How in the hell did the colonies defeat the British Empire?
They did not, the French and Spanish did
>>397048
We didn't really defeat the British Empire so much as we made it more costly for them to hold on to us than to let us go.
Had they wanted to, they could have devoted enough military power to the colonies to crush the American Revolution. But that would have left them exposed on other fronts, where their losses could have been more serious.
>>397048
How the hell did Vietnam beat America?
How the hell did Afghanistan beat the Soviets?
By being too hard and too expensive and too bloody to keep fighting.
>>397048
>How in the hell did the colonies defeat the British Empire?
The British eventually realised that the sugar islands weren't going to be roped into the revolution, and that the revolution wasn't extensifying to the homefront.
>>397048
Whoa, is that a real picture of British troops?
>>397214
Were your mother and father brother and sister?
>>397048
The British Empire of 1776 wasn't the one of the late 19th century (superpower, spawning 1/3 of the world...etc)
It was relatively small (in orange pic related) and Britain at that time was far from the most powerful country in Europe back then
France, Prussia, Russia, Austria and even Spain all had better military capabilities.
In the end, what American media try to depict as a bunch of peasants vs a superpower was really a bunch of peasants backed by two 1st rate european powers against a 2nd rate european power
Britain did fairly well given the odds.
>>397048
>8 years of war
>no end game in sight
>soldiers a long ways from home
>country's going broke
>>397492
Honestly, even the "bunch of peasants" thing isn't really true.
America has fairly comparable levels of income per capita to Britain at the time, had access to all the same technologies, many of their officers had served in the British Army, etc.
It was really the case of parts of Britain fighting other parts of Britain.
>>397048
Shipping armies across the Atlantic when you have potentially vital shit going down in continental Europe was a huge bother.
>>397492
Britan's army might not have been as numerous compared to other nations but quality wise they were very good.
>>397048
>colonies
Do you mean the french regular army?
>>398225
Last I knew, the States had a higher standard of living than anywhere else in the world. Can't be bothered to find the source though.
>>398252
THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME
25 YEAR RULE
1776 VERSUS 1989
>>397051
>implying
>>398260
What the fuck are you on?
Americans were rich as fuck in 1776. Money aside, you can always measure wealth in resources and America is resource rich. While France and Britain had territory in what would become the US, they had only marginal access to those resources.
>>397051
/thread
That was France.
>>397051
>Spain doesn't enter the until 1779
>almost half a decade after the war was already ongoing from 1775
>French troops don't actually start military expeditions with Colonial Americans until 1780
Yes of course. The French, Spanish, and Dutch were doing all the fighting for us Yanks half a decade before ever sitting foot on colonial soil.
>>398317
France destroyed the British navy, the entire basis for British power projection, which is what turned the war around.
France also made up most of the troops at the Siege of Yorktown, the decisive land battle of the war. The British even tried to surrender to France, but were forced by the French to surrender to the Americans instead.
>>397051
This. The American Revolution was for the most part a proxy war between France and England. If France wasn't supplying the colonies with arms, ammunition and gunpowder they would have been stomped by the Brits.
>>398310
yes, therefore the US losing the war by not accomplishing its objectives in Vietnam.
>>397242
He could be technically correct.
>>398322
>Siege of Yorktown
Yes, wonderful. But actual land based military operations done by the French didn't start until after 1780. You know, five years since the war started.
>>398325
>win the war
>force NV to sign peace accords
>pull out
>NV violates the peace accords and attacks SV again
>America doesn't re-engage
Most people fail to realize that there were technically two wars between 1965 and 1975. Americans won the first one and didn't participate in the second one.
>>398329
>win the war
lolno
>>398328
Who cares how long Americans spent losing the war?
That's like saying Americans were irrelevant to France defeating Nazi Germany, since there weren't any American troops in France until 1944 while the war had started in 1939.
>>398317
Reminder that the revolutionary armies were rapidly running out of money and were being consistently defeated before the entry of France and Spain.
>>398329
>fight for nineteen years to keep the north from conquering the south
>the north conquers the south
Sounds like a loss to me.
