Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahh,

As childish as it sounds (and I must stress I do know a little bit about the War that isn't influenced by vidya games), I've been playing ETW, Civilization IV: Colonization and Battlegrounds 2 for Half-Life 2 and it's gotten me hearing panpipes in my head, drums in my feet and my hands grasping for a good ol' Brown Bess. Coupled with having finished studying Political Ideas for this year and having to read up on liberal theorists, it's got me wishing I could've been a Founding Father!

Playing as the Colonists on Colonization, I have to say I totally feel empathy: That damned dirty King o' England raisin' mah taxes (to 75% in the end, I'm sure THAT happened... oh well), not listenin' to my input... It's gotten me all interested.

I guess I'm making this thread as a point of discussion, hopefully not partisan: I think the US was in the right, but I can't help but feel like slamming my head on the desk over how foolish George III was (when he wasn't being a loon, of course)... Moderate colonists claimed to still profess loyalty and yet he branded 'em all traitors after Concord and Lexington.

What I want to ask is:
-How do Dakkaites feel about this war?
-Was independence inevitable?
-Are our perceptions of American revolutionaries as liberal radicals like the Founding Fathers flawed? Were most Americans either neutral or simply resigned to independence as the last course of action? How desirable was independence before George III acted like a tit?

Best essay wins a Tricorne hat.

Henners91 wrote:
-How do Dakkaites feel about this war?

Synonymous with US experiences in Vietnam, winning the battles losing the war.

Henners91 wrote:
-Was independence inevitable?

No it wasnt, the whole mess was badly handled and there was a lot of loyalist feeling shouted down by the independence movement. Sure you could have a vote and freedom of speech, so long as you say what we like. Sounds familiar. There is a lot of spin on the early leadership of the US Independence movement. Had it been as big a movement as later history claims we would have lost all the colonies and there would be no Canada. Canada didnt exist because we had the troops, but because we could find citizens to man it. The only big mistake there was to allow the border to continue on a fixed latitude in the peace tereaty. The map should have been drawn on a diagonal, giving the Canucks somewhere decent to expand into climatically. At the time much of the US interior was Terra incognita or ruled by Spain. The western border should have been drawn from Lake Michigan to the northern tip of California, it likely would have been acceptible too. But a straight flat line was easier and the dumbarses took it.

Henners91 wrote:
-Are our perceptions of American revolutionaries as liberal radicals like the Founding Fathers flawed? Were most Americans either neutral or simply resigned to independence as the last course of action? How desirable was independence before George III acted like a tit?

George III was a good monarch but he lost it twice duiring his reign. This has now been isolated as a perfectly avoidable mental illness brough on by a peronal physical reaction to zinc-arsenic. Zinc-arsenic was used in powdered form to whiten wigs. Literally he was poisoned by fashion. This is why when he was away from court he would recover, beause he would not dress up, go back to court and he would go loopy again. Of course it required late 20th century forensic medicine to work all this out , a bit too late really.
George II was a popular monarch and had be remained level minded during the critical early years of the crisis he could well have won over the colonists. Being off his tee too much was delegated to people who took advantage of their position to feather their own nests.

Personal neutrality was actually by far the norm. This is part of the character of the people who were essentially English. England had its revolution early and the underlying principles remained. In the Civil War mush of ther military force was centered on the 'club men'. Local associations that refused to pick a side but would shoot any faction that came close. This mentality suited the Founding fathers fine, they could remain neutral and find one day they are not in a colony but a state. If they didn't have a vocal opinion before they wouldn't mind much later. This proved correct.

At least we got to burn Washington. Made us feel a whole lot better, good stess relief that was.

Ah but we didn't burn Washington until 1812

But wouldn't you say things turned out for the best really? I don't think colonial dominion over the USA would've been a good thing in the long-run, for the Americans that is.

I think most people would agree with you and empathise with the colonials.

I always thought that the war (this is history class in school!) was essentially thought of as a "civil" war, as many of the colonials were still fiercely patriotic to the crown, i forget who it was.. (long time since school) but one of the top dogs (Washington?) own son never spoke to him again after the war, as he was so loyal to the UK, and a great many British people sided with the Americans too.

