NationStates Jolt Archive

Great Britain (had it really wanted to) could have easily won the revolutionary wars against the continental armies.

20,000 trained regulars were waiting deployment when the British decided that the American colonies were of little importance to the Empire's immediate future. Had Britain truly wanted the American colonies they could have easily sent the reinforcements necessary to crush the rebels and reimpose civility.

France only entered the war on any large scale a mere 12 hours before the British decided to withdraw. The British fleet could have easily wiped the French forces out if need be (remember Trafalgar), yet Britain decided to leave America be.

Why?

Because in the 1780's there was growing tension in Europe and resources were needed elsewhere. America, in light of this, did not figure in the minds of the Crown as a priority. The period of 1780 to 1815 saw focus on Continental Europe rather than the rest of the British Empire.

Britain gave up the American colonies and were not defeated by the continentals and French as myth persists.

To add further proof, General Cornwallis was later made Viceroy of India. This made him the highest colonial administrator in the world, and by far the richest. Had he truly been defeated, the Crown would not have appointed him to such a post. Failure was frowned upon, much like it is in modern society.

So there you have it. Britain gave America its Independence.

You guys could've won easily with the amount of soldiers you always had fighting us. Read your history book...

The confidient British General Howe delayed an offensive on Philadelphia, an attack that would've ended the war right then and there. However, he was so big-headed that the British were going to win, that he stopped for a Christmas/New Years vacation for his troops.

General Washington's half-starved and half-clothed (and half-armed) troops basically killed off any Howe offensive on Philadelphia on December 26th

Strange.
I could have sworn ther had been a war, and several battles, with the US forces being victorious.
My history books must all be wrong.

And I doubt the British would "hand over" America's independence as well as the reputation of Cornwallis and the deaths of thousands of British troops

Strange.
I could have sworn ther had been a war, and several battles, with the US forces being victorious.
My history books must all be wrong.

and we're supposed to be the ignorant ones

I'm not drawing conclusions yet, much to my displeasure. I'd like to see his response

Oh no.
The madness of King George has proved contagious.
:lol:

Oh no.
The madness of King George has proved contagious.
:lol:

I dubbed it KGWB, a mental illness rivaled only by ADD/ADHD

I'm personally not touching this one..lol :P

I'm personally not touching this one..lol :P

it's for the best

Oh come on!
you think that the British empire could not if it had put it's mind to it crushed this little rebellion?
Take a look at who they took on and defeated and see if you still think they could not have won should they have used the forces that were available.
What the thread author is saying is that yes there was a level of resistance that the forces there could not defeat (and not all tactic were available to them as this was still seen as an uprising rather than a war), but had the crown decided to it could easily have been cruched utterly.
So yes there were some victories and yes the fighting did end in the States gaining indipendance but as the author says there was an eliment of it being given away rather than lost.

Parliament refused to send reinforcements to retake the colonies because tensions were rising with France.

Many wars are not decided by the greater armed forces, but by a loss of political will.

Vietnam is often quoted as an example.

The British loss of their empire, in particular the loss of India, is another.

The loss of Ireland yet another.

To lose a war is to lose a war.

To later plead that you "could" have won proves nothing.

If France knew what was in store for them 200 years later they might have allied with Britain and beat the Americans.

Oh come on!
you think that the British empire could not if it had put it's mind to it crushed this little rebellion?
Take a look at who they took on and defeated and see if you still think they could not have won should they have used the forces that were available.
What the thread author is saying is that yes there was a level of resistance that the forces there could not defeat (and not all tactic were available to them as this was still seen as an uprising rather than a war), but had the crown decided to it could easily have been cruched utterly.
So yes there were some victories and yes the fighting did end in the States gaining indipendance but as the author says there was an eliment of it being given away rather than lost.

can you say....Iraq?


Anyways, I'm just saying that you had the chance to take back the States with the lousy force you guys had...

Also, you do not yet know the power the States had. We were not pushed to our 100% limits

As a Brit I would have to say you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Read your history again. We were stretched thin covering the rest of the Empire. We were at the end of a long supply chain that would have taken months to respond to critical strategic events.

At the end of the day despite initial success in the war we didn't stand a chance. The beginning of the end was Saratoga. And Saratoga demonstrated how the Rebels could defeat us. Not in battle but in a guerilla situation, starving us out and isolating us.

Hate to say this but we couldn't have won after that.

:twisted:

Many wars are not decided by the greater armed forces, but by a loss of political will.

Vietnam is often quoted as an example.

The British loss of their empire, in particular the loss of India, is another.

The loss of Ireland yet another.

To lose a war is to lose a war.

To later plead that you "could" have won proves nothing.That's not the point of the thread. Yes the war was lost. The question is : should have it won?

As a Brit I would have to say you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Read your history again. We were stretched thin covering the rest of the Empire. We were at the end of a long supply chain that would have taken months to respond to critical strategic events.

