History: Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world

[oxmox 73]

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

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe.

The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British.

Among this select group of nations are far-off destinations such as Guatemala, Tajikistan and the Marshall Islands, as well some slightly closer to home, such as Luxembourg.

The analysis is contained in a new book, All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To.

Stuart Laycock, the author, has worked his way around the globe, through each country alphabetically, researching its history to establish whether, at any point, they have experienced an incursion by Britain.

Only a comparatively small proportion of the total in Mr Laycock's list of invaded states actually formed an official part of the empire.

The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment.

Incursions by British pirates, privateers or armed explorers have also been included, provided they were operating with the approval of their government.

So, many countries which once formed part of the Spanish empire and seem to have little historical connection with the UK, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador and El Salvador, make the list because of the repeated raids they suffered from state-sanctioned British sailors.

Among some of the perhaps surprising entries on the list are:

* Cuba, where in 1741, a force under Admiral Edward Vernon stormed ashore at Guantánamo Bay. He renamed it Cumberland Bay, before being forced to withdraw in the face of hostile locals and an outbreak of disease among his men. Twenty one years later, Havana and a large part of the island fell to the British after a bloody siege, only to be handed back to the Spanish in 1763, along with another unlikely British possession, the Philippines, in exchange for Florida and Minorca.

*Iceland, invaded in 1940 by the British after the neutral nation refused to enter the war on the Allies side. The invasion force, of 745 marines, met with strong protest from the Iceland government, but no resistance.

* Vietnam, which has experienced repeated incursions by the British since the seventeenth century. The most recent – from 1945 to 1946 – saw the British fight a campaign for control of the country against communists, in a war that has been overshadowed by later conflicts involving first the French and then Americans.

--> It is thought to be the first time such a list has been compiled.

After almost two years of research he said he was shocked by the answer. "I was absolutely staggered when I reached the total. I like to think I have a relatively good general knowledge. But there are places where it hadn't occurred to me that these things had ever happened. It shocked me.

The only other nation which has achieved anything approaching the British total, Mr Laycock said, is France – which also holds the unfortunate record for having endured the most British invasions. "I realise people may argue with some of my reasons, but it is intended to prompt debate," he added.

The research covered the 192 other UN member states as well as the Vatican City and Kosovo, which are not member states, but are recognised by the UK government as independent states.

The earliest invasion launched from these islands was an incursion into Gaul – now France – at the end of the second century. Clodius Albinus led an army, thought to include many Britons, across the Channel in an attempt to seize the imperial throne. The force was defeated in 197 at Lyon.

more & listed countries who were not invaded:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

(news report is a little bit older but interesting, missed it and maybe others aswell)

Edited May 16, 2015 by oxmox

[Tonci87 163]

The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment.

Incursions by British pirates, privateers or armed explorers have also been included, provided they were operating with the approval of their government.

That is not how I would define "Invasion".

The British had "boots on the ground" in many countries, but not in THAT many.

[chrisb 196]

Its a pastime, you have to have something to do in life. :681:

We would be lucky if we were able to mount an invasion force to the Isle of Man now..;)

Edited May 16, 2015 by ChrisB

[oxmox 73]

Its a pastime, you have to have something to do in life. :681:

We would be lucky if we were able to mount an invasion force to the Isle of Man now..;)

Haha, that would be a war with the banks.....a free Isle of Tax Avoidance is too important. :D

[mistyronin 1181]

That is not how I would define "Invasion".

With that definition, most of the European powers have "invaded" most of the World (specially France, Spain and Portugal but also the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Russia and others).

To that list you could also include the US.

[oxmox 73]

With that definition, most of the European powers have "invaded" most of the World (specially France, Spain and Portugal but also the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Russia and others).

To that list you could also include the US.

I dont know the book yet, maybe I will have a look since it sounds interesting.

But, i dont understand the conclusion. Take for example Germany, where have they been with military forces in most parts of the world ?

The other mentioned countries and especially France & Spain, yes of course. Would be interesting to compare it.

[mistyronin 1181]

But, i dont understand the conclusion. Take for example Germany, where have they been with military forces in most parts of the world ?

