum to my previous post - just to briefly state I've had the fluidity of borders over the years on my mind after re-watching "Assault on East Prussia" the documentary and realising how fragile a nation state can be and how a once thriving nation state may not exist anymore - not in that entity anyway though the land would still be there.  So thinking about France the nation state I had its changing borders over the years on my mind.

All of your points are extremely relevant to Caro's original question, I reckon, LiR. Using "England" and "France" as shorthand identities for the opponents during these conflicts between armies raised in each territory, as well as use of the term "takeover", makes a lot of assumptions regarding the nature of these conflicts which I doubt that many of those involved in them might even recognise.

In recent times it became a popular trend in historical discourse to focus on that great English "hero" Richard the Lionheart's obvious disdain for his own title as king of England, a territory he seemingly regarded purely as a revenue source and over which he showed little or no willingness to govern, even in the lip-service sense regarding recognising its institutions, church, local politics and other points of interface that monarchs traditionally used if only to remind everyone who was nominally top dog. The mistake in this discourse, I feel, is to present this as a sort of humorous anomaly (the "good" king was really a very "bad" king), instead of a valuable clue to how many of his predecessors and even quite a few successors also regarded their own identity as English monarch, and by extension the whole English identity itself. If you take this approach to retrospectively working out what "English identity" meant at all during this long period, then it is unavoidable to also examine how people within this territory also viewed it, and therefore what constituted English territory itself in the minds of those living there.

Modern regional variations within England of the extent to which the denizens within each region identify with their immediate locality above their country, or vice versa, may actually be a valuable clue to what has historically always obtained, with any modern notion of a homogenous nation being one of very recent invention indeed, I think. And ironically enough, given the assumptions contained within Caro's original question, this very fractiousness itself may well indeed have been England's most effective bulwark against "takeover" at all, one that even the Normans proved in their own charmingly psychopathic manner. One could take over the reigns of absolute power in England, one could ruthlessly purge all potential political opposition that might threaten one's hold on the reigns, one could even impose a new language, new institutions, new economy, new social structure, and everything else the Normans did - but one still could never hand on heart even pretend that one was sure one had "taken over" all the hearts, minds and smallholdings contained neatly within one colour on the map.

The English were later to regretfully ponder their apparent ineffectiveness (though not for want of trying) when they encountered a very similar challenge within Ireland which, the more they established absolute governance over absolutely everywhere, still seemed to stubbornly revert to a very fractious politic that slowly but surely undermined their hold over the island - the so-called "Irish Question" to which they never could devise a satisfactory answer. What they probably failed to realise was that this was precisely what had also made themselves almost impossible to "take over" in their own history.

Thanks, both of you, for elucidating all this. I never really studied this bit of history in great depth - we did the Stuarts and Tudors and Georgian periods at school. I don't suppose I realised at the time, but it was probably a study of the rise of the power of Parliament and its constitution, though we started with the Stuarts and went back to the Tudors and then onto the Georges. Don't know why. Then we darted off for a brief look at the beginnings of the British in America. All this was just done in a year. 

Then at university where I also only studied history for a year, we focused on the Huns and Visigoths and that period, though I have forgotten most of that.

Caro, I can't link on this device and my laptop seems to be getting more dodgy every day but a few years back the mayor of a town in France (i think it as Angers) that was formerly under the control of the Angevin kings of England but s part of modern France demanded the return of some part of the crown jewels that had been brought to England when the Angevin line succeeded to the English throne.  If and ehen I manage to get a halfway decent computer agsin (and manage to master the art of inserting links without copying the whole internet address) I'll try and link the original article.  I think the mayor was making his demand in a joking way.

Sorry I'm still working on my short links but here is the link to a Daily Mail article on the matter done the old-fashioned way.  If it throws the formatting of the site out of kilter I'm sure nordmann will delete it.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173848/French-demand-Crown-Jewels-Queen-1499-murder-Edward-Plantagenet.html

LadyinRetirement wrote:

 but a few years back the mayor of a town in France (i think it as Angers) that was formerly under the control of the Angevin kings of England but s part of modern France demanded the return of some part of the crown jewels that had been brought to England when the Angevin line succeeded to the English throne.  If
Sorry I'm still working on my short links but here is the link to a Daily Mail article on the matter done the old-fashioned way.  If it throws the formatting of the site out of kilter I'm sure nordmann will delete it.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173848/French-demand-Crown-Jewels-Queen-1499-murder-Edward-Plantagenet.html

 
LiR, it's a bit like the eternal privilege granted by Charles II to fifty fishermen from Bruges in 1666

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2017/07/06/_bruges_fishermencancontinuefishinginbritishwatersafterbrexittha-1-3018117/
From the article:
However, Mr Bourgeois was thinking of another option, the charter from 1666. This was discovered in the Bruges archives in 1963. A Bruges alderman next ventured out into British waters to test it out. But while the Belgian dared the British, these decided to let sleeping dogs lie."He deliberately had himself arrested by the British hoping they would take him to court. However, this didn't happen. Documents from the British archives later revealed that it was advised against taking the Belgian to court, because of fears concerning the 1666 Charter. They were afraid it would still be in force", explains Lisa Lust.

Kind regards, Paul.

Just a little addendum to the subject, which may not be totally true. I have been reading Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. In one episode the four kids are playing a quiz, and the question is "How many times has England been officially at war since 1066?" "Twenty? Nah, s'never twenty...Oh. It was. Well, I never."

Caro wrote:

Just a little addendum to the subject, which may not be totally true. I have been reading Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. In one episode the four kids are playing a quiz, and the question is "How many times has England been officially at war since 1066?" "Twenty? Nah, s'never twenty...Oh. It was. Well, I never."

Caro, and another little addendum...

How many times is England (and I say the territory of England) invaded? And this question seems to be not that easy to answer.
Invasion up to me, is to stay for a while and effectively has a stay in the country?
And does an invasion, although from an army from another country, by family (European monarchs one big family in the time) counts as a real invasion? In that context is 1066 an invasion or a family question?
And yes mostly invasions from the territory of nowadays France and some from the Dutch Republic of the time?

Nah...3?...4?...10?...

Kind regards, Paul.

I refer you to my earlier comment, Paul - the problem with both Caro's quote from "Good Omens" (excellent book by the way), and your question about "England" being invaded, is the rather thorny issue of national identity. Using the term "England" as a shorthand motif for the geographical territory we currently see in our atlas is fine - but to what extent is it dependable historically as a description of anything? There is a strong argument to be made for the viewpoint that "England", at least in the sense of a consistently understood description of a national territory containing a population who are completely invested in adopting that term as their national identity, ended with Edward the Confessor.

