You should be a lawyer then.Ender2309 wrote:
yeah, i'm the kind of person who will argue with you about anything, just because of the way you say it. regardless of whether or not i agree with you.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I see where you're coming from... but the truth is the truthEnder2309 wrote:
no,
whether or not he's telling the truth isn't the issue. its the WAY he tells that's america bashing.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Why and how did America win the Revolutionary War?
Exactly, England should have won multiple times, we so nearly got Washington in New York but the stupid Navy decided not to block the river in time. You lost countless battles but each time wore down the English army, the fact that we were also currently in a war with Napoleon and his HUGE army, far larger than what America could have thrown up back then, made him a bigger threat and therefore more important to stop. I havent realy read too much on the revolution only like 200-300 pages and some tit bits, but I get the feeling that America choose a good time to try.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
one could say that Americans wanted to be a nation more than Britain wanted to keep her as a colony.
But France did help, quite bit I think. I love the revolutionary war era, seriously. But I think it all boyles down to the Continental Army. Not for their victories, but for their defeats and the fact that they remained, for the most part, hopeful and loyal even when all was lost. Britain should have won given the numbers and experience. Attrition is a motherfucker.
Because England got tired of throwing huge amounts of money and men into 13 small colonies half way round the world (at least until 1812 but that’s another story).
It wasn't actually "rash methods or reinstanting crown control," which started the Revolution, it was originally (sorry I cant remeber the names and can't be arsed to get my book out) the "dudes" plan to start the Revolution by forcing the English soldiers to shoot at them by attacking them, this would have lost the Revolution all crediblitly in other countries eyes, therefore the "dudes" brother defended the soldiers accused of shooting people thus removing this problem and from there was the Boston tea party etc...R0lyP0ly wrote:
i though the US was one of the first to recognize US independence?sergeriver wrote:
I find some Americans to be ungrateful to France, making fun of them surrendering, when they were the key factor in the American Revolutionary War. And I think they were the first country to recognize US Independence.
Wasn't Saratoga the turning point?
***The British policy of salutary neglect, combined with their rash methods or reinstanting crown control, combined with Americas "touchy-feely"ness; that is what caused the Revolution***
Very true.dubbs wrote:
I have to say that the French helped a lot in the war. They basically allowed the US to fight the land war, because they were fighting the British Navy. This slowed down the amount of troops that could reinforce those already in America. Also, Spain helped out some, so you had two of the stronger world powers attacking the strongest at the time. Most of this was because they wanted to make Britian weaker, and that they both had interest in America. The Spanish wanted to expand further North and France wanted to go farther South.
I know that in 1812, the US was basically defeated. Britian had burned Washington, DC, and in the most part over ran the US. Most people consider this war a draw, because the US basically got what they set out for in the start of the war.
Trivia for you, the USS Essex was a part of the 1812 war. The first US ship that was named USS Essex. Also, this is probally when the British Navy started to decline, since the 20 year old US Navy, won a large amount of battles in this war.
France could have just given up and their forces could have become a puppet of the UK, to free up 50% ofUK's forces at that time would have been devestating.
Last edited by JaggedPanther (2006-12-03 12:16:00)
Please, who cares why France helped, the fact is they defeated the British fleet in the Battle of Chesapeake and after that the unsupplied British forces in land surrendered and Britain recognized US independence.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the french are the ungrateful ones. the stunts degaulle pulled when he became top dog. pretty much abandoning us at the height of the cold war. fuck the french, the 50's and 60's are lost more recent than 1779.sergeriver wrote:
I find some Americans to be ungrateful to France, making fun of them surrendering, when they were the key factor in the American Revolutionary War. And I think they were the first country to recognize US Independence.
and anyways, the french didnt help us for sake of the revolutionary fight. they helped us just to spite their long time rivals. Marquise de Lafayette was an adventure and military man (in reality had no kind of title of noblity like Marquise, he was just an entrepeneur) who had to beg and pleade with the french royal court for a token force to send in support. the royals were very hesitant and only decided to send an armada only after they were certain that britain was going to lose.
serge, is that a wikipedia copy and paste? seriously, no body is poo pooing on what the french did back in the revolution. but that same france died a horrible death within a few decades by the french revoltuion. we dont owe the french shit.sergeriver wrote:
Please, who cares why France helped, the fact is they defeated the British fleet in the and after that the unsupplied British forces in land surrendered and Britain recognized US independence.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the french are the ungrateful ones. the stunts degaulle pulled when he became top dog. pretty much abandoning us at the height of the cold war. fuck the french, the 50's and 60's are lost more recent than 1779.sergeriver wrote:
I find some Americans to be ungrateful to France, making fun of them surrendering, when they were the key factor in the American Revolutionary War. And I think they were the first country to recognize US Independence.
