First, please bear with my ignorance of the founding history of the U.S.A.
When the peoples of the original colonies which later became the U.S.A.:
Was their revolution against England only or against the U.K. (if there was already an U.K. – see, I said I was ignorant)?
Considering that the mother country had been at that time already very experienced for hundreds of years in the knowledge, skill, art, and engagements in wars, winning a good number also, what are the critically vital factors enabling the colonialists to defeat her?
Did the military of the mother country surrender to the colonialists, or they got tired and went home?
Considering – I take it for granted – that the mother country then and even commensurately more than now, possessed enormous resources for making war, why did she give up continuing indefinitely to beat the colonialists in their revolution?
Would you agree with me, that the mother country could have fought indefinitely and eventually certainly beat the colonialists, by repeatedly sending more men, war materiel and war equipment against them to fight them?
Did the mother country finally suffer a very serious and overwhelming case of conscience or humane feeling for the colonialists?
Last question, could Iraq have tired out the US/UK partnership if they should still continue to wage resistance in any manner they could manage against the US/UK partnership to the last man?
Thanks for any enlightenment anyone here knowledgeable can give me.
Susma Rio Sep
I’ll try a couple of short answers to the easy questions first:
*1. Was their revolution against England only or against the U.K. *
It was the UK (although there has been a little further expansion of that entity since 1776).
2. Considering that the mother country had been at that time already very experienced for hundreds of years in the knowledge, skill, art, and engagements in wars, winning a good number also, what are the critically vital factors enabling the colonialists to defeat her?
The British were fighting several other wars at the same time, so couldn’t devote all military resources to the American war. Also, the colonial people had some assistance from Britain’s other enemies, notably France.
It’s debatable how much the British really wanted to keep the American colonies, and it’s likely that the British government didn’t consider the war worth the expense of fighting longer than they did.
I doubt it, if only because of the gross disparity in relative technology. The difference between the Iraqi forces and the Coalition was even more profound than the difference between the Viet Cong/NVA and the United States in the late 1960s-early 1970s, if only because of the advent of relatively effective long-range guided ordnance, or cruise missiles. Knocking out aircraft is one thing: It’s expensive to replace a trained pilot and his F-16, plus there are repercussions on the home front. But a Tomahawk cruise missile, which is much smaller and lower-flying than any combat aircraft, is fairly cheap and, sometimes, nearly as effective as a traditional air strike.
So cruise missiles and long-range air-to-air missiles give the Coaltion absolute control of the airspace from the first moment of combat. Air superiority is the main factor in modern warfare.
Secondly, the Coalition has effective tank units and is going to deploy them in prime country for tank battles: open desert. A main battle tank likes one thing more than anything else, and that is open country. With open country, a tank commander can control, with his artillery and his ability to request air strikes, nearly all he can see, night and day. A front line composed of tanks can sweep through open desert like a storm, quickly destroying the front lines of any resistance force, especially a force as anemic as the one Iraq has. Our tanks own the ground as surely as our aircraft own the skies.
Thirdly, Saddam is hardly a popular figure in his own country. Unlike Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler or even Ho Chi Minh, he is unable to command a cult of personality around himself. Even if we give him reasonably dedicated regulars, we cannot assume that he’ll have anything resembing the Viet Cong or similar guerrilla forces to operate behind enemy lines. Once we defeat the regular army’s command, intelligence, and control, we’ve defeated the only force Saddam can rely on.
So, no, I don’t see how Saddam’s regime could have possibly survived in any reasonable scenario. Even assuming that what actually happened was a happy fluke, we would have beaten him down rather effectively in any case.
Well… by and large, England. Granted, Americans were more than willing to shoot at anyone that landed whether they were English, Scottish, Irish, or German. But it was an English King and an English Parliment in an English capitol that our political ancestor’s problem. England has always been the heart of the UK - which was rarely united save through force.
