NationStates Jolt Archive

I have always wondered, did the American Revolution REALLY spell the beginning of the British Empire? Or is that just School-teacher propaganda? You decide.

1783, Correct? I think the revolution had little effect on the stability (or profitability) of the empire, and by the time of America's emergence (1918) the empire was already in decline.

I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure that the British Empire reached its very height (meaning it controlled the most land) during the 1800's (after it lost the U.S.A.)

While the loss was a major damage (A large source of potential soldiers, material wealth, etc.) the BE was able to recover

The Empire lasted until WWI so I don't see how the American Revolution really effected things. It was a humiliating defeat to be sure but no immediate damage was caused.

What did they expect wearing bright red? Not the way to avoid being shot.

What did they expect wearing bright red? Not the way to avoid being shot.

The bright red was supposedly to keep morale up because it stopped soldiers from seeing blood, was a stupid idea really though.

Anyway, Klonor is correct that the British empire did reach its height in the 1800s so I can't see how the American revolution caused a huge amount of damage.

I see. However, in the early 1800's(1812 to be exact) the Americans and British went to war and the Americans won(well, you can say we didnt win but if we lost i wouldnt be an American right now seeing how Britain would have annexed us) by a slight margin(The Battle of New Orleans, which was a massacre on the British Side, took place AFTER the war ended :p). Then in the 1840's Britain and the U.S. NEARLY went to war over the Oregon Territory, but then the British(wisely) decided to pull out.

THEN there was the Civil War, where Great Britain did everything but declare war on the north. They gave the south weapons, food, ammunition, training(to a degree) and some naval support(but not enuff to get rid of the Blockade.)

So al lin all, while the American Revolution didnt cause the end, America itself sure played a big part in it, seeing how we began to surpass the British around the 1900's. Not to mention the American Revolution started the "Age of Revolutions" as it were, with such revolutions as the French Revolution, the Mexican Revolution, The Columbian Revolution, the Philipino Revolution, and ALOT more.

[QUOTE=Utracia]The Empire lasted until WWI so I don't see how the American Revolution really effected things. QUOTE]

The Empire lasted untill WWII in a smaller form, india didnt gain independance till 1948 hong kong became part of china in the last decade and gibraltar and the falklands still belong to Britain though i have no idea why. As for the american revolution, it had very little effect and when i did the British empie is school (here in Britain) the american revolution was a footnote on the first fage of the textbook so though at the time it may have been devestating it had little effect in the long run and Canada remained part of the empire for some time, as for the american revolution being the first revolution the english civil war was the first sucessful revolution and the end of absolute monarchy in england and proved it was possible for the people to take power from a monarch, pity cromwell was an arse.

on a slightly lighter note, in some government room in london there used to be a picture of some nepalese king, but was taken down as it was a symbol of imperialism. They then put up a picture of cromwell. their first meeting was with some irish minister, showing a picture of cromwell to an irish person is like showing a Jew a picture of Hitler due to what he did when he invaded ireland

[QUOTE=Utracia]The Empire lasted until WWI so I don't see how the American Revolution really effected things. QUOTE]

The Empire lasted untill WWII in a smaller form, india didnt gain independance till 1948 hong kong became part of china in the last decade and gibraltar and the falklands still belong to Britain though i have no idea why. As for the american revolution, it had very little effect and when i did the British empie is school (here in Britain) the american revolution was a footnote on the first fage of the textbook so though at the time it may have been devestating it had little effect in the long run and Canada remained part of the empire for some time, as for the american revolution being the first revolution the english civil war was the first sucessful revolution and the end of absolute monarchy in england and proved it was possible for the people to take power from a monarch, pity cromwell was an arse.

on a slightly lighter note, in some government room in london there used to be a picture of some nepalese king, but was taken down as it was a symbol of imperialism. They then put up a picture of cromwell. their first meeting was with some irish minister, showing a picture of cromwell to an irish person is like showing a Jew a picture of Hitler due to what he did when he invaded ireland


Um... The american revolution is just a foot-note in your books because you lost. Just like i bet the war of 1812 wasnt in there.

Of course, in MY old school books there was little mention of the Vietnam war, so im guessing school is where the teachers enforce nationalistic ideas into our head and tell us only about the wars that we WON.

[QUOTE=The Lightning Star]I see. However, in the early 1800's(1812 to be exact) the Americans and British went to war and the Americans won. QUOTE]

We invaded Canada and were beaten back and had Washington burned. Other than that final battle of New Orleans which doesn't matter since the war ended, it really wasn't a win for us, maybe a draw. I believe the Oregon Territory ended in compromise also.

