Talk:Planned French invasion of Britain (1759)

We don't need to capitalize the "I" in "invasion." 24.11.127.26 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Britain
This article incorrectly refers to this invasion as being one of several plans to invade the British Isles. When I corrected the text to agree with most references on this subject, another user has reverted on the basis of finding a reference that refers to this invasion as being one to invade the British Isles. It is clear from the reference (which is available on Google Books) that the use of the term "British Isles" is in relation to Great Britain. France made a formal declaration of war again Britain, not against the British Isles, and the plans during this war was land an army on English soil and to invade Britain. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated on this. --HighKing (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference states British Isles. What more do you want? Britain is part of the British Isles. Your constant attacks on instances of British Isles in articles are getting a bit tiresome. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  23:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree that British Isles is more preferable on balance. Most of the French/Spanish invasion plans during the eighteenth century involved multi-pronged attacks against the British Isles with landings at several spots. In the various plans drawn up in the 1710s, 1740s, 1750s, 1760s, 1770s and 1790s a landing in Ireland formed part of the scheme. This was both because the Jacobites were extremely strong in Ireland and to prevent Irish troops going to assist the British in resisting the main strike at London. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The French/Spanish invasions weren't against an "abstract" island group - they were against "the British" and their allies (unless you're inferring that "British Isles" in this context is a political term?) --HighKing (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So according to that argument this article should be renamed "Planned French Invasion against the British". In 1759 Irish were British. MidnightBlue   (Talk)  14:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was quoting Lord Cornwallis above - "prevent Irish troops going to assist the British". The invasions mentioned above were against the Kingdom of Great Britain.  Your comment "In 1759 Irish were British" is either woefully ignorant or mischievously baited.  --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point I made - the invasion was launched against the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland, which were at the time distinct seperate entities, linked through a single crown along with the Electorate of Hanover. Therefore the invasions were planned against the British Isles (including both Ireland and Britain) - I don't see how this is incorrect or unclear for the situation pre-1800. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's just establish some baselines first. Are you using the term "British Isles" in a political context or as a political entity (as per John Dee's usage of British Isles)?  In that case, saying that an invasion was launched against the British Isles makes sense.  --HighKing (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case I was using it purely as a geographical entity - which isn't uncommon when describing military acts. Gallipoli, for isntance, tends to be referred to as an "attack on the Dardanelles" rather than an invasion of the Ottoman Empire. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An invasion is a physical event in the real world, involving ships, people etc. It is therefore perfectly possible - nay, essential - to invade a geographical entity. Is HK trying to say here that the French would have stopped at Great Britain, leaving Ireland free? ðarkun coll 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Tharky trying to say that the French would have invaded the IoM also? And from then onto who knows where else?  I think it's ridiculous to try to guess what the French would have done next...  --HighKing (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine to talk about strategic locations, like Gallipoli, Gibraltar, etc.  Equally it's not unusual for invasion plans to have strategic measures drawn up to cut off supplies and reinforcements.  But the objective of this and other invasions wasn't to invade the British Isles, and this is what is suggested by this article, in the lede, despite the opening line of the article making it clear that this invasion was to have seen 100,000 French soldiers land in Britain in an attempt to end British involvement in the war.  The objective was to invade Britain.  Using "British Isles" in this context is incorrect.  --HighKing (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the objective was very much to invade the British Isles - where else is Britain located? But to say Britain alone implies that they had no designs on Ireland, which isn't true. Indeed, the French often tried to use Ireland as a back door entrance to Britain, hence Britain's strategic need to control it. That isn't true of the IoM, Lundy, Rockall or whatever other irrelevant specks of land you wish to bring up. ðarkun coll 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to be honest I don't entirely understand your argument. The invasion plan involved invasions of Britain and Ireland (and in fact Thurot's expedition to Ireland was the only to make a landfall) and therefore it was an invasion of the British Isles rather than simply just GB. You seem to be putting emphasis on the British Isles as a political term, when it is being used here as a geographical one. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. OK - let me try to explain where I'm coming from on this.  The British Isles is a geographic entity encompassing the political entities of the UK and Ireland, as well as crown dependencies IoM, Channel Islands.  The British Isles is also comprised of two main islands, GB and I, and the IoM and the Channel Islands.  So on the one hand, it is true to say that the French invaded the British Isles, in that the French invaded a land mass within the British Isles, in an abstract sense, regardless of whether they landed troops anywhere.  But in the context of this article, we're not talking at an abstract level of geographic land masses, are we?  We're talking about the bubbling war between France and Britain, and France's plans to invade Britain.  Part of that strategic plan was to control resources from Ireland.  But that is different that saying that France planned to invade the British Isles, because that implies that the objective was the "British Isles".  It wasn't - the objective was Britain, and a plan of landing troops in Ireland would have been part of the assault on Britain.  It would be a bit like saying that Germany successfully invaded the British Isles during WWII because they managed to occupy the Channel Islands...  --HighKing (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's actually the other way round, HK. The objective of the French was indeed to destroy (or at least humiliate) the British state (abstract), but to do so they had to do someting concrete in the real world, i.e. invade the British Isles (physical). ðarkun coll 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you'd agree then that Germany successfully invaded the British Isles during WWII? Will you support that as an edit?  --HighKing (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They successfully invaded a very small, insignificant and remote part of the British Isles. Who on earth would dispute this? ðarkun coll 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I do sort of understand what your saying, but I still don't entirely follow your logic - the objective of the invasion was the British Isles in an attempt to knock both the Kingdoms of Britain and ireland out of the war.