Some historians (including even Winston Churchill, of all people!) have even gone so far as to say that what died with the Confessor was the "last chance" to establish that identity at all, implying that a nation with that identity was in the making but not quite there yet when the events of 1066 took place. But whether you go that far or not, you would have to acknowledge that such an ambiguous identity as pertained subsequently makes it a very moot point indeed concerning what any subsequent "invader" is "invading" - from the time of the Normans (who certainly did stage a military coup launched from another point in the atlas) to anyone else who contemplated or partially succeeded in staging a similar exercise.

Would Hitler, had Unternehmen Seelöwe gone ahead, have invaded England or Britain (or even the UK)? What did Monmouth invade with his Dutch mercenaries (and could it even be classed as an "invasion" if performed by one of the "English" ruling class anyway)? Can one invade one's own country? And if one can, and one lands in England, what country has been invaded anyway if it's Britain that is the prize? You could ask the very same question of "Bonnie" Prince Charles, or James II (reboot attempt) who invaded Ireland to become a British monarch based in England. Had James enjoyed military success in Ireland would he have then "invaded" England? Or would he have fought a series of military engagements on "English" soil without ever having technically invaded at all?

England isn't alone with this ambiguity concerning its justification for use of the term to describe a corresponding geopolitical constant that simply does not stand up to historical scrutiny. Go back far enough in any European country's history and you'll find a similar quandary regarding retrospective assigning and over-stating of national identity thus expressed. Most countries resolve the ambiguity eventually by simply retaining a cohesive territory and consistent name for an appreciable time. England, on the other hand, went from the ambiguity of a national identity still being forged to the even more ambiguous position of being a geopolitical component of a country with a whole new identity altogether (whether you call it the United Kingdom or Britain which is just more ambiguity piled on to an already intangible sense of identity), the bit in between being a period in which it was run by a French speaking master-elite who evolved into a political class for whom the term "England" was an identity defined largely by comparison to the territories that lay around them, all of which were regarded as territories worth acquiring and controlling. But never to be incorporated into "England". That, apparently, wasn't an identity with which they were comfortable (or even preoccupied) at all even as they ruled it - their horizons (and sense of national identity) apparently always rested elsewhere.

nordmann wrote:

Quote :

your question about "England" being invaded, is the rather thorny issue of national identity. Using the term "England" as a shorthand motif for the geographical territory we currently see in our atlas is fine - but to what extent is it dependable historically as a description of anything? There is a strong argument to be made for the viewpoint that "England", at least in the sense of a consistently understood description of a national territory containing a population who are completely invested in adopting that term as their national identity, ended with Edward the Confessor.

nordmann, thank you as ever for your insightful reply.

excuses Caro for the deviation, but it is still about "England" and "France".

And yes nordmann, we come always back to, as you called it, the rather thorny issue of national indentity...
The past 15 years I tried to find an answer on this issue...on different fora and discussions...
For instance one of the three or four on Historum
https://historum.com/threads/early-nationalism.64570/
And I still think that the early "nationalism" was more as I mentioned on the first page about the book of Sébastien Dubois:
"a feeling of the people of belonging to the realm of a certain monarch"



And on the French Passion Histoire:
http://www.passion-histoire.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=37422

And only from the 19th century in Europe they started during the forming of the nation-states with the invention of the "national myths" (les romans nationaux) to form and to prove their respective "national indentities"
You had the so-called different insight about national indentity of the German Johann Gottlieb Herder and the French Ernest Renan, but in my opinion after all what I read they are not so different as they seem on the first sight.

At the end I find the description of an erudite on Historum (who had it also from a university study) still the best...
It is not the reality of history that counts, but the believing! in a national narration (a myth but the people want to believe it as a community), a bit the "völkisch" Herder version or believing in the national values the people think to have in the state they live in, a bit the Renan version...

Kind regards, Paul.

There is no "one process fits all" description of how and when any country might be said to have acquired a "national identity". Also, the problem with pretending that acquiring a national identity was somehow a product or feature only of the 19th century is that it is a patently absurd claim that defies common sense, let alone historical scrutiny - while the popularity of the word "nation" or its equivalent in European languages certainly grew in that century as an alternative to "country" or "realm" etc, it is a folly to think that in each case where it was adopted that it meant the same thing to the people within the often fundamentally different culturally unique communities who used it. The tendency to assume it might have meant the same thing - and could therefore be interpreted by contemporaries and historians afterwards as "one movement" - seems to have developed from the undeniable fact that nationalism within one state certainly promoted the same elsewhere. However if one examines a known and demonstrable series of such influence - for example from France through Ireland to India - then one can readily see how easy it is to draw too much inference regarding the character of nationalism in each case from what are often very superficial similarities, albeit within a process in which actors in one state certainly promoted nationalist feeling in the next.

To say "it is not really the history that counts" is, I presume, a reference to how people might begin to regard their respective nationalities today, and in that narrow respect I agree, or at least agree that it is a common misconception adopted by those engaged in such an activity. But it is a very narrow respect indeed anyway, one which also conveniently forgets or discounts the fact that "nationalism" per se varies in nature and tone from country to country, and the extent to which it varies as well as the particular tone that people adopt in each region depends very much on the particular historical process that brought each community to that point. And within that population today, among people who do indeed wish to seriously explore the notion of what their nationality might entail and how (as well as why) it should be expressed, then an appreciation and knowledge of history is of absolute necessity. Without the historical prism what results is so diffuse an image that it lends itself to individuals basically seeing what they will and essentially making up their "nationalism" as they go along, an unfortunate process that gives rise to everything from Hollywood clichéd stereotypes being absorbed and adopted by the citizens being stereotyped to the worst extremes of "far right" thuggery and violence being prosecuted in the name of the nation. The fictional foundation of such stereotypes, the one that you and your erudite interlocutor elsewhere saw as being the "most important" factor, is really only the most important factor in misinterpreting nationality, not understanding it at all.

