Were The British Really That Dumb?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- When it comes to the British Army that fought in the American War of Independence, so much of what is in the public conscience falls rather far from the mark. In this video we take a look at some of the inaccurate tropes that are common place in society and how they're damaging to the understanding of America.
Check out the other splendid videos in the Collab here: • Because History Matters!
Follow me on Instagram and Facebook!
/ the_far_off_station
/ the-far-off-station-10...
Support my work on Patreon!
/ thefaroffstation
The best tactic the Americans adopted was to get France and spain involved.
A game winning strategy!
France destroyed itself and Britain had no other rivals for empire. So,worked out way in the end
@@Trebor74"no other rivals for the empire." Yeah except America, which ended up being the worst rival in its history and the rival that would end said history, and thus being far worse than France could have ever dreamed of being.
@@mappingshaman5280 Nazi Germany ended the British empire. America should hold its head in shame for not joining the war sooner, watching its greatest allies being bombed nightly & even invaded. How any American can look at the statue of liberty & not hang their head in shame is beyond me. Freedom & Liberty? For Americans only it would seem!
Franklin, who wasn't known for fighting, was a great military strategist.
The war could not have been won without what he did in Europe.
To think that the British army was incapable of adapting to the different conditions in the American theater is amazingly comical. They fought in Africa, India, Canada, the Caribbean, south America, and even New York in the 7 years war alone.
It’s amazing how quickly arguments fall apart the minute you start looking at the actual history.
Not to mention guerrilla warfare was adopted from natives by the provincials, as early as the middle of the 17th century, starting with Benjamin Church. The colonies were considered an extension of Britain at that time. Guerrilla/ranger tactics were used by both sides in the American Revolution too
Adaptability means talking faster when it starts raining so you can finish the video.
@@NuisanceMan right on the money!
The forces the Brits sent were not highly trained. The yanks had help from the frogs and the Brits did not expect it to be a serious war. It was a side show whilst they fought many proper wars against other countries in the race to have the biggest empire. Let's face it we all make mistakes just like America verses Vietnam for example. Primative people with little or no tech verses a superpower with inexhaustible tech and supplies. Out come Americas retreats after having their arses well and truly kicked.
Painting the British as incompetent makes sense form a post-war propagandistic view. The less you have to admit, that the Conitinental Army struggled againt the British, the less you have to mention the French support, the more you can pass off the result as a truly "American victory".
That’s really why it may just be so present, having to share credit would totally change the perception of t conflict as not a wholly American venture.
The first Civil War was funded by the French, Dutch & Spanish. The rebels were a proxy army for Britain's enemies.
Spot on! Post-war propaganda is exactly what it is. I share these same points every time the tired statement is made. I say this as an American too, but admittedly, I have ancestors that were on both sides of that conflict
Please don’t forget the British ‘Green Jackets’.
@@distantplaces6560 I’m assuming you’re talking about Queens Rangers, Ferguson’s Rifle Men, etc?
The thing I find funny about popular history is that it often presents the British Army as simultaneously "the best army in Europe/the world," and as this rigid force completely lacking in initiative. It's hysterically contradictory, but really exists to serve as this American Exceptionalist propaganda tool promoting this view of America as inherently superior to the "Old World."
(And let's all just ignore the level of French involvement 😉)
^ this, all of this!
It makes a change to hear an American being realistic about the W.o.I. Too many believe the popular history regarding the true events of that conflict. They neglect to consider that the British weren't only fighting in America but also in Europe, India & Canada. Plus it wasn't only untrained Militia fighting against the British but also a well trained(By ex British Officers & N.C.O's) American Continental Army & the French military & Navy.Thanks for putting some of it into perspective.
I'm happy to hear that you enjoyed the video! Be sure to check out other great channels like Christ the Redcoat and Brandon F if you like to hear more balanced content on the American War.
As a kid in the 1960's I learned the short story that showed the British standing in static lines, taking super accurate fire from American Long rifles, and defeating the enemy. And, George Washington threw a coin across the Potomac because he was so strong.
As I came of age, but still retained the love of history, and, learning to shoot said longrifles, I pretty quickly figured out what was what.
Here's the jist:
1) American riflemen were not especially effective, except for a few small engagements like Concord bridge. Even there, most minutemen were armed with privately owned or arsenal smoothbores. The march back for the British has become synonymous with American cunning and British lack of tactical understanding. Both are not true.
2) The British Army was a professional army with lots of veterans. NCO's were top notch, and most junior officers were as well, even though many bought their rank. They would have adapted quickly to the firing patterns and lack of unit discipline of the rebels, charging the riflemen before theycould re-load, having no bayonets. Most rifle compnaies were not well led, and would run if the British closed the distance. No one wanted to get skewered.
3) The fabled accuracy of the typical long rifle is myth. I have a lifetime of shooting and studying these guns, and I can tell you thathitting officers on horses at 200+ yards would have been rare, or an incidental hit by another ball from any of the other muskets or rifles being fired into a mass of British infantry. There is ZERO conclusive evidence that any one rifleman can show, from historical account, whether or not he did indeed hit an enemy deliberately from 200+ yards. Smoke, movement, the beating heart, noise and distraction, would all play havoc on any sniper in 1775, aiming through primitive iron sights.
4) The British also used Loyalist rifle companies who were easily the equal of the Over The Mountain Boys. Yet, there are no accounts of rifle companies making the difference in any mid-level or larger battle. Skirmishes at distance don't count.
5) For these reasons, almost all rifle companies were merged into the regular army ranks by the end of the war. A lot of the men just quit and went back home. Supplying various bullet calibers, and the right cloth for patching was too much for stretched logistics. Smoothbore muskets were always more effective and they were the weapon of choice for all armies until the 1850's.
6) The Continental Army didn't begin to stand up to the British until they adopted the tactics of line warfare, using Prussian drill. Even then, it was the weight of the French that caused the British, who were going broke, to get them to abandon the effort.
To unmask history, details matter.
Regarding point 3)
I recently watched a You tube video which explained that although many American civil war soldiers were equipped with rifled muskets, they could not take advantage of the extra range because they had not been trained how to hit a target hundreds of yards away, taking into account the fall of the bullet and trajectory required. They opened fire at less than 200 yards. Pickett's charge at Gettysburg is an example.
The Rifle-Musket did not really influence the Civil War
ruclips.net/video/UUmeV1e8aJQ/видео.html
Good point about rifles. One book I remember reading about Daniel Boone set about taking down some of the "super-accuracy" myths, such as the idea that frontier marksmen could drive nails into wood with a rifle ball from 300 yards. As the author succinctly put it, "Given that no-one can SEE a nail at 300 yards, whoever can hit what he cannot see is wasting his time when there are so many more miracles to be performed." 🤣
@@pshehan1 I posted an opposing view to that video, although, in the context of the presentation, he was mostly right. He posited thatthe rifled musketwas not the determinng factor that influenced the war/battles. IN th ecase of ill trained soldiers, he's right, but not because the Springfield Rifle didn't cause thwe enormous casualties. I most certainly did, just from closer range than it was designed for. Units in all Civil War battle began to suffer hits from as far as 800-1000 yards, These would have been random shots thatwere poorly aimed at troops thatwere much closer. I know that a .58 Minie bullet fired with 60 grains of powder will hit the ground far short of those distances, but if a nervous soldier discharged his weapon at enough of an angle, the bulet will defeintely take a life or badly mangle an enemy far away from the front line.
All casualties must be counted. If un-skilled troops wait unti l the enemy is 200 yards or less away, the effect would or could be devastating - and often was. The Peach Orchard, the Cornfield, and other sub-battles within larger ones will attest to the fact that soldiers who were ill-trained just got better.
IMO, the reason the Civil War had relatively few bayonet melee fights might be because there were too few men left standing by the time they got to within melee range. Units withdrew when they lost so many men that they were nolonger effective.
I think it was the Irish Brigade at the Sunken Road (corrections requested) that had to just lay down becaue of the accurate fire from Confederates and wait til dark to attempt to withdraw.
So, my counter argument was based upon the learning curve of aiming a rifle - which is very simple, and the potential in the riflec musket that surely must have been increasingly realized by the troops.
In the video, he says thatthe in-effectiveness was based upon troops not being drilled and therefor not using the full potential of the design - which can easliy hit a man at 300 yards, and be reloaded by the time an enemy line advanced to220 yards, then again at 150, and again at 75. By then, there would have been so many down that unit effectiveness would have been almost nil.
Conversely, if the untrained trooops wait until the enemy line is already within say, 175 yards, they will only be able to reload twice by the time the two sides are within stone throwing distance.
Now, double the distance interval between two or three ranks, firing and reloading in succession, and the reasons for the high casualties of the Civil War become understandable - by rifle fire.
I understand that this didn't happen all along a battle front, which were often miles long, but there were engagemnets within the larger scheme of a battle that show the rifle to have been absolutely devastating.
In the end, it was the ability of forces to withstand the fire of the other side that won those fights, and if the musketry was most effective at under 150 yards,then so be it. Almost anyone can hit a man at 150 yards, anda raw recruit could have done so at under 100. And those that missed, could easily hit a man in the next company coming up
The problem with the Rebellion is that it's reviewed by modernistic sentiments. There were no British v Americans at the time of the Rebellion which was conducted by a minority of British colonials who , like any other British colony , enjoyed all the advantages of being British and were represented in Westminster like any other constituency in the Kingdom or overseas territories. This was simply another civil war ( at best ) , which Britain found very displeasing in the results of the English Civil War and had certainly learned a lesson from the Monmouth Rebellion and the later actions in Ireland under the Protest King William after the deposition of James 2 . Fighting British people , of which the settled colonials were 90+% British at the time, had become tasteless and the uprising seemingly unnecessary and unwanted at the time as conflict with our old adversaries the French along with Spainsh support was still a real and present danger and much closer to home .
The British colonials in North America had enjoyed a number of tax concessions not available to any other subjects and of course benefited from land acquired from the French in which both colonials and British army regulars had fought and clearly benefited from the British army rotated there to protect the Crowns subjects from possible French or Indian incursions . In fact many British colonials served with the regulars in the Rebellion and the American Regiment is still part of British military history today . The remainder of the colonials that wished to remain , thrive and prosper under Westminster rule , fled to British Canada for protection .
