Was the revolutionary war britians version of vietnam?

I mean, the vietcong had to keep evading the main US army for most of the war, and even then, they stupidly came out into the open and got massacred by US forces after the failure of the Tet offensive.

British on Irish are one of the few examples of "alright come on lads, that's a bit much." I find in British history.

"Good guys and bad guys" of history is generally retarded, but there is a consistent trend of fucking over Irish people.

Even today, parades saying "Man, internment was shit" are heckled by Unionists in NI saying there's literally nothing wrong with it, and when hunger strikers during the troubles were taunted with "let them die, let them die."

Poor bogshits.

Reprisals are an effective way to deal with terrorism, as long as the reprisals are extremely harsh

erm, I'm pretty sure that the African expansion was over a century after the revolution...

You may know that, but just imagine if you would have had an American education instead.

Feel free to provide a single example.
Hint: Cruel reprisals against random civilians only make people hate the occupier and support the rebels. Just look at all the partisans in the balkans and occupied soviet territories during ww2.

Not really. Only American media brings it up.

I could see that. It was way more embarassing than vietnam.

For which party?

wew lad, harsh reprisals feed directly into the terrorists' narrative. Result: more terrorists.

No not even close.

The Americans actually won many battles against Britain unlike in Vietnam where Vietnam "won" while getting their ass kicked almost 100% of the time and losing exponentially more soldiers.

Foreign powers also played a significant and maybe even decisive role in the Revolutionary War. Britain was beset not only by America but by France and several other European powers who declared war on it and overextended Britain's resources.

Wrong way round you idiot, Britain had a highly professional, but small army.

Thing is, Murican revolutionaires outnumbered the bongs 10 to 1, plus they had civilian support.

books.google.fi/books?id=KpLky3YcHAEC&pg=PA68&dq=british army american revolution police duty ireland&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a2jeUI2YEYbmiwLmuoDYDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=british army american revolution police duty ireland&f=false

>Ireland beating anything

For the redcoats

The redcoats had to directly deal with France and Spain, the Americans just had to deal with some peasants supported by Soviets.
I would say it was more embarrassing for the Americans.

at the time of the american revolution (read: war of independence) the british empire was nowhere near the height it had as shown by that picture. the americans got massive help from the french, the spanish, and even the dutch. and these powers didn't just finance the war, the actively took part in battles and blocked key british assets (like the royal navy for instance). the amount of foreign aid in the american war of independence is far, far, far greater than the vietnamese received in fighting the US - hell; they even fought the french, who were well entrenched in indochina, without significant commie backing.
also; the brits didn't go around sailing the world with a fleet filled with marines. they relied mostly on a local army doing most of the work. this meant the american war of independence was mostly a loyalist versus seperatist fight at the start. while the vietnamese conflict was mostly situated as america being a foreign agressor blatantly misreading the reasoning of the vietnamese struggles because of the anti-commie goggles they were wearing at the time. the americans were still brits in all but name and this didn't magically change when they took up arms.

the end result however is quite similar in their positivity. vietnam's got a pretty positive view of america, in spite of the war, and the brits got a viable trading partner out of it, instead of having to worry about a rowdy backwards colony that was a drain on their resources.

Because UK is a Capitalist power, not a military power.

UK can't do anything against a continental power such as austria, Russia or France.

bullshit

seconded

>crossing the delaware with my fellow revolutionaries
>it ain't me starts playing

They are not comparable. Imagine if the Vietnam war involved chinese tank divisions, the vietcong had the same equipment the US had, there were naval battles in hawaii and the caribean and the US military was a quarter the size.

Too many Americans get their history from bad films and games.

It can and it has, but not through large coventional land wars. The UK does not have the population to do that and have a navy. The navy is more important for their security and success. It's an island and needs to act like one.

and the euros by and large don't get their history at all

What makes you think that?

