- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: History thread: How did we win the Revolutionary War?
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:11 pm to Champagne
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:11 pm to Champagne
quote:
That's pretty much the mythological version of the American Revolution.
The American Contintental Army fought pitched battles in ranks and files against British forces.
There were some American forces that operated on horseback that used hit and run tactics while basing themselves in swamps and deep forests. These were primarily in the Southern colonies.
The Native American tribes at the time were allied with Great Britain. They were the real experts in "guerilla war".
But the American Continental Army was trained to stand in ranks and deliver volleys of musket fire in pitched battles. They were not a "guerilla" army.
The US won the war after the French fleet beat the British fleet near Yorktown. This ensured that the British Army besieged at Yorktown could receive no supplies from a seaport, and neither could they evacuate by sea. So, they had to surrender.
Of course, the British did not quit immediately after Yorktown, but, it was only a matter of time. The British at Yorktown surrendered in 1781, and the British military campaign against the USA ended in 1783.
I think you're overlooking the fact that the United States managed to keep an army together until the French got on board. That, in and of itself, was a major accomplishment. Perhaps they weren't "guerrillas" but neither were they interested in fighting to the last man.
0
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:13 pm to Wishnitwas1998
We had support from the other major super power of the time, and the war was actually deeply unpopular in Britain itself.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:13 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Defensive war fought in someone's own territory = awful recipe. Just look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. Those types of wars are extremely draining on a country--even large military countries. Imagine if the south had fought guerilla style warfare for another decade
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:22 pm to TheOcean
quote:
Imagine if the south had fought guerilla style warfare for another decade.
They sorta did.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:27 pm to EmperorGout
quote:
and the war was actually deeply unpopular in Britain itself.
I wish we had learned more about this in school
I wonder what/how much they teach about it in the UK
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:47 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Britain fought on multiple fronts. America, Great Britain, and in India.
They obviously wanted to protect the homeland and the obscenely profitable Indian belt
America wasn't an immediate threat to their power like France or Spain was. America was a flea on the back of a dog.
Once France got fully involved it made truly fighting in the war a fools errand and was even less profitable to do than it was before the war.
They obviously wanted to protect the homeland and the obscenely profitable Indian belt
America wasn't an immediate threat to their power like France or Spain was. America was a flea on the back of a dog.
Once France got fully involved it made truly fighting in the war a fools errand and was even less profitable to do than it was before the war.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:49 pm to OleWar
quote:
quote:
Imagine if the south had fought guerilla style warfare for another decade.
They sorta did.
Oh so very true....
Posted on 3/14/15 at 7:57 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Leadership
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:08 pm to Wishnitwas1998
RESOURCES, CORRECT.
they had other fish to fry.
they were fighting the French around the world.
If they had put their entire energy into it, they could have crushed it early on.
Yes, French fleet made the difference in the last big battle.
George III was so full of himself that he missed the opportunity to negotiate a settlement, such as, allowing every colony INCLUDING THOSE IN CANADA to elect population proportional representatives to Parliament.
he could have withdrawn the taxes until the north american colonies elected representatives to parliament and got to speak there.
they had other fish to fry.
they were fighting the French around the world.
If they had put their entire energy into it, they could have crushed it early on.
Yes, French fleet made the difference in the last big battle.
George III was so full of himself that he missed the opportunity to negotiate a settlement, such as, allowing every colony INCLUDING THOSE IN CANADA to elect population proportional representatives to Parliament.
he could have withdrawn the taxes until the north american colonies elected representatives to parliament and got to speak there.
This post was edited on 3/14/15 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:33 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
would make an awesome movie
Duh?
"Gorillas in the Mist"?
This post was edited on 3/14/15 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:47 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Couple of additional thoughts to what's been posted above:
1- British had pretty poor communication between various people back in England in charge of the effort and generals and leaders on the ground here. This was compounded by the fact that I think it took a month or more for a message to cross the Atlantic.
2- Some of their generals were pretty lackadaisical in prosecuting the war. They got pretty comfortable whoring around in the big cities rather than trekking through conditions out in the field.