and anyways, the french didnt help us for sake of the revolutionary fight. they helped us just to spite their long time rivals. Marquise de Lafayette was an adventure and military man (in reality had no kind of title of noblity like Marquise, he was just an entrepeneur) who had to beg and pleade with the french royal court for a token force to send in support. the royals were very hesitant and only decided to send an armada only after they were certain that britain was going to lose.
with that same logic of "we owe the french" you might as well thank the United States for setting the precedent of colonies throwing off the shackles of their imperial owners for self government. all of latin america was a colony until a good amount of years after American independence. If the US didnt win, shieet, youd still be giving tribute to the spanish royals
No wikipedia at all, it's what I remember, except the name of the battle which I searched in google. I don't agree with you, you owe them your freedom. That's what I was talking about Americans being ungrateful with France.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
serge, is that a wikipedia copy and paste? seriously, no body is poo pooing on what the french did back in the revolution. but that same france died a horrible death within a few decades by the french revoltuion. we dont owe the french shit.sergeriver wrote:
Please, who cares why France helped, the fact is they defeated the British fleet in the and after that the unsupplied British forces in land surrendered and Britain recognized US independence.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the french are the ungrateful ones. the stunts degaulle pulled when he became top dog. pretty much abandoning us at the height of the cold war. fuck the french, the 50's and 60's are lost more recent than 1779.
and anyways, the french didnt help us for sake of the revolutionary fight. they helped us just to spite their long time rivals. Marquise de Lafayette was an adventure and military man (in reality had no kind of title of noblity like Marquise, he was just an entrepeneur) who had to beg and pleade with the french royal court for a token force to send in support. the royals were very hesitant and only decided to send an armada only after they were certain that britain was going to lose.
france is ungreatful for america serge, do me a favor and research the french government in the 50's and 60's before you spout off with "ungrateful americans" the same reason why slavery reperations are retarded. the france long ago is not the same one of today
do not forget the expense of keeping an army equiped so far from home, hmm sounds like today doesn't it
no you monkey. back then it took months for equipment to travel to anbd from one side of the ocean to another. now adays it takes hours. its cheaper and easier nowStorgie wrote:
do not forget the expense of keeping an army equiped so far from home, hmm sounds like today doesn't it
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-03 14:29:57)
single handly won the war for America
You are wrong again, we owe that mostly to Napoleon. At least Argentina. When Napoleon kicked Spain's ass we made The May Reovlution in 1810 and formed the first Argentinian government and in 1816 we declared our independence. The Brits were taking advantage of commerce with The Viceroyalty of the River Plate, as we were known at that moment. And they helped and support our fight for independence from Spain. Please, don't put all Latin American countries in the same bag.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
with that same logic of "we owe the french" you might as well thank the United States for setting the precedent of colonies throwing off the shackles of their imperial owners for self government. all of latin america was a colony until a good amount of years after American independence. If the US didnt win, shieet, youd still be giving tribute to the spanish royals
I'm not saying it is the same France, but you can't deny that the France of 1776-1779 helped you to get your freedom.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
france is ungreatful for america serge, do me a favor and research the french government in the 50's and 60's before you spout off with "ungrateful americans" the same reason why slavery reperations are retarded. the france long ago is not the same one of today
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-12-03 14:39:23)
I dont think you understood my point. I am saying due to the series of events that followed after the American victory over the old world, one might be inclined to believe that those events throughout the rest of the Americas might never have occured. I was merely stating opinion, not fact, of which I am just as wrong or right about as you are.sergeriver wrote:
You are wrong again, we owe that mostly to Napoleon. At least Argentina. When Napoleon kicked Spain's ass we made The May Reovlution in 1810 and formed the first Argentinian government and in 1816 we declared our independence. The Brits were taking advantage of commerce with The Viceroyalty of the River Plate, as we were known at that moment. And they helped and support our fight for independence from Spain. Please, don't put all Latin American countries in the same bag.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
with that same logic of "we owe the french" you might as well thank the United States for setting the precedent of colonies throwing off the shackles of their imperial owners for self government. all of latin america was a colony until a good amount of years after American independence. If the US didnt win, shieet, youd still be giving tribute to the spanish royalsI'm not saying it is the same France, but you can't deny that the France of 1776-1779 helped you to get your freedom.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
france is ungreatful for america serge, do me a favor and research the french government in the 50's and 60's before you spout off with "ungrateful americans" the same reason why slavery reperations are retarded. the france long ago is not the same one of today
actually, at the risk of sounding dumb and not doublechecking, I believe french involvement was merely token until 1779, correct me if im wrong. we had a good 4 years of combat before france finally decided to give it to the british.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying it is the same France, but you can't deny that the France of 1776-1779 helped you to get your freedom.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
france is ungreatful for america serge, do me a favor and research the french government in the 50's and 60's before you spout off with "ungrateful americans" the same reason why slavery reperations are retarded. the france long ago is not the same one of today
You are right, but I mentioned 1776 because it's your independence year. France kicked Brits ass in 1779, I think.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
actually, at the risk of sounding dumb and not doublechecking, I believe french involvement was merely token until 1779, correct me if im wrong. we had a good 4 years of combat before france finally decided to give it to the british.sergeriver wrote:
I'm not saying it is the same France, but you can't deny that the France of 1776-1779 helped you to get your freedom.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
france is ungreatful for america serge, do me a favor and research the french government in the 50's and 60's before you spout off with "ungrateful americans" the same reason why slavery reperations are retarded. the france long ago is not the same one of today
Ok.