Americans must try to look upon the Rebellion from the point of view of British subjects and not Americans nor through the romantic eyes of the Victorian historians, who have a lot to answer for. It was neither a "patriotic" war as America as an independent nation did not exist nor was it a war of independence as America was not a nation subjugated under British rule by invasion but an embryonic nation created by free British subjects . A contest between the governing authority and its subjects , as in the earlier English Civil Wars and later American Civil War , that involves roughly equal numbers is a civil war . A contest that is sparked by a minority as is the case in the Colonies is a Rebellion. This part of US history could equally be called the War of Greed and Expansion as the act that forbade expansion into native Indian lands was almost immediately disgraced and the attempted invasion of Canada by the American military a total embarrassment. Or perhaps the War of Stupidity , the Rebellion was a disaster economically for the Colonies, forced America to trade with continental Europe ending in an uncomfortable alliance with the French , stabbing Britain in the back by declaring war on Britain in 1812 ( ending in yet another disaster ) while Britain was once again freeing Europe from tyranny , Americas allies the French under Napoleon. Not a good start for the nation .......
Come on people , " July Morning " and " The Patriot " are works of fiction , not fact . Try to look at the situation through the eyes of the founding fathers who made their fortunes through trading with Britain that convinced their minions in servitude that an uprising against the Mother Country would be a ' good idea ' .
That is a superb summary.
I did some reading at some point on this. The fact is that a lot which is taught about the war didn't come from the actual time, it came from a few decades later. Once the US was formed, a lot of people in the country just went back to their old ways. They still saw themselves as Virginians or Massachusettsans and not as Americans, this still went on into the early 1800s. So the US government or media, started to sell the idea of America to them, with stories of heroics and how great they were etc. By the 1830s most who could remember this were started to die off and what really happened faded away, replaced with the stories of quick thinking farmers out smarting the rigid professional fighting machine.
The 19th century really goes and alters the story significantly.
Saying the British Army was incompetent in the War of Independence is like saying the Americans were Incompetent in Vietnam. Both were superpowers highly professional BUT highly unpopular at home. A war fought 1000's of mile away against an enemy that war fighting for their homeland.
No Britain was up against the colonise and two of its rival Superpowers
It's funny that we tend to try to make the British look more incompetent to make the colonials look cooler but honestly showing them beating off a large army capable of learning and evolving is even more impressive
Except that the rebels didn't beat the British it was the France,Spain and the Netherlands who beat the British.
Both sides of the war of independence was fought by British subjects. Obviously those in the colonies had other foreign help. An "American" as a nationality did not exist until both sides signed it off.
It's a bit like Patton was a great tactician and Montgomery was incompetent.... whilst both very similar, major difference where and when they fought in WW2
@@johnnywarnerperfectroad66That take on Patton and Montgomery was always based more on the cult of personality than military matters, with Patton seen as bold, straight talking tactical genius whilst Montgomery was aloof, hard to get along with, and a plodding overplanner. In reality Patton was poor on tactics, worse on strategy, selfishly attempted to divert resources from allied elements to further his advance, and notably at Metz lost a lot of men in poorly conceptualised piecemeal attacks which he then shifted blame for.
During Patton's legendary 'dash' through France Montgomery's men actually advanced further against tougher opposition, and Bradley's forces were not far off having faced much tougher opposition. Market Garden was a brilliant plan that only feel down at the very end, in no small part due to the failure of American airborne to take Nijmegen, where American planners had not thought to drop them on both sides of the bridge. But it suits the narrative to blame shift to Montgomery and XXX Corp's infamous tea break (rather than advancing their armour without infantry support into an urban area and a waiting SS Panzer division).
TLDR; It's all politics.
the colonists were of course also " BRITISH" washington was also british so it was not colonised people agianst the British but The rebel British against the british.
During the early part of the war Howe, who had some sympathy for the rebels, was fighting to try to bring about a negotiated peace. Later, the french became directly involved, bringing much needed know how to the colonial army and harassing the British supply line at sea which they were able to do as the British navy was heavily involved in protecting the valuable sugar islands and fighting the French and Spanish elsewhere. In the end an effective end was made when Britain agreed to a negotiated withdrawal from the colonies and the colonial government agreed to pay the bulk of the outstanding taxes that triggered the whole business in the first place and agreed to the border between themselves and Canada.
This is a comment from a Finn, so clearly I had no dog in this fight.
Isn't it more impressive to be victorious over a foe that is smart and cunning than "lol they were dump and didn't adapt to the realities of the colonies" ?
American here: Yes. Yes it is.
hollywood or movie writers in general could take that advice for sure when writing enemy factions
I would certainly say so, but here we unfortunately are…
Depends who you are. A Mel Gibson type will seize any opportunity to trash Britain. Braveheart for instance.
@@nerdyali4154Mel was in Australia at a time when the Brit and Aussie family had fallen out badly (now resolved) he would have realised the power of working class aussie anti- pom (Brit) invective and put it to good use from Gallipoli on to Hollywood.
The British were at a disadvantage. Those soldiers recruited from Scotland and NW England would have been confused by the big yellow ball in the sky and unable to deploy their umbrellas and plastic rainhoods.
Many would have been starving as rations of American bacon were inedible. Simply cutting into the bacon caused it to shatter leaving an empty plate. The introduction of grits just added insult to injury though it was a boon to wallpaper hangers. Good old British food was severely lacking as there were no decent kebab shops or curry houses within a thousand miles of Lexington.
At the time red coats were so last season and also it must have struck the ordinary soldier that perhaps wearing red may not have been the wisest choice unless the top brass were counting on the revolutionary forces mistaking the British for a field of begonias.
And of course one cannot underestimate the role played by country and western music. On return to the UK many soldiers suffered PCSD or Patsy Cline Stress Disorder.
This really helps put things into perspective, thanks for sharing!
Hahahaha!
An American with a sense of humour
@@BikersDoItSittingDown I'm English ! Clitheroe, Lancashire.
I think the Americans have a great sense of humour from Bing and Bob's road movies to "Parks and Recreation". Decades of making me laugh.
Was the British army dumb? No.
Are we dumb for going into the woods pretending to be the British army? Cannot confirm nor deny.
This is why American is actually great, we can plead the 5th 😂
For real
Not a matter of "Dumb", so much as "crazy". Dressing in clothes that went out of fashion centuries ago, to run around in the woods NOT shooting at each other, while we PRETEND to do so, in wool, in August, in (at least in my case) the Chesapeake tidewater area. when I am seriously too old for this $#!+, AND it's expensive and uncomfortable, may seriously call our sanity into question! To that I say one thing: "COMP'Ny take CARE! SHOWDER yaw... FIRELOCKS!"
When bragging about supposedly hiding in the trees and picking off the stupid redcoats fighting in rigid rows, it conveniently goes quiet instead of explaining why 90 years later in the American civil war they made abhorrent and suicidal charges en masse against fortified, uphill defenses . . . repeatedly on the same day. SMH.
The best book I've found on this subject is "With Zeal and with Bayonets Only -- The British Army on Campaign in North America, 1775-1783", by Matthew Spring.
The author looks at all aspects of how the British operated and fought during the war, but his central theme is the fact that the British army constantly learned and adapted -- with a fair amount of success.
In the process, the author debunks quite a few myths -- that the British didn't care about shooting accuracy, that volley firing was inherently inaccurate, that the colonists were naturally proficient with firearms, that the British maneuvered slowly or clumsily, that they were utterly inept at bush-fighting, etc.
In the process, Spring provides a *lot* of quotes and original anecdotes, which I found very interesting. Highly recommended.
Zeal is by far one of the best books out there on the conflict!
I've read that one. Another good book is "Fusiliers: How the British Army Lost America but Learned to Fight" by Mark Urban.
Great recommendations for further reading in this thread. Thanks folks.
Having worked around the world, in the oil industry, I was astounded at the lack of historic understanding of educated and uneducated US citizens. Not one knew that Britain was fighting 6 wars simultaneous and in the US the enlarged French and Spanish armies. The US colonial forces were not comparible to the British forces in tatics or quality and this was evidenced by the performance a few years later in rhe 1812 war. This US washing of history is now apparent in WWII and WW I. How many know that Britain fought alone for three of the six year war. That the only land defeat of the Japanese was in Burma by the British, island hopping does not count.
It can honestly be astounding how ignorant many Americans can be about things. I think it makes apparent some of the real things lacking in the country.
A year or two ago I was reading the comments on a youtube video about the Korean War. One Yank comment was 'where the hell were you (the British) when we fought alone in Korea?' It's not just sad, it's pathetic!
@@plymouth5714 that has got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
Land defeat?
The first land defeat of the Japanese in the Pacific was at Milne Bay. By Australians.
The second was the Kokoda Campaign…. Also by Australians.
Then the whole of New Guinea….
Burma was a damned fine effort, but let’s not get carried away.
As a Brit, a few comments.
1) Island hopping most certainly DOES count.
2) First land defeats of the Japanese Army were inflicted by the Australians in New Guinea. Specifically Milne Bay and the Kokoda Trail. The Campaign in Papua New Guinea was not an island hopping battle, it was a brutal campaign lasting more than two years across some of the most difficult terrain in the world for an army to fight in.
3) We were not alone in the first three years, we still had solid help from the Australians and Canadians especially, but also the New Zealanders, South Africans as well as various free Forces such as the Free Polish and Free French. And thats before you include the 2,5 MILLION Indians who fought in WWII, ALL of whom were volunteers. Not a single Indian soldier was a conscript, not one.
It's fine to be proud of British achievements in WWII, but not fine to overstate them, do that and you are just as guilty as all those Americans you state are washing history, as you are basically doing exactly the same thing.
The real reason whynthe Usa got their indépendance :
Usa : i wishes to obtain your support in my rightfull struggle for independance.
France : I can't. I'm broke, heavely indebted, my army's in shambles and there's unrest at home.
USA : it's against the British.
