Great video! As an American Revolutionary war reenactor, history enthusiast and TH-camr. it’s great to see content from the other side of the pond. Cheers
An excellent presentation addressing the Revolutionary War on the World stage. For the British it was a "soft war" as they did not want to inflame the entire population of which over 65% were Loyalist or indifferent. The degree of French funding was also significant factor, after 1778 the Americans were almost totally dependent on French money, supplies and weapons. Very hard to see Washington winning without French help.
The US could not win the War of Independence without lots of help from France and Spain. The revolutionary government was bankrupt - incapable of maintaining any significant military force under arms continuously. It had no income from trade because of the blockade. It could afford nothing in the way of modern military equipment such as artillery. Its small arms musket production was an enormous variety of types produced by thousands of independent smiths scattered everywhere, with little ability to pay for them. It was incapable of supplying an army large enough to confront the main British army in New York, and could only conduct what were essentially guerrilla campaigns against Cornwallis in the South. Never again after Saratoga would the 13 Colonies risk an all-out, decisive military clash like the 1777 campaign. Saratoga could so easily have gone the other way, and Washington knew it better than anyone.
65% neutral or loyalist is very unlikely. It seems to come from John Adams, with his 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. But I'd suggest to you that Adams was speaking for effect. Why do I say so? Within days of the war starting we had raised an army of over 20,000, just to invest Boston. The most the Brits managed to come up with were probably the 1100 or so for Kings Mountain. Then there were the numbers that left, postwar (Among them, I have some reason to believe, some of my ancestors, settling in New Carlisle, Quebec); they amounted to about 2% of the population. Lastly, the conclusion of the war; if the Brits had had 1/3 loyalist the rebels could never have won. I'd suggest that the real numbers were probably about a third eager to fight at the drop of a hat, a third willing to fight if no amicable solution could be found - this group changed to the first group after Lexington and Concord, a quarter more or less neutral and maybe 9-10 % strictly loyal to Great Britain and the Crown.
Most people don't understand the logistics it takes to send and supply an army overseas in the 18th century. The British were at a big disadvantage in that department.
the matter is of a purely political nature, the English parliament and the English government did not take "news across the pond" seriously they preferred to play political games, instead of solving American problems when they finally realized what was happening, it was too late to do anything
@@rc59191 Britain's general practise was the extensive hiring of foreign mercenaries for all of its continental European wars, and especially those overseas. It would indeed occasionally deploy British troops to Europe, but this was always with a large addition of foreign mercenaries - almost invariably German. The economics favoured this: German mercenaries were generally low cost because of the need of dozens of German principalities to maintain relatively large armed forces. And because they were coming frequently from the regular armies of German principalities, they tended to be well trained and equipped. The army fighting in Spain starting in 1809 consisted of huge numbers of mercenary Irish and large numbers of Germans in the various regiments of the King's German Legion. Britain relied heavily on mercenaries for most of its campaigns in India prior to 1900. It still maintains at this time a unit of mercenaries: the Brigade of Ghurkas.
The amphibious landings on long island and Manhattan were exquisite operations and the Royal Navy needs great credit for the capture of New York in 1776
I’m so grateful that you’re doing this series about the American revolution. I wish you would also do the French and Indian war and interview Fred Anderson, the author of the Crucible of War.
The way I word it is that if the British had won the American Revolution, Canada would be a bigger country today, with it's capital being Philadelphia.
We need to get Vlogging through History to start having reactions to your videos. Your content is amazing and needs to be discovered by other history buffs.
It wasn't only the French and Spain that were aiding the Americans, it's important to add the Dutch, too. The United States was so well supplied and by the Netherlands that Britain was compelled to declare war on them.
This was less a military problem than a political one, which probably could have been solved for many years by simply giving each North American colony a seat or two in Commons, the Member to be chosen by the colonial legislature. But representation was an issue on which the Government would not compromise.
Of course they could have won if some things had gone differently, but that can be said of any historical event. I think certainly the cards were stacked against them, but with a couple of strokes of luck, they may have been able to overcome that. In general, I think they did about as well as they could have under the circumstances.
I would question his casual downgrading of the importance of Saratoga. If Howe does march up the Hudson to link up with Burgoyne would the French have been so eager to join the American side? I do think that the British could not ultimately win the war and return to status quo bellum but the terms of the peace would have been different. You might have had the colonies achieve dominion-like status before there was a dominion status.
But the American cause was increasingly getting short of money, weapons and supplies as the war progressed. France and Spain joined the conflict for their own reasons and France put itslf in considerable debt helping the Americans. The goal was for France and the Americans to have a lasting alliance against Britain, However after Independence the US got right back to trading as usual with the British as if nothing had happened. Britain in the mean time were busy taking French colonies. Then adding insult to injury the US refused to repay the war loans to France. To compensate for the loss of revenue France increased taxation to the poor, which led to the French Revolution!
@@billballbuster7186 Agreed entirely. France may have won the conflict with Britain. This was the first time that it had ever succeeded in this, mostly as a result of France having NO continental military obligations during the Potato War of 1778-79. It could use all of its considerable military resources to fight Britain in North America and India. However, France incurred a huge national debt to pay for all this, which ultimately bankrupted the nation and, as you say, was a direct cause of the French Revolution. And you are entirely correct. The Thirteen Colonies were bankrupt during the Revolution. They were certainly desperate after the British captured the capital at Philadelphia in 1777. They desperately needed money, weapons and overt military commitment from France and Spain. Only that would allow the new United States to survive. For their own reasons, France and Spain had to intervene against Britain regardless of how Saratoga turned out.
@@colinhunt4057 The British suffered a "temporary loss" in command of the sea and was unable to help Cornwallis at Yorktown. However the Royal Navy were busy taking the rich Spice and Sugar Islands of the East and West Indies. Getting rich while France and Spain were preoccupied. Britain also had to defend India "The Jewel in the Crown". In retrospect the British did not loose anything with American Independence. It was business and trade as usual, without the cost of defending a colony. The resources were turned against the French who lost most of her early colonies to British expansion. Britain was a great deal richer and more powerful in 1783 than it was in 1775.
@@billballbuster7186 I agree with all of that from you. New England and what would become the South were of relatively little value economically at the time. They were a convenient place to export troublesome religious minorities like Presbyterians and Methodists. They also had required considerable economic expense in providing for defence of the Thirteen Colonies. France agreed with this at the time. It did not hesitate to give up Quebec and the NorthWest Company territory for retention of the sugar islands of Martinque and Guadeloupe at the end of the Seven Years War in 1763. And France kept its valuable fishing rights on the Grand Banks, the one strong economic aspect of NE and Canada immediately worth keeping (sorry, aside from timber). Britain's new North American empire turned out to have huge costs in paying for the war that won it and maintaining the large, extensive military defenses it required. And Britain kept to this policy rigorously. Under Palmerston, it wanted no part of the American Civil War. In staying out, it doomed the South to its inevitable defeat in four years. Britain observed, if not overtly recognizing, the American Monroe Doctrine, accepting that the US was the dominant world power in the Western hemisphere. In short, in the long run, Britain escaped from the disasters of the American War of Independence as well as could possibly be imagined. And in so doing, it gained an ally by the 20th Century of far greater power and importance than would ever have been the case if it had somehow "won" the American War of Independence.