No two countries as depicted on a modern geopolitical atlas share much beyond superfluous and coincidental parallels in their respective histories when it comes to analysing or determining the issue of their "nationality". Belgium and Germany, for example, could be said to be both 19th century amalgamations of previously distinct communities in order to create a nation state. However the historical processes whereby each came about were very different - one cobbled together on the insistence of external powers with little say in the matter on the part of those who would emerge as "Belgians" from the process, the other cobbled together through appeal, coercion, bribe and other even less diplomatic procedures by one community with sufficiently comparable cultural identity to the others that even now, not without some considerable justification, the matter can be historically assessed as having been an "internal process". Until one looks even closer at the history, of course, but such is the way with almost every country one can mention.

The point I have been making, and make again, is that conflating the notions of "country", "nation", "state" etc, while making for excellent shorthand descriptions of geopolitical states as they may now exist, advances understanding not one iota if the point is to determine the historical process in each unique instance, or for that matter even understanding how and why nationality remains a powerful - if inexact - descriptor among the others which, when combined, describe a person's implied affiliation with and allegiance to the state in which they grow up.

Most countries, as previously said, share at least a similar sequence in their evolution. This involves a gradual consolidation of cultural identity among diverse communities into one of sustainable size that lends itself to self-administration and - crucially for 19th century nationalists - self-determination. However "most" is by no means "all", and England is a perfect example of one such exception. If regarded in isolation then it superficially shares these characteristics of its neighbours, but this would be to conveniently ignore the British state or its political expression the "United Kingdom", both of which are rather more than mere historical complications along that evolutionary process but strong expressions of national identity in their own right, often so strongly promoted and adhered to that generations have willingly sacrificed their lives in support of that very identity, an identity in which being "English" was almost so incidental as to be meaningless. It is against this historical backdrop that any English person trying to tease out and understand the use of that word to express their primary national identity now has to assess where they stand. Not only is it absurd to say in that instance that "history is irrelevant" but in fact history, and a huge amount of retrospective appreciation of that history, is of paramount importance. There is no one date on which an English person can say with certainty "this is when we became English", and even if there was one then it is more than out-balanced by successive dates on which "England" as a badge of identity was subsumed or even replaced  by others that the same citizens were encouraged or forced to adopt, and after which they were certainly encouraged not to address again as an issue. A complication with few parallels in other European countries' own development, you must surely agree, and one therefore that gives the lie to "nationalism" being a simple, or at least a common, process - whether in the 19th century or ever - against which every country can be assessed.

Caro's original post adopted the shorthand use of country names, and it was this that I was warning against when retrospectively assigning assumed nationality to belligerents in historical wars. But as your own posts indicate, the dangers of using such shorthand terms too readily complicates historical assessment of nearly everything - not least modern attempts by people living in the here and now to make sense of what their own national identity is, or even should be.

And in all these endeavours "history" matters. In fact it matters more than almost anything else.

nordmann, I read your reply this morning, but just entered sometime ago.

Thank you for the worry you have done to answere every question, statement or supposition that in detail.
I mostly agree with all what you said and am thinking about a reply. And aware that you said to Caro that it is a thorny question, I will try to make some "kanttekeningen" (marginal notes? notes in the margin?) on each paragraph.
You chose "England" and mentioned also "Belgium" as example. I will use these two examples too to try to disentangle in what my thoughts, if any, are different from yours. I will try to reply tomorrow, while I need more time than you I suppose, to "construct" such a well-founded reply as yours. I said: try 

Kind regards, Paul.

nordmann wrote:

Quote :

There is no "one process fits all" description of how and when any country might be said to have acquired a "national identity".

nordmann, you will say you use another word to try to prove the same as with "process".
But I wanted to use the word "stramien" (grid?, framework?) instead of "process", because I am not sure it is completely the same.

I agree that there is no "one process fits all" description for acquiring a "national indentity", but aren't there some similarities and not superfluous ones, which have led mostly I suppose for the average population to a feeling of belonging to a state with territorial borders? And indeed this traject can be different in many ways for each specific country depending on their history, but aren't there "étapes" (steps?) in that traject that are similar in each "national" story and that at the end lead to a feeling of national identity?

I have some difficulties with the difference between the "national indentity" induced by the government of the new or old territorial countries on the population within their borders (a narration many times biased for the good of that country involved (the national novel, nearly myth) and the real feelings of the average population about the country they live in. And can in some occasions these two sides amplify each other and lead to a jingoist stance?
About the "national myth" I still remember that we in our childhood in Belgium learned that Clovis from Tournai was the man who started our national history and some fourty kilometer further my French schoolmates in France learned also that Clovis (Chlodovech (Lodewijk-Ludwig- Louis) was their man who started the history of France.

nordmann, as I understand it, you and I are, I hope, speaking about the same "national identity" namely the feelings of the average population towards the country they live in?

As about my "stramien" (framework, grid). Take now the examples of "Belgium" and the "United Kingdom and Ireland".

The former territory of Belgium was roughly spread over the county of Flanders, the duchy of Brabant, the Prince-Bishopric of Liège, the county of Luxemburg and the small marquisate of Namur. And as I understood it the only national identity the people used to was of belonging to the realm of their specific county, duchy or whatever?

But then came the Burgundians, who started in the County of Flanders, but then gradually obtained by marriage (and other tricks) the whole Low Countries, but the Duke of Burgundy had two suzerains the Emperor of the HRE and the French king.
The border divided vertically the nowadays Belgium. But from what I read the former duchies and counties were still a bit independent as the duke had to do the "joyous entry" to confirm that they had still the same privileges and there was already some body with which the Duke had to reckon with: the states-general (from the example of French kingdom).
But I think that the people of the Low Countries were aware and had a feeling to belonging to the Duchy of Burgund even with there respective local monarchs and local feelings. And that feeling was perhaps even more with Charles V. But with his departure to Spain and handing over the power to Philip II there seems to have been a rupture with the far away monarch in Spain and while the religious wars were raging a bit everywhere in Europe, there came a split by war between the Dutch Republik and the Southern Netherlands (rougly the area of the nowadays Belgium) and that split was confirmated with the treaty of Westfalen (1648). And by this war there came a bit of in my words an "early nationalism" of the Southern Netherlands against the Northern Dutch Republic (the South still in a system with monarchs)? And the same early nationalism in the Dutch Republic?

Now fast forward to what you called a cobbling together of Belgium. After all the monarchs passing in the Southern Netherlands, first Spanish, then Austrian there was in my opinion a trend rupture with the French revolution: the United States of Belgium. But by all that turmoil there was a kind of real feeling of a national identity around the former duchy of Brabant and a more republican approach apart from monarchies. But with Napoléon and the later French restauration and shortly afterward again an Empéreur Napoleon III, the reaction of the old fashioned kingdoms and empires was there again.