The "British Vietnam" was the Malayan Insurgency.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

>be in virginia
>yankee doodle went to town starts playing

Within 50 years of Vietnam America is already showing signs of waning influence in the world. 100 years after the Revolution Britain had just reached the apex of its empire.

You do know that there was an equally professional army supporting the Americans, right?

Basically anywhere Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union occupied.
Why do you think there are hardly any terror attacks in Russia or China today, compared to Europe?

because of higher security and scrutiny of foreigners

>referring to anyone as Euros

This always seems to be the main thing that Americans don't understand. You shouldn't be blanket terming people with this. It's like me referring to you, Mexicans and Canadians as North Americans.

"Euros" have spent literally millenia "getting" their own history. Long before there were even stone buildings on your continents Euros were writing histories.

You do not actually believe this is not true in the rest of the world do you???

Cause you dont pay enough attention to the news.

...

>Britain
>Already an Empire during the US Revolution.
No.

It had extensive American and Carribean posessions but in Asia & Africa, shit was still in the trading-post-friendly-local-ruler phase.

Are you mentally deficient?

>was [war in which x (powerful country) was beaten by y (not powerful country)] [x]'s Vietnam?

Fuck off

Not really, other than the superficial "fighting communists in the jungle" aspects.

>that pic

Jesus christ
The British Empire was mostly built in the 2nd half of the 19th century by attacking technologically inferior people all over the world

During the US Revolution, the British Empire was small as fuck and Britain was a 2nd rate european power militarily speaking (while France and Spain who helped the colonists were 1st rate ones)

Pic related, here's the belligerence map for the US Revolutionary War.
Nothing impressive, really

Now compare it to the odds Frederick's Prussia had to face...

Or worse, Revolutionary France

This is what pisses me off the most out of the whole thing, it's the only real trigger I have. 18th century Britain was not the Britain of the Edwardian period.

This. The British were not much of a superpower in 1776. We were the most sophisticated country in the world and had the most formidable navy but the "Empire" was still in a fairly nascent stage, India was still privately owned ffs.

We had a very sparsely populated empire, we did not have the infrastructure to assert our power on land for a sustained guerrilla conflict - in that respect I suppose it is very vaguely analogous to nam, USA being an underdog is a nation building meme to gratify fools. The secessionist faction had every conceivable advantage.

>population (French +Spanish dominions)
>wealth (^ + see oft ignored dutch loans [fourth anglo dutch war])
>home advantage with all the juicy attrition that comes with it
>lack of dignity (american tactics were not becoming of civilized gentlemen, little wonder they found the french amiable)
>I think the firearms were even better, Kentucky long rifles.

Really it was a war that pitted war weary England, the bravest of the slaves (see dunmore proclamation) , the fiercest of the Indians, a few ancillary Hessians against the entire world.

Other way around. Colonials had the numbers but the Brits were higher quality troops

>Britain was a 2nd rate european power militarily speaking (while France and Spain who helped the colonists were 1st rate ones)

France in and since the Seven Years War sucked donkey dicks. Spain was also far from a first rate land power (though a naval one)
The problem with rating the English is always, that they are so damn small. Quality wise it probably went: Prussia > GB > Russia/Austria/France > Spain
Much harder to make that list when the number game is added.

>britain
>india
>owning
>1776

>American tactics

The Continental Army lined up in formations and volley fired in exactly the same way as the British. This idea that it was guerrillas with rifles and tomahawks running around the woods taking potshots is largely a myth.

>home advantage

did you forget all the American blacks and loyalist non-traitors who fought for Great Britain?

Mercenaries you set loose on your own citizens don't count as people.

t. OG Washington

Righteous treason is still treason, not home-field advantage; you abandoned all the people who still wanted you there.

>Kentucky long rifles

Are accurate to at last 100 yards, more in the right hands. But they take 'forever' to reload properly compared to war muskets, which are chambered at .75 and take .69 shot can be done very quickly given good drill. The shot/bore tolerances are very tight on a l o n g rifle, especially when you consider the rifling delay.

