What's the British take on the Revolutionary war?

[Ducimus]

History is written by the victor. But, there's always two sides to any story. Anywho', ive been playing Empire Total war tell the wee hours in the morning, playing the US campaign. It starts as a tutorial with cut scenes and ends in a grand campaign to play. The cut scenes, are a little flowery to say the least:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpVWeWFIoWA
I know red white and blue BS when i see it, and that definitely qualifies. True its the classic story, but it's also very simplistic, and totally glosses over "minor" things we don't like to admit to, one example being the treatment of indian's. At any rate, i'm not looking for a detailed analysis, just wondering what the average brit's take on this portion of history is, because i'm pretty certain, its not anything like those flowery cut scenes.


(Hopefully this won't turn into a rhetorical mud slinging match by the local politico's :shifty: .)

[the_tyrant]

Empire total war, I have always dreamed of using Luxembourg to take over the world in that game.

too bad they don't have Luxembourg:cry:

[Betonov]

Now this I am going to watch

[Onkel Neal]

I wasn't there so I don't exactly how it went down, but I'd say it worked out pretty well in the end for both the US and UK.

[Ducimus]

Now this I am going to watch

LOL, it really is an honest question. Pure academic curiosity on my part. I know what *I* was taught, but i've always been curious as to what others were taught. The two stories are not always the same. I've wondered the same thing about Japan and Germany on ww2.

A good example of what i'm talking about is the American Civil War. Well, it's called the Civil war in most parts of the US, but It's also called, "The war between the states" and "The war of northern Aggression". Which version you hear depends on who you ask and where they're from.

[Takeda Shingen]

I know that this is about the UK, but as an American I hear two sides. The first is the standard ultra-patriotic spiel about the rag-tag American patriots casting off the shackles of British oppression and tyrany to give birth to the greatest nation in the history of man. The other is neatly summed up by the quote from the film Dazed and Confused, charcterizing the revolution as a movement of aristocratic slave-owning white men who didn't want to pay their taxes.

For me, the truth is probably inbetween. Taxation without representation probably wasn't so cool, and the motives of the new American 'aristocracy' were probably less than altruistic. I also think that a number of my fellow Americans also forget that we needed the French to attain victory, and that victory wasn't so much total as it was the British throwing up their hands and going home.

[razark]

LOL, it really is an honest question. Pure academic curiosity on my part. I know what *I* was taught, but i've always been curious as to what others were taught.
I'm interested in this. I've been meaning to look further into the war than what was taught in school. I'd also be interested in a French perspective, as they were rather involved in the war, as well.

[Platapus]

The Fiction book "From Powder Monkey to Admiral" by WHG Kingston written in the late 1800's is the story of three British boys in during the time of the American Revolution. The book gives interesting insight in to the attitude of the British citizens during this war.

I understand this book has been scanned and is available in a digital form. I have an original copy which, unfortunately, I abused as a kid. :damn::damn::damn::damn::damn:

[Takeda Shingen]

The Fiction book "From Powder Monkey to Admiral" by WHG Kingston written in the late 1800's is the story of three British boys in during the time of the American Revolution. The book gives interesting insight in to the attitude of the British citizens during this war.

I understand this book has been scanned and is available in a digital form. I have an original copy which, unfortunately, I abused as a kid. :damn::damn::damn::damn::damn:

Hmm. Looks like it's time to check the Kindle free book listings.

[Platapus]

Dr. Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the United States" is also a good reference. He delves into why many of the colonists were not in favour of fighting in the revolution and what purpose the Declaration of Independence was intended for.

[Oberon]

As a Brit I figure that you've probably made a better job of it than we have, and chances are you would have had independence anyway post WWI when our economy got screwed, or at least a greater level of freedom, like Oz or Canada. So, no real biggie.

[Betonov]

LOL, it really is an honest question. Pure academic curiosity on my part. I know what *I* was taught, but i've always been curious as to what others were taught. The two stories are not always the same. I've wondered the same thing about Japan and Germany on ww2.

A good example of what i'm talking about is the American Civil War. Well, it's called the Civil war in most parts of the US, but It's also called, "The war between the states" and "The war of northern Aggression". Which version you hear depends on who you ask and where they're from.

I guess I was missunderstood :DL

I really wanna hear what the brits have to say so I'll be watching this thread

[Takeda Shingen]

Hmm. Looks like it's time to check the Kindle free book listings.

Yup. If you have a Kindle, you can get it free right here:

http://www.amazon.com/Powder-Monkey-Admiral-Adventure-ebook/dp/B002RKSA26/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1296084758&sr=1-4

Downloaded it just now.

[Ducimus]

For me, the truth is probably inbetween..



I remember one History professor I had, he was a real character. He liked to bring in relics of the period. Brought in a real 1700 era musket once, family heirloom i think he said. Almost got busted for it. Anyway, what i remember him most for, was his personal theory. He called it the "cocktail napkin theory". He figured some of our more outstanding incidents in history, started in the pub. Boston tea party being his primary example.

[jumpy]

Don't forget the french having any excuse to stick one over on the english... :DL
How would the colonial civil war have shaped up without the aid of the french? (rhetorical question - we'll never know, or care at this juncture hehe).

Just so long as everyone understands that 'The Patriot' was about as historically accurate as 'Braveheart', or 'U571' for that matter. The first two were good stories, nothing more. As for U571, well, the less said the better haha.

[Platapus]

Barbara Mitchel is a historian I know. She is currently writing a book on the involvement of Cuba (as a Spanish colony) in the Revolutionary War.

Most histories don't address the assistance we got from Cuba.

Can't wait until her book is published. Maybe if I sweet talk her, I can be one of her reviewers. :yeah:

[tater]

Dr. Howard Zinn's "A peoples history of the United States" is also a good reference. He delves into why many of the colonists were not in favour of fighting in the revolution and what purpose the Declaration of Independence was intended for.

Zinn's book is terribly biased, actually. It is bad history, and takes an anti-American tone at every possible turn. It was used (parts) in a university history class I took, and it is terribly sourced... really awful. You'd do better to learn American History via wikipedia than if that text were your only basis (unless you live abroad, and hate the US, then it will preach to the choir (even if it is contradicted by most all sources contemporary to the described events)).

Anything with "people's" in the title is a overt statement of the politics of the writer (ie: "people's republic," etc, and Zinn fits right into that company).

Better for the revolution might be 1776, or even John Adams by McCullough (for very readable books that are also worth reading). Another very readable book is His Excellency: George Washington. It shows Washington's motivations (partially economic) for deciding to become a revolutionary (nice because it is a biography that concentrates on the "important" bits as they related to his decisions as general and President, and not about every minute detail of his childhood, etc, like some other Washington tomes).

My take has always been that the colonies were grossly mismanaged by the British. The situation in the colonies was nothing if not telegraphed before hand. You can't really transition from a model where almost anything goes, with nearly complete local autonomy to dictating from across the ocean. They created an independent-minded people, then didn't give them enough avenue for local power, AND power in Parliament. Had they gotten out in front of the situation, and given the US real representation in Parliament I don't think the Revolution would ever have happened in the first place. There were some in England in favor of such a solution, too, this is not just 20/20 hindsight.

[Platapus]

I think you are confusing your opinion of Zinn (who was an admitted socialist) with the quality of his work.

Anything with "people's" in the title is a overt statement of the politics of the writer and you talk about Zinn's bias?

His writings are not perfect (show me a historian who is). Yes he does have a different interpretation than some other historians. But his research and citations have been reviewed.

If your University class only used parts of his work, I would question the academic integrity of your instructor. Few historical references can be taken piece meal. This is especially true with Zinn as he did have a habit of jumping around thematically in his history.

Was your instructor using Zinn to criticize him?

