Political Crossfire Forums

[tk750]

It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

[thundertaker]

tk750 wrote: It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you mean militarily or politically?

Politically, the government lost it because of their stubborn attitude towards the colonists grievances.
Militarily, they lost because the British were unenthusiastic, and many powerful figures even supported the colonists, and so couldn't mobilise the resources neccessary to defeat the rebels.

[tk750]

thundertaker wrote: tk750 wrote: It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you mean militarily or politically?

Politically, the government lost it because of their stubborn attitude towards the colonists grievances.
Militarily, they lost because the British were unenthusiastic, and many powerful figures even supported the colonists, and so couldn't mobilise the resources neccessary to defeat the rebels.

Both.

[Snow Patrol]

tk750 wrote: thundertaker wrote: tk750 wrote: It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you mean militarily or politically?

Politically, the government lost it because of their stubborn attitude towards the colonists grievances.
Militarily, they lost because the British were unenthusiastic, and many powerful figures even supported the colonists, and so couldn't mobilise the resources neccessary to defeat the rebels.

Both.
I think he gave you the answer to both already. I don't see how it could be construed as a victory for Britain in any sense, other than we managed to prevent the loss of Canada as well.

[Simon De Montfort]

Snow Patrol wrote: tk750 wrote: thundertaker wrote: tk750 wrote: It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you mean militarily or politically?

Politically, the government lost it because of their stubborn attitude towards the colonists grievances.
Militarily, they lost because the British were unenthusiastic, and many powerful figures even supported the colonists, and so couldn't mobilise the resources neccessary to defeat the rebels.

Both.
I think he gave you the answer to both already. I don't see how it could be construed as a victory for Britain in any sense, other than we managed to prevent the loss of Canada as well.

He is not asking if Britain won the war. He is asking, "how did Britain lose the war? Did they defeat themselves or were they defeated by the Americans?

My answer:
In all lost wars it is a combination of both. The British defeated themselves by not being unified at home, failing in their diplomacy to keep their rivals France and Spain neutral, and failing to see what was required to defeat the Americans. The Americans defeated the British by keeping their army intact, seizing opportunities do destroy British armies, Saratoga and Yorktown and maintaining the moral of the home front.

IMO Britain had most the advantages at the beginning of the war and should have won. They squandered their opportunities and allowed the Americans to take advantage of British mistakes. So I would have to lean toward Britain losing the war as opposed to America winning it. Of course that is what you would expect when colonies revolt against the world's most powerful Empire.

[eynon]

Simon De Montfort wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: tk750 wrote: thundertaker wrote: tk750 wrote: It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you mean militarily or politically?

Politically, the government lost it because of their stubborn attitude towards the colonists grievances.
Militarily, they lost because the British were unenthusiastic, and many powerful figures even supported the colonists, and so couldn't mobilise the resources neccessary to defeat the rebels.

Both.
I think he gave you the answer to both already. I don't see how it could be construed as a victory for Britain in any sense, other than we managed to prevent the loss of Canada as well.

He is not asking if Britain won the war. He is asking, "how did Britain lose the war? Did they defeat themselves or were they defeated by the Americans?

My answer:
In all lost wars it is a combination of both. The British defeated themselves by not being unified at home, failing in their diplomacy to keep their rivals France and Spain neutral, and failing to see what was required to defeat the Americans. The Americans defeated the British by keeping their army intact, seizing opportunities do destroy British armies, Saratoga and Yorktown and maintaining the moral of the home front.

IMO Britain had most the advantages at the beginning of the war and should have won. They squandered their opportunities and allowed the Americans to take advantage of British mistakes. So I would have to lean toward Britain losing the war as opposed to America winning it. Of course that is what you would expect when colonies revolt against the world's most powerful Empire.

one thing I would add is that Britian failed to mobalize support among the colonists thereby alienating the huge numbers of royal sypathizers and moderates and strengthing the patriot cause by making the conflict take on the nature of a foriegn invasion.

I can't find the quote, but I've read that Ben Franklin's son, Gov. of New Jersey and Tory, wrote King George and Parliment claiming that if given support he could raise 20 regiments of loyalist troops.

Even if he was exagerating I believe that if Britian had raised a lagre Tory army early in the war(like 1775) and then reiforced it with elite British Line Infantry, then they would've defeated the rebellion and tied the Colonies even closer to the crown.

[sherborne]

thundertaker wrote: tk750 wrote: It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you mean militarily or politically?