>>398329
Top fucking kek.
Americans signed a cease-fire which kept the country divided in two, and pretended not to know that the North would conquer the South about five minutes later.
It was a desperate attempt to save face while surrendering.
>>398331
Yes they did. The goal of the US was to protect SV, which was achieved. The goal of the NV was to conquer SV, which they failed to achieve.
>>398336
As I pointed out earlier, there were two wars. They didn't participate in the second one, effectively betraying its South Vietnamese ally, due to domestic asspain over the war.
>>398329
>win the war
You could say at a big push that it was a Status quo. Victory? Not in the slightest.
>>398337
Save face from what?
>>398346
Not that Anon, but probably the fact that the war was incredibly unpopular back home and the US government was having a lot of trouble justifying US involvement over there.
A quick ceasefire negotiation and hasty withdrawal is fairly telling on these points.
>>398330
>>398334
>consistently defeated
>losing the war
>late 1777
Not really. Let's see, a major British Army group based in the New England region would lose 1000 of its 8000 men strength to American ambushes, marksmen and guerrilla war tactics which included a large detachment of Hessians.
Then you had the twin Battles of Saratoga which cost the British a Pyrrhic victory in the first one in September of 1777 and in October were decisively crushed. Which lead to the completely loss of Burgoyne's entire army when he retreated to Ticonderoga and later had to surrender most of his entire remaining force.
No, Colonials inflicted pretty bad defeats on the British in turn.
>>397048
It was the UK's vietnam
>>398346
From surrendering. Giving away Vietnam to the communists, and admitting that a decade of war and lost lives was literally for nothing.
>>398345
Tell me what exactly would constitute victory in your book then. Conquering North Vietnam? That was never the goal, nor was it ever attempted.
>>398225
If they lost would it have been remembered a s civil war?
>>398353
Why would they surrended considering no NV offensive was actually successful and they achieved zilch in territorial gains?
>>398355
The destruction of NV's will to fight as well as the successful invasion and occupation of NV by SV forces.
>>397051
Spot fucking on. The American independence was a side-effect of more pressing matters.
>>398370
>will to fight
>NV,do you want to fight some more?
>"No."
Which is what happened.
>invasion of NV by SV
Could and would not happen, ever. Especially considering the entire American intervention was to keep the borders set in 1954 intact.
>>398370
>The destruction of NV's will to fight
>As soon as you pull out they go back to war with the south and totally wreck it.
> Vietnam discussions
> Revolutionary War thread
Fuck off and make your own thread.
>>398317
>the French give you weapons
>the French give you artillery
>the French tackle British naval squadrons at every possible opportunity
>the French give you supplies to fight the war
>somehow France and Spain's help doesn't count since they didn't send military expeditions until 3-4 years afterwards
>>398232
They performed very poorly in the Seven Years War and defeated the French in America only thank to numbers
>>397048
Lead here, we politely asked if we could be free.
>>397048
>Colony 2-3 month sail away
>Also fighting French and Spanish in multiple theaters
>Fighting almost-guerilla-style locals who had much more knowledge of the topography
>Colonials funded by France and Spain
>>398534
>guerilla-style
Where does this meme come from?
Did Americans decide to rewrite their own history and add this to their Revolution chapter after they found out how effective it was in Vietnam?
US Revolution was fought through pitched line battles
>>398340
>this delusion
Everybody knew that the South was getting an ass-fucking the second the last American chopper left, America just to save face
>>397048
Beyond the obvious help from France, Spain, and the Netherlands, a lot of people in Parliament and the military were actually quite sympathetic to the Revolutionaries' cause, so the Empire never really brought its full strength to bear until the colonies had openly thrown in their lot with the Frenchies, by which point it was more or less too late.
>>398475
While basically true, this was more of a French error than a British plan to overwhelm them with numbers. I'm pretty sure France had the larger population. But early in the fighting, native American forces under the command of French officers won big victories over the British. This led the French to believe that they didn't need to send large numbers of professional troops to America. Once the British got their own native allies, the French found themselves outnumbered.
