Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 25th, 2013, 12:21 AM   #91
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Poland
Posts: 5,558

Quote:
The UK has warred with almost every country in the world. I think it was 21 countries that haven't been warred with so that's my choice.
22. But this is some kind of urban legend:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9...uxembourg.html

"Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found."

Click the image to open in full size.

Poland? Ukraine? But no Belarus?

Polish forces fought against British during the Napoleonic Wars - for example in the battle of Fuengirola:

Battle_of_Fuengirola Battle_of_Fuengirola


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_..._Baron_Blayney

But I don't know about Poland being actually invaded by British forces at any time in history.

Also if Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania are on the list, then why Belarus is not?

Last edited by Domen; September 25th, 2013 at 12:29 AM.
Domen is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 25th, 2013, 12:35 AM   #92
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Poland
Posts: 5,558

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey
Brandenburg (not yet the powerhouse it would become), and Transylvania the only Swedish allies
Cossack Hetmanate (Bohdan Khmelnytsky) as well was Swedish ally. And Russia in the initial period of the war.

Poland was fighting against Cossack Hetmanate already since 1648. And against Russia since 1654.

When Sweden invaded Poland in 1655, Polish-Cossack and Polish-Russian wars were still in progress. Most of Polish regular army was involved in combats against Russia when Sweden invaded Poland. This is why Poland sent mostly levy nobles and peasant infantry to resist Sweden.

Crimean Tatars were initially supporting Cossacks & Russia against Poland. Later they changed sides and allied with Poland.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey
For the opposition:
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia
Russia was not Polish ally in that war.

At first they were at war, and in December of 1656 they signed a ceasefire (i.e. started to be neutral to each other).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey
and the Brandenburgers opportunely changing sides
So did Russia.

Between 1654 and November 1656 and later from July 1658 until 1667 (treaty of Andrusow) Russia was Polish enemy.

Only between December 1656 and June 1658 Poland and Russia were neutral to each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Or rather just parts of it.

Majority of territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was occupied by Russia since 1654 until the Polish counteroffensive in 1660.

Westernmost part of Lithuania, which was not occupied by Russia, mostly betrayed to Swedish forces in 1655 (Radziwiłł, treaty of Kiejdany).

Wielkopolska (Greater Poland) region of Poland, also betrayed to Swedish forces without a single shot fired (treaty of Ujście in 1655).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey
with the Netherlands throwing in behind the Danes to thwart Sweden on occasion
Let's add that Poland sent reinforcements to the Danish-Swedish front.

Around 4,500 Polish soldiers under hetman Stefan Czarniecki were sent there to support Danish forces against Sweden.

Polish national anthem is mentioning that expedition - or rather the return from that expedition back to Poland across the [Baltic] Sea. Czarniecki's forces fought in Denmark in years 1658 - 1659. Among their victories was capturing the fortress of Kolding from Swedish hands.

Denmark declared war to Sweden by the end of year 1658. In years 1655 - 1658 Denmark and Sweden were neutral.

Combats on the Polish-Swedish front were decided already by 1657. By 1657 Swedish forces were repulsed from most of Poland.

So Denmark started helping Poland when Poland no longer needed any help.

Moreover - Denmark quickly started to had troubles, because when it declared war to Sweden in 1658, Sweden invaded it.

This is why Poland had to send 4,500 troops to help Danish forces in their own territory.

Also Brandenburg (which sided with Poland since the treaties of Welawa-Bydgoszcz in the Autumn of 1657) sent troops to help Denmark.

=================================

Austria also joined the war not before August 1657. In 1655 - July 1657 the only real ally of Poland were Crimean Tatars.

Battle of Prostki - where most of Brandenburgian army supporting Sweden was annihilated by Polish forces - was on 8 October 1656.

But Brandenburg sided with Poland only since November of 1656 - so it continued to officially support Sweden for one year after Prostki.

Last edited by Domen; September 25th, 2013 at 01:08 AM.
Domen is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 01:23 AM   #93
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,459

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domen View Post
Russia was not Polish ally in that war.
No, but the overarching theme of that war was megalomanically aggressive Swedish expansionism to which there were some temporary alignments, only to be reversed as soon as the war turned against Sweden, when all parties already agggrieved over prior Swedish actions virtually all its neighbours would turn on it.
Larrey is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 01:25 AM   #94
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Poland
Posts: 5,558

In 1656 Poland was de facto fighting a four-front war:

- in the west and north vs Sweden and Brandenburg-Prussia
- in the east and north-east vs Russia
- in the south vs Transylvania (which invaded in 1656)
- in the south-east vs Cossack Hetmanate

In the same period, the only ally of Poland were Crimean Tatars.