If you treat historical interpretations in the light of "hating the US" you will be limited in your understanding of history. History has many interpretations. If you limit yourself to one culture's interpretations you will only know one culture's interpretations.

If you don't like reading Zinn, that's great. But to say that his research is without merit or use, is inaccurate.

I, for one, have an open mind to historical interpretations that I don't completely agree with.

[Ducimus]

How would the colonial civil war have shaped up without the aid of the french? (.


Is that what the British history books call it?

[tater]

You tink a university history professor should stick to a single text, and take it hook, line and sinker? Really? I'd prefer a US history prof capable of actually writing a US history, and picking and choosing from various sources. That is after all Zinn's book is—it's a survey book using secondary sources. It's not like any text of an entire nation's history is gonna be great, they'll all be retreads, regardless of the author. I think in many ways his book really requires that you already know the basic storyline, in fact.

It's like WW2 pacific histories that use Morrison as if it were a primary source. Look at all the WRONG takes on the IJN at Midway that were simply retreads of Morrison and Fuchida (taking Fuchida uncritically (even though he was discredited in Japan) since he was the only japanese author they had translated).

Zinn's take on Hiroshima is of course wrong (he thinks the cable from the jap ambassador saying they should negotiate proves something (yet ignores the response from Tokyo—"hell no!")

His stuff about the Pequot was missing a lot (which I know since I grew up near where they were wiped out, and we learned about it in much detail). Eberything missing pushed the story in one direction (Euros BAD, natives, happy, living in harmony).

And no, the prof was not using Zinn only to criticize, this was at a U here in the US, so the prof was likely every bit the socialist that Zinn was. Zinn says that his history is biased right in the book. He claims that since all the others are biased the other way it's OK. The later stuff (recent history) is terrible. The earlier parts are better, but the narrative is clearly designed to go a little too far in the opposite direction of enshrining the Founders.

Myself, I prefer scholarly books with, you know, proper footnotes and citations—even if the text itself is well-written (it is very well written, and pretty readable).

[Platapus]

Well you have established your credibility on this topic by your posts.

[jumpy]

Is that what the British history books call it?

No, that was my reference - 'colonial' because it pertains to a colony (at that time at least), and 'civil war' seeing as we were pretty much fighting ourselves (subjects of a colonial territory) rather than say, the french directly - they being a sovereign nation, which the US subsequently became.

I think our history books just refer to it as a whole lot of effort that turned out not to be worth the aggro, possibly in part because of the french /jk :DL


Looking back to my history lessons, the colonial scuffle was not something on the curriculum, other than in brief passing to mention settlers to the new land and a dispute over taxes and ownership of land, coupled with the english tradition of empire building and dishing out a pasting to the french and the innate temperament of the colonists to america wanting to set up shop and not be bothered by all the problems and intrigues (both political and religious) that beset the old country of europe. That's my sweeping overview. :roll:
I guess it might have been something I might have studied in more detail had I chosen A-level history, or perhaps a degree in the same.

[Lord Justice]

If one perhaps wishes a worthy read from a British perspective, might I suggest (Redcoats and Rebels). Delays with provisions, manpower etc, an ocean apart. In order to put rest to those men of the woods whom lacked discipline, was a costly and foolhardy affair, to draw from regiments where the British Empire was scattered around the world to one continent would not have been wise, the island required revenue and trade to its shores from all theatres. With the French intervention of troops extra ships etc stoppage to British supplies overseas was indeed a pesky buisness, but a most thunderous blow, not so directly placed to line volleys, but to the supplies, resulting in malnutrition, illness, disease, of some of the men whom suffered in that long voyage in nasty conditions to disembark, march, then find a lack of provisions to maintain, survive, sapping ones morale, not forgeting the constant manpower seeping in from the patriots err.. rebels :03: Sirs I ask myself if the British pulled from other regions of the globe would the outcome have been diffrent? Well we will never know. :up:

[Bilge_Rat]

British take:

The professional soldiers felt let down by their government. They were being asked to do a job for which they were not trained and without being given adequate resources or support by their government. Nevertheless, up until Yorktown, they managed to beat pretty much all the regular armies the Rebel put up against them.

The Rebels fought a vicious guerilla war where they spent as much time killing or intimidating Tory supporters as they did fighting the British Army.

The Rebels where much better at fighting the propaganda war. Every little British mistep was overblown as a war crime, both in the colonies and the liberal ("whigs") British press, while Rebel atrocities were glossed over.

In Britain, political parties were divided. The conservative Tories who sided with the King supported the war, while the Liberal whigs/press who saw this as an opportunity to strengthen the power of Parliament opposed the War.

I read this fascinating book , "Fusiliers", a while back by a British historian who follows the story of a British regiment that fought from Lexington to Yorktown:

http://www.amazon.com/Fusiliers-British-Regiment-American-Revolution/dp/0802716881

When you read it from the British point of view, there are many parallels to the American experience in Vietnam.

[Sailor Steve]

When you read it from the British point of view, there are many parallels to the American experience in Vietnam.
As there actually are. Wellington refused to take command of British forces in America in 1814, and some of the reasons he gave were ones we should have listened to in 1962.

[Kaye T. Bai]

I also think that a number of my fellow Americans also forget that we needed the French to attain victory, and that victory wasn't so much total as it was the British throwing up their hands and going home.

Not to mention, the Dutch and the Spanish.

[danexpat]

"The Fort," by British author Bernard Cornwell, the author of the Sharpe's books. About the Penobscot Expedition, the U.S. Navy's worst defeat pre-Pearl Harbor. How many people know that Paul Revere was court-martialed as a result of this action?

http://www.amazon.com/Fort-Novel-Revolutionary-War/dp/006196963X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296251943&sr=1-1

[August]

How many people know that Paul Revere was court-martialed as a result of this action?

Not many i'll bet, but definitely more than what also know that Revere lost a whole chest of hand made silver items that he'd taken along to sell if the opportunity arose. It was lost on one of the ships they scuttled and still has not been recovered (at least that we know of). Imagine what the contents would be worth today!

There's a lot of money sitting somewhere on the bottom of the Penobscot bay. Last time I dove there i didn't find any of it... :cry:

BTW there's also rumors of a U-Boat wreck somewhere out in that bay as well.

[Tchocky]

As someone who never really peeked into this period, this thread is a great pointer :up:

[nikimcbee]

I wasn't there so I don't exactly how it went down, but I'd say it worked out pretty well in the end for both the US and UK.

But we are building Round-abouts now, what's up with that?:hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

I think the history channel:haha: has aired some shows about the Rev War from a British perspective. It's just too bad Jim didn't come to the last subsim meet in Boston. We were going to have some fun with him.:D

[August]

Nevertheless, up until Yorktown, they managed to beat pretty much all the regular armies the Rebel put up against them.

Actually they had been defeated by Continental armies many times before that. For example at the battles of Saratoga, Cowpens, Trenton and Boston, (where btw they still celebrate British Evacuation Day).

[Buddahaid]

They want it back except for Texas! :o

[nikimcbee]

@ August, have they preserved any of the battlefields in MA? What is there to see in Concord-Lexington? I definatly have to go back to see all of the Colonial stuff next time around.:hmmm:

[August]

@ August, have they preserved any of the battlefields in MA? What is there to see in Concord-Lexington? I definatly have to go back to see all of the Colonial stuff next time around.:hmmm:

Concord Bridge and Lexington Green are preserved as battlefield monument parks and they do a re-enactment at Concord bridge on the anniversary of the battle every year. To get the total experience though you have to hike in the seven miles to the bridge from Acton along with the Acton Minutemen.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

[MGR1]

From what I can remember of my Standard Grade and Highers, the War of Independence isn't even in the curriculum, north or south of Hadrian's Wall!

