American Revolution

I'm interested in who you guys think deserved to win the American Revolution: the colonists, or the British? We all know that the colonists DID win, but should they have?

Here are some of the facts:

We (Britain and the colonies) had just emerged from the French-Indian War. Ironically, the start of this war is largely contributed to none other than our first president: George Washington. Anyways, this victory over the French officially made Britain the most powerful country in the world. To pay for the war, Britain set up large taxes for the colonies. The colonies, of course, didn't like this and had no problem ignoring them, as Britain was several months travel away. The colonies would boycott one tax, Britain would submit, but then they'd add another. This cycle continued and eventually the colonists got sick of it.

Well, a few uproars occurred, one of the most famous being the Boston Tea Party. The King was outraged by this act of terrorism and shut down Boston Harbor. From then on, he ignored all complaints from the colonies and basically brought the hammer down. After much debate among the people, the Declaration of Independence was written and signed. This wasn't the start of the war, and certainly wasn't the end of it, but it was when the colonies became what we call United States.

The British army was the best of the best. They had more experience than the colonial army, more men, and better weapons. How could they loose? Well, they couldn't when faced man-to-man as most wars were fought. The British treated war much like a game, but the colonists didn't played by their rules. Colonial militias utilized Guerrilla warfare to compensate for their lack of men. Eventually the British caught on, but by then the horrible communication between the army in America and the King back in Europe had taken its toll.

Also keep in mind that the colonies really had nothing to loose. For Britain to win, what did they have to do? They had to kill every living being who opposed British rule. Not exactly an easy task. The colonies, however, simply had to wear down Britain's citizens back on the home land. No war becomes popular over time (quite the opposite), and the colonies could use this to their advantage. All they had to do was survive.

So, those are some of the facts, but obviously not all of them. Given the above (and whatever else you have to add), who do you think should have won?

the british army was unwilling to adapt to new styles of combat and lost


the victor deserved to win... I can't really think of any war in history where the nation who deserved to win did not win.

um, world war 2


stupid krazy

.....Wasn't this the war where the British were wearing those bright red outfits with the white X on their chest, while fighting in a jungle?

AJ, not quite a jungle...


but it didn't matter since they had no accurate weapons

KristallNacht wrote:um, world war 2


stupid krazy

oh yes... because the country who was dumb enough to start wars on both of its fronts and take tactical descisions from a charismatic person with the tactical sense of a monkey deserved to win their part of the war

no i meant ethically, they should have won.

I actually did my History research paper on the subject. The title was "An Unjust War" or something like that. Essentially, the colonists were a bunch of bitches, whining and complaining about every little thing, and then they started a stupid war, lots of people died, and Britain eventually decided that it wasn't worth their time. Am I happy we won? Well, yes, I like America. Should we have won? Definitely not. The justifications for the war were complete bullshit.

Ascendant Justice wrote:.....Wasn't this the war where the British were wearing those bright red outfits with the white X on their chest, while fighting in a jungle?

Marching down sunny, visible roads, singing the British National Anthem, which went something like
"Shoot me, shoot me, I'm standing here right now."

For more information, please consult Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species".

KrAzY wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:um, world war 2


stupid krazy

oh yes... because the country who was dumb enough to start wars on both of its fronts and take tactical descisions from a charismatic person with the tactical sense of a monkey deserved to win their part of the war

No...
Because the country strong enough to beat Britannia into a pulp, overrun Africa, and come within a hair's breadth of beating Moscow ought to have won. Unfortunately, bad timing, poor materials/research allocation, military infighting, and the worst Russian winter in 134 years were working against them.

Not to mention that Hitler was driven to paranoiac insanity by the ceaseless plotting against him.

Rotaretilbo wrote:I actually did my History research paper on the subject. The title was "An Unjust War" or something like that. Essentially, the colonists were a bunch of bitches, whining and complaining about every little thing, and then they started a stupid war, lots of people died, and Britain eventually decided that it wasn't worth their time. Am I happy we won? Well, yes, I like America. Should we have won? Definitely not. The justifications for the war were complete bullshit.

Sigh...
You do understand the concepts of Colonialism, right?

The Seven Years war benefited nobody on this continent, and we had to pay, even though we did the bulk of the fighting.
The British saw fit to levy unjust taxes on us, to keep a company afloat when it was going to die anyways. We had no say in the matter, even though we were descended from loyal British citizens and were loyal British subjects to begin with.

Not to mention that we sought peace. Remember the Olive Branch Petition?
Mad King George wanted war, and he got more than he could stomach. Personally, I think that if Britain wasn't lead by a possibly porphyritic king, then the war wouldn't have happened.

Well, I seriously don't know.
I have no idea about American History, all I know is that there were to political parties (Conservatives and liberals I believe) that were completely opposing each other for things like Slaves, racism, and someother rights and then things got violent.
So, is the American Revolution what Caused, or followed the Civil War? I don't know much, as I already said.

colonies should of won...

sargentbilco wrote:colonies should of won...

They did.....

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Sigh...
You do understand the concepts of Colonialism, right?

The Seven Years war benefited nobody on this continent, and we had to pay, even though we did the bulk of the fighting.
The British saw fit to levy unjust taxes on us, to keep a company afloat when it was going to die anyways. We had no say in the matter, even though we were descended from loyal British citizens and were loyal British subjects to begin with.

Not to mention that we sought peace. Remember the Olive Branch Petition?
Mad King George wanted war, and he got more than he could stomach. Personally, I think that if Britain wasn't lead by a possibly porphyritic king, then the war wouldn't have happened.

