"Henry V's Greatest Victory Is Beseiged by Academia"

[grumbler]

And regarding 1688... What can one call it but a Dutch invasion? William didn't land alone, rather the opposite, he assembled a huge fleet and a big, veteran army (according to the Wikipedia, the invading army was 20,000 strong - 15,000–18,000 on foot and 3,660 cavalry - and the fleet four times bigger than the 1588 Armada). That the English army disintegrated with very limited fight is a fact, but a fact worthy of a motto: 'beer-drinking surrender monkeys', for example. 

If Wikipedia is neglecting to note that this army is just a bodyguard for William and Mary, then Wikipedia, once again, has its head up its ass.  Calling it a "Dutch invasion" is absurd - they were invited.  Cake was served!

[grumbler]

That's, quite simply, mistaken. There was only one King of England, James II. Actually, not only William hadn't claimed the crown when he landed, but did announce the opposite, that he didn't mean to depose James.

This is a misunderstanding of what was happening.  William wasn't deposing James, Parliament was.  William was there with an army to protect the interests of his wife, the daughter and heir of James II.

William wasn't deposing James, Parliament was.  William was there with an army to protect the interests of his wife, the daughter and heir of James II.

[Alatriste]

That's, quite simply, mistaken. There was only one King of England, James II. Actually, not only William hadn't claimed the crown when he landed, but did announce the opposite, that he didn't mean to depose James.

This is a misunderstanding of what was happening.  William wasn't deposing James, Parliament was.  William was there with an army to protect the interests of his wife, the daughter and heir of James II.

William wasn't deposing James, Parliament was.  William was there with an army to protect the interests of his wife, the daughter and heir of James II.

Excuse me, but... are you quoting yourself?  Color me confused.

Anyway, the better way in this kind of debate is going to the original source. In this case, William's own words in "The Declaration of His Highness William Henry, by the Grace of God, Prince of Orange, etc., of the reasons inducing him to appear in arms in the Kingdom of England, and for preserving the Protestant religion, and for restoring the laws and liberties of England, Scotland, and Ireland."

A transcript

http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16881010.htm

And a non-complete facsimile

http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/uk/will3/willact/will1688.html


Shrewd readers will notice that 'King' and 'His Majesty" is used in this document for James II, not William... the invaders didn't present themselves as an English army, and his general didn't land as an English general or King.

Indeed the declaration says

Therefore it is, that we have thought fit to go over into England, and to carry over with us a force sufficient, by the blessing of God, to defend us from the violence of these evil counsellors. And we, being desirous that our intentions in this matter be rightly understood, have for this end prepared this Declaration...

Which sounds quite reasonable... until one learns the 'bodyguard' was at least as big as the royal army (18,660 to 21,660 against roughly 19,000 men) and far more experienced, not to mention that they were reliable, unlike the English forces. Some 'bodyguard'...

William's operations, in essence, followed the same plan Philip II had had (and for very good reasons). Cross an army from the continent to England, land, and get local support to depose the monarch... only William counted on protestant support against a Catholic monarch, and Philip II had relied on Catholic support against Elisabeth I.

[Malthus]

The "invasion" of William and Mary is generally not counted as such, since although the pair arrived with a large army, it was by invitation. In essence parliament contracted out for a better monarch. 

[grumbler]

Excuse me, but... are you quoting yourself?  Color me confused. 

Why not quote mysel;f.  I am at least as authoritative as Wikipedia (which you were quoting).

Anyway, the better way in this kind of debate is going to the original source. In this case, William's own words in "The Declaration of His Highness William Henry, by the Grace of God, Prince of Orange, etc., of the reasons inducing him to appear in arms in the Kingdom of England, and for preserving the Protestant religion, and for restoring the laws and liberties of England, Scotland, and Ireland."

You would be correct, if this declaration was made without any kind of bias or hidden purpose.  This whole attack on "evil counselors" rather than the King is typical of the writing of the period (and even before - look at the proclamations coming out of the Pilgrimage of Grace).

Nevertheless, this document confirms, as I pointed out, that William was acting in the interests of his wife (and thus himself).  he cannot argue for the illegitimacy of James, of course, because the legitimacy of james is the legitimacy of Mary.

And since our dearest and most entirely beloved consort, the Princess, and likewise we ourself, have so great an interest in this matter, and such a right, as all the world knows, to the succession of the Crown; ... we cannot excuse ourself from espousing their interest in a matter of so high consequence, and from contributing all that lies in us for the maintaining both the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of these Kingdoms,

Shrewd readers will notice that 'King' and 'His Majesty" is used in this document for James II, not William... the invaders didn't present themselves as an English army, and his general didn't land as an English general or King.

Correct.  William landed as the consort of the heir to the throne of Britain, not as a dutch general or leader.

Which sounds quite reasonable... until one learns the 'bodyguard' was at least as big as the royal army (18,660 to 21,660 against roughly 19,000 men) and far more experienced, not to mention that they were reliable, unlike the English forces. Some 'bodyguard'... 

My point sounds quite reasonable no matter the size of the contingent or its foes.  Whether a force is a bodyguard depends on its function, not its size.

