Talk:Invasion of England

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Potential article

Seems like this has the potential to be developed into an article one day exploring the concept of an invasion of Britan and briefly recalling the various different attempts. A few of the invasions have articles, but most don't yet. Just an idea for the future.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slowly starting to create seperate articles for each of the invasions, that could provide the basis for a larger article here or possibly at an Invasion of the British Isles articles, as most invasion plans usually involve both Britain and Ireland.Lord C (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems to be more of a list article than a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 09:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you quantify and invasion of Great Britain? Are we talking Great Britain, the island, or Great Britain, the State that existed between 1707 and 1801? It is disingenuous, to include anything to do with Ireland under this title, as it has never been part of the island of GB since the last Ice Age, as are the Channel Islands. Further England wasn't the state that Hitler was planning to invade, that was the UK.

And then how do you relate to the viewer the various invasions by foreign states, invited to serve alongside the Armies of Scotland and England in their struggles against each other, such as during the fisrt Baron's war, when the Scottish King reached Dover, or any other of the French invasion attempts, because until it's revocation in 1903, the Scots had been French Citizens and viceversa since the early 15thc at the height of the Hundred Years war. So under this title, the French invasion attempts were merely invasions of England Brendandh (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See article Invasions of the British Isles for a full article exploring invasions of Ireland, England, & Scotland.DCI2026 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And? This here article is a complete load of cobblers, and should be merged with the above. The state of Great Britain had numerous attempts at sending expeditionary forces from France etc. but as I reiterate, the population of one third of the landmass of Great Britain were de jure French citizens, so therefore they weren't invasion attempts against GB at all. GB does not exist prior to 1707 and after 1801, so all prior should be at Invasion of England (as there seems to be a very anglocentric bias to this article), and all after should be at Invasion of the United Kingdom. Brendandh (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page refers and links to the island of Great Britain not the state and covers a wider timespan than just 1707-1801. It also includes a link to the British Isles in the intro just to emphasise the point that some of these invasions mentioned here were aimed at both Great Britain and Ireland, and some just at Great Britain.

There is an Invasions of the British Isles article but it was created less than a month ago and after this one. Despite your use of the term article this isn't currently an article it's a disambigation page. There is also a seperate Invasion of Ireland disambig which similarly lists the various attempts on the island of Ireland.

To take the planned 1759 invasion, as an example, no book I've read covering the subject had made mention of the Scottish/French subject situation that I can remember and it appears not to have altered the plans of Choiseul and the French government in any way. I can only assume that by the seventeenth/eighteenth century it had become one of those anachronistic technicalities similar to George III claiming to be ruler of France.

You need to produce reliable sources showing that invasions and planned invasions after 1707 were invasions of England only. Otherwise your assertions appear to be original resarch. Even if the Scots are discounted surely you have ignored the Welsh which contradicts one of your other complaints. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the fact that the last two links are redirects to this article further pander to the idea that GB/UK/England are interchangeable. Whereas the last of the above only covers 50% of the land mass of the Island of Great Britain. Forgive me for wondering whether Scotland and Wales actually exist? Brendandh (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the United Kingdom and Invasion of England are both logical things people might type to look at - neither currently have an article and at the time of their creation this was the best place to redirect them to. They could of course be redirected to the Invasions of the British Isles article but that would surely create a similar problem. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering where all the Hebridean and Orcadian [Manx and Irish] expeditions to mainland Scotland are? Or those from Ynys Mon to mainland Gwynedd ... And Isle of Wight?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List/disambig pages are generally unfinished. The absence of things doesn’t mean they won’t be included, it means they have yet to be included. I’ll admit I don’t know a great deal about them but of course feel free to add them. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of England by the Dutch Republic?

What is this nonsense? William of Orange was INVITED by members of the English parliament, Royal Navy, Army. He landed unaposed. were is the evidence that william was conquering england in the name of the netherlands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.223.217 (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was invited by seven Whig peers - the extent to his wider support is dubious. Many of those who opposed James II favoured restoring the English Republic. After capturing London William surrounded parliament with troops and got them to pass the laws recognising Mary and he as dual monarch, and that required the Parliament to pay for the costs of the invasion. The new regime was deeply unpopular in much of the country. William conducted his affairs almost entirely in Dutch, he brought a cartel of Dutch advisors to govern Britain - and until 1701 he operated England and Scotland as puppet states to support his Dutch strategic aims. As many books make clear his intervention occurred from his fear that England might be lost as an ally to the Dutch, fatally weakening them in their battle with the French rather than from concern at opression of the English people.