For more information on the causes of the revolution, see Common Sense (written by Thomas Paine) or the Declaration of Independence (written by the Continental Congress).

the ability and higher probability of winning =/= deserving of winning


if you make poor choices with your power and end up getting screwed as a result... you did not deserve to win in the first place.

Death no more wrote:

sargentbilco wrote:colonies should of won...

They did.....

never said they didnt thick shit

Ukurse wrote:Well, I seriously don't know.
I have no idea about American History, all I know is that there were to political parties (Conservatives and liberals I believe) that were completely opposing each other for things like Slaves, racism, and someother rights and then things got violent.
So, is the American Revolution what Caused, or followed the Civil War? I don't know much, as I already said.

Dude.. thats... thats just sad. Even the foreign exchange students know which came first.

In a sense, the American Revolution caused the Civil War since it made the United States(for the US to have a civil war, it has to be its own fucking country to begin with; thats a big clue to the order of events right there).

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Sigh...
You do understand the concepts of Colonialism, right?

The Seven Years war benefited nobody on this continent, and we had to pay, even though we did the bulk of the fighting.

The British did plenty of fighting, and without them, the French and Native Americans would have caused the Colonies a lot of hurting.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:The British saw fit to levy unjust taxes on us, to keep a company afloat when it was going to die anyways. We had no say in the matter, even though we were descended from loyal British citizens and were loyal British subjects to begin with.

Actually, most of the taxes that we took issue with were not a levying of taxes, but a reduction of taxes and then an enforcement of them. The Colonists hadn't been paying their taxes for years. The British thought that perhaps if they reduced the taxes on things like tea, we'd stop smuggling Hollish shit and start drinking real tea. Things didn't start getting "unjust" until the British had to declare martial law in Boston.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Not to mention that we sought peace. Remember the Olive Branch Petition?
Mad King George wanted war, and he got more than he could stomach. Personally, I think that if Britain wasn't lead by a possibly porphyritic king, then the war wouldn't have happened.

I wouldn't call tarring and feathering British officials or the Boston Tea Party an olive branch. The last thing Sam Adams and his gang wanted was equal representation in British Parliment, because he knew that we'd get outvoted every time anyway, and so it wouldn't matter. Thus, they went about things as voilently and destructive as possible. Mad King George wasn't the only person that wanted war.

True, Samuel Adams was a warmongerer, but much of the Colonials wanted peace, especially in the Continental Congress. If the Brits had attempted to fight Adam's people, as opposed to declaring martial law on the entire continent, then the war could have turned out very different.

As for the French and Indian war, the benefit to the colonies was pretty low. If I remember correctly, once the Indians were pushed out, the colonists weren't allowed to expand west of the Appalachians, which was one of the main sticking points.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:True, Samuel Adams was a warmongerer, but much of the Colonials wanted peace, especially in the Continental Congress. If the Brits had attempted to fight Adam's people, as opposed to declaring martial law on the entire continent, then the war could have turned out very different.

But they didn't declare martial law on the entire continent. They only declared martial law in Boston, because Mr. Admas and company had seriously gotten out of hand, and the Bostonians were supporting him.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:As for the French and Indian war, the benefit to the colonies was pretty low. If I remember correctly, once the Indians were pushed out, the colonists weren't allowed to expand west of the Appalachians, which was one of the main sticking points.

That's because we started to expand west, and there were a series of small but costly Native American uprisings. The British were basically saying "don't expand any further west, or you'll piss off the Natives to no end." The Appalachian line was basically the boundaries of a really really big Native American Reserve that didn't involve forced much migration.

They decided not to adapt to America's strategies, and blew up.

Also, while I will admit that it seems silly at first, the idea of wearing red coast with big X's on them really isn't all that silly. You see, if you think it's silly, you fail to realize to key factors:

A) Revolutionary guns, especially the smooth bore rifles the Colonists had, fail at aiming bad. Like, really bad. Like, I'm willing to bet the expression "couldn't hit the broadside of a barn" came from these rifles. Effectively, armies would line up and shoot at each other until casualties reached, say, 10% of the overall army, or someone got bored, and then they'd leave. That's why WW1 was like "OMFG!" because people like, died and shit. Before that, people didn't die nearly as much during war.

B) The rifles and pistols used during the Revolution were flint-lock. That is to say, every time you fired, you got a big old cloud of smoke out of your gun. Considering that your accuracy was maybe 5% when aimed dead on at 20 meters, you fired A LOT. Thus, often times, battles would become completely covered in gun smoke. Bright uniforms thus helped minimize friendly fire. The Brits were read, so the Brits didn't shoot red. The French were...blue, I think? Hell if I remember.

The main difficulty the British had in the Revolution was that the Colonists just kept running. I mean, for Christ's sake, the French were servicing as officers! Of course we were running with our tail between our legs! The British just got sick and fucking tired of cat and mouse, and decided it just wasn't worth the monetary cost of funding a war.

Rot wrote:Of course we were running with our tail between our legs! The British just got sick and fucking tired of cat and mouse, and decided it just wasn't worth the monetary cost of funding a war.

The British didn't give up merely because they didn't feel like paying the monetary cost of the war. You have to remember that at this point, they were also at war with France. Their choice was essentially to either focus all of their resources on the revolution, and experience uncertain results in America, all the while losing control of their other colonies, or to withdraw from America and focus on keeping the French from taking their colonies in India, the Pacific... ect.

They didn't really have much of a choice.

KristallNacht wrote:

LOL so true...

Whereas the guns back then were truly inaccurate, the colonial guns were more accurate because they were intended for hunting.

And yeah, I know that the red uniforms made sense for European style battles, but in forests and swamps (where we were fighting) they were more of a liability.