I see. However, in the early 1800's(1812 to be exact) the Americans and British went to war and the Americans won(well, you can say we didnt win but if we lost i wouldnt be an American right now seeing how Britain would have annexed us) by a slight margin(The Battle of New Orleans, which was a massacre on the British Side, took place AFTER the war ended :p). Then in the 1840's Britain and the U.S. NEARLY went to war over the Oregon Territory, but then the British(wisely) decided to pull out.

Actually, that's the most common misconception about the war of 1812. You assume that the British went to war to retake the colonies. This is untrue. Britain never went to America to re-annex them because, and this is important, America was a DRAIN on Britains resources. It cost more to protect them than they gave out. What do you do when something that's costing you money goes away. Try to take it back, or wish it good riddance? The reason that Britain went to war in 1812 was to make an example of you. America declared war on the Empire, and we burned down your capital. We turned up for solely that reason. No-one messes with the Empire and gets away with it.

Also, again, the war of independence was little to concern Britain. It contributed nothing to the Empire in profitability, and equally little to manpower. I don't believe we actually sent any troops, we just didn't remove the ones already there. In hindsight, a greivous error, but to think about it, would you have predicted it, if you knew nothing about the potential wealth? to Technically, the Empire reached its peak at 1920, though it was in decline.

The British Empire reached its geographically greatest size in the aftermath of world war one(some way off the 1800s as earlier posters have claimed)

[I think the American revolution was unfortunate in some ways as it seemed to (in my humble opinion) stop to early. Perhaps the world would have been better if revolutionarys had brought democracy to all of the British peoples rather than just those residing in the 13 colonies.]

One of the main after effects of the revolution was to force Imperial Britain to look for new sources of Imperial and Colonial revenues- thereby causing at least in part British expansion into India and facilitating the use of Australia for the transportation of political prisoners rather than the US.

The revolution didnt spell the end of the British Empire by a long shot. Britain remains possibly the only Imperial power to have (argueably) dismantled its empire peacefully.

The British Empire was at its height in the early 20th centry. Around 1910. The British Empire was just a few caribbean islands and the odd African country around the time when the 13 colonies were lost.
The only reason Britain didn't just send reinforcements to take the colonies back was because they weren't deemed important enough. At the time, Parliament was more worried about the French.

Um... The american revolution is just a foot-note in your books because you lost. Just like i bet the war of 1812 wasnt in there.

Of course, in MY old school books there was little mention of the Vietnam war, so im guessing school is where the teachers enforce nationalistic ideas into our head and tell us only about the wars that we WON.

The war of 1812 wasn't a victory for either side.

At the turn of the last cnetury, the British Empire covered a quarter of the world's land area. That was well over a century after losing the US.

At the turn of the last cnetury, the British Empire covered a quarter of the world's land area. That was well over a century after losing the US.

Yeah, then everyone wanted to be independent. Empires tried to hold on to their colonies and lost them one by one.

The war of 1812 wasn't a victory for either side.

Hmmm? Then what do you call that massacre at New Orleans? What do you say about the fact that the Britis stopped taking our citizens off of fishing boats and making them members of the British Navy? Sure, washington was burned, and SURE, we didnt take Canada, but for starters, we werent wiped out because we lost the capital and secondly, Canada wasnt the reason for going to war. It was, in a way, a second war of independence due to the fact that england though it could push us around. What did we do? Defeat them, and they suffered their worst defeat AFTER the war at the hands of a few hundred militamen.

Battle of new Orleans.

American Casualties: 14
British Casualties: 2,000+

Now am i the only one here who things thats SAD?

Here's a point for you. Impressing members of the American maritime community was the reason they declared war on us. And as the declaration was on its way to us, you know what we were sending to you? A little letter that said we weren't going to do it any more. Then we recieved your declaration of war, sent 77,000 troops to you, blockaded your ports with a fleet 4 times the size of your navy (that's one segment of the navy four times the size of EVERYTHING YOU HAD) and burnt your capital, which was our objective! the objective was to teach you a lesson by razing your city. did we do it? Yes. So we accomplished our objectives (burn Washington to the ground) and you failed yours (stop us.)

Actually, that's the most common misconception about the war of 1812. You assume that the British went to war to retake the colonies. This is untrue. Britain never went to America to re-annex them because, and this is important, America was a DRAIN on Britains resources. It cost more to protect them than they gave out. What do you do when something that's costing you money goes away. Try to take it back, or wish it good riddance? The reason that Britain went to war in 1812 was to make an example of you. America declared war on the Empire, and we burned down your capital. We turned up for solely that reason. No-one messes with the Empire and gets away with it.