At the end of the day despite initial success in the war we didn't stand a chance. The beginning of the end was Saratoga. And Saratoga demonstrated how the Rebels could defeat us. Not in battle but in a guerilla situation, starving us out and isolating us.

Hate to say this but we couldn't have won after that.

:twisted:

finally...a Brit with some sense

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

Great Britain (had it really wanted to) could have easily won the revolutionary wars against the continental armies.

20,000 trained regulars were waiting deployment when the British decided that the American colonies were of little importance to the Empire's immediate future. Had Britain truly wanted the American colonies they could have easily sent the reinforcements necessary to crush the rebels and reimpose civility.

France only entered the war on any large scale a mere 12 hours before the British decided to withdraw. The British fleet could have easily wiped the French forces out if need be (remember Trafalgar), yet Britain decided to leave America be.

Why?

Because in the 1780's there was growing tension in Europe and resources were needed elsewhere. America, in light of this, did not figure in the minds of the Crown as a priority. The period of 1780 to 1815 saw focus on Continental Europe rather than the rest of the British Empire.

Britain gave up the American colonies and were not defeated by the continentals and French as myth persists.

To add further proof, General Cornwallis was later made Viceroy of India. This made him the highest colonial administrator in the world, and by far the richest. Had he truly been defeated, the Crown would not have appointed him to such a post. Failure was frowned upon, much like it is in modern society.

So there you have it. Britain gave America its Independence. Brittain gave America it's independence and sent wo arimes to help the US practice fighting and suffered the indignity of surrender and as another favor bled the ground red to water crops, thanks.

Many wars are not decided by the greater armed forces, but by a loss of political will.

Vietnam is often quoted as an example.

The British loss of their empire, in particular the loss of India, is another.

The loss of Ireland yet another.

To lose a war is to lose a war.

To later plead that you "could" have won proves nothing.That's not the point of the thread. Yes the war was lost. The question is : should have it won?

no, now your just asking a stupid question

The point of the thread is some guy rambling on how the British were once "all-powerful" and could've taken the colonies if they felt like it


Althought even if they did feel like taking the colonies, they couldn't...because of France

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

You cannot say they could've. Mere battles can be the difference between success and failure. One battle can determine the fate of a war

All I understand from this thread, is that Britain handed America's independence on a silver platter and just decided to have little skirmishes just for fun

Parliament refused to send reinforcements to retake the colonies because tensions were rising with France.

Quite right. This is not a matter of Britain losing battles (I am not suggesting GB was invincible - look at the Somme and the 60,000 Commonwealth casualties in one day!) but a matter of British need for resources in Europe.

A vast Empire, Britain was stretching itself by 1780 and was facing an increasingly hostile situation in Europe with France.

Even in 1901, Australia was granted Federation because it allowed the British to withdraw forces (military and naval) to the Boer War.

As for comments of thousands of British troops dead, the truth is the British could lose 700 men in one battle and not blink an eyelid. You can even see in WW1 that faced with the loss of 20,000 men (40,000 wounded) on the first day of the Somme, the British remained confident of victory. There was simply no regard for the value of human life. (heck, the British fired cannon on their own men when they advanced on the enemy - friendly fire was rife).

Plenty more where they came from was the attitude. The British Army was made up of rabble and social rejects for the main (and commanded by the upper classes) - same goes for the Navy. British Naval strength was founded upon piracy.

Parliament refused to send reinforcements to retake the colonies because tensions were rising with France.

As for comments of thousands of British troops dead, the truth is the British could lose 700 men in one battle and not blink an eyelid. You can even see in WW1 that faced with the loss of 20,000 men (40,000 wounded) on the first day of the Somme, the British remained confident of victory. There was simply no regard for the value of human life. (heck, the British fired cannon on their own men when they advanced on the enemy - friendly fire was rife).

Plenty more where they came from was the attitude. The British Army was made up of rabble and social rejects for the main (and commanded by the upper classes) - same goes for the Navy. British Naval strength was founded upon piracy.

We;re talking 18th century, not 20th century

and the part about the British killing their own men looks really stupid in the way you said it. Can you speak with more clarification? It sounds like they killed each other for fun

And great....an army and navy of political and social rejects fighting 13 colonies of rebels made up of British-rejectors

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

You cannot say they could've. Mere battles can be the difference between success and failure. One battle can determine the fate of a war

I think you made a good example using Iraq.. yes, the Americans right now are indeed having a bit of a hard time with Iraq. However, are all of America's resources in Iraq? Of course not, nor were Britain's at the time of the war.. not even close. Had it been (as stated) a priority for them, they would of crushed the rebellion just like if it was a priority for the Americans they could crush the uprising in Iraq. Well, it's not exactly the same obviously.. but it's a good example.

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

But the British never actually lost the revolutionary wars. It is much the same as America never actually lost Vietnam. They simply withdrew.

All countries exaggerate their history and America is no different. However, the story of Independence is quite distorted by many Americans who like the brag about kicking British ass and claiming some sort of victory at Britain's defeat. Not so.