Politically, the government lost it because of their stubborn attitude towards the colonists grievances.
Militarily, they lost because the British were unenthusiastic, and many powerful figures even supported the colonists, and so couldn't mobilise the resources neccessary to defeat the rebels.

I blame it on the French personally. :-D

[drBo]

sherborne wrote: thundertaker wrote: tk750 wrote: It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you mean militarily or politically?

Politically, the government lost it because of their stubborn attitude towards the colonists grievances.
Militarily, they lost because the British were unenthusiastic, and many powerful figures even supported the colonists, and so couldn't mobilise the resources neccessary to defeat the rebels.

I blame it on the French personally. :-D

The only time France did anything worthwile!

[Simon De Montfort]

drBo wrote: sherborne wrote: thundertaker wrote: tk750 wrote: It is often argued that the British 'lost' the Revolutionary War more than the Americans 'won' it. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Do you mean militarily or politically?

Politically, the government lost it because of their stubborn attitude towards the colonists grievances.
Militarily, they lost because the British were unenthusiastic, and many powerful figures even supported the colonists, and so couldn't mobilise the resources neccessary to defeat the rebels.

I blame it on the French personally. :-D

The only time France did anything worthwile!

Don't get too excited about the French. They tried to limit America's borders to keep us weak. The wanted to force America into becoming an French client state. They weren't interested in our independence rather they want revenge for the Seven Years War.

We escaped the cage France wanted to keep us in only be making a seperate peace with Britain.

[datahead]

Once King George III so rashly rejected the Olive Branch Petition and ordered a blockade of the U.S. eastern coast, he sealed his own fate. Although they existed, Loyalists stayed quiet in fear of the Patriots would do to them. Of course, the Americans had home front advantage. Britain had more resources and better technology, but Americans didn't fight in the traditional stand-off, meet at the front fasion. This war was indeed both won by the Americans and lost by the British in a series of events on both sides.

[thundertaker]

datahead wrote: Once King George III so rashly rejected the Olive Branch Petition and ordered a blockade of the U.S. eastern coast, he sealed his own fate.

It wasn't really his fate, he wasn't dethroned or anything...

Although they existed, Loyalists stayed quiet in fear of the Patriots would do to them. [/quote]

Not all of them did. Some formed loyalist regiments, such as the King's American Regiment, recruiting in New York (which was in fact a loyalist stronghold till the end of the war). Many loyalists agreed that the rebels grievances were legitimate, but that rebellion was the wrong way to go about redressing it. This is why it would be incorrect to say they were all tories. Many were in fact whigs who were opposed to armed rebellion...

Quote: Of course, the Americans had home front advantage. Britain had more resources and better technology, but Americans didn't fight in the traditional stand-off, meet at the front fasion.


This is why it seems daft that the British didn't make better use of loyalist manpower over their and simply ship weapons over along with men to train them and perhaps some artillery and elite line regiments to support. (as Eyvon said). At first the colonists did fight traditional battles, but were defeated on a regular basis, and so turned to guerrilla warfare. Fighting to survive until an opportunity arose to defeat the British in open battle.
An interesting point of discussion would be whether the american colonists could have done it without French support in terms of arms, supplies, regular soldiers and Naval support (particularly important for leading to the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown)

[Simon De Montfort]

thundertaker wrote:
This is why it seems daft that the British didn't make better use of loyalist manpower over their and simply ship weapons over along with men to train them and perhaps some artillery and elite line regiments to support.

The British military had absolutely no respect of American militia units. This was even the case during the French and Indian/Seven Years War. To them it would have seemed a waste of time to train and arm men that wouldn't stand and fight.

While I think it would have been a very effective strategy I just don't think they would have been able to see it.

[thundertaker]

Simon De Montfort wrote: thundertaker wrote:
This is why it seems daft that the British didn't make better use of loyalist manpower over their and simply ship weapons over along with men to train them and perhaps some artillery and elite line regiments to support.

The British military had absolutely no respect of American militia units. This was even the case during the French and Indian/Seven Years War. To them it would have seemed a waste of time to train and arm men that wouldn't stand and fight.



Surely they would have realised that men are not born disciplined and trained to a high standard. If the British Army can take vagabonds, thieves, and other assorted criminal low-lifes and turn them into some of the best soldiers in the world, I'm sure they could have done the same thing with american colonial loyalists....

