History questions not worth their own thread

[Richard Cribb]

William of Orange was not a member of the house of Stuart - he was simply married to a member of that house. (And even if he were a member of the house, I don't really see why that's relevant to the question whether what he did was an invasion and occupation.) More importantly, he was not invited to invade by parliament. Some MPs, acting on their own initiative as private individuals, invited him to invade. That was not a formal invitation by parliament. Once they'd done it, parliament basically said, "We would like to be the first to welcome our new Dutch overlords," but parliament did not initiate the event.

The fact that some people invited the invasion doesn't stop it from being an invasion. If, during WWII, Oswald Mosley had written to Hitler inviting him to invade Britain and it had happened, it would still have been an invasion.

William didn't just turn up on the ferry from Ostend and walk into London unopposed. He had a great big army standing right behind him. In the event, there was no fighting, because James II decided to run rather than fight (probably wisely). But if William hadn't had that army, he wouldn't have got past James and his army. What I'm saying is, he needed the army to succeed in the endeavour. I'd say that makes it an invasion. You can say it was a benevolent invasion, a welcome invasion, and a bloodless invasion (apart from James' nosebleed), and you may be right. But it's still an invasion, and moreover a foreign one.

Obviously there are other occasions when Britain was invaded and "occupied" even after 1066. The one that springs to mind is the invasion of Henry Bolingbroke in 1399, who also landed in the country with an army and displaced the king (in his case, forcing him to abdicate and then probably having him murdered). Of course that's not exactly a "foreign" invasion since Henry was English, but he did invade from overseas.

Great post completed endorsed by yours truly.

 

[RedRalph]

Can anoyne think of an example form history where someone danced, danced, danced their way to freedom?

 

[aronnax]

Which country can hold the title of "longest ever without having a foreign power occupy all or significant part (In terms of both Land area and importance) of my country"?

And the area we are talking about is it nation proper of today.

And the occupation must last at least 6 months.

 

[RedRalph]

Which country can hold the title of "longest ever without having a foreign power occupy all or significant part (In terms of both Land area and importance) of my country"?

And the area we are talking about is it nation proper of today.

And the occupation must last at least 6 months.

Ethiopia, Japan and UK.

 

[Reno]

I'd think the Italian occupation of Ethiopia prior to World War II would put a dent to it's record...?

Switzerland, maybe?

 

[mitsho]

Switzerland has 1815 til 2009, that makes 194 years. (Samt should be true for Liechtenstein btw.) It depends on where you start with the UK (or England?).

then, what about the US or Canada? Australia and New Zealand spring to mind as well. what about Sweden?

 

[RedRalph]

I'd think the Italian occupation of Ethiopia prior to World War II would put a dent to it's record...?

Switzerland, maybe?

Yeah but I dont think its has to be still in its run today. IIRC, Ethiopia was the last country in Africa to be occupied and hadnt been for quite some time even whern the Europeans first got to Africa

 

[RedRalph]

Switzerland has 1815 til 2009, that makes 194 years. (Samt should be true for Liechtenstein btw.) It depends on where you start with the UK (or England?).

then, what about the US or Canada? Australia and New Zealand spring to mind as well. what about Sweden?

Japan is much longer than any of them

 

[mitsho]

See, I never said anything on Japan. Still, it's kind of fishy to count these things over such a long time when the concept of state changed over that time so fundamentally... And the "core" state expanded in that time. so what counts as Japan? Hokkaido? What counts as that? I mean for Switzerland you could make a very sketch point for 14th century to 1798, not that I would.

the longest probably (not having looked it up) would then be San Marino in the Italian Appenins. The Nazi probably didn't conquer them as they are so small and would absolutely no threat (respectively could "police" there), I really have to look that up. I mean they probably got more than 1000 years.

But really, do they count?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No invasion of Japan has ever been successful. Japan's sovereignty was compromised for the first time in 1945. If you count from their traditional founding by Jimmu, then its from 660 BC to 1945 AD. The emperor today is still a descendant of Jimmu.

 

[aronnax]

Okay my nominations for longest ever without being ever occupied are:
1)Thailand (241 Years) - Last occupied by Burmese armies in 1768. (Debatable, one can interpret Thailand giving in to Japanese demands as a foreign occupation. )
2)United States of America (226 Years or 195 Years) - Last significantly occupied by the British in 1776-83, Battle of Brooklyn, Evacuation of New York. OR
The occupation of the US capital Washington - 1814
3) Sweden (200 Years or 333 years) Last significantly occupied by Russian troops in Northern Sweden. (Debatable, over significance of occupation. If occupation of Northern, not as significant as the south, Province is not counted than, 1676 Occupation of Scania by Danish Troops
4) Liberia (162 Years) Independence from America in 1847
5) Russia (533 Years) Great stand on the Ugra river - 1476 (Debatable, Both Hitler, the German Empire and Napoleon took large chunks significant chucks of Russia in 1942, 1917 and 1812 Respectably)
6) Switzerland (194 Years) Independence granted on 1815.
7)The UK (321 Years or 264 Years) Last significantly occupied by Dutch forces in 1688, Debatable, Significant part of Great Britain was occupied by Charles Edward Stuart in 1745 (Though this is more classified as an uprising than foreign rule)
8) Canada (142 Years) Since 1867, British North America Act, though, end of British dominance is debatable.
9) San Marino (270 Years) Last occupied by Papal forces in 1739
10) Liechtenstein (194 years) Last occupied by Coalition Troops in 1815.
Which one has a stronger case? Any others with a stronger case?