>>398550
>almost-guerilla-style
Read the whole thing maybe? Guerilla warfare does not HAVE to be about the fighting
>>398572
It wasn't an error or anything
You have to remember that North America was just one theater of the Seven Years War
While Britain was fully comitted to the American theater, France focused the bulk of its army on the main theater of the war: Europe
Of course it meant that they couldnt match the Brits in America, but Europe was more important.
>>398550
It was a combination of both. The rebel armed forces were initially two separate armies that had their own commands and acted independently. The Continental Army fought more traditionally, while the Colonial Militias waged a guerrilla war. As the war progressed, the militias cooperated with the Army more and eventually started being absorbed into it.
>>398579
Are you sure? Why would the British make America a top priority during the Seven Years War, and then abandon it for other areas when the revolution broke out?
>>398600
>Why would the British make America a top priority during the Seven Years War,
Because North America was their main preoccupation
It was their only settlement-colony, and they wanted to expand it on the French territory
They knew the French would focus on Europe, so they used the ongoing war to steal their North American colony without having to face their full military might
>and then abandon it for other areas when the revolution broke out?
Literally no one claims that aside from a few butthurt revisionist British kids on the internet
Britain lost the Thirteen Colonies fair and square despite trying its outmost to keep them
>>398317
>Gálvez carried out a masterful military campaign and defeated the British colonial forces at Manchac, Baton Rouge, and Natchez in 1779. The Battle of Baton Rouge on September 21, 1779, freed the lower Mississippi Valley of British forces and relieved the threat to the capital of Louisiana, New Orleans. In 1780, he recaptured Mobile from the British at the Battle of Fort Charlotte.
>His most important military victory over the British forces occurred May 9, 1781, when he attacked and took by land and by sea Pensacola, the British (and formerly, Spanish) capital of West Florida from General John Campbell of Strachur. The loss of Mobile and Pensacola left the British with no bases along the Gulf coast.
>The importance of Gálvez's campaign from the American perspective was that he denied the British the opportunity of encircling the American rebels from the south, and kept open a vital conduit for supplies. Gálvez also assisted the American revolutionaries with supplies and soldiers, much of it through Oliver Pollock.
>In recognition of his work and help to the American cause, George Washington took him to his right in the parade of July 4 and the American Congress recognized Gálvez for his aid during the Revolution.
Pls read more.
Since no one's quite said it yet...
Logistics and foreign intervention
>>398357
I've always felt that it should be remembered as a civil war. People don't seem to be aware that something like 30% of the population were loyalists and a lot of others were on the fence and didn't see a point in picking sides.
They had help, but we're also much more organized than the British high command expected. Washington surviving the Winter at valley forge proved that this rebellion had the resolve that Parliament didn't expect.
A better question is how these guys almost gave the Empire a run for their money despite having massively inferior tech.
>>398863
this thread is already way too crowded with off topic bullshit
make another thread for this
>>398331
No one loses a war with a kill ratio of 20:1. That's like saying you beat the shit out of a neighborhood bully but lost because he kept getting back up and you, and your friends (the American public), said fuck this, it's not worth it.
>>398949
10:1. Sorry. Typo on phone.
>>398949
Shut up you dense retard
A phyrric victory is still a victory.
The U.S. lost Vietnam politically in the short term, not by lack of trying, but because they were propping up a regime that was just as bad if not worse than the Norkies.
That the South collapsed once they left was innevitable. No amount of military intervention could endear the Vietnamese to an Evangelical Christian for a dictator
>>398974
they failed their mission, but calling it a loss as a war is still a little embellished.
Let's discuss the 4th Crusade
Why did they attack Constantinople?
>>398329
>>win the war
>>398985
debnts
>>398550
100% of americans actually believe The Patriot is how it happened.
>>398982
>they failed
>but that doesn't mean it's a loss!
c'mon cleetus.
>>398982
War are just another form of diplomacy.
If you don't achieve your aims, it's either a stalemate or a loss. By leaving Saigon the way they did it was pretty clear that the regime the U.S. had pumped so much money into propping up was done for.