Britain was never defeated. And France was not directly responsible for the US gaining independence.

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

You cannot say they could've. Mere battles can be the difference between success and failure. One battle can determine the fate of a war

I think you made a good example using Iraq.. yes, the Americans right now are indeed having a bit of a hard time with Iraq. However, are all of America's resources in Iraq? Of course not, nor were Britain's at the time of the war.. not even close. Had it been (as stated) a priority for them, they would of crushed the rebellion just like if it was a priority for the Americans they could crush the uprising in Iraq. Well, it's not exactly the same obviously.. but it's a good example.

Okay, let's continue using Iraq as an example. Iraq is the main focus of the United States as of now (Afghanistan is nothing now....damn) and as you said...we're having a bit of a hard time with Iraq

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

But the British never actually lost the revolutionary wars. It is much the same as America never actually lost Vietnam. They simply withdrew.

All countries exaggerate their history and America is no different. However, the story of Independence is quite distorted by many Americans who like the brag about kicking British ass and claiming some sort of victory at Britain's defeat. Not so.

Britain was never defeated. And France was not directly responsible for the US gaining independence.

Okay okay....the British "withdrew" from a nation that rebelled against them because they chose not to fight them anymore and let the rebels have what they want?

Yep, sounds like Defeat to me


Get it through your head, your making us Americans look less idiotic

Parliament refused to send reinforcements to retake the colonies because tensions were rising with France.

Quite right. This is not a matter of Britain losing battles (I am not suggesting GB was invincible - look at the Somme and the 60,000 Commonwealth casualties in one day!) but a matter of British need for resources in Europe.

A vast Empire, Britain was stretching itself by 1780 and was facing an increasingly hostile situation in Europe with France.

Even in 1901, Australia was granted Federation because it allowed the British to withdraw forces (military and naval) to the Boer War.

As for comments of thousands of British troops dead, the truth is the British could lose 700 men in one battle and not blink an eyelid. You can even see in WW1 that faced with the loss of 20,000 men (40,000 wounded) on the first day of the Somme, the British remained confident of victory. There was simply no regard for the value of human life. (heck, the British fired cannon on their own men when they advanced on the enemy - friendly fire was rife).

Plenty more where they came from was the attitude. The British Army was made up of rabble and social rejects for the main (and commanded by the upper classes) - same goes for the Navy. British Naval strength was founded upon piracy.But, Brittish forces did lose battles, were forced to withdraw or surrender. If more red-coats had been sent they may well have met the same fate.They would have most likely arrived haughty and proud and been surprised and defeated as those before them had been. The fact is, your nation lost. Get over it. Your ancesters got thier asses kicked, it's no reflection on you. Try to re-write history till your blue in the face, it won't change anything.

We;re talking 18th century, not 20th century

and the part about the British killing their own men looks really stupid in the way you said it. Can you speak with more clarification? It sounds like they killed each other for fun

And great....an army and navy of political and social rejects fighting 13 colonies of rebels made up of British-rejectors

British military tactics did not change greatly between the 18th and early 20th centuries. In the beginning years of WW1 there were 2 calvary to every 1 soldier. The bayonet charge in open field was still prefered and the concept of a creeping barrage remained a key feature of British tactics.

The British did not kill their own for fun. Just think about a cannon. You can fire it straight forward and they are heavy to move and quite imobile in battle. So as troops advance, the cannon keeps firing. Too bad when British troops got in the way. You cannot aim a cannon very accurately.

However, against a more modern foe...Britain was forced to rethink its strategy post 1918.

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

You cannot say they could've. Mere battles can be the difference between success and failure. One battle can determine the fate of a war

I think you made a good example using Iraq.. yes, the Americans right now are indeed having a bit of a hard time with Iraq. However, are all of America's resources in Iraq? Of course not, nor were Britain's at the time of the war.. not even close. Had it been (as stated) a priority for them, they would of crushed the rebellion just like if it was a priority for the Americans they could crush the uprising in Iraq. Well, it's not exactly the same obviously.. but it's a good example.

Okay, let's continue using Iraq as an example. Iraq is the main focus of the United States as of now (Afghanistan is nothing now....damn) and as you said...we're having a bit of a hard time with Iraq

Ah, but you only have about 1/4 of your army in Iraq.. the rest is all around the world.. as was the case with Britain at the time as well. The British didn't use all of their resources on America any more then the Americans are using all of their resources on Iraq.

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

You cannot say they could've. Mere battles can be the difference between success and failure. One battle can determine the fate of a war

I think you made a good example using Iraq.. yes, the Americans right now are indeed having a bit of a hard time with Iraq. However, are all of America's resources in Iraq? Of course not, nor were Britain's at the time of the war.. not even close. Had it been (as stated) a priority for them, they would of crushed the rebellion just like if it was a priority for the Americans they could crush the uprising in Iraq. Well, it's not exactly the same obviously.. but it's a good example.