Very interesting to get the British perspective on the Revolutionary War. The revolution could have ended early if Washinton did not evacuate his troops from Brooklyn to Manhattan after the battle of Long Island. Could Great Britan have won the Second World War if there was no US to give them lend lease war material? What role did Imperial Russia play in keeping Britain out of the American Civil War?
Help me out here, I'm pulling this from many years ago. I read that after the Rev. War, the French had to make a concession and the Brits had a choice between French holdings in the spice rich Caribbean or Canada. There were some in the UK who said that if the Brits chose control of Canada it would remove the threat of the French/Indians to the west of the Am. colonies and given the astonishing demographic increase in the colonies, eventually they would want independence.
The Brits’ strategic problems here were immense. They were immense even before France and Spain came into the war and just got worse from there. While they were an underdog with certain advantages, this doesn't change that they were an underdog. So one question is, fight the war to victory with what? They considered and very briefly tried, IIRC, conscription in the UK. It was too politically unpopular, hence dangerous, to keep up. They’d rapidly tapped out the German states who were willing to rent troops. So what they had left was an army in New York, a lesser army in the south, and some small detachments here and there, along with very limited ability to make up their losses and probably no ability to expand forces here. Secondly, it’s not entirely clear to me that they fully understood the nature of the war they were engaged in. They saw the Continental Armies, two each, one north and one south (usually). But I don’t know that they saw the underlying support for those armies. This support was the militia, which, while usually (not always: Cowpens) useless in the field, made reestablishment of Crown government impossible, and supported rebel government, which allowed taxation and gathering of logistic support to keep the Continental Armies in the field. Even if they did see it, though, it didn’t matter. To destroy the rebellion, they needed to destroy the militia. To do that they needed to disperse. But they could not disperse because of the threat presented by the continued existence of largish Continental Armies which would have moved in a heartbeat had they seen the Brits dispersing much, as well as a demonstrated ability of even the militia to seriously harm even not so small detachments (Lexington and Concord). Much is made of French Aid. It effected the timing but not the result. There’s an old bit, I think from John Adams, to the effect that 1/3rd of the Colonists were in favor of rebellion, one third against, and one third neutral. I think he was speaking for effect and that the fractions were much different. Why? In the first place, one has to understand that, largely because of the benign neglect with regards to the colonies shown by the British, we had been self-governing and self-taxing from the beginning. Indeed, in our first existential war, King Philip’s War, the Brits didn’t help in the slightest; we were fully on our own, but for a little food from Ireland. In the run up to the rebellion, we were not pushing for anything we didn’t originally have, but rather to retain what we’d always had. Conversely, Parliament was engaged in revolution, a one-sided and profound change in the relationship between us. Thus, the revolution was no such thing. Rather, it was a counter-revolution, intended to preserve our pre-existing political and civil rights. (And, no, it wasn’t that we were too cheap to pay taxes. Indeed, during the French and Indian War, whenever the crown asked for money for the war, the colonies gave more than was asked. However, keeping troops among us, troops that were useless for our concerns, which was keeping the Indians at bay, we could not see any reason for, did see as a potential threat to our liberties, hence, no, did not want to pay to support. As it turned out, interestingly enough, those troops _were_ a threat to our liberties. Funny how that happened, no?) So ask the question differently, “How many Americans wanted to give up their pre-existing liberties, surrender their rights as Englishmen, become slaves and servants of Parliament and the Crown, and pay whatever was demanded of them, without any political or military recourse? The answer is probably “damned few.” And those, with the attempt to disarm us at Lexington and Concord, became the stark choices; fight for what we had or surrender to a tyrannical future. The numbers who wanted to surrender were probably few, indeed. Note how very difficult it was for the Brits to recruit among us for the war. Where American armies were in the tens of thousands, within days of the fight beginning, and that from one small region, the Brits were hardly able ever to come up with more than a few companies of Americans, here and there. The loyalist force at King's Mountain was as large as it got, and 1100, compared to up to 30,000 at times, is pretty small beans. Note how completely incapable the Brits were of extinguishing the militia that made re-establishment of Crown government impossible. Note how few Americans (some of them, I have reason to believe, my ancestors) elected to leave for the UK or Canada, during or post war. I suspect the real fractions were on the order of a third eager to fight immediately, a third also willing to fight but hoping that some kind of reasonable political settlement could be reached, and rapidly changing to eager to fight as the possibilities of that political settlement receded, perhaps a tenth or fewer Crown Loyalists, through thick and thin, and the remainder, about a quarter, regretting the whole damned business, but not willing to fight for anybody. On the whole, given the disadvantages under which they labored, the Brits did rather well and have nothing to be ashamed of.
Thank you for the comment! I think you've really highlighted some fascinating complexities of the war (particularly the militia's role which I found very interesting). I'm hoping to dive into more of the nuances you've brought up in future videos. Cheers!
@@HistoryRebels Wellington, in the Pennisular War, executed a strategy similar to Washington. The first example of the Washington strategy was with the Trenton and Princeton campaigns that caused the British to remove outposts and concentrate much more closely to NYC. Militia did the rest of the work that winter, attacking small columns and supply parties, chasing the British completely out of NJ. (Wellington was far more successful than Washington due to his own abundant talent and better support from Britain, but the strategy was very similar in avoiding battle except when victory was likely and letting a large portion of the work of degrading French military capability to the Spanish armies and partisans. It was said that in Spain, large armies starve and small armies are defeated.) Washington, by keeping his army of regulars intact, prevented the British from dispersing sufficiently. Any large troop movement, like Burgoyne's, was at risk of being surrounded by a core force of Continentals supported by an abundant supply of militia. In the Colonies, the "Militia" was made up of pretty much all adult males, all of whom, unlike the average British subject, familiar with guns. Cornwallis was in trapped in Virginia because General Greene executed the Washington strategy in the South. While losing every single battle he fought, he chipped away at British strength reducing their outposts, constricting their movement, and depriving them of significant loyalist support. Cornwallis was criticized for nearly wrecking his army just trying to catch Greene after Cowpens. Cornwallis finally drove north to Virginia to see if he could have better luck there. The size of the colonies and the rugged landscape of forests, river systems, swamps, and mountains were a tremendous advantage to the rebels. Travel was extraordinarily difficult for the invader and food a continual concern for any long march. Lord Howe said that an army marching through the colonies leaves as much evidence in its wake as a fleet upon the Atlantic. The outcome was not inevitable but the challenges for the British were considerable.
Nice video. I appreciate the British viewpoint. Except for the fact that we gained independence, the rest of it could have been considered a draw or even British victory.