How you perform militarily doesn't matter at the end of the day. Hannibal utterly decimated Rome multiple times but still lost the war. The U.S. didn't capitulate, but it's willingness to negotiate terms in the first place meant that its military couldn't secure its desired objectives. In all intensive purposes, it's a lose.
>>399016
>intensive purposes
You are not convincing me anon.
>>399006
It pretty much was how it happened. Conventional warfare peppered with guerilla warfare. In fact, they did a rather good job of depicting the type of war General Greene conducted against Cornwallis.
Guerilla units were vital to the the war. Morgan's Riflemen, the Green Mountain Boys, hell, even Washington used guerilla units to fuck up British forage parties (the Forage War).
>>399297
>red cups actually believe this
Because it was British people fighting other British people at the time and parliament was split on how to deal with them; with a good number of MPs either supporting the rebels outright or having sympathies with them.
>>399297
It's like you're incapable of analyzing historical record. I've given you examples to support my argument and for you to research.
I mean, fuck, Lexington and Concord had guerilla units fucking shit up. Right off the goddamn bat.
Oh fuck it, you're just stupid.
>>399447
One should make the discrepancy between the Continental army and the various militias that fought in the war.
>>399480
>redcups actually believe 10 farmers led by mel gibson defeated the brits singlehandedly, who were commiting nazi atrocities at the time.
>>399489
I'm sorry, are you saying the British didn't commit war crimes?
Nearly 80% of those British prison ships died due to the conditions; theres a goddamn monument to these dead in NYC.
Get fucked, Britbong, you lost.
>>399489
Is being facetious the only thing you're capable of? Even if I wasn't a burger, I'd still be able to understand how hybrid warfare works.
Fuck it, you're too stupid for /his/. Please go back to /int/
>AMERICA DIDN'T DO ANYTHING IN EITHER WORLD WAR THEY JOINED AT THE END
>America fights war, France joins near the end
>LOL AMERICA DIDN'T WIN THE FRENCH DID
Why is it so fucking impossible to discuss American military history without whining and butthurt? What kind of retarded autismal babby thinking leads to somebody thinking that winning a war with allies means that you didn't "REALLY" win it?
>>399489
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_Valley_massacre
go eat your semen rations
>>398317
>>399532
The truth is, the 13 colonies would never have earned their freedom without French intervention -- the whole battle for American independence was essentially a proxy war between Britain and France.
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. As mentioned, 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.
>>399532
That's the modus operandi of non-Americans on 4chan that feel jealousy or some other kind of angered emotion towards America. They split hairs on fucking everything we've ever accomplished.
Pic related.
>>399540
>France provided a whopping 90 percent of the rebels' gunpowder.
Cite please.
>>399530
>Is being shot the only thing you're capable of?
>>399535
you gonna get blacked.
>>399540
I already posted evidence of American Colonialists beating the British like the entire loss of Burogyne's entire army along the way just in the early years of the war before the French or Spanish ever did anything directly in terms of actual combat and you idiots can't even counter that.
And to make it clear I'm not suggesting America would've won without any sort of logistical or materialistic aid from European powers but the stupid obstinate claim Americans were incapable of beating the British in battles at any point before France and Spain actually directly got militarily involved is bullshit and will always be bullshit.
>>399540
Why do people keep pretending that we think we did it alone? Nobody fucking thinks that and I am literal trailer trash, as in I literally live in a trailer park full of inbreds. We learn from a very early age that France helped us, it's even mentioned in songs for kids about the revolution. Arguably the most famous battle of the Revolution was Yorktown, which is probably where French presence was felt the most.
>>397048
Because the empire was totally dependent on the Irish master-race.
Ireland becomes part of the UK - Pax Britannica happens- Irishman absolutely annihilates Napoleon - Brits are saved.
Ireland leaves the UK - British empire is crushed by farmers with bootleg rifles - IRA remains undefeated to the present day - British empire collapses shortly after Ireland leaves.
>>399546
you gonna get....oh wait....you got mudslimed.
>>399553
Brits are still butthurt about Gibson movies more then anything else.