France : Hold my beer.
And that's how they did it. And didn't gave much to the French, the principality of Brandburg being the true winner of the conflict.
It’s why I joined the crown forces, I love learning about and teaching others the nuances of the AWI
Those things go such a long way in improving peoples perceptions! Bang on!
@@TheFarOffStation but you said nothing about the French help, ..although HELP is an understatement tbh .
They provided 80% ( or was it 90%) of all guns and gunpowder used by the colonials .
The French provided over 44.000 men ( soldiers and sailors) their navy , they provided uniforms and over $2 million Francs cash.
Among other things.
Yet you said nothing about all that , why not ???
You didn't even mention that the majority of the British army were fighting in other countries around the world creating, expanding the British empire.
Most Americans actually believe the whole British army was defeated by a few thousand untrained American colonials .
I haven't yet found a utube vid that tells it as it really was .
Great Britain "lost" the Colonies for one reason and one reason only: lack of commitment. There is absolutely no doubt that had the British Empire poured enough money and men into the conflict, Britain would have carried the day. H.M. King George III proposed this, and had a detailed plan for how this could be done, having himself personally compiled the documentation for the logistics of the operation. These documents are to this day kept in the library at Windsor Castle, and show detailed instructions for the acquisition of things like gun carriages and the levying of troops. Parliament must carry the burden of responsibility for opposing the king. Slavery was on its way out in the British Empire, first in the mother land. This was not for any altruistic reasons (although I have no doubt many of the abolitionists had nothing but pure motives) but because slavery was for the Empire as a whole gradually becoming a less cost-effective way of managing economic exploitation than for example indentured servitude or plain old wage labour (a.k.a. wage slavery). I won't here go into detail, but suffice it to say that legislation preventing slave-owners from from killing off old and otherwise unproductive slave labour very early on (some instances as early as the 16th Century) so that improductive slaves had to be fed and housed way after they were of any profit for their owners. I haven't investigated the reasons behind this legislation, but I suppose it is human nature for most people including slave-owners, overseers &c. not to kill people, and so that it was a means of preventing unfair competition by the ruling class, from slave-owners with less scruples. It would probably also be harder to motivate the most obedient of slaves to toil all their lives if they knew their only reward was a hangman's noose after their usefulness had expired. Indentured servants and wage labourers (what we are today) however, you don't have to care for when they retire.
Opposite to this development in British society, especially in the British Isles, was the need for British cotton manufacturers, whose support lay chiefly in the Whig (liberal) Party, to have a cheap source of cotton for their mills. If the North American Colonies had remained in the Empire, there is no doubt abolition would have come about much, much sooner. To the liberals in Parliament, abolition would have sounded the death knell for their supportive class. Sources of revenue for the supportive class of the Tory (conservative) Party were much less dependent on cheap cotton from the Americas (such as traditional land-rent for the landed gentry &c.). There was thus and incentive for the Whigs (like Fox) to allow independent for the colonists.
It must also be remembered that the Rebellion of the Colonies was as much an Anglo-French conflict as it was an Anglo-American. Without support from the Kingdom of France, the Colonists' cause would have been as lost as that of the FNL in Vietnam without the help of the Soviets.
Thanks for the comment, so many of these things seems to be forgotten when the American War of Independence is discussed.
To discount the religious sentiment that was the primary driver of the anti-slavery movement is to do the British people a grave injustice. Study of the movement shows that the population was engaged on this issue to a degree that is absolutely incredible given the lack of contact that the average Englishman, Scot or Welshman of the time had with actual slavery or industry dependent on slavery.
The history of British government is punctuated at regular intervals by massive debts incurred in fighting various wars - some of them wars of national survival - yet the costs incurred in abolishing slavery in the Empire and around the world are up there with them. The British did not merely pass laws, they expended enormous amounts in enforcing anti-slavery actions around the world and paying out slave-holders who were forced to give up what was legally seen as their “property”.
Anyone attempting to argue that the anti-slavery movement was primarily driven by economics is not giving credit where it is due.
@@peterwebb8732 I think you don't quite get my point. Just like I said, I have no doubt that many (perhaps most, but there are no figures to my knowledge) I am sure that individual abolitionists had only the purest of motives. I am analysing it from a societal, economic and historical materialist perspective. As regards the individual psychology I think you get it pretty much right. The individuals fighting slavery take a moral stance. The individuals of political power and even more importantly those of economic power and affluence who select the former for election, are concerned with profit mainly if not only. Lots of people have lots of good, reformist ideas, but they are not permitted to succeed unless it is in the interest of the ruling class. Abraham Lincoln would never have been permitted to succeed unless the capitalist class in the North had had interests coinciding with his (and opposed to those of the slave-owning class in the South). Bourgeois feminism had never succeeded in the 1960s unless the capitalists of the western world had wanted to saturate the job market with cheap labour (because women back then were paid less than men and possibly still are). There is a good interview with one of Rockefeller's closest friends on how they ran editorials for women's lib in the New York Times.
Americans have erased the fact that a great many colonists remained loyal and formed several militia and regular units in the British Army and fought against the rebels. They were just as adapted to the American terrain and tactics as the insurrectionist Continental Army.
As I understand it Howe served in the French and Indian War in the Americas during the Seven Years War. He was bound to understand the complexities of fighting in America better than most. Also adjusting fighting styles comes with combat. After surviving the first battles officers and their soldiers learn and figure out what works and what doesn't. America itself had to adjust how we fought after the first battles in North Africa during WWII when coming against the Germans.
He did indeed. One might call Howe the ultimate Light Infantry fan boy, it’s no wonder the LI trend was so popular.
One reason why british officers were generally reluctant to actually fire on americans who they regarded as civilians - and alongside whom they had fought in previous wars. A sentiment not shared by the americans who enthusiastically shot at them.
@@tileuxwell said Sir.
@@TheFarOffStationI've wondered how Brit light infantry tactics and arms would've evolved if Lord Howe wasn't killed shortly after landing at Ticonderoga.
@@swampyankee unfortunately we’ll never know.
What some history misses out (depending on the country where it was learned) is the importance of North America in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the British 'Empire' at the time. First why did the French give so much help to America, with troops and their navy? Because they were Britain's biggest enemy all over the globe, in Africa, the Caribbean, India, China, Pacific etc. and America was not as valauble to Britain as the other 'colonies'. Also, this was long before America's southern states, mid-West and western states had all been fully settled, so all those resources there (eg. oil) were not as important as say spices from India or sugar from the West Indies. And Britain not having a huge population meaning they could not send armies all over the world.
I agree in the late 1700 and early 1800's the British were looking to the Indian sub continent for colonial expansion rather than north America. In the late 1800's it was Africa that was the interest of the European powers
If the French hadn’t been involved the British probably would’ve won and probably still been the world power of today.
Also the Americans would have a national health service and a minimum wage and probably lots of other plus’s?
Also at least 4 weeks annual leave.
Probably both world wars wouldn’t have taken place, would Germany take on the British with America part of the empire???
If they did the wars wouldn’t have lasted as long because America would have been involved from the beginning not the end like the First World War, and there probably wouldn’t be a Second World War if that was the case, instead we sold out the jet engine to them borrowed more money off them than the rest of Europe did put together.
Both world wars killed the empire.
It strikes me just how prevalent this myth is with even fellow Britons I know who think this. I suspect one of the reasons why the history curriculum in American primary and secondary schools is so poor is because it seeks to perpetuate a foundation myth propagated in earlier times rather than present the American War of Independence as it happened.
Has a lot to do with not understanding the tactics anyone used. Remember that it wasn't until rifles because the weapon of war that line formation was given up.
We didn't use gorilla tactics because it was better. It was because it suited the skills and weapons, and training, of the soldiers fighting redcoats.
As an American of 67 years, I will add that the subject of American history taught in schools is very superficial. The emphasis is on the glossy surface in order to push the students on to the next year. There is no attempt to teach the battle strategies or tactics as it is not in the general curriculum for kids to learn. Such details are for college courses or they are of interest to a small clique of kids like myself, who were fascinated by such minutae.
I do remember being taught about Lafayette and von Steuben, but never about the latter's social problems from which he fled from Germany. Thos are details not covered in primary or secondary education, unless the teacher brings it up as an aside. My history teacher was such a man, who lectured brilliantly and brought history and people to life for me.
These days, most high school history is about slavery, civil rights, and critique of American heritage - and not for the better. The Founding is no longer respected.
@@OutnBacker here in Britain our history seems to be rapidly going in the same direction unfortunately.
@@CrusaderSports250 I studied the AWI as part of my History A level back in the late 70’s and to be honest it was covered pretty comprehensively, although mainly from a political/social perspective. The military aspects were barely touched upon.
That was the same for all other topics covered, military history was just not part of the curriculum.
We were the patriots and the Americans the rebels
They didn't build the largest empire the world has ever known by being dumb.
Signed,
An American
That tracks.
@@TheFarOffStation Sorry mate. I left the word "didn't" off of my original comment.
It didn't make any sense as originally posted.
I really should avoid the internet after having too much grog.
@@thecatthinks haha, you’re good!
@@TheFarOffStation I also see videos of people asking "Why does the whole wold speak English?" or something to that effect.
Well....The Empire and all that?
People today just don't seem to have an interest or curiosity about where they came from or the past.
Here is something fun:
During the American Civil War my mother's family fought for the The Union.
My father's family fought for The Confederacy.
My prize possession is a Sharps rifle that was carried by one of them during the war.
This thing is a beast! Breach loaded and about .52 caliber near as I can tell. It is not in firing condition. But it's still pretty cool to see.
Sorry....I'm rambling on...
You hit the nail on the head. Claiming your enemy was inept, stuck in their ways, incompetent etc etc simply serves to understate the efforts of the tax avoiders / rebels / traitorous terrorists.
Don't forget the slave-drivers and illegal importers that the taxes were levied upon. Those gangsters had quite an impast of the USA's future, as well.
Not much is ever mentioned about how the British saw the war. They found it quite distasteful to be fighting people they saw as kin and never actually wanted to fight the war for that reason. They were also busy fighting in Europe and never really fully committed to the war.