Therefore I agree that the Belgian National Congress asking a Frenchman as king was a step too far for the English, but in my opinion that cobbling together wouldn't have worked anymore in that time if the "big powers" would have obliged to join Prussia or France.I am even not sure if a split of Belgium (the former Southern Netherlands) between Great Britain and France would ever have worked due to the emerging national feelings of the Belgians.

I wanted to make the parallel between "Belgium" and the "United Kingdom and Ireland" from 1800 along the same framework.
But as I see it, if you compare the Flemish question and their national identity feelings emerging in the 19th century with the Irish question and their respectively national feelings, there is quite some difference as the Flemish movement started much later and the underlying difficulties were from another category than the revendications of the Flemish movement, which were more on a language base and on social discrimination by a French speaking elite.
But perhaps one common factor was the disdain of (in the Belgian case) the French speaking ruling elite for the plebs of dialect speaking Flemings lacking the French high cultural values?

Kind regards, Paul.

PS: I have edited the post to put apostrophes in the last paragraph around "Belgium" and the "United Kingdom and Ireland" as I did in the fifth paragraph, because it is important for the reasoning about that stage in the history of the "United Kingdom", especially as I see now that it would be the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland"?

So, having set out with the intention of using Belgium and Ireland to show how - as an argument against my previous point - their development as "nations" actually shared crucial common elements, and after having looked at the historical details in each case, you arrived at the conclusion that my previous post was in fact correct. Thank you.

I am fully aware of what you call the "national novel" being a common element in many countries' sense of national identity, and that it is as frequently moulded from errant history or even pure fantasy as it is applied retrospectively. However knowing that this is the case should in fact only motivate the citizen to discount these "novels" if they are serious about assessing their respective nation and, by extension, therefore what their nationality actually means as a descriptive term. And it is also worth considering that for all but the youngest child or the least cognitive adult "national myth" contributes nothing but picturesque backdrop to their sense of national status - real awareness of which is dictated, for better or worse, mostly through observation of the here and now. In some countries this process is neither hindered nor helped by knowledge of such myth, either because it so obviously deviates from history that it can be taken as little more than a fairy tale or because it so closely matches actual history that it adds nothing to the process of assessing one's nationality beyond that which one will learn anyway from standard history lessons in school.

But all this presupposes anyway that there is a strongly defined national identity to dissect and analyse in the first place. And for many states' citizens this is the very thing that is lacking. I cited England as a case in point - lately a country whose citizens are slowly becoming aware that they actually lack an identity as understood in places like France, Germany, or even Belgium for all its current problems on that front, or for that matter Scotland and Ireland - two other states politically subsumed in the past also within the "British" homogeneous identity but which appear to have retained a sense of distinct national identity that England somehow lost along the way. A few of the ex-Soviet states, even after political division from Russian hegemony in the 1990s, also now face a similar challenge. And of course genuinely "stateless" nations, from the Armenians to the Sioux, would recognise this struggle too. For all of these people, who certainly are not without considerably ornate and reasonably ancient "national novels" of their own, possession of and belief in such a myth is patently not enough. And for some, even possession of a territory with a designated border in addition to the myth is not enough either.

The issue of national identity obviously goes deeper than either superficial commonality can pretend to address. And in fact starting with such "commonality" when addressing the issue therefore doesn't seem all that sensible at all.

Which is a long-winded way of reiterating my previous point. If analysis even of current national identity cannot be served by shorthand presumptions then, at the very least, one must be very wary indeed when retrospectively assigning labels of national identity to people and events many centuries old.

Thank you very much, nordmann for an insightful reply that make me again aware of how complex a good definition is. It is again too late to comment in full and as it is for me at least an interesting debate, as for instace among others the separation of countries from former bigger entities. Some vying for it and others separated against their will and the question of national identity in all that. And that old fashionated stuff seems to be alife again, as it was never away. See for instance Catalunia, Ukraine and as I mentioned the Flemish nationalists in Belgium.

For all that nordmann, if you agree, I wanted to start a new thread, with these two latest messages as it sums up a bit where the question is about and while we are usurpating now since a while Caro's thread and deviating in another direction?

A proposed title perhaps: "National identity, a thorny question?"

Kind regards, Paul.

Too "thorny" even for a low-level discussion such as sites like this accommodate.

In fact even separatism as a feature of nationalism, as your examples slightly illustrate, is itself an inadequate definition of anything. It is difficult to find a nation of any description that hasn't at one point been part of a larger nation state, but it does not follow that they have always been the lesser element within the previous entity, just as it does not follow either that the will to politically separate can always be neatly ascribed to "nationalism" on anyone's part involved in the process whereby the newer state arose. Countries end up being "separate" due to wilful separation, imposed separation, accidental separation, and - ironically enough - sometimes even due to an ideology of "unification".

So, as long you restrict your view of "nationalism" to that which was popularly endorsed in the mid-19th century by empires and rebels alike, then you can probably get away with other shorthand terms such as "separatism" too. And of course if you follow that path then you will inevitably fall into the other classic trap in which a country of arbitrary constitution with an arbitrary name is used to identify a "nation" over many generations of its inhabitants lives - the further back in time you then continue to employ this inadequate shorthand term the less meaningful or dependable a descriptor it obviously becomes.

So, as I previously implied, if you can find a way of discussing political and social history with a focus on national identity while avoiding all these little semantic traps that lead people into terribly misleading and false conclusions then you're way ahead of me. However as far as I can see based on the evidence of this discussion so far you're as often to be found impaled at the bottom of the heffalump-pit as anyone else, including myself.

For O level and then A level I studied from around 1660 the restoration (of the monarchy) until the first serious attempt at reforming franchise (which didn't reform a great deal - baby steps) circa 1832.  I remember there were a lot of wars in the 18th century.  Some of the "invasions" of the UK since 1066 might arguably be considered raids rather than full-blown invasions.  John Paul Jones the Scots-born American revolutionary led a raid against Britain landing in Whitehaven in 1778 but I wouldn't personally consider it an invasion though others are free to disagree with me.  I couldn't put a number on how many times Britain found itself at odds with other countries over the years.  Two wars which took a toll on the average population were the Stephen v Matilda struggle for the throne which was is sometimes referred to as The Anarchy (the ordinary folk of the land certainly suffered) and the Civil War as in Roundheads v Cavaliers.  I guess whether the Jacobite uprisings are considered invasions would depend on what stance a person has in regards to those uprisings.  I'm sure the Jacobites didn't think they were invading but were fighting a just cause to restore the rightful king to the throne (if they had been successful).  I haven't been through the history books tallying the number of times England (I suppose in later years it would be the UK) has been at war.  Maybe the late Terry Pratchett did so and reached a total of 20 so could say it was at least 20 (though I appreciate Caro's second question was about the number of times England had gone to war and not how many times the country had been invaded).

nordmann, you are right that national identity is difficult to pin down.  For myself if I think of myself as British and if we go by place of birth then English.  My name away from Res Historica sounds Irish.  If people question me about it I usually say I'm English or English-born but with Irish and Welsh ancestry.