>>397048
Foreign intervention coupled with the fact that suppressing insurgencies while fighting a land war overseas was very expensive and cumbersome in the 1770s. The colonies were a huge tract of land to deal with and the Monarchy lost the support of the English public.
>>399567
>submitted to a kenyan for 8 years
>>399544
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
>>399578
Oh wow. From this you would think that blacks make up a large percentage of the United States! But....it's only 12 percent.
Now if you could only figure out why they live in major cities you might win a Pulitzer. I'll give you a hint based off of my research: look right after the Civil War.
Fuck, Brits are stupid. No wonder your bitch boy Churchill was begging FDR for help.
>>399584
I don't see the statistic. Perhaps you could point it out?
>>399552
>We learn from a very early age that France helped us, it's even mentioned in songs for kids about the revolution.
You are taught that France showed up at the end and helped a little (and no mention of Spain is made most of the time)
Most of Americans believe that they could have won even without France, and this because you are conveniently not taught that the rebels had almost no weapons and ammos until the French supplied them
>>399578
>obama will be the only black president
>1000 years from now the american empire will be but memories
>niggers will look at old photographs of obama and claim the americans were black
>WE WUZ PRESIDENTZ N SHIET
>>399578
just looked up the actually stats for USA
your pic is off by a shit ton
>>399587
>raped by viets
>raped by zergs
>raped by a feeling
lol
>>399590
It's in the page, look for it
>>399600
it's less white than my pic?
LOL
>>399602
>90% of the supply (2 million pounds) was imported by the end of 1776, mostly from France.
Is this the figure you speak of? Do you want to revise your original statement before I rip it to shreds?
>>398475
Fun fact: the Battle of the Monongahela (where General Braddock was mortally wounded) took place like 15 miles from my house. His actual grave is about an hour away, near Fort Necessity.
On-topic: with a bunch of support from European powers. Like others have said, it was practically a proxy war, and eventually got too costly for the Brits to keep fighting; it simply wasn't worth it.
>>399594
>You are taught that France showed up at the end and helped a little
t. foreign kek who doesn't know anything about American history classes
>>399628
I'm Mexican, I met a lot of you guys and I know how uneducated you are
>>399634
>I'm Mexican
>"how uneducated you are"
>>399590
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/the-gunpowder-shortage/
>>398993
>that strategic placement of the subtitle
>>399651
>Estimates place the percentage of French supplied arms to the Americans in the Saratoga campaign up to 90%
>Saratoga Campaign
>Saratoga
Keep Googling, m8.
>>399532
because they are extremely buttmad about the USA
remember lend lease in WWII didn't do shit for the cause
but the french doing the same for us in the revolution was how we lived and died
it's hypocrisy at its finest
>>399527
Feather and tarring? Not much in the way of goodies and baddies in this war.
>>399634
>let me tell you about your country
fuck off spic
>>399694
>remember lend lease in WWII didn't do shit for the cause
>but the french doing the same for us in the revolution was how we lived and died
Can you really compare America giving a few irrelevant stuff to the superpower that was the USSR with France giving a bunch of defenseless peasants literally all of the guns and ammos they needed to rebel?
>>399704
It will soon be my country too
>>399549
It's bullshit yes but Britain tended to dominate. Just didn't have the numbers or local knowledge to properly chase and route opposing forces.
Once European powers got involved it was hard to maintain these forces with such a long supply line and defeat became inevitable. This was Britain at the start of its power. It could not yet dominate the seas unhindered.
>>399718
i wouldn't consider 1k troop trains (soviets had less than 20), 20 million boots and 10 million tons of food irrelevant
and there was alot more that we gave to the soviets, not to mention all of the other countries.
your ignorance is showing
>>399727
You realize my entire point was countering the other guys claims that the Americans didn't have any victories or defeats of the British army right?
>>397048
Because bongs sent useless germans.
>>399546
Confirming your stupidity doesn't make it endearing to anyone I'm afraid.
But hey, I'm not the one who's butthurt.
>>397087
Also, the debts were owed to to the king, not the country. Because the king was thrown out, America didn't have to repay the debts