Okay, let's continue using Iraq as an example. Iraq is the main focus of the United States as of now (Afghanistan is nothing now....damn) and as you said...we're having a bit of a hard time with Iraq

Ah, but you only have about 1/4 of your army in Iraq.. the rest is all around the world.. as was the case with Britain at the time as well. The British didn't use all of their resources on America any more then the Americans are using all of their resources on Iraq.

and Iraq is still giving us hell, just as we gave the British hell


oh crap....are we agreeing again?

Many wars are not decided by the greater armed forces, but by a loss of political will.

Vietnam is often quoted as an example.

The British loss of their empire, in particular the loss of India, is another.

The loss of Ireland yet another.

To lose a war is to lose a war.

To later plead that you "could" have won proves nothing.That's not the point of the thread. Yes the war was lost. The question is : should have it won?

no, now your just asking a stupid question

The point of the thread is some guy rambling on how the British were once "all-powerful" and could've taken the colonies if they felt like it


Althought even if they did feel like taking the colonies, they couldn't...because of France
Check a little later in history and see what happened to France.
I agree that in effect the war was won by the British rebels. The question was (given the fact that the war could easily be won if there was the desire) should the British have given up elsewhere to concentrate on the Americas?
In effect would the benfit to the empire have been greater in the long run if they had changed priorities?
I can't see how you can argue that the rebels could have won a long term war agianst the empire and it's allies, France couldn't and they were a little better equiped and had a few more men!

The fact is, your nation lost. Get over it. Your ancesters got thier asses kicked, it's no reflection on you. Try to re-write history till your blue in the face, it won't change anything.

My nation did not even exist in 1776 so I have no idea what you are talking about. :wink:

Re-writing history? Not at all, I am merely correcting the mistakes written in American textbooks.

The fact is, your nation lost. Get over it. Your ancesters got thier asses kicked, it's no reflection on you. Try to re-write history till your blue in the face, it won't change anything.

My nation did not even exist in 1776 so I have no idea what you are talking about. :wink:

Re-writing history? Not at all, I am merely correcting the mistakes written in American textbooks.

there is no mistake. Just your blindness to reality
EDIT: Besides, I really doubt you were there watching the British getting their asses whopped by the Americans up close and personal

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

You cannot say they could've. Mere battles can be the difference between success and failure. One battle can determine the fate of a war

I think you made a good example using Iraq.. yes, the Americans right now are indeed having a bit of a hard time with Iraq. However, are all of America's resources in Iraq? Of course not, nor were Britain's at the time of the war.. not even close. Had it been (as stated) a priority for them, they would of crushed the rebellion just like if it was a priority for the Americans they could crush the uprising in Iraq. Well, it's not exactly the same obviously.. but it's a good example.

Okay, let's continue using Iraq as an example. Iraq is the main focus of the United States as of now (Afghanistan is nothing now....damn) and as you said...we're having a bit of a hard time with Iraq

Ah, but you only have about 1/4 of your army in Iraq.. the rest is all around the world.. as was the case with Britain at the time as well. The British didn't use all of their resources on America any more then the Americans are using all of their resources on Iraq.

and Iraq is still giving us hell, just as we gave the British hell


oh crap....are we agreeing again?

Umm, it's looking that way.. LOL :lol:

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

But the British never actually lost the revolutionary wars. It is much the same as America never actually lost Vietnam. They simply withdrew.

All countries exaggerate their history and America is no different. However, the story of Independence is quite distorted by many Americans who like the brag about kicking British ass and claiming some sort of victory at Britain's defeat. Not so.

Britain was never defeated. And France was not directly responsible for the US gaining independence.

Okay okay....the British "withdrew" from a nation that rebelled against them because they chose not to fight them anymore and let the rebels have what they want?

Yep, sounds like Defeat to me


Get it through your head, your making us Americans look less idiotic

The British withdrew to deal with conflict in Europe.

Under your claim, that would mean Vietnam kicked America's ass. Something Americans claim is not true.

Are you possibly saying America is weak?

The fact is, your nation lost. Get over it. Your ancesters got thier asses kicked, it's no reflection on you. Try to re-write history till your blue in the face, it won't change anything.

My nation did not even exist in 1776 so I have no idea what you are talking about. :wink:

Re-writing history? Not at all, I am merely correcting the mistakes written in American textbooks.Which mistakes? That the Continental Army defeated the Brittish, sent the home and won independence? Those things happened, as much as you may not like them, they happened!

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

But the British never actually lost the revolutionary wars. It is much the same as America never actually lost Vietnam. They simply withdrew.

All countries exaggerate their history and America is no different. However, the story of Independence is quite distorted by many Americans who like the brag about kicking British ass and claiming some sort of victory at Britain's defeat. Not so.

Britain was never defeated. And France was not directly responsible for the US gaining independence.

Okay okay....the British "withdrew" from a nation that rebelled against them because they chose not to fight them anymore and let the rebels have what they want?