I think it'd be safe to say, that, if France had retained control of Canada during the Seven Years War (World War -2 anyone?:03:), the Revolution wouldn't have happened in the same way or at the same time.

In order to kick the French out of North America, Pitt the Elder effectively threw money at the colonists to get them to stay on side. It was because of the cost of this, plus military expenditure (Quebec, Havana etc) and the massive increase in the National Debt, that the made British turn the taxation thumb screws on afterward. Probably due to a desire to recoup the investment as it were!

The Vietnam parallel works very well too - the British certainly learned the lesson and used it quite effectively in 1812-15. Why invade and conquer when you can blockade and raid?

Mike.:)

[Sailor Steve]

I think it'd be safe to say, that, if France had retained control of Canada during the Seven Years War (World War -2 anyone?:03:), the Revolution wouldn't have happened in the same way or at the same time.

In order to kick the French out of North America, Pitt the Elder effectively threw money at the colonists to get them to stay on side. It was because of the cost of this, plus military expenditure (Quebec, Havana etc) and the massive increase in the National Debt, that the made British turn the taxation thumb screws on afterward. Probably due to a desire to recoup the investment as it were!
Not probably, but exactly that. You have to remember that the Seven Years War (here known as the French and Indian War) was put into motion by a skirmish between a young Colonial major in which a French envoy was killed. The major was later cornered and forced to surrender to French forces. He was then forced to sign two surrender documents. The one in English said he lost and surrendered. The one in French (which he couldn't read) said that England gave up all rights to the Ohio River Valley. Of course the British disputed that and it eventually led to war.

Oh, that 22-year-old Virginia major? His name was George Washington.

The Vietnam parallel works very well too - the British certainly learned the lesson and used it quite effectively in 1812-15. Why invade and conquer when you can blockade and raid?
Part of the problem in both cases is the difficulty of maintaining supply lines over several thousand miles of ocean. An even bigger problem is that you can't really win a war until you convince the enemy he's lost. With a traditional war that isn't difficult because the stakes are usually who ends up owning a piece of land. If you take it today I might well take it back next year, and we'll be signing more treaties.

With both British/American wars, as with Vietnam, the stakes were much higher. For one side it involved a people who saw themselves becoming slaves if they lost, and surrendering everything that made them who they were. That's a much more difficult battle to win when you're the one doing the subjugating. I don't condemn Britain or America with that term. The "subjugating" doesn't have to be real, only in the hearts of the "subjugated".

The third problem is that even if you use overwhelming force and win that war (which America certainly could have done in Vietnam), how do you govern a land filled with people who hate you? On the one hand you have to live with the fact that, despite your claimed goodness, you are the villain, and have become a tyrant. On the other hand unless your control is absolute, your war will never really end.

A few years back I started a thread about an incident that almost led to the "War of 1807". It did lead to President Jefferson making one of his biggest political blunders, imposing an embargo that only hurt the Americans, encouraged smuggling and didn't hurt the intended target, Great Britain, at all. This thread led to a discussion of the actual War of 1812, and what it takes to end such a war. I was fortunate to find some actual statements by British military and political leaders concerning that very topic.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=117199

[Tribesman]

the British certainly learned the lesson and used it quite effectively in 1812-15
My favourite war, and as it happens its one that is largely skipped in many histories or has a series of myths presented as history.

[Platapus]

Actually they had been defeated by Continental armies many times before that. For example at the battles of Saratoga, Cowpens, Trenton and Boston, (where btw they still celebrate British Evacuation Day).


It has been said that Washington was able to beat the British by retreating faster than the British could advance and establish logistics. :D

Not a bad tactic actually.

[nikimcbee]

It has been said that Washington was able to beat the British by retreating faster than the British could advance and establish logistics. :D

Not a bad tactic actually.

:haha::salute:

I would love to back in time and see the support (baggage train) that followed the armies around. I guess the British one wounldn't have been as big as the one during the Napoleonic or US Civil Wars, as they did not have family traveling with them. It would be quite the sight.

[TarJak]

:haha::salute:

I would love to back in time and see the support (baggage train) that followed the armies around. I guess the British one wounldn't have been as big as the one during the Napoleonic or US Civil Wars, as they did not have family traveling with them. It would be quite the sight.
Something like this?:
http://i27.servimg.com/u/f27/09/01/04/33/berezi10.jpg

[XabbaRus]

The British Take?

We lost.!!..!!

[Lord Justice]

We lost.!!..!! That I will not deny, but come about my good man, I believe withdrew to be more apt, The British could not maintain the expense of manpower, provisions, etc, and continued engagment with more than one enemy was not very wise, afterall they had other theatres. Often the key to success is the ability to adapt. I do take into consideration the willingness and tenacity of the seemingly endless enlisting patriots. I have been gratified to read very intresting points, and some I have let pass through my lines. I present myself in this thread to have the honor of paying my respect, I take great fondness in the subject, this cheers me, I shall do myself the pleasure to return to observe more views if to be had. Good day. :yeah:

[Rockstar]

Years ago I read the revolutionary war also had a impact how certain indian tribes were viewed in the years to come after the war was over. Seems many of them sided with the Brits and even though the redcoats went back home that still left a former and indigenous enemy still in their backyard. Eventually all were seen as potential enemies.

I wonder how it would have turned out for them had they choose sides with the rebels instead.

[Lord Justice]

Years ago I read the revolutionary war also had a impact how certain indian tribes were viewed in the years to come after the war was over. Seems many of them sided with the Brits and even though the redcoats went back home that still left a former and indigenous enemy still in their backyard. Eventually all were seen as potential enemies.

I wonder how it would have turned out for them had they choose sides with the rebels instead.Dont forget the siding with the French, had they chosen sides with the rebels, One thing would have been certain, the rascals. :03:

[Bilge_Rat]

Actually they had been defeated by Continental armies many times before that. For example at the battles of Saratoga, Cowpens, Trenton and Boston, (where btw they still celebrate British Evacuation Day).

true, although the British regular Army managed to keep the edge in skill, tactics and discipline throughout much of the war.

Unlike the popular myth, the regular British Army in the Revolutionary War was quite a flexible organization. After the intial fumbles at Lexington and Bunker Hill, they adopted new lightweight uniforms more suitable to a light infantry role and the North American climate. They changed their tactics adopting a 2 line formation instead of 3, widening the distance between each man to make it easier to maneuver on rough terrain and used much more skirmish line/light infantry tactics where small group of men would use the terrain as cover while firing at the enemy.

This was different from the Hessian Regiments which stayed with their heavy European uniforms and inflexible tactics and were less effective.

A good example of British tactical prowess was at the battle of Camden, 1780, where a British Army force of 2,100, including 1,500 regulars routed a Rebel Army of 3,700, including 1,500 Continental Army regulars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camden

[August]

A good example of British tactical prowess was at the battle of Camden, 1780, where a British Army force of 2,100, including 1,500 regulars routed a Rebel Army of 3,700, including 1,500 Continental Army regulars.


British tactical prowess was indeed considerable, especially with a commander like Cornwallis in charge, but I think Camden was really more about a failure of American leadership (Horatio Gates) than it was about British expertise.

[Bilge_Rat]

With both British/American wars, as with Vietnam, the stakes were much higher. For one side it involved a people who saw themselves becoming slaves if they lost, and surrendering everything that made them who they were. That's a much more difficult battle to win when you're the one doing the subjugating. I don't condemn Britain or America with that term. The "subjugating" doesn't have to be real, only in the hearts of the "subjugated".

The third problem is that even if you use overwhelming force and win that war (which America certainly could have done in Vietnam), how do you govern a land filled with people who hate you? On the one hand you have to live with the fact that, despite your claimed goodness, you are the villain, and have become a tyrant. On the other hand unless your control is absolute, your war will never really end.