LiR wrote:

For myself if I think of myself as British and if we go by place of birth then English.

Yet you live in a country that only includes "Britain" as a part of its own name, and doesn't refer to "England" at all. In fact as a badge of national identity it's hardly used by its inhabitants at all. So yes, while national identity is difficult to pin down even in the best cases, in some cases it's actually designated by the state's own officially adopted name itself as being nigh on impossible.

Which is why shorthand terms such as the ones you use bring one no closer to pinning anything down with regard to actual identity and in fact merely render it a futile pursuit.

And that's even before you take into account the extent to which one is required to adopt at least a nominal belief in the "national myths" that Paul referred to above and which are used to help justify adoption of any national identity. Paul assumes quite incorrectly one such myth per person, possibly two if the person is a separatist. In your case for example you allude to four, none of them include the UK (the country in which you live), and none of which suggest you are a separatist at all.

I tend to use the UK and Britain interchangeably.  In informal conversation it's easier to say British.  There is no word 'UK-ish' though a phrase 'from the UK' is possible though it takes longer to trip off the tongue.

Exactly - not quite a name designed to encourage people to nationally identify with the country at all.

Britain is also a problematic badge of identity, especially when looked at from a separatist standpoint. Scotland leaving "Britain", while not politically exact a phrase, still sort of makes sense. England leaving "Britain" just doesn't make sense at all, even though (despite the countless times one hears it) the two are not at all interchangeable words for the same thing.

During the Scottish independence referendum a few years ago (not actually a referendum but we'll leave that aside for the moment) locals were urged to "leave the Union" or "stay within the Union". However what "Union" was that? It certainly wasn't the one represented by "U" in "UK", which is, as every schoolchild knows (though worryingly fewer adults) the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If Northern Ireland leaves then semantically what's left can revert to its older format "United Kingdom of Great Britain", which of course should really be "United Kingdoms of Great Britain" if one is going to be pedantic about it. One solution would have been to drop mention of the "Union" at all and ask the Scottish people if they wanted to leave Great Britain - leaving England to continue using the "Britain" bit as an interchangeable term for their own patch (this time correctly) while the Scottish could just keep the "Great" part. The "Great Kingdom of Scotland" actually has a nice ring to it.

I'm not sure that it should be called the UK. 

Since 1953 it has been 'ruled' by a queen so it should have been called the UQ, and since it quite obviously is not united it should perhaps be called Q. A series by Spike Milligan and an interesting character in Star Trek TNG.

I'd be happy for Northumbria to join Scotland if they can manage to stay in Europe.

nordmann wrote:

What did Monmouth invade with his Dutch mercenaries (and could it even be classed as an "invasion" if performed by one of the "English" ruling class anyway)? Can one invade one's own country? And if one can, and one lands in England, what country has been invaded anyway if it's Britain that is the prize? You could ask the very same question of "Bonnie" Prince Charles, or James II (reboot attempt) who invaded Ireland to become a British monarch based in England. Had James enjoyed military success in Ireland would he have then "invaded" England? Or would he have fought a series of military engagements on "English" soil without ever having technically invaded at all?

These are valid questions which envelope both Paul’s question regarding how many times England has been invaded and Caro’s original poser regarding how many times England has been officially at war since 1066. The words ‘England’ and ‘officially’ are obviously key here. Taking England to mean the former kingdom and commonwealth, then this requires 2 supplementary questions to be answered - namely where is England and when was England? The ‘where’ question is easily answered as it would refer to that territory which the state calling itself England considered to be integral territory of itself. As with most countries that territory would change shape over the centuries. The ‘when’ question, however, is slightly trickier. The end date seems relatively clear being 30 April 1707 (Julian Calendar), with the Treaty of Union coming into effect the following day. The start date is not so clear with there being almost no historical consensus on this. Suggestions range anywhere form the 5th century up to the 13th century.

For the purposes of this thread, however, a practical option which would be the Council of Chester of 973. This saw the reign and title of Edgar the Peaceable (as king of England) and the boundaries his state confirmed by the rulers of the other British countries. There had been earlier rulers claiming titles such as ‘king of the English’ including Edgar’s great-grandfather Alfred of Wessex but Alfred had never called himself or been called ‘king of England’ and neither was his state officially called England. Alfred’s grandson Althelstan following the battle of Brunanburh was also unable to claim the title as there was no peace settlement with the Dublin Vikings who still claimed York. And after Athelstan’s death Northumbria seceded. The accession of Edgar in 959, however, had seen England peacefully reunited. And with no further ‘Northumbrexits’ after this date then it can be said that the state of England was formed at this time. The subsequent Council of Chester was the proving of that pudding. Edgar’s status was recognised by the other British rulers and the Lothian Question was finally answered. The question having been: Is Lothian part of Scotland or England? Answer: Scotland.