That really is a component that doesn't get brought up very often and really should.
@@TheFarOffStation Yes. Much of the anti-British sentiment was never deserved. Actually most of it comes from the War of 1812 and not the Revolutionary War. Most of the Colonials didn't see themselves as all that different until then.
Excellent as usual! I would also add that the defeat of the British is mostly from the decisions made at the highest level when it came to overall grand strategy. Like Howe and Burgoyne not being on the same page in the fall of 1777 or Lord North working with Parliament stuff like that.
Thanks mate! There definitely were some real issues of people working together that really hampered the British war effort.
Lord North was in my opinion unjustly blamed for the loss of Colonies.
@@windalfalatar333 I agree just giving an example
but also howthe hessian and the other german troops acted the looted homes it did not matter if the home was a tory or a rebel the treated everyone as rebels that drove more and more people intothe armsofthe rebels
thy turned indians loose on people out west the indain attack all whites so whitesjoinedforceto protect themselves
@@windalfalatar333lord north was the cause of the colonies rebeling
As i understand it we faught the French Up and down the North American continent for 7 years , finally defeted them and the Spanish but totaly run out of moneys financing the whole thing so we asked the locals to help out a little bit with the cost and wow did they kick up
That's a pretty good summary of it all!
“The War of American Ingratitude”….. 👍
@@peterwebb8732 that’s hilarious!
One of the reason that the rebel forces won is that they had a large amount of French help, men money and materiel.
It's always an under talked about component of the war.
Plus Spain and Holland
Were the British dumb? Well, obviously no - all of the soldiers could speak and some of them were quite articulate.
What proportion of the population moved to Canada during and after the war. The French navy under Admiral Lafayeffe brought about the surrender at York town, incidentally.
Somewhere around 100k. So just under a 20th of the population.
Between you Bra donF. & Chris the redcoat I am getting a greater understanding of history thank you
Glad to be of service with my other great colleagues!
To be fair to you Yanks, we're taught similar myths about this period here in the UK. Our government has a longstanding tradition of telling everyone that everything is a form of unchanged tradition, and our culture encourages that mindset even though it is pretty inaccurate to reality of life and lived history
That’s so odd considering that Britain had been at the forefront of change for centuries. It really doesn’t do justice to the history of the land.
FYI, calling someone reared south of the Mason Dixon line a yank, is about as wise as calling an Irishman a brit.
Funny thing is my history classes never did crap on the British tactics.
Actually many Irishmen are Brits. Those in Northern Ireland consider themselves more British than anyone else !
Really the only occasion when the British fought in that close order formation was Bunker Hill. Great vid as always Jon!
As a Historic Researcher, there are a great many myths and omissions to American History. The alleged inflexibility of British Forces is just 1. Others include the Vanishing Indigenous Peoples , that they were nonexistant push overs (thye weren't; they put up a hell of a fight). The American solders were not trained in European Warfare (they were & there were several "Provincial Regements). Omissions include US forigen policy only begining with the Revolution (Think neighboring Indigenous Peoples), the struggle for control of the North American Continent (2nd Hundred Years War from 1675-1815), the Massachusetts/New Hampshire Border War, and the Cyclical nature of US National Political Debates are among others. Correctibng these omissions is why we study the past.
I am all for giving our French and Spanish allies credit for helping America win it's War for Independence, which a lot of people in the comments section have pointed out. But one must remember that the support from these Nations only came after our American Army defeated an entire British Army and their Hessian mercenaries on their own without any foreign assistance at the Battle of Saratoga.
That would be the Battle of Saratoga that was fought by the Americans using French-supplied artillery and munitions that the French government had provided through what we would now call a front company to give them plausible deniability? That Battle of Saratoga?
The battle didn't cause the French and Spanish to decide to support the colonists; the victory caused them to decide to *openly* support the colonists, including the active involvement of their militaries.
@@keith6706 Yes, the French and Spanish did send us weapons. But arms do not win battles, men do. The French could not defeat the British with the very same guns and artillery they sent to the Americans, neither could the Spanish. That's why when France and Spain saw an American Army defeat General Burgoyne and surrender his army to General Gates they were astonished and more then ready to offer us open assistance after that decisive victory.
The Battle of Saratoga, you say? It's importance cannot be diminished. It was the first victory in a war that no one thought we could win. It proved to the world that Britain could be defeated and that America was worth supporting.
@@kwd3109cant be acknowledging support from cheese eating surrendermonkeys nowcould you
The American army didn't win many battles until they learned line tactics. The key to victory was the combined arms of the day. A victorious army used it's calvary, artillery, light infantry skirmishers and line infantry formation. Each type of unit has its strengths and weaknesses. It's the ability to use these assets in the right place and time that wins battles. That is just the battlefield itself. The struggle starts with intelligence, logistics, training, medical support ect. Hiding behind a tree and ambushing your enemy is a very useful tactic, but you still need all the other abilities to turn it into more than a local skirmish.
Really enjoyed your summary, I'm going to use it myself when justifying why history is important and especially when talking about this conflict.
Very well put! Thank you!
Glad to see you stop by!
@@TheFarOffStation happy to! Love the channel. Trying to do better and you are one of my go to stops to learn!
The British had light companies and ranger battalions both could give frontiersmen a hard time. On the other hand von Steuben and the like taught us how to march and fight in straight lines
Don't forget the French navy and French money resulting in the revolution of France which resulted in more battles for England and the navy , so America fought in America and we ended up fighting around the world , sounds familiar ?
I do sometimes wonder, when an American talks about how "we" beat the British, does their own American lineage extend as far back as the 1770's?
Most of it actually comes from the 19th Century. There are multiple reasons as to why, but that's when it all starts. The narrative in the 1770s was not like that.
Well, a number of American colonies were founded before Scotland & England joined up in 1707 to create Britain & the American colonists considered themselves primarily English vs British. The original draft of the Declaration of Independence describes not only the Hessians as foreign mercenaries - but the Scots as foreigners as well. "One of the principal changes was the dropping of the long appeal to 'our British brethren,' with its reference to 'Scotch & foreign mercenaries'"
Thank you for a insightful and wonderful video that educates everyone.
On the other end of the spectrum I can't stand the revisionists who claim America only exists because of French assistance.
If the Patriots had not fought on and survived as long as they had, France would have never committed her resources in the fight.
Yes they made the difference. But only after our Patriots earned it.
You're very welcome, thanks for watching!
Sounds a bit like Britain fighting off the Nazis for so long before the US decided to turn up.
The Scots at Culloden could have won had the French forces landed, instead when they saw the battle not going the Scots way they up anchored and left, the French obviously sensed victory when the colonials held out and so decided to join the winning side, the interesting speculation is how would the colonial forces managed without the French help, could they have won and over what timescale, and what would have been the ramifications for history?
"Not comprehending the force ------ fought against dishonors and discredits the magnitude of that struggle"
There's a little bit of irony in this, from the British to the Italians during ww2. Those myths also still persist to this day.
TBF the Italians were a joke initially against the Greeks. They were not particularly effective in WW2, but that is largely because of poor equipment. Truth is they did teach the Germans a bit about logistics in North Africa.
@@nerdyali4154 There élite units fought with real tenacity. Aside from the poor equipment, the other issue was the average solider didn't want to be there in the first place. They were burned out from all the conflicts they fought before the war.
An excellent example of why it is important to delve deeply into history so that the true story is fully appreciated.
Cheers! Thanks for stopping by!
A big reason for the war in the first place was that the British wanted the colonies to help pay for the French and Indian war costs the British fought with British soldiers and navy. They raised taxes. The Americans decided to secede rather than pay the to cover the war costs. This admittedly is a gross over simplification but still not wanting to pay their fair share in taxes was an element in the glorious American revolution…
Actually, paying for the debt incurred is a myth in itself. The taxes were to merely defray defence spending in the North American colonies.
An unnecessary war started by French lies, stirred by anti English jealousy, unpopular among at least half the colonial population who remained loyal and ultimately won by a French army and navy. Washington’s army could not defeat the British army except for two small battles until the French added their army and navy greatly outnumbering the British. The Americans owed Britain for the blood and money spent protecting them and when it was time to pay a pittance in tax they concocted a lie…. No taxation without representation yet No other colony had representation in Westminster and still paid tax. Had the AWI never been fought, North America would have been given independence peacefully by Britain like she gave independence to all here dominions peacefully thereafter. What’s worse is the Americans pretending they were the peaceful victims of an oppressive empire when in fact they were the ungrateful subjects who started a war by firing the first shots at Lexington against an empire that would have given them peace and prosperity as it had to all its colonies around the world.
The ‘British Army’ available to fight in America:-
50’000 Brits
30’000 Hessians
25’000 American Tories
Belligerents:-
British Tories and the small German States
V
France, Spain, Holland, The Mysore of India. American and British Patriot Whigs and then the League of Armed Neutrality ( Russia, Turkey, Scandinavia and some smaller states).
Often forgotten now but the Patriot movement was founded in the British Parliament in 1725.
Found this Chanel from Brandon F, love your presentation, you got my sub
Cheers mate! Thanks for stopping by!
I get tired of hearing Americans claim that they defeated a “superpower”.
Britain was not a major land-power. The Royal Navy was the world’s most effective naval power at the time, but the British Army was not exceptional in terms of size or capability. In terms of numbers, the French, the Russians and the combined Germanic States all fielded much larger armies in that period.
Then there is the constant theme that they were rebelling against the “tyranny” of King George. The reality was that the King - while influential - was anything but. The English fought a very bloody Civil War and chopped the head off Charles 1 to establish that the King was as subject to the laws of Parliament as any other man. King George could neither raise an army without permission of Parliament, nor fund it without Parliament voting to provide the money.
Properly examined, the history of Britain is a 2000 trajectory toward majority rule. The colonists did not invent their principles of government in a vacuum, but derived them from ideas that had been developed, debated and fought over, for centuries. In some respects, the American colonists did very well, but the propaganda deriding and demonising the British does them no credit.
