Well, when the Brits left you lot decided to expand west, something the Brits forbade and you decimated the Natives...but then can we talk? Look what we did to the Aborigines!
The topic of this thread is the american revolution. Manifest destiny came after the war. yes the want to go west played a role in the lead up to the war. anyway, the americans should never have won this conflict. The brits outgunned, outmanned and out everythinged. the brits underestimated the resolve and tenacity of the colonists. the brits lost the war, the americans did not win it.
The British were under resourced, under financed, badly led and there wasn't really any interest in the war, still less in paying for it. There was no mighty, invulnerable war machine that was beaten- and furthermore, you can't possibly win wars like that by number of muskets, and we knew that full well from the way we ruled India. You win over enough the local rulers or you are out, and as soon as more local bigwigs were interested in going solo than in staying in, then not ten times as many troops would have made any difference. Truth is, the Americans couldn't realistically have done anything other than win.
After all, the Revolution was more Civil War than a war against the Brits.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on May 2nd, 2006 at 04:45 PM
The official movemetn came later, yes. But I was referring to the general roots of the movement (that you mentioned)and i was reffering to Gav's comment, I wasn't trying to derial the thread. Sorry if you thought that.
I think there might have been the idea at first that if we sent out some troops, more people would prove loyalist than Republican.
But when that very quickly became not the case, popularity and confidence in an armed resolution plummeted. It was a very unpopular war indeed and there was no serious hope of victory. Well, no hope of victory due to British intervention anyway, looking at it as a Civil War.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
I only really started getting into the American Revolution after I saw The Patriot.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I meant that had the British not lost the war the Americans would not have won the war. The British lost fo all the reasons you named, that I will not debate. However, the Brits could have defeated the Americans if they had decided to simply put enough boots on the ground. The Brits should have done a lot better, especially when you think about how well they did with all of those problems considered.
The British could not have won- even if they HAD enough boots on the ground to put there at all, which conjures up a nonsensical idea that tbe British Empire ever had a large army- but more importantly, it wasn't for them to win or lose anyway. It was for the factions in the Colonies themselves to fight and win.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
The Seven Year War was the reason for the taxation on the colonies which was the principal motivation behind the revolution.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Never forget that the American colonists who most verbally and physically supported and fought the war were hardly interested in the rule of government. They were interested in not being taxed out of existence, and more importantly buisness, by the british crown. Don't forget that the Magna Carta was already old news by this point. It's a concept that has hardly changed in the last 300 years. The American Revolution is often touted as a group of like minded people who sought freedom from oppression. That couldn't be further from the truth.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
The British had everything they needed to beat the colonist in almost every category. they had the best navy in the world and their soldiers were better trained when it came to line formations. The british brought enough troops to beat the colonists alone but they didn't have enough to beat both America and France. America had alot of decisive battles that proved crucial even if they have won more battles than the British doesn't mean they would win the war. The British didn't have to bring a huge army to slaughter the colonists, but they brought enough to chip away at their troops just enough to weaken them even through the u.s was winning the battle. The same thing happened to the civil war the south won more battles than the north, but the north outnumbered them by alot and even through both the south and colonists were winning battle after battle, it would come to a point in the war were the numbers will hurt both of them completely and they would lose one huge battle and might prove to the end of the war much like Gettysburg. statistically there was no way the colonists would have won without another country interference. much like ths south fighting the north, but the colonists held their own until the french came with their navy and held a blockade at Yorktown, Virginia.
__________________ Good lord boy! your wearing butt boobies!-Cotton Hill
KMC Community Forums
May 1st, 2006 08:54 PM
