What's the British take on the Revolutionary war?

[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 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.

[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-Brit.../dp/0802716881

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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!

[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.

[August]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?), 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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Not a bad tactic actually.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

Not a bad tactic actually.

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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

[Herr-Berbunch]

How did I miss this six months ago?

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!