First, the colonists also were often experienced fighters, and not uncommonly had skill with firearms, woods lore, and a knowledge of basic European and American Indian fighting styles. Not everyone knew all this, but there was a core of such men. America at that time was also well built for a guerrilla campaign, and several units maintained such resistance throughout the war even if they could not attatch themselves to a larger army.
More internationally, the British could not adequately focus, there were serious troubles in France, who helped supply the colonists, and the British were lacking in tactics.
A bit of both. American soldiers and French ships bottled a huge British force at Yorktown, whihc proved to be the final blow to the British effort. But the British also were tired or the fruitless war and simply didn’t want to fight it anymore after that. Still, towards the end they were handed major defeats. The british were driven out; it was not a purely voluntary choice.
Initially, they simply couldn’t afford it. Plus, the Colonies weren’t going to be making money, but rather draining it for years, and the whole point of having colonies was to grow your economy. If they couldn’t have that, there was little point in having the Colonies.
Also, the British did try to retake the Colonies in the war of 1812. As it was, they lost after some indeterminate fighting. yet it was clear that subjugating American would take far more resources that they could afford to spare, and for very little gain. In any event, the British had cause to thank that they’d ended the war, as Andrew Jackson dealt the british a nasty defeat just before news of the armistice reached America.
No. Doing so could have been suicidal. France was hungrily watchig for any sign of weakness across the channel. Britain would have had to severely strip their capacity in some fashion or another, probably including taking soldiers out of their other territorial possessions. France would have snapped them up in a heartbeat, which England could ill afford. Plus, the British were already shouldering a mountain of debt, and still could not bring the wily Colonists to bay.
Not to my knowledge. Any feeligns of brotherhood seem to have been shoved under the carpet. It was a very practical era in politics.
Another one for the historians: I do not think the American colonies were all that valuable to the British. Take the example of New York (which the British acquired from the Dutch-in exchange for the colony of Surinam. The Dutch felt they got a great deal! Again, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase, the French considered that the tiny colony of haiti was worth more to them than the huge Louisiana territory!
So, at the time of the Revolutionary War, most of N. America was trackless wilderness-of limited value, and expensive to protect!
The British got tired of holding on, and the taxes necessitated by the war made continued conflict impossible.
Everton mate, we must stop meeting in “War of Independence” threads
6. Did the mother country finally suffer a very serious and overwhelming case of conscience or humane feeling for the colonialists?
public opinion/feeling here in britain was mixed. Whilst obviously people were understandibly pissed off at the colonists for rebelling (And particularly for siding with the hated French), there was a general appreciation that they did, in some areas, have a point.
The fact that there was some sympathy for the colonists, as well as the ongoing need to deal with “more important things” (i.e. France) led to a great deal of war weariness with the whole American debacle very quickly.
I guess if you want a VERY basic comparison of feeling you could probably think of it as “Britain’s Vietnam”.
Its worth remembering as well that the war kicked off as a rebellion/protest for more representation in British Government rather than a war of independence.
it was only later after a few twists, turns, mistakes by the British and manipulations of some of the more extreme-viewed colonists that it became the second one.
Joe Average on the British streets didn’t really have any problem with the first one but was probably a bit more concerned at the thought of the second.
I think Kipling (Writing much later in 1911) probably summed up the feelings of the time and the war weariness pretty well:
oh and…
<slight hijack to put the british view on 1812 across>
Erm…you guys started it! You declared war on us then invaded the Canadian territories, British forces kicked you out and then counter-invaded but were ordered not to hold any territory - hence why they withdrew from Washington after burning it.
If we’d been serious about it then by 1814 you’d have been facing:
The Duke of Wellington - possibly the greatest military commander this country ever produced
The entire Peninsular Army he created - possibly the greatest army this country ever produced.
I’ll admit we got our arses kicked at New Orleans right at the end, but up until then we had you pretty pressed - your militia were no match for the British regulars (see the battle of Bladensburg for details).