That extremely difficult situation of Poland has improved by the end of 1656 and during 1657, when most of Brandenburgian forces were destroyed at Prostki (October 1656), when Russia agreed to sign a ceasefire (December 1656), when combined Transylvanian-Cossack forces were annihilated in two major battles (July 1657) and when Brandenburg-Prussia signed a ceasefire with Poland (November 1657).

Poland paid a high price for a ceasefire with Brandenburg-Prussia - Ducal Prussia regained its independence from Poland.

And in August 1657 Austria sent some reinforcements for Poland, which further improved Poland's situation.

Swedish offensive in Poland was definitely halted already by 1656, when Polish forces managed to encircle the main Swedish army (under personal command of Swedish king) in a pocket between rivers Vistula and San. Unfortunately, the Swedish army managed to break through that encirclement and retreated towards Warsaw. Later Polish forces failed to destroy combined Swedish-Brandenburgian-Prussian army in the battle of Warsaw, but soon after that they managed to destroy most of Brandenburgian army (and some Swedish units) at Prostki (October 1656).

Anyway - Swedish forces in Poland lost the initiative already by 1656. Since that time Poles were slowly regaining their ground.

Last edited by Domen; September 25th, 2013 at 01:54 AM.
Domen is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 01:43 AM   #95
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Poland
Posts: 5,558

Quote:
No, but the overarching theme of that war was megalomanically aggressive Swedish expansionism — to which there were some temporary alignments, only to be reversed as soon as the war turned against Sweden, when all parties already agggrieved over prior Swedish actions — virtually all its neighbours — would turn on it.
Indeed most of Sweden's neighbours turned against Sweden, when Sweden started to lose the war.

They turned against Sweden in 1657 - i.e. when it was already evident, that Swedish invasion of Poland failed.

When Poland really needed allies to help her (in 1654 - 1656), nobody was helping her (except of Crimean Tatars). Quite the contrary, when Poland had troubles (in 1654 - 1655) most of its neighbours - just like later in case of Sweden - turned against it.

This only shows that states behaved like wolfs - waiting for an opportunity to attack a "weakened animal".

For Poland-Lithuania the 2nd Northern War was an equivalent of what the Seven Years War later was for Prussia or 1812 for Russia.

Berlin was occupied by invaders for some time in the Seven Years War, Moscow in 1812, just like Warsaw in the 2nd Northern War.

Last edited by Domen; September 25th, 2013 at 01:54 AM.
Domen is offline  
Old September 25th, 2013, 07:22 AM   #96

Edwulf's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Tokyo
Posts: 1,082

The Britain has invaded all but 22 countries thing isn't completely true.
It is more like Britain has conducted military operations in all buit 22 countries.

The list includes countries Britain hasn't invaded but had sent troops to liberate.
Britain has never invaded Russia for example. It did send troops to support the White Russians against the Bolsheviks in 1919. It has never invaded Portugal though it has sent troops to Portugal as Portuguese allies. It hasn't ever invaded Bosnia, its military operations there were peace keeping..

This claim was made to launch a book and garner publicity and is thus dslightly sensationalist.
Edwulf is offline  
Old September 26th, 2013, 03:33 PM   #97

Kotromanic's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Iowa USA
Posts: 1,426

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwulf View Post
The Britain has invaded all but 22 countries thing isn't completely true.
It is more like Britain has conducted military operations in all buit 22 countries.

The list includes countries Britain hasn't invaded but had sent troops to liberate.
Britain has never invaded Russia for example. It did send troops to support the White Russians against the Bolsheviks in 1919. It has never invaded Portugal though it has sent troops to Portugal as Portuguese allies. It hasn't ever invaded Bosnia, its military operations there were peace keeping..

This claim was made to launch a book and garner publicity and is thus dslightly sensationalist.
If medieval period can be included in the list of British interventions: British knights very likely participated in crusades against the Bosnian bans in 13th century.

The French were in Bosnia in 1918 but I have never read that the British army had any forces attached to the group which occupied Bosnia in last days of WWI.

