Please check out Jabzy's video on the Hatian Revolution! th-cam.com/video/1sRE5e2NHDg/w-d-xo.html Also check out BrandonF, big thanks to him for helping me research this episode: th-cam.com/channels/9NNB_Hd4zPR-QDfnNOChwg.html Support us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/armchairhistory Thank you, Griff
@@empollonamericano328 It was probably more along the lines of "This British tea is too cheap, why won't you buy our more expensive stuff!"....kinda similar in the way the South thought Britain would side would them because of cotton.....ahem India and Egypt...This video kinda touches on this.
@@thescallytrader but he still took it. My point is that Spain also participated in the American revolution which can be verified by their recovery of Florida.
@@thescallytrader Well, let me clarify few things. There is an article from The Massachusetts Society Sons of the American Revolution ( SAR ) called ‘Spain and the Independence of The United States.’ After reading the article cannot be a surprise to know than Spanish Commander Bernardo de Galvez has the same honour of be Honorary Citizeship of the United States like Laffayete…
And the indians still regret this fact. They only got independance 200 years later after massive genocide, human rights abuses, revolution. The sub continent still hasn't recover. USA was lucky to break away early.
There is a good reason why nobody wanted to support Britain: after the Seven Years' War, Britain emerged victorious, but it not only alienated its enemies France, Spain, Russia, and Austria, it also alienated its ally Prussia. Thus, by the time of Revolution, most of the world did not want to see Britain win a second war, and so either stayed neutral or gave support to the Patriots.
so, what you are saying is that because we failed to utterly crush the other states in the 7 years war they funded an insurrection that stretched us too thin. Like being mobbed and beaten while throwing up... just think about how much less trouble there would be in the world if the Plantagenet dynasty had been mildly less incompetent
That's a very good point. In the eyes of many Europeans, the British had become too powerful after 1763 and this gave them the chance to restore the world power balance. France and to an extent Spain had DOUBLE motivation to get involved, they could get revenge on their old rival AND create a buffer nation in North America between British Canada and their territorial holdings (little did they know what the "buffer nation" would one day become though).
@@hamzadesidragonsarwar Not for another 100 years. It was free market, free enterprise, and population growth from an overcrowded Europe that did that.
@@javilorenzana He was definitely overlooked as a prominent leader in American battles, like the victory at Saratoga. Without his aggressive leadership, there might not have been a victory at Saratoga.
The Brits lost America for the same reason the US lost Vietnam or Soviets lost Afghanistan. They got tired of fighting the war. After years of casualties, and increasing taxes with no end in sight, the cost of victory becomes too high to pay.
Bradders - exactly, Britain had to keep large numbers of troops at home to protect against a possible French invasion, send more troops to protect their holdings in the West Indies, and keep fleets at sea to counter the French fleets in European waters, the West Indies, and North America. All of this stretched resources and was very expensive. Of course, it was very expensive for the French, too, probably leading to the fall of the French monarchy, and yet another series of wars with France and another war with America in 1812.
not entirely france....but pretty much just france, the traitors were supplied 90~95% of their gunpowder by the french, not to mention the guns to fire them. With no real means to supply more than a fraction of gunpowder necessary from the colonies the rebelion would have been over in about a week
it was a joke lol why you taking it seriously, and what is the point off telling him that? when America clearly has problems too with all the shootings going on
Donald Trump we don’t have demographic problems, and we still have less stabbings than the US, and London is less violent than most US cities. At least we don’t have mass shootings, school shootings (or any shootings really)
I remember knifing a Yankee bloke. Just for my Knoif to just slide of his Gillie suit. And the battlefield froze and lagged. Then a long second later I dropped dead from his no-scope sniper hip fire. Internet was rubbish back then.
Netherlands: Look, all we wanted to do was Protect the Patriot cause! France: Oh really? Netherlands: Yes really. France: You sure you didn't just fancy kicking some British arse? That's why we were there. Spain: That's what rather appealed to us too.
quite a few were welshman too,robert morris who signed your declaration and was a huge financier of the revolution was a welshman,its amazing how little is known about the welsh and there part they played in your independence,we really really didnt like the english back then because of oppression of our culture and language
@GretschDog Christian is 60% of british population so no alahu akhbar Britain is a conservatives country since 2019 and UK left the European union so the no more bad immigration many muslim black and asian will be deported from Britain in the future
The American Commanders of the time, say the war would have easily been lost without France. That’s why so many of the key Founding Fathers liked to hang around on the European Continent. To be fair most nations are equally as heavy on propaganda, when it comes to such topics.The French Navy, training, weapons and supplies were crucial for victory and continued independence. Britain was essentially fighting all the other large European powers by itself. America had to be given up, in order to maintain the overall empire and homeland. This was a miscalculation by Britain, that could have been resolved with some simple legal/sociological changes. Britannia didn’t compromise in those days though, if you wanted a fight, she’d give you one.
@kevin3224 But they also wanted a voice in the government, no taxation without representation. Think of it as if the State you lived in didn't get a Senator to represent your State. So i think they would be ok just being colonies to the throne as long as they got that voice
@Diggity Dank: The added taxes were levied on the Americans because of a War THEY started. Were you aware of that? The colonists were told by Britain not to settle on French and Indian Land, and they did so anyway, sparking off that particular war. Once it started they immediately cried for help from Britain, which arrived. But that is generally ignored. So lets move on to other things, BBC propaganda, I laugh at that considering the giants of 'truthful' reporting such as Fox News.... Nice thing about the BBC is you do not get adverts every 5 minutes. BBC is tightly regulated by all parties, they are probably the least Biased media on the face of the planet. Note, I did not say unbiased, but least biased. Pakistanis raping our daughters? Wierd, no Pakistanis have raped MY daughters. This one always gets me, yet another case of media playing on a rarity and blowing it out of proportion. I guess you also believe that Muslims will be the majority of the British population by 2020! Despite numbering less than 5% of the British population as it currently stands. Acid attacks? In the UK those are gang related. Acid attacks are actually far more common in other countries, but they are more heavily reported in Britain *because* they are so unusual and shocking. In short what you actually wrote a wall of text about was to make that last ill informed attack against the British because you are as much an Anglophobe as you claim others are Anti American. Of course, I could do the same. I could point to your 'News' sources, I could point to the fact that 25% of Americans do not have access to what Europeans would call even BASIC medical care, etc etc... but I will not. You had some good points, then blew them out of the water with your last paragraph..... because thats where you revealed what exactly you were, just another bigot.
Awesome video. As an Englishman, I have to say I'm impressed at how balanced this is. Mentioning obvious questions and pointing out errors usually brought up as fact. Great stuff.
Well balanced and well explained. Kids on either side of the Atlantic listen to this boy. The US won the war because the UK lost two large expeditionary armies in America and thus broke the Parliamentary Tory party power in London long enough to obtain a treaty. As the Whig newspapers put it, "To lose one army in America is unfortunate, but to lose yet another is outright negligence". John Adams used that sentiment and opportunity to obtain a very favorable treaty. More than the US had even hoped for. The British had alienated most of Europe in the 7 Years War, so as the US Armies showed by Burgoyne's defeat they could stand up to an invasion, those nations started joining in to reverse the Redcoat world colonial tide of the 1770s. Washington eventually realized by Christmas of 1776 that the British and their Central European hired soldiers did not do well if they were drawn more than 50 miles from the seaports and their supplying Navy. Then it became an outlast your enemy in the field game, which was possible due to foreign supplies and the complexity of terrain. Few foreign regiments (French, Spanish) actually took part in land battles in America until 1780/81 when they came in force. And then it was primarily obnly in the tidewater districts. Then they went home or just defended their conquests for their own possession like Galvez. British commanders on the other hand kept planning elaborate and deep country expeditions in hopes of gathering Tory Loyalists, rooting out the traitor settlements and "winning the hearts and minds of the Americans". That completely backfired as it often does. Good job on the digest.
@S Tho - Prussian?? Perhaps you meant Hessians as the vast majority of German troops that saw action in North America at that time were from the Holy Roman State of Hess-Cassel thus "Hessian." Not Prussia.
Ham With Honey they knew they would push west after independence, so it would save them the money from doing it themselves, and would result in more trade
From a retired history professor, solid job, friends! One of the most overlooked aspects of the American colonists' victory was the strategy adopted in the southern colonies, in addition to the mistaken notion that capturing Philadelphia (as the American capital) would cause the rebellion to collapse. Due to time constraints (at least I would suspect), Benedict Arnold wasn't given much spotlight here as an American commander. His story was quite interesting, though. He played prominent roles in early American battles, including the victory at Saratoga. Why he "turned coat" was fairly straightforward: he felt he wasn't receiving his due from his superiors in the American military. In fairness, his thinly veiled contempt for his superior officers didn't help him. Again, overall a quite accurate picture of the Revolutionary war and the reasons for American victory. Have a nice day, and a better one tomorrow!
Well, let me clarify few things. There is an article from The Massachusetts Society Sons of the American Revolution ( SAR ) called ‘Spain and the Independence of The United States.’ After reading the article cannot be a surprise to know than Spanish Commander Bernardo de Galvez has the same honour of be Honorary Citizeship of the United States like Laffayete…
“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” ― Samuel Adams
@@chrismason4449 proud of what ? And let them hate us , it means they care ... We live in their minds 24/7 rent free. Just read some of the comments from the people your proud of They are deluded, they deny they speak English, They go on about a war as if they won it alone , they didn't win The help the French, Dutch, Spanish, gave is why they won. Plus the fact half our army was elsewhere, fighting in India against the mysore empire, fighting the French, and Dutch, If the US had anything worthwhile, if we knew it had Gold, silver, rubies etc, we would have gathered our WHOLE army together and slapped them all and kept control of the US. But it had nothing of value ( not known at the time) and it was actually costing Britain more to run that we were getting in return from their tuppence ha'penny taxes .