And don’t make me bring up the Washington burning thing again
Spot on there - precisely why Britain didn’t want the colonies back and hadn’t been prepared to start a war over them. Again - you attacked us.
Plus things in france were, again, looking dodgy - the King was unpopular and people were starting to say how wonderful it would be to have America’s old ally Napoleon back in power again.
true - it was a nasty defeat in that we lost 2000 men, but the war finished before the majority of Wellington’s battle-hardened Peninsular army could be shipped over in any numbers (although a few had started to appear on the scene).
As it turned out this was a good thing, since not long after Napoleon did return and without Wellington and what remained of the Peninsular Army the battle of Waterloo would never have been fought, the British and Prussians would not have defeated the resurgent Napoleon and continental Europe would possibly have looked a lot different today…
So it all worked out for the best in the end but we still would have kicked your arses if we’d had to
A Iriish man of my acquaintance tells me that they don’t teach about the War of 1812 in British or Irish schools; he’d never heard of it until he came to the U.S.
Thats right - but its not out of any effort to hide or avoid the war - if we were worried about looking bad then British colonialism and Indian independence wouldn’t feature either.
Its simply a matter of importance and timing.
If you had to cover one early 19th century “war” which would you cover:
what was essentially a glorified border skirmish with America
Although there is one nit worth picking here: it was Great Britain, not England or the U.K., who were the opposition in the American Revolution. The crowns and parliaments of England and Scotland were united in 1707; the U.K. resulted from the union of Great Britain with Ireland in 1800 (a long sad story, BTW). So in the period of 1776-83, the country in question that was ruled by George III and against whom the Continental Congress and its Army revolted was the Kingdom of Great Britain.
says Garius frantically checking to make sure he said “Britain” in his stupidly long post
out of interest, what happened to the suggestion that we should have a GQ sticky explaining the differences between Great Britain, the United Kingdom and England? Did it die a death?
What revisionist history? The initial declaration of hostility was made by the USA against the United Kingdom. There was no UK invasion of US territory until the USA had declared war. Even then, it was not an easy effort to push “Mr. Madison’s War” through Congress.
The underlying issues for the USA were twofold:
1: UK naval harassment of US merchant shipping, including kidnapping of US sailors.
2: The UK consistently and egregiously refused to honor its treaty obligations to leave forts that were ceded to the USA under the Treaty of Paris–a treaty that HAD BEEN SIGNED AND PROPERLY SO by the representatives of the Crown.
There was also some sentiment of conquering Canada, which actually was not original to the USA. New England had had eyes on Canada since the late 1600s and was unhappy that they got no territory from the French and Indian War.
However, there was no serious attempt on the part of the UK to “reconquer” the USA, and even UK demands at the height of their success during the war did not extend into the territory of states, proper.
At the end of the fight, the Treaty of Ghent set matters back to where they started.
However, the agreements of 1815 and 1818 began to seriously change relationships.
What revisionist history? The initial declaration of hostility was made by the USA against the United Kingdom. There was no UK invasion of US territory until the USA had declared war. Even then, it was not an easy effort to push “Mr. Madison’s War” through Congress.
The underlying issues for the USA were twofold:
1: UK naval harassment of US merchant shipping, including kidnapping of US sailors.
2: The UK consistently and egregiously refused to honor its treaty obligations to leave forts that were ceded to the USA under the Treaty of Paris–a treaty that HAD BEEN SIGNED AND PROPERLY SO by the representatives of the Crown.
There was also some sentiment of conquering Canada, which actually was not original to the USA. New England had had eyes on Canada since the late 1600s and was unhappy that they got no territory from the French and Indian War.
However, there was no serious attempt on the part of the UK to “reconquer” the USA, and even UK demands at the height of their success during the war did not extend into the territory of states, proper.
At the end of the fight, the Treaty of Ghent set matters back to where they started.
However, the agreements of 1815 and 1818 began to seriously change relationships.