Hmmm? Then what do you call that massacre at New Orleans? What do you say about the fact that the Britis stopped taking our citizens off of fishing boats and making them members of the British Navy? Sure, washington was burned, and SURE, we didnt take Canada, but for starters, we werent wiped out because we lost the capital and secondly, Canada wasnt the reason for going to war. It was, in a way, a second war of independence due to the fact that england though it could push us around. What did we do? Defeat them, and they suffered their worst defeat AFTER the war at the hands of a few hundred militamen.

Battle of new Orleans.

American Casualties: 14
British Casualties: 2,000+

Now am i the only one here who things thats SAD?

Two very different, and very wrong, views of the War of 1812.

Here's a point for you. Impressing members of the American maritime community was the reason they declared war on us. And as the declaration was on its way to us, you know what we were sending to you? A little letter that said we weren't going to do it any more. Then we recieved your declaration of war, sent 77,000 troops to you, blockaded your ports with a fleet 4 times the size of your navy (that's one segment of the navy four times the size of EVERYTHING YOU HAD) and burnt your capital, which was our objective! the objective was to teach you a lesson by razing your city. did we do it? Yes. So we accomplished our objectives (burn Washington to the ground) and you failed yours (stop us.)

I compel you to point out any sort of proof that London's sole goal in the war was to burn down Washington.

Here's a point for you. Impressing members of the American maritime community was the reason they declared war on us. And as the declaration was on its way to us, you know what we were sending to you? A little letter that said we weren't going to do it any more. Then we recieved your declaration of war, sent 77,000 troops to you, blockaded your ports with a fleet 4 times the size of your navy (that's one segment of the navy four times the size of EVERYTHING YOU HAD) and burnt your capital, which was our objective! the objective was to teach you a lesson by razing your city. did we do it? Yes. So we accomplished our objectives (burn Washington to the ground) and you failed yours (stop us.)

Ah, but where does "loose thousands of troops to superior american guerilla tactics" come into the master plan?

Not to mention the war dragged on for a LOONG time after the city was burned, and from then on you guys stopped trying to interfere with us. If you guys WON the war of 1812, wouldnt you take advantage and make us into a puppet slave-state(like India was before you made it a part o' thar empire.)

...

AGH!!! Im...turning...angry...must...not...be...angry.... uh....


Whew.

Well, ill just put what i said into a more "civilized" manner.


You may have completed your objective, but then how could that be your objective if WE declared war on YOU? And after you "won", you stopped messing with us?

Two very different, and very wrong, views of the War of 1812.

We still did massacre the Brits at the battle of New Orleans...

We still did massacre the Brits at the battle of New Orleans...

After the ceasefire had been declared. Absolutely no effect on the outcome of the war.

Hold it, HOLD IT!!!

This is getting off-topic. If we're going to continue this conversation, 1. We should start acting more civilized(myself included), and 2, make a new poll.

After the ceasefire had been declared. Absolutely no effect on the outcome of the war.

(This is the last off-topic post im making).

Correct, but we DID still massacre them. And after the war too!

Silly brits...

Well - I would say that the long-term effect of the American revolution was that the US has in some sense taken over the position of the British Empire (replaced the British global Empire).

I compel you to point out any sort of proof that London's sole goal in the war was to burn down Washington.

Its wasn't its sole goal, but it was the main one. Dishearten the enemy and prevent further hostilities by burning down their capital. A very powerful statement that Britain was not a country to mess with. The Americans were hoping to prove to the world that they could do it on their own, and failed. The American invasions of 1813 and 1814 were repulsed.
Don't forget that when the war began, the US army had 7,000 poorly trained men, a very unreliable militia and 16 navy ships. After Britain had defeated Napoleon in 1814, she could have mustered the full force of her armies and navy and sailed over and thoroughly crushed the US and quite probably retaken it. It just wasn't deemed worthwhile.

So, the American invasion was driven back, the blockade remained, and the US just managed to hold onto its territory.
Do you still claim this as a victory?

Well - I would say that the long-term effect of the American revolution was that the US has in some sense taken over the position of the British Empire (replaced the British global Empire).

In economic terms sure. We don't have the huge land holdings though. Few islands and that's all.

(This is the last off-topic post im making).

Correct, but we DID still massacre them. And after the war too!

Silly brits...