William's operations, in essence, followed the same plan Philip II had had (and for very good reasons). Cross an army from the continent to England, land, and get local support to depose the monarch... only William counted on protestant support against a Catholic monarch, and Philip II had relied on Catholic support against Elisabeth I.

This is true in the sense that every invasion follows this plan to some extent.  Operation Barbarossa intended to get local support for the overthrow of the Soviet Union.  This doesn't make Philip II's plan essentially the same as Hitler's, though.  William's plan, unlike those of Phillip or Hitler, was dependent on his being invited by the parliament to intervene in James's "suppression of the faith" and also dependent on the fact that the English army favored his cause.

[grumbler]

The "invasion" of William and Mary is generally not counted as such, since although the pair arrived with a large army, it was by invitation. In essence parliament contracted out for a better monarch. 

Or one could argue that Parliament simply offered to accelerate the succession (and james remembered how they did that the last time).  "Charles I was not the shortest British monarch when he took the throne, but he was when he left it."

[DGuller]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

Well, some would say 116 years of intermittent war should be enough to put to rest that stale piece of English propaganda. By way of contrast, each time an enemy army has landed on England it has been to stay. And the last two times, 1066 and 1688, they conquered the whole country quite swiftly too. One would say English are a piece of cake, consistently outclassed on land by everyone but Scots...

Well, duh, they never upgrade their level 1 forts.

[saskganesh]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

Well, some would say 116 years of intermittent war should be enough to put to rest that stale piece of English propaganda. By way of contrast, each time an enemy army has landed on England it has been to stay. And the last two times, 1066 and 1688, they conquered the whole country quite swiftly too. One would say English are a piece of cake, consistently outclassed on land by everyone but Scots...

not to barrage your thesis but there were two other invasions that need to be recognised and accounted

1215 (Prince Louis captures London, proclaimed King, but can't crack Dover and is forced to leave by defecting nobles by 1217)
and  1485 (a welshman invades from France, kills King Dick in battle ... thanks to defecting nobles ... and becomes Henry VII)

There were plenty of other small "invasions" where an enemy force landed and burned a town and left.

yeah but these ones were during civil wars where both protagonists became kings. not raids, they were there to stay. Louis was not successful, largely due to William Marshall's defensive,  and political skills, but Henry VII, who had a relatively removed claim to the throne, was able to make it stick.

[Cecil]

Right in part IIRC. A politically skillful king that could persuade parliament to the wars neccessity could wield economical might similar or even greater to that of the french king. On the flipside an unwilling parliament could make any military moves completely impossible. This explains part of the rising and ebbing fortunes of the english during the war. The english system of taxation was a lot more efficient as well rather than that of france which was a hodgepodge of weird taxes and dues. A lot of french coin during much of the war came from reducing the amount of gold and silver in the coins since the king had control of the mint and technically he owned all of the coins in circulation. Obviously this didnt do any good for the economy or for the popularity of the french royals, quite a few local troubles they had originated in the debasement of the currency. My memory is a bit shaky on the exact circumstances though as its been some time since I read about it.

Actually, from the histories I have read, the English military fortunes were tied to the ability of the British king to borrow, not tax.

Yes, the English tax system was more efficient than the French, but the direct expenses of the crown were greater, too.  It seems at every turn the French can afford mercenaries and the English could not (or had just lost them) and that speaks of cash:  "No money, no Swiss."

You are correct of course since taxes at the time took a long time to collect and were not always in ready coin. Only the great banking houses had the amount of currency avaliable to pay for an army. What the english kings at least during the first half of the war did (since thats the part I´ve read most about)  was to guarantee the loans against future tax receipts avaliable from the wool sold mostly to Flandres and other taxes. This of course had to be approved by parliament since they controlled the purse.

Was the swiss much used in the hundred years? I recall mostly the french using genoese sailors/crossbowmen which was avaliable due to the close location of France and their usually good relations.

[DGuller]

Didn't French slaughter their own Genoese mercenaries in one of their battles?

[Admiral Yi]

Didn't French slaughter their own Genoese mercenaries in one of their battles?

The charging knights ran over and dispersed the Genoese crossbowen at Agincourt.  So slaughter is not right.

[DGuller]

Didn't French slaughter their own Genoese mercenaries in one of their battles?

The charging knights ran over and dispersed the Genoese crossbowen at Agincourt.  So slaughter is not right.

I think it was at Crecy, not Agincourt, and they deliberately attacked the retreating Genoese.

[Duque de Bragança]

Didn't French slaughter their own Genoese mercenaries in one of their battles?

The charging knights ran over and dispersed the Genoese crossbowen at Agincourt.  So slaughter is not right.

I think it was at Crecy, not Agincourt, and they deliberately attacked the retreating Genoese.

Piétaille... 

[saskganesh]

it was Crecy. the French attacked from their line of march, and the Genoese were in the way.

they had crossbowmen at Agincourt but IRC they deployed between the first and second battles (lines) so they could not get clear shots through the melee. they probably deserted
as the outcome came clear.

[grumbler]

Was the swiss much used in the hundred years? I recall mostly the french using genoese sailors/crossbowmen which was avaliable due to the close location of France and their usually good relations.

No.  That was a joke about mercenaries in general.  It postdates the period but is valid in sentiment.