That presumes that everyone in the Colonies was against British rule which is one of the myth which grew up afterwards, much like the myth that everyone in France in WW2 was active in the Resistance..;).

A closer look would show that the mass of the population was indifferent and only a small proportion were active Rebel or Tory supporters. The Rebels spent as much time trying to convince the silent majority to join them as they did in intimitading/suppressing active Tory supporters. This ranged from harassment, destruction of property all the way to murdering Tory supporters.

Part of the reason why the British switched to a Southern strategy in 78-79 was because there were much more Tory supporters in the Southern colonies.

[XabbaRus]

I admit to knowing little about the American Revolution and my comment was purely tongue in cheek.

It is an interesting conflict and would have created an interesting world had the British not been forced to cede the colonies and give them independence.

At least no one here has recommended watching The Patriot. I caught some of that on TV last night and thought it was an appaling movie, not just the acting but the whole way it portrayed the Brits. Kind of like his other film about William Wallace.

[Sailor Steve]

That presumes that everyone in the Colonies was against British rule which is one of the myth which grew up afterwards, much like the myth that everyone in France in WW2 was active in the Resistance..;).

A closer look would show that the mass of the population was indifferent and only a small proportion were active Rebel or Tory supporters. The Rebels spent as much time trying to convince the silent majority to join them as they did in intimitading/suppressing active Tory supporters. This ranged from harassment, destruction of property all the way to murdering Tory supporters.

Part of the reason why the British switched to a Southern strategy in 78-79 was because there were much more Tory supporters in the Southern colonies.
During the Revolution that was true, and that is what the thread is about. The quotes I cited were related to the War of 1812, which I admit was not the subject of the thread but much more in line with the Vietnam comparison. And as was pointed out in the old thread, the British government never fully recognized the loss until after 1815.

[nikimcbee]

Look at the brightside, you still have Canada.:woot:

[Bilge_Rat]

I am also no expert on the British take on the Revolutionary war. All of my observations are derived from "Fusiliers" by Mark Urban, a recent military history on the British Army in the Revolution written by a British historian with (obviously) a British view point. I have seen some criticisms that his book was too heavily biased in favour of the British, but I found it a refreshing new look at this entire period.

[Sailor Steve]

One of the parts that fascinates me the most I knew nothing about until I read all those biographies a couple years ago. The treaty of 1783 - all the wrangling among the US delegates, the concessions made on both sides and how they led to political agruments between the two nations years later. Lots of fun stuff.

[Lord Justice]

During the Revolution that was true, and that is what the thread is about. The quotes I cited were related to the War of 1812, which I admit was not the subject of the thread Granted Steve, but may I remind some what this (thread is really about), to find the views of the (British take) on the revolution. :yep: I would like to have seen the (American take) thread but this just about covers it indirectly with US members postings. Some good reads and intresting points. What intrigues me most, thus far, order is maintained, without bias. Keep it going men :salute:

[Platapus]

Years ago I read the revolutionary war also had a impact how certain indian tribes were viewed in the years to come after the war was over. Seems many of them sided with the Brits and even though the redcoats went back home that still left a former and indigenous enemy still in their backyard. Eventually all were seen as potential enemies.

I wonder how it would have turned out for them had they choose sides with the rebels instead.


We would still have killed them.

The native Americans learned an important lesson. It is never good to find yourself between an expansionist country and a coastline. :nope: It is not going to turn out well.

[August]

We would still have killed them.

The native Americans learned an important lesson. It is never good to find yourself between an expansionist country and a coastline. :nope: It is not going to turn out well.

I don't think it necessarily had to work out like that but definitely the tone for Colonist/Indian relations was irrevocably set by around the turn of the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bloody_Creek_%281711%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_Deerfield

[Lord Justice]

At least no one here has recommended watching The Patriot. I caught some of that on TV last night and thought it was an appaling movie, not just the acting but the whole way it portrayed the Brits. Kind of like his other film about William Wallace.Have you ever seen the movie Joan of Arc? There is a scene, where some British redcoats do a most appalling act with her older sister, which I confess does not please me. Though I can not rule out my conduct being any different during said times. In war we are all capable of any instances. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=116907&d=1309455192

[Lord Justice]

And may many threads arise, that is worth topic and debate. *sighs* :yawn:

[Rockstar]

I remember one History professor I had, he was a real character. He liked to bring in relics of the period. Brought in a real 1700 era musket once, family heirloom i think he said. Almost got busted for it. Anyway, what i remember him most for, was his personal theory. He called it the "cocktail napkin theory". He figured some of our more outstanding incidents in history, started in the pub. Boston tea party being his primary example.


hmmm, I've had the opportunity to travel to a vast number of seaside ports in the U.S. Some of which still have colonial era pubs open for business. I thought it odd at the time but no matter what town we were in, pub or not. All had some sort of sign posted claiming George Washington stopped in for a drink and to strategize.

Of course whether it really happened or not it's good for business to post such things too. :)



.

[Lord Justice]

Of course it's good for business to post such things too. :)Sir, It is of good, to post your lot where one deems fit to do so. oh liberty liberty :salute:

[Herr-Berbunch]

How did I miss this six months ago? :stare:

As a Brit, I can say that I know very little about it, it is not covered in schools here - maybe some university courses will touch on it but not for mainstream education. I've double-checked with my history-teaching wife and it's definately not covered. History, so they say, is written by the victors, and that must definately be the case here. If we don't mention it then it'll get forgotten about.

I probably know more about every other American conflict than I do about the one against my own country! :nope:

[Hottentot]

I thought it odd at the time but no matter what town we were in, pub or not. All had some sort of sign posted claiming George Washington stopped in for a drink and to strategize.

I've heard that in the town I now live in, it used to be common to see a sign on many houses saying "Lenin visited this building." Then some annoyed citizens started making and using new signs in their own houses, outhouses, carbage boxes and whatever, saying "We have it on good authority that Lenin never visited this building" and the first signs vanished quietly.

[nikimcbee]

Now the grand question is: Do any of you have family that were over here?

[Herr-Berbunch]

No the grand question is: Do any of you have family the were over here?

Did you? :hmmm:

[Rockstar]

I've stopped in Yorktown, VA several times. Incredible battlefield museum there. The story they tell of the Battle of the Chesapeake really open your eyes to the part France played in the defeat of the British. That naval battle is what I understand turned the tide of the war against the Brits and led to the defeat of Cornwallis.

I've been to the Bahamas too. There is where I found a less spoken of history. Rebels taking lands, persecution, terrorisim, and the killing whole families of British subjects loyal to the king. Some of these who fled the new nation of freedom and democracy in fear for their lives settling in the out islands and Abacos of the Bahamas.

Indians on the other hand I have been told chose the wrong side to fight against. After the Brits left they were not trusted in part because of that. Later in years this countries distrust grew to even those who fought for the new nation of freedom and democracy for all. And eventually rounded up and placed on reservations. Kinda the same thing happened to them as the as happened subjects of the king. Land grabs, persecution and death, and other such noble causes of American expansion in the west.

But as in any war, to the victor go the spoils.


.

[Sailor Steve]

And may many threads arise, that is worth topic and debate. *sighs* :yawn:
That is true, and I support it. On the other hand, directly addressing a very old post directly without announcing it can be distracting, to say the least. :sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

Indians on the other hand I have been told chose the wrong side to fight against. After the Brits left they were not trusted in part because of that. Later in years this countries distrust grew to even those who fought for the new nation of freedom and democracy for all. And eventually rounded up and placed on reservations. Kinda the same thing happened to them as the as happened subjects of the king. Land grabs, persecution and death, and other such noble causes of American expansion in the west.
As was pointed out earlier in this very thread, it wouldn't have mattered which side they took in the war. Several US presidents made treaties with the natives, and in good faith. As soon as others wanted the land the Indians' fate was decided.