I am sure there are several examples of places were British presence has always been in humanitarian circumstance however.
Kotromanic is online now  
Old September 26th, 2013, 03:36 PM   #98
.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 4,835

How about China? It was quite strong at certain times.
Gorge123 is offline  
Old September 26th, 2013, 04:56 PM   #99

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,138

The United States, arguably. The USA has a limited series of wars lost. The Second Seminole War, the Red Cloud War, and Vietnam. Every other war the USA won. It might do an injustice to the idea of war to rate say, Grenada and WW2 side by side but if winning is all it takes to have a proud and bright history, an elephant squashing a mouse has a winning record.
Underlankers is offline  
Old September 26th, 2013, 05:09 PM   #100

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,138

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingdomofCush View Post
I'm not nominating them for the hypothetical award, but I think one that could be said would be Israel. I'm not uttering a opinion on their legitimacy, but its military has defended itself aganist muliple countries at the same time (not first world countries, true, but still) and I think they have been fighting almost non-stop (or at least most of their time) The Israeli army knows it can't afford to lose once, and that's why I think they deserve a mention.
The one-eyed man being king in the land of the blind is far from proud or bright.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaiTartar View Post
In that respect I would also agree with you. Post-Second World War the United States has certainly maintained a position as the most dominant military power on the face of the planet (Russia can bark all they like, the fact is the US would have no trouble matching them and they know it.)
How can you say the USA certainly maintained that position? North Korea wrecked itself at Pusan, but its attacking force in 1950 was much more firepower-supplied than the Chinese force that routed the US Army and inflicted on it the worst embarrassment it experienced after WW2! Korea as a whole is a stalemate, Vietnam was a catastrophe, and being able to occupy Haiti and Guatemala and Grenada hardly indicates that the US military is able to fight an enemy that can actually shoot at it. This isn't even factoring in Pershing's armed farce in northern Mexico, the Second Seminole War, Red Cloud's War (where Red Cloud did what Jefferson Davis could not!), the War of 1812 (which the USA limped out of intact, that is not a victory), and the rather underwhelming defeat of the Iraqis in 1991. After all, these same Iraqis needed mass gassings to defeat unarmed teenagers hopped up on religious fanaticism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menshevik View Post
Interesting point of view Apache.

I would say Britain has the proudest and overall brightest military history. Israel has a very short history, but also one filled with a lot of military success it seems. The United States could be a contender, certainly for the past fifty years we've been the brightest, maybe not the proudest.
Israel is the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. As the USA showed, Arab armies are perfectly beatable by any leadership that knows what it's doing and has the capability to prepare and plan accordingly. The USA, at least, fought enemies its equal and managed to survive the encounter (obviously or 1776 would have been the prelude to mass exiles and hangings).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Learned Hand View Post
Agreed. Let me just qualify my last post- I was thinking not just in military terms but in economic terms as well. It just happens to be that America's military dominance is linked with its prosperous economy. WW2 showed how the US could turn its huge consumer product industry into a war machine, and in the present day we see how its large and high valued tax base can fund cutting edge technology for the military.
Does WW2 show that? Or does it show that the USA exploited having strong allies to emerge the sole intact Great Power when every other viable contender had been hollowed either by colonialism or two bloodmills in a generation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagul View Post
The largest war that ever happened in the Pacific was fought exclusively by the Americans and Japan which was a world power at that time lost. Vietnam was not lost by virtue of military defeat, rather it was the political crisis that destroyed the American intervention in the territory. The American air power in the Europe was among the reasons of German defeat.

The allies of the Americans in their war today is just a show of force by them. But, they can do it on their own in terms of military power and they don't need any ally to execute it, but, these countries are just needed in order to make it look like it is a world effort, which is a political ploy rather than a military strategy.
Vietnam was lost at a military level. Inventing casualty lists out of thin air and then having Tet happened was a purely self-inflicted example of American hubris. World War 2 was very much a coalition effort, and the USA nowhere fought anywhere on its own. The last war with a proper army the USA fought and won on its own steam was in 1898.
Underlankers is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
brightest, military, proudest


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your country's military equipment M.E.T.H.O.D. War and Military History 13 March 4th, 2012 09:26 PM
Proudest ancient figure Historius Ancient History 32 January 30th, 2011 12:30 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.