Ironic nationality battles

[Hus]

We all know about how a failed Art student-cum-Corporal Schickelgruber led the German people...when he wasn't even from Germany, but how ironic are some of history's other conflicts and battles?

 

Take the Battle of Stoke (1487)-

A Welsh King of England (Henry VII) leading English troops against a foreign invader- only 85 years after a huge but failed Welsh invasion of England!

The enemy? English figurehead pretender (Lambert Simnel), crowned in Ireland, invaded England to overthrow the above, with Irish-German-Swiss troops!

 

Or the Battle of the Boyne (1690)- (uncle fought nephew!)

A dour, aesthmatic Dutch King of England (William III) led an Anglo-Dutch-Danish-Finnish-Irish-French Huegenot army against:-

An (ousted) English King of England (James II) leading a Franco-Irish Catholic army...in Ireland! He fled so fast that his own men nicknamed him S

Edited March 13, 2011 by Hus

[Kosmo]

European elites were always cosmopolitan with the exception of the disastrous last century and the spread of nationalism, the worst political idea ever. Before WW I almost all European royal dynasties formed a big, deeply intertwined family. That cosmopolitanism existed in many aspects of European societies: craftsman, scholars, soldiers, clergy, businessman, sailors etc.

[DecimusCaesar]

I think there's a certain truth to what Kosmo is saying. I've been reading books recently about Medieval Europe, and one thing that constantly pops up is how Knights and noblemen had a far greater allegiance to their class than to their country. This is reflected in Chivalry. During the Hundred Year's War French Knights showed greater respect, kindness and courteousness to English Knights than to their own lower class countrymen. If anything, chivalry stressed the importance of keeping lower classes down, while mainting strong bonds with members of your own class. These bonds stretched beyond national borders. Henry V's call to execute surrendered French Noble Knights at Agincourt in 1415 disgusted his contemporaries because he had called upon the peasant archers to do the deed. A few years later when Henry tried to organise a Crusade, many of his contemporaries brought this up as an example of his lack of fitness to command. On the other hand, Richard II's violent suppression of his own countrymen's peasant revolt in 1381, was praised by writers at the time, as it was seen as a 'just cause' that noblemen should slaughter their revolting lower class countrymen, even if they had already surrenderd, as the Peasant's had done at Smithfield.

Edited March 15, 2011 by DecimusCaesar

[Klingan]

European elites were always cosmopolitan with the exception of the disastrous last century and the spread of nationalism, the worst political idea ever. Before WW I almost all European royal dynasties formed a big, deeply intertwined family. That cosmopolitanism existed in many aspects of European societies: craftsman, scholars, soldiers, clergy, businessman, sailors etc.

 

I usually view pre-nation state wars in Europe as more or less of a family feud.

 

 

I've been reading books recently about Medieval Europe, and one thing that constantly pops up is how Knights and noblemen had a far greater allegiance to their class than to their country. This is reflected in Chivalry.

 

The same phenomena has been observed in ancient Greece, e.g. in the Athenian elite during the Peloponnesian war and the Iliad and Odyssey.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

As far as ironic how about King Richard the Lionhearted (compeletely French couldn't speak a single word of English) battles his French brother for the crown of England, in between crusading for the Pope who has no idea who Richard belongs to alongside Austrians who he is also at war with, and he warred with France too if I remember, this was an essay i wrote 6 years ago so i would research most of that but i'm pretty sure its all true just check if this is for something serious.

 

vtc

[Hus]

Thanks, Vibius, good example- I only posted it for fun, really.

 

Richard cared little for England, alright, and famously stated that he would have sold London had he found a buyer, so legend goes.

 

Ironically, that Frenchman's proud statue stands outside the British Houses of Parliament, founded largely by other Frenchmen, Henry II and Simon de Montfort.

[GhostOfClayton]

What about the battle of Heavenfield. A battle between an army under Oswald of Bernicia and a Welsh army under Cadwallon ap Cadfan of Gwynedd was reported by the Venerable Bede as a triumph of Christianity over paganism. Not only was Cadwallon a Christian, but the battle itself wasn't even at Heavenfield.

[Julius Ratus]

How about the Russian General Barclay de Tolly in the Napoleonic Wars? A Baltic-German descendant of a Scottish family that had settled in Livonia and fought for the Russian Army against the French.

[Hus]

Yes, good suggestions, guys.

 

I think the ultimate, predictable choice would be World Wars I & II, which is why I omitted them.

 

But wasn't there a WWI battle that featured three Generals, one german, one French and one British- each with "odd nationality" sounding surnames?

From vague memory, the British were led by Sir John French, the Germans by Hermann Francois and the French by Ferdinand Foch