[Armistead]

I had ancestors here in NC during the war. It's not out land anymore, but my grandmother actually grew up in the house he lived in during the war, but it became unlivable when she was a teen. The chimneys are still there.
On the land is his crude gravemarker that states "Hung as a traitor" by Cornwallis. It's actually been stolen 3 times over 20 years, but somehow is always found and put back...so far..

We usually go to the reenactment "Battle of Guilford Courthouse". I grew up in that area, pretty good museum if you ever get that way.

[nikimcbee]

Did you? :hmmm:

Yes, One family member was in the 7th Conn. Fought at at Bunker Hill.:D

[nikimcbee]

I really need to get a better proof-reader:dead:.

[Jimbuna]

WTF!....we didn't win? :o

[Sailor Steve]

WTF!....we didn't win? :o
Of course you won! Haven't you seen the secret memo from KG3 to Parliament - "Would you please do something to get rid of the blasted colonists? They are costing us far too much money!" It's not his fault the PM said "I know...let's tax 'em to death!"

[Herr-Berbunch]

Of course you won! Haven't you seen the secret memo from KG3 to Parliament - "Would you please do something to get rid of the blasted colonists? They are costing us far too much money!" It's not his fault the PM said "I know...let's tax 'em to death!"

To be fair, on the tax front you'd (I say you, but not you) previously got away very lightly in comparison to the rest of us. Just back-dated, overdue taxes :yep:. And thanks to your refusal to pay that sparked another war, which probably meant our taxes over here rose again! Either way it's not our fault. Honest.

[Sailor Steve]

To be fair, on the tax front you'd (I say you, but not you) previously got away very lightly in comparison to the rest of us. Just back-dated, overdue taxes :yep:. And thanks to your refusal to pay that sparked another war, which probably meant our taxes over here rose again!
You wanted us to pay for ALL of it! Just because one of our own started it, and most of it was fought here, doesn't mean it's really our fault!

Either way it's not our fault. Honest.
So who should we blame? The French? Yeah, that's the ticket! After all, they lost, didn't they? Make THEM pay for it!

[Jimbuna]

I'm not well up on American history so why is it we the UK are closer to the USA (since the days of independence) than the French are?

Is there some detail I'm not aware of? (more than likely I suspect).

[Lord Justice]

That naval battle is what I understand turned the tide of the war against the Brits and led to the defeat of Cornwallis.




.Sir, I should advise that provisions, reinforcments etc had a somewhat lenthy journey. Did Howe really want to engage his own people no, he actually fought with a heavy heart. :03:

[Sailor Steve]

I'm not well up on American history so why is it we the UK are closer to the USA (since the days of independence) than the French are?

Is there some detail I'm not aware of? (more than likely I suspect).
The short version (I hope).
As British subjects we fought against the French in the Seven Years' War, which we called the French and Indian War. As I jokingly mentioned, the revolution began when parliament wanted us to pay the brunt of the cost, which might have been okay except they didn't ask us first, or allow the Colonial assemblies to do it; they just ignored us. When this finally led to war and then independence, the French supported us and became our friends.

Some time later came the French Revolution, and yet another war between Britain and France. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wanted President Washington to support the French (well, not support actually, but to give lesser status to the British), because after all they had helped us in our fight for freedom, and the former "oppressors" were not to be trusted. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton felt just the opposite, since despite our former troubles we were still British at heart, and the Revolutionary French government was not the one which had helped us before, and we shouldn't trust the new one.

We stayed neutral until Jefferson retired, and Hamilton convinced the president to sign a treaty with Britain. Later, when John Adams was president and Jefferson vice-President, we came very close to war with France due to their bitterness over our signing that same treaty. And by that time of course Napoleon was in charge and who was going to trust him?

During our Civil War Britain and France were friends, but they tacitly supported the South and the North won so we had to hate them both equally. Part of our reason for staying out of the First World War as long as we did was that we didn't want to support anyone in Europe, partly because of the way everyone got involved in that war because of all the treaties they had signed, and partly because we didn't like any of you and didn't care who won.

And now we're back to the real bottom line: We started off English, and all the immigration in the world doesn't change the fact that we all have some British ancestry in us, and consider the British to be the closest relatives we have. Of course we like the Australians best because they have exactly the same background we do, only different. The Canadians? Well, they're still Brits whether they admit it or not, except for the part where they're French too. What's up with that, eh?

[mookiemookie]

Kind of tangentially related, but something I never understood was the relationship between the U.S. and Great Britain in the 1800s. After the Revolution was "won" (or more accurately the Brit's quit), was there a lingering discontent? I would think there had to be to spark the War of 1812. But was the War of 1812 really just about impressment of U.S. sailors into the Royal Navy? Seems like a flimsy casus belli to me. And then after the War of 1812, what was the relationship like? How did we go from enemies then to allies in WW1?

[Sailor Steve]

The impressment was complained about repeatedly, and ignored repeatedly. Factions in the US wanted a war because they felt that they needed to teach those arrogant Brits a lesson, and factions in Britain wanted a war because they felt that the US was still a territory that could be won back. I addressed it four years ago in this thread http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=117199.

As for being friends again, as I said in my previous post I think it was more kinship than friendship. Even though we stayed neutral for most of the Great War we were still more British than anything else, at least in our own eyes. It might have something to do with the "common language" thing as well. The British might be haughty nosybodies, but the French and the Germans are still so "furrin".

[Cohaagen]

Well, you'll probably never find an American book on the War of 1812 that will admit this, but "flimsy" is probably the most charitable word you could use to describe it.

For example, the US and France had fought a vicious and more-or-less undeclared naval war in the early 1800s, America suffering far worse depredations from her former ally than anything experienced at the hands of the Royal Navy, but at no point was there a rush to declare war. As for impressment, that was a matter for diplomatic handbag-swinging at best, and would have been the way most countries would have dealt with it.

US historian's attempts to cast the War of 1812 as a second War of Independence have had to rely on some very awkward contortionism on their part. Britain had no intention of retaking its former colonies. The idea is an insane fiction. It was fighting a war of survival in Europe and around the globe that had gone on in one form or another for the best part of 20 years. Still, for certain powerful Americans there was "unfinished business" with the Loyalists in Canada at the time, rich and poorly defended pickings just north of the border, and many Hawks saw the entirety of North America as their rightful, God-given property. Despite promises of land grants to victorious commanders, a good spanking from some Canadian militia put that idea to rest.

At Bladensburg and Washington, Madison, for all his martial bluster about defending the capital himself, ran like a rabbit leaving his wife and slaves to defend the White House. The fact that British soldiers were able to steal his clothes, hats, and valuables - even his love letters - eat the victory banquet prepared in advance, and then burn his home to the ground provides a reason for talking up the subsequent American victory at the (ultimately meaningless) Battle of New Orleans. I've even seen it described as "one of the biggest defeats ever suffered by the British Empire", when in reality it was pretty much a skirmish by the standards of what Britain was engaged in on the continent at the time.

In short, War Hawks, high as gas sniffers on the fumes of Anglophobia, feelings of national superiority, and the expansionist dreams that led to Manifest Destiny, almost managed to wreck the union by pushing New England to the brink of secession, destroyed US coastal trade for years, wasted thousands of lives, and only narrowly avoided a defeat. The US Navy, despite earlier winning some highly-publicised single-ship actions by virtue of having bigger and better-armed ships, ended the war blockaded in port.

Shorter version: a war for sailor's rights that the US attempted to secure by launching a land invasion of central Canada.

(taught as a great American victory in US schools to this day)

[August]

As for impressment, that was a matter for diplomatic handbag-swinging at best, and would have been the way most countries would have dealt with it.

Maybe that kind of thinking is why you people lost your empire. The kidnapping and enslavement of our citizens by a foreign power is just about the best justification for a war declaration that I could think of ready or not.