In WW2 the German uboats and military expeditions reached almost everywhere, from the Antarctica to Tibet (including most of South America, for instance a known battle is the River Plate one, also Africa and Asia helping their Nippon allies).

That study includes countries like Finland, because of when the UK sent planes against Finland in WW2 and also for the Crimean war sea battles.

You have to think that if you add any military presence in the territory as "invasion" then you got it.

Edited May 16, 2015 by MistyRonin

[oxmox 73]

In WW2 the German uboats and military expeditions reached almost everywhere, from the Antarctica to Tibet (including most of South America, for instance a known battle is the River Plate one, also Africa and Asia helping their Nippon allies).

That study includes countries like Finland, because of when the UK sent planes against Finland in WW2 and also for the Crimean war sea battles.

Well, I dont know how the book describes the events therefore I dont judge. But yeah that would be wrong since:

When it comes to ww2 and u-boats, it was not an invsion of a country but missions in foreign waters against enemies. Supporting allies is aswell not a direct invasion, and the mission in Tibet with Heinrich Harrer (7 years in Tibet) was a Himalaya expedition which started before the outbrake of the war but they were later interned.

Edited May 16, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

The study defines invasion as any military presence for accidental and little as it may be, including pirate sea incursions. IMO it's way too broad. To me a military invasion is a prolonged numerous hostile military presence in a territory.

BTW Heinrich Harrer was a SS soldier (well, NCO) and he got in Tibet in 1944 after escaping from India.

[oxmox 73]

The study defines invasion as any military presence, including pirate sea incursions.

BTW Heinrich Harrer was a SS soldier (well, NCO) and he got in Tibet in 1944 after escaping from India.

Yes, but it was an expedition to explore the Himalaya regions. This has nothing to do with military presence.

Googling a bit: The expedition started in 1939 around the Nanga Parbat, which is nowadays Pakistan and in that time it was India. They were interned because Great Britain did enter the war against Germany, later they escaped and he wrote the famous book 7 years in Tibet.

Would be definately strange if sea incursions in foreign waters would be defined as an invasion of a country but probably as an attack if both countries were not at war already, well you have to read the book.

IMO it's way too broad

yeah, could be....and you are maybe right

I found it on google books: (more a short overview to each country than a profound source)

click me

I did read a bit on wiki:

"Crimean war sea battles"

Actually, french-british troops did land with 30.000 men in Varna (nowadays Bulgaria) and they did land on Crimea itself and did march upcountry. They encircled aswell Sevastopol. One "highlight" was the Battle of Baclava.

When it comes to Finland, maybe he refers to this

The British Assault on Finland, 1854-1855: A Forgotten Naval War

.... Oolannin sota:p:...yeah, "small incidents".

The autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland was formed within the Russian Empire which included the Ã…land Islands. British - French naval task force took over an unfinished Bomarsund Fortress in Ã…land in late summer 1854.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bomarsund

The hostilities in the Gulf of Bothnia & Hostilities between the Ã…land Islands

click me

Edited May 16, 2015 by oxmox

[cozza 24]

That just the British way

"Hello there old chap. Say, we will give you these lovely beads. Shiny. And we will just take everything you own from here to the horizon" :p

[mistyronin 1181]

Would be definately strange if sea incursions in foreign waters would be defined as an invasion of a country

When it comes to Finland, maybe he refers to this [...]

.... Oolannin sota:p:...yeah, "small incidents".

Read again properly before writing wise-ass sounding posts.

That study includes countries like Finland, because of when the UK sent planes against Finland in WW2 and also for the Crimean war sea battles.

I precisely mentioned the Crimean War Sea Battles in the Finnish coasts (like the Battle of Bomarsund in Ã…land). In the city I live there's a Marine Museum with full rooms dedicated to it (Putin's favorite museum in Finland BTW).

I didn't say they were "small incidents", I said they were not invasions IMO. I even said that using the same standard, battles like Río de la Plata, should be considered a German invasion of Argentina.

Edited May 18, 2015 by MistyRonin

[oxmox 73]

Read again properly before writing wise-ass sounding posts.

