Wars and Conflicts聽 permalink
Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Friday, 26th March 2010
It was real that the Continental army was cleverer than The British professional troops?
Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 26th March 2010
More likely that the British were fighting more than one war at the time.
Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 3
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 26th March 2010
and it appears that even the ruling class werent that happy about the war
apart from the fact that we were fighting thousands away from homeLink to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 4
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 26th March 2010
Not really, the Continental Army was as often defeated as it was victorious. The real difference was made by the fact that Britain's three greatest European adversaries, France, Spain and the Netherlands, all combined to declare war on Britain turning a colonial struggle into an international conflict. The final battle at Yorktown in 1781 was won through the intervention of the French Navy and large numbers (almost as many as there were colonists) of French troops under Lafayette.
European intervention enabled the rebellion of 1776 to succeed whereas the lack of European intervention (by Britain and France) doomed the rebellion of 1861 to failure.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 5
Posted by oldberk (U7206663) on Tuesday, 30th March 2010
It seems ironic to me that without French help, GWYA Bush
, of "Cheese eating surrender monkeys," fame, might never have been President
.
Hey ho, mine not to reason why!
OldberkLink to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 6
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 30th March 2010
Let's also not forget that in so many ways this was a civil war between Loyalists and Patriots....
it wasn't as clear-cut as 'oppressed' Americans against 'evil' Brits, as Mel Gibson's movie would have us believe....Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 7
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 30th March 2010
It seems ironic to me that without French help, GWYA Bush, of "Cheese eating surrender monkeys," fame, might never have been President.聽 It must seem just as ironic to you that whatever it was that made dinosaurs instinct - be it global warming or ice age, etc, etc - could not possibly be man-made, could it?
...since we're on to the Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy kind of path here.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 30th March 2010
But what would have happened if the French had won the battle against the British instead of the other way round. The French wouldn't have allowed the influx of white English into a French colony, and would have been more likely to deport those English that had already moved there. The chances are that the US as we know it today would have never come into existance.So by beating the French we brought about our own downfall. France and Spain may have carved the country up between them, and that could have led to a war. We will never know.
GFLink to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 9
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Tuesday, 30th March 2010
Numbers:
The War of 1812 (June 18, 1812 鈥 March 23, 1815) was a war fought between the United States of America and the British Empire - particularly Great Britain and the provinces of British North America, the antecedent of Canada.
The war was fought in four theaters: Eastern and Central North America, Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans.
Approximately Strength:
United States:
Ground Forces: 497.437 (Regular Army: 35,800 at war's end)
Naval Forces: Frigates: 6 + Other vessels: 14
British Empire (The BE was fighting against Napoleon Empire):
Ground forces: 72.160 (48,160 at war's end)
Naval Forces: Ships of the Line: 11 + Frigates: 34 + Other vessels: 52 + Provincial Marine:9
Casualties and losses:
US: 2,260 killed in action + 4,505 wounded +17,000 (est.) died from disease.
BE: 1,600 killed in action + 3,679 wounded +3,321 died from disease
Result:
Treaty of Ghent = Status quo ante bellum.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 10
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Wednesday, 31st March 2010
A big advantage that the Contential Forces had over the British was one weapon. The Rifle. Many of the Americans had rifled long arms whilst the British had smooth bore muskets. The result was that the rifle was more accurate and had a longer range.
Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 11
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 31st March 2010
But what would have happened if the French had won the battle against the British instead of the other way round. The French wouldn't have allowed the influx of white English into a French colony聽
What would have been their attitude to an influx of black Scots?Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 12
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Wednesday, 31st March 2010
shivfan (U2435266) ,
Let's also not forget that 鈥樷檔o taxation without representation (In the Parliament voting Value added tax and Duty laws)鈥欌 so on :
High profit with independence (good welfare) > Low profit like a British Colony (bad welfare)
= American Revolution
P.S.: Some American wanted only a Tax law independence not a political independence.