Yep, sounds like Defeat to me


Get it through your head, your making us Americans look less idiotic

The British withdrew to deal with conflict in Europe.

Under your claim, that would mean Vietnam kicked America's ass. Something Americans claim is not true.

Are you possibly saying America is weak?

No, the British were defeated and merely shipped the troops back to Europe

and yes, we Americans did get our asses kicked in Vietnam. Do you see any Vietnam veteran denying that? (Don't bring Kerry into this)

And HELL NO! America is not weak! :lol: Wherever would you get that idea?

Ok, so much for staying out of this..lol

Had the Brits really wanted to crush the American rebellion of course they could of. There is no doubt and there shouldn't be in any one's mind. However, they didn't because of "other" factors.. you can play "what if" all you like, it doesn't change "what is" America gained it's independence. Could the British had stopped them had it been a priority for them. Of course they could of.

But the British never actually lost the revolutionary wars. It is much the same as America never actually lost Vietnam. They simply withdrew.

All countries exaggerate their history and America is no different. However, the story of Independence is quite distorted by many Americans who like the brag about kicking British ass and claiming some sort of victory at Britain's defeat. Not so.

Britain was never defeated. And France was not directly responsible for the US gaining independence.

Okay okay....the British "withdrew" from a nation that rebelled against them because they chose not to fight them anymore and let the rebels have what they want?

Yep, sounds like Defeat to me


Get it through your head, your making us Americans look less idiotic

The British withdrew to deal with conflict in Europe.

Under your claim, that would mean Vietnam kicked America's ass. Something Americans claim is not true.

Are you possibly saying America is weak?

But this would be true.. Vietnam did kick America's ass, that's why they withdrew.. The Americans were losing thousands a week.. they couldn't stomach it any more. The population was screaming bloody murder in the streets over Vietnam to bring their kids home. That's what getting your ass kicked looks like.. ;)

The fact is, your nation lost. Get over it. Your ancesters got thier asses kicked, it's no reflection on you. Try to re-write history till your blue in the face, it won't change anything.

My nation did not even exist in 1776 so I have no idea what you are talking about. :wink:

Re-writing history? Not at all, I am merely correcting the mistakes written in American textbooks.

there is no mistake. Just your blindness to reality
EDIT: Besides, I really doubt you were there watching the British getting their asses whopped by the Americans up close and personal

Blindness to reality? Well France got their ass kicked by the British and France was more powerful than the American colonies.

Britain was faced with guerilla warfare, something which they were unaccustomed to fighting. Naturally they took a serious blow. But how long do you think America would have lasted had the British sent their 20,000 reinforcements and a modest fleet? Not long at all.

Same now in Iraq. If America were serious about wiping Iraq out, they could do so even without nuclear weapons.

Never underestimate the superpower.

I might add that Cornwallis was successful in India later against such tactics, having learned from his errors. However he was the exception.

Can you just admit that your ancestors lost? That they were killed! Just as we accept that we lost Vietnam? That they were faced with the same hell (more or less) as we Americans are facing in Iraq?


It's hard...trust me...it's hard to admit that your nation isn't invincble. But believe it. It helps you out later in life, I'm sure of it

Can you just admit that your ancestors lost? That they were killed! Just as we accept that we lost Vietnam? That they were faced with the same hell (more or less) as we Americans are facing in Iraq?


It's hard...trust me...it's hard to admit that your nation isn't invincble. But believe it. It helps you out later in life, I'm sure of it

America never lost Vietnam.

As someone else pointed out, it was political issues which caused the withdrawal of forces.

As for Iraq, well let's just say I can see a massive war brewing there which will see the total destruction of the Middle East (don't think America will allow itself to be defeated or withdraw - oil)

Can you just admit that your ancestors lost? That they were killed! Just as we accept that we lost Vietnam? That they were faced with the same hell (more or less) as we Americans are facing in Iraq?


It's hard...trust me...it's hard to admit that your nation isn't invincble. But believe it. It helps you out later in life, I'm sure of it

Actually I don't believe Lord Pheonix Benicius is British..

Can you just admit that your ancestors lost? That they were killed! Just as we accept that we lost Vietnam? That they were faced with the same hell (more or less) as we Americans are facing in Iraq?


It's hard...trust me...it's hard to admit that your nation isn't invincble. But believe it. It helps you out later in life, I'm sure of it

America never lost Vietnam.

As someone else pointed out, it was political issues which caused the withdrawal of forces.

As for Iraq, well let's just say I can see a massive war brewing there which will see the total destruction of the Middle East (don't think America will allow itself to be defeated or withdraw - oil)

it's funny how you agree with stuff that helps you out, but you deny everything that you disagree


I'm off to bed. Hopefully you see the light within the coming months....


Just please, dont make yourself look like an idiot again

Can you just admit that your ancestors lost? That they were killed! Just as we accept that we lost Vietnam? That they were faced with the same hell (more or less) as we Americans are facing in Iraq?