If you really think it's merely a diplomatic issue then go ahead and try it now. We'll give you some diplomacy all right. :shucks:

As for your take on Madison, i'd say that's at best an unfair assessment of his efforts and troll bait at worst. Madison did all that he could have done given the military and political situation at the time, and while the English might have burned our capital in the war of 1812, (not to mention occupying our capital during our War of Independence) the fact remains that England fought for and lost America, twice, and in doing so shed a lot of American blood. Your nation is darned lucky that we didn't side with Germany during WW1 because of that history.

[Jimbuna]

The short version (I hope).
As British subjects we fought against the French in the Seven Years' War, which we called the French and Indian War. As I jokingly mentioned, the revolution began when parliament wanted us to pay the brunt of the cost, which might have been okay except they didn't ask us first, or allow the Colonial assemblies to do it; they just ignored us. When this finally led to war and then independence, the French supported us and became our friends.

Some time later came the French Revolution, and yet another war between Britain and France. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wanted President Washington to support the French (well, not support actually, but to give lesser status to the British), because after all they had helped us in our fight for freedom, and the former "oppressors" were not to be trusted. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton felt just the opposite, since despite our former troubles we were still British at heart, and the Revolutionary French government was not the one which had helped us before, and we shouldn't trust the new one.

We stayed neutral until Jefferson retired, and Hamilton convinced the president to sign a treaty with Britain. Later, when John Adams was president and Jefferson vice-President, we came very close to war with France due to their bitterness over our signing that same treaty. And by that time of course Napoleon was in charge and who was going to trust him?

During our Civil War Britain and France were friends, but they tacitly supported the South and the North won so we had to hate them both equally. Part of our reason for staying out of the First World War as long as we did was that we didn't want to support anyone in Europe, partly because of the way everyone got involved in that war because of all the treaties they had signed, and partly because we didn't like any of you and didn't care who won.

And now we're back to the real bottom line: We started off English, and all the immigration in the world doesn't change the fact that we all have some British ancestry in us, and consider the British to be the closest relatives we have. Of course we like the Australians best because they have exactly the same background we do, only different. The Canadians? Well, they're still Brits whether they admit it or not, except for the part where they're French too. What's up with that, eh?

Post of the year....if we weren't on the same SubSim committee and ineligable to vote :rock:

[Sailor Steve]

Well, you'll probably never find an American book on the War of 1812 that will admit this, but "flimsy" is probably the most charitable word you could use to describe it.
Aaaaand the "My side is better than yours" game starts again.

For example, the US and France had fought a vicious and more-or-less undeclared naval war in the early 1800s, America suffering far worse depredations from her former ally than anything experienced at the hands of the Royal Navy, but at no point was there a rush to declare war.
First, the depredations were about equal from both sides, poaching on unescorted American merchants. Washington tried to maintain neutrality, but Hamilton pushed him into the Jay treaty, which royally ticked off the French.

No rush to declare war? Hamilton and his Federalists pushed, cajoled and threatened John Adams to declare war, but Adams steadfastly refused. This cost him Hamilton's support in the next election, and the election itself, with Hamilton writing articles accusing Adams of wanting war, rather than the other way around.

As for impressment, that was a matter for diplomatic handbag-swinging at best, and would have been the way most countries would have dealt with it.
We tried. For years. You refused to listen, or to talk.

US historian's attempts to cast the War of 1812 as a second War of Independence have had to rely on some very awkward contortionism on their part.
Not really, since the Americans of that time, right or wrong, saw it that way.

Britain had no intention of retaking its former colonies. The idea is an insane fiction.
I said there was a faction in Britain who preached that. And now I don't have my books, so for I can't give a reference. I never said that was a goal of the country or the government, nor do I believe it.

It was fighting a war of survival in Europe and around the globe that had gone on in one form or another for the best part of 20 years.
And that led them to embargo France, forbidding American ships from trading with the French. We saw that as an attack on our sovereignty.

Still, for certain powerful Americans there was "unfinished business" with the Loyalists in Canada at the time, rich and poorly defended pickings just north of the border, and many Hawks saw the entirety of North America as their rightful, God-given property.
Certainly true.

Despite promises of land grants to victorious commanders, a good spanking from some Canadian militia put that idea to rest.
"A good spanking?" I agree with your assessment, the US militia pretty much sucked. But you sound like King George III himself, talking about "recalcitrant children". A good debate is lowered when you become grandiose.

At Bladensburg and Washington, Madison, for all his martial bluster about defending the capital himself, ran like a rabbit leaving his wife and slaves to defend the White House.
He was in danger. They weren't. Pretty much the same as during the Revolution when Tarleton invaded Virginia. During his presidential campaign Jefferson was accused of cowardice, but it didn't stick, probably because the accusers were members of the legislature who cleared out first.

The fact that British soldiers were able to steal his clothes, hats, and valuables - even his love letters - eat the victory banquet prepared in advance, and then burn his home to the ground provides a reason for talking up the subsequent American victory at the (ultimately meaningless) Battle of New Orleans. I've even seen it described as "one of the biggest defeats ever suffered by the British Empire", when in reality it was pretty much a skirmish by the standards of what Britain was engaged in on the continent at the time.
But if the British had taken New Orleans they would have controlled the Mississippi River, halting westward American expansion and containing us to the eastern seaboard. Pretty darned important skirmish.

In short, War Hawks, high as gas sniffers on the fumes of Anglophobia, feelings of national superiority, and the expansionist dreams that led to Manifest Destiny, almost managed to wreck the union by pushing New England to the brink of secession, destroyed US coastal trade for years, wasted thousands of lives, and only narrowly avoided a defeat. The US Navy, despite earlier winning some highly-publicised single-ship actions by virtue of having bigger and better-armed ships, ended the war blockaded in port.
British apologists always talk about the "bigger and better-armed ships", but ignore the battle where Constitution fought against two British ships and still won. And eluded an entire squadron through good seamanship and shiphandling. No, we didn't do them any damage, but we sure tweaked their noses, and British newspapers were demanding heads over the very idea. And Americans like to point out that Shannon beat Chesapeake because Chesapeake's crew weren't properly trained and Shannon was commanded by the man who literally wrote the book on naval gunnery, but I say the Brits won that one fair and square, and the capture of USS President was also fair, even though she was outnumbered three to one.

Shorter version: a war for sailor's rights that the US attempted to secure by launching a land invasion of central Canada.

(taught as a great American victory in US schools to this day)
That's both arrogant and condescending, and bad debate to boot. If you read my link you would read quotes from the British, including the Iron Duke himself, explaining exactly what the Americans did win. But that seems to be too much trouble.

[mookiemookie]

I love that I've stirred up this vigorous debate. It's entertaining AND I'm learning.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1KTWDOjOu_w/TZ-0kcESSCI/AAAAAAAABAs/yHUa4eYGbHw/s1600/excellent-mr-burns.gif

[Tribesman]

The kidnapping and enslavement of our citizens by a foreign power is just about the best justification for a war declaration that I could think of ready or not.

Yet there was the counter justification for war of harbouring fugitives and supplying false documents.
Even before the outbreak the Sec. of the Treasury said there were at least 5000 british sailors(all liable for service in the RN) onboard american vessels.

And that led them to embargo France, forbidding American ships from trading with the French. We saw that as an attack on our sovereignty.

But with the Milan decrees American ships were no longer considered neutral, this led to France seizing over 200 American ships. No war with France followed that attack on soveriegnty

[Sailor Steve]

Yet there was the counter justification for war of harbouring fugitives and supplying false documents.
Even before the outbreak the Sec. of the Treasury said there were at least 5000 british sailors(all liable for service in the RN) onboard american vessels.
Link or quote, please.