Vietnam jokes are dead now😂 mainly because people are starting to realized the devastating casualty count for Vietcong soldiers....1,400,000......vs only 58,000 Americans.....💀
@@cxarhomell5867 no because we literally left. The entire time through out the war we were winning and the only reason why they are considered to be the ones with the victory flag is because we left due to riots and a strong overall negative feeling about the war etc. If the American people held the heads high and supported American presence useing one of our main strength in war witch is a great economy then I personally believe that eventually the win flag would be shown for the Americans than the Viet Cong through public opinion. One thing we can all agree on though is that no matter who won the war we all took an L at the end of the day regardless of it was only 1,400,000 or 58,000
I realized the similarities between the two wars back in the 1980s. Ever since, it's saddened me that no on in the military or government saw the similarities during the war.
The French pumped in massive amounts of money and weapons from the start but didn't openly support the American cause until they could see that the revolution wasn't going to simply run out of steam.
The French didn't commit troops until the Americans won a battle on our own......Satatoga. Then the French committed 12,000 troops, but no more than 7.000 were in North America at any one time. But the brits forget (usually) that they had about 1/3 of the colonists on their side....along with native tribes and +30,000 Hessians fighting for them.
@@tidefanyankee2428 they helped the naval a liitle bit They still helped end of day there soldiers were better trained and experience too and they prob had some euro tactics to help America fight the british
1948 19451 No, they would not have won anyways. Funds, arms, advisors and troops were very much needed. Not to mention if the Brits hadn’t been so preoccupied with the war with France, Spain etc then they could have put all resources to ending the uprising. It’s not even debatable really in my opinion but you can believe what you want.
Same Old story, they can’t play Soccer, 56 years since they won a World Cup, and never Won a European Cup. Kick and run Soccer doesn’t work, you need some real talent.
@@williamolsen8464 not really tbh the british were kicking ass majority of the time majority of the victories u will find out british won most of the time. Only reason the war stopped and the british left us alone was cos of high cost and attrition the war caused. We americans at the time didn't even face the full might of the british military since it was too busy fighting other wars.
@@tenid4824After years of studying history, that's probably the best comparison I can think of. The American Revolutionary War truly was Britain's Vietnam.
@@thunderbird1921 maybe also britain's afghanistan war was like russia's afghanistan war like america's afghanistan war, like france's vietnam war, like, like, it's just like - it's just like a mini-mall! hey, hey!
"...though [the Americans] seem to be ignorant of the precision, order, and even of the principals, by which large bodies are moved, yet they possess...activity and a spirit of enterprise upon any advantage...though it was once the fashion of this army to treat them in the most contemptible light, they are now become a formidable enemy." ~ Lieutenant William Harcourt, March 17,1777
@@thepuffin4050 He was British. The British were more disciplined as an army, however the Americans possessed a spirit and a desire for freedom like no other.
@@Counselor77 And let's not forget that the best American generals possessed and exercised far greater creativity, adaptability, and leadership than their British counterparts, who often simply could or would not bring themselves to match their tactics to the actual battle they were fighting.
@@Counselor77 Such cries of freedom, so desperately wretched out in agony by the holders of whips and the grippers of chains. The Redcoat, with his small English farm, and his meagre wage and his family, so ignorant and frail as they gorge on stale bread and browned water, privileged and haughty as they gaze down upon the oppressed whip hands of the south, and the fattened farm hands of New England, is indeed truly the most contemptible of creatures.
Well, about the supply, remember that Spain supply a lot of gun powder, guns and money to pay the American soldiers using the Mississippi river that was part of the Spanish New Orleans.
One thing I like about Washington, he knew when to listen to someone else, he originally planned to just charge Yorktown, the French general convinced him to lay siege instead.
@TheDerpy Kitty If the British had been able to supply their forces as easily as the Continental Army was supplied, then the British would have easily destroyed the American forces.
@@longshorts7148 Try to be educated about WW1 and WW2. In WW1 the war lasted from 1914 until 1918, but the Americans didn't join the war until 1917, by such time the Germans were losing heavily and were never going to win. The Americans did not help very much. Then in WW2 which began in 1939 until 1945, the Americans didn't join the war until 1942, and by that time the British had won the battle of Britain and were regularly launching 800 bomber raids on German cities. I will admit that the equipment sent over from the USA did help a great deal, but every American reading this should understand that every Dollar of equipment was paid for in full by Britain, who fought for the free world, while US soldiers slept comfortably in their beds, while British soldiers shed blood-fighting against NAZI tyranny. I really don't know how Americans can live with the shame of not joining what was obviously a World war. Oh and just for your information, there was never any possibility of the Germans defeating the UK, due to the English channel which at the narrowest point is still 22 miles wide, and the Luftwaffe had already been given a bloody nose at the Battle of Britain in September 1940, and the Royal Navy which was the most powerful navy in the world at the time (Far more powerful than the US Navy) would have wiped out any attempted invasion force.
@@longshorts7148 Please don't believe everything you watch on youtube. There are factual official TV recordings out there which state that even without the USA being involved in WW2 Germany would have been defeated, yes it would have possibly taken until 1946/47, but the Germans could not have won as they were fighting on too many fronts, and it was only a matter of time before Hitler would have been assassinated. Do not underestimate the British and their colonial friends who were part of the Commonwealth of Nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, etc. Just as long as the USA continued to send equipment as they had been doing, they did not need to send soldiers, although of course, we were grateful for them.
The second half of the war (1779-1781) mainly represented king George's personal vendetta against the colonial rebels. The war received much loss of support in the parliament by the tail-end of the war because the war had expanded across almost 7 continents. It became a quasi world war. The Anglo-Mysorean war fought between Hyder Ali and the East India company troops in India, had also added much to the misery of the parliament. King George had sent Hanoverian mercenaries to accompany the BEIC to face the Mysorean kingdom which must have cost a fortune and added to the depletion of British coffers in London. The Americans had to somehow maintain their grit and resolve to stay long enough to survive most of the blows dealt by the British. They had to not lose, if not win, by keeping the war from being won by the British. General Washington's plan to tire out the British commanders by being unrelenting in terms of strategic attacks like Trenton, or even Monmouth contributed much to paving the way for the British to ultimately lose interest in the war, especially after Yorktown.
A lot of the Americans fighting the British were of British blood, just look at their names, so it was good British blood that wanted their freedom that won the war. Just remember the shout was not the British are coming, it was the Redcoats are coming.
No not at all for quite some time prior to the revolution the colonies were referred to by the people living there as the United Colonies of America which is why when the colonies became independent the new nation called itself the United States of America
I actually had this at university and it's more complex than "They saw themselves as American/British", there were both sides. People, who still viewed themselves as British, had no favor for the idea of independence and hoped for reconciliation with Britain, on the other side there were patriots, who were fed up by perceived acts of British Tyranny (e.g. so called Boston Massacre, the British stationing Troops in private homes without asking, taxation without representation) and then there were also many people who were indifferent and didn't care, it was like 33% each before the outbreak of hostilities. Yeah, it slowly shifted towards the patriots a bit, e.g. when Thomas Paine published his pamphlet "Common Sense" heavily advertising independence, but it wasn't like that 100% of the Colonials would've viewed themselves as proud patriots at any time in the war. Ask the Canadians, after the war many loyalist leaning citizens evacuated from the former 13 Colonies, now United States, towards Canada. The fact, that this is mentioned at all in history books and historical accounts prooves, that this was no minor event, it was a still significant portion of the population.
A few thoughts. Washingtons strategy wasn't new and brilliant it was "Fabian" tactics named after Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus. Who avoided pitch battles and instead used attrition and poor supply to wear down Hannibal's army's in Italy during the Second Punic War. Washington knew of Fabian and his strategy as his own letters bear out. There where large amounts of loyalist yes but A. The British did not put serious effort into utilizing them untill to late in the war and B. After the battle of Kings Mountain the loyalist felt exposed, so large amounts of Cornwallis army was detached into smaller Garrison's C. The militia played a key role in both the battles of Cowpens and Guliford Courthouse, I think you underplayed there importance or only read heavily accounts from the northern theatre. Same as the rifleman did play a major role in the southern theatre despite only being 3% of the army. After 1778 with the entrance of France, the Dutch and later by the Spanish the war aims changed for the British. Less and less reinforcements arrived in the colonies and the war became more about protecting the the nation's other possession and less about keeping America. The British ultimately lost because they failed to win the hearts and minds of the people back to the English yoke and despite the attempts of parliamentary officials the British failed to ever utilitize a overall command structure instead allowing each commander to have an independent theatre command. While this worked out great for the Americans, for the British not fighting on home soil not adapting to a command structure they had used before in Europe allowed their separate army's to fail piecemeal. I think you do a good job and the presentation is solid but you need to use more sources for such an important topic as the American Revolution. Your video on France in the Second World War had numerous sources while as for this video you only had 3. I think you should keep progressing but don't just use popular history sources use academic history sources and primary source documents as well.
Unknown Elite not true after a lot of battles and close to the end of the American revolution the continental army had one of the best trainers baron Von Steuben
We would of stared them down behind the wheel of our might Reliant Robin. Feel the power of 3 wheels and basically a lawn mover engine. Scared? You better believe it.
Britain: We have the mighty range rover . USA : we have our backup dodge ram, ford f150, Chevy Silverado, and GMC cyclone . I reference this on a comertial and the range rover it came from as james may shouted when his pissed at him CLARKSON from top gear
BOOSTED 1327 American cars are nothing but plastic wrapped round a V8, cheap poorly made cars that are nothing when compared to the cars from Europe. Americans can hardly drive properly (manual) due to their cars mainly being automatic. This has ruined cars that could have been pretty cool.
Max grrr Dog the French are so terrible at war they had to get British Americans to fight us just to get a victory. You’d never catch me doing a Frenchman’s dirty work 🤷🏼♂️ just saying 😉😂
Rock solid video, sir! Also worth adding that Polish fighters volunteered in significant number in the US. Also also worth noting was that the American grievances actually had sympathetic ears in Britain, not the least of which was Edmund Burke.
