What if there were no British Isles?

[nomad]

I've been reading 'The rise and fall of the great powers' by paul kennedy, and in the part on the hundred years' war it struck me how, at least in his view, the continent nearly fell to French control several times, and was only held back by Britain, either with direct intervention, or more likely by economic means - they more or less financed most of their allies, who wouldn't have been able to afford to fight as they did otherwise. The french were in a more fertile area, farm-wise, than most of their neighbors (according to the book), and outnumbered all their enemies by a good margin. They met all their neighbors in battle at one time or another and bested them all as far as Sweden (who, to my knowledge, wasn't conquered).

But, they didn't have sea mastery. The british had that. So, the French could never seriously invade the British mainland. Britain never had enough force to convincingly defeat France either (though they came somewhat close with the Duke of Marlborough). The british mastery of the sea was worldwide compared to France, and gave it a large edge in commercial enterprise and trade, even with the loss of the American colonies and the advent of the Continental system under Napoleon.

Even when the french could conquer most of the continent, they always had to worry about England on their backside, as well as fight them on the sea, and the maintenance of this large army was a constant drain on France's finances that always caused it to fall apart from within eventually. And Britain's commercial dominance and payments to its allies meant that France's enemies did not exhaust themselves as easily.

So, what if that convenient and large island of Greater Britain didn't exist?

[NJon]

The french were in a more fertile area, farm-wise, than most of their neighbors (according to the book), and outnumbered all their enemies by a good margin. They met all their neighbors in battle at one time or another and bested them all as far as Sweden (who, to my knowledge, wasn't conquered).

Sweden was rarely attacked in that age. I suspect that is largely because unless there was a strong naval network for troop transport, armies would have to get to Sweden by marching through Denmark from central Europe. For a long while, Sweden didn't even having long-term established rule.

Switzerland is another nation that wasn't too often messed with. It didn't have a big empire or a global economy, but it was largely self-consistent. The people knew their land very well and were dedicated to preserving it. Furthermore, the famous Swiss pikemen (http://3mpub.com/rhodes/images/pikeman%20web.jpg) were well-known and well-feared. Their close formations made them an easy target for mortar fire, but when properly executed, a pike formation could tear through almost any cavalry and many ground forces.


But, they didn't have sea mastery. The british had that. So, the French could never seriously invade the British mainland. Britain never had enough force to convincingly defeat France either (though they came somewhat close with the Duke of Marlborough).

A lot of the animosity between those two people groups probably goes back to the Thirty Years' War and what it meant for Catholicism versus Protestantism in post-Reformation Europe; a lot of military systems were also reformed in that conflict. There had been battles between England and France before then (in the middle ages), but we don't see a huge increase in such conflict and personal seething hatred for the other side until the eighteenth century. This is most notable in the Seven Years' War and French support for English colonists during the American Revolution (after the Battle of Saratoga in 1777).
They (England and France) seemed to enjoy warring with each other and humiliating one another whenever possible, often looking for reasons to provoke controversy. A lot of dislike for the opposing nation abounds even today.

...the maintenance of this large army was a constant drain on France's finances that always caused it to fall apart from within eventually.

Yes, this is significant because the fall of the French economy played an absolutely critical role in the outbreak of the French Revolution in the latter eighteenth century. Wars and regal luxuries (exemplified by the palace at Versailles) were the main causes of bankrupting the coffers of France. In turn, this led to (among many more things) a rise in the price of bread. The rising bread prices were a major reason of protest at the Bastille, which was eventually (after a series of almost-comedic mishaps and misunderstandings) captured by the French citizenry.

So, what if that convenient and large island of Greater Britain didn't exist?

It's interesting you'd ask that. AiG actually had an article on the geographic formation of the British Isles published yesterday.

You can find it here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0929flood.asp).

[nomad]

Hey, finally getting back to this.

Well, I'm less interesting in the dynamics between France and England, than in the dynamics between France and the rest of Europe, i guess in the 1600s-1800s.

Money was mostly made on trade. England was the largest mercantile nation, followed by France (*). France also had the largest army, and by far the largest population in Europe. There were other powers, but France was the largest, and also the most homogenous compared to Austria. France had determined to control Europe and, in fact, at times seemed poised to.

But it was always held back by Britain. Sometimes directly - though I think the Duke of Marlborough's incursion into France was the only time this was really even possible. More likely, it was indirectly. Armies were expensive to maintain, and Britain had a large navy and a large trade network. So they sometimes contributed troops, but also made large payments to other powers in Europe, include the Dutch, Austrians, and Prussians, even the Russians at times (**).

Without this influx of money, most of the countries could not have afforded to keep the large armies in the field they did, and would have folded much earlier. These countries could not conquer France in return, but what they could do was keep France at enough of a distance to stay independent until France ran out of money and fell apart.

In addition, France's ambitions outside of Europe were checked to a large degree as well by English dominance of the seas.

However, Britain would have never survived a direct assault by French troops. One important reason they were so well off economically is that their military spending was a smaller part of their GNP than the nations around them - they were investing the money overseas instead. Their navy was necessary to keep the French at a distance, but it was necessary to protect trade anyways - it provided two functions, and allowed their army to be smaller.

Attach Britain to france with a land bridge, and all this falls apart. France walks a large army into Britain, Britain's navy falls apart. And the channel never froze (afaik), unlike the channel between Sweden and Denmark (which Charles XII once marched an army across right into Copenhagen :)

It's just weird how that little bit of geography, keeping Britain from the French, seems to have had such a large effect.

(*) - The Dutch, for instance, couldn't survive long-term balancing mercantile means again the risk of French invasion, hard as they tried. They had to surrender dominance to the British. The portuguese, not really the same story (I think) but since at time Spain was a French vassal state in many ways, they had the same problem (and were also accepting payments from France in the Napoleonic era).

(**) The Russians are interesting. They suddenly burst on the scene in power, marching across all of Europe and scaring the French away. Forget exactly when it happened. They were also a balancing feature, more based on their distance and large population than any attachments to the sea. So maybe it wouldn't have changed as much.

[TheOneAndOnly]

[quote]Attach Britain to france with a land bridge, and all this falls apart. France walks a large army into Britain, Britain's navy falls apart.[\quote]

I think I read somewhere that the British government has contingency plans to destroy the Channel Tunnel, possibly with nukes, in the unthinkable event of war with France (or whichever invading power the French decide to surredner to).