Even though they focused on navy most of their history, why do the British have such a good track record on land as well?
I read about the Spanish Succession war recently, Marlborough consistently disintegrated the French supposedly invincible armies it's almost unbelievable.
Or how with Portugal they always prevented an invasion from Spain and France in several crushing victories.
Are the British modest about this or do they like to bring it up a lot?
>>52029573
>Are the British modest about this
yes
It's nothing really that special, we had our fair share of idiot generals and bad defeats too. Marlborough was pretty based though.
>>52029787
I don't understand this picture? What does claiming the moral highground do
First of all Marlborough was incredibly good
And then a lot of good French soldiers died during the previous wars of Louis XIV
Remind me who won this war, please ?
+ yea, they had great military leaders, but they also had a lot of allies
We only had some Italian states and Spain...
>>52030197
absolutely nothing if youre keked beyond recognition
>>52030741
Same can be said about the Dutch and Austrians, or just about everyone involved. Especially Austria was incredibly hard pressed its whole history.
>>52031342
>Remind me who won this war, please ?
The war of the Spanish succession saw France lose the opportunity of controlling Spain, forced the french prince to lose all claim to his father's throne. France unable to seize the Spanish Netherlands which it had been trying to for centuries, or even Naples, which instead went to France's enemy Austria.
France was also forced to go at war with its newfound ally Spain immediately afterward, as well as lose a few colonies to England if I'm not mistaken.
It can barely be called a draw, and considering France's objectives, was definitively a defeat. The fact that England made peace first when Marlborough had crossed the last defensive barriers guarding the road to Paris kinda indicates that they were in an excellent position.
France also lost most of the battles, and those were quite crushing defeats.
>>52031923
>War of the Spanish Succession
Nah, 100YW
Too bad last Louis XIV's war was a fail, btw
>almost 1 to 100 K/D
ayyyy
>>52029573
and then all the gains they made at Agincourt were lost to a 16 (SIXTEEN) year old girl
>>52032011
Well France 'won' the war technically but it's not like they invaded England for 100 years afterward so you can almost call it a draw.
It did stamp out feudalism so that's a benefit.
It was a small respite tho because after that followed another 100 years of being crushed by the Spanish tercios.
>>52029573
>why do the British have such a good track record on land as well?
>Are the British modest about this or do they like to bring it up a lot?
There are two main reasons that explain this
1) 95% of the time the UK only gets involved in a land war if it can assemble a strong coalition, of which the British Army is one element. Usually it will only perform smaller actions alone. We do this because we have no choice but to put the majority of our resources in naval (and later aerial) forces. That means there aren't many purely British land victories to talk about, so it doesn't come up a lot.
2) For a very long time the Army has been an Expeditionary force, small but professional. It had this form before most European countries used professional armies. The reforms are mostly thanks to Cromwell who created the New Model Army, on which the British Army was based. This is also why there's no "Royal" in the title (unlike the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force), because originally the Army answered only to Parliament.
Because it's been a professional force for so long + because Britain is so often at war, it has heaps of war experience so it has managed to hold its own against larger opponents.
Anyway the thing to remember is that we use our Army differently to the rest of Europe.
>>52032580
Interesting. I can understand why the 'royal' thing is no coincidence. For a nation that was held by the balls by it's merchant class it's pretty understandable that they wouldn't want an army that can hold them hostage on their Island.
That said about the coalition thingy, they were still regularly outnumbered and yet would come out on top. I can think of the 7 years war and how 3 poor small german princedoms and the British expeditionary force managed to defeat the entire French host several times and prevent them from reaching Prussia.
![1280px-Karte_Schlacht_bei_Minden_1759[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/qDtZPE2.png "1280px-Karte_Schlacht_bei_Minden_1759[1].png")
>>52032824
>For a nation that was held by the balls by it's merchant class it's pretty understandable that they wouldn't want an army that can hold them hostage on their Island.
Yeah that is another reason why we don't have a large Army. The first instance of conscription in British history was in the First World War, only because a hostile power was threatening to overwhelm the continent.
>I can think of the 7 years war and how 3 poor small german princedoms and the British expeditionary force managed to defeat the entire French host several times and prevent them from reaching Prussia.
To be fair in the 7 Years War we had Based Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick-Lüneburg on our side.
But yes the British Army normally does well, and is expected to do well, against larger forces because it's professional and experienced.
>>52032580
I thought the Army was loyal to the Queen not the Parliament? Don't they have to swear an allegiance to the Queen?
>>52033577
Yes they are loyal to the Queen, I was only talking about the name of the Army
Having said that, loads of the Army's subunits are called "Royal" something or other, pic related.
>>52033281
>that map
Please tell me the french didn't lose that battle.
![Prinz_Ferdinand_Braunschweig[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZlgCCar.jpg "Prinz_Ferdinand_Braunschweig[1].jpg")
>>52033835
Enjoy my friend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minden
And remember that the French were *defending* in this battle.
Prince Ferdinand didn't mess around, the glorious bastard
>>52032824
Regarding the comment about being held by the balls by the merchant class, a permanent standing army is actually illegal under the Bill of Rights (1689).
The British Army can only exist for 5 years until Parliament gives permission for it to continue existing by passing the Armed Forces Act, every 5 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Act
If Parliament decided not to pass it then it would have to disband.
>>52032256
100YW was just a civil war, btw
>>52033835
>more guns
>better position
Our defeat was quite logical though
>>52033942
We can't always win
>>52034169
I suppose that's one way to put it
>>52033281
They say 1759 was the UK's Annus Mirabilis
>>52035208
ahah, anus :DDDD
>>52035247