If we had won the war, the Colonies would have been totally different. Their Western boundary would have been the Applachian mountains and it would have taken in what is now Canada.
I think the moment France joined the war the UK was doomed, but before that if the continentals were crushed in 1775 and 1776 Britain could still have won.
The failure to prevent French aid to the American colonies by the RN meant a prolonged conflict in which the British Empire failed in its effort to hold to the colonies that where in rebellion.
Sure sure , now say thank you to the French and Spanish for bailing you out financially. Without that the war stops because they rebels couldn’t afford to carry on . Militarily, the redcoats would have flattened the rebels if they’d have been fighting them like the fought the imperial French .
The British never had good intelligence in comparison with the Americans. I look at this as another failure from the start at a hard war against the rebellion rather than hearts and minds soft war. By the end of '76, nearly everyone from the Delaware northward knew that the presence of the British Army was not pleasant.
I liked but was hoping on some reliable information regarding at least two of the British Generals had some sympathies with many of the formal complaints of the Colonies. I doubt they had sympathies with the "rebels". I'm just wondering how their sympathies with the Colonial Leadership may have influenced their decisions. Clarification: I'm not a Brit Cheerleader. I'm a Red White and Blue 6th generation American patriot.
You're guest is extremely condescending and outright revisionist. All his arguments functionally boil down to "Actually the Americans didn't matter at all". Some of his arguments such as "the Americans could win tactical victories but no strategic victories" is literally the opposite of how the war Actually happened. Also his point of "obviously the Americans couldn't invade the U.K" is also meaningless as the U.S was the one fighting a defensive war
His assessment is quite accurate in that once France entered the war it became the main enemy. It was a pier power and Britains main rival on the World stage. It was far more of a threat than bands of American farmers roaming the countryside. Britain's priority was now to defend its rich colonies, and America was not one of them. In the long term the French bankrupted themselves helping America. While Britain gained in power and wealth, becoming the undisputed masters of the sea by the 1790s.
@@ethanmckinney203 Not when compared to Sugar and Spices. I read that Sugar production from Jamaica alone was worth more than all American Cotton and Tobacco
@@billballbuster7186This is so. Great Britain was much more concerned with retaining the sugar colonies in the Caribbean than the 13 colonies on the North American mainland. Further, support for the war with the 13 colonies was far from universal in Great Britain. Significant British political figures had sympathy for the colonists’ position. This limited the intensity with which the British could and would prosecute the war. It is entirely understandable that as a fledgling nation the US had to create a mythological creation story for itself. Such stories run the risk under historical analysis of undermining the real courage and achievements of the revolutionaries and the US founding fathers, as well of course of giving their believers a distorted grasp of events and their causal factors.
I say this as an American who is very, VERY biased against the British: We only won because of divine intervention. Washington's army only escaped NY because a very out of season heavy fog rolled in and lasted exactly long enough to hide his evacuation from Manhattan Island. The Delaware Crossing was somehow pulled off in darkness through ice by men with no shoes and we only lost two men (neither due to the crossing, both simply froze to death on the march). Saratoga went PERFECTLY for us. As did fort Ticonderoga. As did Yorktown. Yorktown saw seasonally abnormal storms kick up every time the British tried to evacuate by sea that forced them back into harbor before dissipating almost immediately and starting up again when then headed out. This is Old Testament level stuff that happened, and on a fairly consistent basis. It's absolutely mind blowing to read about.
Yes , of course . To Britain it wasnt a "war " and wasnt treated as such. Britain was fully occupied fighting a real war against the French. The Englist colonists rebelled against the crown. It was an insurrection , not a war.
WHAT if.............Britain is affirming the much higher potential of the North American Colonies in acricultural land, raw materials etc. ....AND........decide to move the capital from London to Washington????
The British lost the war because the French involvement, the voyage to cross the Atlantic Ocean to supply the British soldiers, The Colonists guerilla warfare on the British troops and the Colonists just had luck on their side.
Absolutely correct, the biggest single factor was the French blockade of reinforcements from GB. These histories , more often than not, miss out the aftermath, when GB and France acted as guarantors for USA Independence, lest the Spanish get any fancy ideas.
Ya know..... The Americans were Englishmen that were denied their "English rights" by the English. Indeed it was a civil war. However, the Americans made "English rights" universal (which, of course, was central to the American Civil War). I love England/Britain. It is the birthplace of the American Republic.....no doubt. With all of that said, you guys were WRONG and on the wrong side of Providence. In essence, the spirit of1215 is continued in 1776.
The British Army never had the chance of winning the war in the United States because only 15 to 20 percent of the American people supported the war. Forty percent of the American people stayed neutral during the war, they never gave support to any side. France, Spain, and Holland sent soldiers, generals, navy captains, money, uniforms, ammunitions to the Americans. Prussian and Polish generals gave essential training to the American soldiers. The British generals decided to occupy New York City until they made plans to evacuate the African Americans fleeing from slavery and the concentration camps and the other Loyalists living in New York City. If the British officers had given the African American refugees to George Washington and his troop, George Washington would have sold them into slavery; the African American refugees would have been murdered or subjected to physical abuse by the slaveowners.
I would say no. The force-to-space ratio in 18th century America was just too low. You don't have Napoleonic-era armies of 300,000 men. The distance from Portland, Maine to Savannah, Georgia is almost exactly the distance from Berlin to Moscow, about 1800 km. One forgets the vast spaces confronted by the British Army in the American theater, quite different from the Seven Years War against France in North America which was confined to just a few northern American states and Canada.
As our forefathers did in our revolution, we will tell this British revisionist to politely kick rocks. Franklin a minor character for one is just asinine. Arrogance lost the British this war and it’s still on full display here.
This man makes a lot of mistakes. France did not only engage Britain in North America where it was decisive but everywhere. France took Minorca (which was an important British mediterranean naval base) and more importantly, captured 7 British caribbean possessions (meaning less money in British coffers, as sugar islands were a big source of income in these days). This factor was very important in the British decision making to end the war as they really insisted to get them back at the peace conference in Paris. The other factor that was important was French effort to get a secret alliance deal with Austria after the 7 years war. The British often forget it, but France was the main continental military force, and Austria was the second. We very often clashed with them in the Low Countries as the Bourbons and Hasburgs were arch enemies. Then the French changed their mind and negociated an alliance with Austria. It was very important for the war in America as for the first time in centuries, France was free from a continental war in Europe and didn't have to mobilise troops to defend its borders. It could focus entirely on its war overseas. The British were and have never been in any position to launch an invasion of France on their own, and the French knew it. Then one last point, regarding this man saying the French revolution had failed. No statement could be more wrong. The revolution was already a success since 1802, peace of Amiens, where Britain recognized the French republic and its conquests in Europe after the French had repelled all attempts of invasion and had invaded large parts of Europe. The ideals of the revolution were then exported, and entire countries and societes modelled after the French principles. Even after the defeat of Napoleon, they remained and led to the establishment of social and liberal democraties we know today. Never the British or any other country could reinstore the old order, as liberal revolutions always happened to defend the new ideals brought by France (1830 in France, 1848 all over Europe...).