Farodealer (U2898677) ,
Why didn鈥檛 British change smooth bore muskets? The First Industrial revolution started in 1760 and it ended in 1830 (Iron industry was one of the leading sectors). Britain had the tools to change the soldiers equipment, so why didn't Britain do that? was it an economic problem?.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 31st March 2010
The British (And indeed most armies stayed with the smoothbore musket rather than using the rifle up to the invention of the minny ball (American Civil War) Even in the final battles the US troops used the smooth bore against the British, and adopted the tactic of firing by volley. The Brown Bess of the British could be loaded and fired up to four times a minute, whereas the Baker Rifle managed two or if you were lucky three shots per minute. After a while the barrel became fouled with black powder making it harder to ram the ball down the barrel. Some sneaky British used to carry a supply of French balls that were smaller, thus allowing them to carry on. Later they would pour boiling water down the barrel to clear the fouling. Or if not enough time. P**s down the barrel to help unblock it.
FredLink to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 14
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 31st March 2010
"...Why didn鈥檛 British change smooth bore muskets?..."
It is a curious thing. Both sides used mukests, I understand, at the start of the US civil war, 90 years later. Rifles became common during this conflict.
Having Googled for more info, it seems the US 'patriots' (ie, rebels), often provided their own weapon. I suspect that the individual, who used their weapon for hunting, etc, might spend more on a one off, good quality piece, whilst national weapons buyers concentrated on economic factors that fitted in with military usage. Of course, if anyone knows otherwise....
On another point, I am currently reading 'Founding Faith' by Steven Waldeman. His theory is that fear of British religious toleration was the real prime motivator behind the US war of independence. Most states were fiercely anti-Catholic, but the British were reaching a point where toleration of Catholicism was becoming more common.
Of course, if this is true, then the war suddenly seems less heroic.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 15
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 31st March 2010
Part of why Britain lost the 13 colonies was its government's failure/refusal to recognize until too late the self-governing nature of those colonies and the measures to which the latter would object. Beyond what they'd been to Britain up to that point, there was never a coherent view of what the colonies ought to become.
Even if the British won that war, the relationship with the American colonies would have been fundamentally different from what it had been before, as Britain's subsequent relationships with her other white colonies would attest.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 16
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Wednesday, 31st March 2010
Hello AlexanderLiberty,
Recently there has been a discussion that might be of interest in the thread about history writing. The messages that I mean are nrs 77 - 86.
You can find it at
Regards,
PoldertijgerLink to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 17
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Wednesday, 31st March 2010
Grumpyfred ,
Thanks, I鈥檝e been seeking information about muskets and the use of them.
Poldertijger,
Thanks for the advice, it鈥檚 very interesting.
Good bye everyone.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 18
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Tuesday, 6th April 2010
Poldertijger,
about the discussion www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...
I never thought about it that way before:
''Their cry of 鈥淣o taxation without representation鈥 could not mean anything else than that they didn鈥檛 want to pay taxes, because they certainly didn鈥檛 want to send representatives to Whitehall''
I agrre with you up to a point the representation鈥檚 question is the casus belli.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 19
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 6th April 2010
A big advantage that the Contential Forces had over the British was one weapon. The Rifle. Many of the Americans had rifled long arms whilst the British had smooth bore muskets. The result was that the rifle was more accurate and had a longer range.聽
I think this is a bit of post-revolution myth making. Since individual gun ownership was actually a lot less common than today, most were armed by their state with smooth-bore muskets. Nor were the rifled muskets really that great. In the entire day of the battles of Lexington-Concord, the British lost fewer than 300 men: killed, wounded or missing.
Once the target started moving, or obscured himself in smoke by firing back, then the accuracy of the rifled musket became less important.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 20
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 6th April 2010
I haven't got access to the book at the moment but one of the people featured in "Heroes and others" (ISBN 1898416745). He passed intelligence to the British but the officers in charge did not listen to his repeated warnings. The book suggests that the Americans could have been defeated if the British had listened to him.
Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 21
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Wednesday, 7th April 2010
Re: message 18.
Hello AlexanderLiberty,
You might contemplate the possibility that the British were not willing to apply the level of force that would have been necessary to crush the rebellion.