The way I see it, the task of taking America from the colonists wasn't a profitable venture. Most of the value of the land in North America was still undiscovered. Nobody knew about the oil, nobody knew about the gold on the west coast. To Britain, it basically must have looked like a large forest, full of hostile colonists as well as French/Spanish/Native enemies. They were already fighting a global war, and were already emptying their funds everywhere else. There were much more desireable lands for Britain to keep, India for example, so they put more effort into those ventures.
Even if they controlled the colonists, they had the very expensive task of expanding west and facing the resistance of the Native Americans as well as the French. It simply wasn't something that made any sense to pursue for Britain, so they didn't. Surely we didn't face the entire might of their military. We'd have never won if that was the case.
The way I see it, the task of taking America from the colonists wasn't a profitable venture. Most of the value of the land in North America was still undiscovered. Nobody knew about the oil, nobody knew about the gold on the west coast. To Britain, it basically must have looked like a large forest, full of hostile colonists as well as French/Spanish/Native enemies. They were already fighting a global war, and were already emptying their funds everywhere else. There were much more desireable lands for Britain to keep, India for example, so they put more effort into those ventures.
Even if they controlled the colonists, they had the very expensive task of expanding west and facing the resistance of the Native Americans as well as the French. It simply wasn't something that made any sense to pursue for Britain, so they didn't. Surely we didn't face the entire might of their military. We'd have never won if that was the case.
As such the USA of WW2 is not the USA of today. It used to fight facist dictators; not support/impose/suppliment them.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
france is ungreatful for america serge, do me a favor and research the french government in the 50's and 60's before you spout off with "ungrateful americans" the same reason why slavery reperations are retarded. the france long ago is not the same one of today
At least our men had the balls to wear uniforms.Kmarion wrote:
Guerrilla warfare and help from the French, kinda Ironic I know.
1. The use of uncoventional warfare by the colonists.Turquoise wrote:
In response to Gunslinger's comment in another thread, this is for discussing what led to our victory back during the Revolutionary War.
Personally, I think allying with France and the time that it took to cross the Atlantic greatly aided our ability to defeat the British.
What do you guys think?
2. The colonists willpower and resolve.
3. The colonists fought on their own land.
4. The colonists adapted to their surroundings as the battles unfolded. The Brits could not function individually.
Lol who ever sent me Karma saying "Napoleon wasnt an issue" Thanks for the Karma but your wrong, you might want to check some dates like Napoleon's life the numerous battles England was having with him and the timing of your independance, if there had been a weak French leader at that time England would have sent armies that would have just demolished the whole of America.
napoleon wasnt an issue until the first decade of the the 19th century. the American war for independence was from 1775-1783. napoleon was just a soldier in the french army at the time, not the leader of france.Vilham wrote:
Lol who ever sent me Karma saying "Napoleon wasnt an issue" Thanks for the Karma but your wrong, you might want to check some dates like Napoleon's life the numerous battles England was having with him and the timing of your independance, if there had been a weak French leader at that time England would have sent armies that would have just demolished the whole of America.
AgreeKmarion wrote:
Guerrilla warfare and help from the French, kinda Ironic I know.
Brits could only fight on an open field
Where is France in your post?lowing wrote:
1. The use of uncoventional warfare by the colonists.Turquoise wrote:
In response to Gunslinger's comment in another thread, this is for discussing what led to our victory back during the Revolutionary War.
Personally, I think allying with France and the time that it took to cross the Atlantic greatly aided our ability to defeat the British.
What do you guys think?
2. The colonists willpower and resolve.
3. The colonists fought on their own land.
4. The colonists adapted to their surroundings as the battles unfolded. The Brits could not function individually.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Why and how did America win the Revolutionary War?