From USA here. British could NEVER have won for the same reason the USA couldn't win in Viet Nam, the French monarchy defeat the French revolution,, or their colony or Algeirs, etc. The revolutionaries were fighting for freedom, the British were fighting for money. Also, British Command was totally ineffective due to distance, etc. The Continental Army could always call up soldiers from the militias to take advantage of tactical opportunities. America also used propaganda vey effective (the crimes of the British and all soldiers were read the writings of Thomas Paine).
Could the USA taken over the UK after WW2? Occupation troops in country, gold reserves in American banks, massive debt, decadent aristocracy, communist infested bureaucracy, loss of colonial empire, and many Brits came over to the states and obtained citizenship. Had Britain won the revolutionary war they may have freed all the slaves and the Spanish and French would have the western half of America. It’s worth bearing in mind King George and the aristocracy were decadent and paranoid of the French influence and possible revolution.
I wonder what would have happened had Britain won. Well given Britains behaviour towards its other colonies we have good evidence. N American would undoubtedly have prospered. It would have had a greater number of settlers from Britain. The railways would have been built earlier. Cities would have had clean water and sewage earlier and deep water harbours line N Orleans would have been improved earlier. There would not have been a Civil War. Slavery would have been banned earlier, not just in N America but also in the Caribbean. Britain would have had a few more men to fight Napoleon. But the big difference for Britain militarily would have been the large number of troops that would have been brought into WW1 and WW2 from the beginning that would have ended both those wars years earlier saving millions of lives and possibly even preventing at least one of them. N America would have been independence peacefully and would have had less guns on the streets. So was it a worthwhile war for N America and Britain… 🤔you decide 🤷🏻♂️
America was far larger than Scotland and Ireland or Poland. Americans could have kept up guerrilla warfare for decades. It wasn’t in Great Britain’s interest to keep that up.
I absolutely agree that the States/Colonies would have kept up the fight. Although I also think it's an interesting and fair point from Jeremy that rebellions quite often do not succeed. It's hard to believe, but the population of the US was in fact smaller than both Poland and Ireland at the time
I agree and also think it’s a fair point that rebellions are often crushed just that with so much wilderness it would have taken a very large amount of resources to completely crush an insurgency. The Union was willing to commit those resources. I think had Great Britain tried the result would have looked similar to Vietnam for us
@@wcg19891 or… the British would have gotten fed up and told the natives ‘go for it and keep wat you get…’ like they did in several other countries around the world before and after… By that point the native population was not nearly finished as a major force as much later and would the ‘settlers’ have been able to fade the natives in the ‘wilderness’ for long? If all the coastal towns and cities would be taken and the major cities inland it would have been very, very hard to do much ‘guerrilla’ fighting, the resources to produce gun powder for example? If the British could have won the first stage a later resurgence would have a LOT more problematic tbh. And when people say but the distances… South Africa …they did move similar distances there if not more… keep in mind that South Africa at first was about the size of Texas… now.
@@HistoryRebels The examples he gave of failed rebellions were in areas much smaller in size than the Colonies and much closer to the military power projecting force. Logistics is often the least considered aspect of mililary campaigns and military history.
From what I understand from these lengthy answers is, there is speculation about maybe this or maybe that could have happened. But the maybe about a British victory in the colonies depended on the British continuing the war of Independence no matter what happened on the battlefield. The problem I see with this approach is that the British will to continue fighting collapsed after Yorktown for the Revolutionary War. The British will to fight also ended with the War of 1812 after the defeat of Napoleon. Long story short, the answer to the video’s question about could Britain have won is no. PS. This conclusion is not changed by comparing British wars in Scotland or Ireland with the American Revolution. Scotland or Ireland are relatively small areas within easy access from England. A fundamental challenge for Britain with the American colonies was first size and distance compared with Scotland and Ireland. The American colonies are as large as several Western European countries and communications between Britain and North America took months. Secondly, many of the American military leaders had fought with the British and were competent. Another PS. Bringing up the US Civil War is a very different situation and not applicable to the American Revolution. Europe was not going to fight the US to maintain slavery. Finally, why did the Americans win the American Revolution? It was a combination of help from France and Spain along with the size of the American colonies as well as the quality of American soldiers. Secondly, the war had dragged on for so long and became so expensive in terms of finances and casualties that the British gave up.
@@nashviper4586 not exactly, it's a bit like going on the pull whilst drunk and the woman saying no. Only to find out the next day the woman is a ugly pig. This is the kind of lucky escape Britain had.
@@nashviper4586I mean sure this was true at the time but with historical perspective an ex British colony becoming the most powerful country on earth isn’t just another day
If an election or a war was 40% for, 20% against, and 40% undecided. The for is going to win, especially if logistics are also in favor of the for. If resupply on one side is days and the other months, you're spread to thin and you're going to lose. The only thing colonialism ever spread was culture and language, it was bound to fail politically and militarily.
Great video! As an American Revolutionary war reenactor, history enthusiast and TH-camr. it’s great to see content from the other side of the pond. Cheers
An excellent presentation addressing the Revolutionary War on the World stage. For the British it was a "soft war" as they did not want to inflame the entire population of which over 65% were Loyalist or indifferent. The degree of French funding was also significant factor, after 1778 the Americans were almost totally dependent on French money, supplies and weapons. Very hard to see Washington winning without French help.
The US could not win the War of Independence without lots of help from France and Spain. The revolutionary government was bankrupt - incapable of maintaining any significant military force under arms continuously. It had no income from trade because of the blockade. It could afford nothing in the way of modern military equipment such as artillery. Its small arms musket production was an enormous variety of types produced by thousands of independent smiths scattered everywhere, with little ability to pay for them.
It was incapable of supplying an army large enough to confront the main British army in New York, and could only conduct what were essentially guerrilla campaigns against Cornwallis in the South. Never again after Saratoga would the 13 Colonies risk an all-out, decisive military clash like the 1777 campaign. Saratoga could so easily have gone the other way, and Washington knew it better than anyone.
65% neutral or loyalist is very unlikely. It seems to come from John Adams, with his 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. But I'd suggest to you that Adams was speaking for effect. Why do I say so? Within days of the war starting we had raised an army of over 20,000, just to invest Boston. The most the Brits managed to come up with were probably the 1100 or so for Kings Mountain. Then there were the numbers that left, postwar (Among them, I have some reason to believe, some of my ancestors, settling in New Carlisle, Quebec); they amounted to about 2% of the population. Lastly, the conclusion of the war; if the Brits had had 1/3 loyalist the rebels could never have won.
