FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Contemporary qustion, would the colonials have fought of our
Contemporary qustion, would the colonials have fought of our
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Sorry, what's the question? Would they have fought or what would they have thought?  "
Lol fought 
Just watchin the Patriot is all, hate seeing us get a tonking lol. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"great empire if we were not engaged in other wars across the globe (particularly the french) at the time? lol.
I know current affairs "
Which colony are you on about? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Ah you mean fought off. So you are asking, were we overstretched and therefore unable to maintain our hold on the States when we owned it..."
Your obviously much more articulate than me, I shoulda just asked it like that at 1st lol Yes thats the question? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"great empire if we were not engaged in other wars across the globe (particularly the french) at the time? lol.
I know current affairs
Which colony are you on about?"
The states mate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think fighting the Dutch and Spanish in Europe didn't help but mostly it was the distance - too far to send supplies, too long to receive orders and also a large battlefield - taking one city of significance didn't win the conflict for the victors because there were still other well supplied cities with support to use as a base. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I think fighting the Dutch and Spanish in Europe didn't help but mostly it was the distance - too far to send supplies, too long to receive orders and also a large battlefield - taking one city of significance didn't win the conflict for the victors because there were still other well supplied cities with support to use as a base. "
Head of the snake and all that? Did you study military history? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah you mean fought off. So you are asking, were we overstretched and therefore unable to maintain our hold on the States when we owned it..."
We only ever held a few relatively small colonies on the Eastern Seaboard of the Continent. Given the factors of the day it was always going to be a hard job to hold on to them once the local population rose up in arms against the military.
People forget though that the British Army of the time was pretty poor, badly led by officers who held their commissions by birthright rather than by competence, badly equipped, badly paid, badly trained & mostly rammed full of the dregs that british society didn't want. It is remarkable that they could actually fight at all.
The German mercenary Hessians were recruited because often British soldiers would defect, not always but enough to seriously alarm the high command.
This was the time of Thomas Payne & his tome 'The Rights Of Man', revolutionary thought had spread across Europe & the British Army of the Americas was vulnerable to it.
Remember though that the American creation myth is just that. Washington, in spite of the deficiencies of the British Army was pushed to the brink of defeat, at Valley Forge he had less than 5000 men left & most of them were sick.
The real victors of the Revolutionary War were the French under the Marquis De Lafayette. It was his crack French professional troops & the defeat of a single Royal Naval squadron by the entire French Navy at the Battle of the Chesapeake that forced the British to surrender Yorktown & lose the war.
PS. Any 'historical/hysterical' film with that idiot Gibson is about as accurate as an American pilot in an A10.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Ah you mean fought off. So you are asking, were we overstretched and therefore unable to maintain our hold on the States when we owned it...
We only ever held a few relatively small colonies on the Eastern Seaboard of the Continent. Given the factors of the day it was always going to be a hard job to hold on to them once the local population rose up in arms against the military.
People forget though that the British Army of the time was pretty poor, badly led by officers who held their commissions by birthright rather than by competence, badly equipped, badly paid, badly trained & mostly rammed full of the dregs that british society didn't want. It is remarkable that they could actually fight at all.
The German mercenary Hessians were recruited because often British soldiers would defect, not always but enough to seriously alarm the high command.
This was the time of Thomas Payne & his tome 'The Rights Of Man', revolutionary thought had spread across Europe & the British Army of the Americas was vulnerable to it.
Remember though that the American creation myth is just that. Washington, in spite of the deficiencies of the British Army was pushed to the brink of defeat, at Valley Forge he had less than 5000 men left & most of them were sick.
The real victors of the Revolutionary War were the French under the Marquis De Lafayette. It was his crack French professional troops & the defeat of a single Royal Naval squadron by the entire French Navy at the Battle of the Chesapeake that forced the British to surrender Yorktown & lose the war.
PS. Any 'historical/hysterical' film with that idiot Gibson is about as accurate as an American pilot in an A10...."
Very educational. Thanks.
I always thought the rights of men was just an excuse for a disgruntled population to grab independence, even the taxation without representation smacks of a smoke screen? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The 'no taxation without representation' was a bit of a strange claim when we consider that most Britons of the day had no real access to the decison makers in Parliament, MP's were very often placemen of the financial powermakers etc.
The whole Boston Tea Party thing tickles me. US myth has it that American Patriots threw British tea into the harbour in protest at a tax increase. What actually happened was that tea smugglers, alarmed at a REDUCTION in import tax (that would have destroyed their profits) attacked a tea transport under the guise of being 'Patriots'.
Remember this, the average Bostonian of the time paid one shilling per year in general (income) tax. The average Londoner paid 16 shillings... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