The best thing is, other Brits beat the Brits, cos they were all descendants, so its not so bad really.. its not like losing to the French of something.

I basically think that the King was a fething wacko. I guess i would side with the colonials as well.

The UK had the best soldiers around though, they were bad ass tough as nails stiff upper lip type blokes.. the war of 1812 and the war for independance where the only two wars the Americans have been in where they have sustained more casualties than they have inflicted. I forget where i read that too... it was an American website a guy showed me in Iraq and it had all American casualties in war since the war for independance. State department or something...

Vietnam for example they lost 66,000 men IIRC, and killed 2 million! But still lost.. You cant kill an idea.. and i think the Brits at the time should have known it.

I think it was pretty much unwinnable considering the time, the distance, and all the other fethers the Brits were fighting.. The King shudda been less of a dick in a nutshell!

I always thought the British lost more? Or maybe I am just thinking every battle was like Bunker Hill.

And surely we did sort of lose to the French? Battle of Chekaspeare Bay for example: Led right to Yorktown.

Henners91 wrote:Ah but we didn't burn Washington until 1812

Good times, Good times

WE kicked them british ass.

I will start by saying that the basic premise is flawed. "Taxation without representation" still exists because 15 millions of Californians are still only represented by 2 senators, while 750,000 Wyoming residents also get 2 senators. That's a lot more voting power.

I do believe independance was inevitable because of distance. The war started by upstarts with their own idea on making their own destiny was doomed to fail because it was just too costly for the English to bother to fight. Back in the day, moving accross the ocean was a pretty hefty task, and after a while of fighting, the English gave up because it was simply not worth fighting over. They could have sent over more and more trained soldiers but to what purpose? The colonies weren't really worth it to them at the time. The Atlantic ocean is a big place to cross and attack and defend and such in an arguement about tea tax over a few outlying colonies. Sure the brits funded their origional endeavor but sooner or later it would be inevitable that the locals would just want to do their own thing.

Was it wrong for the Brits to attempt to maintain their rule? Absolutely not. It was, like all colonial endeavors, an attempt to make good on their investment. They funded the colonizing of United Statesia, and they expect the return on their investment. When it was clear that (given the technology of the time) it was impossible to realistically make this happen, they just stepped out and said "fine, have it, whatever", and went off to colonize other places instead.

Despite all the patriotism here, I think that if Britain wanted to carry on the fight and continue pushing resources into such a pointless quagmire they would have stomped the revolutionaries in a long dragged out war. Too bad the United Statesians didn't learn from example a couple hundred years later when they did the same thing in vietnam... but rather than backing off from a pointless war that they could win, just didn't because of public outcry of "WHAT IS THE POINT?!" , kept going and going and going.

I believe the brits were smart to just leave it alone. United Statesians are all proud of the whole "we kicked their asses" thing, but hey that's the way United Statesians are. Closer to the truth to say, from the British point of view: "We just can't be bothered any more" and turned their attention to more pressing matters. The brits had bigger fish to fry at the time.

I think independence was more or less inevitable. The founding fathers, like the modern tea party, used the word tyranny pretty much to mean "any government at all." By the 1770's, there was not only a large middle class in the colonies (yeomen farmers and craftsmen), but a large and powerful upper class that was starting to get pushed around by London.

The colonies had essentially self governing for generations, and having that control taken away, especially in light of what the colonists saw as their participation in the French and Indian war (the Seven years war to the British) was unacceptable.

It's possible that the colonies would have accepted seats in parliament and participation in government while remaining loyal, but that seems unlikely on both ends.

What happened in the AWI was a conflux of two powerful forces: the tightening of control over the British Empire, and a rising, distinctly American consciousness. Those two weren't going to coexist for long.

Grambo wrote:WE kicked them british ass.

Wood elves?

YOU didnt do jack gak.

Are you in the US special forces or something? The way you mouth off you cant be, cos they have more sense than you.

Your a typical civilian, trying to take credit from your betters. George Washington kicked some British ass. But your not him, and his family was British, from England.