It's hard...trust me...it's hard to admit that your nation isn't invincble. But believe it. It helps you out later in life, I'm sure of it

America never lost Vietnam.

As someone else pointed out, it was political issues which caused the withdrawal of forces.

As for Iraq, well let's just say I can see a massive war brewing there which will see the total destruction of the Middle East (don't think America will allow itself to be defeated or withdraw - oil)



Just please, dont make yourself look like an idiot again

Colodia, consider yourself warned for flaming. Just because the poster may not have the same view as you, that doesn't make him an idiot. Stick to arguing the facts and stay away from the personal attacks. Thank you.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Did someone mention 1812?
I believe what happened in 1812 was that Britain turned up, blockaded you, and won, considerabely. Then they withdrew. Do you want to know why? They had taught you a lesson. Not because they couldn't win. 77,000 troops say otherwise (it's close if not that) Why is your white house white? Peel off the paint and you'll notice the scorch marks.
Your national anthem is written because of a particularly intense rocket barrage on your force. The naval force we sent to blockade you was 4 times larger than your actual navy. We had a general who lost, statistically, every battle, and was considered a success. This was 2 years before Waterloo. You lost the war of 1812.

(Don't take offence. The BBcode excuses me.)

The British couldn't have taken the colonies back. First was the strain of controlling a large and spread out empire that the British had. There's simply no way a nation can commit a majority of its resources to one area like America. They had the entire world to think about. Second was the apathy of the British people. America was not one of Britian's more profitable possessions, and the people of Britian didn't want to go and fight and die to retake it. And third, the other powers of Europe, France and Spain, were only too happy to interfere on behalf of a rebellious British possession. Had Britian tried to pursue reconquering America after France and Spain recognized it as a sovereign nation, they would have risked war with either or both of those nations, and while Britian was certainly powerful enough to win a war against America, they were not nearly powerful enough to win a war against France and America, or Spain and America, or France and Spain.

Can you just admit that your ancestors lost? That they were killed! Just as we accept that we lost Vietnam? That they were faced with the same hell (more or less) as we Americans are facing in Iraq?


It's hard...trust me...it's hard to admit that your nation isn't invincble. But believe it. It helps you out later in life, I'm sure of it

America never lost Vietnam.

As someone else pointed out, it was political issues which caused the withdrawal of forces.

As for Iraq, well let's just say I can see a massive war brewing there which will see the total destruction of the Middle East (don't think America will allow itself to be defeated or withdraw - oil)

Despite the claims of a (small) minority, the United States of America did "lose" Vietnam. While a peace treaty was signed in 1973, under the condition the the U.S. withdraw from South Vietnam, it was nothing more than a front for the U.S. to get out of the conflict, obtaining "Peace with Honor." The treaty, of course, was not honored by North Vietnam, and a few years later, N.V. invaded South Vietnam (S.V. requested U.S. assistance, but was turned down). So while the war was a victory for the U.S. on paper, it was not in reality.

Likewise, America gaining independence was a defeat for the British; their goals were not obtained. Even on paper, the American Revolution was a defeat for the British, as the Paris Peace Treaty states the Britain recognizes the colonies as independent states. However, merely because Britain "lost" the war does not refute your claim that Britain "gave" America its independence.

This claim can be refuted, however, by examing the Paris Peace Treaty. Had Britain "given" independence, it would have received nothing (or at least, essentially nothing) in return. On the contrary, Britain received the right to have debts owed to its lenders and bankers honored, as well as the assurance that its subjects could make use of the Mississippi river. Perhaps most importantly, the treaty allowed for relations between Britain and the U.S. to warm much more quickly.

I am afraid that your motives are questionable. You claim to be out to "correct" mistakes in history, but clearly show a bias in your arguments. History should, at least in theory, be written without such biases. Finally, if you do wish to change the accepted view of history, the burden of broof is upon you. Any claims you make contrary to the history books you wish to correct must be backed up with primary documents (or at least very credible secondary documents).

Did someone mention 1812?
I believe what happened in 1812 was that Britain turned up, blockaded you, and won, considerabely. Then they withdrew. Do you want to know why? They had taught you a lesson. Not because they couldn't win. 77,000 troops say otherwise (it's close if not that) Why is your white house white? Peel off the paint and you'll notice the scorch marks.
Your national anthem is written because of a particularly intense rocket barrage on your force. The naval force we sent to blockade you was 4 times larger than your actual navy. We had a general who lost, statistically, every battle, and was considered a success. This was 2 years before Waterloo. You lost the war of 1812.

(Don't take offence. The BBcode excuses me.)

actually, you're half right about the white house.

The one we have is actually the second one, in the war of 1812, you DID burn the first one, but you burned it to the ground, this one was rebuilt :)

hahaha yeah! They fought the colonies in a war, not caring if they won or lost. And then they decided that they didn't want them anymore and said, "Here you go, you are now independent from us even though we could have crushed you like ants in a heartbeat."