Regards,
PoldertijgerLink to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 22
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 8th April 2010
Even to win the war, Britain would still have had to rethink its future relationships with its future colonies.
Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 23
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Thursday, 8th April 2010
I think the debate about the details of the war do not answer the question. I don't think Britain lost the colonies because they lost the war--most of the time they were winning it.
They lost the colonies because they let a political problem develop into a war. The fact is that the colonies, having been settled for 150 years by that point and governing themselves with little interference through much of that time, were being faced with increasing government from abroad at a time that their natural aspirations and abilities argued for less. That was a political problem that London failed to recognize until it was too late.
Had Britain won the war, it would have been a pyrrhic victory.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 24
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 11th April 2010
Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:18 GMT, in reply to cloudyj in message 19
I think this is a bit of post-revolution myth making聽
Indeed. Use of the rifle was less widespread amongst the Patriots than popular tradition generally has it. Furthermore, although the British and Allies continued to use the smoothbore musket (mainly the Short Land Pattern in the case of the redcoats), they also made much more extensive use of the rifle than many people realise. One in ten light infantrymen were issued with the 1776 Pattern Rifle, special rifle units were formed (most famously Patrick Ferguson's, equipped with his sophisticated breech-loading rifle) and good use was made of Hessian rifle corps - notably that of Hesse-Kassel, which has been described as one of the finest regiments in the War.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 25
Posted by AlexanderLiberty (U14397753) on Friday, 16th April 2010
Hello Poldertijger,
Sorry, I come back you late.
Yes I can contemplate This possibility becouse Whitehall鈥檚 people are used to carrot and stick policy so probably during the conflict they though to not apply the high level of force. In this manner the future new state (US) would have been able to contrast the France and Spanish empires (natural enemies of Britain) in new world.
Regards,
AlexanderLink to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 26
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Saturday, 17th April 2010
Poldertijger.
You might contemplate the possibility that the British were not willing to apply the level of force that would have been necessary to crush the rebellion.聽
This is perfectly true, on top of which, I should imagine the Colonists were amongst the most liberated people in the world!
Further Thomas Gage, the man put in charge in New England fixedly refused to take steps against the Whigs in America at that time. It took a very obvious stockpiling of armaments including canon, before the Government acted at all!
Reasons why the Government lost?
Distance from England 3000 miles.
Refusal to take American Loyalist support seriously.
[ Though there were Tory Volunteers present at the initial fight in April '75 and three Battalions more were raised in Boston during the siege, it took about three years in to the struggle before the Tories were allowed to do anything other than build roads or do guard duties.]
French ,Spanish and other European intervention.
Plus what appears to be UK, Whig intervention. In that the man who supplanted Gage after Bunker's Hill fiasco, Lord Howe, is now accused by modern Historians of allowing Whig Rebels.[Americans] to escape at the Battle for New York! He was a traitor!
Laudian.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 27
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Tuesday, 27th April 2010
Hello Laudian,
You have made me understand that the colonists were able to lay siege to the British in Boston during the early stages of the American Revolution. The situation for the British must have been even worse than I had supposed originally.
Of course, I had heard of the Battle of Bunker Hill, but until your message I had no idea of its significance. It is rather interesting to know that Bunker Hill is part of Boston now.
Regards,
PoldertijgerLink to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
-
Message 28
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Thursday, 29th April 2010
Poldertijger.
You have made me understand that the colonists were able to lay siege to the British in Boston during the early stages of the American Revolution. The situation for the British must have been even worse than I had supposed originally.
Of course, I had heard of the Battle of Bunker Hill, but until your message I had no idea of its significance. It is rather interesting to know that Bunker Hill is part of Boston now. 聽
Am in some trouble getting about at the moment! When my mobiity improves I will give you the name of author of the History, containing the ideas about General Howe's behaviour during the Revolution! I have looked for it already, but ouldn't find it, however,later, I'll try again!
Laudian.Link to this forum: Why Britain really lost the 13 colonies?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.