YOU didnt do anything in WW2 either.

YOU just sit on the internet and mouth off about other peoples achievments.

Good job on that though, your awesome at it.

Henners91 wrote:I always thought the British lost more? Or maybe I am just thinking every battle was like Bunker Hill.

And surely we did sort of lose to the French? Battle of Chekaspeare Bay for example: Led right to Yorktown.

It depends a lot on what figures you use, and what you include. There really aren't accurate figures for the loyalists or the British Regulars, according to wikipedia. Also, far more patriots (the standard term used to describe colonists fighting for independence) died in british prison ships than on the battlefield.

What I do know, IIRC, is that Yorktown was the largest surrender in British history until Singapore in WWII, while I think Charleston is still the single largest surrender of American troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Your a typical civilian, trying to take credit from your betters. George Washington kicked some British ass. But your not him, and his family was British, from England.

A big part of the American national identity is that it was regular civilians that fought, and won, against the best professional army in the world. Washington was an able field general (better than his record shows, and his record ain't shabby), but the army was built from normal guys that stood and fought.

This was such a powerful idea that the US had one of the smallest per capita armies until the 1930's. We simply thought we could turn out enough milita to win any war.

Polonius wrote:
A big part of the American national identity is that it was regular civilians that fought, and won, against the best professional army in the world. Washington was an able field general (better than his record shows, and his record ain't shabby), but the army was built from normal guys that stood and fought.

This was such a powerful idea that the US had one of the smallest per capita armies until the 1930's. We simply thought we could turn out enough milita to win any war.

Im aware of that mate, my point is unrelated, im merely saying that being a soldier myself ive never been a fan of the royal "we" thanks to all the mouthy Brits and Americans who love to gob off about the war.

I served in the military, i went to the middle east 4 times. I dont like it when some spotty British student gobs off about it when they didnt actually do anything.

I dont think WE won WW2. I didnt do anything, The Battle of Britain was feth all to do with me, it was some old blokes i never had the fortune to meet.

Young Brits and Americans have lots in common, and number 1 seems to be mouthing off about wars that they never actually had anything to do with.

I find it geuinelly embarrasing.

Guitardian wrote:I will start by saying that the basic premise is flawed. "Taxation without representation" still exists because 15 millions of Californians are still only represented by 2 senators, while 750,000 Wyoming residents also get 2 senators. That's a lot more voting power.

I'd point out that the House of Representatives *is* proportional and the Senate is simply supposed to balance out the rule of the majority, but that's a discussion for another time I guess.

Polonius wrote:
What I do know, IIRC, is that Yorktown was the largest surrender in British history until Singapore in WWII, while I think Charleston is still the single largest surrender of American troops.

I think the Battle of the Bulge saw the biggest US military surrender in history.

Polonius wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Your a typical civilian, trying to take credit from your betters. George Washington kicked some British ass. But your not him, and his family was British, from England.

A big part of the American national identity is that it was regular civilians that fought, and won, against the best professional army in the world. Washington was an able field general (better than his record shows, and his record ain't shabby), but the army was built from normal guys that stood and fought.

This was such a powerful idea that the US had one of the smallest per capita armies until the 1930's. We simply thought we could turn out enough milita to win any war.

I kind of agree with mattyrm's point (though I would have phrased it a tad more diplomatically): We can't take credit for the achievements of our ancestors. Even if they were from similar backgrounds as us. Honour them, maybe, but it's silly to take pride from it.

mattyrm wrote:
Your a typical civilian, trying to take credit from your betters. George Washington kicked some British ass. But your not him, and his family was British, from England.

Its like the old comments on whether the Norman Conquest was a glitch in our reputation unconquerable hardcore badarsery. However if they were not us they wouldnt have managed it, but they were us so they, or should I say we did. George Washington, a jolly Englishman who followed a fine traition and went abroad and took it over. The fact that he took it from others of us and called himself a Yank of all things we can forgive him for. Its the achievement that matters. Imagine the mess if he had been French, good grief.

Henners91 wrote:Ah but we didn't burn Washington until 1812

But wouldn't you say things turned out for the best really? I don't think colonial dominion over the USA would've been a good thing in the long-run, for the Americans that is.