With 973 as the start date and 1707 as the end date, that gives a timeframe of 734 years. Leaving the ‘officially’ question to one side for the moment here’s a list all conflicts during those 734 years involving English forces or England-based forces or England-orientated forces. Significant battles in a conflict are given in brackets – e.g. (Maldon). The ‘result’ given refers to the conflict as a whole and not to the named battle (which was often different):
 
1. Harald Bluetooth’s raids on England 980-986 – result draw
2. Sweyn Forkbeard’s invasions of England 988-1014 (Maldon) – result Danish victory
3. Canute’s conquest of England 1014-16 (Assandun) – result Danish victory
4. Edward the Confessor’s raid on England 1035 - result Harold Harefoot victory
5. Edward the Confessor’s invasion of Scotland 1054 – result draw
6. Edward the Confessor’s invasion of Wales 1062 – result draw
7. Harald Hardrada’s invasion 1066 (Stamford Bridge) – result Harold Godwinson victory
8. William of Normandy’s conquest of England 1066 (Hastings) – result Norman victory
9. Norman invasion of Wales 1067-1094 – result draw
10. Norman conquest of Cornwall 1068 – result Norman victory
11. Harrying of the North 1069-71 – result Norman victory
12. William’s invasion of Scotland 1072 – result Norman victory
13. Malcolm’s invasion of England 1092-93 (Alnwick) – result Norman victory
14. Duncan Malcolmson’s invasion of Scotland 1094 – result Scottish victory
15. Henry Beauclerc’s conquest of Normandy 1105-6 (Tinchebray) – result Norman victory
16. Henry Beauclerc’s first invasion of Wales 1114 – result draw
17. Norman-Capetian War 1116-19 (Brémule) – result Norman victory
18. Henry Beauclerc’s second invasion of Wales 1121 – result draw
19. Henry Beauclerc’s intervention in Scotland 1130 – result Scottish-Norman victory
20. The Anarchy 1135-53 – result civil draw
21. David of Scotland’s invasion of England 1135-9 (Standard) – result draw
22. Henry Curtmantle’s invasions of Wales 1157-65 – result Welsh victory
23. Henry Curtmantle’s invasion of Ireland 1169-77 – result draw
24. William the Lion’s invasion of England 1173-4 (Alnwick) - result Norman victory
25. John Lackland’s Ireland expedition 1185 – result draw
26. Richard the Lionheart’s Third Crusade 1189-90 – result draw
27. John Lackland’s Scotland expedition 1209 – result draw
28. John Lackland’s Wales expedition 1210 – result draw
29. First Baron’s War 1215-17 – result Angevin victory
30. Llewelyn the Great’s border campaigns 1220-33 – result draw
31. Poitou War 1224 (La Rochelle) – result Capetian victory
32. Richard Mór de Burgh sieges of Galway 1230-5 – result Lordship of Ireland victory
33. Pembroke’s rebellion 1235 (Curragh) - result Lordship of Ireland victory
34. Henry of Winchester’s invasions of Wales 1241-7 – result draw
35. Saintonge War 1242-3 (Taillebourg) – result Capetian victory
36. Connaught rebellion 1249 (Athenry) – result Lordship of Ireland victory
37. Llewelyn ap Gruffydd’s border campaigns 1256-77 – result draw
38. Tyrconnell rebellion 1257 – result Tyrconell victory
39. Hiberno-Norman incursion into Desmond 1259-61 (Callan) – result MacCarthy victory
40. Ulster-Connaught rebellion 1260 (Downpatrick) – result Lordship of Ireland victory
41. Second Baron’s War 1264-67 (Evesham) – result Plantagenet victory
42. Connaught rebellion 1270 – result O’Connor victory
43. Edward Longshanks conquest of Wales 1283 – result Plantagenet victory
44. Guyenne War 1294-1303 – result Capetian victory
45. First War of Scottish Independence 1296-1328 (Bannockburn) – result Scottish victory
46. Scottish invasion of Ireland 1315-18 (Faughart) – result Lordship of Ireland victory
47. War of Saint-Sardos 1324 – result Capetian victory
48. Isabella’s invasion of England 1326 – result Isabelline victory
49. Second War of Scottish Independence 1332-57 (Neville’s Cross) – result Scottish victory
50. Edwardian War in France 1337-60 (Crécy) – result Plantagenet victory
51. War of the Breton Succession 1341-65 – result Valois victory
52. Black Prince’s intervention in Castile 1367 – result draw  
53. Caroline War in France 1369-89 (La Rochelle) – result Valois-Castilian victory
54. Robert Stewart’s border campaign 1373-88 (Otterburn) – result Scottish victory
55. Peasant’s Revolt 1381 – Plantagenet victory
56. Richard Plantagenet’s campaign in Ireland 1394-5 – result Lordship of Ireland victory
57. Henry Bolingbroke’s invasion 1399 – result Bolingbroke victory  
58. Robert John Stewart’s border raid 1399 – result Scottish victory
59. Welsh Revolt 1400-15 (Shrewsbury) – result Bolingbroke and Monmouth victory
60. Lancastrian War in France 1415-1453 (Agincourt) – result Valois victory
61. Mary of Guelders’ border campaign 1460-1 (Roxburgh) – result Scottish victory
62. Margaret of Anjou’s invasion 1460-1 (Towton) – result Yorkist victory
63. Warwick’s invasion 1470 – result Lancastrian victory
64. Yorkist and Lancastrian invasions 1471 (Tewkesbury) – result Yorkist victory
65. Picardy War 1475 – result non-belligerent draw
66. Dowry War 1480-84 (Berwick) – result Scottish victory
67. Henry Tudor’s invasion 1485 (Bosworth) – result Tudor victory
68. Brittany War 1486-8 – result French victory
69. Yorkist invasion 1487 (Stoke Field) – result Tudor victory
70. Henry Tudor’s Boulogne campaign 1492 – result draw
71. Poynings’ Ireland campaign 1494-5 – result draw
72. Warbeck invasion 1495 (Deal) – result Tudor victory
73. Scottish pro-Warbeck border campaign 1496-7 – result draw
74. Cornish rebellions 1497 (Blackheath) – result Tudor victory
75. Kildare’s intervention in Galway 1504 (Knockdoe) – result Lordship of Ireland victory
76. War of the League of Cambrai 1511-1516 (Flodden) – result French victory
77. Four Years’ War 1521-6 – result draw
78. War of the League of Cognac 1526-30 – result non-belligerent Habsburg victory
79. Kildare’s Rebellion 1534-35 - result Lordship of Ireland victory
80. James Margaretson’s border campaign 1542 (Solway Moss) – result draw
81. Italian War 1542-6 (Boulogne) – result draw
82. Rough Wooing 1543-1551 (Pinkie) - result draw
83. Prayer Book Rebellion 1549 (Sampford Courtenay) – result Tudor victory
84. Last Italian War 1557-9 (Calais) – result draw
85. Elizabeth Tudor’s Newhaven expedition 1562-3 (Le Havre) – result French victory
86. First Desmond Rebellion 1569-73 – result Kingdom of Ireland victory
87. Northern Revolt 1569 – result non-belligerent Tudor victory
88. Second Desmond Rebellion 1579-83 (Smerwick) - result Kingdom of Ireland victory
89. Anglo-Spanish War 1585-1604 (Gravelines) – result draw
90. Connaught rebellion 1586 (Ardnaree) – result Kingdom of Ireland victory
91. Tyrone’s Rebellion 1593-1603 (Kinsale) – result Kingdom of Ireland victory
92. O’Doherty’s Rebellion 1608 - result Kingdom of Ireland victory
93. Buckingham’s War 1625-30 (La Rochelle) – result draw
94. First Bishops’ War 1639 – result draw
95. Second Bishops’ War 1640 – result Scottish Covenanter victory  
96. Irish Confederate War 1641-49 – result draw
97. English Civil War 1642-51 (Naseby) – result Parliamentary victory
98. Cromwellian conquest of Ireland 1649-53 (Drogheda) – result Cromwellian victory
99. First Anglo-Dutch War 1652-54 (Portland) – result English victory
100. War of the Western Design 1654-60 (Dunkirk) – result draw
101. Tunis campaign 1655 – result English victory
102. War of the Portuguese Restoration 1662-68 – result Portuguese victory
103.  Battle of Tangier 1664 – result Moroccan victory
104. Second Anglo-Dutch War 1665-67 (Medway) – result Netherlands’ victory
105. War of Devolution 1667-8 – result French victory
106. Third Anglo-Dutch War 1672-74 (Texel) – result Netherlands’ victory
107. Siege of Tangier 1680-84 – result Moroccan victory
108. Monmouth Rebellion 1685 (Sedgemoor) – result Jacobite victory
109. Glorious Revolution 1688 (Reading) – Orange victory
110. War of the League of Augsburg 1688-97 (Boyne) - result draw
111. War of the Spanish Succession 1701-14 (Blenheim) – result Grand Alliance victory