Did someone mention 1812?
I believe what happened in 1812 was that Britain turned up, blockaded you, and won, considerabely. Then they withdrew. Do you want to know why? They had taught you a lesson. Not because they couldn't win. 77,000 troops say otherwise (it's close if not that) Why is your white house white? Peel off the paint and you'll notice the scorch marks.
Your national anthem is written because of a particularly intense rocket barrage on your force. The naval force we sent to blockade you was 4 times larger than your actual navy. We had a general who lost, statistically, every battle, and was considered a success. This was 2 years before Waterloo. You lost the war of 1812.

(Don't take offence. The BBcode excuses me.)

Well, I think we Americans had one victory, but it was against Tripoli.

I wonder how different the world demographics will be if the US remained part of the Commonwealth. :wink:

we took our independance. ya'll didnt "give it" to us. the colonies where about the only things keeping the britsh war machine against france running. they taxed the daylights out of us so that they could have their little war, so you cant be saying they "let us go" to fight france, cuz they where fighting france at the same time. and for about 50 years before that too. the english where full of themselves.
dont get me wrong, england is an awsome place now and i like the brits.

You Brits are acting French :P
Next thing you know, your going to be surrendering to us, so we can tax everything you own.
*invades the British isles, and puts a tax on air.*
*beats a passing Brit for breathing his air without paying for it*
See?
Its a joke, people. So before you freak out, know this:
You will be laughed at if you take this seriously.

ok, im getting really jealous of the people who can write in uber small font now. anyone kind enough to fill me in?

ok, im getting really jealous of the people who can write in uber small font now. anyone kind enough to fill me in?

Quote him and find out.

ok, im getting really jealous of the people who can write in uber small font now. anyone kind enough to fill me in?

Quote him and find out.

*smacks self upside the head*
im an idiot. thanx CP.

Something people ignore concerning the war of independence was whether the colonists were morally justified in their actions, particularly leaders such as George Washington who had taken an oath of allegiance to the British Crown.

If I remember correctly, the British had spent considerable capital defending its North American colonies during the French and Indian Wars, in which Washington served as an officer of the British forces.

When Britain, heavily in debt due to the seven years' war with France (of which the Indian wars had been a part), attempted to tax the colonies, which up to the 1760's at least had been taxed only in theory and had enjoyed great economic prosperity as a consquence ("salutary neglect" was the term used at the time to describe the remarkably lax British taxation up until then), the colonists responded, ultimately, with revolution. Remember that until then the colonies had never provided the funds for their own administration or defense. That was left to Great Britain.

The British were heavyhanded in their treatment of the colonists, yes, but perhaps the American response was not justified, and one can see there is a moral argument against the whole basis of the American Revolution, if the Revolution is going to be framed in terms of natural justice.

Got a little more background info today on the war of 1812. The British teamed up with the Indians but there simply were not enough soldiers to stop Harrison and his 3,000 men. Just an interesting statistic.

Don't forget by 1812, Napoleon had caused many problems in Europe and the British did not have the resources available to take back the American colonies then.

Also I find it immensely amusing how the British felt that even though they had withdrawn from the colonies that the colonists would tolerate convicts still. In the 1780's the British attempted to continue to ship convicts to America but they were then rejected. Instead several ships were sent to Jamaica.

Thus, Britain was forced to look elsewhere to colonise. However, even the establishment of NSW was riddled with problems. The British did not even send anyone to keep a firm eye on the new colony until 1819. This is because of France and Spain.

However, had the British deployed the 20,000 regulars to the American colonies to support the British Generals instead of keeping them for fear of a European war the revolution would be but a speck of rebellion in the history of the world.

Also, I wonder why is it Americans learn so very little about their own history and merely study the major events which glorify their "independence" and strength? I suppose all countries do this, but what good comes from it? Propaganda value perhaps.

Tell me...how much native history do Americans do in school? Is American history merely restricted to major things like the Civil War?

Oh yes, here is an interesting point...

Britain still wanted to rule America as late as 1860 when the British government began considering troops, ships and aid for the Confederates in exchange for massive amounts of land in the northern US. Spain was even considering getting involved too, with Mexico in retaking the land lost in 1846. Petty European colonialism, but you have to give them an A + for persistence :wink:

They did not however, but should Europe have sided with the Confederates there is no doubt the Union would have crumbled.

But...

3 times the British had the chance to conquer the US and 3 times it failed. Twice because the political leaders were short sighted and paranoid and once because they made a half hearted attempt (1812).

Benicius, you are pretty much right, but really, if you check the history books on one last point, you'll see we never tried to retake America in 1812. It was just to teach the Americans a lesson about who was in charge, (and will be again, one day :) )

Benicius, you are pretty much right, but really, if you check the history books on one last point, you'll see we never tried to retake America in 1812. It was just to teach the Americans a lesson about who was in charge, (and will be again, one day :) )

<laughs for 20 minutes> ... Ok I am alright now.

