138SquadronRAF | 10 May 2016 1:07 p.m. PST |
The banner says it all. The analysis is here: link As an economist and in the light of the situation in the 1780s it makes a compelling case. |
Ivan DBA | 10 May 2016 1:45 p.m. PST |
Typical provocative title and exaggerated claims. As the article itself admits: "the British only lost the 13 colonies to independence and Florida and Minorca to the Spanish.". "Only" indeed… The author absolutely makes a good point that the British risked losing far more in the global conflict with the French, Spanish, and Dutch. And he is right to say that the result was not nearly as bad as it could have been. But to say that the British "won" is ridiculous. |
Yellow Admiral | 10 May 2016 2:00 p.m. PST |
I think it's fair to call the war an overall British victory. It only cost the empire a leg, an arm, and an eye… :-) That article is a nice, brief synopsis with a lot of good points. My only quibble is with that title, which takes advantage of poor naming and heavily propagandized history to grab your attention. My personal opinion is that "The Revolutionary War" and/or "American War of Independence" should be reserved for the conflict between Britain and it's seceding North American colonists, and the global war should have its own name. One compromise I've seen in print is to call the global war "The War of the American Revolution", which is still a bit of a muddle. Wikipedia has an entry calling it the Anglo-French War (1778–83), which is a better title, but not in general use AFAICT. Also, there were so many Anglo-French conflicts, you can't really take the dates out of the name, and they do make pronunciation awkward. (Somewhat bizarrely, this Wikipedia entry makes no mention I can find of the failed Franco-Spanish invasion of the British Isles, a clear crisis that had many in Britain panicked. Why is that crisis so underreported in history?) Maybe we should start calling the war something like "King Louis' War", or "The Bourbon Colonial War", or "The Anglo-Bourbon War" to suggest the right scope and give it some unique flair. What do the French and Spanish call this war? - Ix |
Ironwolf | 10 May 2016 2:25 p.m. PST |
Good question, what do the French and Spanish call the AWI??? |
ColCampbell | 10 May 2016 2:49 p.m. PST |
The author of Peninsular Preparation, Richard Glover, which I am currently reading, calls the American Revolution (or American War of Independence) the "American and Bourbon War of 1775-83." I've never read it referred to taht way. Jim |
raylev3 | 10 May 2016 3:04 p.m. PST |
The reality is that is was American grand strategy to bring the French into the war. Franklin lived in Paris working on this issue, and it was the American victory at Saratoga that showed the French the Americans could win. And it worked well, it was a French fleet that bottled up Yorktown and caused Cornwallis' surrender. Overall, hardly a British victory. OTOH, think of where the empire would have gone if Britain had won. |
vtsaogames | 10 May 2016 3:12 p.m. PST |
I think everybody but the US lost. Britain could have done much worse, but lost the 13 colonies. France went bankrupt, Spain and Holland spent blood and treasure for very little gain. |
Yellow Admiral | 10 May 2016 3:12 p.m. PST |
As an aside: Wikipedia also calls the Anglo-Dutch part of this conflict the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War. I suppose there's some merit to that, since the war was declared, waged and concluded somewhat independently of the rest of the conflict, but of course it never would have happened without the larger war already under way. Wikipedia is the only place I've encountered that label, but that might say more about my ignorance than historiography. :-) - Ix |
Yellow Admiral | 10 May 2016 3:16 p.m. PST |
Hmmm. I need to expand my AWI collection to include Spanish and more French. There were some very interesting little theaters to refight with them. - Ix |
Rudysnelson | 10 May 2016 3:36 p.m. PST |
Economic revisionist theorists back in college (1970s) were my second least favorite people. Just behind the humanists who felt all wars and actions were caused by societal wants and culture. Doctorial students have to reinvent the wheel in order to justify the research for their degree. Unfortunately a vast majority of the research is slanted, and lacks input from other disciplines to formulate valid positions. In other words it is hogwash. Hmm maybe too generous but I will give them the wash. |
Winston Smith | 10 May 2016 4:29 p.m. PST |
Apparently they did win it. We're still speaking Enhlish. |
vtsaogames | 10 May 2016 5:14 p.m. PST |