Yes, because the British frontlines didn't have the ladders needed to scale the American defences. Britain lost just over 2,000 men, the Americans just 71. Not the 14 you were claiming. You might want to research things a bit more before you blindly spew them as facts.

Its wasn't its sole goal, but it was the main one. Dishearten the enemy and prevent further hostilities by burning down their capital. A very powerful statement that Britain was not a country to mess with. The Americans were hoping to prove to the world that they could do it on their own, and failed. The American invasions of 1813 and 1814 were repulsed.
Don't forget that when the war began, the US army had 7,000 poorly trained men, a very unreliable militia and 16 navy ships. After Britain had defeated Napoleon in 1814, she could have mustered the full force of her armies and navy and sailed over and thoroughly crushed the US and quite probably retaken it. It just wasn't deemed worthwhile.

So, the American invasion was driven back, the blockade remained, and the US just managed to hold onto its territory.
Do you still claim this as a victory?

When did I originally claim it as a victory? I'm the one trying to balance both sides' absurdity.

I think it was kind of bad but nothing really that bad.

Actually, another thing overlooked is that prior to the War of 1812, UK still had troops stationed in American terrirtory (the frontier lands mostly). We wanted to be rid of them.

And, if the point of the British attack on Washington was to destroy America's will to fight, it obviously failed.

And, I don't think the American Revolution and War of 1812 spelt the end of the British Empire, but they forced them to reevaluate its policy on colonies in terms of self rule and military force among other things.

Actually, another thing overlooked is that prior to the War of 1812, UK still had troops stationed in American terrirtory (the frontier lands mostly). We wanted to be rid of them.

And, if the point of the British attack on Washington was to destroy America's will to fight, it obviously failed.

And, I don't think the American Revolution and War of 1812 spelt the end of the British Empire, but they forced them to reevaluate its policy on colonies in terms of self rule and military force among other things.

There may have been other causes for the War of 1812 but in the end as my history book certainly said was that it was about Canada. There was all that open land with relatively few troops defending it. America was land hungry so why not take a shot as "Canada! Canada!" cry went out. The war was carried out stupidly and British reinforcements quickly came and all we really got out of it was one major naval victory off New Orleans and getting our capital burned to the ground.

In economic terms sure. We don't have the huge land holdings though. Few islands and that's all.
Well: We live in a different historic period than in the time of European colonialism - which mainly meant taking direct control over virtually most of the rest of the world - leading powers in that sense Britain (before France).
BTW many areas were not directly ruled by Britain but influenced by it. Not all were colonies, some were protectorates or highly influenced by Britain.

The United States has an equivalent influence - more indirectly though still existed. Through is economic and military strength and its allliances systems (bilateral or multilateral) the US has influence around the world.
And a military presence in many parts of the world.
I therefore think that a comparison with the Britain Empire can be made.
The difference is of course that the US is not interested in colonialisation. Though in securing stability abroad in order to enshure them at home (crusade for freedom) is a concept and idea that is embraced by the two main political parties in the US.
That has led to decisions for interventions in many areas.
Only naming the major one in the last 10 years: Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq. Nation-building has become a central challenge in US foreign policy - together with more or less smaller allies. Though up till know all of those areas are more or less still protectorates and have not been transformed into stable countries.
On the other hand - nation building in Japan and Germany after WW II was succesfull under US leadership.
There is no country that is culturally, economically and technologically influencing the world as much as the US.
It doesn´t annect other territories. But that is unnecessary.
There are other options to influence things (war only as a last resort).
There is certainly no country which is influenced the world (meaning the whole world) as much as America.
In that sense the US has not just taken over the position of the British but expanded it.

Hmmm? Then what do you call that massacre at New Orleans? What do you say about the fact that the Britis stopped taking our citizens off of fishing boats and making them members of the British Navy? Sure, washington was burned, and SURE, we didnt take Canada, but for starters, we werent wiped out because we lost the capital and secondly, Canada wasnt the reason for going to war. It was, in a way, a second war of independence due to the fact that england though it could push us around. What did we do? Defeat them, and they suffered their worst defeat AFTER the war at the hands of a few hundred militamen.

Battle of new Orleans.

American Casualties: 14
British Casualties: 2,000+

Now am i the only one here who things thats SAD?
1) The battle happebed after the war of 1812

2) A little thing called The Napolianc wars where going on at that time (Britian lost 20,000 men in Badajoz I think,)

3) they where commanded by a inadept general.

In short, for Britian the war of 1812 was a sideshow, they where concentrating on Europe at that time.

