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.

The French and Indian War begs to differ.

The war caused France to lose territory in the North American continent(namely Quebec). This meant that France could not land on the east coast due to the fact that it was all under English control. This would delay the arrival of French troops in North America(as they would have to go to the Gulf of Mexico or Mexico itself) and allow the English forces easier arrival(seeing as though all of the ports on the east coast were friendly). France still had territory in the continent and a fur trade as well, but would be unable to readily reinforce it should another colonial war break out.

The French and Indian War also gave colonial soldiers experience in fighting the French. These same soldiers proved useful in the Revolutionary War for the colonists.

Now back to my point of France defending land.

France was most likely going to give support, if the colonists lost it made England mad but the English didn't like the French anyways. If the colonists won then it would hurt England and help them. America was a fledgling country and while their navy was a joke, their land forces were experienced after two wars(French/Indian and Revolutionary) and also knew the land.

I will cite the War of 1812 where the English used Canada as a staging area, and the preceding events to show a relationship with France. England blockaded the Atlantic coast because America was trading with France while Napoleon was warring against the English.

So after the Revolutionary War, I would feel safe to say that America had a tight relationship with France compared to the English. So while the Colonial Army may have been able to take the land they would need to be ordered by the government of the time, a government that enjoyed France's friendship.

France had to worry about the ownership of the colonies, if the British owned the entire Atlantic coastline then it would take longer for French trade ships to deliver goods and it would also take longer to deliver troops or supplies if the English felt it was necessary to use the colonists to take French territory. Yes, England owned a large tract of land and yes it would end that control, but there is more to it than just that.

halonachos wrote:The French and Indian War begs to differ.

The war caused France to lose territory in the North American continent(namely Quebec). This meant that France could not land on the east coast due to the fact that it was all under English control. This would delay the arrival of French troops in North America(as they would have to go to the Gulf of Mexico or Mexico itself) and allow the English forces easier arrival(seeing as though all of the ports on the east coast were friendly). France still had territory in the continent and a fur trade as well, but would be unable to readily reinforce it should another colonial war break out.

Yes, the French lost territory during the French-Indian War. That's not relevant to my point that, at the time of the American Revolution, no French territory was under threat.

halonachos wrote:
France was most likely going to give support, if the colonists lost it made England mad but the English didn't like the French anyways. If the colonists won then it would hurt England and help them. America was a fledgling country and while their navy was a joke, their land forces were experienced after two wars(French/Indian and Revolutionary) and also knew the land.

No, their land forces were also a joke. Its not like the Americans drove the British into the sea, though lots of people like to pretend otherwise.

halonachos wrote:
So after the Revolutionary War, I would feel safe to say that America had a tight relationship with France compared to the English.

No, that's false. The American relationship with England, while contentious, was still very close due to the commercial ties in question

This is where I bow out of this, your grasp of history is God awful, and I have no interest in educating someone that is less knowledgeable than the average Freshman that I tutor.

halonachos wrote:Which means the Libyan war cannot be compared to the Revolutionary war.

Yeah, which is what I said. I'm finding it very strange that you're now complaining about loose comparisons, when you spent so long trying to defend your own very loose comparison.

If it was just a case of you throwing out this idea about Libya being some kind of new Vietnam due to France's involvement, then couldn't you have just admitted it wasn't a great comparison three pages ago, and saved us all a lot of bother?

sebster wrote:If it was just a case of you throwing out this idea about Libya being some kind of new Vietnam due to France's involvement, then couldn't you have just admitted it wasn't a great comparison three pages ago, and saved us all a lot of bother?

Pretty much.