Thanks LordBitememan! We did want to mention a little more about what people in England thought, but as we approached the 11th minute, we knew we couldn't go into much more depth. Griff
The British had a mutiny in India @ the same time as the revolution & had to decide which was the more profitable territory & India was as it provided 2/3rds more profit every year than the American colonies. They also had a mutiny in India right around the time of the Napoleonic wars. It was always a problem of having such a vast empire stretched out far around the world, though the British did manage to hold onto the rest of it fairly well, except for a few more mutinies in India over time
@@imgoingtocountdownfromthir4580 Yes & no... You see, we Yanks perfected the English language. So technically, modern English is American! (we don't claim ebonics)
I read somewhere that the war was mostly unpopular with the average British back home, who saw it as a waste of money, lives & time. Basically like an 18th century Vietnam War.
That’s probably because at the time most of the thirteen colonies weren’t that profitable. Only the southern ones made significant money, and that’s in part why Britain diverted more into the southern campaigns.
@@12D_D21 Good point, never even thought of that. But makes sense when you consider that the Caribbean and areas surrounding it were still the economic hub of the New World at that time.
I have a gentle request, please can you explain the Spanish involvement in the revolutionary war? It is very unknown to most. Spain helped to cut British supplies by sinking navy ships and Galves army from the South. Spanish generals parade with washington on Independence day.
@Mustafa Alam mustapha, greetings from the state of Kentucky. I'm a person of truth and you made a legitimate Point here about us attacking Mexico. Many people I think would try to justify it, But I want the United States is like every other country. They want to play this Empire building game and I personally think it's stupid. I like the idea of countries having Sovereign borders acting friendly to one another having good trade and trying to understand that we're not all the same. Having said all that the Muslim nations of the world have gone on. 2 Empire Building at times. So I think if we're going to have the truth butts have the unabridged version.
America had the home field advantage. Most were Militia, and not Soldiers. Muskets take a while to load, so American families owned owned several of them. After the father fired a shot, he would hand it off to his wife and children who would be busy loading 3 or 4 others, giving him another that was ready to go. The British Soldiers had to load their own after every shot. So an American could shoot 4 times as often as a British Soldier.
It would have interesting to know what would've happened if the British didn't have their armies spread all over the world OR if the French + Spainish didn't help the USA.
@@willt6551 nope America was funded with a ton of money and a crap ton of weaponry to fight against the British military by both the french and the Spanish. It was later seen as a side-war and we then went to fight the Spanish and the french simultaneously. Tbh America was kind of forgotten because it was the people backing them that were the problem. In terms of damage the British did a ton of damage even setting fire to the White House and destroying the symbol of the American government to let them now their potential. I am an American yet I still believe that we had a lucky ass escape.
Unless you’re defining winning by absolutely destroying the people you’re fighting or conquering them, I would argue attaining your goal in a war is winning. They wanted freedom from British rule and that’s exactly what they got. That’s pretty much the playbook for defeating more powerful nations, make the cost of victory too high for them to stomach.
nice video - but why do let Gen. Gates have credit for Battle of Saratoga, Benedict Arnold, the traitor, had more to do with that Victory than Gates, who stayed in the camp by all reports? You might also have mentioned the protests and riots in England from the beginning of the war, England was rather divided about the semi-civil war with their colonists, which were about 1/5 of all Englishmen. It was similar to what the USA went through over Vietnam.
They didn't loose, there wasn't enough support in Parliament to continue a war in the US so it was abandoned, plus the were fighting in Europe and India. If no war in Europe and India existed they would have won easily, remember those facts next time you type a meme about taking guns or about Washington, we won by fact France and Holland helped us ans by the fact politicians voted not to fight
@@bypyros1933 Spain engaged in the conflict only when they saw that France was competing with Britain over the seas. Where, by a treaty, France has recognized the United States as a free country, this was not the case for Spaniards and Dutch. The biggest contributor was France.
@@thibskywalker4450 Spain started the war before it was oficial thanks to Bernardo de Gálvez, an important character in the USA's independence. Actually, he was so important that George Washington asked him to be by his side in the parade of victory. Spain payed a huge amount of money (which i now considered to be millions of dollars worthy), they payed french mercenaries (so not all the french were France's soldiers during that war), Spain gave the rebels weapons, food, ammunition, tents and even horses. (Did you know the horses that the Cowboys of the Old West were riding were the succesors of the andalusian horses Spain gave them during this war?). There's a cathedral in Spain which couldn't be finished because the money planned for it was used in that war. And I'm not even talking about the spanish soldiers that fought. This is just a fun fact, but the current symbol of the dollar was based on the spanish coin. The S represents the cloth were Spain's motto is written in the shield, "Plus Ultra", and the two sticks represent the pillars of Hercules, which are also in the shield.
Britain didn't lose the American Revolutionary War. it simply got tired and brought its troops and ships back home. Kind of like what America did in Vietnam.
Lol looks like Britain isn’t so “great” after all 😂 Fun fact: most Americans were Irish, French, and some Englishmen but Irishmen have fought the majority of the war while the English didn’t and supported the British empire.
Britain lost the war for American independence in much the same way that America lost the war for Vietnamese independence. In both cases, colonial powers attempting to stifle nationalist movements on another continent. Britain also lost India to a non-violent independence movement after World War II.
and put down hundreds of violent independence movements? It was clearly French, Spanish and Dutch support, Washington almost lost the war right at the beginning, the British would have easily won otherwise
Fantastic content, really informative. As a Brit, I think the feeling here is that we could never hold such large land mass so far away and its met with a little bit of a shoulder shrug.
If memory serves, the Battle of Bunker Hill was primarily fought on Breed's Hill. I am glad that by the end of the video you brought up the help by our allies. Frankly, I doubt we could have won our independence without the French.
Proxy wars are always mutually-beneficial for the sponsoring power and the beneficiaries they support. The sponsor (France) wouldn't commit resources into the war had the beneficiaries (Americans) not proven their ability to fight and win against the common enemy (Britain).
Britain learned from her mistakes in America and started granting the other colonies at the time more autonomy, with their own elected parliaments...all be it still under a British flag. Britain could never have ruled America from an ocean away if Americans saw them as invaders. They could have sent ten armies and the result would have been the same in the long run. Having said that British army was the most professional fighting force in the world back then...and were the only ones with global reach at the time
The British army was actually one of the smallest armies out of the Empires back then. Majority of their budget went to fund the navy which led to a small army in comparison to the Spanish and the French. It was only until Napoleon where Britain decided to put large funding into the army.
Yeah...makes sense. Britain's strength especially back then was it's navy. That's what made them rich and spread their influence all over the entire world. Strongest land army or not...Britain was the only one able to move large ground armies anywhere in the world back then
Spain and France had the same capabilities. The 3 largest navies at this time were the British, Spanish, and French navies. The Spanish and British being the extreme power houses when it came to the sea all had the capabilities to move their armies anywhere around the world.
in reality it was a british civil war as their was no usa at the time it was britain vs british colonist settlers in the colonies. americans didnt exist at the time
wrong it was not a civil war it was Americans vs British, the US existed in 1776 and the war ended in 1783 so yes independent US Americans defeated the British empire, in fact the only "civil war" part of the revolutionary war was the fact that the American Patriots had to fight against not only the British empire, but also their own fellow Americans, the Loyalists who betrayed the US and sided with Britain, and yet the British still lost
@@UserName-om6ft wrong in 1776 90% of settlers in america were anglo saxon you cant lose a war to your own people without it being a civil war and no the USA DIDNT EXISTTHEN haha why you lying
User Name. And the further bad news! Britain effectively won the War of 1812 by successfully defending its North American colonies. But for the British, the war with America had been a mere sideshow compared to its life-or-death struggle with Napoleon in Europe.
@@TheChief657 hahaha July 4th 1776 declaration of independence, the US existed in 1776 it wasnt a civil war you're just mad because the British empire was smashed by American farmers you lost and we won hahahahaha imagine being a war loser it must be embarrassing to be British, a country of war losing people hahahahaha the US won the war
@@Dellboy56 wrong again, the US won the war of 1812, to sum up the war of 1812 the US effectively convinced the British to never mess with the US again, the US successfully maintained its territory integrity and successfully defended itself from British invasions, the US successfully achieved its objectives of ending British impressment of American sailors and ending British support of the natives, the US had won more battles both land and sea, the US was the ONLY country that successfully gained territory (US westwards expansion, the US routing both Britain and Spain out of Florida and taking Florida in the south, and the US taking Carleton island from the British in the north) the British on the other hand failed in their objectives of taking US territory, the British even ended up losing Carleton island to the US, and the British failed in their promises to the Natives to create independent Native American nations, also Napoleon is the one that had actually been fighting entire massive European coalitions Napoleon had to fight against Prussia, Russia, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, several German states, several Italian states, the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the French Monarchy, and many others, and because Napoleon had to fight with so many massive European coalitions this allowed Britain to sit and hide safely on their island away from mainland Europe, in fact even when the war with Napoleon was already over in the war of the 6th coalition in May 1814 the war of 1812 had still continued long after that and the British STILL couldnt beat the US even WITH their attention taken off of Napoleon, in fact the US largely fought the war of 1812 on its own while the British had various support from many different allies, the British had help from the Canadian Militia, the Native Americans, the American born Loyalists to Britain who fled to Canada after the British lost the revolutionary war also known as the United Empire Loyalists, the British also had help from the African soldiers and the British even had help from the Spanish and yet Britain still couldnt win the war of 1812
I think the lack of reinforcements after 1780 and a reliance on using German mercenaries, had a hand in the eventual defeat. It was logistically impossible to supply an army over the distances that needed to be covered. Excellent video.
Especially when half Britain's army was elsewhere fighting, India , France, Dutch, And the colonials were being given French soldiers, training, guns , money etc ... Knowing how thin Britain was spread at the time.
I wish history class was your videos back then when I was in grade school. Then maybe I would have paid more attention and did better. Keep up the good work!!!
4:35-4:51 When I heard that I was initially like: "Yeah, nope!", but that's doing the American militia and riflemen a disservice. They did do significant work during the war: sniping, skirmishing, scouting, guerrilla fighting, etc. But, that being said, the majority of the fighting was done by the Continentals, AKA the regular soldiers.
The U S was the only colony in the British Empire that got it's independence though war. All other countries got independence though peaceful negotiations. Britain still has a good relationship with it's ex colonys , France and Spain don't.
The loss is entirely yours 🤣 King Ralph, quality film. I was expecting a chant of USA half way through like most videos about the war, so well done for doing your research.
Short answer: France. Long answer: The british ended the war because the majority of their forces was engaged with the french, especially the royal navy was fighting the french navy all across the globe to protect the british trade routes. This escalation caused a massive increase of the british warcosts, costs they couldn't afford. This was made even worse by the old british rivalry between the parlament and the king. The king wanted a military solution, the parlament did not. In addition the parlament saw a chance to weaken the king by refusing to pay the bill of a prolonged war. So ultimately the british ended the war against their colonies to face the french => France was outmatched, the revolution happened, Napoleon came to power, the british ultimately defeated Napoleon with the help of Prussia, Russia and Austria. In between the USA fought another war against the british and the british burned the white house and parts of Washington DC. At the end of this war both sides had a weird mutual respect for one another and the relations improved over time. The british and french would ultimately profit from their actions oversea during WW1 and WW2: The USA ended the stalemate in WW1 and liberated france in WW2, just like the french liberated the colonies from the british almost 200 years before. History is a funny thing.
Well, let me clarify few things. There is an article from The Massachusetts Society Sons of the American Revolution ( SAR ) called ‘Spain and the Independence of The United States.’ After reading the article cannot be a surprise to know than Spanish Commander Bernardo de Galvez has the same honour of be Honorary Citizeship of the United States like Laffayete…
Please check out Jabzy's video on the Hatian Revolution! th-cam.com/video/1sRE5e2NHDg/w-d-xo.html
Also check out BrandonF, big thanks to him for helping me research this episode: th-cam.com/channels/9NNB_Hd4zPR-QDfnNOChwg.html
Support us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/armchairhistory
Thank you,
Griff
Glad I could be of assistance! Brilliant episode as always!
MAGA thats why
The Armchair Historian
ö
The Armchair Historian AT LEAST SHOW THE FULL UNION JACK, FORGETTING THE CROSS, JESUS CHRIST, A LITTLE BIT DISRESPECTFUL ISN'T IT?
What our u on benedict arnold did not capture the fort the green mountain boys and ethan allen did.
American: Dump teas into the ocean.
British: Morale drop by 80%.
“The best Tea party is the Boston tea party”
- Sons of Liberty
@@empollonamericano328 It was probably more along the lines of "This British tea is too cheap, why won't you buy our more expensive stuff!"....kinda similar in the way the South thought Britain would side would them because of cotton.....ahem India and Egypt...This video kinda touches on this.
@@h0ckeyd Ok I guess
I am British I can confirm this I’m legit only hear to argue with my American friends that make fun of me in the US airforce lmao
The tea was worth more than the White House lmao
What about Bernardo Galvés? He took back Florida from the British.
Not for long.
@@thescallytrader but he still took it. My point is that Spain also participated in the American revolution which can be verified by their recovery of Florida.
@@thescallytrader Well, let me clarify few things.
There is an article from The Massachusetts Society Sons of the American Revolution ( SAR ) called ‘Spain and the Independence of The United States.’ After reading the article cannot be a surprise to know than Spanish Commander Bernardo de Galvez has the same honour of be Honorary Citizeship of the United States like Laffayete…
Lol the Americans won, thanks for your help 🇫🇷 and 🇪🇸 👍 lmao
@Mustafa Alam thanks Donald trump for starting a war with iran. Your americans president is 💩
I know what you mean but in the end america still won the war.
Why british vs British
We had jome field advantage, and they made great targets. Standing in the open field.
Benedict Arnold? Never heard of him - Horatio, probably.
Ouch.
India was far more important to England. So that’s one big reason England didn’t go all in.
socalcraigster wrong the colonies account for 30% of the empire GDP
And the indians still regret this fact. They only got independance 200 years later after massive genocide, human rights abuses, revolution.
The sub continent still hasn't recover. USA was lucky to break away early.
@Mustafa Alam
The word racist comes to mind.
I wouldn’t say racist. His name is Mustafa. Chances are he’s just a bitter afterthought of the partition.
Because TEA
Wait, they LOST?!
Are you using Internet Explorer?
He is using the original Encyclopedia of 1783.
imnotdeadyet Genius. Simply brilliant.
Is there a joke I don't get ?
Xavier he a british TH-cam histrorian who like role playing so he is basicly still fighting in the war
When British Immigrant won against Original British
Init we basically fought against ourselves 😂
@@beetle2147 HAHAHAHAHA I WISH I WAS A AMERICAN
True eh that is technically what it is
Thanks to french and spanish
I was thinking that too 😁
"How did Britain lose the American Revolution?"
Because of Mel Gibson, watch the Patriot! *ducking from stones thrown by angry historians*
^^TRUTH!^^ (sort of)
@@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz4839 Uuhhh, yes & no...
@@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz4839 "based"
I really don't care about what the historians say I love the movie Patriot
@@redseagaming7832
Well it is an enjoyable movie, following a typical hollywood pattern... but history isn't a typical hollywood pattern ^^
France: "Well we sure showed the Brits what for in that Revolution business. Thank god that could never happen here. Right guys?"
tbh part of why the revolution took place was because France went broke for helping the Americans
Seraphic/8X That's the joke.
oh...
r/woosh
also of course through the support and the close connection to the revolution in the colonies, the republican ideas were spreading in french aswell
terapak knut but mainly because France was bankrupt, were they not bankrupt the royalty would have been safe.
There is a good reason why nobody wanted to support Britain: after the Seven Years' War, Britain emerged victorious, but it not only alienated its enemies France, Spain, Russia, and Austria, it also alienated its ally Prussia. Thus, by the time of Revolution, most of the world did not want to see Britain win a second war, and so either stayed neutral or gave support to the Patriots.
@Ads 19 the only good part was those islands
so, what you are saying is that because we failed to utterly crush the other states in the 7 years war they funded an insurrection that stretched us too thin. Like being mobbed and beaten while throwing up... just think about how much less trouble there would be in the world if the Plantagenet dynasty had been mildly less incompetent
That's a very good point. In the eyes of many Europeans, the British had become too powerful after 1763 and this gave them the chance to restore the world power balance. France and to an extent Spain had DOUBLE motivation to get involved, they could get revenge on their old rival AND create a buffer nation in North America between British Canada and their territorial holdings (little did they know what the "buffer nation" would one day become though).
@@thunderbird1921 except they made the US way too much powerful as the US gained more land it got more manpower and a bigger military
@@hamzadesidragonsarwar Not for another 100 years. It was free market, free enterprise, and population growth from an overcrowded Europe that did that.
Our good friend Benedict Arnold is our good friend no more
- oversimplified
It was that third tear drop that caused him to betray us lol
I'm team Benedict. He had cause to defect.
@@javilorenzana
He was definitely overlooked as a prominent leader in American battles, like the victory at Saratoga. Without his aggressive leadership, there might not have been a victory at Saratoga.
@@javilorenzana Everyone that betray their own have a just cause. They are often untold though.
when i saw the intro i was like is this isp
Shine banana me to
Absolutley, thought I clicked on the wrong video.
Same
i came here from isp, and i was like, did youtube glitch out and not change video?
Yep
The Brits lost America for the same reason the US lost Vietnam or Soviets lost Afghanistan. They got tired of fighting the war. After years of casualties, and increasing taxes with no end in sight, the cost of victory becomes too high to pay.
Cannibal713 no F R A N C E
MAD Fiction04 not just France you mug
Britain was also fighting other major wars and the forces used against the US were a tiny portion of our military
Bradders - exactly, Britain had to keep large numbers of troops at home to protect against a possible French invasion, send more troops to protect their holdings in the West Indies, and keep fleets at sea to counter the French fleets in European waters, the West Indies, and North America. All of this stretched resources and was very expensive. Of course, it was very expensive for the French, too, probably leading to the fall of the French monarchy, and yet another series of wars with France and another war with America in 1812.
not entirely france....but pretty much just france, the traitors were supplied 90~95% of their gunpowder by the french, not to mention the guns to fire them. With no real means to supply more than a fraction of gunpowder necessary from the colonies the rebelion would have been over in about a week
We didn't, we're playing the long game. Just wait until 2076....
Stefan Milo lol
Is that when cyberpunk is coming out?
it was a joke lol why you taking it seriously, and what is the point off telling him that? when America clearly has problems too with all the shootings going on
Donald Trump Someone can’t take a joke 😂
Donald Trump we don’t have demographic problems, and we still have less stabbings than the US, and London is less violent than most US cities. At least we don’t have mass shootings, school shootings (or any shootings really)
Did anyone get confused with the ironside opening and think they accidentally clicked on a isorrow video
yes actually.
Ye
🎵 I used to rule the world 🎵
Americans: Britain lost to untrained farmers from only America
Spanish, French and Dutch: Am I a joke to you
Well, farmers tatics worked well from using wood gun with metal pipe to still that wood gun but with a magazine
To be fair they still lost against farmers and other untrained men.
We at war china and india and japan and france and germany as well
@@bridder83 what kind of "at war" ?
@@randomstranger9442 i said england where at germany and china and japan and france when went to war with america
We lost cause of the American servers. Latency was terrible
was it the lag switch?
HAHHAHAHAHAHAH, but europe?
I remember knifing a Yankee bloke. Just for my Knoif to just slide of his Gillie suit. And the battlefield froze and lagged. Then a long second later I dropped dead from his no-scope sniper hip fire. Internet was rubbish back then.
Well if you're playing on a server that's across the ocean from you, I could totally see why it'd lag.
Nerds
Netherlands: Look, all we wanted to do was Protect the Patriot cause!
France: Oh really?
Netherlands: Yes really.
France: You sure you didn't just fancy kicking some British arse? That's why we were there.
Spain: That's what rather appealed to us too.
Also the Dutch just wanted to get paid.
At first glance I thought you were talking about Neanderthals...