Worked out not bad for us Canucks.

mattyrm wrote:

Polonius wrote:
A big part of the American national identity is that it was regular civilians that fought, and won, against the best professional army in the world. Washington was an able field general (better than his record shows, and his record ain't shabby), but the army was built from normal guys that stood and fought.

This was such a powerful idea that the US had one of the smallest per capita armies until the 1930's. We simply thought we could turn out enough milita to win any war.

Im aware of that mate, my point is unrelated, im merely saying that being a soldier myself ive never been a fan of the royal "we" thanks to all the mouthy Brits and Americans who love to gob off about the war.

I served in the military, i went to the middle east 4 times. I dont like it when some spotty British student gobs off about it when they didnt actually do anything.

You'll just have to get over these feelings of shame and anger. It has nothing to do with the military and everything to do with human nature. This line of thinking is done in far more areas. Haven't you ever heard someone say "we won!" when their favorite sports team wins a game?

mattyrm wrote:Im aware of that mate, my point is unrelated, im merely saying that being a soldier myself ive never been a fan of the royal "we" thanks to all the mouthy Brits and Americans who love to gob off about the war.

I served in the military, i went to the middle east 4 times. I dont like it when some spotty British student gobs off about it when they didnt actually do anything.

I dont think WE won WW2. I didnt do anything, The Battle of Britain was feth all to do with me, it was some old blokes i never had the fortune to meet.

Young Brits and Americans have lots in common, and number 1 seems to be mouthing off about wars that they never actually had anything to do with.

I find it geuinelly embarrasing.

I don't disagree, and I try to avoid such speech myself, I'm just trying to explain why American's can often speak that way. The whole point is that we see our biggest victories gained, not by professional soldiers like yourself, but by the citizen soldier that rises up when needed. When we use the "we", it's because we see more in common with them than with you.

And anyway, being a Brit or yank is like being a fan of the Man united or the Yankees: you win a lot, and you feel a part of it even if you didn't do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:

Polonius wrote:
What I do know, IIRC, is that Yorktown was the largest surrender in British history until Singapore in WWII, while I think Charleston is still the single largest surrender of American troops.

I think the Battle of the Bulge saw the biggest US military surrender in history.

We both lose. It was actually at Bataan. 15,000 American's surrendered, compared to 5k at Charleston.

Polonius wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Im aware of that mate, my point is unrelated, im merely saying that being a soldier myself ive never been a fan of the royal "we" thanks to all the mouthy Brits and Americans who love to gob off about the war.

I served in the military, i went to the middle east 4 times. I dont like it when some spotty British student gobs off about it when they didnt actually do anything.

I dont think WE won WW2. I didnt do anything, The Battle of Britain was feth all to do with me, it was some old blokes i never had the fortune to meet.

Young Brits and Americans have lots in common, and number 1 seems to be mouthing off about wars that they never actually had anything to do with.

I find it geuinelly embarrasing.

I don't disagree, and I try to avoid such speech myself, I'm just trying to explain why American's can often speak that way. The whole point is that we see our biggest victories gained, not by professional soldiers like yourself, but by the citizen soldier that rises up when needed. When we use the "we", it's because we see more in common with them than with you.

And anyway, being a Brit or yank is like being a fan of the Man united or the Yankees: you win a lot, and you feel a part of it even if you didn't do anything.

I think there are several different cultures at work here. Traditionally the 'we' did this is taken in polite society on the colloquial grounds that a gentleman is one of 'us'. Its a cultural thing and muy prior post is held entirely in that light, standard British stiff upper lip bravado normally addressed internally rather than at foreigners. Matty would have experienced that a lot in the armed forces, but more amongst the officers. So when Washington kicked our vwehinds out of America colloquially speaking, we laugh it off because he could because he was himself an Englishman. Its the standard class based in joke to handling troublesome historical facts regarding America.

It is a world of difference between that and the chav commentary of 'we kicked 'your' arses in the war etc , which is a wholy different type jingoism and directed externally. Yes most US based bravado is the same sort of thing we have a way with that too:

"If it wasn't for us, y'all be speaking German."
"No my good chap, if it wasn't for you we would all be speaking English."

