Did America even need French help winning the Revolutionary War?
>The war has turned. General Cornwallis took flight with his army and moved north. We continued to engage the British and in the following months, Cornwallis entrenched himself at Yorktown, Virginia. Washington escaped from the north and surrounded Cornwallis, who could not retreat to the seas.
>It was blocked off by our long-lost friends... who had finally arrived.
Seems like France arrived at the tail-end and just kept the British from retreating.
Americans did all the heavy lifting and probably could've gone on to invade the British Isles if they really wanted.
>>727553
Siege of Gibraltar
A million Livres (say $750 million today) provided a lot of powder, shot and bribes. Without that financial and material support, it is quite possible that Washington's Army would have just faded away.
And the British forces were either barely competent or acting only half-heartedly in the period 1775-1777, Gage had an American wife and Howe was embarrassingly pro-Colonist.
>>727553
the americans only won because the british were too busy fighting the french to keep the homeland supplied with sugar... america matters less than sugar!... Also, 250k french soldiers mate, don't fall for that meme propaganda film...
>>727553
>and probably could've gone on to invade the British Isles if they really wanted.
Yup, it's a b8 thread
America would have won the war but would be as bankrupt and shitty as latin america. Mexico paid for its independence war, then had 100 years of war over financial problems even though it had been richer than spain before independence.
>American Braveheart
>Accurate
>>727553
>could've gone on to invade the British Isles if they really wanted.
Come on now.
>>727553
The British constantly had to either fight or think about risking ships being sent to America because of the French navy.
French money, guns, powder, uniforms, and shot kept the continentals clothed and shooting instead of naked and clubbing.
>>727553
I do personally believe that French intervention did allow the colonists to win the revolutionary war or at least not prolong it. Quite a lot of the coastal territory was firmly in British hands until areas like new york where blockaded by the French navy and the occupants where both bombarded and starved out. A lot of the fighting died out after French intervention as many British troops where recalled to defend the carribian islands which where of a higher value at the time.
Why is always Spain forgotten in the revolutionary war?
>>727553
Why does Mel Gibson hate Britshits anyway
I mean moreso than any regular God-fearing man anyway
>>728004
Because they were France's junior partner, just like the dutch.
>>727553
>could've gone on to invade the British Isles if they really wanted.
>>727553
You sound like a kid just looking at superficial stuff and forgetting the rest
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.
>>727553
France's biggest contributions were earlier, sending money to help finance the revolution and men to train the rag-tag continental army.
The naval action trapping Cornwallis was nice, but you're right, at that point, the Americans were winning the war handidly.
>Americans did all the heavy lifting and probably could've gone on to invade the British Isles if they really wanted.
This, however, is simply retarded.
>>728401
>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.
I'm not so sure about that. Later Latin American independnece movements demonstrated that decisive victory over an enemy in battle isn't actually necessary to achieve independence. Keeping 40,000+ troops in a hostile country across the Atlantic was hugely expensive, and something that Britain did not want to do indefinitely. Even if the Revolutionaries are unable to win battles post Saratoga, you're still talking enormous resources spent for a war that has no real clear winning condition for the British point of view.
>France provided a whopping 90 percent of the rebels' gunpowder.
Bullshit.
>>727561
That was Spain.
>>727553
>Americans did all the heavy lifting and probably could've gone on to invade the British Isles if they really wanted.
>>727553
>Americans did all the heavy lifting and probably could've gone on to invade the British Isles if they really wanted.
I legitimately am interested to hear why you think this could have happened.
>>728432
American education at its finest.
>>727553
We would have won the North minus NYC. But without the French we wouldn't have taken the South
>>728423
>Later Latin American independnece movements demonstrated that decisive victory over an enemy in battle isn't actually necessary to achieve independence
They happened because Spain was left in ruins by the French and couldnt take care of anything overseas
Britain wasnt invaded in that era, so that's not comparable
>>728450
If American education is in such a position where graduating students think that a bunch of farmers equipped with muskets and trained only in guerilla warfare could successfully invade Britain then something is seriously wrong.
>>727553
>getting your history from a mel gibson movie
>>728450
Memespouting Europoor
>>728432
>>728535
American education is generally high quality, idiocy of the OP's caliber is indicative of a lack of American education, which tends to start teaching history more nuanced and in-depth in middle-school/high-school - around the ages of 10-17. I'd say OP dropped out of school around age 12 and is leeching off his mother under claims of autism, like CWC.
>>727574
>acting only half-heartedly in the period 1775-1777
So the righteousness of the colonial cause was too heavy a weight on the hearts of the red coats?
>>728432
Military Genius like George Washington could easily rape the British if he wanted. He spared their country though.
America had more aircraft carriers than the UK during independence war that guaranteed them naval superiority, and the powerful industrial base powered by protestant work ethic made outproducing british a question of time.
Seriously Washington should have just declare himself got emperor and march on britcucks.
>>728516
And in the American revolution, you had considerable opposition from Parliament to the whole adventure, and colonist grievances, which justified or not were felt keenly and weren't likely to go away soon.
Occupying the entire stretch of coast was going to cost orders of magnitude more than you'll ever get out of America, and can't be borne indefinitely.
Even if the Continental army is shot up, even if you kill all the revolutionary leaders, the unrest is likely to continue and the decentralized militias, while generally unable to oppose Redcoats, will still be there, and they'll still require constant presence to suppress. How long do you think Britain will go for this?