[Eton]

thundertaker wrote:
An interesting point of discussion would be whether the american colonists could have done it without French support in terms of arms, supplies, regular soldiers and Naval support (particularly important for leading to the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown)

Certainly at the time the British military were in no doubt that it was the French who had beaten them. Cornwallis' deputy symbolically offered the surrender of Yorktown to the French commander rather than Washington, acknowledging such. Lets face it, between naval forces and land troops, the Americans really were auxillaries, what with the best troops and artillary being French - not to mention French warships bombing the crap out of Yorktown.

Ultimately, the end result would be the same, but it would have taken much longer - perhaps a compromise settlement. Capturing a provincial town simply didn't have the same effect as it had in Europe.

Still, I think we did quite well, considering we were a laizzez-faire country fighting the combined forces of America, France, Spain, the Netherlands and the League of Armed Neutrality(Russia, Denmark and Sweden).

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

The main reason for the American Revolution is because the British was about to abolish the slavery.The American's Revolution leaders were all making a hell of money by the slavery.It's ironic hearing the slave owners to scream for liberty...

[Eton]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: The main reason for the American Revolution is because the British was about to abolish the slavery.The American's Revolution leaders were all making a hell of money by the slavery.It's ironic hearing the slave owners to scream for liberty...

There is some truth in this according to recent studies. Plus also the refusal of the British authorities to allow the colonists to expand west into the lands of the native people - the real losers of the revolution.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

Good post Eton.So the "freedom lovers" not only fought to keep their salves but also to steal the land from the Natives.

[eynon]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: The main reason for the American Revolution is because the British was about to abolish the slavery.The American's Revolution leaders were all making a hell of money by the slavery.It's ironic hearing the slave owners to scream for liberty...

That's just not accurate, the hot-bed of the rebellion was in New England among the crafts-men, laborers, sailors, and small-hold farmers of that region, that vast majority of whom did not own slaves. New England also provided the bulk of the fighting men.

The South with it's large slave owning plantations was far from enthusiastic about the rebellion, and was a major source of loyalist support. That's why Cornwallis was sent there in 1781, his campange was to shore up that loyalist support and drive the patriots out of the South. Most of the major slave holding families stayed neutral.

[Simon De Montfort]

Eton wrote: thundertaker wrote:
An interesting point of discussion would be whether the american colonists could have done it without French support in terms of arms, supplies, regular soldiers and Naval support (particularly important for leading to the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown)

Certainly at the time the British military were in no doubt that it was the French who had beaten them. Cornwallis' deputy symbolically offered the surrender of Yorktown to the French commander rather than Washington, acknowledging such. Lets face it, between naval forces and land troops, the Americans really were auxillaries, what with the best troops and artillary being French - not to mention French warships bombing the crap out of Yorktown.

Would you please read some history before making statements like that? :roll:

Of the roughly 17,000 troops besieging the British at Yorktown 8,800 were American and 7,800 were French. Auxiliaries rarely out number the main force. Also Rochambeau, commander of French forces, placed himself under the command of Washington. Once again the commander of the "auxiliaries" is rarely if ever the supreme commander of a combined force. Cornwalis' attempted snub of Washington was not a sign of French military dominance in the American Revolution but an arrogant attempt to save face. Rochambeau did the rigth thing by declining to accept the sword and indicating that it should have been offered to his commanding officer, Washington.

While it is true that the French navy under the command of De Grasse was critical to the success at Yorktown it in no way means the Americans were "auxiliaries" to the French.

Quote: Still, I think we did quite well, considering we were a laizzez-faire country fighting the combined forces of America, France, Spain, the Netherlands and the League of Armed Neutrality(Russia, Denmark and Sweden).

I'm not sure how you could considered a lost war as doing "quite well." Britain faced longer odds and defeated greater foes in the War of the League of Augsburg, The War of Spanish Succession, The Seven Years War, and the Wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon. In comparison to British military record of the late 17th, 18th and 19th centuries the American Revolution stands out as the sole case of British war time ineptitude.

[Eton]

If you had read history then you would know that Augsburg, Spanish Succession, Austrian Succession, and Seven Year's were all fought with allies on the British side - real allies not just mercenaries. Plus Can we say that we won Augsburg and Spanish Succession - I don't think so.

I still say that the Americans were de facto auxillaries at Yorktown, it was French artillary on land and from the sea that did the damage. As you stated there would have been no surrender without the French fleet at our backs. Plus you mention that the Americans (on land) outnumbered the French by one thousand, but all of the French troops were crack regulars whereas only a portion of the Americans were of similar quality.

If I were you I'd get down on your knees and thank God for the French, and stop slagging them off.