But with the Milan decrees American ships were no longer considered neutral, this led to France seizing over 200 American ships. No war with France followed that attack on soveriegnty
And I've already explained why the war was only 'quasi'.

[Tribesman]

Link or quote, please.

I will have to lookup Gallatins quote

And I've already explained why the war was only 'quasi'.
check the dates for the start and end of the quasi war then check the date of the decree.

[Sailor Steve]

A.D. 313?

Oh, not that Milan Decree.

It did lead to a reciprocal statement that all British and French shipping in American ports would be seized. Why no war? I'm not sure. It could be that we were trying to avoid any involvement in European matters. We also put off war with Britain that same year despite the Chesapeake affair.

So no, I don't know.

[edit] Oh, I forgot.
I will have to lookup Gallatins quote
Not necessary in this case. I recall reading about it in the Jefferson books. I'm pretty sure that at that time we were more than willing to help anyone wanting to flee British "tyranny". Conditions for sailors in the US Navy were far better than in the Royal Navy at that time. Were we wrong? That's arguable either way, and I don't really blame the British, even for the impressments. Sure it was arrogant, to say the least, but to their minds it was also both warranted and necessary.

[Cohaagen]

If you really think it's merely a diplomatic issue then go ahead and try it now. We'll give you some diplomacy all right.

Consider the challenge accepted, colonial manque! I shall order the Empire's fleet into action at once!

Apart from the obvious absurdity of your statement, the sight of a man doing the internet equivalent of standing up from a bar-room table and theatrically rolling up his sleeves for a "square go" is baffling. I can practically see steam coming out the ears like a Tex Avery cartoon as you prepare to give the arrogant Movie Brits a collective cherry nose while "Johnny Comes Marching Home" plays in the background.

Maybe that kind of thinking is why you people lost your empire.

This bit is only worth repeating to state the fact that the empire was given back (to the people who really owned it), and that no one under the age of about 80 really remembers it.

Your nation is darned lucky that we didn't side with Germany during WW1 because of that history.

:haha:

August, you really do an Olympic-class job of coming across as an insecure trumpet in that post.

It honestly was not my intention to wind you up, but the result could not have been improved as an example of the type even with liberal references to tea and oral hygiene.

"A good spanking?" I agree with your assessment, the US militia pretty much sucked. But you sound like King George III himself, talking about "recalcitrant children".

"Spanking" in this sense is another example of the British idiom. It simply means a seeing off, and often appears in reference to the result of sports games.

If you read my link you would read quotes from the British, including the Iron Duke himself, explaining exactly what the Americans did win.

I did read your post in fact. I also think that Wellesley's reputation is only enhanced by his lack of involvement in the war.

[August]

It honestly was not my intention to wind you up, but the result could not have been improved as an example of the type even with liberal references to tea and oral hygiene.

It took you that long to respond with this witty reply? And who says the English are slow? :roll:

[Sailor Steve]

"Spanking" in this sense is another example of the British idiom. It simply means a seeing off, and often appears in reference to the result of sports games.
Ah, I see. Here "A good spanking" is the same as a "smackdown", as in "We showed you who's boss, loser!"

I did read your post in fact. I also think that Wellesley's reputation is only enhanced by his lack of involvement in the war.
I couldn't agree more. The man was the best of his time, and we would have done well to heed his words in 1964.

[Cohaagen]

It took you that long to respond with this witty reply? And who says the English are slow?

I don't know, who does say that? Cos, y'know, I'm not English.

I couldn't agree more. The man was the best of his time, and we would have done well to heed his words in 1964.

Some people have speculated that the British might have had more successes, great ones even, had Wellington been present and in command in North America at the time. I personally doubt this very much. There was no way that Britain was going to make serious inroads without far more men, heavy equipment, horses, ships of the Royal Navy, etc. - even then, the inescapable logistical problems of conducting a campaign over 3,000 miles of Atlantic, combined with a hostile population, make a crushing victory of the kind Wellington excelled in unlikely.

[Lord Justice]

Some people have speculated that the British might have had more successes, great ones even, had Wellington been present and in command in North America at the time. I personally doubt this very much. On this day, I read posts as such, tomorrow when I have proper installation, I shall add. :shifty:

[sidslotm]

glad it's over

[Lord Justice]

glad it's overI trouble you to ask what you are glad is over? the revolution war or the thread topic in question! :hmmm:

[Lord Justice]

Consider the challenge accepted, colonial manque! I shall order the Empire's fleet into action at once!

:har: So it begins. Proclamation I do hereby declare, all indentured servants and lurkers, or others, that are able and willing to bear arms (with words), FREE ! They joining his majesty's troops as soon as may be!!! :yep: 342 crates of tea ruined by the sons of liberty, at the cost of £10,000 British pounds. :cry: @ August, you fired the shot that echoed out across the forum. ;)

[Jimbuna]

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6942/popcorncowtx0.gif

[Growler]

Some people have speculated that the British might have had more successes, great ones even, had Wellington been present and in command in North America at the time. I personally doubt this very much. There was no way that Britain was going to make serious inroads without far more men, heavy equipment, horses, ships of the Royal Navy, etc. - even then, the inescapable logistical problems of conducting a campaign over 3,000 miles of Atlantic, combined with a hostile population, make a crushing victory of the kind Wellington excelled in unlikely.

I agree with this sentiment, insofar as even a hundred years later, we - the US and the UK - saw how difficult it was to support an army deployed in major conflict overseas across that same 3,000 miles in far more modern ships. For Britain to support any kind of major offensive on such short notice in the States would have been monumentally difficult, and in otherwise perfect circumstances, even one moderate American Naval success against such sea- and transport- power would have had shattering ramifications in London. Add in all the other things going on, a large-scale extracurricular excursion into the States would have been too great a stretch, and a politically dangerous risk as well.

As to Wellington's fitness for combat in North America, I have to wonder whether that skilled a field general would have performed as admirably in the more no-holds-barred environment of North America.

[Sailor Steve]

IAs to Wellington's fitness for combat in North America, I have to wonder whether that skilled a field general would have performed as admirably in the more no-holds-barred environment of North America.
Good question, and I think the answer lies in whether he was successful because he knew the rules better than anyone else and stuck to them, or because he knew how to read the situation and adapt to it. I'd like to think the latter, but perhaps his reluctance was also because he knew his own limitations. We'll never know, but spectulation is always fun.

[nikimcbee]

ah, who are we kidding. A sharpshooter would have picked him off and Europe would be dominated by France thanks to unca Boney.

[Jimbuna]

ah, who are we kidding. A sharpshooter would have picked him off and Europe would be dominated by France thanks to unca Boney.

But not the UK.

Don't ever forget the perpetual nemesis of the French...the Royal Navy :sunny:

[Growler]

But not the UK.

Don't ever forget the perpetual nemesis of the French...the Royal Navy :sunny:

Seems to me that lately, the RN's a bigger threat to itself.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Seems to me that lately, the RN's a bigger threat to itself.

Not the RN, just the government, and those previous are just as culpable if not moreso for leading us to this situation. :down:

[Jimbuna]

Seems to me that lately, the RN's a bigger threat to itself.

Not the RN, just the government, and those previous are just as culpable if not moreso for leading us to this situation. :down:

Rgr that.

[Growler]

Not the RN, just the government, and those previous are just as culpable if not moreso for leading us to this situation. :down:

On that level, I agree - I was thinking more along the lines of HMS Astute's recent very-public difficulties.

[Jimbuna]

On that level, I agree - I was thinking more along the lines of HMS Astute's recent very-public difficulties.

HMS who? :hmmm:

Never heard of her...can't be one of ours :nope:






http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9501/liarrv1ed9.gif

[August]

@ August, you fired the shot that echoed out across the forum. ;)

:DL It's what we Paratroopers do.