I grew up in England and was taught right from primary school that the wily and adaptable colonials defeated an incompetent British army. History truly was written by the victors. The problem with this interpretation is that it devalues the actual conflict. The same level of misconstruction was achieved in reverse with the Battle of France and retreat at Dunkirk (1940), right from 5th June, the day after Dunkirk.
Wiley and adaptable Washington took advantage of Howe and his incompetence. Howe failed to appreciate that he had Washington on the ropes and could have destroyed the Revolution by pursuing Washington and his Army through the fall and into the winter of 1776. But Gen Howe chose to comfortably settle into New York City for the winter and party because that was the tradition of war as he saw it. That is incompetence spelled LARGE.
Well idk you’d have to have some decent brains to own basically half the world so
Is that the uniform of the 10th Foot ( The Royal Lincolnshire Regiment) ? If so, that's my father's old regiment.
It is indeed the uniform of the 10th Regiment as it would have appeared in 1775. That’s very cool, when was he in it?
@@TheFarOffStation 1914-1919. I recognised it by the yellow facings, hence their nickname ' The Yellow Bellies'.
@@robstafford7453 that’s very cool! Do you know which battalion of the regiment he was in?
I LIVE for these youtube historian collaborations! Thank you, Sir!
I'm glad you're enjoying them so, I'll make sure I continue to be a part of them.
Many governments in countries on gaining independence start a propaganda campaign, often through schools, to bolster support. I seem to recall only about 18% of those in the now USA were in support of independence, so the new government has to garnish the truth or outright lie. Similar policies were adopted by Ireland and India as they had similarly low levels of support.
It depends on what numbers you take and then factor in the propaganda’s sway. But no matter, propaganda plays a determining role.
@@TheFarOffStation it has always been "he who wins wrights the history", finding the history in between is the real task, much enjoyed your presentation and will look for more.
A Salute from Britain!
America - made free to suit the French!
Britains enemy wasn’t their kin and cousins in the 13 colonies, it was and always had been the French who put their weight behind the AWI because of their strategy in N.America. The full political will in London wasn’t there for denying independence but when it really mattered in Quebec the British defeated the French and demonstrated their adaptation to the N.American continent. Most leaders of the new American nation had considered themselves British up until the declaration and knew that only with French support would they get their desired independent Nation. Had France not been involved, Americans would have the Kings head on their coinage just like their Canadian neighbours.
Great video. I agree that a deeper dive makes the greater accomplishment that much greater. Baron Von Steuben didn't come over just to train men to hide behind trees or rocks, but to further the greater development of the early US Army.
Yes.
🥳
@@TheFarOffStation🐸
Colonial Militias fighting the British Army with guerrilla tactics in Massachusetts did give a defeat to a professional army. That didn’t always carry over in later battles
Hey Jonathan! I just wanted to say that I love your channel and dedication to educating people with “true” history! Also, I love attending and watching re-enactments of the 10th regiment of foot (Lexington, Concord, Lincoln, etc)! My father and I annually go to these re-enactments as a tradition. My father and I are both history buffs haha! Keep up the good work, and I shall continue to enjoy your channel and regiment re-enactments! ❤
As a 🇨🇦, there were other nuances in the war for 🇺🇸 Independence that contributed to the outcome.
Public opinion in 🇺🇸 & 🇬🇧 would be mixed. Some 🇬🇧 sympathized with the States; many colonists supported the 🇬🇧. As the conflict progressed support shifted. Many colonists loyal to 🇬🇧 moved to 🇨🇦. The conflict also affected the Native groups, & slaves; setting off conflicts that raged for decades & consequences felt today.
It was as a result of the lessons we, the British learned in forming light and grenadier divisions from those elements in regiments that Wellington was able to have an army that was able to give a good account of itself to Napoleon. Lessons were learned and digested. The purpose of history is to look back accurately and learn lessons from it. Unfortunately the myth makers like to polish the result and often the result bears little to the actual lessons learned.
Let’s face it, without French involvement in the war, the rebels could never have won.
I honestly don’t think most people think about French contributions to the war in America.
@@TheFarOffStation it’s more likely that they don’t want to think about it because of how decisive it was.
My early history teacher was pretty honest and taught that we struggled greatly against the British Army.
How similar was the fighting in the war of independence to the seven years war as fought in Nth America? Weren't the colonists one of the main beneficiaries of Britain beating France? Lastly, to what degree was the taxation policy that upset the colonists an attempt to recoup the cost of the seven years war?
The colonists were indeed the main beneficiaries of the seven years war as it removed any possibility of the French attacking the colonists from Canada. The whole point of the taxation was simply for those colonists to pay their fair share of the crippling costs of the war which had virtually bankrupted the British. As far as the colonists were concerned it was 'why should we pay anything now that YOU have bled yourselves dry and we are nice and safe'! Although the seven years war had a lot of causes around the world ie India and the Carribian etc, one of the straws that broke the camel's back and kicked it off was an un-ordered and unprovoked attack by a British patrol on a French company who were engaged in a diplomatic mission to ease tensions on the northern border. That patrol was ordered to attack by a colonial officer - one George Washington! Was it pure coincidence or did Washington and his crony elite plan the whole thing knowing the war would follow, Britain would probably win and then ask for a fair contribution at which point Washington could declare 'we want freedom' and start a revolution, promising the patriots free land and then selling it all off to 'speculators' (his same cronies) to pay for the war!
@@plymouth5714 Interesting, but I think its a bit far fetched.
@@freebornjohn2687 maybe, maybe not.
ive read that after the war the new US did actually pay Britain money owed, which tells me that the whole wanting to expand out west was the real reason for the war, and the no taxation without representation thing was a cover, so perhaps it was all a plan to colonize all of America and the american elite tricked France and Spain into paying to unshackle the colonies from Britain.
after all the the 13 colonies would become the USA we know today, and Britain focused elsewhere and became the larges empire in human history.
what did France and Spain get out of the revolution? the beginning of the end for their own empires.
@@freebornjohn2687 possibly taking advantage of events as they pan out rather than a long term plan, opportunism at its highest.
Good to see you back, man
Thanks mate!
Have you considered to do a video on the British forces stationed in the Ohio valley region during and after the american revolutionary war? How they were equipped and their disposition?
I have never considered it as it’s not a topic I readily study.
As an Ohioan born and bred, I’d love to see this! It seems that in New England there is a visible/spiritual presence of colonial and revolutionary history that I just have never seen in my area. We have a few places name Fort Whathaveyou or Fort Whatever but there just doesn’t seem to be any consciousness of our history before the Civil War really. I’d be much pleased to see your consideration of the subject!
As a retired history teacher, I've never heard of or taught my students this nonsense. Colonists were up against a well armed and well trained British army. The only hope the colonials had was to get the French and Spanish involved and fight a war of attrition.
That’s good thing!
The best book, to my knowledge, on this subject is With Zeal and Bayonets Only, which studies the British Army on campaign in North America.
It's THE book when it comes to the subject. A fantastic read to get a better picture of the war.
The way I understand it is that
(1) A bad plan well implemented usually beats a good plan badly implemented.
(2) It's hard to get large numbers of people to act together and implement a plan well. It takes training, and training takes time. You have to feed, clothe, house, and equip all those soldiers while they're being trained.
(3) Changing your tactics is even harder when your resupply and training is on the far side of an ocean, especially when you don't have things like airplanes because they don't exist yet.
(4) The British army had just been through a long war against the French, under conditions where hiding behind walls would not have been particularly useful. It was one massive army against another massive army. A wall only provides cover for a small number of soldiers, and splitting off small numbers of soldiers to fight a unified large army is a losing strategy even with the benefit of hiding behind walls.
and
(5) The war of American independence was won more by the French regular army than by colonial militias, even though it was so expensive as to be a loss for France overall.
So it made sense for the British regular army to mostly continue to use tactics developed primarily for fighting the French regular army.
The French regular army wasn't really involved with the American Revolution till the end of the war - France didn't openly support what's now the USA until the Battle of Saratoga
YES! This is why history matters. 🤸🤸🤸
Finally, someone is able to articulate it. 🎉🎉🎉
Thank you for the kind words, glad you enjoyed the video!
Thank you. I learned quite a bit from your presentation. Excellent work.
Thank you for stopping by! I'm happy to hear that you got something out of it!
Cornwallis was arguably the finest attacking general of any side in the conflict. He worked miracles with a very modest force. What let him down, could be summarise as logistical support (albeit, making his own force achieve many things with relatively little), his misfortune to be outranked by the far less capable Governor-General Henry Clinton (whom for his most egregious act, tarried on evacuating Cornwallis and exacerbated what was already a difficult situation; yes, Cornwallis made his own choice to disobey earlier orders and to dig his heels in at Yorktown, rather than to withdraw to New York, though he had some justification in doing that, what with the sacrifices they'd all made in the Southern Theatre of the war; it wasn't that he wished to abandon all hope of turning things around, even though he was being slowly forced out of Virginia) and last but not least, the numerical realities of 1781. The British were severely outnumbered at that juncture of the war, and the French had sent a solid force to the Southern Theatre.
On top of this, the defeat of Tarleton's force known as the British Legion - a roughly brigade sized unit, not say, Roman Legion sized - was a disastrous blow to Cornwallis. Technically speaking, Cornwallis had never really lost a battle in the field, by 1781. This would, again technically, remain the case (even after the Siege of Yorktown) Cornwallis was a superb offensive commander with a real nous for knowing when he had the advantage. He manoeuvred his forces carefully and was easily one of Britain's best generals of the 18th century. He knew what he was doing. And while it has been said he had no respect for militia, the truth was that George Washington was the one whom had little respect for militia forces. Cornwallis openly understood the vital importance of his light infantry and light cavalry dragoons (mostly merged together with a few regulars and grenadiers, in Tarleton's separately operating force)
Colonel Banastre Tarleton certainly did answer to Cornwallis, and he was providing an essential screening force for the main column where Lord General Charles Cornwallis and Lieutenant-General Charles O'Hara his actual second-in-command were to be found. Tarleton was more of a dashing cavalier, with a darker reputation. Waxhaws and the alleged intentional massacre there, was very possibly Tarleton acting on a dubious pretext to ruthlessly cut down surrendering rebels. However, the counter-claim to that, had always been, from Tarleton's corner, that while accepting the rebel surrender at Waxhaws, some random rebel took a pot-shot at him which killed his horse and brought it down over him.