3- our press relations / propaganda was better. We successfully promoted relatively minor victories into big deals and when Britain got serious and aggressive we successfully cast it as atrocities. These helped win over the population of the colonies which was pretty evenly split at first. (and the former helped bring help from France and I think a little aid from a couple other European countries)
4- Washington was a good judge of officer talent while the British system required people to purchase their commissions.
1- British had pretty poor communication between various people back in England in charge of the effort and generals and leaders on the ground here. This was compounded by the fact that I think it took a month or more for a message to cross the Atlantic.
2- Some of their generals were pretty lackadaisical in prosecuting the war. They got pretty comfortable whoring around in the big cities rather than trekking through conditions out in the field.
3- our press relations / propaganda was better. We successfully promoted relatively minor victories into big deals and when Britain got serious and aggressive we successfully cast it as atrocities. These helped win over the population of the colonies which was pretty evenly split at first. (and the former helped bring help from France and I think a little aid from a couple other European countries)
4- Washington was a good judge of officer talent while the British system required people to purchase their commissions.
This post was edited on 3/14/15 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:52 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Simple answer: The 2nd Amendment brah
Posted on 3/14/15 at 8:54 pm to LSUtigerME
quote:
Oh so very true....
And they ended up winning (getting the North to end reconstruction and replicating the former state of affairs as closely as possible).
Posted on 3/14/15 at 9:15 pm to Methuselah
quote:
1- British had pretty poor communication between various people back in England in charge of the effort and generals and leaders on the ground here. This was compounded by the fact that I think it took a month or more for a message to cross the Atlantic.
Great point. Like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, the people calling the shots were thousands of miles away.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 9:24 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
Was it just a matter of the British not being able to devote their full resources to fight us?
Not really. The big question for the British was whether it was worth the trouble. At the time the 13 colonies were, well, pretty much a backwater establishment on the other side of the fricking Atlantic Ocean, which back then it took a couple of months to traverse.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 9:25 pm to Wishnitwas1998
We had a great deal of aid from France. The war was fought across the Atlantic for the British. We also had a great militia in the southern colonies as well as the will to fight for independence.
Every American soldier knew exactly what he was fighting for and what was at stake. Fighting for the ideal of freedom is a powerful weapon that grants endurance through adversity.
Every American soldier knew exactly what he was fighting for and what was at stake. Fighting for the ideal of freedom is a powerful weapon that grants endurance through adversity.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 9:38 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
Soon, the British found his home. A ruthless commander, indifferent to the care the farmer provided for His Majesty's troops, killed the farmer's sons in an act of cruelty and cowardice.
Fun fact: the bad guy in the Patriot, Colonel Tavington, was based off a real British dragoon officer in the Revoltionary War. Except his name was Colonel Tarleton.
This post was edited on 3/14/15 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 3/14/15 at 9:46 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
History thread: How did we win the Revolutionary War?
Distance. If there wasn't an oceans distance separating us we'd all be drinking warm tea today.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 9:51 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
Was it just a matter of the British not being able to devote their full resources to fight us?
Basically. Great Britain had to fight France and Spain all around the globe. When Washington captured an entire British army at Yorktown, the British could not spare anymore troops to re-enforce NYC. The war continued in other parts of the world. The last battle of the war was actually a british victory in India.
quote:
I know in school we were always taught about the advantage we had since we were fighting where we lived but often things like that are way oversimplified and Surely we wouldntve won without the French?
Nope, without the French and Spanish we were doomed. The French Navy preventing Cornwallis from being resupplied or escaping by sea was one of the key factors in the USA/French victory at Yorktown.
Posted on 3/14/15 at 9:51 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:We "won" it before it started. Seven Years War drained the British coffers before the first shot was fired. And the Washington quote about keeping an army in the fight. And the French navy. And Yorktown (brilliant blend of strategic and operational decision making that culminated in a decisive tactical win).
History thread: How did we win the Revolutionary War?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News