[Growler]

HMS who? :hmmm:

Never heard of her...can't be one of ours :nope:

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9501/liarrv1ed9.gif

HMS... is that for Holy Moly Steve?

[Herr-Berbunch]

Nope, not trouble with our latest subs at all, ours are so secret not even TLAM knows where they are, and the is no 'technical issue with the hydraulics' - must be propaganda on your side! :O:

@Jim - I think the rest of the world fell for our deception with that inflatable sub coming ashore! We'll fool them, again, and again...

[Lord Justice]

:DL It's what we Paratroopers do.:up: and rightly so, we pass behind any ones lines.

[Jimbuna]

Nope, not trouble with our latest subs at all, ours are so secret not even TLAM knows where they are, and the is no 'technical issue with the hydraulics' - must be propaganda on your side! :O:

@Jim - I think the rest of the world fell for our deception with that inflatable sub coming ashore! We'll fool them, again, and again...

Lets hope the press aren't around next time to give away the subterfuge :-?

[Growler]

Nope, not trouble with our latest subs at all, ours are so secret not even TLAM knows where they are, and the is no 'technical issue with the hydraulics' - must be propaganda on your side! :O:

@Jim - I think the rest of the world fell for our deception with that inflatable sub coming ashore! We'll fool them, again, and again...

Just be careful 'round those sharp, pointy rocks.

[Jimbuna]

Just be careful 'round those sharp, pointy rocks.

Nah, we simply park the keel on them :DL

[ABBAFAN]

I Reenact the RevWar in the UK.

A very misunderstood conflict.

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5023/picture001yw.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/picture001yw.jpg/)

[August]

I Reenact the RevWar in the UK.

Nice outfit but it's all topsy turvy!

[Madox58]

I think he's confused with actions in Australia?
:hmmm:

[August]

I think he's confused with actions in Australia?
:hmmm:

I'm glad someone else sees it too! :DL

[Herr-Berbunch]

Guys get a grip... you need to turn your monitors over :O: Tsk...!

[Madox58]

I refuse to flip my monitor because trouble makers like TarJak
might come around!
:D

God put them on the wrong side up part of the World for a reason!
:haha:

[Lord Justice]

It is a tactic. :DL

[Madox58]

It is a tactic. :DL
Makes a Head Shot kind of confuseing don't it?
:haha:

[Lord Justice]

Makes a Head Shot kind of confuseing don't it?
:haha::up: That it does, we learnt it just after embarkation, once we fell ill during the sail. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

LOL :DL

[Sailor Steve]

I'm guessing he's referring to the song reputedly played by the British when they surrendered at Yorktown: 'The World Turned Upside Down'.

[Jimbuna]

LOL :DL

[ABBAFAN]

Indeed.

Actually, I was hiding out in one of the tea boxes that the smugglers dressed as indians threw into Boston harbour to prevent being undercut by the cheap legally imported British tea. Oh right, they were patriots wern't they? Haha. Of course. Well that undercover op went t*ts up.

I found that a flintlock can be fired upside down actually.

And by the way, everybody buy this now..

www.lancashiretea.co.uk (http://www.lancashiretea.co.uk)

[Sailor Steve]

The company whose tea was actually dumped in the harbor was Davison-Newman, who claim to be Britains oldest tea merchants. In America they actually sell their product as

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Tea.jpg

[August]

Cool! I wonder if it's any good.

[Madox58]

I'd say the label is worth about a buck more now days.
What with all the Yuppies and such buying anything that looks 'Old School'.
:nope:

[August]

I'd say the label is worth about a buck more now days.
What with all the Yuppies and such buying anything that looks 'Old School'.
:nope:

I noticed that. Simulated surface rust? :roll:

[frau kaleun]

Cool! I wonder if it's any good.

Not really. Too salty. :O:

[Madox58]

Not really. Too salty. :O:
If you don't lick the can it's not.

[frau kaleun]

If you don't lick the can it's not.

:hmmm:


:hmmm:


:hmmm:


:shifty:


Nope, I better not. I've got a pretty clean record here and I wanna keep it that way. :O:

[Madox58]

YOU LICKED THE CAN!!!
:haha:

[frau kaleun]

YOU LICKED THE CAN!!!
:haha:

I didn't do it.

Nobody saw me do it.

YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING!!

:O:

[Madox58]

This is General Topics correct?
I Don't need to prove anything.
:smug:
You licked the Can!!
Your posts pretty much give us proof!!
Freaking 'Can Licker'!
:haha:

[frau kaleun]

Freaking 'Can Licker'!


Said the man wearing the chain mail codpiece... :woot:

[yubba]

The country is so screwed up I don't think the Brits want it back:nope: When and if the ruling class does hand over the keys back to mother England, I wonder what their just deserts will be ?? I can see Obama as court jester.

[Madox58]

Said the man wearing the chain mail codpiece... :woot:
Useing the words from Homer Simpson?
DOHHH!!!
:nope:
:haha:

[yubba]

Said the man wearing the chain mail codpiece... :woot: Bet there is alot of chaiffing, that goes along with that thing, damn thing could be a meat grinder.

[August]

A chain mail codpiece? :o

Soft armor codpieces would be as effective as rubber arrows, which btw if they could actually be fired would probably still do damage to nads protected by just chain mail.

[Lord Justice]

I need not observe this thread being molested! :O: err.. British take err.. I beg your pardon (Hessians take - Much Plunder) :know:

[Sailor Steve]

Cool! I wonder if it's any good.
Very good actually. A friend brought some back from a visit to Boston many years ago, and she gave me some. Now that this has come up I think I'm going to place an order. :sunny:

[Jimbuna]

This is General Topics correct?
I Don't need to prove anything.
:smug:
You licked the Can!!
Your posts pretty much give us proof!!
Freaking 'Can Licker'!
:haha:

Said the man wearing the chain mail codpiece... :woot:

Bet there is alot of chaiffing, that goes along with that thing, damn thing could be a meat grinder.

A chain mail codpiece? :o

Soft armor codpieces would be as effective as rubber arrows, which btw if they could actually be fired would probably still do damage to nads protected by just chain mail.


LOL...I remember that picture well :hmmm:

Anyone still got it?

I have :DL

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6356/av129190fjwl3.gif

[Herr-Berbunch]

I refuse to flip my monitor because trouble makers like TarJak
might come around!
:D

God put them on the wrong side up part of the World for a reason!
:haha:

Actually the British Government put them there, but it's all your fault because otherwise they'd have gone to North America if it wasn't for your pesky revolting predecessors!



Just when you think a thread is dying you go to sleep and when you wake up it's another two pages on... :doh:

[August]

Very good actually. A friend brought some back from a visit to Boston many years ago, and she gave me some. Now that this has come up I think I'm going to place an order. :sunny:

I might get some as well. Thanks for the tip off!

[frau kaleun]

Thanks for the tip off!

...said the rabbi to the mohel. HEY-OH!

[Lord Justice]

To the thread starter Ducimus, I trouble you sir, I must first throw reason aside (Not making a proper on topic post ). This thread has been ransacked, it pains me now, I ought to mention that I shall open an American take, (but with a difference). :yep: To you Sir, and to the collective body of my country, I choose to submit my conduct and have to beg you will excuse the trouble I have given you by answering in this thread. :shifty: (though I suppose my attendance was permitted, given the title). It was a worthy read, thank you. :up: Tis time to part :03:

[Sailor Steve]

LOL...I remember that picture well :hmmm:

Anyone still got it?

I have :DL

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/6356/av129190fjwl3.gif
No way would I have a copy of that picture.

As for remembering it, he posted it again just a week or two ago.

I had to make a special trip to the store.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/MotivatorBrainBleach2-1.jpg

[Jimbuna]

ROFLMAO :har: