Ohhhh i feel real bad for them....but for a war to be called a revolution...doesnt there has to change something big? well we have gotten more war and more space to,live seem yhe fact the real americans got slaughtered, half of asia got slaughtered, the middle east. And nazi germany but i approve of killing nazi's
there were many "battles" that never really were recorded involving tory loyalists and indians on the frontier. In fact people don't realize that the war on the frontier during the revolution went as far west as Ohio and in some remote locations illinois.
@USMarineRifleman0311 lol afggot is only told what he's meant to believe you researched americans side of it. if you look deeper you'll realise we fucked you
now that you live in our shadow, you go to great lenghts to lighten the shame and embarassment of loosing to your own colonials who are still here to gloat
@USMarineRifleman0311 hahah you can't take that your fat shit whole of a country got ownedd haha, kind of tragic how you can't see past your countries lies
@USMarineRifleman0311 There were closer to 300 battles in the revolution..your missing a few....:P. The French govt. bankrupted themselves funding the continental army, which led to (in part) the French revolution.The League of Armed Nuetrality also restricted the Royal Navy from operating (for the first time in about 80 years), so when the British Army lost just a few major battles, it would not be able to recover. Give the continental congress' EU allies some credit..:P.
those guys had brass balls, standing strong while it rains cannon balls and musket balls,and their allies are dying around them hell i'd sh%t my trousers and run for cover! of course id also have to go to jail for doing so =/
the once brave Americans have been institutionialized and brainwashed and have forgotten their roots. Anyone who violates the constitution is a traitor to America.
The Loyalists are seemingly always left out of the historiography related to this war. Loyalists, who did not want a war, were treated like animals by the Rebels - lynching, forced break ins, threats all made up the daily life of a Loyalist. The British were far from tyrannical, had they been, they would have hung every rebel in sight and treated the 13 Colonies as they treated Ireland in 1798. It was because the British were soft that the 'Revolution' could roll on with its sick rhetoric.
@Talbot6832 Sufficed to say, Loyalists are definitely a little too inconvenient for American historians to talk about. The entire conflict needs to be re-rooted with some impartiality. Such an example comes with the common notion that the British Army was some kind of highly trained super force... in 1775 the British Army was in a terrible state having come off the back of over a decade of inactivity. Saying that I might be mixing popular perceptions with academic ones.
This was from the movie called 'Patriots' we watched it in History class very bloody, Sad, and brutal. :'( All the girls were crying and all the guys were laughing.
lol, I always thought that the artist were in the middle of the battlefield asking soldiers to pose. "Excuse me redcoat, can you stab that guy in the chest for me, its for a painting?" Redcoat: "Oh sure sure no problem." Artist: "Hold that pose, almost there...." Enemy:" Ack!" Artist: "Perfect! Thank you!" few minutes later he asks another redcoat the same thing! XD lol
language. You have a point: slavery was prevalent in the world back then and putting the onus on American colonists is unfair. Historical collision at work here: the US today is a better model of freedom (or liberty) than it was originally.
@flownet07 To distinguish, liberty referred to an individual's or collective peoples' right to self-determination (founding a separate gov., pursuing individual happiness) as opposed to a modern conception of personal freedom from bondage which evolved through the 1790s-1860s. There are large swaths of US-Native relations that are sad and painful. However, it never meets true characteristic of genocide, a charge largely produced by a professional academic historian class in search of tenure.
I wonder if the colonists had been allegiance then why did they need French help when they both should be enemies late in the war and they worked together during the Siege of Yorktown that lead finally to the end of the war.
The King then declared the colonists traitors cos they were allies with the French.
lol & most sof the so called Republicans were Scott's & Irish clans who were thrown of there lands back home and wanted payback .freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom
France defeated Britain to surrender at Cornwallis which resulted in the Treaty of Paris so basically America should be thanking the French for winning them Independence
@TheIcelandicPatriot True but in fact they helped their former colonial masters Britain too cos they knew if they don't then their country would be in danger of being invaded.
Actually it was thanks to the US whom we fought against that in fact helped saved Britain from the hand of a tyrant Hitler! I think it was fate after all.
@DavBlc7 Europe had bleed for over 3 years before you finally came but still better late then never. You had the advantage of having the Atlantic ocean between you and Nazi Germany. You had bigger economy and more people. Don't give me wrong we are very greatfull for you help but had you come in 38, not 41 many more lives could have been saved.
@TheIcelandicPatriot the US did not had a standing peace-time army until after WW2. The armies we had were very small and poorly equipped. Ever wonder why, in WW1 we declared war in 1917 but didn't really get there until almost 1918? It's because we had no army. Same in '38. Even if we had declared war, we wouldn't have been able to fight until at least '40, probably '41. Of course, if we had entered in '38 we'd have to listen to how bloodthirsty we were. we get it enough as it is. so, no thanks
@reenactor19th True you had little army but you could have started preparing back in 1933 when Hitler rose to power. Bloodthirsty? We all are at some point. Just some hippies that hate everything we have fought and died for that say that.
@reenactor19th True you had little army but you could have started preparing back in 1933 when Hitler rose to power. Bloodthirsty? We all are at some point. Just some hippies that hate everything we have fought and died for that say that.
@TheIcelandicPatriot We did. We started building tanks. In 1931 we had eight tanks. We also began opening and operating shipyards. We also began R&D on airplanes. It takes time to build an army.
@reenactor19th Yet millions died before you came, come when your ready but you did not declare war untill you yourself got attacked. It makes oss wonder where your friendship lies.
@TheIcelandicPatriot First, let's consider this. Americans did come on their own. I believe they flew quite valiantly for the RAF? Second, when we did enter the war, we put our guys in the Pacific on hold, didn't we? Yes, we concentrated on the European theater. We told the Marines, "Don't lose. We'll be back after Europe." So, how many of our own men did we condemn to death to help you? Luckily, the Marines transformed into a major fighting force during that war.
@TheIcelandicPatriot Also, let's go to the Versailles Treaty. Wilson advocated lenient measures on Germany, but the US was told haughtily that it had been a British and French war, so they would dictate terms. Why is it our fault that the war Wilson warned would happen did, indeed happen? And, to remember, the European fighting nearly bankrupted us. It's a good thing Japan surrendered, b/c we had no more money. You still want to question friendship?
@reenactor19th True friends come before being asked. True friends go to hell and back, and back again.You helped oss during WW1 and WW2 that we will never forget. You came late but you came and thats what matters. If the U.S will be under attack in the future we will come straight away to your aide.
Those redcoats were awesome,comon a little island building a empire like that against the major powers of europe.yeah the french helped us but how did they do it, fact is bro's those Brits were tough fuckers and no amount of flag waving by us or those dirty surrender monkeys can take that away from them.Bottom line is if they didnt come here we wouldnt have a constitution let alone a country as it was written by men of British descent and came from the idea of freedom they brought with them.
You REALLY need to learn your history. The Puritans and Quakers that came here LEFT Britain because of how shitty of a place it was. The British didn't even want to come (No funding for early colonies from the Monarchy, again read up on your history) here until we started making insane amounts of money that they could tax. The british were only tough on the supply side, they fought like idiots and had fallacious pride. I'd like to see you wave a flag at the largest army in the world.
@menaceblake Fact 1,The Puritans and Quakers and most who settled here were English(British) who came here of there own free will to live in colonies settled in the name of the British crown.Fact 2,All but one of the founding father's were of British decent,Fact 3,The British redcoat conquered a quarter of the globe and were the world's greatest power.Last,i dont get what you mean by waving a flag and dont tell people history when you know shit.Try reading what your replying to first.
@menaceblake "The Puritans ... that came here LEFT Britain because of how shitty of a place it was."
You need to learn *your* history. The puritans were religious fascists who wanted a theocracy. When they established themselves, they were extremely intolerant and hostile to anybody but themselves, imposing the death penalty for all manner of trivial offenses. Not nice people.
@crapatev you are correct, the puritans were not a loving and tolerant folk. oliver cromwell was there leader generations before and rebelled against charles 1 . he seemed to be a wooden and bloodthirsty man devoid of the milk of human kindness. i assume the english were glad to get rid of the bastards after the royals regained the throne and send them off to america. they were indeed a sucspicious lot that executed folks for witchcraft and just generally not liking you. they eventually absorbd
@crapatev cont; into the american landscappe, if you will, and left some good yankee traits i.e. self reliance, the work ethic, mistrust of titles,and plain old yankee engenuity along with closed mindedness , dislike of foreignors,lousy diet (meat n potatas) . america is now in the midst of a cultural awakening but however good some of the enlightened parts are we have to remember the good, solid, common sensical ways of the anglo saxon forefathers and blend them with constructive new ideas.
@keir100 I don't think i've ever seen an American display gratitude to Britain for starting their country off. It's always tyrant this, oppressors that.
@N330AA No worries, just telling it like it is,Your so right about the British being shown as tyrannical and this movie is a good example,its so historical inaccurate the Smithsonian who advised on uniforms wanted nothing to do with it after being shown a screening,The shooting of prisoner's,wtf was that all about when in reality the British treated them pretty well and most were paroled and sent home,fact is buddy many of us are embarrassed by this crap n y'all deserve better
@keir100 because american citizens would be forced to serve in the british navy if they were caught in a different port or country... sooo yea.. poor britain..
@ZhaoYun15233 At this time we were under British rule and it was called the press gang and even Brits from the UK were taken,today it's called conscription.
Ha, flag waving Americans! Freedom! We fight for freedom! (but we'll keep the slaves on our plantations and take the Indian lands and start their genocide)...
@flownet07 You haven't really studied the origins of the Indian wars, have you? Ha, wannabes that confuse intellectualism with cynicism. I'll repeat what somebody I think is smarter than me said.
@flownet07 rest assured, I will answer you soon. However, simple name calling is not ad hominem, nor a logical fallacy. I am not saying you are wrong due to your being wannabe. I am calling you wrong on the merits of a poor argument. Then I am saying you are a wannabe. You may also notice, in the interest of parallelism, I modeled my diction and syllabic content after your argument. Anyway, fuller comments to follow.
@reenactor19th Certainly hope so! Poor argument? Let's see: Isn't it a fact that a number of the authors of the US Constitution had slaves working for them on plantations? Yes or no? If so, then isn't it contradictory to fight for your own freedom while at the same time denying it to other on the basis of their status or skin colour? Yes or no? Isn't it a fact that the native people on the American continent went through a genocide when they met with European settlers? Yes or no?
@flownet07 The genocide argument gained great traction during the 1960s, and has now come under contention. Most scholars agree that disease accounted for upwards to 90% of all native deaths. Ward Churchill has advocated that this was intentional; however, only one possible example can be found, and that is inconclusive. Another instance he claims as "biological warfare" was shown by his own sources to be untruthful. Also, there is no evidence of an organized plan by the US Army to erradicate...
@flownet07 natives. In fact, the attitude you cite was shown by many frontiersmen, but rejected thoroughly (along with the idea of winning through force alone) by Indian Affairs officials, as well as the majority of the population on both coasts. Please forgive the briefness; this forum does not facilitate in-depth answers. As far as slavery, the US is the only country held to this standard. Both Sparta and Athens are held up as freedom fighters against Persia, though both had slave classes...
@flownet07 of greater population percentage than the US. Furthermore, I would argue that you misstate (perhaps intentionally) actual US rhetoric of the period, and that the revolution was waged for liberty rather than "freedom". However, the idea that this liberty applied, largely, to white male landowners is hardly an American concept, and the very contradiction you point out is impossible to reconcile, and founders struggled, unsuccessfully, to reconcile that exact point...
@flownet07 Lastly, I would argue that avenues were set up to allow Africans to receive freedom through service. Unfortunately, it did not take effect. Finally, and unfortunately, slavery has been legal in the world far longer than it has been illegal. According to your standard, we must either label all societies that allowed slavery as miserable, misanthrope societies, or your contention that the US could not support any freedom due to slavery must fall completely.
@flownet07 Should you wish, I can provide a reading list regarding my sources of information about the veracity of a charge of genocide against the American Indians.
@reenactor19th Interesting reply. Certainly disease played a large role in Indian population decrease. But the Trail of Tears was not a happy trek towards Oklahoma. No there was no overt plan by the US Army against natives. The US Army is only the instrument of the US government which works on behalf of its citizens. One could argue that ethnic cleansing was an unfortunate consequence of Manifest Destiny... I fail to see the nuance between freedom and liberty, as English is not my first...
@TheLiberalKnight It was not really a French victory cos it was not France's war but the war to create a new country. The war caused the King to spent money rather to help the poor people in France.
Much of the money was spent on helping the Yanks and that France's royal budget was wasted. That caused the King to raise taxes to replace these wasted after a meeting at Third Estate. That lead to the revolution.
@DavBlc7 Actually the idea of creating a new country didn't emerge until the end of the war. The war started because the American colonies wanted political representation in London since they were being taxed from London. France joined, in order to humiliate Britain, and succeeded. And yes, Louis 16th's treasury was bankrupt afterwards, which lead to the French revolution.
@TheLiberalKnight Most battles were fought by Americans and British on American soil. No it would be correct to say France won the proxy war but not the war, For example the US won the proxy war in ww2, but not the war. that was a team effort. you should also thank the US for sending you supplies in ww2.
@VanOstrum Wrong, most battles were fought between British rebels and a limited number of troops from the British army on American soil. You were fighting for representation in London, not as a new country. It was only until after the war that the hypocritical cunts (the founding fathers) declared the USA to be a country. You guys often forget that you were nothing more than British citizens. It was not Britain oppressing a new country at all!
@TheLiberalKnight Try not to forget though that America had started to be colonised by Britons as far back as the early 1600s so many of the rebels were third and fourth generation 'Americans' and considered themselves as such. Britain wasn't an oppressor though. What many Americans of today don't realise is that the colonists had one of the best standards of life in the world at that time, much more so than those back in Britain
@aspiringdrummer17 Yeah. The taxing was justified. The royal navy prevented the American colonists from getting their ass kicked by a foreign power. They should pay their fair share for that.
@TheLiberalKnight Actually it was when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th 1776 thus in effect it became a new born nation, not after the war.
Britain and France however not recognised the new nation - After the battle of Saratoga France recognised the new United States but Britain did not until after the treaty of Paris was signed.
British Rebels? Actually not all colonists are British descents but from almost all over Europe including the Swedes and the Germans as well as Italians, Spanish or Portuguese who wanted to settle in the new land of America. They consider themselves not to be subjects of our late King George III but as free men and women.
It was our only big loss in our history of British Empire - After that less loss of empire until after WW2.
What actually happened: the settlers to the English colonies were to swear alleigance to the monarchy, George III, but not parliament. This explains why the Americans were still toasting George III during the war of independance. They were angry at parliament for taxing them without representation. The monarchy had nothing to do with it- indeed, it was the only connection with Britain that the colonist were loyal to.
@TheLiberalKnight Well the Declaration of Independence did show it intended to sever the tie with King George III as they no longer swear allegiance to the King as symbol of Britain - not the person himself
After it was signed Americans swear allegiance to the new nation.
British Parliament declared founding fathers including George Washington Jefferson and John Adam traitors to British crown yet they were not brought to trail (continue)
(cont) John Adam were then sent to the UK as first ambassador. When he met the King, His Majesty seems to have been disappointed at finding a traitor in his throne room yet he wasn't being punished. His house in London was near the current US Embassy.
After the war, colonists were no longer toasting the King - only to new nation and kicking out loyalists - most went to Canada - some returned to the UK or to Bahamas where British flag still flies.
@DavBlc7 Yes, my point was that in American schools, they teach this war as if it was a new nation being oppressed by the horrible British, boo fucking hoo. In actual fact, the idea of starting a new nation didn't even occur to the colonists up until the end, and they were still toasting His Majesty right the way through the war, because the colonies were only linked to Britain through their alleigance to the crown.
@TheLiberalKnight True but their children and grandchildren no longer toasting the King, only to their new nation in which they were born in. By the middle of the 19th century, only very few were able to toast the British monarch.
This is cos more people came to make their new life in the new country from many European country especially from Russia. Most don't know about Britain and it's monarch. The United States then went on to take Spanish and French possessions.
@DavBlc7 Yes well after the rebellious colonies won their independence in order to maintain it they conducted large scale programs aimed at exterminating all loyalist inhabitants of those colonies. This led to the flight north to Canada by those loyalist still alive in the USA. Remember there were approximately as many crown loyalists among the colonies as there were rebels.
These possessions they took had Spanish and French speaking people who then learnt to became American citizen.
During the American civil war Britain almost recognised the Confederate States of America and nearly went to war with the North states when two rebel agents were stopped aboard a British ship. However Queen Victoria and Prince Albert told their prime minister to apologies to President Lincoln after the Prime minister threatened to declare war. Shortly after Prince Albert died.
@TheLiberalKnight Incorrect. Since the French and Indian War, the colonists considered distinct from the British Empire. Subjects to, but not citizens of. The First Continental Congress convened in 1774. The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775 which oversaw the Declaration of Independence (all ties to England severed), the execution of national defense, and the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. All of this before the end of war. You are wrong.
@reenactor19th I bet that's what they teach you in your American schools ;-)
I bet they don't teach you that the colonists were toasting George III during the revolutionary war ;-)
The truth is, once Britain had rescued the colonies from the external powers, like France and Spain, you complained about our mild taxes on you, which were far lower than mainland Britain anyway.
@TheLiberalKnight No, that's what one reads in books and in historical records. Your rebuttal makes no sense to what I wrote. Colonial toastings of George III means nothing. They also burned effigies of him. What matters is that, starting in 1774 and up through the war, the colonists separated from the British and then had a central gov. prosecuting the war. Add to that the fact that from F&I war colonials were considered subjects, not citizens.
@reenactor19th Of course they seperated from the British. But it doesn't change the fact that they were NOT a foreign country. They were merely rebels, like the Libyan rebels today. It was only until the latter stages of the war that the idea came about of creating a new nation. Remember the fight was not against Britain but the British parliament, who were taxing them.
@TheLiberalKnight Whether they are a foreign nation depends upon who recognizes them. Of course, Britain did not recognize them. The point is that the colonials did not consider themselves British rebels, a point made earlier by you and others. Nationhood was not an afterthought, but the primary goal as evidences by their actions beginning in 1774. It is also worth noting that the Declaration of Independence was addressed and delivered to King George, not parliament.
@reenactor19th That's just wrong, I'm afraid. The colonists had no identity except that they were European in an Indian land. This soppy shit about Americans fighting for their freedom is nothing but propaganda. It was a political dispute over parliamentary representation. They were complaining about having a few taxes put on them without being represented in London. Considering we saved their arses from the French and Spanish, and that mainland Britons were taxed more, it was irresponsible.
@TheLiberalKnight Again, wrong. Enlistment terms for militia during the F&I War show, indeed, a separate identity felt among colonists and English. The actions of the first and second Continental Congresses 1774-1776 show that Nationhood was the ultimate goal of the rebellion, hence the reason one finds "American" becoming more ubiquitous through the 1760s, until 1770 when the colonies were referred to more as "American" than "British". Edmund Burke also advocated national identity in 1760s.
@reenactor19th I'm not going to talk to you. I'll tell you what you should do now- read a history book that wasn't written by an American, and stop believing the biased bollocks they obviously teach at American schools (I have visited them, and they are the most biased in the west by far)
@TheLiberalKnight an admission of defeat. You have proven nothing, much less a bias among American scholars. Read The Crucible of War. I will present this last argument to your contention that American nationalism, and the idea of governance, were afterhoughts: "We, therefore, the representative of the United States of America, in General Congress...declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states." -- Declaration of Independence. You're wrong.
@reenactor19th If I were talking to a Frenchmen, I would continue to talk. If I were talking to a German, I would continue to talk. If I were talking to a Russian, I would continue to talk. But no. I am no stranger to the USA. You are so blinded by bias it is painful to have even the briefest of conversations regarding history with you. I have been to American schools- I was appauled at the way history is taught.
@TheLiberalKnight You have refused to answer any of my arguments. In response, you try to deflect the argument into a prejudice against nationalities. You have been soundly defeated, sir, as evidenced by your complete departure from the conversation. You have presented nothing in the form of historical record to defend your points or as rebuttal. You have now shown yourself the victim of extreme prejudice. And you misspelled "apauled"--rather appallingly.
@TheLiberalKnight Read The Crucible of War. It addresses the colonists attitudes towards taxes much better than I can here, due to space restraints. You will find that, in the 1750s-1760s, the colonists agreed with you. That's why the rebellion didn't begin until the 1770s. You'll also find, like most of history, it is far more complex than you simplified, bias-motivated and frankly inadequate responses pretend.
AMERICA OWE the FRENCH - SPANISH - and the DUTCH their very own FREEDOM and INDEPENDENCE for eternity. NO HARD FEELING toward the BRITISH from a french, who my own country have been FREE from the NAZI we(french) OWE our very own freedom from WW1 and WW2 to the USA BRITISH RUSSIAN and others GOD BLESS ALL COUNTRIES.
Lol USA doesn't owe euro trash shit, Maybe we'll send you some water bottles and free food LOL. This was our victory, not yours, Long Live THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Btw. the french hardly did anything during this war.
@RUPERTDOUGLAS90 LOL ANOTHER STUPID AMERICAN. WITHOUT THE FRENCH-SPANISH-DUTCH YOU WILL BE SINGING GOD SAVE THE QUEEN TODAY AND WAVING THAT BRITTISH FLAG IGNORANT AMERICAN, SAY HAIL TO THE FRENCH - SPANISH - DUTCH :-) SPECIALY THE FRENCH YOUR HEROES :-)
@tk291100 Nobody intervened until after Saratoga. It wasn't French generals at Boston, Trenton, Long Island, etc. Plus, as people that study know, the primary aid that France gave was a financial grant, which became a loan, which allowed the Continental Congress to address woeful shortcomings in supply. The French fleet didn't arrive for another 18 months. French advisers came, largely for training purposes. Sorry, dudes, the British lost on the ground to US colonials.
@RUPERTDOUGLAS90 I think you guys should be forced to have a national French day, to worship the French, eternally thanking them for winning this war for you. A decisive French victory. Well done France.
@TheLiberalKnight We have the Statue of Liberty. Of course, then there's the Quasi War with France (read: betrayal) which erased any good feelings. Then the fact that what France, during the revolution, promised as a grant became a loan. That France's promised troop numbers were short about 10,000, and only a few hundred advisers really set foot in the US. No, I don't think I'll give that victory to France. You should stop letting a bias make you say such ridiculous nonsense.
@TheLiberalKnight We have the Statue of Liberty. Of course, then there's the Quasi War with France (read: betrayal) which erased any good feelings. Then the fact that what France, during the revolution, promised as a grant became a loan. That France's promised troop numbers were short about 10,000, and only a few hundred advisers really set foot in the US. No, I don't think I'll give that victory to France. You should stop letting a bias make you say such ridiculous nonsense.
@reenactor19th The actions of the French Navy enabled the colonial victory at Yorktown. Without the threat of French, Spanish and Dutch action globally the colonists would be most unlikely to secure their independence.
@TheLiberalKnight Quasi War, Statue of Liberty, their fleet broken by British, "grant" which magically became a lona, only a few hundred soldiers; if that is a decisive victory against England, then England sucks. No, I don't think I'll give France the victory. And I think there's been more than enough reciprocity with France. You should stop letting a bias make you say such ridiculous nonsense.
@TheLiberalKnight Quasi War, Statue of Liberty, their fleet broken by British, "grant" which magically became a lona, only a few hundred soldiers; if that is a decisive victory against England, then England sucks. No, I don't think I'll give France the victory. And I think there's been more than enough reciprocity with France. You should stop letting a bias make you say such ridiculous nonsense.
Did you know more Americans fought on the British side than on Washingtons - if it wasn't for the French, Spanish and Dutch then the revolution would've been crushed - as a point of interest - the US civil war was about state rights to withdraw from the Union - sound familiar - the same people who wanted independence from Britain, crushed the South, slaughtered the indians and crushed the spanish speaking pop are now driving the invasion of the middle east.
@MarioSMB3 "That is heaven compared to American's treating prisoners"
In what time period??? Civil war was bad but what nation treated its prisoners like cake???
America is THE BEST nation to ever treat POWs or other combatants. Especially VICTORIOUS nation.
British didn't care because these were traitors in their mind just like in the CW so I can understand like if California tried to rebel/succeed (I think we would let it go and give NY for free) we probably would not look kindly on that.
@MarioSMB3 isnt it an exaggeration saying that the new-york prison ships were hevean compared to how the u.s. tortured some iraqis or iraqi into saying it was linked to al qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction, I mean sitting painfully chained on a dirty, disease-ridden, smelly, corpses lying around, and you starving to death and bored until you die versus getting tortured by some foreign troops, I dont know which is worse but who knows what could have happened to prisoners on both sides....
I keep seeing arguments on videos and il state this.Im American but the british are one of the only countrys that accepted that they lost without excuses and they left that behind.Why do people keep bringing this stuff up?
I'm reading my history book, and it tells me that a bunch of ragtag farmers from America crushed the mightiest army in the world at the time. How do you explain that? Your British empire was fighting a two-front war against non-military farmers and the French. The French needed us just as much as we needed them. We decimated your army in our farm fields, which made it easier for France to continue their war with King George. Damn that must hurt. Cheer-i-o laddy.
@buffet62 and how good is a 'historian' like yourself who clearly has never heard of the word 'biased' or 'one-sided'? Written by an american, in favour of america.
In the same way America left Vietnam as the number 1 super power, Britain left America. It was not that they had no troops left or ships, sometimes wars that seem to be dragging on are not popular and question the will of whether it is worth fighting them.
Despite being British, I like the story, it is one for the little guy who is determined and believes in what he is fighting for.
People say we should learn from history, I question whether the U.S has learned from theirs (Vietnam,Iraq,Afgan
I can't do much except to say I thank you all those man who died winning out independence,I also Thank those 50,000 brave soldiers who lost their lives to help achieve this goal.
@salazar55555 , weeeeell, i guess you're right, but the reason the french joined us is because they saw that we started doing sorta well...but ya, i get what you're saying...
Plus if you really want to go into it, the war could more accurately be described as a British civil war fought on American land. The people who you assume to be Americans are actually British people who moved to America, the wanted their own government and to break away from British rule.
The huge amount of people who have gone into America since this war does not mean that at the time this took place it was mostly British or would should be described as ex british.
Lets not forget the French and Spanish that were fighting on your side too, you guys forget about that enough
@Jgearhalo What planet are you from? The Colonials were British. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin's parents and grandparents were from England. Go read a book.
@NYhistorian Are you out of your mind? how the hell the American were relatives to the British, when the americans view them as an enimies at that period. A smart american should know that the Bristish murdered our people and treat us like shit.
@Jgearhalo Are you out of your mind? The Crown own the colonies. Where did most of the people in the British colonies come from? Washington, Madison, Franklin, etc grandparents or parents came from England. What are you saying? The white man is native to North America?
@salazar55555 oh do they teach you in school that the british had the hessian army and iroquois indian tribe fighting on their side not to mention that the british army was the most disciplined and professionally trained army in the world in 1775? So the americans had help from the french so what i thought gb was supposed to be a greater army then the french at the time guess not
@jcolossale It wasn't until the Napoleonic era that the British Army was considered to be the best. Around the time of the Revolution there wasn't much to choose between the British and French
You should look at the war in the same sense as Vietnam, Just because one country is a super power, with a bigger and better army does not mean they will win. A determined people who know the land and have a belief in what they are fighting for are hard to beat. They used tactics like the Indians used on them (hit and run). Add the fact that Britain was fighting other wars all over the world and that America had help from France, Spain and Holland and you have your reason.
There is always one mistake i saw when ever i watch the revolution war is that the Flag of United state should had only 13 star not 54 or 55 star . Cause the star stand for the state and at that time the America had only the original 13 states .
I seem to remember the American colonials begged the French to help them beat off a handful of Brits while Britain's elite Army and Navy were busy fighting a Manly war in Europe.
If Britannia wanted to fuck America it could've. Great Britain had 10 times more troops than Americans. Americans got lucky that the Brits had to fight European powers.
This has been flagged as spam show
British killing British. What a tragedy.
karezza6 2 days ago
Ohhhh i feel real bad for them....but for a war to be called a revolution...doesnt there has to change something big? well we have gotten more war and more space to,live seem yhe fact the real americans got slaughtered, half of asia got slaughtered, the middle east. And nazi germany but i approve of killing nazi's
DTerror1303 3 days ago
Fact remains is....they still have no freedom. poor yankies :( if you just had a king
DTerror1303 3 days ago
this wouldn't have happened if the british didn't help the americans in the first place now look what has happened to this world
24SparrowJack 1 week ago
@24SparrowJack you do know the british won? lol or ae you refering to the revolutionary war never happening?r
lolatmyfoot 3 days ago
there were many "battles" that never really were recorded involving tory loyalists and indians on the frontier. In fact people don't realize that the war on the frontier during the revolution went as far west as Ohio and in some remote locations illinois.
zyzor 1 week ago
Hey, do you mind if I use some of these clips for a school project?
sayheypastry 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BRITISH XEBOPHOBES AGAINST VS ANGLO-JEWISH INTERNATIONALS
unfukkkmee 3 weeks ago
Wat is this music????
CATSIZZY 3 weeks ago
wel gibbson has some thing ageinst english people dont he
dominicbonserful 3 weeks ago
@dominicbonserful
No, he doesn't. This war happened because your king wouldn't give the U.S independence.
DarkosApprentice 3 weeks ago
@dominicbonserful he hates jews more then english people
AmirKhanUchiha 3 weeks ago
Americans won a total of 61 battles.
60 on their own.
Brits won 56 on their own.
Similar numbers for the War of 1812.
US 62
UK 38
suck on it
USMarineRifleman0311 1 month ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 get it right you fucking idiot
lolatmyfoot 3 weeks ago
@lolatmyfoot
get what right? I did my research. We won more battles. Even the Spanish and French beat you a couple times on the continent.
We beat you and your Hessian and Indian allies alone on the Cont. US.
USMarineRifleman0311 3 weeks ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 lol afggot is only told what he's meant to believe you researched americans side of it. if you look deeper you'll realise we fucked you
lolatmyfoot 3 days ago
@lolatmyfoot
4 words
you lost the war....
now that you live in our shadow, you go to great lenghts to lighten the shame and embarassment of loosing to your own colonials who are still here to gloat
USMarineRifleman0311 3 days ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 hahah you can't take that your fat shit whole of a country got ownedd haha, kind of tragic how you can't see past your countries lies
lolatmyfoot 3 days ago
@USMarineRifleman0311 There were closer to 300 battles in the revolution..your missing a few....:P. The French govt. bankrupted themselves funding the continental army, which led to (in part) the French revolution.The League of Armed Nuetrality also restricted the Royal Navy from operating (for the first time in about 80 years), so when the British Army lost just a few major battles, it would not be able to recover. Give the continental congress' EU allies some credit..:P.
petestal 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
tutorialreviewbrit 1 month ago
lol patriot :D
plaaplaaplaa12 1 month ago
the only reason the revolution was succesful was because most of britains army was busy
schmooisaninja 1 month ago
Mel Gibson during his amazing era? Heath Ledger? History? Awesome!
RyanKaufman 1 month ago
Respect for our nation; America.
Thanks for posting this clip of the vid. 10/10 made me shed tears.
IBonesawPkI 1 month ago
OH Charlie, Mel Gibson is an anti-semite
AnthonyMex1980 1 month ago
those guys had brass balls, standing strong while it rains cannon balls and musket balls,and their allies are dying around them hell i'd sh%t my trousers and run for cover! of course id also have to go to jail for doing so =/
whispers6667 2 months ago
the war lasted 8 years, including the support of France.
ryanl201130 2 months ago
the once brave Americans have been institutionialized and brainwashed and have forgotten their roots. Anyone who violates the constitution is a traitor to America.
EducateTheSelf 2 months ago
go british
charlieSayYay 2 months ago
The Loyalists are seemingly always left out of the historiography related to this war. Loyalists, who did not want a war, were treated like animals by the Rebels - lynching, forced break ins, threats all made up the daily life of a Loyalist. The British were far from tyrannical, had they been, they would have hung every rebel in sight and treated the 13 Colonies as they treated Ireland in 1798. It was because the British were soft that the 'Revolution' could roll on with its sick rhetoric.
Talbot6832 2 months ago
@Talbot6832 Sufficed to say, Loyalists are definitely a little too inconvenient for American historians to talk about. The entire conflict needs to be re-rooted with some impartiality. Such an example comes with the common notion that the British Army was some kind of highly trained super force... in 1775 the British Army was in a terrible state having come off the back of over a decade of inactivity. Saying that I might be mixing popular perceptions with academic ones.
Talbot6832 2 months ago
This was from the movie called 'Patriots' we watched it in History class very bloody, Sad, and brutal. :'( All the girls were crying and all the guys were laughing.
lolmoments321 2 months ago
America 1776 Succeede Rebel and fight for independance becuase of taxes
2011 Taxes at same rate in 1776 but no one gives a fuck
and so in 2011 not a single fuck was given that day.
MonarchNacho 2 months ago
Wow.. soldiers must have been super disaplinned to walk right through that trama
StarkBarracuda 2 months ago
lol, I always thought that the artist were in the middle of the battlefield asking soldiers to pose. "Excuse me redcoat, can you stab that guy in the chest for me, its for a painting?" Redcoat: "Oh sure sure no problem." Artist: "Hold that pose, almost there...." Enemy:" Ack!" Artist: "Perfect! Thank you!" few minutes later he asks another redcoat the same thing! XD lol
SuperJuggler123 3 months ago
language. You have a point: slavery was prevalent in the world back then and putting the onus on American colonists is unfair. Historical collision at work here: the US today is a better model of freedom (or liberty) than it was originally.
flownet07 4 months ago
@flownet07 To distinguish, liberty referred to an individual's or collective peoples' right to self-determination (founding a separate gov., pursuing individual happiness) as opposed to a modern conception of personal freedom from bondage which evolved through the 1790s-1860s. There are large swaths of US-Native relations that are sad and painful. However, it never meets true characteristic of genocide, a charge largely produced by a professional academic historian class in search of tenure.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
I wonder if the colonists had been allegiance then why did they need French help when they both should be enemies late in the war and they worked together during the Siege of Yorktown that lead finally to the end of the war.
The King then declared the colonists traitors cos they were allies with the French.
DavBlc7 4 months ago
lol & most sof the so called Republicans were Scott's & Irish clans who were thrown of there lands back home and wanted payback .freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom
pundy1969 4 months ago
France defeated Britain to surrender at Cornwallis which resulted in the Treaty of Paris so basically America should be thanking the French for winning them Independence
DaleWF10 5 months ago
@DaleWF10 but it is America that helped kick the nazi's out of France so will call it even for now.
theconttra328 4 months ago
@theconttra328 Actually the U.S helped France twice. First in WW1 then again in WW2 so France ows U.S one.
TheIcelandicPatriot 4 months ago 3
@TheIcelandicPatriot True but in fact they helped their former colonial masters Britain too cos they knew if they don't then their country would be in danger of being invaded.
Actually it was thanks to the US whom we fought against that in fact helped saved Britain from the hand of a tyrant Hitler! I think it was fate after all.
DavBlc7 4 months ago 5
@DavBlc7 Europe had bleed for over 3 years before you finally came but still better late then never. You had the advantage of having the Atlantic ocean between you and Nazi Germany. You had bigger economy and more people. Don't give me wrong we are very greatfull for you help but had you come in 38, not 41 many more lives could have been saved.
TheIcelandicPatriot 4 months ago
@TheIcelandicPatriot the US did not had a standing peace-time army until after WW2. The armies we had were very small and poorly equipped. Ever wonder why, in WW1 we declared war in 1917 but didn't really get there until almost 1918? It's because we had no army. Same in '38. Even if we had declared war, we wouldn't have been able to fight until at least '40, probably '41. Of course, if we had entered in '38 we'd have to listen to how bloodthirsty we were. we get it enough as it is. so, no thanks
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th True you had little army but you could have started preparing back in 1933 when Hitler rose to power. Bloodthirsty? We all are at some point. Just some hippies that hate everything we have fought and died for that say that.
TheIcelandicPatriot 4 months ago
@reenactor19th True you had little army but you could have started preparing back in 1933 when Hitler rose to power. Bloodthirsty? We all are at some point. Just some hippies that hate everything we have fought and died for that say that.
TheIcelandicPatriot 4 months ago
@TheIcelandicPatriot We did. We started building tanks. In 1931 we had eight tanks. We also began opening and operating shipyards. We also began R&D on airplanes. It takes time to build an army.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th Yet millions died before you came, come when your ready but you did not declare war untill you yourself got attacked. It makes oss wonder where your friendship lies.
TheIcelandicPatriot 4 months ago
@TheIcelandicPatriot First, let's consider this. Americans did come on their own. I believe they flew quite valiantly for the RAF? Second, when we did enter the war, we put our guys in the Pacific on hold, didn't we? Yes, we concentrated on the European theater. We told the Marines, "Don't lose. We'll be back after Europe." So, how many of our own men did we condemn to death to help you? Luckily, the Marines transformed into a major fighting force during that war.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@TheIcelandicPatriot Also, let's go to the Versailles Treaty. Wilson advocated lenient measures on Germany, but the US was told haughtily that it had been a British and French war, so they would dictate terms. Why is it our fault that the war Wilson warned would happen did, indeed happen? And, to remember, the European fighting nearly bankrupted us. It's a good thing Japan surrendered, b/c we had no more money. You still want to question friendship?
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th True friends come before being asked. True friends go to hell and back, and back again.You helped oss during WW1 and WW2 that we will never forget. You came late but you came and thats what matters. If the U.S will be under attack in the future we will come straight away to your aide.
TheIcelandicPatriot 4 months ago
@TheIcelandicPatriot And we know that. Hopefully, that alliance will always be and only grow stronger.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th Let oss hope so. Some ocean should not keep oss apart. We all have the same ancestors, we are family. Family should never be apart.
TheIcelandicPatriot 4 months ago
Those redcoats were awesome,comon a little island building a empire like that against the major powers of europe.yeah the french helped us but how did they do it, fact is bro's those Brits were tough fuckers and no amount of flag waving by us or those dirty surrender monkeys can take that away from them.Bottom line is if they didnt come here we wouldnt have a constitution let alone a country as it was written by men of British descent and came from the idea of freedom they brought with them.
keir100 6 months ago 15
@keir100
You REALLY need to learn your history. The Puritans and Quakers that came here LEFT Britain because of how shitty of a place it was. The British didn't even want to come (No funding for early colonies from the Monarchy, again read up on your history) here until we started making insane amounts of money that they could tax. The british were only tough on the supply side, they fought like idiots and had fallacious pride. I'd like to see you wave a flag at the largest army in the world.
menaceblake 3 months ago
@menaceblake Fact 1,The Puritans and Quakers and most who settled here were English(British) who came here of there own free will to live in colonies settled in the name of the British crown.Fact 2,All but one of the founding father's were of British decent,Fact 3,The British redcoat conquered a quarter of the globe and were the world's greatest power.Last,i dont get what you mean by waving a flag and dont tell people history when you know shit.Try reading what your replying to first.
keir100 3 months ago
@menaceblake "The Puritans ... that came here LEFT Britain because of how shitty of a place it was."
You need to learn *your* history. The puritans were religious fascists who wanted a theocracy. When they established themselves, they were extremely intolerant and hostile to anybody but themselves, imposing the death penalty for all manner of trivial offenses. Not nice people.
crapatev 3 months ago
@crapatev you are correct, the puritans were not a loving and tolerant folk. oliver cromwell was there leader generations before and rebelled against charles 1 . he seemed to be a wooden and bloodthirsty man devoid of the milk of human kindness. i assume the english were glad to get rid of the bastards after the royals regained the throne and send them off to america. they were indeed a sucspicious lot that executed folks for witchcraft and just generally not liking you. they eventually absorbd
1986billyk 3 months ago
@crapatev cont; into the american landscappe, if you will, and left some good yankee traits i.e. self reliance, the work ethic, mistrust of titles,and plain old yankee engenuity along with closed mindedness , dislike of foreignors,lousy diet (meat n potatas) . america is now in the midst of a cultural awakening but however good some of the enlightened parts are we have to remember the good, solid, common sensical ways of the anglo saxon forefathers and blend them with constructive new ideas.
1986billyk 3 months ago
@keir100 I like your comment it looked like madness to me good documentary glad we are allies now
fast1919 2 months ago
@keir100 I don't think i've ever seen an American display gratitude to Britain for starting their country off. It's always tyrant this, oppressors that.
Thank you for bucking the trend.
N330AA 2 months ago
@N330AA No worries, just telling it like it is,Your so right about the British being shown as tyrannical and this movie is a good example,its so historical inaccurate the Smithsonian who advised on uniforms wanted nothing to do with it after being shown a screening,The shooting of prisoner's,wtf was that all about when in reality the British treated them pretty well and most were paroled and sent home,fact is buddy many of us are embarrassed by this crap n y'all deserve better
keir100 1 month ago
@keir100
Why weren't any noobs on the battle field using predator UAV drone, or Stealth Bombers
Mikuruification 1 month ago
@Mikuruification Wild guess here but maybe they had not been invented
keir100 1 month ago
@keir100 because american citizens would be forced to serve in the british navy if they were caught in a different port or country... sooo yea.. poor britain..
ZhaoYun15233 1 month ago
Comment removed
keir100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZhaoYun15233 At this time we were under British rule and it was called the press gang and even Brits from the UK were taken,today it's called conscription.
keir100 1 month ago
AMERICA!!!!
MrBlackClonez 6 months ago
Ha, flag waving Americans! Freedom! We fight for freedom! (but we'll keep the slaves on our plantations and take the Indian lands and start their genocide)...
flownet07 6 months ago
@flownet07 You haven't really studied the origins of the Indian wars, have you? Ha, wannabes that confuse intellectualism with cynicism. I'll repeat what somebody I think is smarter than me said.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th Wannabee? Moi? Please don't stop there and finish your reply! But spare me the ad hominem comments, OK?
flownet07 4 months ago
@flownet07 rest assured, I will answer you soon. However, simple name calling is not ad hominem, nor a logical fallacy. I am not saying you are wrong due to your being wannabe. I am calling you wrong on the merits of a poor argument. Then I am saying you are a wannabe. You may also notice, in the interest of parallelism, I modeled my diction and syllabic content after your argument. Anyway, fuller comments to follow.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th Certainly hope so! Poor argument? Let's see: Isn't it a fact that a number of the authors of the US Constitution had slaves working for them on plantations? Yes or no? If so, then isn't it contradictory to fight for your own freedom while at the same time denying it to other on the basis of their status or skin colour? Yes or no? Isn't it a fact that the native people on the American continent went through a genocide when they met with European settlers? Yes or no?
flownet07 4 months ago
@flownet07 The genocide argument gained great traction during the 1960s, and has now come under contention. Most scholars agree that disease accounted for upwards to 90% of all native deaths. Ward Churchill has advocated that this was intentional; however, only one possible example can be found, and that is inconclusive. Another instance he claims as "biological warfare" was shown by his own sources to be untruthful. Also, there is no evidence of an organized plan by the US Army to erradicate...
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@flownet07 natives. In fact, the attitude you cite was shown by many frontiersmen, but rejected thoroughly (along with the idea of winning through force alone) by Indian Affairs officials, as well as the majority of the population on both coasts. Please forgive the briefness; this forum does not facilitate in-depth answers. As far as slavery, the US is the only country held to this standard. Both Sparta and Athens are held up as freedom fighters against Persia, though both had slave classes...
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@flownet07 of greater population percentage than the US. Furthermore, I would argue that you misstate (perhaps intentionally) actual US rhetoric of the period, and that the revolution was waged for liberty rather than "freedom". However, the idea that this liberty applied, largely, to white male landowners is hardly an American concept, and the very contradiction you point out is impossible to reconcile, and founders struggled, unsuccessfully, to reconcile that exact point...
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@flownet07 Lastly, I would argue that avenues were set up to allow Africans to receive freedom through service. Unfortunately, it did not take effect. Finally, and unfortunately, slavery has been legal in the world far longer than it has been illegal. According to your standard, we must either label all societies that allowed slavery as miserable, misanthrope societies, or your contention that the US could not support any freedom due to slavery must fall completely.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@flownet07 Should you wish, I can provide a reading list regarding my sources of information about the veracity of a charge of genocide against the American Indians.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th Interesting reply. Certainly disease played a large role in Indian population decrease. But the Trail of Tears was not a happy trek towards Oklahoma. No there was no overt plan by the US Army against natives. The US Army is only the instrument of the US government which works on behalf of its citizens. One could argue that ethnic cleansing was an unfortunate consequence of Manifest Destiny... I fail to see the nuance between freedom and liberty, as English is not my first...
flownet07 4 months ago
This war was an excellent French victory. Well done France.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight It was not really a French victory cos it was not France's war but the war to create a new country. The war caused the King to spent money rather to help the poor people in France.
Much of the money was spent on helping the Yanks and that France's royal budget was wasted. That caused the King to raise taxes to replace these wasted after a meeting at Third Estate. That lead to the revolution.
DavBlc7 6 months ago
@DavBlc7 Actually the idea of creating a new country didn't emerge until the end of the war. The war started because the American colonies wanted political representation in London since they were being taxed from London. France joined, in order to humiliate Britain, and succeeded. And yes, Louis 16th's treasury was bankrupt afterwards, which lead to the French revolution.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Most battles were fought by Americans and British on American soil. No it would be correct to say France won the proxy war but not the war, For example the US won the proxy war in ww2, but not the war. that was a team effort. you should also thank the US for sending you supplies in ww2.
VanOstrum 5 months ago
@VanOstrum Wrong, most battles were fought between British rebels and a limited number of troops from the British army on American soil. You were fighting for representation in London, not as a new country. It was only until after the war that the hypocritical cunts (the founding fathers) declared the USA to be a country. You guys often forget that you were nothing more than British citizens. It was not Britain oppressing a new country at all!
TheLiberalKnight 5 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Try not to forget though that America had started to be colonised by Britons as far back as the early 1600s so many of the rebels were third and fourth generation 'Americans' and considered themselves as such. Britain wasn't an oppressor though. What many Americans of today don't realise is that the colonists had one of the best standards of life in the world at that time, much more so than those back in Britain
aspiringdrummer17 5 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Not to mention that the level of taxation they faced was much lower than what the British had to put up with
aspiringdrummer17 5 months ago
@aspiringdrummer17 Yeah. The taxing was justified. The royal navy prevented the American colonists from getting their ass kicked by a foreign power. They should pay their fair share for that.
TheLiberalKnight 5 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Actually it was when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4th 1776 thus in effect it became a new born nation, not after the war.
Britain and France however not recognised the new nation - After the battle of Saratoga France recognised the new United States but Britain did not until after the treaty of Paris was signed.
DavBlc7 4 months ago
British Rebels? Actually not all colonists are British descents but from almost all over Europe including the Swedes and the Germans as well as Italians, Spanish or Portuguese who wanted to settle in the new land of America. They consider themselves not to be subjects of our late King George III but as free men and women.
It was our only big loss in our history of British Empire - After that less loss of empire until after WW2.
DavBlc7 4 months ago
@DavBlc7 That's bollocks. Everyone thinks that.
What actually happened: the settlers to the English colonies were to swear alleigance to the monarchy, George III, but not parliament. This explains why the Americans were still toasting George III during the war of independance. They were angry at parliament for taxing them without representation. The monarchy had nothing to do with it- indeed, it was the only connection with Britain that the colonist were loyal to.
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Well the Declaration of Independence did show it intended to sever the tie with King George III as they no longer swear allegiance to the King as symbol of Britain - not the person himself
After it was signed Americans swear allegiance to the new nation.
British Parliament declared founding fathers including George Washington Jefferson and John Adam traitors to British crown yet they were not brought to trail (continue)
DavBlc7 4 months ago
(cont) John Adam were then sent to the UK as first ambassador. When he met the King, His Majesty seems to have been disappointed at finding a traitor in his throne room yet he wasn't being punished. His house in London was near the current US Embassy.
After the war, colonists were no longer toasting the King - only to new nation and kicking out loyalists - most went to Canada - some returned to the UK or to Bahamas where British flag still flies.
DavBlc7 4 months ago
@DavBlc7 Yes, my point was that in American schools, they teach this war as if it was a new nation being oppressed by the horrible British, boo fucking hoo. In actual fact, the idea of starting a new nation didn't even occur to the colonists up until the end, and they were still toasting His Majesty right the way through the war, because the colonies were only linked to Britain through their alleigance to the crown.
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight True but their children and grandchildren no longer toasting the King, only to their new nation in which they were born in. By the middle of the 19th century, only very few were able to toast the British monarch.
This is cos more people came to make their new life in the new country from many European country especially from Russia. Most don't know about Britain and it's monarch. The United States then went on to take Spanish and French possessions.
DavBlc7 4 months ago
@DavBlc7 Yes well after the rebellious colonies won their independence in order to maintain it they conducted large scale programs aimed at exterminating all loyalist inhabitants of those colonies. This led to the flight north to Canada by those loyalist still alive in the USA. Remember there were approximately as many crown loyalists among the colonies as there were rebels.
balderdashandpiffle 3 months ago
These possessions they took had Spanish and French speaking people who then learnt to became American citizen.
During the American civil war Britain almost recognised the Confederate States of America and nearly went to war with the North states when two rebel agents were stopped aboard a British ship. However Queen Victoria and Prince Albert told their prime minister to apologies to President Lincoln after the Prime minister threatened to declare war. Shortly after Prince Albert died.
DavBlc7 4 months ago
@DavBlc7 That is correct
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Incorrect. Since the French and Indian War, the colonists considered distinct from the British Empire. Subjects to, but not citizens of. The First Continental Congress convened in 1774. The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775 which oversaw the Declaration of Independence (all ties to England severed), the execution of national defense, and the drafting of the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. All of this before the end of war. You are wrong.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th I bet that's what they teach you in your American schools ;-)
I bet they don't teach you that the colonists were toasting George III during the revolutionary war ;-)
The truth is, once Britain had rescued the colonies from the external powers, like France and Spain, you complained about our mild taxes on you, which were far lower than mainland Britain anyway.
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight No, that's what one reads in books and in historical records. Your rebuttal makes no sense to what I wrote. Colonial toastings of George III means nothing. They also burned effigies of him. What matters is that, starting in 1774 and up through the war, the colonists separated from the British and then had a central gov. prosecuting the war. Add to that the fact that from F&I war colonials were considered subjects, not citizens.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th Of course they seperated from the British. But it doesn't change the fact that they were NOT a foreign country. They were merely rebels, like the Libyan rebels today. It was only until the latter stages of the war that the idea came about of creating a new nation. Remember the fight was not against Britain but the British parliament, who were taxing them.
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Whether they are a foreign nation depends upon who recognizes them. Of course, Britain did not recognize them. The point is that the colonials did not consider themselves British rebels, a point made earlier by you and others. Nationhood was not an afterthought, but the primary goal as evidences by their actions beginning in 1774. It is also worth noting that the Declaration of Independence was addressed and delivered to King George, not parliament.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th That's just wrong, I'm afraid. The colonists had no identity except that they were European in an Indian land. This soppy shit about Americans fighting for their freedom is nothing but propaganda. It was a political dispute over parliamentary representation. They were complaining about having a few taxes put on them without being represented in London. Considering we saved their arses from the French and Spanish, and that mainland Britons were taxed more, it was irresponsible.
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Again, wrong. Enlistment terms for militia during the F&I War show, indeed, a separate identity felt among colonists and English. The actions of the first and second Continental Congresses 1774-1776 show that Nationhood was the ultimate goal of the rebellion, hence the reason one finds "American" becoming more ubiquitous through the 1760s, until 1770 when the colonies were referred to more as "American" than "British". Edmund Burke also advocated national identity in 1760s.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th I'm not going to talk to you. I'll tell you what you should do now- read a history book that wasn't written by an American, and stop believing the biased bollocks they obviously teach at American schools (I have visited them, and they are the most biased in the west by far)
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight an admission of defeat. You have proven nothing, much less a bias among American scholars. Read The Crucible of War. I will present this last argument to your contention that American nationalism, and the idea of governance, were afterhoughts: "We, therefore, the representative of the United States of America, in General Congress...declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states." -- Declaration of Independence. You're wrong.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th If I were talking to a Frenchmen, I would continue to talk. If I were talking to a German, I would continue to talk. If I were talking to a Russian, I would continue to talk. But no. I am no stranger to the USA. You are so blinded by bias it is painful to have even the briefest of conversations regarding history with you. I have been to American schools- I was appauled at the way history is taught.
TheLiberalKnight 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight You have refused to answer any of my arguments. In response, you try to deflect the argument into a prejudice against nationalities. You have been soundly defeated, sir, as evidenced by your complete departure from the conversation. You have presented nothing in the form of historical record to defend your points or as rebuttal. You have now shown yourself the victim of extreme prejudice. And you misspelled "apauled"--rather appallingly.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Read The Crucible of War. It addresses the colonists attitudes towards taxes much better than I can here, due to space restraints. You will find that, in the 1750s-1760s, the colonists agreed with you. That's why the rebellion didn't begin until the 1770s. You'll also find, like most of history, it is far more complex than you simplified, bias-motivated and frankly inadequate responses pretend.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
AMERICA OWE the FRENCH - SPANISH - and the DUTCH their very own FREEDOM and INDEPENDENCE for eternity. NO HARD FEELING toward the BRITISH from a french, who my own country have been FREE from the NAZI we(french) OWE our very own freedom from WW1 and WW2 to the USA BRITISH RUSSIAN and others GOD BLESS ALL COUNTRIES.
tk291100 6 months ago 5
@tk291100
Lol USA doesn't owe euro trash shit, Maybe we'll send you some water bottles and free food LOL. This was our victory, not yours, Long Live THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Btw. the french hardly did anything during this war.
RUPERTDOUGLAS90 6 months ago
@RUPERTDOUGLAS90 LOL ANOTHER STUPID AMERICAN. WITHOUT THE FRENCH-SPANISH-DUTCH YOU WILL BE SINGING GOD SAVE THE QUEEN TODAY AND WAVING THAT BRITTISH FLAG IGNORANT AMERICAN, SAY HAIL TO THE FRENCH - SPANISH - DUTCH :-) SPECIALY THE FRENCH YOUR HEROES :-)
tk291100 6 months ago
@tk291100 You make no since....
Darkblender5 6 months ago
@tk291100 Nobody intervened until after Saratoga. It wasn't French generals at Boston, Trenton, Long Island, etc. Plus, as people that study know, the primary aid that France gave was a financial grant, which became a loan, which allowed the Continental Congress to address woeful shortcomings in supply. The French fleet didn't arrive for another 18 months. French advisers came, largely for training purposes. Sorry, dudes, the British lost on the ground to US colonials.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@RUPERTDOUGLAS90 I think you guys should be forced to have a national French day, to worship the French, eternally thanking them for winning this war for you. A decisive French victory. Well done France.
TheLiberalKnight 6 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight We have the Statue of Liberty. Of course, then there's the Quasi War with France (read: betrayal) which erased any good feelings. Then the fact that what France, during the revolution, promised as a grant became a loan. That France's promised troop numbers were short about 10,000, and only a few hundred advisers really set foot in the US. No, I don't think I'll give that victory to France. You should stop letting a bias make you say such ridiculous nonsense.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight We have the Statue of Liberty. Of course, then there's the Quasi War with France (read: betrayal) which erased any good feelings. Then the fact that what France, during the revolution, promised as a grant became a loan. That France's promised troop numbers were short about 10,000, and only a few hundred advisers really set foot in the US. No, I don't think I'll give that victory to France. You should stop letting a bias make you say such ridiculous nonsense.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
@reenactor19th The actions of the French Navy enabled the colonial victory at Yorktown. Without the threat of French, Spanish and Dutch action globally the colonists would be most unlikely to secure their independence.
balderdashandpiffle 3 months ago
@TheLiberalKnight Quasi War, Statue of Liberty, their fleet broken by British, "grant" which magically became a lona, only a few hundred soldiers; if that is a decisive victory against England, then England sucks. No, I don't think I'll give France the victory. And I think there's been more than enough reciprocity with France. You should stop letting a bias make you say such ridiculous nonsense.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLiberalKnight Quasi War, Statue of Liberty, their fleet broken by British, "grant" which magically became a lona, only a few hundred soldiers; if that is a decisive victory against England, then England sucks. No, I don't think I'll give France the victory. And I think there's been more than enough reciprocity with France. You should stop letting a bias make you say such ridiculous nonsense.
reenactor19th 4 months ago
Did you know more Americans fought on the British side than on Washingtons - if it wasn't for the French, Spanish and Dutch then the revolution would've been crushed - as a point of interest - the US civil war was about state rights to withdraw from the Union - sound familiar - the same people who wanted independence from Britain, crushed the South, slaughtered the indians and crushed the spanish speaking pop are now driving the invasion of the middle east.
Albionshousecarl 6 months ago
@MarioSMB3 "That is heaven compared to American's treating prisoners"
In what time period??? Civil war was bad but what nation treated its prisoners like cake???
America is THE BEST nation to ever treat POWs or other combatants. Especially VICTORIOUS nation.
British didn't care because these were traitors in their mind just like in the CW so I can understand like if California tried to rebel/succeed (I think we would let it go and give NY for free) we probably would not look kindly on that.
SabreUnit 7 months ago
I know its an expression but still
shiptech2k9 7 months ago
@MarioSMB3 even with accounts from people and other sources
shiptech2k9 7 months ago
@MarioSMB3 isnt it an exaggeration saying that the new-york prison ships were hevean compared to how the u.s. tortured some iraqis or iraqi into saying it was linked to al qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction, I mean sitting painfully chained on a dirty, disease-ridden, smelly, corpses lying around, and you starving to death and bored until you die versus getting tortured by some foreign troops, I dont know which is worse but who knows what could have happened to prisoners on both sides....
shiptech2k9 7 months ago
Americans were not lucky George Washington knew the rebels were going to win from the begining
ps3rules123777777777 7 months ago
@ps3rules123777777777 how did he know?
shiptech2k9 7 months ago
I keep seeing arguments on videos and il state this.Im American but the british are one of the only countrys that accepted that they lost without excuses and they left that behind.Why do people keep bringing this stuff up?
deidara173 7 months ago 2
LOL 4 ppl were British who are angry
Darkblender5 8 months ago
Comment removed
savethebrits91 8 months ago
Comment removed
savethebrits91 8 months ago
@savethebrits91
Pull out a textbook? America won. Theres no arguing, people argue over vietnam, iraq, and 1812, but america won. The queen doesn't rule us anymore.
pijef 8 months ago
@pijef
well you would'nt have won the war wihout mel gibson.
savethebrits91 8 months ago
@savethebrits91
hahahah
pijef 8 months ago
Comment removed
savethebrits91 8 months ago
@savethebrits91 AMERICAN & PROUD
I'm reading my history book, and it tells me that a bunch of ragtag farmers from America crushed the mightiest army in the world at the time. How do you explain that? Your British empire was fighting a two-front war against non-military farmers and the French. The French needed us just as much as we needed them. We decimated your army in our farm fields, which made it easier for France to continue their war with King George. Damn that must hurt. Cheer-i-o laddy.
buffet62 8 months ago
Comment removed
savethebrits91 8 months ago
@buffet62 and how good is a 'historian' like yourself who clearly has never heard of the word 'biased' or 'one-sided'? Written by an american, in favour of america.
Hadouken471 8 months ago
Comment removed
savethebrits91 8 months ago
In the same way America left Vietnam as the number 1 super power, Britain left America. It was not that they had no troops left or ships, sometimes wars that seem to be dragging on are not popular and question the will of whether it is worth fighting them.
Despite being British, I like the story, it is one for the little guy who is determined and believes in what he is fighting for.
People say we should learn from history, I question whether the U.S has learned from theirs (Vietnam,Iraq,Afgan
salazar55555 8 months ago 2
@salazar55555 The British fought in all of those wars as well. Has the British learn anything from history?
xSonsofSunsx 3 months ago
I can't do much except to say I thank you all those man who died winning out independence,I also Thank those 50,000 brave soldiers who lost their lives to help achieve this goal.
Darkblender5 9 months ago 5
@salazar55555 , weeeeell, i guess you're right, but the reason the french joined us is because they saw that we started doing sorta well...but ya, i get what you're saying...
CashSmeller 9 months ago
Comment removed
CashSmeller 9 months ago
@salazar55555 , UMADBRO?
CashSmeller 9 months ago
@CashSmeller
Not at all, I just find it strange that you don't seem to give the french any thanks when it is them and a bit of spanish who really won it for you
salazar55555 9 months ago
3:38 . . . That would f*cking suck.
Caaittigger 9 months ago
Plus if you really want to go into it, the war could more accurately be described as a British civil war fought on American land. The people who you assume to be Americans are actually British people who moved to America, the wanted their own government and to break away from British rule.
salazar55555 9 months ago
@salazar55555 Wrong the American and Bristish are different ethnics! They are not blood brohter.
Jgearhalo 9 months ago
@Jgearhalo
The huge amount of people who have gone into America since this war does not mean that at the time this took place it was mostly British or would should be described as ex british.
Lets not forget the French and Spanish that were fighting on your side too, you guys forget about that enough
salazar55555 9 months ago
@Jgearhalo What planet are you from? The Colonials were British. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin's parents and grandparents were from England. Go read a book.
NYhistorian 6 months ago
@NYhistorian Are you out of your mind? how the hell the American were relatives to the British, when the americans view them as an enimies at that period. A smart american should know that the Bristish murdered our people and treat us like shit.
Jgearhalo 6 months ago
@Jgearhalo
Very true statement, God Bless the most powerful nation.
RUPERTDOUGLAS90 6 months ago
@Jgearhalo Are you out of your mind? The Crown own the colonies. Where did most of the people in the British colonies come from? Washington, Madison, Franklin, etc grandparents or parents came from England. What are you saying? The white man is native to North America?
NYhistorian 6 months ago
French really won the war for the USA. They had something like 4 men fighting to every one American when you take into account the Navy and Army.
There is no way the U.S would have gained it's freedom.
the French were not only fighting side by side with the Americans they also had ships in place to stop British sending in more troops.
Pity they don't teach you that in school, your all so busy slapping yourselves on the back that you forget who really won the war for you.
salazar55555 9 months ago
@salazar55555 oh do they teach you in school that the british had the hessian army and iroquois indian tribe fighting on their side not to mention that the british army was the most disciplined and professionally trained army in the world in 1775? So the americans had help from the french so what i thought gb was supposed to be a greater army then the french at the time guess not
jcolossale 9 months ago
@jcolossale It wasn't until the Napoleonic era that the British Army was considered to be the best. Around the time of the Revolution there wasn't much to choose between the British and French
aspiringdrummer17 9 months ago
@jcolossale they were greater than the french, just not the americans, an they're still not an won't ever be :)
TGNproductions24 8 months ago
@TGNproductions24
You should look at the war in the same sense as Vietnam, Just because one country is a super power, with a bigger and better army does not mean they will win. A determined people who know the land and have a belief in what they are fighting for are hard to beat. They used tactics like the Indians used on them (hit and run). Add the fact that Britain was fighting other wars all over the world and that America had help from France, Spain and Holland and you have your reason.
salazar55555 8 months ago
@salazar55555 That's true
NYhistorian 6 months ago
There is always one mistake i saw when ever i watch the revolution war is that the Flag of United state should had only 13 star not 54 or 55 star . Cause the star stand for the state and at that time the America had only the original 13 states .
yichen100 9 months ago
HAHA same old story ,WE ruled american for like 174 years,so shut it,
so a big thums up for that, WHATS your history fighting out the native people of america the indians.& a war against slavery
HAHA we gave you history.
savethebrits91 9 months ago
wow its amazing how unexpected people who have no clue won a war agains the british......suckahs!!!
sophialovesbacon 9 months ago
I love This Movie. Our Social Studies Teacher Showed Us This Movie. Im In 8 th Grade.
13candylover13 9 months ago
actually, the french wouldnt have helped america had they not won the battle of saratoga.
tehscrubshow 9 months ago 13
@tehscrubshow unfortunately they also invented the cigarette
tacomonster98 7 months ago
so many sacrifice
360noscopekill 9 months ago
i can't hear the cannons and screaming in pain
360noscopekill 9 months ago
I seem to remember the American colonials begged the French to help them beat off a handful of Brits while Britain's elite Army and Navy were busy fighting a Manly war in Europe.
MyMerlin1 9 months ago
If Britannia wanted to fuck America it could've. Great Britain had 10 times more troops than Americans. Americans got lucky that the Brits had to fight European powers.
idricool 9 months ago