Add Blog Entry

Navy Seals vs 1700 era England

ckingusc This is a post i made on 2+2, thought i'd share it here:

So I've often thought of these sort of scenario's and i thought i would ask OOT what their thoughts are on this sort of subject. Let's assume you could send a highly trained seal team back in time to England in the year 1700 when they were a world powerhouse. They understand the times and the language. They are instructed to topple the government and install a different puppet ruler (let's assume that this is someone from our time period who is capable of pretending to be a current era noble). So just killing the ruler and causing chaos isn't enough, they need to cause a regime change that gets a selected person with no previous political fame elected. Therefore you can assume the following:

-Assume inability to communicate with superiors
-The seals will be resupplied with weapons, explosives and ammo
-The seals will not be given modern vehicles, biological weapons or more men
-Seals will be given vaccines before hand and have modern medical tools, however due to inability to communicate needs, will only receive standard resupplies
-They may train militia or troops to fight a war for them, but these people will not be given modern weapons
-The seal's will be briefed in era tactics and political climate

So the question is as follows: Do you believe the seals could take over the British Empire (the strongest country in the world at that time), how long would it take and how do you think the most effective way of achieving the goal of placing a puppet dictator in control would take?

post can be found here:


EdmondDantes says

Size of the Seal team? Standard 120-man unit?


ckingusc says

no, just a small team about a dozen or so soldiers. If you read the thread i posted a link to you can see some of my thoughts on processes they would use


lakeoffire says

It could be done if you could actually raise an army and have plenty of time to train them. I am not sure the concept of flanking your opponent had been widely used at this time. Without the support of an army it would be imposssible(this is real life , not a movie). Right? Aight.


EdmondDantes says

Actually, I think someone with an extensive political background has a much better shot at the regime change. There's a reason why sayings like "The pen is mightier than the sword" come about, and history is littered with efforts by well-capitalized, well-armed efforts at regime change being repulsed--see US in Iraq (2003 to the present), Russia/Afghanistan (1979-1989), US/Cuba (1961), US in Central America (1980s), US in Southeast Asia (1960s/70s). There are also many historical instances of poorly armed peoples rejecting well-financed puppet govts...England/US colonies, England/India (see also, Gandhi), etc.

I'd offer that if one of the Seals had the political skills of a Robespierre, Rasputin or Rove, it's doable over the course of decade or so. But by force, just because they've got the best weapons and training, not likely and certainly not sustainable. Note that the lack of mass communication (circa 1700s) only stalls the process in each direction (installing and rejecting the puppet government). In time, people reject puppet governments.



harlem says

In the Marine Corps we use to say,
Nuke Them Till They Glow


Post your comment below

Insert BOLD tag Insert ITALIC tag Insert HYPERLINK tag Insert IMAGE tag Insert FONT COLOR tag Insert DIAMONDS tag Insert HEARTS tag Insert CLUBS tag Insert SPADES tag

Log in with your account. Click here to register.

Remember log-in information

ckingusc Bio/myhome



My Friends