I precisely mentioned the Crimean War Sea Battles in the Finnish coasts (like the Battle of Bomarsund in Ã…land). In the city I live there's a Marine Museum with full rooms dedicated to it (Putin's favorite museum in Finland BTW).

I didn't say they were "small incidents", I said they were not invasions IMO. I even said that using the same standard, battles like Río de la Plata, should be considered a German invasion of Argentina.

No idea why you feel pissed off after i did tend to agree and just repeated the sentence here, take it a little more easy. Yes, I mentioned these were "small incidents" i.e. capturing the 'Fortress on this Island and the finnish wiki talks about a town. Maybe you know more about it.

I dont know about the Aland battle and did read the first time about it, he probably takes into concideration that they did set foot on land.

The german navy missions were not directed against Argentina and there were no land invasions (attacks), it was a battle against the British Navy and the harbour was neutral.

Wheras in the early 19th century, british military did set foot on the land and invaded Rio de la Plata, they occupied aswell Buenos Aires.

Edited May 18, 2015 by oxmox

[mistyronin 1181]

No idea why you feel pissed off after i did tend to agree and just repeated the sentence here

Saying that a post sounds wise-ass doesn't mean at all that I'm pissed off. Strange conclusion you took there. :confused:

On the other hand, I repeat, I haven't described anything as a small incident. Tho the Battle of Bomarsund was a really secondary battle in the Baltic sea in the midst of the Crimean War period (some historians call it a skirmish).

As a side note, Ã… is a Swedish letter that sounds like "o".

[slatts 1978]

While Britannias Huns with their long range guns, sailed through the Foggy Dew.

Go away inner Republican, Irelands over the long U.K thing ;)

[mistyronin 1181]

While Britannias Huns with their long range guns, sailed through the Foggy Dew.

Go away inner Republican, Irelands over the long U.K thing ;)

Haha my fav version is Sinnead O'Connors one :)

Tho well, Éire still misses the North... That big fellow's bad agreement...

[Caselius 94]

I believe it could be said that the so called "Ã…land-war" was mainly British raids: The targets were mainly ports and different forts like Bormarsund and Suomenlinna. British landed only when taking prisoners and destroying buildings etc. and there wasn't much of a decisive force landed to take over locations for prolonged time (except Bormarsund). It fully depends on if you call raids an invasion.

[Jona33 51]

For those who can't be bothered to read the study. :D

[slatts 1978]

Haha my fav version is Sinnead O'Connors one :)

Tho well, Éire still misses the North... That big fellow's bad agreement...

Not really. At the time of the Treaty, Ulster was a majority Loyalist/Unionist population (Ala Ulster Covenant supporters) and if the 6 counties had have been handed back over, in my opinion The Troubles would have happened in reverse.

Plus again at the time the Treaty was signed it was the only deal on the table from the U.K government and with the way things looked, was only going to ever be the only deal on the table. Good ol' Éamon de Valera knew this and sent Micheal Collins as a scapegoat since the Treaty was going to be hughely controversial and the rest is history. Twas he who signed the deed, but twas not he who made the agreement ;)

[mistyronin 1181]

Plus again at the time the Treaty was signed it was the only deal on the table from the U.K government and with the way things looked, was only going to ever be the only deal on the table. Good ol' Éamon de Valera knew this and sent Micheal Collins as a scapegoat since the Treaty was going to be hughely controversial and the rest is history. Twas he who signed the deed, but twas not he who made the agreement ;)

Some would say that Collins got to fond of the London girls :p

Nah. I agree with you, it was the best they could get, and it was about time to be able to solve things peacefully (tho well, the f... Civil War was nasty). And seems quite obvious that de Valera tricked him. Really sad how it all ended for him, but at least he brought the Republic.

[slatts 1978]

Some would say that Collins got to fond of the London girls :p

Nah. I agree with you, it was the best they could get, and it was about time to be able to solve things peacefully (tho well, the f... Civil War was nasty). And seems quite obvious that de Valera tricked him. Really sad how it all ended for him, but at least he brought the Republic.

We still don't let those Cork boyos forget about it. Or any member of our Cavalry Corps who was protecting him that day. ;)