It was also slightly more flexible than you seem to perceive - while at the beginning the central concept was a drive across the channel to take of menace London, the expeditions to Scotland and Ireland were also major components, and were in some respsects stand-alone concepts. It is fair to say that in the 1759 that the invasion was aimed at the British Isles, rather than just at Britain - and given that the sentence we are actually discussing concerns the many invasion plans that France drew up during the eightenth century rather than just the 1759 one the term British Isles is even more appropriate as an umbrella term.

I'd personally agree that Germany invaded the British Isles during the Second World War just as France did in 1781. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You see, we are making progress. I maintain that even as an umbrella term, stating that the French (or whoever) planned to invade the British Isles uses the term in a political context.  That's a very different statement than saying that the French made plans to invade strategic locations within the British Isles.  Do you see the difference?  --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure we are making progress, I still don't understand the basic premise of what you are saying - that using British Isles is incorrect. These planned invasions of the eighteenth century involved attacks on GB, Ireland and the Channel Islands - hence British Isles rather than simply Britain (which at the time wasn't a United Kindom including Ireland). I can't see that is is a political term - it is a geographic one - and more accurate than saying just Britain. Even if it was a political term it would also work, the invasions were attempts to knock both Britain and Ireland out of the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the difference between saying that "The French planned to attack the British Isles" and "The French planned to attack strategic locations within the British Isles"? One uses the term as a political term, and the other as a geographical term.  I've no objections to the latter use, but it is incorrect to use the term in a political context - far better to use the correct political terms e.g. UK, Kingdom of X, etc.  --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a question for you HK - what does the "E" in "VE Day" stand for? Was this ever a political entitity, or was it a geographical entity that just happened to be ruled (for the most part) by a single political entity at the time (through various means and differing levels of control)? Your two sentences above both make perfect sence, because the French did indeed plan to attack the British Isles, in order to undermine the British state. What's the problem with that? ðarkun coll 06:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that we'll just continue to disagree if you can't accept the differences between the two sentences I've outlined above. --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say I still don't see what you are driving at - the term is being used here in a geographic sense not a political one (surely usage as a political term is extremely obscure?). You seem to be using quite a convoluted argument to avoid using the term British Isles - when it is in no way incorrect to do so (it is being used here as an umbrella term to descbibe the K of GB, K of I and Ch Isles all of which were both attacked and were destinations for planned further attacks in the 18th century) TharkunColl is correct as well in pointing out that an attack on the British state and an invasion of the British Isles aren't mutually exclusive. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't appear to recognize each other's points of view. This started because for me, when I read that this was one of a number of aborted attempts to invade the British Isles, and I read an article that deals exclusively with an aborted invasion against the British, it leads me to believe that "British Isles" is the same thing as "Britain".  And I'd also asssume that this is what an uneducated reader would assume.  Using the term in this way does not make it clear that they involve different areas, and many people to this day make the incorrect assumption that "British Isles" is the same as "UK".  For clarity, I believe it is best to avoid using the term "British Isles" when other terms will be clearer, or where it's meaning may be ambiguous.  For you, it might be crystal clear, but for many editors it isn't.  Then when I get into the detail of the various invasions, I find that they were all invasions aimed at Britain (various kingdoms, etc).  --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I’m now even more confused about what you are arguing – because now you seem to be admitting that you misread the article and a) believed it didn’t involve Ireland at all (b) was referring to the British Isles politically rather than geographically (I have to be honest I’m still not entirely sure how it is used as a politcal term rather than a geographic one, perhaps you can clarify that.).


 * With point a) – the invasion did involve Ireland with Thurot landing in Northern Ireland. (earlier in the 1759 plans, there was also a scheme to land a large force of troops in Ireland and have Charles Edward Stuart crowned King of Ireland, but this was vetoed by Charles) – so the idea that Ireland wasn’t involved is incorrect.


 * With point b) - about an unedcuated reader mistaking British Isles I really have to doubt that. I strongly suspect that most readers like me would regard the BI as a geographic term rather than a code/shorthand for Britain but if they are confused there is the link conveniently placed so they click on it and go to the article and be enlightened but I seriously doubt many people would need to do this (and this isn't a particularly high traffic page anyway). How is your argument about the British Isles being confused for Britain remedied by changing it to Britain if your purpose is to avoid British Isles being mistaken for Britain? Saying just Britain wouldn't be accurate because Britain and Ireland were separate during the eighteenth century and both (along with the Channel Islands) were invaded/planned to be invaded. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is Murphy?
One of the references to this article is "Murphy pp.211-12" But there isn't a source called Murphy in the bibliography. added the reference way back in February 2009

Does anyone know which book is being referred to? Chuntuk (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Planned French Invasion of Britain ((1759)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Planned French Invasion of Britain ((1759). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)