Henners91 wrote:

Polonius wrote:
What I do know, IIRC, is that Yorktown was the largest surrender in British history until Singapore in WWII, while I think Charleston is still the single largest surrender of American troops.
I think the Battle of the Bulge saw the biggest US military surrender in history.

We both lose. It was actually at Bataan. 15,000 American's surrendered, compared to 5k at Charleston.

<cough> Singapore <cough>
General Percival threw away 300,000 Uk and Commonwealth troops, and few of those survived imprisonment by ther Japanese.

efarrer wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Ah but we didn't burn Washington until 1812

But wouldn't you say things turned out for the best really? I don't think colonial dominion over the USA would've been a good thing in the long-run, for the Americans that is.

Worked out not bad for us Canucks.

I guess not, but I'd assume the US wouldn't be a superpower: I attribute all of that to its spirit of immigration, freedom, etc.

Henners91 wrote:
I guess not, but I'd assume the US wouldn't be a superpower: I attribute all of that to its spirit of immigration, freedom, etc.

And the fact that we grabbed nearly an entire continent sized piece of the best land in the world, with nearly every conceivable resource readily available. I think we've done with with it, but we have simply amazing natural resources.

Even in the colonial period, simply having old growth trees left meant we were a ship building power. Later it moved to cotton, than corn, then oil and manufactured goods.

mattyrm wrote:

Grambo wrote:WE kicked them british ass.

Wood elves?

YOU didnt do jack gak.

Are you in the US special forces or something? The way you mouth off you cant be, cos they have more sense than you.

Your a typical civilian, trying to take credit from your betters. George Washington kicked some British ass. But your not him, and his family was British, from England.

YOU didnt do anything in WW2 either.

YOU just sit on the internet and mouth off about other peoples achievments.

Good job on that though, your awesome at it.

Made this half of my day.

sA

Orlanth wrote:General Percival threw away 300,000 Uk and Commonwealth troops, and few of those survived imprisonment by ther Japanese.

You can't judge him so severely; how was he to know what lay in store with them? With hindsight one might recommend fighting to the death, but that's exactly it: We have hindsight.

As for this whole rhetoric about George Washington doing what he did because he was English... I'd attribute that to an English education and service perhaps, but not his ethnicity... not that that was what you were getting at, I just felt that you ran the risk of implying an Englishman is the natural better of a Frenchman.

Perhaps the War showed that wasn't completely the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake

There's a certain irony to claiming Washington as a peer of the British upper class, in that if they had extended him that courtesy in 1770, odds are he'd have been a loyalist.

Henners91 wrote:

Orlanth wrote:General Percival threw away 300,000 Uk and Commonwealth troops, and few of those survived imprisonment by ther Japanese.

You can't judge him so severely; how was he to know what lay in store with them? With hindsight one might recommend fighting to the death, but that's exactly it: We have hindsight.

Random OT question:

What about Haig? The Somme?

sA

smiling Assassin wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

Orlanth wrote:General Percival threw away 300,000 Uk and Commonwealth troops, and few of those survived imprisonment by ther Japanese.

You can't judge him so severely; how was he to know what lay in store with them? With hindsight one might recommend fighting to the death, but that's exactly it: We have hindsight.

Random OT question:

What about Haig? The Somme?

sA

They didn't surrender.

No but the use of lives like sledgehammers?

sA

Well, I think when it comes to surrendering, there are some instances where people with hindsight would consider it preferable that the army fought on to a man rather than surrendered for nothing. That's probably what angers people about the surrender of Singapore.

As for the War of Independence, well, I guess that's a justified surrender.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What actually happened to Cornwallis and his army?

Henners91 wrote:
What actually happened to Cornwallis and his army?

Havent you been listening to Grambo? Cornwallis didnt take enough dispel scrolls, so while dryads held up the infantry column Minutemen were able to treesurf into the artillery train and destroy the guns. Fething cheesy list that was, glad it got nerfed in the next codex.