This is a really good article. I always wanted a summary of the greater war. Thanks for the link. |
Yellow Admiral | 10 May 2016 6:20 p.m. PST |
We're still speaking Enhlish. But we continue to argue about spelling. :-) I think it's fair to blame the Normans for that…. - Ix |
daler240D | 11 May 2016 2:28 a.m. PST |
sophistry. |
Rapier Miniatures | 11 May 2016 2:58 a.m. PST |
The political reality was simple, what did Britain wish to retain more, the 13 Colonies that were a financial burden or have the French cherry pick the West Indian sugar islands where the money for Empire was being made. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 11 May 2016 3:04 a.m. PST |
The thing is, the US was considered a sideshow at the time… Yes, Britain did win. Overall, it kept all the 'important' colonies and bases while bankrupting the main competition. |
42flanker | 11 May 2016 3:27 a.m. PST |
I think we are usuall better leaving the anal=retentive Linneans of Wikipedia out of the picture. Isn't it true that the European element of the conflict 1775-83 only arose out of the war in America, with Great Britain's rivals diving in to take advantage of the situation? To that extent the global element of the war was subsidiary, in political terms, even though economically there was more at stake in India and the Caribbean and, weighing the loss of the 13 colonies and their retention of the sugar islands, the British were net winners. |
Shardik | 11 May 2016 4:27 a.m. PST |
Many years ago a magazine headline caught my eye "Vietnam – we [the US] really did win the war!". I picked it up and started to read the article and the first paragraph went something like this "the objectives of the war were to establish stability in SE Asia. With Vietnam unified, that has been achieved" and then I stopped reading |
vtsaogames | 11 May 2016 6:48 a.m. PST |
Short tale, Brits lose to US but manage pretty well against the rest. I appreciate the summary of that, even if the headline sounds like a street barker. |
Rudysnelson | 11 May 2016 7:21 a.m. PST |
From what I heard we are speaking English and not German by only 1 or 2 votes in Congress. It may be a myth but I did read a journal article on the Congressional vote on the language issue. It seems some States wanted a total break from English culture and pushed for a vote on the issue. Congress was still one vote per State. |
Supercilius Maximus | 11 May 2016 7:43 a.m. PST |
Rudy – This was a vote on Congressional proceedings being published in German as well as English. There was never a vote to change the language. |
Rudysnelson | 11 May 2016 7:58 a.m. PST |
I thought it might be a myth but i was not positive. |
Silurian | 11 May 2016 12:24 p.m. PST |
"The thing is, the US was considered a sideshow at the time…" I believe you're thinking about the War of 1812. The AWI was far from a sideshow to contemporary Britons. |
Bill N | 11 May 2016 2:00 p.m. PST |
The British did win the AWI…provided you start the clock in 1778 when European countries started enterring the war. The problem with that analysis is the AWI started in 1775. Arguing the British won the AWI because the outcome could have been worse after European countries started joining the conflict is like arguing that Louis XIV won the WSS because the final outcome turned out more favorable than what appeared likely in 1709. |
Old Contemptibles | 11 May 2016 4:02 p.m. PST |
I made a similar argument back in college. Not so much that the Brits won the world war against Frances and her Allies. Which she did. But the British were able to relive themselves of the considerable expense of maintaining the vast American Colonies while still benefiting from the continue trading with the Americans, just as before the war. The icing on the cake was Franklin adeptly shutting out the French of the treaty to end the war. Had the French been a party to the negotiation they may have demanded Canada back. |
raylev3 | 11 May 2016 9:33 p.m. PST |
Yes, Britain did win. Overall, it kept all the 'important' colonies and bases while bankrupting the main competition. But that didn't become an issue until US grand strategy succeeded in getting France et al into the war against Britain. Here's the bottom line: America achieved its goal of independence. Britain did not achieve it's goal of keeping the American colonies. Claiming Britain won the AWI is like Americans claiming we won in Vietnam because they never beat us on the battlefield. What matters is whether or not the war goals were achieved. |
Weasel | 12 May 2016 6:11 a.m. PST |
Some professor I knew a ways back called it the "second English civil war" which I always liked. My yank friends tend to say "revolutionary war" or just "the revolution". |
