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:


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 .)

[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

[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.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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?

[nikimcbee]

I think the history channel 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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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.

[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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[Kaye T. Bai]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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

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