A question on British armed conflict

[Ensign Elliott]

Originally Posted by slick_miester

US forces crossed the border and burned Toronto (then known as York) to the ground. Does that count as a provocation?

I suppose so. Though IMO its really a only a carry on from the AWI.

Originally Posted by slick_miester

Yeah, you were already warring with France, but the Bonnie Prince landed in Scotland with a promise of French intervention, or at least French assistance, in hand. Indeed, if I recall correctly, the French did attempt to land a shipload of arms and a battalion of French marines in Scotland, but poor weather and worse coordination nixed that plan. Would that not count as a French design against the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom?

Yeo. The frogs did send more troops (they managed to land the Régiment Royal d'Écosse, a couple of squadrons of FitzJames Horse and some Battalions from the Irish Brigade) but as you say, bad weather and the RN put a stop to that. Not sure if they were marines though. Anyway, we were already at war with France, so the '45 can't be included as a response to the OP.

[slick_miester]

Originally Posted by Ensign Elliott

I suppose so. Though IMO its really a only a carry on from the AWI.

Not at all. The War of 1812 was really quite a separate affair. 1812 had far more to do with the Napoleonic Wars than it did our Revolution. Starting a theme that would repeat itself, the question of American trade taking precedence over belligerents' activities and attitudes -- or even American national security -- would bring us to war. If nothing else, our people learned early on how to make war pay.

Originally Posted by Ensign Elliott

Yeo. The frogs did send more troops (they managed to land the Régiment Royal d'Écosse, a couple of squadrons of FitzJames Horse and some Battalions from the Irish Brigade) but as you say, bad weather and the RN put a stop to that. Not sure if they were marines though. Anyway, we were already at war with France, so the '45 can't be included as a response to the OP.

Those Scots and Irish units never saw actual ground combat though, did they. I just called 'em marines (small-m) 'cause they unassed from boats. Otherwise I'd have called 'em legs.

[Ensign Elliott]

Originally Posted by slick_miester

Not at all. The War of 1812 was really quite a separate affair. 1812 had far more to do with the Napoleonic Wars than it did our Revolution. Starting a theme that would repeat itself, the question of American trade taking precedence over belligerents' activities and attitudes -- or even American national security -- would bring us to war. If nothing else, our people learned early on how to make war pay.

Fair enough. Its not a war I know much about.

Originally Posted by slick_miester

Those Scots and Irish units never saw actual ground combat though, did they. I just called 'em marines (small-m) 'cause they unassed from boats. Otherwise I'd have called 'em legs.

Yes they did. What do you think they were doing at Culloden? Granted they stayed in Scotland during Charles Stewarts march South into England, but they played a great part in the final stages of the battle at Culloden. Positioned behind the rebel line, they remained on the field when the line broke and covered the jacobite withdrawal to Inverness. They took heavy casualties with the Ecosse taking fire from govt highlanders and Kerrs Dragoons and the Irish from Cobham's and Kingston's Dragoons. All the French regular troops at Culloden were treated as POWs. Point accepted on the marines.

[Listy]

Suez.
Anglo-Iraq war (1941). Although the Iraqi Attack was a bit pitiful, with them seen off by a Bunch of RAF ground personnel, native levies and some Gate Guardian artillery pieces. Air support came from Audax's.

[E.D. Morel]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

I'm not familiar with some of these actions that you speak about.

Were they actions against outside forces or rebellions against British rule?

That's the question though, isn't it...

[Ricthofen]

Falklands War, Maratha Wars, Mughal Wars, Zulu War, Iraqi War, Sepoy Rebellion, Afghan Rebellion, Mahdist Revolution, American Revolution, Canadian Revolution (if you count rebellions) .

[E.D. Morel]

Originally Posted by Ricthofen

Falklands War, Maratha Wars, Mughal Wars, Zulu War, Iraqi War, Sepoy Rebellion, Afghan Rebellion, Mahdist Revolution, American Revolution, Canadian Revolution (if you count rebellions) .

Falklands fits the list.
Iraq doesn't fit.
The rest are rebellions against imposed British rule and so are not attacks on Britain but a response to attacks by Britain.
If the population of the Falklands had solicited the help of the Argentineans then it would have been a rebellion.

The Maratha Wars were a result of agression by Britain, not against her.

I’m not sure what the Mughal Wars were, are you referring to the Mughal Rebellion (or Indian Mutiny)? If that’s the case then it wasn’t a war. It was a vicious rebellion after which which the British East India Company unleashed some of the worst reprisals in its blood soaked history, ranking up there with the worst atrocities ever carried out by British forces.

Their actions did more than anything else to create modern Islamic fundamentalism in the region.

[Listy]

Originally Posted by E.D. Morel

Iraq doesn't fit.

The Iraqi Army launched an attack against British territory. Granted RAF Habbaniya isn't the largest piece of land we ever held, but it was still British.