I'd suggest that the real numbers were probably about a third eager to fight at the drop of a hat, a third willing to fight if no amicable solution could be found - this group changed to the first group after Lexington and Concord, a quarter more or less neutral and maybe 9-10 % strictly loyal to Great Britain and the Crown.
We are waiting for your new videos, don't disappoint us
@@Muslim-S777 more are on the way! 30+ minute episode on the start of the Southern theatre coming soon
Usually bored by these sort of videos but strangley intrigued for this one.
Jeremy is a fascinating historian!
Most people don't understand the logistics it takes to send and supply an army overseas in the 18th century. The British were at a big disadvantage in that department.
the matter is of a purely political nature, the English parliament and the English government did not take "news across the pond" seriously
they preferred to play political games, instead of solving American problems
when they finally realized what was happening, it was too late to do anything
What are you talking about? The British had over 13 well-established colonies in North America.
@jameshudson169 then why were they hiring foreign mercenaries instead of relying on loyalist and crown forces.
@@rc59191 strategic plunder.
@@rc59191 Britain's general practise was the extensive hiring of foreign mercenaries for all of its continental European wars, and especially those overseas. It would indeed occasionally deploy British troops to Europe, but this was always with a large addition of foreign mercenaries - almost invariably German. The economics favoured this: German mercenaries were generally low cost because of the need of dozens of German principalities to maintain relatively large armed forces. And because they were coming frequently from the regular armies of German principalities, they tended to be well trained and equipped. The army fighting in Spain starting in 1809 consisted of huge numbers of mercenary Irish and large numbers of Germans in the various regiments of the King's German Legion.
Britain relied heavily on mercenaries for most of its campaigns in India prior to 1900. It still maintains at this time a unit of mercenaries: the Brigade of Ghurkas.
The amphibious landings on long island and Manhattan were exquisite operations and the Royal Navy needs great credit for the capture of New York in 1776
I’m so grateful that you’re doing this series about the American revolution. I wish you would also do the French and Indian war and interview Fred Anderson, the author of the Crucible of War.
The way I word it is that if the British had won the American Revolution, Canada would be a bigger country today, with it's capital being Philadelphia.
Very interesting. Enjoyed it immensely. Cheers from Tennessee
Fascinating episode! Loved it!
We need to get Vlogging through History to start having reactions to your videos. Your content is amazing and needs to be discovered by other history buffs.
I would love that, it's one of my favourite channels!
He did a reaction to them, he's also a subscriber as well.😊
😊compelling story. Told well. Thanks
Interesting episode
It wasn't only the French and Spain that were aiding the Americans, it's important to add the Dutch, too. The United States was so well supplied and by the Netherlands that Britain was compelled to declare war on them.
This was less a military problem than a political one, which probably could have been solved for many years by simply giving each North American colony a seat or two in Commons, the Member to be chosen by the colonial legislature. But representation was an issue on which the Government would not compromise.
They could have won had they been able to convince the French to stay out of it.
0:04 the man, the myth, the legend.
Of course they could have won if some things had gone differently, but that can be said of any historical event. I think certainly the cards were stacked against them, but with a couple of strokes of luck, they may have been able to overcome that. In general, I think they did about as well as they could have under the circumstances.
It could have, except it wasn't willing to pay the price.
I would question his casual downgrading of the importance of Saratoga. If Howe does march up the Hudson to link up with Burgoyne would the French have been so eager to join the American side? I do think that the British could not ultimately win the war and return to status quo bellum but the terms of the peace would have been different. You might have had the colonies achieve dominion-like status before there was a dominion status.
But the American cause was increasingly getting short of money, weapons and supplies as the war progressed. France and Spain joined the conflict for their own reasons and France put itslf in considerable debt helping the Americans. The goal was for France and the Americans to have a lasting alliance against Britain,
However after Independence the US got right back to trading as usual with the British as if nothing had happened. Britain in the mean time were busy taking French colonies. Then adding insult to injury the US refused to repay the war loans to France. To compensate for the loss of revenue France increased taxation to the poor, which led to the French Revolution!
@@billballbuster7186 Agreed entirely. France may have won the conflict with Britain. This was the first time that it had ever succeeded in this, mostly as a result of France having NO continental military obligations during the Potato War of 1778-79. It could use all of its considerable military resources to fight Britain in North America and India. However, France incurred a huge national debt to pay for all this, which ultimately bankrupted the nation and, as you say, was a direct cause of the French Revolution.
And you are entirely correct. The Thirteen Colonies were bankrupt during the Revolution. They were certainly desperate after the British captured the capital at Philadelphia in 1777. They desperately needed money, weapons and overt military commitment from France and Spain. Only that would allow the new United States to survive. For their own reasons, France and Spain had to intervene against Britain regardless of how Saratoga turned out.
@@colinhunt4057 The British suffered a "temporary loss" in command of the sea and was unable to help Cornwallis at Yorktown. However the Royal Navy were busy taking the rich Spice and Sugar Islands of the East and West Indies. Getting rich while France and Spain were preoccupied. Britain also had to defend India "The Jewel in the Crown".
In retrospect the British did not loose anything with American Independence. It was business and trade as usual, without the cost of defending a colony. The resources were turned against the French who lost most of her early colonies to British expansion. Britain was a great deal richer and more powerful in 1783 than it was in 1775.
@@billballbuster7186 I agree with all of that from you. New England and what would become the South were of relatively little value economically at the time. They were a convenient place to export troublesome religious minorities like Presbyterians and Methodists. They also had required considerable economic expense in providing for defence of the Thirteen Colonies.
France agreed with this at the time. It did not hesitate to give up Quebec and the NorthWest Company territory for retention of the sugar islands of Martinque and Guadeloupe at the end of the Seven Years War in 1763. And France kept its valuable fishing rights on the Grand Banks, the one strong economic aspect of NE and Canada immediately worth keeping (sorry, aside from timber). Britain's new North American empire turned out to have huge costs in paying for the war that won it and maintaining the large, extensive military defenses it required.
And Britain kept to this policy rigorously. Under Palmerston, it wanted no part of the American Civil War. In staying out, it doomed the South to its inevitable defeat in four years. Britain observed, if not overtly recognizing, the American Monroe Doctrine, accepting that the US was the dominant world power in the Western hemisphere. In short, in the long run, Britain escaped from the disasters of the American War of Independence as well as could possibly be imagined. And in so doing, it gained an ally by the 20th Century of far greater power and importance than would ever have been the case if it had somehow "won" the American War of Independence.
yes they came very close to doing it
Very interesting to get the British perspective on the Revolutionary War. The revolution could have ended early if Washinton did not evacuate his troops from Brooklyn to Manhattan after the battle of Long Island. Could Great Britan have won the Second World War if there was no US to give them lend lease war material? What role did Imperial Russia play in keeping Britain out of the American Civil War?
_A_ British perspective, not _the_ British perspective.