Thinking him slain, the claim was that Tarleton's men 'avenged him' with a vengeance. Whatever the truth, it was an example of a controversy which reflected poorly (whatever the truth) on Cornwallis - even though Cornwallis wasn't even there. 'Remember the Waxhaws' became a rebel rallying cry, after the 'massacre' which may or may not have occurred. Knowing his chequered history, it is easy to simply accuse snobbish, pro-slavery advocate and future MP for Liverpool, Banastre Tarleton (Liverpool, made richer from slavery, as was Bristol, as much if not more than London or Liverpool), of some kind of guilt by his own behavioural association so to speak. But is that fair? I don't know.
I think they are two very different injustices, and that one is more about bloodlust and rage, rather than the will to dominate or manipulate others. I'd argue that it's possibly true he did commit the massacre, but just as well, we know of a rebel massacre in the Southern theatre; the Battle of King's Mountain. It wasn't as though the rebels were very nice to the defeated loyalists; and they urinated on the corpse of the lone British officer whom commanded on them, after it was over. Tarleton certainly was brash and impulsive, but I don't know if that necessarily means he'd slaughter surrendering men.
It's not proven as far as I'm aware, or was last aware of regarding that. Maybe something has been discovered since which proves he was a murderer of surrendering men. But until then, I do not accuse him of it. Whatever the case, Tarleton's reputation preceded him, and there is a reason why he surrendered to the French, not the Americans, at Yorktown; he feared, not without reason, being hanged by the Americans, which he almost certainly would have been. But as he surrendered to the French, he avoided what may well have been an extrajudicial execution.
The defeat of Tarleton at Cowpens was a catastrophe for Cornwallis' campaign, because the mobility and forewarning that the light infantry and precious light cavalry gave him, were invaluable. Cowpens saw most of Cornwallis' light units get killed or captured, while away from the main column, falling into a trap (in a reverse incline) which Tarleton had arrogantly charged right into, getting so many of his men killed. He got away, though. The story goes that when Tarleton returned to Cornwallis in the main column, to inform him of the severe defeat, Cornwallis stood a moment in silence and was seen to visibly be leaning on his general's sword so hard, stabbed into the ground, pointing down, that it snapped at the hilt. He was enraged. I'm sure he had some select words for Tarleton.
In short, Tarleton had lost him the _best_ 'eyes and ears' of his army. This doesn't mean the main column's regulars and grenadiers were completely helpless, but at that juncture in the war, it _effectively_ left him much more isolated, with more likelihood of accidentally, well, bumping into a similar or larger sized rebel force. Cornwallis relied on long marches of manoeuvre and he increasingly understood the value of his light infantry. It was a foreshadowing of how vital the light infantry would be in the Napoleonic Wars, for the British. And the troops under Cornwallis held him in high esteem, respecting him. He was aristocratic, for sure, although he had a more fatherly presence in his own field army. His string of victories spoke for themselves.
Cornwallis had shattered the 'Hero of Saratoga', the traitorous former British officer and general, Horatio Gates, at the Battle of Camden in 1780. Gates had won acclaim - almost certainly, beyond all proportion to the actual nature of how and why he won - at the two battles of Saratoga, against the unfortunate General Burgoyne. Burgoyne was leading his men to a rendezvous which would never happen. Howe had forsaken Burgoyne, in favour of winning fame and glory for himself by capturing Philadelphia.
Burgoyne had marched all the way down from Quebec, and was making good time, in difficult country, and the rebel forces under Gates swelled as frontiersmen and backwoodsmen flocked to his banner in the wilderness. Burgoyne's increasingly overstretched supply-lines were harried all the way, and eventually, cut off completely. Gates had the advantage of finding a stranded British force, with limited supplies and ammunition, and surrounding it far from any chance of rescue. Not _quite_ as heroic as the moniker implies. And this kind of went to Gates' head.
He actually started to believe his own hype, and that he could indeed take an army and fight the likes of Cornwallis with it. He outnumbered Burgoyne anything between 3 or 4 to 1. He would outnumber Cornwallis 2 to 1 or worse, at Camden. And he lost. He lost really bad. Cornwallis shattered the militia on his left (and their right) flank, with the British Grenadiers themselves. Cornwallis, in one afternoon, destroyed Horatio Gates' 'Army of the South', and routed it. He inflicted a thousand casualties, captured a thousand prisoners of war, and scattered twice as many besides.
It was a rapidly fought and won victory. And Gates would never be allowed to command an army again. He fled the battlefield in fear of the hangman's noose. The last most of his men saw of him, he was galloping off, with his retainers following him close behind. He would only avoid execution for perceived 'cowardice', because of his reputation as the so-called 'Hero of Saratoga'. Cornwallis literally ruined his entire career. Had the British won the war, it's easy to see how Cornwallis may have been regarded as having 'avenged Saratoga' by putting a permanent career stop to Horatio Gates. But that could not be said, due to Britain losing the war. So Camden remained an important British victory, albeit one heavily overshadowed by Yorktown, the following year.
Cornwallis nearly captured Washington over half a dozen times, but was - if there was one flaw in his strategic judgement - sometimes given the slip on dubious grounds. There'd be times when Cornwallis was literally an hour or two tops from being there to capture Washington. It might not sound like a close run thing by today's standards, but in the late 18th century, considering the vast distances he had to cover (often forcing his men to march 20-25 miles per day), it was as though he'd been right on his tail. It's curious to think how history may have unfolded, had this been the case. Sometimes he could be tricked. He'd sometimes settle down to besiege Washington, in the North, only for Washington to run away in the night, using the old, 'leave lanterns at the camp' trick.
About 2 months after the defeat at Cowpens, Cornwallis did eventually 'bump into' the rebels, just as he was trying his best to avoid, in what is known as a Meeting Engagement. Unplanned, unwanted and unsafe to all involved. The other main problem for Cornwallis, was not having a set battle plan to follow. It's all about leadership and how you respond in the heat of the moment. The American forces they marched into unwittingly, was equally as shocked, and the two were viciously fighting in the misty forest eaves at Guilford Courthouse.
Notoriously, Cornwallis made a concern-driven judgement call, about the centre of his formation. His centre lines seemed to be wavering and on the verge of collapse. Hindsight shows us this was likely just an overestimation of the scale of the situation, but Cornwallis rightly feared his line folding in the middle. Had it been broken, then he could have lost his entire army to capture. Cornwallis had to be grimly ruthless in those moments, as he did not have the luxury of hindsight; he ordered his own artillery to open fire on his own central formation, to help drive the rebels back and spoke them a bit. This came at the price of scything down many of his own men - troops whom respected him - with artillery fire. It must have been a dreadful call to make, for Cornwallis. But he was more concerned about the bigger fear of his entire army being captured. He could not afford one serious, large-scale defeat to his main column.
Without the British Legion and it's eclectic mix of light units, Cornwallis was marching relatively blind, and it's clear that had his light units survived, he would had stood a much better chance of completely _avoiding_ the surrounding dangers. He needed to be fast, to have local knowledge and to scout forward effectively. Britain could not field so many cavalry units so far overseas, so Tarleton's Green Dragoons (light cavalry dragoons) were deeply important to the war effort Cornwallis was persisting with.
Sadly, his foppish senior officer, Clinton, was insensitive to his plight and failed to render decisive support. Cornwallis later spoke of how, in no uncertain terms, he was 'defeated in detail' by circumstance. Again, even though, he never truly lost a battle (he came close at Guilford Courthouse, but _still_ took the field as the Americans fell back, spooked by his unsettling stunt with the artillery - which I'm sure he wished he never did) It was that he thought he had no choice. And hindsight can be too easy, in judging him for it. He saw the bigger picture. And ironically, Cornwallis held great sympathy for the rebel cause, not out of anti-British sentiment or any kind of rebel leanings; but because he saw the Americans as brethren to trade with. He didn't believe in it being necessary. Yet he did his duty. He lost at Yorktown, besieged for a month (and he was more of a field general, not a siege general) He still had earned great respect from friend and foe alike.
If I remember correctly, Tarleton was on the opposite shore from Yorktown bottled-up in the star-shaped redoubt there before the surrender. Tarleton wrote his memoirs on his battles in the Carolinas. (I guess this was after Mel Gibson stabbed him at Yorktown;😂If they still exist they would be an interesting read.
Also making Tarleton a really, really, bad guy helped cement the legend of the ‘Swamp Fox’, Francis Marion. A kind of hero Americans really could admire and Disney could hype. Leslie Nielsen’s dry portrayal of him must have helped him with his straight-man lines in the “Airplane” and “Naked Gun” movies.
Argh! I think I lost all credibility with you when I mentioned Disney.
@@brucec9735 Yes that is correct. He was on the Northern shore. I meant to mention that. Basically, he was partly there because he was important in keeping a foothold on the North shore, but he wasn't as necessary inside the main fortifications directly under Lord General Cornwallis and Lieutenant-General O'Hara, on the Southern shore.
That is absolutely correct what you say. But my point was that Tarleton was glad to be on that side because if he surrendered to the French, he stood a much better chance of surviving. The Americans wanted to execute him, but it would not have been approved for him to be executed after the fact. The French knew less about the man and although they may have heard rumour of his (alleged) atrocities, they would hardly have cared (the French Royalists did far worse things than the even alleged things that Tarleton was accused of)
@@brucec9735 P. S. - Another bit of historical trivia is that the British sank blockships in the waters around the harbour, to make it harder for French ships to come in and closely bombard them. They still did bombard them at range though. There are wrecks in the coastal waters of Virginia which attest to this.
However, the cost-effectiveness of sacrificing those ships, was dubious. If it were up to me, I'd have just kept them afloat and have them as gun batteries for as long as they could. I think it was deemed de Grasse would just sink them anyway.
