US Revolution, Who Won It? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Albert
#14727653
Drlee wrote:
Ah. Doug. I took that oath about 6 times if I recall. Did you really think I might not notice the part that you left out?



We take that last part very seriously.

You are hinting at a military coup. Won't happen. Soldiers like me would prevent it.
Yes American soldiers were very loyal to the British Empire. Or the southerners sure took it seriously in their rebellion against the Union. :roll:

Nothing is impossible Drlee, the current US establishement long forgotten their oath to their own people. When they allowed industry to leave country, brought massive amount of immigrants to screw the working people over, and gave welfare social neting to banksters on Wall Street worth billions. I don't know how can anybody be loyal to these people in government when they have none.

Coup to usurp Washington's elite would be nice, but what replace it with after? Republic or Empire? With democracy or more authoritarian regime? I personally don't care, as long as new government rules with justice.

@Doug64 Judging by American Civil War, military will become divided like it did back then. Soldiers and generals who fought together in Mexican War found fighting one another during Civil War.
User avatar
By MB.
#14727658
Albert wrote:Yes American soldiers were very loyal to the British Empire


These were known as Loyalist, or King's Men. There were approximate 300,000 to 400,000 Loyalists in America, between 15 and 20% of the total white population of the American colonies. Smith, Paul H. "The American Loyalists: Notes on Their Organization and Numerical Strength," William and Mary Quarterly 25 (1968): 259–77, estimates that 19,000 loyalists joined British militia units.
#14727685
MB. wrote:These were known as Loyalist, or King's Men. There were approximate 300,000 to 400,000 Loyalists in America, between 15 and 20% of the total white population of the American colonies. Smith, Paul H. "The American Loyalists: Notes on Their Organization and Numerical Strength," William and Mary Quarterly 25 (1968): 259–77, estimates that 19,000 loyalists joined British militia units.


The Americans only won because of the arrival of the French, the British were pasting the rebels. The British Army & Loyalists were beating them hands down. Only after the French entered the game did the tide turn.

Not that the French cared, it was a cross-imperialist war for French interests to push out the British.
User avatar
By MB.
#14727694
RedCarpet wrote:the British were pasting the rebels


Obviously European intervention in the American Revolution was decisive, however, it is not true that the British were military winning the war prior to French, Spanish and Dutch intervention. The Defeat of Burgoyne at Saratoga was a major setback for the British, and even prior to the arrival of De Grasse, Bougainville, and Saint Simon, Washington had successfully cornered Cornwallis during the Virginia campaign. The Continental Army was critically important, and could not be defeated military once it had gained strength. Of course, I agree, without French naval and financial support the war might have dragged on. That said, the King's ministry was hemorrhaging money and the war was very unpopular at home.
#14727708
MB is correct however the 'underdog' image that the US like to portray is false.

Think of how hard insurgency campaigns are with modern technology. In the 18th century the brits had no real advantage is technology other than in pitched battles or sieges. Any determined foe could win an insurgency as long as it had the following.

1 Increasing support and in this case, apathy and lack of passion amoung loyalists.

2 any kind of army that persisted - washingtons greatest skill was in keeping an army going despite constant retreats - something that must have been very demoralizing.

There was just no way to secure the countryside with regular troops. You would need more mega conscription with the brits would never stand for. It is true that there were a lot of loyalists but not enough put their money where their mouth was and fought.

This is whe primary reason for the rebell win IMO. The rebells motivation and conviction was far, far greater than the loyalists + foreign help.
#14727710
Le French made British supply to the colonies a massive pain in the ass, and contributed tens of thousands of their own troops to fight alongside rebels. British were outnumbered and outsupplied by a rival imperial force and the colonial natives who had home ground advantage in terms of supply. Colonial Loyalists were easy to cut off from the British by the rebels especially with French help. It was total payback for what the British did To France's North American colonies.
By Doug64
#14727737
redcarpet wrote:The Americans only won because of the arrival of the French, the British were pasting the rebels. The British Army & Loyalists were beating them hands down. Only after the French entered the game did the tide turn.

You do remember why Cornwallis was up in Virginia in the first place? Because he'd gone up against General Green in the Deep South, and after winning ever battle retreated out of South while Green went on to clean up the outposts Cornwallis had set up. True, the French (especially the French navy) made the victory at Yorktown possible, but by that point the British were one major defeat -- any major defeat -- away from throwing in the towel.
#14727743
Thompson_NCL wrote:And ultimately led to the French revolution and destruction of the French monarchy. A pyrrhic victory for the French.


Revolutionary France was much stronger than the stagnant monarchist version. It pasted the entirety of western and central Europe, and then went and did something stupid (invade russia, lose 600,000 troops, unable to recover). Oh Nappy why.
#14727771
Igor Antunov wrote:Revolutionary France was much stronger than the stagnant monarchist version. It pasted the entirety of western and central Europe, and then went and did something stupid (invade russia, lose 600,000 troops, unable to recover). Oh Nappy why.


Not the entirety of Western Europe, Igor. It was defeated by Britain in Portugal and then chased all the way back through Spain into France. And Napoleon could have conquered Russia were it not for Borodino and a march on Moskow which would ultimately achieve very little.
#14727895
So he could have conquered Russia were it not for him capturing Russia's capital, and fighting back its biggest army? Even after that he couldn't get them to a negotiating table. Russians just bled him slowly.

He stood no grand strategic chance, as for protugal/spain, he sure as hell didn't have half a million troops in there. Wasn't a big priority. Side show. The grand army fed on the best and brightest in French military tradition, 600,000 of them were reduced to 20,000 men. From there it was defensive battles all the way.
User avatar
By MB.
#14727952
there it was defensive battles all the way.


Other than... Waterloo? You don't seem to know what you're talking about, Igor. The peninsular campaign was incredibly important.
#14727955
Waterloo was a defensive battle by a depleted France. He had already been checked before. It could never have taken place if he had those 600,000 troops to work with at the battle of nations. Nappy was severely outnumbered and outgunned like he was at Leipzig due to his prior fuckery. No amount of battlefield maneuvering could get him out of that strategic pickle. Waterloo was the tail end of a mopping up operation. He had already been smashed two years prior and stood NO chance.

Image
The strategic situation in Western Europe in 1815: 250,000 Frenchmen faced a coalition of about 850,000 soldiers on four fronts. Napoleon was forced to leave 20,000 men in Western France to reduce a royalist insurrection.
#15005449
@layman

Francis Marion played a critical role in the American Revolutionary War. His style of warfare was much different than that of George Washington and relied heavily on partisan guerrilla warfare with hit and run tactics on British troops. He utilized the swamp to his advantage. His contributions were tremendous and exemplified the people's struggle against tyranny. Not only did he make contributions to US victory in the American Revolutionary War but he made significant contributions to irregular, unconventional partisan war. The American south is ideal terrain for guerrilla, partisan war and he used it to great effect against the British. He never had a permanent camp either and was constantly on the move. Francis Marion was 200 years way ahead of the communist leader Mao Zedong. Here is a YouTube short video on him:

Very Serious People

we live in a society in which spurious realities […]

What's your game plan?

Why keep trying socialism when it has never work[…]

Well the Chinese aren’t dumb. They must understand[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

it's a great idea to vote for politicians that ar[…]