Netherlands: About that ass-kicking
*Fourth Anglo-Dutch War not going so well for the Dutch*
Justafan IV I understood that reference
The treaty of West*America*
The enormous difficulty of moving troops across the ocean during the age of sail was a major factor.
absolutely
USA: Hey France can u help a brotha out?
France: Busy
USA: You get to kill Brits
France: Hold my beer...
quite a few were welshman too,robert morris who signed your declaration and was a huge financier of the revolution was a welshman,its amazing how little is known about the welsh and there part they played in your independence,we really really didnt like the english back then because of oppression of our culture and language
Hold my wine you mean? French don't have beers, only wines at that time. We Brits drink beers! lol!
@TheDerpy Kitty British had Irish slaves i didnt know that
The Brits dealt with France later at Trafalgar in 1805, and Waterloo in 1815.
@@jetpigeon8758 with some help....and overall france won more battles throughout history against the brits then vice versa
england 1776: “we shall rule the word” england now: “anyone got a ciggy mate”
We technically do rule the world now lol
@@dzehliono8320 By terms of language 😁
@@firemangan2731 and countries
@@dzehliono8320 your rebellious family across the pond rules, you just so happen to be on friendly terms with them.
@GretschDog Christian is 60% of british population
so no alahu akhbar
Britain is a conservatives country since 2019
and UK left the European union
so the no more bad immigration
many muslim
black
and asian
will be deported from Britain in the future
The American Commanders of the time, say the war would have easily been lost without France. That’s why so many of the key Founding Fathers liked to hang around on the European Continent. To be fair most nations are equally as heavy on propaganda, when it comes to such topics.The French Navy, training, weapons and supplies were crucial for victory and continued independence. Britain was essentially fighting all the other large European powers by itself. America had to be given up, in order to maintain the overall empire and homeland.
This was a miscalculation by Britain, that could have been resolved with some simple legal/sociological changes. Britannia didn’t compromise in those days though, if you wanted a fight, she’d give you one.
@kevin3224 But they also wanted a voice in the government, no taxation without representation. Think of it as if the State you lived in didn't get a Senator to represent your State. So i think they would be ok just being colonies to the throne as long as they got that voice
kevin3224 yes, but the people have had referendums for statehood and it loses every time
@Diggity Dank: The added taxes were levied on the Americans because of a War THEY started. Were you aware of that? The colonists were told by Britain not to settle on French and Indian Land, and they did so anyway, sparking off that particular war. Once it started they immediately cried for help from Britain, which arrived.
But that is generally ignored.
So lets move on to other things, BBC propaganda, I laugh at that considering the giants of 'truthful' reporting such as Fox News.... Nice thing about the BBC is you do not get adverts every 5 minutes. BBC is tightly regulated by all parties, they are probably the least Biased media on the face of the planet. Note, I did not say unbiased, but least biased.
Pakistanis raping our daughters? Wierd, no Pakistanis have raped MY daughters. This one always gets me, yet another case of media playing on a rarity and blowing it out of proportion. I guess you also believe that Muslims will be the majority of the British population by 2020! Despite numbering less than 5% of the British population as it currently stands.
Acid attacks? In the UK those are gang related. Acid attacks are actually far more common in other countries, but they are more heavily reported in Britain *because* they are so unusual and shocking.
In short what you actually wrote a wall of text about was to make that last ill informed attack against the British because you are as much an Anglophobe as you claim others are Anti American. Of course, I could do the same. I could point to your 'News' sources, I could point to the fact that 25% of Americans do not have access to what Europeans would call even BASIC medical care, etc etc... but I will not.
You had some good points, then blew them out of the water with your last paragraph..... because thats where you revealed what exactly you were, just another bigot.
Diggity Dank well put, I'd give you two thumbs up if I could.
kevin3224 Lmao you are such a bitch. Dont you wish you were independent
"There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." ---- Otto Von Bismarck
"Cocaine is a hellova drug..." -Rick James
As an American, I can confirm that this quote is 100% correct.
Said the guy whose country did not stop existing a century earlier because of the divine intervention :D
@@dominiklisowski7382 lol
"God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best" -Voltaire
"If we don't know what we are doing then the enemy certainly can't anticipate our future actions" - 'Merica
they knew what they were doing
And many years later we can be known as burgerland😈🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🍔
Awesome video. As an Englishman, I have to say I'm impressed at how balanced this is. Mentioning obvious questions and pointing out errors usually brought up as fact. Great stuff.
Well balanced and well explained. Kids on either side of the Atlantic listen to this boy.
The US won the war because the UK lost two large expeditionary armies in America and thus broke the Parliamentary Tory party power in London long enough to obtain a treaty. As the Whig newspapers put it, "To lose one army in America is unfortunate, but to lose yet another is outright negligence". John Adams used that sentiment and opportunity to obtain a very favorable treaty. More than the US had even hoped for.
The British had alienated most of Europe in the 7 Years War, so as the US Armies showed by Burgoyne's defeat they could stand up to an invasion, those nations started joining in to reverse the Redcoat world colonial tide of the 1770s.
Washington eventually realized by Christmas of 1776 that the British and their Central European hired soldiers did not do well if they were drawn more than 50 miles from the seaports and their supplying Navy. Then it became an outlast your enemy in the field game, which was possible due to foreign supplies and the complexity of terrain. Few foreign regiments (French, Spanish) actually took part in land battles in America until 1780/81 when they came in force. And then it was primarily obnly in the tidewater districts. Then they went home or just defended their conquests for their own possession like Galvez.
British commanders on the other hand kept planning elaborate and deep country expeditions in hopes of gathering Tory Loyalists, rooting out the traitor settlements and "winning the hearts and minds of the Americans". That completely backfired as it often does.
Good job on the digest.
@S Tho - Prussian?? Perhaps you meant Hessians as the vast majority of German troops that saw action in North America at that time were from the Holy Roman State of Hess-Cassel thus "Hessian." Not Prussia.
Nice history lesson. You've obviously read up on the Revolutionary War.
Stop cry if Usa win is cause of france
I agree
“Then they went home...”
So what you’re saying is, the French effectively surrendered? 🙊
The British knew they would still have strong economic ties post-war, that’s why we got so much land
True facts
Lul bongistan copes
Wdym
Ham With Honey they knew they would push west after independence, so it would save them the money from doing it themselves, and would result in more trade
True. The British didn’t want to sever all ties. They new how important trade with this new country would be.
You forgot the biggest reason.....
Mel Gibson
Bruh.
Hahha damn right
Your ghost
Touché
J Cou *Ghosts*
From a retired history professor, solid job, friends! One of the most overlooked aspects of the American colonists' victory was the strategy adopted in the southern colonies, in addition to the mistaken notion that capturing Philadelphia (as the American capital) would cause the rebellion to collapse.
Due to time constraints (at least I would suspect), Benedict Arnold wasn't given much spotlight here as an American commander. His story was quite interesting, though. He played prominent roles in early American battles, including the victory at Saratoga. Why he "turned coat" was fairly straightforward: he felt he wasn't receiving his due from his superiors in the American military. In fairness, his thinly veiled contempt for his superior officers didn't help him.
Again, overall a quite accurate picture of the Revolutionary war and the reasons for American victory.
Have a nice day, and a better one tomorrow!
this is wholesome
Well, let me clarify few things.
There is an article from The Massachusetts Society Sons of the American Revolution ( SAR ) called ‘Spain and the Independence of The United States.’ After reading the article cannot be a surprise to know than Spanish Commander Bernardo de Galvez has the same honour of be Honorary Citizeship of the United States like Laffayete…
“It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
― Samuel Adams
🇺🇸
🇬🇧🇬🇧 well done our children. We are proud. Please stop hating us.
@Sutty Yep, you're right. That's what Samuel Adams meant when he said that.
@@chrismason4449 proud of what ?
And let them hate us , it means they care ...
We live in their minds 24/7 rent free.
Just read some of the comments from the people your proud of
They are deluded, they deny they speak English,
They go on about a war as if they won it alone , they didn't win
The help the French, Dutch, Spanish, gave is why they won.
Plus the fact half our army was elsewhere, fighting in India against the mysore empire, fighting the French, and Dutch,
If the US had anything worthwhile, if we knew it had Gold, silver, rubies etc, we would have gathered our WHOLE army together and slapped them all and kept control of the US.
But it had nothing of value ( not known at the time) and it was actually costing Britain more to run that we were getting in return from their tuppence ha'penny taxes .
The British lost the Revolutionary War for the same reason that the Americans left Vietnam it wasn't worth it
"American's used sneak attacks to win the war"
*Laugh's in Vietnamese*
sauce boy way more complicated than that.
Vietnam jokes are dead now😂 mainly because people are starting to realized the devastating casualty count for Vietcong soldiers....1,400,000......vs only 58,000 Americans.....💀
Carlos Andujar no cuz you lost
@@cxarhomell5867 no because we literally left. The entire time through out the war we were winning and the only reason why they are considered to be the ones with the victory flag is because we left due to riots and a strong overall negative feeling about the war etc. If the American people held the heads high and supported American presence useing one of our main strength in war witch is a great economy then I personally believe that eventually the win flag would be shown for the Americans than the Viet Cong through public opinion. One thing we can all agree on though is that no matter who won the war we all took an L at the end of the day regardless of it was only 1,400,000 or 58,000
I realized the similarities between the two wars back in the 1980s. Ever since, it's saddened me that no on in the military or government saw the similarities during the war.
what people don't realize is that france didn't help until the US proved it could win battles on its own
We would've lost without European help, mainly France
The French pumped in massive amounts of money and weapons from the start but didn't openly support the American cause until they could see that the revolution wasn't going to simply run out of steam.
End of day they still helped they didn’t wana end up waisting their money if they knew it was useless
The French didn't commit troops until the Americans won a battle on our own......Satatoga. Then the French committed 12,000 troops, but no more than 7.000 were in North America at any one time. But the brits forget (usually) that they had about 1/3 of the colonists on their side....along with native tribes and +30,000 Hessians fighting for them.
@@tidefanyankee2428 they helped the naval a liitle bit They still helped end of day there soldiers were better trained and experience too and they prob had some euro tactics to help America fight the british
Short answer: France & Spain
Shorter answer: USA the best
Sulphuric_Glue The Americans would’ve won anyways.
1948 19451 No, they would not have won anyways. Funds, arms, advisors and troops were very much needed. Not to mention if the Brits hadn’t been so preoccupied with the war with France, Spain etc then they could have put all resources to ending the uprising.
It’s not even debatable really in my opinion but you can believe what you want.
1948 19451 no
1948 19451 they wouldn't have won...
I thought this was a isorrows video for 2 seconds
Miklos Horthy same
I had to remind myself that it wasn’t, haha
Watched an Isorrow video, and looked up what Ironside was. Emailed them, and we managed to come up with a deal. Really cool people over there.
Griff
i really like your videos
Horthy?? what are you doing here? i figured you would be interested in watching videos involving Hungary?
Thought I accidentally clicked on an iSorrowProductions video for a second.
James Oldham me too
I dont know what isorrowproductions is, is it a history channel?
How did britian lose the Semi Finals?
Good one
England* as a scot i got very erect however i am a unionist God save our queen!
Same Old story, they can’t play Soccer, 56 years since they won a World Cup, and never Won a European Cup. Kick and run Soccer doesn’t work, you need some real talent.
Because Britain wasn't in the semis.
Truth Better Than Fiction well no one can play soccer as soccer doesnt exist.
So i dunno what sport you are going on about
We were to busy drinking tea
Joseph Nicholls
: And beating the French in Europe :-)
More like too busy getting your asses kicked
@@williamolsen8464 not really tbh the british were kicking ass majority of the time majority of the victories u will find out british won most of the time. Only reason the war stopped and the british left us alone was cos of high cost and attrition the war caused. We americans at the time didn't even face the full might of the british military since it was too busy fighting other wars.
GENERAL KENOBI Are you brain dead?
Lol
How can you American's throw good tea overboard?
Blame the Italians...
TheClumsyBrit because we got Coca Cola
Prussian Eagle are we now?
TheClumsyBrit good question. I am American but i fuckin love tea
Talon57 hey don’t look at us it’s obviously the Irish
How did Britain lose the American Revolution?
Cus they had no friends
the british people loathed the war too. It was likely their Vietnam War long ago.
@@tenid4824 Anyone would hate fighting against their own people.
@@tenid4824After years of studying history, that's probably the best comparison I can think of. The American Revolutionary War truly was Britain's Vietnam.
@@thunderbird1921 maybe also britain's afghanistan war was like russia's afghanistan war like america's afghanistan war, like france's vietnam war, like, like, it's just like - it's just like a mini-mall! hey, hey!
"i don't need friends, they disapoint me"- some woman
🇫🇷 France which cost Louis XVI his kingdom
A good thing tho, this young a trash king needed to die to put a real leader right after him, the legendary; *Napoleon*
@@Andromediens knock knock, its Waterloo
A kingdom and a head
"...though [the Americans] seem to be ignorant of the precision, order, and even of the principals, by which large bodies are moved, yet they possess...activity and a spirit of enterprise upon any advantage...though it was once the fashion of this army to treat them in the most contemptible light, they are now become a formidable enemy."
~ Lieutenant William Harcourt, March 17,1777
Was he British or American?
@@thepuffin4050 He was British. The British were more disciplined as an army, however the Americans possessed a spirit and a desire for freedom like no other.
@@Counselor77 And let's not forget that the best American generals possessed and exercised far greater creativity, adaptability, and leadership than their British counterparts, who often simply could or would not bring themselves to match their tactics to the actual battle they were fighting.
@@chuckschillingvideos That's fine but you might want to tell that to Lieutenant William Harcourt.
@@Counselor77 Such cries of freedom, so desperately wretched out in agony by the holders of whips and the grippers of chains.
The Redcoat, with his small English farm, and his meagre wage and his family, so ignorant and frail as they gorge on stale bread and browned water, privileged and haughty as they gaze down upon the oppressed whip hands of the south, and the fattened farm hands of New England, is indeed truly the most contemptible of creatures.
Well, about the supply, remember that Spain supply a lot of gun powder, guns and money to pay the American soldiers using the Mississippi river that was part of the Spanish New Orleans.
One thing I like about Washington, he knew when to listen to someone else, he originally planned to just charge Yorktown, the French general convinced him to lay siege instead.
Hey, at the end of the day THERE WAS AN OCEAN BETWEEN THEM
@@HerewardWake well said mate
@TheDerpy Kitty If the British had been able to supply their forces as easily as the Continental Army was supplied, then the British would have easily destroyed the American forces.
@@longshorts7148 Try to be educated about WW1 and WW2. In WW1 the war lasted from 1914 until 1918, but the Americans didn't join the war until 1917, by such time the Germans were losing heavily and were never going to win. The Americans did not help very much. Then in WW2 which began in 1939 until 1945, the Americans didn't join the war until 1942, and by that time the British had won the battle of Britain and were regularly launching 800 bomber raids on German cities. I will admit that the equipment sent over from the USA did help a great deal, but every American reading this should understand that every Dollar of equipment was paid for in full by Britain, who fought for the free world, while US soldiers slept comfortably in their beds, while British soldiers shed blood-fighting against NAZI tyranny. I really don't know how Americans can live with the shame of not joining what was obviously a World war. Oh and just for your information, there was never any possibility of the Germans defeating the UK, due to the English channel which at the narrowest point is still 22 miles wide, and the Luftwaffe had already been given a bloody nose at the Battle of Britain in September 1940, and the Royal Navy which was the most powerful navy in the world at the time (Far more powerful than the US Navy) would have wiped out any attempted invasion force.
@@longshorts7148 Please don't believe everything you watch on youtube. There are factual official TV recordings out there which state that even without the USA being involved in WW2 Germany would have been defeated, yes it would have possibly taken until 1946/47, but the Germans could not have won as they were fighting on too many fronts, and it was only a matter of time before Hitler would have been assassinated. Do not underestimate the British and their colonial friends who were part of the Commonwealth of Nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, etc. Just as long as the USA continued to send equipment as they had been doing, they did not need to send soldiers, although of course, we were grateful for them.
@TheDerpy Kitty Only because the Atlantic ocean was in the way.
The second half of the war (1779-1781) mainly represented king George's personal vendetta against the colonial rebels. The war received much loss of support in the parliament by the tail-end of the war because the war had expanded across almost 7 continents. It became a quasi world war. The Anglo-Mysorean war fought between Hyder Ali and the East India company troops in India, had also added much to the misery of the parliament. King George had sent Hanoverian mercenaries to accompany the BEIC to face the Mysorean kingdom which must have cost a fortune and added to the depletion of British coffers in London. The Americans had to somehow maintain their grit and resolve to stay long enough to survive most of the blows dealt by the British. They had to not lose, if not win, by keeping the war from being won by the British. General Washington's plan to tire out the British commanders by being unrelenting in terms of strategic attacks like Trenton, or even Monmouth contributed much to paving the way for the British to ultimately lose interest in the war, especially after Yorktown.
A lot of the Americans fighting the British were of British blood, just look at their names, so it was good British blood that wanted their freedom that won the war. Just remember the shout was not the British are coming, it was the Redcoats are coming.
Stephen Maughan they were British the war was basically a civil war of loyalist v republican
MrTangolizard cough* loyalist Vs traitors * cough 😉
FirePheonix 141
*Puts on American tinted glasses*
More like Oppressor V Oppressed
*Bald Eagle flys by with a Patriotic screech*
Max grrr Dog oppressed lol really
MrTangolizard NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
It was more of a civil war. The average “American” saw themselves as english/british.
No not at all for quite some time prior to the revolution the colonies were referred to by the people living there as the United Colonies of America which is why when the colonies became independent the new nation called itself the United States of America
@Rory Mulligan the people of the 13 colonies called themselves the United Colonies of America prior to the revolution
If anything, you could call the revolution a world war. With all major players involved.
No they did not they saw themselves as Americans!
I actually had this at university and it's more complex than "They saw themselves as American/British", there were both sides.
People, who still viewed themselves as British, had no favor for the idea of independence and hoped for reconciliation with Britain, on the other side there were patriots, who were fed up by perceived acts of British Tyranny (e.g. so called Boston Massacre, the British stationing Troops in private homes without asking, taxation without representation) and then there were also many people who were indifferent and didn't care, it was like 33% each before the outbreak of hostilities.
Yeah, it slowly shifted towards the patriots a bit, e.g. when Thomas Paine published his pamphlet "Common Sense" heavily advertising independence, but it wasn't like that 100% of the Colonials would've viewed themselves as proud patriots at any time in the war.
Ask the Canadians, after the war many loyalist leaning citizens evacuated from the former 13 Colonies, now United States, towards Canada.
The fact, that this is mentioned at all in history books and historical accounts prooves, that this was no minor event, it was a still significant portion of the population.
A few thoughts.
Washingtons strategy wasn't new and brilliant it was "Fabian" tactics named after Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus. Who avoided pitch battles and instead used attrition and poor supply to wear down Hannibal's army's in Italy during the Second Punic War. Washington knew of Fabian and his strategy as his own letters bear out.
There where large amounts of loyalist yes but A. The British did not put serious effort into utilizing them untill to late in the war and B. After the battle of Kings Mountain the loyalist felt exposed, so large amounts of Cornwallis army was detached into smaller Garrison's
C. The militia played a key role in both the battles of Cowpens and Guliford Courthouse, I think you underplayed there importance or only read heavily accounts from the northern theatre. Same as the rifleman did play a major role in the southern theatre despite only being 3% of the army.
After 1778 with the entrance of France, the Dutch and later by the Spanish the war aims changed for the British. Less and less reinforcements arrived in the colonies and the war became more about protecting the the nation's other possession and less about keeping America.
The British ultimately lost because they failed to win the hearts and minds of the people back to the English yoke and despite the attempts of parliamentary officials the British failed to ever utilitize a overall command structure instead allowing each commander to have an independent theatre command. While this worked out great for the Americans, for the British not fighting on home soil not adapting to a command structure they had used before in Europe allowed their separate army's to fail piecemeal.
I think you do a good job and the presentation is solid but you need to use more sources for such an important topic as the American Revolution. Your video on France in the Second World War had numerous sources while as for this video you only had 3.
I think you should keep progressing but don't just use popular history sources use academic history sources and primary source documents as well.
The Americans would have lost without the French and Spanish
Unknown Elite what makes you say this
Unknown Elite not true after a lot of battles and close to the end of the American revolution the continental army had one of the best trainers baron Von Steuben
@@RBAOfficial-w6r barron Von Steuben was dutch plus the rifles that baron taught them to shoot correctly were french supplied
But they didn't and Britshits waved the white flag like the cowards they're lol
Unknown Elite but before the French joined the war the Americans had already won a couple of battles
They won because they used a dodge challenger to scare of the British army with the power of murican V8 HEMI lol
I'm British I was pissing my self when I saw this comment
We would of stared them down behind the wheel of our might Reliant Robin. Feel the power of 3 wheels and basically a lawn mover engine. Scared? You better believe it.
Britain: We have the mighty range rover .
USA : we have our backup dodge ram, ford f150, Chevy Silverado, and GMC cyclone .
I reference this on a comertial and the range rover it came from as james may shouted when his pissed at him CLARKSON from top gear
Dodge/Chrysler is now owned by Fiat, so the Italians eventually won!
BOOSTED 1327 American cars are nothing but plastic wrapped round a V8, cheap poorly made cars that are nothing when compared to the cars from Europe. Americans can hardly drive properly (manual) due to their cars mainly being automatic. This has ruined cars that could have been pretty cool.
It's because we asked the British nicely to leave. And they said okay.
Pietree Nah we’re not pussies like Canadians.
Sir Devil there’s nothing wrong with a good Canadian, very loyal people, even if a load of them are French 👀👀.
FirePheonix 141
*Puts on American tinted glasses*
Say that again
Max grrr Dog the French are so terrible at war they had to get British Americans to fight us just to get a victory. You’d never catch me doing a Frenchman’s dirty work 🤷🏼♂️ just saying 😉😂
Sir Devil pussies? Wow pretty sure we torched your fucking Whitehouse and ate the food in it, also your gas prices were just increased.
Rock solid video, sir! Also worth adding that Polish fighters volunteered in significant number in the US. Also also worth noting was that the American grievances actually had sympathetic ears in Britain, not the least of which was Edmund Burke.
Thanks LordBitememan! We did want to mention a little more about what people in England thought, but as we approached the 11th minute, we knew we couldn't go into much more depth.
Griff
They were also discipline by the Prussian General Baron von Steuben
LordBitememan yeah. but kosing large amounts of profitable territory makes empires look bad
The British had a mutiny in India @ the same time as the revolution & had to decide which was the more profitable territory & India was as it provided 2/3rds more profit every year than the American colonies. They also had a mutiny in India right around the time of the Napoleonic wars. It was always a problem of having such a vast empire stretched out far around the world, though the British did manage to hold onto the rest of it fairly well, except for a few more mutinies in India over time
LordBitememan polish always turn up when there's jobs going
We Yanks had better wifi back then, (Edge+) because we invented it. Hell, we invented the entire internet! Our lattes were quite boss, even back then.
australia invented wifi and Britain invented large parts of the internet, specifically the www
England invented the language you are all speaking.... English.
@@zel3888 Negative.
Wifi was invented in a tool shed, in rural Kansas.
@@imgoingtocountdownfromthir4580 Yes & no...
You see, we Yanks perfected the English language. So technically, modern English is American! (we don't claim ebonics)
I read somewhere that the war was mostly unpopular with the average British back home, who saw it as a waste of money, lives & time. Basically like an 18th century Vietnam War.
That’s probably because at the time most of the thirteen colonies weren’t that profitable.
Only the southern ones made significant money, and that’s in part why Britain diverted more into the southern campaigns.
@@12D_D21 Good point, never even thought of that. But makes sense when you consider that the Caribbean and areas surrounding it were still the economic hub of the New World at that time.
4:22 You copied the loading screen from the warpath mod in Empire total war.
Guilty.
I basiclly know the entire geography of the greater Boston are by playing fallout 4
where is on falout 4
Lol me too
Same.
Issa game set in a alternative universe...when nuked. How
You meet up with Cait yet? She's a real bruiser, but is ticklish. Her Irish giggle is infectious!
You know we just had 𝔬𝔫𝔢 tea party, right?
I have a gentle request, please can you explain the Spanish involvement in the revolutionary war? It is very unknown to most. Spain helped to cut British supplies by sinking navy ships and Galves army from the South. Spanish generals parade with
washington on Independence day.
Thanks I truly was not aware of that always do like the Spanish!
@Mustafa Alam mustapha, greetings from the state of Kentucky. I'm a person of truth and you made a legitimate Point here about us attacking Mexico. Many people I think would try to justify it, But I want the United States is like every other country. They want to play this Empire building game and I personally think it's stupid. I like the idea of countries having Sovereign borders acting friendly to one another having good trade and trying to understand that we're not all the same. Having said all that the Muslim nations of the world have gone on. 2 Empire Building at times. So I think if we're going to have the truth butts have the unabridged version.
I love learning about the revolutionary war and so thank you for that but of history. I didn't know either
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_and_the_American_Revolutionary_War
@Rory Mulligan Dutch traded with the British so dutch gained Suriname, since they left the area for the british to smuck on
And that’s why you have parliament Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Because mom learned her lesson
America had the home field advantage. Most were Militia, and not Soldiers.
Muskets take a while to load, so American families owned owned several of them.
After the father fired a shot, he would hand it off to his wife and children who would be busy loading 3 or 4 others, giving him another that was ready to go.
The British Soldiers had to load their own after every shot.
So an American could shoot 4 times as often as a British Soldier.
:D And the cook, the gardener, the servant and the priest (when there was!) Accelerated the firing response more.
It would have interesting to know what would've happened if the British didn't have their armies spread all over the world OR if the French + Spainish didn't help the USA.
The outcome would be the same i imagine
@@willt6551 nope America was funded with a ton of money and a crap ton of weaponry to fight against the British military by both the french and the Spanish. It was later seen as a side-war and we then went to fight the Spanish and the french simultaneously. Tbh America was kind of forgotten because it was the people backing them that were the problem. In terms of damage the British did a ton of damage even setting fire to the White House and destroying the symbol of the American government to let them now their potential.
I am an American yet I still believe that we had a lucky ass escape.
@@willt6551 Probably not.
in 1976, the bicentennial, Baskin-Robbins had Valley Forge fudge ice cream. It was great!
3:11 “our good friend Benedict Arnold is our good friend, no more”
Oversimplified reference
So its not that the americans "won". Britain just decided to stop fighting at some point
Unless you’re defining winning by absolutely destroying the people you’re fighting or conquering them, I would argue attaining your goal in a war is winning. They wanted freedom from British rule and that’s exactly what they got. That’s pretty much the playbook for defeating more powerful nations, make the cost of victory too high for them to stomach.
True, if Brittain gave their all we likely would have lost. Like how americans just gave up after vietnam didn't stop fighting
Britain got slapped and humiliated and now today if Britain attacks the US then Britain will become a state in the United States of America
Camden NJ is still lost. The Brits can have it back if they want and take Trenton too.
Thanks France and Spain from America
Oh I don't know, you could of had things like a ban on guns and free health care by now.........
i think we soon betrayed them or something
so uhhhhh
@Rob nah no thanks
@@monkeydui7241 No thanks to what???
3:17 - There’s a hard p in Pyrrhic - “Pih-Rick” not “Fih-Rick”
Thank you Noah Webster
How cool is it that by sheer coincidence, the hero and villain of this story are both named George?
Why you didn’t mention Bernardo de Gálvez???
The American historiography hides a big part of the Spanish help to the insurgents.
He has a city named after him. Galveston, Texas.
Logistics & France..
*Money from france*
Money, weapons and soldiers ^^ they even designed WashingtonDC with Pierre Charles l'Enfant
According to historians a good chunk if not majority of the money France gave actually came from Spain.
You forgot Spain and the United Provinces.
*french fleet from France*
*35 000 troops from France*
*guns from France*
nice video - but why do let Gen. Gates have credit for Battle of Saratoga, Benedict Arnold, the traitor, had more to do with that Victory than Gates, who stayed in the camp by all reports?
You might also have mentioned the protests and riots in England from the beginning of the war, England was rather divided about the semi-civil war with their colonists, which were about 1/5 of all Englishmen. It was similar to what the USA went through over Vietnam.
They didn't loose, there wasn't enough support in Parliament to continue a war in the US so it was abandoned, plus the were fighting in Europe and India. If no war in Europe and India existed they would have won easily, remember those facts next time you type a meme about taking guns or about Washington, we won by fact France and Holland helped us ans by the fact politicians voted not to fight
Forfeiting still counts as a loss. How do you not understand this?
The US won major battles on their own.
They lost the war and badly.
Basically Spain and France.
Especially Spain
@Nic Espinosa true
Especially France with guns, ship and 35 000 troops
@@bypyros1933 Spain engaged in the conflict only when they saw that France was competing with Britain over the seas.
Where, by a treaty, France has recognized the United States as a free country, this was not the case for Spaniards and Dutch.
The biggest contributor was France.
@@thibskywalker4450 Spain started the war before it was oficial thanks to Bernardo de Gálvez, an important character in the USA's independence. Actually, he was so important that George Washington asked him to be by his side in the parade of victory. Spain payed a huge amount of money (which i now considered to be millions of dollars worthy), they payed french mercenaries (so not all the french were France's soldiers during that war), Spain gave the rebels weapons, food, ammunition, tents and even horses. (Did you know the horses that the Cowboys of the Old West were riding were the succesors of the andalusian horses Spain gave them during this war?). There's a cathedral in Spain which couldn't be finished because the money planned for it was used in that war. And I'm not even talking about the spanish soldiers that fought.
This is just a fun fact, but the current symbol of the dollar was based on the spanish coin. The S represents the cloth were Spain's motto is written in the shield, "Plus Ultra", and the two sticks represent the pillars of Hercules, which are also in the shield.
The Pennsylvania rifle also, we had numerous small rifle makers in all colonies who produced some extremely accurate weapons
These were often German emigrants, "Pennsylvania Dutch".
Britain didn't lose the American Revolutionary War. it simply got tired and brought its troops and ships back home. Kind of like what America did in Vietnam.
Nice
Karl Pilkington Yorktown my guy
Wasn't it a civil war 🇬🇧
mark lloyd TBH it kinda was a civil war because they were British colonies
Nope they surrendered like little bitches lol
Lol looks like Britain isn’t so “great” after all 😂
Fun fact: most Americans were Irish, French, and some Englishmen but Irishmen have fought the majority of the war while the English didn’t and supported the British empire.
It’s called Great Britain because it’s the largest island in the British isles
@@mranonymous2830 exactly, nothing with us being great.
Britain lost the war for American independence in much the same way that America lost the war for Vietnamese independence. In both cases, colonial powers attempting to stifle nationalist movements on another continent. Britain also lost India to a non-violent independence movement after World War II.
and put down hundreds of violent independence movements?
It was clearly French, Spanish and Dutch support, Washington almost lost the war right at the beginning, the British would have easily won otherwise
Fantastic content, really informative. As a Brit, I think the feeling here is that we could never hold such large land mass so far away and its met with a little bit of a shoulder shrug.
If memory serves, the Battle of Bunker Hill was primarily fought on Breed's Hill. I am glad that by the end of the video you brought up the help by our allies. Frankly, I doubt we could have won our independence without the French.
this is fake, we all know it was from dental hygiene
Short answer: French support
Long answer: French support
French support my arse. They had NOTHING to do with it. The French think they are so great but who speaks French around the world. Fucking nobody.
@@thescallytrader well you see they were so great as they’ve won the most wars out of every other country
@@vllnv6026 but world war 2 damn. Hitler took that
Proxy wars are always mutually-beneficial for the sponsoring power and the beneficiaries they support. The sponsor (France) wouldn't commit resources into the war had the beneficiaries (Americans) not proven their ability to fight and win against the common enemy (Britain).
@@thescallytrader without the French.Your stupid ass would be sipping British tea right now stupid.
EVERYONE GIVE IT UP TO AMERICA'S FAVORITE FIGHTING FRENCHMAN!!! LAFAYETTE!!!!!!!
Faith's Berry Own I’M TAKING THIS HORSE BY THE REINS MAKING REDCOATS REDDER WITH BLOODSTAINS
@@philtrash2303 Lafayette!
And im neva gna stop until i make them
Britain learned from her mistakes in America and started granting the other colonies at the time more autonomy, with their own elected parliaments...all be it still under a British flag.
Britain could never have ruled America from an ocean away if Americans saw them as invaders. They could have sent ten armies and the result would have been the same in the long run. Having said that British army was the most professional fighting force in the world back then...and were the only ones with global reach at the time
The British army was actually one of the smallest armies out of the Empires back then. Majority of their budget went to fund the navy which led to a small army in comparison to the Spanish and the French. It was only until Napoleon where Britain decided to put large funding into the army.
Yeah...makes sense. Britain's strength especially back then was it's navy. That's what made them rich and spread their influence all over the entire world. Strongest land army or not...Britain was the only one able to move large ground armies anywhere in the world back then
Spain and France had the same capabilities. The 3 largest navies at this time were the British, Spanish, and French navies. The Spanish and British being the extreme power houses when it came to the sea all had the capabilities to move their armies anywhere around the world.
awatso64
That was also because parliament was afraid that a large army could result in the king abusing his power again.
in reality it was a british civil war as their was no usa at the time it was britain vs british colonist settlers in the colonies. americans didnt exist at the time
wrong it was not a civil war it was Americans vs British, the US existed in 1776 and the war ended in 1783 so yes independent US Americans defeated the British empire, in fact the only "civil war" part of the revolutionary war was the fact that the American Patriots had to fight against not only the British empire, but also their own fellow Americans, the Loyalists who betrayed the US and sided with Britain, and yet the British still lost
@@UserName-om6ft wrong in 1776 90% of settlers in america were anglo saxon you cant lose a war to your own people without it being a civil war and no the USA DIDNT EXISTTHEN haha why you lying
User Name.
And the further bad news! Britain effectively won the War of 1812 by successfully defending its North American colonies.
But for the British, the war with America had been a mere sideshow compared to its life-or-death struggle with Napoleon in Europe.
@@TheChief657 hahaha July 4th 1776 declaration of independence, the US existed in 1776 it wasnt a civil war you're just mad because the British empire was smashed by American farmers you lost and we won hahahahaha imagine being a war loser it must be embarrassing to be British, a country of war losing people hahahahaha the US won the war
@@Dellboy56 wrong again, the US won the war of 1812, to sum up the war of 1812 the US effectively convinced the British to never mess with the US again, the US successfully maintained its territory integrity and successfully defended itself from British invasions, the US successfully achieved its objectives of ending British impressment of American sailors and ending British support of the natives, the US had won more battles both land and sea, the US was the ONLY country that successfully gained territory (US westwards expansion, the US routing both Britain and Spain out of Florida and taking Florida in the south, and the US taking Carleton island from the British in the north) the British on the other hand failed in their objectives of taking US territory, the British even ended up losing Carleton island to the US, and the British failed in their promises to the Natives to create independent Native American nations, also Napoleon is the one that had actually been fighting entire massive European coalitions Napoleon had to fight against Prussia, Russia, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, several German states, several Italian states, the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the French Monarchy, and many others, and because Napoleon had to fight with so many massive European coalitions this allowed Britain to sit and hide safely on their island away from mainland Europe, in fact even when the war with Napoleon was already over in the war of the 6th coalition in May 1814 the war of 1812 had still continued long after that and the British STILL couldnt beat the US even WITH their attention taken off of Napoleon, in fact the US largely fought the war of 1812 on its own while the British had various support from many different allies, the British had help from the Canadian Militia, the Native Americans, the American born Loyalists to Britain who fled to Canada after the British lost the revolutionary war also known as the United Empire Loyalists, the British also had help from the African soldiers and the British even had help from the Spanish and yet Britain still couldnt win the war of 1812
I think the lack of reinforcements after 1780 and a reliance on using German mercenaries, had a hand in the eventual defeat.
It was logistically impossible to supply an army over the distances that needed to be covered.
Excellent video.
Especially when half Britain's army was elsewhere fighting, India , France, Dutch,
And the colonials were being given French soldiers, training, guns , money etc ...
Knowing how thin Britain was spread at the time.
After 1777 the war in America became a sideshow to a world wide war fought by France, Spain, The Dutch and the Kingdom of Mysore against the British.
I wish history class was your videos back then when I was in grade school. Then maybe I would have paid more attention and did better.
Keep up the good work!!!
I can’t believe I had to look this up!!!! This was all we talked about in American history class lol
I've always thought it was because of Mel Gibson
-British: we have a well trained army and the most powerfull navy
-Washington and the bois: we have some dude with blades that climbs
4:35-4:51 When I heard that I was initially like: "Yeah, nope!", but that's doing the American militia and riflemen a disservice. They did do significant work during the war: sniping, skirmishing, scouting, guerrilla fighting, etc. But, that being said, the majority of the fighting was done by the Continentals, AKA the regular soldiers.
The U S was the only colony in the British Empire that got it's independence though war. All other countries got independence though peaceful negotiations. Britain still has a good relationship with it's ex colonys , France and Spain don't.
That's only because of WW2
And that, children, is why most Americans drink coffee, not English tea.
British didn't have 'ok' commanders. Howe and Cornwallis were amazing with their flanking manouvers.
@Roman Empire Ball That doesn't address the post at all you muppet. Do we remember Napoleon as a rubbish general because of Waterloo ?
@@SerBallister what exactly is muppet?
@@_gamepoint_ a british insult refers to show the muppets, meaning calling someone a muppet meaning they are stupid
Lee Ruan ah yes stealing land and using slaves is way better.keep it up mate
Sort of the same reason we lost Vietnam. Check out Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly."
The loss is entirely yours 🤣 King Ralph, quality film. I was expecting a chant of USA half way through like most videos about the war, so well done for doing your research.
Bitter??
@@fobbitoperator3620 I would love a pint of thanks mate.
@@garyd2978 Sounds like a plan brother. CHEERS!!! (mugs make distinct "clanking" sound upon contact)
Short answer: France.
Long answer: The british ended the war because the majority of their forces was engaged with the french, especially the royal navy was fighting the french navy all across the globe to protect the british trade routes. This escalation caused a massive increase of the british warcosts, costs they couldn't afford. This was made even worse by the old british rivalry between the parlament and the king. The king wanted a military solution, the parlament did not. In addition the parlament saw a chance to weaken the king by refusing to pay the bill of a prolonged war. So ultimately the british ended the war against their colonies to face the french => France was outmatched, the revolution happened, Napoleon came to power, the british ultimately defeated Napoleon with the help of Prussia, Russia and Austria. In between the USA fought another war against the british and the british burned the white house and parts of Washington DC. At the end of this war both sides had a weird mutual respect for one another and the relations improved over time. The british and french would ultimately profit from their actions oversea during WW1 and WW2: The USA ended the stalemate in WW1 and liberated france in WW2, just like the french liberated the colonies from the british almost 200 years before. History is a funny thing.
Well, let me clarify few things.
There is an article from The Massachusetts Society Sons of the American Revolution ( SAR ) called ‘Spain and the Independence of The United States.’ After reading the article cannot be a surprise to know than Spanish Commander Bernardo de Galvez has the same honour of be Honorary Citizeship of the United States like Laffayete…
I got a question. What was the United States called before they United? Like what is the whole country called?(example like Canada, Japan, Korea )
Diggity Dank oh! I see.
They weren't really called anything. The Americans identified themselves by the name of the state they represented.
Sean Thompson Which was used to poetically romanticize the Republic into the 19th century.
H. A. R. D union