The masts of some of the ships deliberately scuttled, were sticking out of the coastal waters nearshore. Had Cornwallis returned to New York with his ~7,700 remaining troops, the combined force there could have been, between Cornwallis and Clinton's forces, about 15,000-17,000 men all told. Even before the potential for reinforcement. But with Cornwallis captured, the writing was on the wall.
It wasn't really that the British couldn't come back with more troops. It was that it would have been incredibly inexpedient in Parliament to try and recoup such a loss. And on his honour, after capture, Cornwallis would not be allowed to return to the war. Cornwallis was the best hope the British had of truly campaigning to any kind of victory, short-lived or not. It wasn't that there weren't plenty of other British generals, or other entire British regiments and army sized forces still out there.
But Britain had to keep about half the British Army in Britain at all times, due to the ever present danger of the Franco-Spanish allies invading (see Treaty of Aranjuez 1779, which stipulated greater Franco-Spanish military cooperation against Britain specifically, and literal invasion plans to attack Southern England, capture the Isle of Wight and then use it as a springboard to conquer Portsmouth and then London itself etc; never happened, and the Royal Navy most of all ensured that) All the same, it had to be kept in mind. Britain just couldn't send it's true strength all at once to the Americas.
Besides which, British Parliament and general public opinion was hugely anti-war. If you want some idea of this in a more modern example of distaste and growing disdain for the war, see the Vietnam War (although I'd never truly compare the American War of Independence to the Vietnam War, which is a comparison often made unfavourably for the British, but it isn't really true) The one way in which it is very comparable, is that the public and political will to continue funding it, was deteriorating rapidly. If Hollywood were to be believed, the British were all speaking with one voice and avidly anti-rebel.
The truth was that, a whole lot of Britons had simply, zero opinion on the matter, at best, and at worst, disliked the war, because it was simply causing their taxes to rise steeply. The average British farmer wouldn't really care about the war across the ocean. Nor would the average British miner or factory worker. It was just another reason for their taxes going up. And British taxpayers were paying vastly more than the Bostonians ever did, for example.
The war had become a huge controversy in Parliament. Most politicians didn't want it, most British people didn't care. And the British Army was underfunded, overstretched and asked to do far too much over too much ground. The King and the Prime Minister both wanted a major expansion to the Royal Navy.
The leader of the Board of the Navy needed to explain to King George III that it would take 5 years to build the 100 new ships of the line which he wanted - and that would require a staggering amount of seasoned and worked English and Swedish Oak, and the time required to season. It would also need a great deal of copper for their new-fangled hull plating ('copper sheathing')
A single typical ship of the line (3rd rates made the backbone of the Royal Navy, not the 1st rates, of which there were far fewer; there were hundreds of 3rd rates of many classes and generations of design, operating at any one time in that span of wartime, but there were about 9 1st rates, by comparison; and a lot of them were rather old) may require over 1,500 Oak and Teak trees, and other trees for some fixtures and woodwork. This could rise to over 2,000, and even as many as a few thousand for the biggest. Britain had many 6th to 2nd rates, and a handful of 1st rates. The biggest British capital ships were rarely ever seen West of the NE waters of the North Atlantic, around Britain.
The head of the Navy Board in Britain, needed to come up with another way to improve Britain's naval forces, in a much shorter time, and the solution was the copper-sheath the navy. _Wholesale_ that is. One mine in Wales, Parys Mountain, provided all/nearly all of Britain's copper. Vast quantities were mined and sent straight to the Royal Navy's shipyards at places like Chatham. Various shipbuilders took contracts, and the expensive copper sheathing of the hulls, for superior streamlining and anti-barnacle/seaweed/other parasite hull deterioration, made them much better handling vessels and swifter, cutting through the seawater in a more hydrodynamic manner.
This was an immensely expensive feat which only Britain could have even tried to do at that time. It was a British invention. They'd been testing various concepts since 1709 technically (albeit more seriously, in earnest, since the 1760's; 1765 especially) However, the scale of the task, while a lesser one than building 100 new warships from the keel up (which Britain was _also_ doing at the same time, make no mistake) was still a massive one. They did it fleet by fleet, ship by ship. And the first fleet to be fully-kitted out with copper plated hulls, was that of Admiral Sir George Rodney, whom would deploy his agile, copper-sheathed ships at the Battle of the Saintes, 1782.
This battle barred the ascendant French Navy, following it's strategically devastating impact on the Southern Theatre by having blocked off Cornwallis' retreat route and having temporarily forced young Admiral Thomas Graves back to New York harbour, from getting into the Caribbean and causing a lot of damage. The British had suffered badly in the Great Hurricane of 1780 in the Caribbean (which killed tens of thousands of people across the Caribbean, not just the hundreds/thousands of British it killed) And 1780 wasn't the only year hurricanes ravaged the Caribbean.
Admiral Rodney wasn't sent there with a newly upgraded fleet, just because of stopping the French (though that was an equally important reason) It was just as much, about regrouping in a more serious way, with a major showing of British naval strength in the region, because of the severe damage incurred by the hurricanes. Entire RN warships were lost with all hands in the hurricanes, like HMS _Northumberland_ which was lost with no survivors.
The hurricanes killed more British sailors than the French or the Americans ever did. And they had to do something about it. The hurricanes are often forgotten, but they did immense damage. Entire towns were completely flattened. Wind speeds reached speeds which are claimed to have been the fastest ever recorded in the region. Hundreds of miles per hour, absolutely annihilating sailing ships and ramshackle Caribbean coastal shacks and houses. The water surges flooded the land, and swept entire villages away. Many were simply drowned, or washed out to sea.
Buoyed by their victories, the French were thinking they could spill over into Caribbean and cause further reverses to the British there. This is where the Royal Navy put it's foot down. The Comte (Admiral) de Grasse, noted, of the Battle of the Saintes 1782, '(I) have never seen such agile ships'. He was severely defeated and captured there. Britain reasserted it's naval might. However, this was too late for Cornwallis.
It may be imagined that had the British been a little faster issuing Rodney his fleet's copper-sheathing, they might have been fighting de Grasse outside Yorktown instead, and driving him to the shore, where many of his ships would have run aground and been burnt by the British troops under Cornwallis, or Rodney's Royal Marines. Others would have hit the masts of the blockships and become stuck - or even holed - by them. Caught between Cornwallis' guns on land and Rodney's copper-sheathed fleet, de Grasse would have been defeated of course. And then Rodney could have even been joined by young Admiral Graves' fleet regrouping in New York after the Battle of the Chesapeake Bay.
Graves had been unlucky enough to be jumped effectively, by de Grasse with the newly-built French Royalist battle fleet that outgunned Graves' fleet of generally middling sized British ships e.g. 5th rates and 4th rates being more common.
However, the often forgotten part, is that after Graves decided to break off, and return to port for repairs, after fighting in line with de Grasse's more powerful fleet, for some 4 hours, the truth is that Graves fully-intended to go out and fight de Grasse again. He was mustering his repaired fleet with some reinforcements having arrived from outside New York (not sure, I think at least a few more ships from Halifax if I remember correctly; otherwise directly from England; otherwise from patrol units that weren't available for the Battle of Chesapeake, which were by then available to rejoin Graves' fleet again)
I have always thought that the Revolution was England's 18th century Vietnam. Yes, they did eventually lose, due to multiple factors, but that does not mean that they didn't learn. If you look at just a few years later in the War of 1812 and even the Peninsular Campaign, the British were heavily adapted. There were large sized units of riflemen, more skirmishers and even more terrain-adapted techniques. If anything, the Revolution shook the British out of lethargy and into modernity. This is why Wellington so soundly trounced the French at Salamanca and eventually, Waterloo. The British in this age sometimes were hidebound, but when they learned, they learned FAST.
well they also had the very step learning curve of 1793/95 and 1799 which were complete disasters for the british '
they were defeated in 1793 by a numerically inferior army that was at times little more than a rabble but that was far more aggressive. also the british took a very long time to adapt a decent logistics system it was not until the 1860s after the mess of the crimean war that they had an effective logistics branch. it was very telling in 1793 when they were sent into combat unprepared for the appalling winter condtions and many soldiers literally starved or froze to death.
also the 1793-95 low countries campaign was a much better exmaple of a revolutionary army adtpting and defeating older more professional armies than the american revolution.
of course the french revolutionary army was a whole different kettle of fish to the american rebels, much more zeal and almost insane commitment to a cause and the fact that commanders who lost battles also tended to end up minus their heads shortly afterwards.
wellington learnt alot in india as well where he was able to develop techniques and gain experience fighting various opponents.
also it is debatable weather he would have succeeded had napoleon been in spain instead of invading russia. this was when napoleon was at his high point before russia when his grande armee was at its largest size and had not been mauled by battles like boridino or the russian winter. if napoleon had vs wellington then i think the outcome probably would have been very different to waterloo.
at waterloo napoleon had less soliders and far less veterans, plus a lot of hastily raised units which were not fully trained, he was physically exhausted and in ill health he was outnumbered and the weather was not in his favour. wellington on the other hand had a lot of veterans and had well trained prussian and dutch/belgian and hanoverian forces avaliable. plus even if he lost napoleon would still have had to face the main prussian, austrian and russian armies so he was no matter the outcome of waterloo stuffed.
@@poil8351… Arguably, Napoleon’s weaknesses showed themselves in the Peninsular.
He did not choose and mentor high-quality commanders to serve in those independent commands.
He chose to fight on two fronts ….
He frequently ignored information regarding the conditions and challenges faced by his Marshals, and issued detailed orders that were weeks out of date by the time they arrived.
The same weaknesses led to his defeat at Waterloo.
Grouchy and Ney were his choices and his responsibility.
He chose to divide his forces in an attempt to defeat two armies simultaneously.
He chose to attack Wellington at Waterloo, regardless of the conditions and having dismissed reports by his own officers regarding the quality of the troops facing him.
Napoleon’s failure in the Peninsular was not merely his own absence. He neither allocated sufficient men to hold down an entire nation that was predisposed to fight, nor supported them adequately.
