What's the British take on the Revolutionary war?

[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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MGR1

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!

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

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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.

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]

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.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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?: