Could the colonists have succeeded in their revolution without the intervention and aid of France, thanks to Louis XVI?
>>1371383
I'm not sure the colonists would have had the funds to keep the war going long enough, but the British strategy was really stupid so if they held out long enough the British probably would have been forced to leave
No, they also would have been swallowed whole during the napeolonic wars too if they didn't immediately adopt a bro-british posture post revolution
>>1371401
What was wrong with the British strategy?
>>1371417
America was pro-Napoleon. We were pretty much the only ones who actually obeyed his injunction not to trade with Britain, and we bought the Louisiana territory from him. We fought the War of 1812 with Britain during the Napoleonic wars.
>>1371383
It depends, maybe although it would have taken longer and the French probably would have attacked Britian anyway if Britain got tied down in us long enough which would give us the win.
>>1371595
Clinton wanted to concentrate on holding important points on that map, it was a defensive strategy based on the idea that if they could hold out long enough they would win.
The problem is that left the colonists in control of the country side and many cities. As long as local militias continued to support the new government holding on to a few coastal cities would not solve things in the long term
>>1371606
>America was pro-Napoleon.
>>1371606
Oops! You seem to have left your tripcode on faggot
>>1371383
Nope, zero chance
France began providing arms and ammunition as early as 1776. In early 1777, months before Saratoga, the French sent American colonists 25,000 uniforms and pairs of boots, hundreds of cannons, and thousands of muskets -- all stuff that the colonists would've had a hard time surviving without, and all stuff they had no access to on their own.
France provided a whopping 90 percent of the rebels' gunpowder. Without France, the entire American Revolution would have devolved into a bunch of dudes swinging their muskets as clubs within weeks.
Still, the most important French contribution to the revolution was the least visible to Americans. The reason France pampered the Patriots was always selfish. They were out to weaken the British forces -- particularly their naval strength -- in order to take the fight to them, perhaps even conquer them. That's why, for much of the Revolutionary War, the British ships tasked with kicking America's ass had to survive 12 rounds with the French navy before they could even think of crossing the Atlantic. France gleefully fought the British, eventually teaming up with Spain, declaring a war, attacking from all sides, and even setting up an invasion force.
So, when the Colonial army was fighting for dear freedom, history books tend to conveniently forget that they did so with French money, equipment, and backup forces, while France and its other allies were busy pummeling the empire from every other side.
>be Louis XVI
>support the American revolution with the agreement that debts will be paid back in increments over a period of time
>new United States government won't pay back shit and gives excuse after excues
>Thomas Jefferson blames your wife for the revolution
THANKS AMERICA
>>1371647
Well, not as anti-Napoleon as everyone else, at least.
>>1371383
'sup
>>1371647
A lot of the country was in favor of helping France
>>1371647
The Undeclared War with France was very brief.and ended with the Treaty of Mortefontaine. Compared to overall view of the Napoleonic Wars, America was pro France.
>>1372324
>be hero of the American revolution
>fuck up your own revolution so bad you end up hated by your own people
damn if Lafayette
>>1371417
Unlikely. Napoleon didnt have the funding nor the numbers for a war of conquest in the Americas.
>>1372336
America was slightly less than neutral. That's hardly pro.
Obviously not. America winning the war was only made possible by France obliterating the British navy.
>>1371645
>clinton
>holding the important coastal cities
>ignoring the countryside
Are you talking about 2016?
>>1372258
In American fashion, we repaid our debts a bit late when we came back to help during the world wars. I agree completely that we wouldn't have won if not for the French, but Germany have won had it not been for the million troops that America sent to break the stalemate? This should be another thread, but fuck it.
>>1372762
*would germany
>>1372336
Jefferson's greatest accomplishment was Louisianna AND keeping the US out of a war with either Britian or France.
Napoleon himself had no ambition, desire, or ability to attack the US with all of Europe out to get him. However, Napoleon was very keen on cutting Britian's trade.
However, Jefferson did not know this and his letters reveal he was concerned that Napoleon ( who offended his republican ideology) was unstoppable and would come to the US.
He successfully kept Napoleon friendly with the US (so much so that Napoleon wanted to move there after his defeat in 1815) while also not angering Britian who could have easily taken back the colonies if a catalyst for doing so had presented itself.
Jefferson himself was very idealistic and did not like Napoleon or his imperial government. He was however pro-French and appeased them at every chance he could while at the same time balancing it against his relationship with Britian.
>>1372762
>but Germany have won had it not been for the million troops that America sent to break the stalemate?
WWI? Maybe.
WWII absolutely not.
>>1372891
Completely agree with that, I meant ww1 because of the million troops statement, but I should have made it more clear anyway
>>1372888
>so much so that Napoleon wanted to move there after his defeat in 1815
This idea sparks my imagination. Imagine if America wound up becoming the retirement home for deposed conquerors and monarchs for the 19th Century.
>>1372911
What if they taught at West point and other military Academies?
>>1371606
Fucking amerifat, Thomas jefferson and john adams were the sole reason US didn't invade louisiana with their british allies, and even then adams was a monarchist
>>1372762
Technically we didn't repay our debts. Our debt was to the French Bourbon monarchy, which was long gone by the time of either war.
>>1372762
>made sure that debts to us for war materiel would be repaid*
fixed that for you
>>1371647
The Quasi war wasn't fought with Napoleon
>>1372910
you would have been wrong in that instance as well, germany was done, the spring offensives had petered out and the allied response was to treat the hindenburg line like little more than a roadblock, breaching it all along its length with combined arms attacks, in comparison to the main allied offensive the american contribution was a sideshow, and it was that great blow which ended the german hopes of winning, surrender was inevitable by late spring of 1919
>>1371383
no, french aid was lavish on a scale that nearly bankrupted france, troops weapons and supplies as well as seriously interfering with the british supply lines and forcing the british to divert forces to multiple other theaters.
without french aid putting down the colonists becomes a task only slightly more challenging than putting down the jacobites