@@peterwebb8732 maybe but i would agruge that his weaknesses in the peninsula war were more to do with an over fixation on russia. as for his marshalls were i think he fell into usual trap of family nepotism and promoted his family members to positions they were unsuited such as murat. i also think he wanted to keep his marshalls from ever being able to stage a coup against him so he would send the less competent to fight in the peninsular and kept better officers under his thumb where they were easier to watch and keep under control.
also i think napoelon suffered the same problem he did with his navy assuming that local conditions would stay the same. these issues directly led to in some ways trafalgar. the french only sailed because napoleon insisted they do so by certain date.
the reason he had nowhere near enough troops he took large numbers out of the peninsular to fight in russia.which was kind of crazy.
Bollix you never won the war of independence, the British had bigger fish to fry ,like the French,
The British had just been here in the French and Indian War. They knew how to fight. They had learned the same Indian Tactics as the colonists! I would hazard to guess that the school teachers did not like teaching military matters. I have heard teachers say this when beginning the Revolutionary War or the Civil War. I can count on one hand the number of times any military leader was ever mentioned in class other than Washington and Nathan Hale and Benedict Arnold. And Hale and Arnold only because I live in Connecticut. Putnam and Ethan Allen were mentioned in fifth grade. And most teachers do not understand that the reasoning behind the line was to cover as much ground as possible. If you had 3 men firing a flint lock musket 2 would probably fail!
In many ways, the Continental forces only became serious opponents when they adapted to European tactics!
It's almost amusing that someone would claim that the British armed forces of that period were set in their ways and traditions to the point of folly.
The armed forces of the Union which was in the process of becoming the largest empire in history, during an era marked by innovation and change at a pace not exceeded until the following centuries.
The Union who was able to defeat Napoleon.
It's not that funny however. Especially since I've met fellow English people who hold this view and are even so misinformed as to claim that a certain Austrian corporal instigated the Great War for example.
This is why it’s so important to talk about history accurately, otherwise misinformation seeps into every crevice it can find.
@@TheFarOffStation Quite so.
I've never thought the British were dumb. On the contrary, the British were highly trained and militarily superior compared to our rag tag American army. This fact makes our victory over the British all the more remarkable and worthy to be proud of.
The rebel army was not as rag take as we’d like to think, Massachusetts militias removed copious amounts of training in the months leading up to open rebellion. But I suppose when you compare that too the regular British Army it can appear rather rag tag.
As someone educated outside of the US, it's kinda funny how inaccurate this subject is taught. If the British army were so bad, how did that tiny island forge the largest empire the world has ever seen?
Clearly by being dumb.
I heard the British could have blockaded all of the ports and starved the colonists in to submission but this was seen as inhuman and was not undertaken. There we’re sensitivities in the UK at this time a sizeable number of liberal thinkers who supported the colonists position for political reform, no legislation without representation etc This was a process which eventually led to a more democratic system in the UK
I was kinda' bored as your video wound up, but then you hit the ball out of the park in your closing remarks. Bravo!
Thank you for the kind words. You have to hit them hard with the closing argument!
There was no real stomach in Britain for the war in America.
A) The British public and parliament were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of the British army fighting against what were then British people.
B) Fighting the French was seen as the priority.
C) With spectacular shortsightedness, the British considered the West Indies to be financially more important.
The Far Off Station people really think we had the advantage over the British Army when they had the superior military, superior weapons, better experienced commanders, superior tactics and strategies and know their allies much more well than we did during the American War Of Independence. In fact it's very clear that we were losing the battle and that we only won because of the whigs being elected in British Parliament. So all of this talk of us calling the Brits foolish and stupid was much more of propaganda to make us look like we were the better fighting force when it was vice versa with the British.
Everyone has a motive for why they make things suit them, just another example in the long long book.
You are missing a much larger point regarding the Revolutionary War. For the Colonials to win the war all they had to do was keep up the fight until the Brits got tired of the casualties and financial cost of the war. Which is exactly what happened. The British won most of the battles. And Often decisively. But for the British to win the war they would essentially have to eradicate the Rebels and control and pacify key areas. The Brits had the much harder task and they failed in their mission. And more Americans should be grateful for the tremendous help the colonists received from France. Without French help we’d still be drinking afternoon tea instead of coffee or Coca Cola. We’d be very similar to Canada. Ironically the Americans role was completely reversed in the Vietnam War. The NVA and Viet Cong received outside aid from Red China and the Soviet Union. The Americans won every significant battle but ultimately decided that the casualties and cost weren’t worth it. Just like the British some 200 years before.
Whilst true, that wasn't the topic addressed in this video. The focus of this was purely on army evolution.
Canadians have afternoon tea??
@@Aaron-lr1diOnly a rapidly dwindling band of nostalgically diehard elderly anglophiles in Victoria BC.
Insurgents,rebbels etc dont have to win. They Just have to Not loose. Look at Vietnam for reffernce. Or rhodesia.
@@vinz4066 Exactly so. The NVA and the VC never militarily defeated the invading Americans. But, with some Soviet matériel support (notably anti- aircraft missiles) and also apparently with a significant contingent of imported labourers from the PRC to replace the large number of North Vietnamese workers fighting in the south, they held on long enough for a sufficiently large number of American civilians to grow weary of and disillusioned by the war: which politically forced a US withdrawal. Some time after that political defeat, the NVA was able to decisively militarily defeat the increasingly disheartened troops of the southern US puppet régime.
Thank you for 'myth busting'. Keep up the good work!
Thank you for the kind words! Cheers!
The return of Jonathan the Great
Praise Him
Sorry for leaving you all for so long!
If the British Army had been incompetent they wouldn't have defeated Napoleon in Spain and Waterloo. They wouldn't have burned down Washington during the war of 1812 either.
He’s talking about the Revolutionary War. Burning of the White House proves nothing in this case since the Americans sacked York the prior year, and also burned other towns like Newark (NOTL). The burning of the White House is viewed as some great achievement, though really it didn’t do much, as after it the British would be defeated at Baltimore and would withdraw. Waterloo also wasn’t just the British.
Years ago it made no sense to me as a child that simply put the numbers of soldiers of one army being almost three times the size of the eventual winner seemed ridiculous.It Doesn’t take account of so many other factors, supply lines, local support, equipment, training , tactics, leadership, individual mentality of soldiers, moral position, belief in a cause, experience, luck, timing, high ground position, artillery, cavalry, health, fitness all go towards the outcome.
Excellent video. Subscribed upon watching it.
Cheers mate! Thanks for stopping by!
I must have had a great education..I know I did...I'm almost 70s years old and we knew the British weren't stupid, we knew they were overtaxed by having to fight other countries, OTOH, the British had plenty of examples of not knowing how to fight the Indians, French, or Americans. But guess what! We had our Custers as well. I spent a lot of time around people from the UK, both in college and the military, and they have some odd ideas as well.
Happy to hear that you had a good education! That's always fantastic. I step to an excellent society!
@@TheFarOffStation I was lucky enough to have not one, but two, teachers who were from the UK when I was in elementary school. Different perspectives always make learning more fun.
@@TheFarOffStation Your attention to detail on your uniforms is amazing. I've often wondered what it must of have been like standing in formation wearing all those clothes on a 100F day. I know from experience that wearing body armor and chemical suits in even temperate weather can be terrible.
Thank you! The whole thing is made of period quality materials using period techniques. It really all helps create a refined impression. It certainly does get warm, but because it is made of natural fibers it breaths extraordinarily well!
The British won most of the battles but lost the war. Not because of the Colonial forces, though. This war was won by the French - take a look at contemporary paintings and count the white coats. They also stationed a superior naval force which made it almost impossible for the Royal Navy to operate at all. I'm not knocking the courage and tactics of the Colonial forces, but they were not the overwhelming, highly skilled soldiers shown by Hollywood. Read your history and honour properly the forces of ALL sides who fought in that war. Doing less than this dishonours those who fought.
If tactics were the reasons that the Americans won Washington would have won more than two battles.
That’s right, will to fight and American allies played a much greater role.
Sir Thomas Moore formed the British light infantry regiments, like the 95th Rifles, from lesson's learned in the American War of Independence.
The distinguished officer you write of is Sir John Moore, who eventually led the British army in Spain and died at the moment of victory over the French at Corunna in 1809.
@@christopherquinn5899 Thanks, I am a life long Napoleonics table top gamer, so yes I am familiar with La Corunna.🙂 I may have even played the battle once or twice.
@@thomasmain5986 Perhaps you automatically applied the Christian name Thomas to Moore, recalling the sainted Sir Thomas More. Easily done.
@@christopherquinn5899 Yes well there was a statue of Thomas More at my old school. So my apologies to Sir John Moore. And a shout out to Sir Kenneth Douglas who also co-founded the light division.
@@thomasmain5986 🙂
The AWI at the time was Britains Vietnam, the war was very unpopular with the British people. At the time the British had relatives on both sides fighting against each other. That made no sense to anybody, much better and cheaper to concede, negotiate trading routes and business than to risk revolution in the UK. The French were promised trade with the newly founded US, Britain got all of the trade as part of the deal, France got the revolution. 😂. I love British and American history. Thanks and keep it coming.
Wish I learned more about the American Revolution during my school's history class (Canadian 7th grade) we were only taught about 1500s-1700s Canadian colonies and such. Our unit somewhat delved into the revolution by explaining the Quebec Act of 1774, American failed invasion of Canada, etc. And a year later I learned the new class of grade 7's were learning about the Revolutionary War AND War of 1812, both of which I had to learn on my own time finding books at the library and such.
I’ve never heard the idea that Britain was dumb, I was taught that Britain was the number 1 empire and then we beat them
Not at the time, they weren’t.
Several European nations had much more powerful armies and equal imperial territory. The British reputation was mostly established by superior leadership (Marlborough, Nelson, Wellington, etc) modernisation (they led the Industrial Revolution) , and a determination to fund and build the best Navy in the world, and even that was not firmly established until Trafalgar.
Most of the British Empire was acquired after the Americans left it.
I do wish people would stop repeating the myth that Britain was a “superpower” in the modern sense.
Britain’s imperial century hasn’t yet begun, but they’re very much on the rise and a top contender. Throughout the 1770s they cement their place on the subcontinent.