 

[RedRalph]

Srsly how can you just leave Japan off that list?

 

[aronnax]

Yeah but I dont think its has to be still in its run today. IIRC, Ethiopia was the last country in Africa to be occupied and hadnt been for quite some time even whern the Europeans first got to Africa

Well It did have a long run, but Im trying to find the country that was last occupied not, longest not occupied.

See, I never said anything on Japan. Still, it's kind of fishy to count these things over such a long time when the concept of state changed over that time so fundamentally... And the "core" state expanded in that time. so what counts as Japan? Hokkaido? What counts as that? I mean for Switzerland you could make a very sketch point for 14th century to 1798, not that I would.

the longest probably (not having looked it up) would then be San Marino in the Italian Appenins. The Nazi probably didn't conquer them as they are so small and would absolutely no threat (respectively could "police" there), I really have to look that up. I mean they probably got more than 1000 years.

But really, do they count?

San Marino was occupied by Allied Forces during WWII, but it was only for two months so that not long enough to meet the six month mark. The last time San Marino was occupied for at least 6 months, according to Wiki was in 1739 by Papal forces, putting it to be 270 years.

In terms of geographic location I would like to set these three rules
1) Compared to Nation's Modern Borders (For example, Sweden proper has rarely been occupied because Swedish Finland was always the buffer.)
2) Amount of Land taken, a significant portion would be perhaps 20-25% or more
3) Importance of Land. I would say that taking New England is more important than Taking all of the American Mid-west.

No invasion of Japan has ever been successful. Japan's sovereignty was compromised for the first time in 1945. If you count from their traditional founding by Jimmu, then its from 660 BC to 1945 AD. The emperor today is still a descendant of Jimmu.

No Invasion was successful but Japan was occupied by Allied Forces from 1945 to 52.

 

[say1988]

You never said it had to be continuing

 

[vogtmurr]

William of Orange was not a member of the house of Stuart - he was simply married to a member of that house. (And even if he were a member of the house, I don't really see why that's relevant to the question whether what he did was an invasion and occupation.) More importantly, he was not invited to invade by parliament. Some MPs, acting on their own initiative as private individuals, invited him to invade. That was not a formal invitation by parliament. Once they'd done it, parliament basically said, "We would like to be the first to welcome our new Dutch overlords," but parliament did not initiate the event.

The fact that some people invited the invasion doesn't stop it from being an invasion. If, during WWII, Oswald Mosley had written to Hitler inviting him to invade Britain and it had happened, it would still have been an invasion.

William didn't just turn up on the ferry from Ostend and walk into London unopposed. He had a great big army standing right behind him. In the event, there was no fighting, because James II decided to run rather than fight (probably wisely). But if William hadn't had that army, he wouldn't have got past James and his army. What I'm saying is, he needed the army to succeed in the endeavour. I'd say that makes it an invasion. You can say it was a benevolent invasion, a welcome invasion, and a bloodless invasion (apart from James' nosebleed), and you may be right. But it's still an invasion, and moreover a foreign one.
.

Yup - and what flipped the coin for James was he lost hope after his own daughter Anne, and right hand man Marlborough defected, right ? (Marlborough soon regretted it though I believe). It wasn't the fact that William had an army that made the 'Glorious Revolution' a Bloodless Revolution.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm working on two essays right now, and I'm curious if anybody here would like to make some preliminary comments.

One is on the causes of the American Revolution, the most significant one being the fact that London told the Americans not to expand into the Natives' territories, which to them, downplayed all of their sacrifices in the Seven Years' War; and is also a primary reason why Quebec joined the colonists.

The second is on critical errors made by army commanders, and battles where they were committed. I'm tossing around seven: predictability (Kursk), timidry (Chancellorsville), immobility (Cannae), uncoordination (Tannenberg), underestimation or overconfidence (Carillon), cowardice (Gaugemela), and conservatism in tactics (Leuctra, or perhaps some battle against Sweden in the Thirty Years' War).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Srsly how can you just leave Japan off that list?

Apparently only stretches leading to the present day matter.

 

[GoodGame]

I'm working on two essays right now, and I'm curious if anybody here would like to make some preliminary comments.

One is on the causes of the American Revolution, the most significant one being the fact that London told the Americans not to expand into the Natives' territories, which to them, downplayed all of their sacrifices in the Seven Years' War; and is also a primary reason why Quebec joined the colonists.

The second is on critical errors made by army commanders, and battles where they were committed. I'm tossing around seven: predictability (Kursk), timidry (Chancellorsville), immobility (Cannae), uncoordination (Tannenberg), underestimation or overconfidence (Carillon), cowardice (Gaugemela), and conservatism in tactics (Leuctra, or perhaps some battle against Sweden in the Thirty Years' War).

logistics, discipline (Defense of Singapore, WW2)

 

[LightSpectra]

Did Pompey intend to restore the Senate had he won the Civil War, or was this just a way of rallying the people against the Populares?

 

[mitsho]

I wish we could know. Do you want to ask him?