Yes, because the British frontlines didn't have the ladders needed to scale the American defences. Britain lost just over 2,000 men, the Americans just 71. Not the 14 you were claiming. You might want to research things a bit more before you blindly spew them as facts.

Im sorry, it was 14 deaths. not casualties

I didnt know the entire casualty number for the Americans nor the deaths for the brits.

Besides, we still defeated thar brits.

(ok, so i lied about that last one being my last post. But can we STILL get back to the topic?)

Kybernetia: The most powerful nation always has the most influence over world events. I feel thought that indirectly affecting a country is better than having your troops in the country. Has the benefit of not dealing with revolts of your territories.

I'm not counting Iraq in this since we really shouldn't be there to begin with.

Kybernetia: The most powerful nation always has the most influence over world events. I feel thought that indirectly affecting a country is better than having your troops in the country. Has the benefit of not dealing with revolts of your territories.
I'm not counting Iraq in this since we really shouldn't be there to begin with.
Though the indirect method failed in Iraq for twelve years.
Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan is a tendency of a more direct method.
After the collapse of the USSR there was a discussion about a new world order in many parts of the world. But as a matter of fact we saw a new world disorder in many places. The "disciplining" influence of another super power fell away.
Today it is on the US to create "a new world order". Clinton began that job reluctantly. President Bush was also reluctant at the begining. But now he is pushing through the American agenda.
He won´t tolerated a nuclear Iran for example and is going to act firm and ready to use the American strength in order to bring order to a world which is in many parts in disorder - like in some sense the British did.
This world order policy is an additional element. Freedom of markets is one important thing. But not all can be bound into such an international systems.
That leaves the necessity to use force to establish a new international order.
And order which is needed and ought to be established.
We are living in a dangerous time. Just like in the 1930s radical ideologies are on the rise -this time in the Arab and broader muslim world: Islamism is a real threat.
If America shows weakness in this decade the world will drift towards tragedy. A statement of President Bush I do agree with.
America must lead. If America doesn´t no one else did.
The experience of the 1930s is not to back down to dictators and to conduct and appeasement policy towards them. Without the US and without US leadership the entire world would likely to drift towards tragedy.
I believe in the historic role the US played in the past and I do hope and I do believe that it is going to play an even bigger role in future as guardian of itself and the world. The US may also do a few mistakes on its way. But compared to all other main powers it has made the least mistakes actually.
And at the end it always found the right way. Therefore I back the United States and US leadership over the world.

Kybernetia: America is trying to create that new world order in democracy. Bush is now determined to bring democratic system to Iraq whether they want it or not. America does have the responsiblity to protect itself and to some extent other countries since we are by far the most powerful and supposedly leads the world in morality. This doesn't mean though that to battle the threat of Islamic extremism that invading Iraq was neccessary. Saddam was hardly a good man but the same can be said of plenty others. I think it is now pretty obvious that Iraq wasn't a threat to America, it is just that people don't care because now a dictator is gone and we can pretend that we have given a blow to terrorism and a victory for democracy. I do agree that America needs to lead the world. It is to bad that is hasn't done so lately and only wants to do what it wants. Reciting standard anti-Bush stuff isn't what I want to do but the simple fact is that thanks to him, the United States isn't on good terms with the majority of the world thanks to the Presidents unilateral decision to invade. Hopefully in the future America will have a leader who will do just that and have us work with the world for a better future.

Kybernetia: America is trying to create that new world order in democracy. Bush is now determined to bring democratic system to Iraq whether they want it or not. America does have the responsiblity to protect itself and to some extent other countries since we are by far the most powerful and supposedly leads the world in morality. This doesn't mean though that to battle the threat of Islamic extremism that invading Iraq was neccessary. Saddam was hardly a good man but the same can be said of plenty others. I think it is now pretty obvious that Iraq wasn't a threat to America, it is just that people don't care because now a dictator is gone and we can pretend that we have given a blow to terrorism and a victory for democracy. I do agree that America needs to lead the world. It is to bad that is hasn't done so lately and only wants to do what it wants. Reciting standard anti-Bush stuff isn't what I want to do but the simple fact is that thanks to him, the United States isn't on good terms with the majority of the world thanks to the Presidents unilateral decision to invade. Hopefully in the future America will have a leader who will do just that and have us work with the world for a better future.

Utracia, While you may be a fellow Red Sox fan(Stupid biridies, we beat them!), im afraid im going to have to disagree with you.

I wont go in further because im reading 8-bit Theatre comics right now.