Help me out here, I'm pulling this from many years ago. I read that after the Rev. War, the French had to make a concession and the Brits had a choice between French holdings in the spice rich Caribbean or Canada. There were some in the UK who said that if the Brits chose control of Canada it would remove the threat of the French/Indians to the west of the Am. colonies and given the astonishing demographic increase in the colonies, eventually they would want independence.
The Brits’ strategic problems here were immense. They were immense even before France and Spain came into the war and just got worse from there. While they were an underdog with certain advantages, this doesn't change that they were an underdog.
So one question is, fight the war to victory with what? They considered and very briefly tried, IIRC, conscription in the UK. It was too politically unpopular, hence dangerous, to keep up. They’d rapidly tapped out the German states who were willing to rent troops. So what they had left was an army in New York, a lesser army in the south, and some small detachments here and there, along with very limited ability to make up their losses and probably no ability to expand forces here.
Secondly, it’s not entirely clear to me that they fully understood the nature of the war they were engaged in. They saw the Continental Armies, two each, one north and one south (usually). But I don’t know that they saw the underlying support for those armies. This support was the militia, which, while usually (not always: Cowpens) useless in the field, made reestablishment of Crown government impossible, and supported rebel government, which allowed taxation and gathering of logistic support to keep the Continental Armies in the field.
Even if they did see it, though, it didn’t matter. To destroy the rebellion, they needed to destroy the militia. To do that they needed to disperse. But they could not disperse because of the threat presented by the continued existence of largish Continental Armies which would have moved in a heartbeat had they seen the Brits dispersing much, as well as a demonstrated ability of even the militia to seriously harm even not so small detachments (Lexington and Concord).
Much is made of French Aid. It effected the timing but not the result.
There’s an old bit, I think from John Adams, to the effect that 1/3rd of the Colonists were in favor of rebellion, one third against, and one third neutral. I think he was speaking for effect and that the fractions were much different. Why?
In the first place, one has to understand that, largely because of the benign neglect with regards to the colonies shown by the British, we had been self-governing and self-taxing from the beginning. Indeed, in our first existential war, King Philip’s War, the Brits didn’t help in the slightest; we were fully on our own, but for a little food from Ireland. In the run up to the rebellion, we were not pushing for anything we didn’t originally have, but rather to retain what we’d always had. Conversely, Parliament was engaged in revolution, a one-sided and profound change in the relationship between us. Thus, the revolution was no such thing. Rather, it was a counter-revolution, intended to preserve our pre-existing political and civil rights.
(And, no, it wasn’t that we were too cheap to pay taxes. Indeed, during the French and Indian War, whenever the crown asked for money for the war, the colonies gave more than was asked. However, keeping troops among us, troops that were useless for our concerns, which was keeping the Indians at bay, we could not see any reason for, did see as a potential threat to our liberties, hence, no, did not want to pay to support. As it turned out, interestingly enough, those troops _were_ a threat to our liberties. Funny how that happened, no?)
So ask the question differently, “How many Americans wanted to give up their pre-existing liberties, surrender their rights as Englishmen, become slaves and servants of Parliament and the Crown, and pay whatever was demanded of them, without any political or military recourse? The answer is probably “damned few.”
And those, with the attempt to disarm us at Lexington and Concord, became the stark choices; fight for what we had or surrender to a tyrannical future. The numbers who wanted to surrender were probably few, indeed. Note how very difficult it was for the Brits to recruit among us for the war. Where American armies were in the tens of thousands, within days of the fight beginning, and that from one small region, the Brits were hardly able ever to come up with more than a few companies of Americans, here and there. The loyalist force at King's Mountain was as large as it got, and 1100, compared to up to 30,000 at times, is pretty small beans. Note how completely incapable the Brits were of extinguishing the militia that made re-establishment of Crown government impossible. Note how few Americans (some of them, I have reason to believe, my ancestors) elected to leave for the UK or Canada, during or post war.
I suspect the real fractions were on the order of a third eager to fight immediately, a third also willing to fight but hoping that some kind of reasonable political settlement could be reached, and rapidly changing to eager to fight as the possibilities of that political settlement receded, perhaps a tenth or fewer Crown Loyalists, through thick and thin, and the remainder, about a quarter, regretting the whole damned business, but not willing to fight for anybody.
On the whole, given the disadvantages under which they labored, the Brits did rather well and have nothing to be ashamed of.
Thank you for the comment! I think you've really highlighted some fascinating complexities of the war (particularly the militia's role which I found very interesting). I'm hoping to dive into more of the nuances you've brought up in future videos. Cheers!
@@HistoryRebels Wellington, in the Pennisular War, executed a strategy similar to Washington. The first example of the Washington strategy was with the Trenton and Princeton campaigns that caused the British to remove outposts and concentrate much more closely to NYC. Militia did the rest of the work that winter, attacking small columns and supply parties, chasing the British completely out of NJ.
(Wellington was far more successful than Washington due to his own abundant talent and better support from Britain, but the strategy was very similar in avoiding battle except when victory was likely and letting a large portion of the work of degrading French military capability to the Spanish armies and partisans. It was said that in Spain, large armies starve and small armies are defeated.)
Washington, by keeping his army of regulars intact, prevented the British from dispersing sufficiently. Any large troop movement, like Burgoyne's, was at risk of being surrounded by a core force of Continentals supported by an abundant supply of militia. In the Colonies, the "Militia" was made up of pretty much all adult males, all of whom, unlike the average British subject, familiar with guns.
Cornwallis was in trapped in Virginia because General Greene executed the Washington strategy in the South. While losing every single battle he fought, he chipped away at British strength reducing their outposts, constricting their movement, and depriving them of significant loyalist support. Cornwallis was criticized for nearly wrecking his army just trying to catch Greene after Cowpens. Cornwallis finally drove north to Virginia to see if he could have better luck there.
The size of the colonies and the rugged landscape of forests, river systems, swamps, and mountains were a tremendous advantage to the rebels. Travel was extraordinarily difficult for the invader and food a continual concern for any long march. Lord Howe said that an army marching through the colonies leaves as much evidence in its wake as a fleet upon the Atlantic.
The outcome was not inevitable but the challenges for the British were considerable.
Not with France, and the Colonists. France being the crucial factor.
Nice video. I appreciate the British viewpoint. Except for the fact that we gained independence, the rest of it could have been considered a draw or even British victory.
If we had won the war, the Colonies would have been totally different.
Their Western boundary would have been the Applachian mountains and it would have taken in what is now Canada.
This should have more "likes" and views.
I think the moment France joined the war the UK was doomed, but before that if the continentals were crushed in 1775 and 1776 Britain could still have won.
Face reveal!
They almost did.....but then Trenton happened.
The failure to prevent French aid to the American colonies by the RN meant a prolonged conflict in which the British Empire failed in its effort to hold to the colonies that where in rebellion.
Hahaha The amount of copium here is crazy but I like his spirit! Come have another go if you’ve got the stones for it mates! 🇺🇸
Sure sure , now say thank you to the French and Spanish for bailing you out financially. Without that the war stops because they rebels couldn’t afford to carry on . Militarily, the redcoats would have flattened the rebels if they’d have been fighting them like the fought the imperial French .