To answer Caro’s specific requirement regarding England being officially at war then a definition is needed regarding what is meant by ‘officially’. For the purposes of this thread a practical definition for being officially at war would need a conflict to have been sanctioned by parliament and involve forces representing England as a state. This discounts all conflicts before 1237 when the first English parliament met but also subsequent conflicts which did not receive parliamentary sanction. For instance, the first conflict on the list to take place after 1237 was the Saintonge War. Yet this was not sanctioned by parliament and king Henry III had to fund and prosecute the war privately as duke of Aquitaine. Similarly, the Connaught rebellion of 1249 involved the forces of the Lordship of Ireland which, although England-orientated, did not officially represent England. During the Second Barons’ War (1264-7) rival parliaments were assembled, sometimes by Simon de Montfort and sometimes by Henry III and so there’s no clear way of saying which were ‘official’. Later again Edward Longshank’s invasion of Wales in 1283 was only approved and paid for by parliament retrospectively. The action itself, however, had been that of one magnate (Edward) privately disciplining a vassal (Llywelyn) and outside of any ‘official’ business of the state itself. In fact Llywelyn ap Gruffudd had argued his case before previous English parliaments in 1279 and 1280 with the view that parliament would act as a neutral arbiter between the 2 magnates (i.e. himself and Edward).


 
(Stylised depiction of Edward’s first parliament in 1275 summoned after his coronation. There is doubt as to whether Alexander III of Scotland and Llywelyn of Wales both attended as depicted. The image is sometimes mistakenly identified as being of his Model Parliament of 1295.)

It was only during the Guyenne War 1294-1303 that, following early reverses Edward realised the importance of getting parliament onside. This resulted in the summoning of Edward’s famed ‘Model Parliament’ in 1295 which included a crucial Commons element. Even the Model Parliament, however, couldn’t save Edward’s position in France when that war was subsequently lost. The first war to be prosecuted by a head of state of England against another country and which was pre-sanctioned and pre-funded by parliament was the First Scottish War of Independence. This was followed by 21 other conflicts:
 
1. First War of Scottish Independence 1296-1328 (Bannockburn) – result Scottish victory
2. Second War of Scottish Independence 1332-57 (Neville’s Cross) – result Scottish victory
3. Richard Plantagenet’s campaign in Ireland 1394-5 – result Lordship of Ireland victory
4. Lancastrian War in France 1415-1453 (Agincourt) – result Valois victory
5. Henry Tudor’s Boulogne campaign 1492 – result draw
6. Italian War 1542-6 (Boulogne) – result draw
7. Rough Wooing 1543-1551 (Pinkie) - result draw
8. Second Desmond Rebellion 1579-83 (Smerwick) - result Kingdom of Ireland victory
9. Anglo-Spanish War 1585-1604 (Gravelines) – result draw
10. Tyrone’s Rebellion 1593-1603 (Kinsale) – result Kingdom of Ireland victory
11. Buckingham’s War 1625-30 (La Rochelle) – result draw
12. Irish Confederate War 1641-49 – result draw
13. Cromwellian conquest of Ireland 1649-53 (Drogheda) – result Cromwellian victory
14. First Anglo-Dutch War 1652-54 (Portland) – result English victory
15. War of the Western Design 1654-60 (Dunkirk) – result draw
16. Tunis campaign 1655 – result English victory
17. War of the Portuguese Restoration 1662-68 – result Portuguese victory
18. Second Anglo-Dutch War 1665-67 (Medway) – result Netherlands’ victory
19. War of Devolution 1667-8 – result French victory
20. Third Anglo-Dutch War 1672-74 (Texel) – result Netherlands’ victory
21. War of the League of Augsburg 1688-97 (Boyne) - result draw
22. War of the Spanish Succession 1701-14 (Blenheim) – result Grand Alliance victory

That’s 22 times when England was officially at war which is remarkably close to the 20 mentioned in the Good Omens book. It would be interesting to know what criteria Pratchett and Gaiman used and which wars were on their list. More significantly the wars of the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries went hand in hand with the development of parliament (as mentioned by Caro) earlier. After his conquest of Wales and the financial difficulties that had put him in, Edward Longshanks began to appreciate the need for the Commons to attend parliament. These were after all the people in the country who were best at making money and raising funds. From the 1290s on (i.e. in preparation for and during Longshank’s Scottish war) the Commons would increasingly become an indispensable part of any assembled parliament.

