How did the USA manage to have such a "clean" and "heroic" Revolution...

>Who is Robbespierre
A hero
>What is The Terror
Taking out the trash

...

>Lose almost every single """battle"""
>"Win" only because the Brits decided to pull out because they were busy with the French, Spanish and Dutch

>Give up your claim on the entirety of the resource-rich continent south of Canada
>"Oh, that's fine! We actually meant to do that!"

I'm not even American, but that's a lame excuse. Regardless of what else was happening with Britain at the time, the patriots got what they wanted. They won and Britain lost.

>because the Brits decided to pull out
More like the Americans kicked their ass at Yorktown and the French navy prevented Britain from sending reinforcements

>because they were busy with the French, Spanish and Dutch
Lmao, the Dutch didn't even contribute militarily
The absolute state of British excuse

Britain whining about the Dutch for the Revolutionary War would be like if the French whined about the Swiss for Waterloo

>muh whiteness
Several South American countries are doing fine, you have no idea what you are talking about /pol/tard.

Argentina, Chili and Uruguay are considered High-income Economies by the World Bank. Stop making us Americans look like idiots.

One case out of a dozen countries.

Amerindians are superior to europeans, what are you talking about.

Argentina is white tho

Wasn't Argentina so bad for a while they actually started the Falklands War just as a distraction

So was Britain before the EU

>Argentina, Chili and Uruguay are considered High-income Economies by the World Bank.

Hmmmm really ùakes me think
Coincidence?

The correlations don't match. If Amerindians are superior, how does this happen?

(You)

Washington was an expert at the orderly retreat, and he was the one guy everybody could work with.

>Washington was an expert at the orderly retreat

Quintessentially British
Why did he even revolt?

Clever diplomacy and temporary compromises allowed American revolutionaries to offset their irreconcilable differences for two or three generations instead of having it explode in their faces the moment it seemed like they had secured independence.

When those tensions inevitably boiled over, the USA had to fight an internecine war in which 800,000 died. That's the price they paid for averting a Terror.

The colonies already had a system of local government in place, to the point that the crown poking it's nose in was a destabilizing event. The revolt was led by educated, elected (and respected) individuals who had the advantage of being weirdly remarkable on top of that. It was more about preserving a way of life than forging a new one, but the necessary wheels of change were greased either by very good fortune or some divine mandate.

I think its because they don't really have any niggers

The British just got done with their war against French in the Americas, this exhausted their economics. They now have to do with America in the Americas and the French in the Europe/Atlantic. French were funding the Americans in their revolution.

A big part of it was that the ruling class in America was essentially the same before and after the war. There were no kings to bloodily overthrow, they basically just had to convince the British troops to leave.

Argentina is white-majority you dumbass.

Argentina is white-majority though

Because despite the popular myth of a guerilla resistance, the American Revolution won its war in a mostly conventional style (albeit helped tremendously by foreign powers).

Most of the other revolutions that you mention either failed, were mostly spontaneous demosntrations that overran the capital, or were guerilla affairs. They differ from the American Revolution in the sense that they were non-state actors that overthrew a state and then tried to build up a new state after wiping out the last one and mostly eliminating the functionaries who made it work.

The American Revolution, in contrast, organized itself into a quasi-state before the war even started, used that government to prosecute said war, acted in many ways like a contemporary European country, and just took off when the war was over. Even then, you had some initial rumblings of getting the government to work, but most of the hard problems had been at least cracked at before the shooting ended; and they had to, in order to organize a regular military force.

>Because despite the popular myth of a guerilla resistance, the American Revolution won its war in a mostly conventional style (albeit helped tremendously by foreign powers).

It's crazy how the Vietnam War has lead to a rewriting of how the US Revolution happened in the mind of normies

Muh guerilla (although it was fought conventionally on the battlefield),
Muh "the war wasn't popular in Britain" (although commoners couldn't give two shit about what happened overseas, and rulers couldn't give two shits about commoners opinion)
Muh atrocities against civilians (although they were barely any)

It's like Americans re-imagine their independence war as a version of the Vietnam War in which they're the winning side....

The only part I would dispute of that is the popularity thing. Parliament was the dominant force in late 18th century England, not the King, and the Whigs were against the war. As a result, the crown could not appropriate most of its revenues to suppressing it (And, to be fair, they had a bunch of other commitments). The main reason that Hessians were used was the difficulty levying new forces to send overseas, and most of the war in America was paid for out of revenues raised in Ireland, which were not under Parliament's thumb.

You do however, have a very good point vis a vis Vietnam, and now I'm interested in portrayals of the war before Vietnam.

It wasn't a revolution at all, just independence, and given that they were already pretty autonomous because it was in an age where they were weeks awake from the centre of the empire, it went pretty smoothly.