>>728641
(you)
>>728645
You're acting like it was a popular revolt while it really was a small bunch of elites mounting their militia and seceding
Had the French not given them muskets, gunpowders and uniforms in 1776, the revolt would have faded out in no time
It was anything but a popular revolt
>>727553
France gave the Patriots so much weapons and money it lead to their own collapse shortly after.
Just to give you an idea, they rose a 200.000 men army in France, bought a certain peace with all the regional power around them so they were free to move and prepared to invade the UK. At this point I wonder if the rebelionwas not just a decoy for the French and if their real goal was not to hope the English would leave their country defenceless. The peace treaty of the 7 year war was hard on them.
The question is not if the war could have been won without France, but if it would have existed at all.
>>727553
>Did America even need French help winning the Revolutionary War?
Without a doubt, yes.
>>728682
Conveniently, Georges Washington was the wealthiest person in the colonies at the end of the war.
>>728827
Are you sure about that?
I've always heard that John Hancock was the wealthiest and that Washington had lots of value in his land, but was actually poor in terms of cash.
>>727553
Yeah. We probably would have won without it in that Britain would have come to terms seeing the war as pointless, but French help let us gain a victory on our terms.
t. American
>the "le American revolution was just a rebellion by a few rich white people to increase their wealth meme"
In 1843, Chamberlain was interviewing Captain Levi Preston who was a 91 year old New England Yankee who had actually fought on April 19, 1775, the day poetic legend tells us of that famous “Shot heard ‘round the world”. Here is how Fischer recounts the interview.
Chamberlain: Captain Preston, what made you go to Concord to fight?
Captain Preston: What did I go for?
Chamberlain: Were you oppressed by the Stamp Act?
Preston: I never saw any stamps and I always understood that none were ever sold!
Chamberlain: Well, what about the Tea Tax?
Captain Preston: Tea Tax? I never drank a drop of that stuff. The boys threw it all overboard!
Chamberlain: But I suppose you had been reading Harrington, Sydney and Locke about the eternal principles of Liberty?
Captain Preston: I never heard of these men. The only books we had were the Bible, the catechism, Watt’s Psalms, and hymns and the almanacs.
Chamberlain: Well, then, what was the matter?
Captain Preston: Young man, what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we always had been free and we meant to be free always! They didn’t mean that we should.
>>727553
Could the Americans have gained independence without the French? Probably not.
But as evidenced by the Carlyle commission they could have gotten everything they wanted short of outright independence.
>>727987
The French didn't do shit to blockade new York. Rochambeau wouldn't commit to any land endeavor against new York and de Gras couldn't be bothered to stick around long enough to actually blockade the city.
>>727553
I live in a town named after a french man who is more loved here than in France.
The French helped make America. Anything otherwise is just revisionism in an attempt to discredit a nation currently seen as weak and cowardly from their just position of our greatest ally. OP is clearly English.
>>727553
Anyone who believes America could win the revolutionary war without France is delusional.
Only thing that could possibly happen would be to get more representation in the parliament so Brits wouldn't have to deal with insurgents but that's it.
France provided America with its arms, money and men to train soldiers. They also fought Britain at sea (Very important) and tried to take their sugar colonies (which Britain put priority to defend).
>>728682
You're acting like entire cities located hundreds of miles apart didn't need constant occupation throughout the British stay. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Norfolk.
Hint: They did.
>>728929
this joke-like exchange doesn't sound completely fucking made up at all
look at the numbers at yorktown and which nation bought what and then tell me france didnt help
>>728535
You'd be surprised how bad the education system in the US is not only on a grade school but on a college level as well.
>>728682
That's ridiculous. It may have started as a revolt by elites, but patriotism spread quickly. The war in the South was essentially a guerrilla war... Who do you think were the guerrillas, rich plantation owners?
>>730029
>cherry picking from a population that rivals all of Europe
Fill in a map of the US States pls.
>>730029
It's not really the system's fault, it is the fault of pupils. My HS geography teacher knew basically everything (he was more than able to draw entire continents with ever major river, country, capital, mountain rainge, etc. from memory), and went over these in-detail, and, apart from myself and a few others, most people wouldn't even get every country and capital right.
>>730029
Lost it at the last one
>>727553
>Did America even need French help winning the Revolutionary War?
Is this bait?
>>730072
>Fill in a map of the US States pls.
Is this bait?
Why should we learn about the US regions?
Don't you see the difference between an american state and a nation-state?
>>730150
Nope, Americans are so fucking stupid most don't even know France was our ally.
>>730076
You basically just pointed out that it's the systems fault. Of course your geography teacher knew all of that it was is fucking specialty. The system has failed in cultivating an environment that encourages knowledge and self-education but it's not entirely the fault of the system it also boils down to a cultural level, Americans are extremely anti-intellectual and shun anything that isn't immediately useful.
>>730175
>Why should we learn about the US regions?
Why should we learn about EU regions?
>>728641
We had a 7 to 1 ratio of helicopters more than them also.
The French blockaded the British from us, directed their concentration all over the globe as they fought with them, supplied the Americans with at least half of their weapons, gunpowder, and equipment, trained the revolutionaries, and provided administration and reinforcements to the Americans.
The revolution would have either been abandoned without the French, or it would have smoldered on for years, maybe decades more than it did.
>>727553
Yeah, most of the American generals were shit and they needed French supplies and naval aid
>>730005
It's actually one of the best in the world. But given your education how could you know?
>>730029
>all those symbols near the name of a country
do americans only know the name of an european country because of fries/pasta?