Supercilius Maximus | 12 May 2016 10:13 a.m. PST |
I believe you're thinking about the War of 1812. The AWI was far from a sideshow to contemporary Britons. No, GarrisonMiniatures is quite right; everything in North America became a holding action post-Monmouth, with serious land-based operations in the West and East Indies, Africa, India, Europe, and South America. Clinton had around half of his British infantry taken away from him and sent south to defend the West Indies, from late 1778 when the French officially entered the war. Only one new infantry regiment – the 71st – was raised before 1778; the years 1778-1783 saw the creation of the 72nd-106th Foot (only 6 of which served in N America) and several light dragoons regiments (all of which policed the coastline of Great Britain and Ireland against French invasions). The Militia was totally revamped, Fencible regiments were raised, and impressment was used by the Army for the first and only time before 1916. The Royal Navy deliberately kept its "A" team in Europe, anticipating a French (it eventually turned out to be Franco-Spanish) invasion right from 1775. If you can, try to get hold of these two books:- "The British Isles and the American Revolution" by Stephen Conway "War for America" by Piers Mackesy. The latter is particularly useful at showing the size of the British Army at varying points during the war and where it was all based. |
42flanker | 12 May 2016 12:40 p.m. PST |
It's odd though, isnt it, that notwithstanding the diversion of troops to the Caribean in 1778, Clinton mounted the expedition to capture Charlestown in 1780 which was, I think, the most serious defeat in terms of numbers that the colonists suffered, followed fairly quickly by Cornwallis's defeat of Gates at Camden. Of course, the shift to the southern sphere of operations intended to create a second powerbase among the Loyalist population alleged to be waiting Crown forces to give them the lead, turned out to be a false hope and the British victories in the field gained nothing. I suppose for the government it was still a holding operation in terms of the resources it allocated, not that there ever would have been enough. |
Supercilius Maximus | 13 May 2016 5:20 a.m. PST |
It's a good point, but required – or at least benefitted – from all of the following:- 1) an element of surprise; 2) the RN transplanting land forces faster than the enemy could march; 3) winter in the North, making it difficult if not impossible – that Washington could attack the weakened garrison of NYC; and 4) over a year's rest for Clinton's command prior to the campaign (bar small groups taking part in – predominantly – successful raids). It's worth noting how quickly Clinton got much of his force back to NYC in time for the "new season" in the North. As you rightly say, the "loyal" South turned out to be largely illusory – at least in terms of numbers actually turning out – and left considerably smaller British forces acting mainly on their own, especially once Greene, La Fayette, and other reinforcements arrived in theatre. |
Der Alte Fritz | 13 May 2016 5:57 a.m. PST |
American Revolution or American Revolutionary War is what the winning side calls the conflict. When in Rome…. |
FatherOfAllLogic | 13 May 2016 6:34 a.m. PST |
"Louis XIV won the WSS because the final outcome turned out more favorable than what appeared likely in 1709." Well…..he did win in as much as his grandson became king of Spain, France regained the fortresses lost in Flanders, and the United Provinces became a second-rate power. WSS is the War of the Spanish Succession: a Frenchman took the throne. |
Winston Smith | 13 May 2016 6:59 a.m. PST |
+1 Fritz What did the Carthaginians call the Punic Wars? Who knows? |
42flanker | 13 May 2016 11:20 a.m. PST |
Or the Trojans, the Trojan War? |
Brechtel198 | 13 May 2016 4:00 p.m. PST |
The article is revisionist history. The British lost two armies which surrendered in 1777 and 1781. Greene drove the British from the South in 1780-1781 and at the end of the war the British only held Charleston and Savannah thanks to the Royal Navy. '…one fact weighed on these well-born men, on their friends, and on their king: England's defeat in 1783 by the American colonists, and the subsequent loss of the thirteen States. That defeat had been a grievous blow to the king personally, a grievous blow to English pride, to the English exchequer and to English trade. The defeat had hardened poltical opinion at Windsor as in the houses of the ruling few…'-Vincent Cronin, Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography, 224-225. |