>war weary England
>bravest slaves
>Indians doing anything relevant since the Beaver War

The British were never a superpower.

The only two superpowers to ever exist are the CCCP and United States of America federal government.

>This idea that it was guerrillas with rifles and tomahawks running around the woods taking potshots is largely a myth.

What is Lexington and Concord.

You are thinking of Hyperpower or Global Power or something along the lines.
There were more then enough superpowers throughout history, who vastly dominated in every aspect all the other countries around.

No, the academic term is actually superpower.

>more then enough superpowers throughout history

Regional powers, the Church, Empires.

>dominated in every aspect all the other countries around

A superpower dominates in every last other country except that of another superpower.

Nuclear annihilation make superpowers possible.

Got a lot more in common than the US Revolutionary War m8

You're full of shit if you base your quality judgment of 18th centiry armies on the American theater of the Seven Years War
Frogs were outnumbered 4 to 1 on that theater and still held for a decade.(pic related)
It says a lot on the terrible quality of British troops

France had obviously the best army in Europe (quality and manpower combined) and was the strongest country on the continent overall
Spain was past its prime but was still a force to be reckoned with.
Prussia had already started to decline since the previous decade but was still better than Britain on military matters
Austria had low quality troops (comparable to British ones) but had a lot of them
Britain was really a subpar european power, even though it had a very good navy

Of course, British troops being professional, they were still of better quality than American militias (hence all the memes about the redcoats's quality), but when compared to other european troops, they were kinda shit tier (hence all the humiliation Britain received in the Seven Years War and Napoleonic Wars in land battles where they outnumbered the enemy).

Bro, I'm not talking about the Indian and French Wars sub theatre, but germany and the rhine frontier, where the main french armies were fighting during the Seven Years War. And they performed absolutely abyssmal there. They had fallen far from the glory days of the Sun King. Even their manpower was nothing special anymore with both Russia and Austria being able to field just as large armies.

The french chief minister, when informed about yet another battle lost:
>"I blush when I speak of our army. I simply cannot get it into my head, much less into my heart, that a pack of Hanoverians could defeat the army of the King".

French army was meh on the european theater, and the Prussian one was godlike under Frederick
But the British army was still the worst of the war (which explains why it took a decade to take Canada from a bunch of severely outnumbered frogs while France's attention was focused on Prussia)

>A superpower dominates in every last other country except that of another superpower.
Then there has never been one

>1776
>Continentals have less than half the population on their side
>up against British who outnumber them significantly and have mercenary help
>seasoned veteran British armies were already in the north poised to stamp out resistance before the first shot at Lexington was fired
>get BTFO of Boston by a beautiful deception
>take New York City but fail to destroy Continental army
>get smacked around all over NY and NJ until an entire army is encircled and surrenders

>1781
>by now British troops massacring their own citizens has turned most of colonial support against them
>parliament already considering ending war
>second major British force driven out of south and surrenders with French naval help
>by the time other European powers are committing large attacks on Britain, the fighting in America is largely over
Where did the "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOW IT TOOK FOUR OF YOU TO KILL ME" meme come from?

>Reprisals are an effective way to deal with terrorism
This is dumb fucking bullshit, if some fucking potato eating faggots target and kill government workers I will go after the organization who organized these attacks, I will not attack their innocent countrymen because that is simply ethically wrong to kill people for something they had nothing to do with.

Its not even effective anyway, it just intensifies resistance

hue

>yfw you will never be a German soldier on the Eastern front raping and impregnating soviet qts.

Why even live?

of course they are the same, difference being the british knew that win an asymmetrical war you had to win hearts and minds

>was the revolutionary war britians version of vietnam?
For the comparison to stand, you'd need to have Russia and China being actively at war with the US and focusing their navy into supporting Vietnam and blockading the US invasion forces.