| Tango01 | 29 Oct 2018 3:00 p.m. PST |
…. tide in the American Revolution?. Of possible interest? link Amicalement
Armand |
| oldnorthstate | 29 Oct 2018 5:15 p.m. PST |
Not sure I understand this approach…it only lists battles from '76 and '77 and even then it is not a complete list. It appears to ignore the important battles of Brandywine and Monmouth…in the end the Revolution was ultimately decided in the Southern Colonies. |
| Glengarry5 | 29 Oct 2018 5:40 p.m. PST |
I would say ultimately decided in the Southern Colonies South and on the sea. |
| Winston Smith | 30 Oct 2018 9:25 a.m. PST |
That's about as superficial as it gets. |
| Tango01 | 30 Oct 2018 11:41 a.m. PST |
|
| Rudysnelson | 30 Oct 2018 12:36 p.m. PST |
I agree with Glennary. The South was the turning point. If the British had won the south, next would have been a pincher movement to secure the south. Next move would have been to roll up New England. I read one thesis paper back in the 1980s. It used the British controlling the south then securing the middle colonies. The next were premises. One was that the British would roll up the northeast. The other was that there would be a truce. This allowed the British to consolidate and return a decade later in a Recon quest campaign.
It was always a dead lock around New York. |
| Brechtel198 | 31 Oct 2018 5:46 a.m. PST |
Saratoga and the French Alliance were critical to the success of the Revolution. And Greene's campaign in the South was decisive. He drove the British back to the two seaports, Charleston and Savannah, and cleared the Carolinas of British troops. The battle of Guilford Courthouse led directly to Yorktown because Cornwallis withdrew to Wilmington and then to Virginia. |
| Virginia Tory | 31 Oct 2018 9:39 a.m. PST |
The French turned the tide. With that whole fleet thingy and hard currency to pay the fast disappearing Continental Army. |
| 23rdFusilier | 31 Oct 2018 10:13 a.m. PST |
"The French turned the tide…" Agree! Also, due to that fleet thingy the British came within a hair of disaster a couple of times. Both Savannah and Rhode Island could have been a "Yorktown" type event. |
 Der Alte Fritz  | 31 Oct 2018 5:45 p.m. PST |
@Rudy: I don't think that the British had enough troops in the colonies to pacify the South, Mid Atlantic and New England all at the same time. So if they "win" in the South they still end up fighting a guerrilla war with the rebels and won't be rolling up anything. Eventually the war drags on and the British populace gets tired of being in an expensive and endless war, so they make peace with the colonies. |
| 23rdFusilier | 31 Oct 2018 6:05 p.m. PST |
See Alter Fritz, most excellent point sir! The Americans did not have to win, they just did not have to lose. |
| Tango01 | 01 Nov 2018 11:51 a.m. PST |
Well said Der Alte…! (smile)
Amicalement
Armand
|
| dantheman | 01 Nov 2018 12:59 p.m. PST |
Agree with Alte Fritz. To his point we underestimate the significance of the small wars in the colonies. If you look at a list of skirmish conflicts in NJ, you will find after Trenton and Princeton that the State became more hostile and it was harder to maintain the British army beyond the port cities. In 1776-1777 the British had a hard time foraging in the State. In response the Grand Forage of 1778 required a huge effort by the British army. Ditto in the south. For this reason I think the question is incomplete. The middle states were more than big battles. The constant skirmishing was a result of an inability to pacify the colonies. |