Exactly what lesson was taught? After the War of 1812, the US got everything it wanted and once again the Brittish reteated. Great lesson!

Exactly what lesson was taught? After the War of 1812, the US got everything it wanted and once again the Brittish reteated. Great lesson!

Oh no, the war of 1812 was just a bit of fun. Nobody took it seriously.

Exactly what lesson was taught? After the War of 1812, the US got everything it wanted and once again the Brittish reteated. Great lesson!

Oh no, the war of 1812 was just a bit of fun. Nobody took it seriously.I love the way in both situations you argue that the Brittish somehow won without winning. But, in each case the Britts gave in to US terms and left humilated. So, while it may not be the kind of thing you like, The US won by a strange means... actually winning.

Exactly what lesson was taught? After the War of 1812, the US got everything it wanted and once again the Brittish reteated. Great lesson!

Oh no, the war of 1812 was just a bit of fun. Nobody took it seriously.

I love the way in both situations you argue that the Brittish somehow won without winning. But, in each case the Britts gave in to US terms and left humilated. So, while it may not be the kind of thing you like, The US won by a strange means... actually winning.

I never suggested the British won anything thank you. You have misinterpreted this thread.

So, what are you saying? What is the point of this thread?

You know that the U.S is the only nation in the world that believes that they won 1812, despite getting trounced by Britain.
I'll say this slowly.
We. Did. Not. Attempt. To . Recolonise. You.
We left because we had done what we wanted. Burned down your white house, to show you whose boss. When we leave, having accomplished our objective, you say you won?
If we had left without burning it down, blockading your fleet, missiling your armies (rocket barrage, if you want to be pedantic), then you would have a case for victory, but since we just went back to Britain to beat Bonaparte 2 years later, HAVING DONE WHAT WE WANTED, you lost.
What did the U.S get out of 1812 Dee'?
Having clarified that little point?

You know that the U.S is the only nation in the world that believes that they won 1812, despite getting trounced by Britain.
I'll say this slowly.
We. Did. Not. Attempt. To . Recolonise. You.
We left because we had done what we wanted. Burned down your white house, to show you whose boss. When we leave, having accomplished our objective, you say you won?
If we had left without burning it down, blockading your fleet, missiling your armies (rocket barrage, if you want to be pedantic), then you would have a case for victory, but since we just went back to Britain to beat Bonaparte 2 years later, HAVING DONE WHAT WE WANTED, you lost.
What did the U.S get out of 1812 Dee'?
Having clarified that little point?Listen closely, you no longer boarded US shipping, you no longer dominated the Great lakes essentially cutting the US in half, you retreated you gave in on terms. Sounds like defeat to me. Just as in the Revolutionary War. I don't think Britts know the difference between winning and losing. Of coarse, if it was the habit of the Britts at that time to have thousands of thier soldiers killed and give in on terms as a condition of voctory then, yes Brittain won, both times.

By the strange twists of logic I have seen in this thread, it has occured to me that Napoleon obviously was never really defeated. He voluntarily abdicated (twice), because his troops, and more particularly his marshals, were no longer interested in fighting for him.

And India remains a British colony. Hey, they were never beaten in any war there, they just chose to up and leave.

:roll:

If France knew what was in store for them 200 years later they might have allied with Britain and beat the Americans.


Hahaha now wouldn't that of made the world a lot different place :D :D :D

Actually, if you read up on it, we already agreed to stop conscripting your sailors, unfortunately, due to lines of communication between Britain and America, the decision arrived after the declaration of war from the U.S did. Since we couldn't tolerate you actually having the gaul to declare war on us, we had to set an example.
What terms did we agree to?
We may not have dominated the great lakes, but are you seriously trying to tell me that your 20 (entire U.S navy at time of 1812) ships done that?
You did not have even the slightest ability to go toe to toe with the Royal Navy. Best trained, best ships, and the biggest?
Come on.
Just checked a North American map there, and there is no way that the great lake cut America in half. Most of it (them?) are in Canada.

http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/namerica.htm

link to prove it.

By the strange twists of logice I have seen in this thread, it has occured to me that Napoleon obviously was never really defeated. He voluntarily abdicated (twice), because his troops, and more particularly his marshals, were no longer interested in fighting for him.

And India remains a British colony. Hey, they were never beaten in any war there, they just chose to up and leave.

:roll:
As you point out there was no war in India. We left after the second world war as they had under Ghadis direction helped in the conlfict with Germany. So yes the British did up and leave.
The 1812 war! Scirmish!
And America did not beat the British to win independance as there was no such country at the time, it was British and European colonists that revolted.
But this gets away from the point of the thread. Should the British have concentrated on thier interests in the Americas rather than thier interests else where and retained the colony as they were more than capable of doingf if they had the mind.
And yes they did have the capcity! The question was, what would they have to give up to keep it. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: