Is the American revolutionary war against the British empire the first time that one party conceded defeat not because...

>Is the American revolutionary war against the British empire the first time that one party conceded defeat not because it was unable to keep fighting and ultimately win, but because the public denounced the war?

Absolutly not
That's a retarded meme modern Brits use to excuse their defeat, but copying American argumentation about the Vietnam War

But these two wars are in no way comparable

1. The US Revolutionary War was a conventional war fought on the field, with little to no guerrilla

2. Public opinion didn't matter in the 18th century when it came to foreign policy
Your average Brits wasn't even aware of what was happening overseas, and rulers couldn't give two shits about what he thought

3. Britain was decisively defeated on the field at Yorktown.
They didn't withdraw "because of hippies at home", but because they had lost

What people who dumbly compare the US Revolution to the Vietnam War need to understand is that, unlike America in the 1960s, Britain wasn't in any way a superpower in the 1770s
It was a medium European power that was faced with two greater european powers
Odds were against Britain in that war (pic related)

No, the idea of being unable to win because it's simply too expensive and bloody to keep going, even though the material means are there to do so is WAY older. The oldest example I can think of offhand is the Persian invasion of the Scythians, but I'm sure there are older examples, even older recorded examples.

This is largely correct, but one little quibble.
. The US Revolutionary War was a conventional war fought on the field, with little to no guerrilla
The colonies saw more then a fair bit of what you would call guerrilla fighting, especially in the south.

Actually Britain was the primary great power at the time, hence the reason the other great powers joined the American cause. For centuries European countries attempted to keep a balance of power to stop one country dominating. After Britain's victory in the seven year's war, Europe saw Britain replace France as the threat to European power balance. In fact England had been among the great powers since the defeat of the Spanish Armada. So America beat the European hegemon

war of spanish succession would have that title but you're wrong, its not popular hate of the war but rather the goverment thinking an independent america was better for them because of how locked in they were, thus making them fully dependent on english trade, and could always use the natives to fuck over frontier settlelemtns

>3. Britain was decisively defeated on the field at Yorktown.
>They didn't withdraw "because of hippies at home", but because they had lost
except if the british navy could defeat the french the colonies would have to re-submit

>2. Public opinion didn't matter in the 18th century when it came to foreign policy
>Your average Brits wasn't even aware of what was happening overseas, and rulers couldn't give two shits about what he thought

The American Revolutionary War happened in the midst of social turmoil in the UK and radicals the likes that will eventually spawn Paine were using the war as foil to Parliament that "look, you're oppressing us way too badly that some of us revolted."

In addition the war happened in a time when British Popular Press and newspapers just emerged.

Provided your average British radical wasn't French-Revolutionary-Tier Regicide but to say that average Brits had no clue of what was happening in America is ludicrous.

>Actually Britain was the primary great power at the time

Absolutly wrong
Britain was a pretty good naval (and thus colonial) power, which is indeed why France and Spain allied to fuck their shit up overseas

But even then, Spain was still the biggest colonial empire, and in Europe Britain was weak as shit (the greatest powers were France, Russia, Austria and Prussia)

>After Britain's victory in the seven year's war, Europe saw Britain replace France as the threat to European power balance.

You're deluded af m8
Britain barely contributed to the Seven Years War in Europe (they were too busy sending all their forces against a small French contingent in North America)
The Seven Years War in Europe was "won" by Prussia, and only because Russia allowed it

Britain was never a theat to european balance of power, and especially not in the 18th century when they were weak as shit

The only brief moment when Britain mattered in continental balance of power was during WW1

Who commands the largest navy commands the greatest power. The money of Europe was in colonial trade and industry, given that England held actually useful productive land they made a lot of money. By contrast French and Spanish American land was sparse and underpopulated generating little revenue

>And by this being the first war that was swung by public opinion, was it also the war that gave rise to terrorism/guerilla fighters as a relevant force, since they would no longer need to defeat professional armies on the battlefield, rather just make it so the public wants the conflict done with?

Are you a bong or pants on head retarded? The Continental Army fought a conventional war against the British, the militias had limited effect.

Britain was better at international warfare but fighting all her rivals is pretty much unwinnble because the colonies are willing to hunker down and drag the war for years on end no matter how many times Britain sends 10,000 of the finest trained soldiers or mercenaries in the world second to the Prussians no decisive victory occurs.

>Who commands the largest navy commands the greatest power.

Maybe, but that doesn't translate so well in land warfare, the British have never had the strongest, largest, or best trained army in the world, in no point in history. It wasn't necessary with the existence of the Royal Navy.

Worst comment in this thread

>The US Revolutionary War was a conventional war fought on the field, with little to no guerrilla
Firstly there was quite a bit of guerrilla fighting. Especially in the earlier years the colonists mostly used less conventional tactics and got BTFO whenever they fought a conventional battle.

>Public opinion didn't matter in the 18th century when it came to foreign policy
Public opinion played more a role than you think. I don't know why you're dragging Vietnam into it. The Whigs were mostly in favour of the colonists and though they weren't in power they made up a significant portion of Parliament. Parliament was also at this point more powerful than the King, contrary to what Americans may think. The public in general was split but there were plenty who supplied weapons to the colonists, etc. which is more serious support than muh hippies. And many Brits were aware of things you pleb.

>Britain was decisively defeated on the field at Yorktown.
This was more like the final straw than an overriding reason. It was simple at that point with Cornwallis' surrender that the government decided that the war was more trouble than it was worth.

>Britain wasn't in any way a superpower in the 1770s
Dumb af. It wasn't the Pax Britannica yet but Britain had been the world's pre-eminent superpower since France lost the 7 Years War. Britain could have beaten the forces arrayed against them but it just wasn't worth it.

>Britain could have beaten the forces arrayed against them but it just wasn't worth it.
I agree on all but this. Britain focused little on its army whereas continental powers had developed huge armies. The only issue for France was finance, they bankrupted themselves to stop Britain's dominance which led to the revolution. It was pretty clear which country was rising to the top and it wasn't due to the size of their army. Britain had much better financial management which they got from the dutch, this is where their power lied, in money

>the British have never had the strongest, largest, or best trained army in the world
The Navy was always more of a priority. I'd say Britain probably had the best trained and managed army in this time period, until Napoleonic France.

>It wasn't the Pax Britannica yet but Britain had been the world's pre-eminent superpower since France lost the 7 Years War
Lmao
They became the dominant power in North America, but that's about it
Britain was irrelevant af in Europe (center of the world at the time)

>Britain could have beaten the forces arrayed against them but it just wasn't worth it.
Nice delusion Nigel
Your land army got BTFO by the rebels and your navy was unable to defeat the combined Spanish and French navies

It is worth remembering that the French and Spanish didn't really use those huge armies, it was a fairly low level war which consisted of a few attempts to take some islands or colonies Britain had acquired in the last few decade. There were no large scale battles between Britain and the French/Spanish like you'd find in other wars. The Dutch basically restricted themselves to raiding convoys. This wasn't a conventional war, just because the French, Spanish and Dutch fought Britain doesn't mean they fought to the same extent.

>Britain had much better financial management which they got from the dutch, this is where their power lied, in money
This is very true though

Britain actually had the shittiest land army of all european powers in the 18th century
That's why it took them an entire decade to beat a French force they outnumbered 4 to 1 (pic related)

Before Napoleonic France, it's Prussia that had the best land army

>Britain was irrelevant af in Europe (center of the world at the time)
Are you retarded?

>Your land army got BTFO by the rebels
Even after Yorktown, Britain held New York and many other areas. It wasn't a conclusive defeat militarily, it just would've been more trouble than it was worth to force the colonies to submit. Independence actually worked out for the British government, especially considering that many in Parliament actually supported the colonists.

>your navy was unable to defeat the combined Spanish and French navies
They lost in the Chesapeake but overall the Royal Navy was much stronger, it was just spread thin.

>Britain was irrelevant af in Europe (center of the world at the time)
Which is why France and Spain bankrupted themselves in an attempt to bring Britain down.

Slightly related question

What did the french want from involvment in the war?
Was it entierly out of desire for revenge on the brits or did they have actual aims like getting quebeq back?

They wanted to liberate the 13 colonies from Britain's loser influence, so they could become a world dominating superpower, and maybe help France in the centuries to come if the Germans were to chimp out

Prevent the rise of Britain as the global superpower. They would've done the same if it were any other country

>the numbers were always the same
>ignoring the timeline of events
Ignoramus

Firstly, the first few years of the war were fought really only by the colonists with minimal involvement from Britain itself. The French already had professionals there and these largely BTFO the colonists. The British professionals that were there were badly led by officers that didn't know how warfare in America worked. The French knew how it worked having had professionals there for longer and this is seen in their better relations with Indian tribes which they used well. However the British learnt quickly and poured new troops in led by people who know knew what to do, also now allied with some Indian tribes like the Iroquois. The war was over really when Quebec was taken, it was quite quick. Also remember France was possibly the world's best army at that point (well, that's the reputation it had at the time, perhaps it was no longer deserved though Montcalm showed that they had some merit to that claim).

>Prussia that had the best land army
They were well drilled and disciplined but let's not kid ourselves, Prussia and Frederick would've been BTFO if not for the miracle of Brandenburg

>Prussia and Frederick would've been BTFO if not for the utter retardation of Peter III of Russia
FIFY.

Alexander the Great only stopped conquering because his army stopped marching and demanded to go home

No, the war had carried on for many years and would have continued to do so, no matter the Yorktown outcome. Remember, Cornwallis was not likely going to be standing on that ground, but rather withdrawing. The noose was tightening either way that naval battle went. In the event, the noose went around his neck.

wrong

>the Royal Navy was much stronger, it was just spread thin.
This has forever been the bongs' excuse when their meme navy gets BTFO, same with the U-boats in two wars, same in the Med, same in the Indian Ocean with the Japanese, for a couple centuries it was always "spread too thin".

How 'bout just saying the truth, the meme empire was just a good LARP and Bongistan can't rule the waves?

>meme navy
>meme empire
Are you that same pajeet that shits in every british empire thread?

>especially in the south
Weird way of spelling Northeast

Are you that same nigel that has an epileptic fit whenever the meme bong empire is criticized?

Except we literally did rule the waves, you try fighting literally the other 2 biggest naval powers in one war all over the globe

Try harder next time

>

>Britain could have beaten the forces arrayed against them but it just wasn't worth it.

Oh yeah? Then how come the Spanish were able to take back Florida during the war?

Colossal retard

Britain could have raped France, Spain and just about anyone on Earth, but they magnanimous decided that human beings dying over pieces of land just wasn't worth it

They were true huamanists

...

It was more parliament than the public per se, though pressure about the costs of the war didn't help. Lord North's government was unpopular with parliament and it was dominated by Whigs who sympathised with the colonists.

>Brits still so btfo by independence that this is how they live with themselves
fascinating thread

>America isn't true bros with the countries that helped us get independence
I think we should honor them more than we do. Even if they helped for selfish reasons they still helped us become who we are today.

One third of Colonists supported Independence.
One third was neutral.
One third was loyal.

The only way to win that war was to be merciless and vindictive in a way only the Brits know how to be. But every step in that direction alienated the neutrals and the loyalists, driving more and more Americans to support Independence. And after a certain point, unless you're ready to wipe literally everyone off the continent, you will never hold it again. Not to mention the general British public hated the war and many even supported the rebels, seeing them as British citizens demanding redressment of their legitimate grievances.

Once foreign aid started rolling in, the war was effectively over. If Lord North's government hadn't been such hardline cockbags, they might have avoided the whole thing.

>Your average Brits wasn't even aware of what was happening overseas
But that's objectively wrong you fuck.

newrepublic.com/article/118527/american-revolution-what-did-europeans-think

>youtube.com/watch?v=o2wlALvJNdQ
>LAFAYETTE!
>WE ARE HERE!

The British were never that ruthless and they were a positive soft touch with the American colonists. If the Boston 'massacre' had happened under any other power they wou'dve just had the troublemakers hanged and declared martial law.

That's my point. The only way they could have held onto the colonies was to go fucking hard, and they wouldn't/couldn't, so they lost. The soft touch didn't work, and getting nastier would have made it harder to win. It was lose-lose.

>1. The US Revolutionary War was a conventional war fought on the field, with little to no guerrilla
This post is good for the most part.
But this is completely wrong.
There was a major insurgency in states such as Georgia, the Carolina's, and even Virginia to an extent.

>It was lose-lose.
They could've avoided the whole issue by just giving the colonies some seats in Parliament.

>saving them in 2 world wars and trying to save them in Vietnam isn't enough.
How many Americans must die in service of the eternal gaul?

Very possibly. As was my point. Lord North wanted to put the colonists in their place, and chose to never compromise until it cost him and the empire everything.

Fucking frogs. If the Americans are truly Anglo, then it should be in their very genetic code to have a burning hatred of the french

What are some of your favourite things that assblasted "muh empire" anglos say?

>Obsessing over the anglosphere so they can somehow LARP that USA/Canada/Australia etc are still under control of London
>"We didn't actually lose this war that we lost because..."
>"Everything France did was an imitation of Britain, we are the fathers of Europe"
>"Ireland is rightfully British, we have a right to it"
>Posting maps of their empire which include territories both painted red which were never in the Empire at the same time
>LARPing that England has retained anything over it's "1000 years" other than the name due to the amount of people who just fucking came and took chunks of it/all of it for themselves

Just because the English burned down your shithole rebel town in the past

>saving them in 2 world wars
Only one, and the Russians would've saved them anyway

>and trying to save them in Vietnam
Wrong
On the contrary, America purposedly waited until the French had lost before starting their own intervention a year later (pic related) because they didn't want to help France and European colonialism

Do you understand what COULD have means?

>Founding Fathers went full angloboo in the 1790s
>independence suited our interests fine after it became more trouble and money than it worth to hold onto the colonies
Only retarded modern day amerimutts still LARP about this war

Problem is the colonies were rather brash about the whole thing and this made the likes of Lord North bristle at the thought of such a thing, especially considering that he thought that the colonists were being unreasonable seeing as Britain paid for them to be kept safe, etc.

>anglosphere
Mostly USfags do this
>"We didn't actually lose this war that we lost because..."
it's called nuance
>"Everything France did was an imitation of Britain, we are the fathers of Europe"
Never heard anyone say this ever
>"Ireland is rightfully British, we have a right to it"
This is true, fight me paddy
>Posting maps of their empire which include territories both painted red which were never in the Empire at the same time
This is all empires though tbf
>LARPing that England has retained anything over it's "1000 years" other than the name due to the amount of people who just fucking came and took chunks of it/all of it for themselves
Most historically illiterate thing I've ever read

>"Everything France did was an imitation of Britain, we are the fathers of Europe"
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like this in my life.
>"Ireland is rightfully British, we have a right to it"
Ah, hello plastic paddy.

Get a load of this buttdevasted britbong

>a discussion is butthurt
ITT: amerimutts project their patheticness onto other people

Not a yank or a bognigger.

The Ireland question is always funny because England's claim to Ireland is based upon their fealty to the Catholic pope.
Make up your mind, nigel.

The ABSOLUTE state of bongistanis itt

t. Irrelevant third-world shithole that had the honour of their country being graced by the presence of the Anglo-Saxon race

You don't have to be a yank to be a plastic. No one in Britain gives a shit about Ireland least of all the British government.

>Russians
>winning WW2
>without Lend-lease
A hearty kek to you sir.

Wait, why'd my post get lumped in there? I'm , btw.

>your navy was unable to defeat the combined Spanish and French navies
That's completely wrong. The allied powers lost the naval war badly. The only real exception was the Comte de Grasse breaking the blockade at Yorktown, and even he was defeated and taken as a POW at the battle of the Saintes not long after. The end result of the war was an utter disaster for the Dutch, for instance.

>implying we care

>Brits offer insightful and good quality conversation
>foreigners come in
>HURR DURR BONGS SUCK
>thread is kill
based

>Implying anyone in England gives a shit about Ireland
Shows how much you know, faggot

>Lend Lease
Bongs were the biggest recipients of that by far

More like

>This educated American person makes an insightful post that breaks the British delusion going on in the thread before that
>Total British chimpout afterward

But that post is literally nothing but drivel

Any respected historian would laugh if they saw it

>amerimutts

Is this fucking frog *still* haunting /int/? I haven't been here in like a year and he's still going on, Jesus wept

>an insightful post
Top kek m8, good one

>Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference during 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

This is now a "Let's laugh at Britain" thread

>educated American

oxymoron right there

...

>Except we literally did rule the waves
How? From the bottom of the ocean?

>Total: 48,395.4 million
>British Empire: 31,387.1 million
>Soviet Union: 10,982.1 million
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

...

...

...

...

Britain had no reason to want to continue the war. They were not making any money from the 13 colonies and there was no way to control the future US even if the war in 1776 could've been won.

YANK'D

...

...

He's not American. He's the French poster who used to spam shit about haplogroups on /int/ all the time.

>Italy = Rome
the utter state of anti-anglo memes

>1066
>I surrender
>have to literally falsify history
my sides

This. If there's no money in it why bother. The entire British Empire could be summed up by those words. Clearly it worked since they became a global power while the rest of the world was busy comparing dick size.

oh, ok.