Aside from that he landed in Britain with a large military force - an invasion. Its worth noting an invasion can also be a "liberation". The Allies invaded France in 1944, but that is widely held to be a liberation. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, eh?. This must be why Eveline Cruikshanks (in The Glorious Revolution) calls it 'the most successful confidence trick in British history': Not only did the English ended up paying for their own invasion, they were made to believe the whole thing was their idea to begin with. Thats some spin doctoring ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.185.45 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't seem proper to call this a real `invasion`, although they apparently teach this in Dutch schools. I don't recall a single battle being fought for the Glorious Revolution until after James II had fled and the new king was firmly in power, plus, all the battles that were fought took place in Ireland! I don't recall the majority of English writers (read:MAJORITY, not ALL) calling this an invasion, and they would know, wouldn't they?

Also, if James II `only` had 7 whig peers opposing him, why flee the country? He was just replaced far too easily to think there wasn't some popular support out there for the new regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.42.63 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Dutch invasion had support within England and James II failed to muster effective military opposition. But the Dutch leader had put to sea with 53 warships bristling with 1,700 cannon, a massive amount of firepower. Behind came hundreds of transport ships carrying an army of 20,000 men, plus horses (7,000 of those), arms and equipment. The lack of effective military opposition from James II doesn't mean that it wasn't an invasion. You don't amass that kind of military force unless you are invading and expect military opposition. Otherwise, why didn't William III land with some token 1000 man force??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.158.211 (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that James II simply "fled the country" and was "replaced far too easily", that's not really true. Firstly, James II was King of England and Scotland AND IRELAND. Although England and Ireland are perhaps different "countries", fleeing to Ireland isn't really "fleeing the country", at least in the sense of fleeing to a foreign land. Its no different than if he had retreated to Wales or Scotland instead. When William III invaded England and crowed himself there with English collaborators, James II retreated to Ireland and resisted from there rather than from England. And the resistance was quite protracted. The Williamite War lasted 2 and a half years and involved several tens of thousands of troops on each side. Many of those troops were the same as the invasion troops. James II did not exactly just fled and left without fighting back. So it isn't the case that "he was easily replaced". Until Jacobite resistance was put down completely in 1691, William III's position was not fully secured throughout the entire realms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.158.211 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella and Mortimer

Why is the invasion of 1326 not included here? Didn't Isabella, the Queen of England and wife of Edward II join forces with Roger Mortimer and invade from France? They had a small invasion force and were joined by some once they got to England, but they deposed the king and ruled the country until Edward III was 18. I think that merits an inclusion. --Teedieroosevelt (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Anarchy

Would the various landings of troops from overseas during the Anarchy constitute as invasions of England? I.e. Henry II's invasion of 1153. or Matilda's of 1139. --Tokle (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, free to merge if desired Mike Cline (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of England → Invasion of Britain – A great number of the invasions listed here are wholly or partly of Scotland and Wales as well as of England. Also, there is no page that lists invasions of England after 1707, when it ceased to exist as a separate kingdom. (Furthermore, there is no need to create another page to accomodate these other invasions when they can just be listed here.)

We already have Invasions of the British Isles which "Invasions of Britain" would practically be a line-for-line copy seeing as there's only two items relating to anything that's not Britain. So I think a merge to Invasions of the British Isles --HighKing (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merge would be more appropriate, don't you? --BDD (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge. — AjaxSmack 22:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Invasions of the British Isles, avoiding changing country boundaries / names Widefox; talk 12:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. I don't think this page should be dissolved just yet. This could be a useful list, just currently incomplete. It would be informative in its own right, once it is more carefully done and Scottish invasions of England are added to it. Walrasiad (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this page if it ain't for deletion should hold all the breaches of the English border/coastline from Aethelstan in 927 until Union in 1707. No more, no less, England didn't exist outwith that timescale. Brendandh (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both pages look useful to me, one an article, the other a list or timeline. Andrewa (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles pretty much do the same job, whether list of timeline. And it's easy to include a list if one is missing. --HighKing (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invasion of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120905220942/http://www.modern-day-commando.com/Landguard-Fort.html to http://www.modern-day-commando.com/Landguard-Fort.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]