Turning to Paul’s question regarding how many times England has been invaded, then again there is need for definition. If we take Paul’s suggestion that an invader needs ‘to stay for a while and effectively has a stay in the country’ then would mean an invasion would have to have made some sort of significant impact on the status quo rather than the invader being immediately repulsed or immediately withdrawing. This would discount the likes of Harald Hardrada’s landing in Yorkshire in 1066, Llywelyn the Great’s incursion into Shropshire in 1223, William Wallace’s raid on Northumberland and Cumberland in 1297 and the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685 etc. The following invasions, however, would seem to fit the bill:

1. Sweyn Forkbeard’s invasions of England 988-1014 (Maldon) – result Danish victory
2. Canute’s conquest of England 1014-16 (Assandun) – result Danish victory
3. William of Normandy’s conquest of England 1066 (Hastings) – result Norman victory
4. Malcolm’s invasion of England 1092-93 (Alnwick) – result Norman victory
5. The Anarchy 1135-53 – result civil draw
6. David of Scotland’s invasion of England 1135-9 (Standard) – result draw
7. William the Lion’s invasion of England 1173-4 (Alnwick) - result Norman victory
8. First Baron’s War 1215-17 – result Angevin victory
9. Isabella’s invasion of England 1326 – result Isabelline victory
10. Henry Bolingbroke’s invasion 1399 – result Bolingbroke victory  
11. Mary of Guelders’ border campaign 1460-1 (Roxburgh) – result Scottish victory
12. Warwick’s invasion 1470 – result Lancastrian victory
13. Yorkist invasion 1471 (Tewkesbury) – result Yorkist victory
14. Henry Tudor’s invasion 1485 (Bosworth) – result Tudor victory
15. Last Italian War 1557-9 (Calais) – result draw
16. Second Bishops’ War 1640 – result Scottish Covenanter victory  
17. Glorious Revolution 1688 (Reading) – Orange victory

It’s interesting to note that none of the invasions listed corresponds with the official wars although that’s not that surprising when one thinks about it. An invasion tends to be a surprise event and made at a time of crisis when the country and parliament are divided and so by definition are unable to mount an ‘official’ response. A further question which maybe needs to be asked however, is, of those 111 conflicts how many did the English actually win. The answer is very few. Only 2 in fact - the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-54) and the Tunis campaign 1655. Both of those were naval affairs which begs a further question again. How many wars did the English Army ever win? The answer is none.



It seems that John, Paul, George and Ringo were possibly being cleverer than they thought.

Thank you Vizzer for doing such a cumbersome and onerated task to compose this message. I learned from it.

And yes, in the history books, they said that both nations, England and The Netherlands were seapowers, hence no big land army. Many times an inconvenience. 

See for instance the Dutch disaster year 1672 (in Dutch: het rampjaar), where the neglected land army lead nearly to a complete annihilation of the country. But thanks to their fleet...
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio/timeline-dutch-history/1672-disaster-year

Kind regards, Paul.

Paul, your ‘cumbersome’ comment made me smile. That's because I had indeed ponder whether or not to show the working as well as the results when I was posting and decided to do so for interest’s sake. 

That’s a pertinent link regarding 1672 which I hadn’t realised was known as 'the year of disaster' in Netherlands’ history. From an English point of view it marked the beginning of the Third Anglo-Dutch War which ended in a Dutch victory. Admittedly that war started very badly indeed for the Seven Provinces. It’s worth noting how the policy of Charles II of England at that time was driven by his desire to by-pass parliament with regard to foreign affairs and warfare. Needless to say that this ambition back-fired on him. Once the war stalled and the Dutch recovered, the economic impact of Charles’ vainglorious adventure began to be felt in England as a result of trade with mainland Europe and Asia being interdicted by an increasingly confident Netherlands. The consequent economic downturn, coupled with anti-French and anti-catholic sentiment, meant that Charles’ political standing became very precarious indeed. The ‘Merrie Monarch’ came perilously close to following his father in being overthrown in favour of a commonwealth.

Vizzer wrote:

That’s a pertinent link regarding 1672 which I hadn’t realised was known as 'the year of disaster' in Netherlands’ history. From an English point of view it marked the beginning of the Third Anglo-Dutch War which ended in a Dutch victory. Admittedly that war started very badly indeed for the Seven Provinces. It’s worth noting how the policy of Charles II of England at that time was driven by his desire to by-pass parliament with regard to foreign affairs and warfare. Needless to say that this ambition back-fired on him. Once the war stalled and the Dutch recovered, the economic impact of Charles’ vainglorious adventure began to be felt in England as a result of trade with mainland Europe and Asia being interdicted by an increasingly confident Netherlands. The consequent economic downturn, coupled with anti-French and anti-catholic sentiment, meant that Charles’ political standing became very precarious indeed. The ‘Merrie Monarch’ came perilously close to following his father in being overthrown in favour of a commonwealth.

Vizzer,

perhaps from the British point of view, the Dutch Republic with their fleet were still very strong, but the leading figure heads of the Republic, the brothers De Witt had neglected the land army (in the wiki, they say for shortage of money, but in my opinion that is not fully true. They had then yet the money, but they preferred money for the fleet, while it was this fleet, who provided the wealth from the seatrade by this combined trade/war fleet. And as later appeared during the "disaster year of 1672 they made a capital fault with that as they seemed to have forgotten that they had a long land border with the neighbours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampjaar

From the wiki:
"The Dutch again reinforced their fleet, but made insufficient preparations for their army because of a shortage of money. The Regents also distrusted an army that had often been an instrument of the Orange party. With war becoming more and more likely, pressure increased on the Dutch government to appoint William III, who had not yet come of age, to the office of Stadtholder and Captain-General. In February 1672, Johan de Witt finally agreed to appoint William as Captain-General for the duration of a single war campaign."

And yes perhaps a victory in the first Anglo-Dutch war, but nearly on the edge of annihilation of their existence in the war with the French Louis XIV. Hadn't they had their "waterline". And after this waterline the English king in spe, William III, (who in the struggle between the republicans and the monarchists had won against the Republican brothers De Witt on which he took revenge with the help of the mob, I hope just for "political" reasons) had built up a new land army.

I have read somewhere on a financial site, that from the financial study of the Republic, the Republic was nearly bankrupt and had to work years to recover from its loans.

And yes one can perhaps say that thanks to these events, William's hate towards France never died and so Britain has by his policies got that famous King William III?

Read for more information the work from the Dutch Troost and I warmly recommend the book.
https://www.amazon.com/William-III-Stadholder-King-Political-Biography/dp/0754650715
http://www.dbng.nl/nl/details?searchkey1=aut&searchterm1=Troost%2C+W.&searchterm2=&searchterm3=&item=1

And so we are still on the subject of the English-French wars? 

Kind regards, Paul.