The guys who became Gran Columbia also declared their own republics with assemblies and constitutions a few times, and organized armies to prosecute conventional wars. Unfortunately they let the whole thing fall into the hands of warlords, and nobody was really interested in Gran Columbia anyway except for Bolivar.

Their body weight makes it difficult to put too much effort into intense fighting.

it was settled by germans and slavs, so yeah it is

False premise. The war itself was messy as shit, proportionally the deadliest conflict the country ever engaged in. Neighbor killing neighbor and other such instances abound. As for why it didn't shit itself up afterwards- mostly because 90% of the same elites stayed in place, some things just shifted around. It wasn't like, say, France, where the entire system was overturned.

>My knowledge of history comes from the history channel

Literally you

Isn't the Civil War the deadliest conflict?

Yes, deadlier than all the others combined. But as a percentage of the population, the Revolution was deadlier. Population was only 2.5 million at the time.

Those 3 countries are the whitest tho

Because it was Brit v Brit. They respected the British rules of war.

I think its mostly because America was isolated from Britain by an ocean, so they really couldnt do anything to them after the fact, other than encourage indian raids on their settlements. Also, I think it was more grounded in reality rather than some aloof intellectual ideological wankefest that will ALWAYS led to mass murdering dictators like the french revolution

>America was isolated from Britain by an ocean

Fundamentally flawed position. America *was* Britain.

Grossly oversimplified chronology:

Glorious rev in Britbongistan 1688-->

Brits can assert their right to self-appointed rulers (sorta) -->

Seven years war (French and Indian for 'Murrica) -->

many colonials served the British -->

colonials realized 'hey, we're actually Brits, too. we have rights.' -->

George goes bonkers and imposes stupid laws/tariffs/whatever to raise loot to pay for 7 years war. -->

Colonials who now see themselves as Brits say "Oy! We're not your bitch. We have rights and demand to choose our own leaders." -->

George says 'Lol, no. More taxes, plox.' -->

Lots of high-minded discussion among British/Colonial gents. Rights/declarations/etc. Very Locke. Much British. -->

War

bull shit. Go read diaries and writings from both british and american colonist at the time. They were british subjects, but there was an obvious difference between the two that both recognized. the crazy part is that its similar to what brits and americans say about each other now

>set the foundation for the french revolution and all other republican revolutions in the 19th century, first independent white nation in the new world, the first rebels against the royalty of the old order, the oldest active constitution in the world
>somehow not revolutionary

since when did they have a revolution

What a fucking retard. Chile is better than Argentina and they are undeniably mestizos. Anyway

t. Chilean

Argentina had like three major economic crisis and it's still wealthier than Chile lmao

None of you spics matter anyway, can't compare any of you to an Anglo colony like Australia

Anglos don't fuck about.

It's the work ethic of the hard nosed Anglo businessman.

Strong tradition of local governance that lent itself to a smooth transition. As has been pointed out, the war of independence was not a revolution in the sense that the goal was societal restructuring. It was a colonial uprising, basically just replacing London with Philadelphia. And even then, it wasn't spotless; you could argue that the revolution was not truly a success until 1865

It was a wasteland filled with stone age peoples, with an unproductive climate. There were no resources, and it was full of shitstains who kept on wanting subsidies, and threw a fit any time they were asked to pay their fucking taxes.

Compare this to the West Indies, or actual India, and it's a no-brainer.

The only reason that the US actually grew into a nation is that nobody gave a shit about their corner of the world for 200 years.

>lose every single battle
Even though this is true, you know Washington frequently pulled out of battles to preserve ammunition and troops, and typically inflicted very high casualties against the British, correct?
Not to mention most major victories were under his command, and his political allies were great at economics and diplomacy, which can be apparent via how they handled their allies in Europe.

The founding fathers were really good at what they did, and they weren't worried about all the glory. They didn't waste anything, and didn't care to be pompous, and usually the criticism of this was a lack of morale, and even with that, the morale of the continental army stayed high because of Washington's excellent leadership.

It wasn't that clean. Our history books we use in schools conveniently leave out all the loyalists we lynched. It was so many the word "Lynch" was invented from that time. anyone who wasn't feeling the revolutionary zeal got strung up by a noose.

Mostly Italians.

In order of importance: Italians, then Spanish and Germans, then French, Russians and Polish, then Anglos, Welsh and Irish, then others.

Because it was led by lawyers, judges, generals businessmen, men who respected the principal of the rule of law and for all their many flaws (such as slavery), wanted to establish a government that was more just and fair than the one they had spilt so much blood to overthrow. To that end, they instituted the separation of powers, Separation of Church and State, endowed the states with specified rights, and other such checks on centralized (and abusive) power.

By comparison, most other revolutions are led by a lowly power-hungry maniac and his band of misfits whose movement was born in street brawls and bar fights. They have no respect for the idea of written law. They have no interest in creating a system that governs its subjects fairly and justly and redresses their grievances. To them, the Leader or the Party is the law. To them, power is not something to be wielded with great care, but used as a bludgeon against enemies, real and imagined. The goal is not establishing a system that is fair and just, but one that exerts dominance.

How could you not expect their short-sightedness and lack of wisdom to get the better of them in the worst ways possible?

The Americans benefited from the fact that they already had a pretty unified idea of what they wanted for a government when the war was over. Everybody knew that they wanted the new government to be a republic, and that, by itself, helped a lot in maintaining cohesion. Think about it. If the Americans had said "We want new king when all this is over" then there would have been endless in-fighting over who would get to be the new monarch. But because everybody involved knew that the intent was to create a new Republic, there wasn't much in-fighting amongst the participants. There was still some infighting, but of the (relatively) harmless sort.

>It's like Americans re-imagine their independence war as a version of the Vietnam War in which they're the winning side....

>be Suffolk peasant
>thrown in debtors prison
>given a choice: 15 years or join the Redcoats and put down disloyal colonials
>Drill for six weeks, take my first bath in six years, get shipped out to Boston
>Start marching towards Bunker Hill to retake the position
>Regiment drummer and fifer start playing Tis Ain't Me

>"Nothing like the smell of 8 lber in the morning."

>Show me your Battle of Fort Lee face
>mfw

>What are the Northern provinces?

Lol I wish more people like you inhabited this board.

i love when brits do this, then make fun of the americans who make excuses about the vietnam war

>the whitest of the South American countries are the most successful
things that make ya go hmmm

>chile
>white

>that pic
hahahaha

you have never met a real Chilean have you? All the ones I know are whites

Same reason the Dutch War of Independence went fine as well: A) The war was against a "foreign" power, and not their neighbors (mostly) and B) Protestant sensibilities.

I should add, it's the same reason The Britain never had a revolution while the rest of Europe burned for 100 years (between the French Revolution and WWI)

Because Britain had to go all the way across the ocean to fight it and honestly didn't commit that many forces to stopping us.

Difference though: they declared it shortly before or right around the time of the revolution. American colonies had been running as autonomous or semi-autonomous for over a hundred years (some much longer). The only one that was a "new" government was Georgia, and they had been a colony with a local government since 1732 (so 40 years before the revolution). This meant that they already had an entrench government, and like the poster above said: it was about getting rid of a destabilizing and burdensome force rather than trying to create something new. It's also why the French revolution is the go-to revolution.

There's a reason it's called the Revolutionary War and not the American Revolution

Really they're interchangeable

World's best revolution coming through

Really they're not. The former is first and foremost a war, whose end result was a revolution like change. The latter is a revolution first, where as any war or troubled times thereafter are a direct result of the change.

>Looking at the painter
Nice going guys, real professional.

Yeah but I mean people use both to mean the same thing.

Honestly what surprises me the best is how well England took the whole "losing the colonies" thing. We became trade partners only a couple decades later.

The colonies were 1/5 the population of the entire british empire of the time. You can't ignore a nation that big.

I see you went through all of this effort to create some bait, and didn't even get a single (You).
Here friendo

Im Chilean myself and Im pretty sure I know more Chileans than you.

Because of the people and ideas they were founded upon were better. It's as simple as that

>The English Civil War
>The Glorious Revolution
>The Anglo Irish War

>the UK gets conquered by the Netherlands

Why did you mention two revolutions that took place before the time frame I mentioned? And Ireland != Britain. Were you just trying to be contrarian?

What are some good accounts of the American Revolution from the average Lobsterback's perspective anyway?

Also, the Irish War of Independence is literally after the timeframe I specified. Your reply was 100% contrarian.

England had Protestant sensibilities for longer than your timeframe, and hatting Catholics was a factor in all those conflicts

Didn't the English deliberately allow themselves to be conquered?

I'm a Chilean too and his point still stands. Chile is one of the whitest in South America and yet it's one of the richest. You do have to thank Pinochet for allowing us to become so rich though.

>Russian revolution
>Taiping Rebellion
>French revolution
Not comparable at all. Those were actual civil wars aiming to overthrow the ruler. American revolution was just a war of independence.
>Haitian Revolution
This is the one that's actually comparable, and it was more brutal mostly because niggers.

Argentina is shit. Chile is reliant on a meme and Uruguay is the only good one (it's amazing).

You only became rich after him. Many of the economic policies by the Chicago boys he failed to implement

>This is the one that's actually comparable, and it was more brutal mostly because niggers.

Ehh?

The Philippine Revolution was such a clusterfuck BECAUSE of America.