The British never had good intelligence in comparison with the Americans. I look at this as another failure from the start at a hard war against the rebellion rather than hearts and minds soft war. By the end of '76, nearly everyone from the Delaware northward knew that the presence of the British Army was not pleasant.
I liked but was hoping on some reliable information regarding at least two of the British Generals had some sympathies with many of the formal complaints of the Colonies.
I doubt they had sympathies with the "rebels". I'm just wondering how their sympathies with the Colonial Leadership may have influenced their decisions.
Clarification: I'm not a Brit Cheerleader. I'm a Red White and Blue 6th generation American patriot.
You're guest is extremely condescending and outright revisionist. All his arguments functionally boil down to "Actually the Americans didn't matter at all".
Some of his arguments such as "the Americans could win tactical victories but no strategic victories" is literally the opposite of how the war Actually happened.
Also his point of "obviously the Americans couldn't invade the U.K" is also meaningless as the U.S was the one fighting a defensive war
"Obviously, the Viet Cong couldn't invade the United States."
And?
His assessment is quite accurate in that once France entered the war it became the main enemy. It was a pier power and Britains main rival on the World stage. It was far more of a threat than bands of American farmers roaming the countryside. Britain's priority was now to defend its rich colonies, and America was not one of them. In the long term the French bankrupted themselves helping America. While Britain gained in power and wealth, becoming the undisputed masters of the sea by the 1790s.
@billballbuster7186 The 13 colonies were quite rich at the time and exports from the South of tobacco and cotton were very valuable
@@ethanmckinney203 Not when compared to Sugar and Spices. I read that Sugar production from Jamaica alone was worth more than all American Cotton and Tobacco
@@billballbuster7186This is so. Great Britain was much more concerned with retaining the sugar colonies in the Caribbean than the 13 colonies on the North American mainland. Further, support for the war with the 13 colonies was far from universal in Great Britain. Significant British political figures had sympathy for the colonists’ position. This limited the intensity with which the British could and would prosecute the war. It is entirely understandable that as a fledgling nation the US had to create a mythological creation story for itself. Such stories run the risk under historical analysis of undermining the real courage and achievements of the revolutionaries and the US founding fathers, as well of course of giving their believers a distorted grasp of events and their causal factors.
I say this as an American who is very, VERY biased against the British:
We only won because of divine intervention.
Washington's army only escaped NY because a very out of season heavy fog rolled in and lasted exactly long enough to hide his evacuation from Manhattan Island.
The Delaware Crossing was somehow pulled off in darkness through ice by men with no shoes and we only lost two men (neither due to the crossing, both simply froze to death on the march).
Saratoga went PERFECTLY for us. As did fort Ticonderoga. As did Yorktown.
Yorktown saw seasonally abnormal storms kick up every time the British tried to evacuate by sea that forced them back into harbor before dissipating almost immediately and starting up again when then headed out.
This is Old Testament level stuff that happened, and on a fairly consistent basis. It's absolutely mind blowing to read about.
Yes , of course . To Britain it wasnt a "war " and wasnt treated as such. Britain was fully occupied fighting a real war against the French. The Englist colonists rebelled against the crown. It was an insurrection , not a war.
WHAT if.............Britain is affirming the much higher potential of the North American Colonies in acricultural land, raw materials etc. ....AND........decide to move the capital from London to Washington????
The British lost the war because the French involvement, the voyage to cross the Atlantic Ocean to supply the British soldiers, The Colonists guerilla warfare on the British troops and the Colonists just had luck on their side.
The British had the Germans and Indians on their side. Let's give it another go.
Absolutely correct, the biggest single factor was the French blockade of reinforcements from GB. These histories , more often than not, miss out the aftermath, when GB and France acted as guarantors for USA Independence, lest the Spanish get any fancy ideas.
and the French got in because of the surrender of the British at Saratoga
Ya know..... The Americans were Englishmen that were denied their "English rights" by the English. Indeed it was a civil war. However, the Americans made "English rights" universal (which, of course, was central to the American Civil War).
I love England/Britain. It is the birthplace of the American Republic.....no doubt. With all of that said, you guys were WRONG and on the wrong side of Providence. In essence, the spirit of1215 is continued in 1776.
The British Army never had the chance of winning the war in the United States because only 15 to 20 percent of the American people supported the war. Forty percent of the American people stayed neutral during the war, they never gave support to any side. France, Spain, and Holland sent soldiers, generals, navy captains, money, uniforms, ammunitions to the Americans. Prussian and Polish generals gave essential training to the American soldiers. The British generals decided to occupy New York City until they made plans to evacuate the African Americans fleeing from slavery and the concentration camps and the other Loyalists living in New York City. If the British officers had given the African American refugees to George Washington and his troop, George Washington would have sold them into slavery; the African American refugees would have been murdered or subjected to physical abuse by the slaveowners.
I would say no. The force-to-space ratio in 18th century America was just too low. You don't have Napoleonic-era armies of 300,000 men. The distance from Portland, Maine to Savannah, Georgia is almost exactly the distance from Berlin to Moscow, about 1800 km. One forgets the vast spaces confronted by the British Army in the American theater, quite different from the Seven Years War against France in North America which was confined to just a few northern American states and Canada.
If Spain did not help the US it would have been possible.
They could have won but it would have cost more than they wanted to spend.
As our forefathers did in our revolution, we will tell this British revisionist to politely kick rocks. Franklin a minor character for one is just asinine. Arrogance lost the British this war and it’s still on full display here.
This man makes a lot of mistakes. France did not only engage Britain in North America where it was decisive but everywhere. France took Minorca (which was an important British mediterranean naval base) and more importantly, captured 7 British caribbean possessions (meaning less money in British coffers, as sugar islands were a big source of income in these days). This factor was very important in the British decision making to end the war as they really insisted to get them back at the peace conference in Paris.
The other factor that was important was French effort to get a secret alliance deal with Austria after the 7 years war. The British often forget it, but France was the main continental military force, and Austria was the second. We very often clashed with them in the Low Countries as the Bourbons and Hasburgs were arch enemies. Then the French changed their mind and negociated an alliance with Austria. It was very important for the war in America as for the first time in centuries, France was free from a continental war in Europe and didn't have to mobilise troops to defend its borders. It could focus entirely on its war overseas. The British were and have never been in any position to launch an invasion of France on their own, and the French knew it.
Then one last point, regarding this man saying the French revolution had failed. No statement could be more wrong. The revolution was already a success since 1802, peace of Amiens, where Britain recognized the French republic and its conquests in Europe after the French had repelled all attempts of invasion and had invaded large parts of Europe. The ideals of the revolution were then exported, and entire countries and societes modelled after the French principles. Even after the defeat of Napoleon, they remained and led to the establishment of social and liberal democraties we know today. Never the British or any other country could reinstore the old order, as liberal revolutions always happened to defend the new ideals brought by France (1830 in France, 1848 all over Europe...).
Of course there was several points during the war which they would have destroyed Washington’s army ie New York battle was a close thing.
From USA here. British could NEVER have won for the same reason the USA couldn't win in Viet Nam, the French monarchy defeat the French revolution,, or their colony or Algeirs, etc. The revolutionaries were fighting for freedom, the British were fighting for money. Also, British Command was totally ineffective due to distance, etc. The Continental Army could always call up soldiers from the militias to take advantage of tactical opportunities. America also used propaganda vey effective (the crimes of the British and all soldiers were read the writings of Thomas Paine).
Just face it, the British lost the war at Saratoga.
Could the USA taken over the UK after WW2? Occupation troops in country, gold reserves in American banks, massive debt, decadent aristocracy, communist infested bureaucracy, loss of colonial empire, and many Brits came over to the states and obtained citizenship. Had Britain won the revolutionary war they may have freed all the slaves and the Spanish and French would have the western half of America. It’s worth bearing in mind King George and the aristocracy were decadent and paranoid of the French influence and possible revolution.
Well done our colonials
Spain is the worlds 3rd largest naval power in 1861 65? No. Not larger than France or Russia.
Eh. Parliament was heavily divided. Doubt it
without even looking at the video of course the British crown could been victorious, especially if the french has not intervened.
I wonder what would have happened had Britain won. Well given Britains behaviour towards its other colonies we have good evidence.
N American would undoubtedly have prospered. It would have had a greater number of settlers from Britain. The railways would have been built earlier. Cities would have had clean water and sewage earlier and deep water harbours line N Orleans would have been improved earlier. There would not have been a Civil War. Slavery would have been banned earlier, not just in N America but also in the Caribbean.
Britain would have had a few more men to fight Napoleon. But the big difference for Britain militarily would have been the large number of troops that would have been brought into WW1 and WW2 from the beginning that would have ended both those wars years earlier saving millions of lives and possibly even preventing at least one of them.
N America would have been independence peacefully and would have had less guns on the streets.
So was it a worthwhile war for N America and Britain… 🤔you decide 🤷🏻♂️
If French hadn't got involved yes
um, they did.
No. Long live the Spartan Regiment!
Thankfully the British lost both wars and in the process also their Empire. 🤣
Hell No! The British are like the Russians, can't beat the French or the Germans nor the Americans mano a mano
America was far larger than Scotland and Ireland or Poland. Americans could have kept up guerrilla warfare for decades. It wasn’t in Great Britain’s interest to keep that up.
I absolutely agree that the States/Colonies would have kept up the fight. Although I also think it's an interesting and fair point from Jeremy that rebellions quite often do not succeed. It's hard to believe, but the population of the US was in fact smaller than both Poland and Ireland at the time
I agree and also think it’s a fair point that rebellions are often crushed just that with so much wilderness it would have taken a very large amount of resources to completely crush an insurgency. The Union was willing to commit those resources. I think had Great Britain tried the result would have looked similar to Vietnam for us
@@wcg19891 or… the British would have gotten fed up and told the natives ‘go for it and keep wat you get…’ like they did in several other countries around the world before and after…
By that point the native population was not nearly finished as a major force as much later and would the ‘settlers’ have been able to fade the natives in the ‘wilderness’ for long?
If all the coastal towns and cities would be taken and the major cities inland it would have been very, very hard to do much ‘guerrilla’ fighting, the resources to produce gun powder for example?
If the British could have won the first stage a later resurgence would have a LOT more problematic tbh.
And when people say but the distances…
South Africa …they did move similar distances there if not more… keep in mind that South Africa at first was about the size of Texas… now.
@@HistoryRebels The examples he gave of failed rebellions were in areas much smaller in size than the Colonies and much closer to the military power projecting force. Logistics is often the least considered aspect of mililary campaigns and military history.
This guy has the arrogant British view the Americans didn’t win independence the French did. This is why 1812 even happened.
Pro Tip: Don't sit in front of a lampshade the same color as your head if you don't want to look horribly deformed.
How did I know this guy was going to be a Brit??? Ha ha ha…..Coulda, woulda, shoulda….ha ha ha
You do know Americans watch these videos too?
We want our tea back!!!!
From what I understand from these lengthy answers is, there is speculation about maybe this or maybe that could have happened. But the maybe about a British victory in the colonies depended on the British continuing the war of Independence no matter what happened on the battlefield.
The problem I see with this approach is that the British will to continue fighting collapsed after Yorktown for the Revolutionary War. The British will to fight also ended with the War of 1812 after the defeat of Napoleon.
Long story short, the answer to the video’s question about could Britain have won is no.
PS. This conclusion is not changed by comparing British wars in Scotland or Ireland with the American Revolution. Scotland or Ireland are relatively small areas within easy access from England. A fundamental challenge for Britain with the American colonies was first size and distance compared with Scotland and Ireland. The American colonies are as large as several Western European countries and communications between Britain and North America took months. Secondly, many of the American military leaders had fought with the British and were competent.
Another PS. Bringing up the US Civil War is a very different situation and not applicable to the American Revolution. Europe was not going to fight the US to maintain slavery.
Finally, why did the Americans win the American Revolution? It was a combination of help from France and Spain along with the size of the American colonies as well as the quality of American soldiers. Secondly, the war had dragged on for so long and became so expensive in terms of finances and casualties that the British gave up.
Americans are malding in the comments as always
@@EresirThe1st Projection
British did win, not having to have anything to do with America is a win. If we had won we would have lost. Britain had a lucky escape. 😊
Actual sour grapes
@@nashviper4586 not exactly, it's a bit like going on the pull whilst drunk and the woman saying no. Only to find out the next day the woman is a ugly pig. This is the kind of lucky escape Britain had.
@@nashviper4586 the USA doesn't see it the same way as the British, for USA this is the great war of independence, for the British it's any other day.
@@denismorgan9742 That’s not a good thing. Every other day you shouldn’t be losing an important war, and viewing it as just a casual thing.
@@nashviper4586I mean sure this was true at the time but with historical perspective an ex British colony becoming the most powerful country on earth isn’t just another day
If an election or a war was 40% for, 20% against, and 40% undecided. The for is going to win, especially if logistics are also in favor of the for. If resupply on one side is days and the other months, you're spread to thin and you're going to lose. The only thing colonialism ever spread was culture and language, it was bound to fail politically and militarily.
Could have won, but didn't. End of discussion 😂
Just dont forget how much assistance the french brought to US
Thank god we lost 🙂
Still got your white house burnt because you wanted to go round 2.
@@thesupaspartan444And the UK still lost two wars to the USA and now we have bases in your country because you couldn't cope in WW2. Get over it.
@@thesupaspartan444I DONT SEE A BRITISH FLAG ON THE FCKN MOON THOUGH