'Course Cromwell got there first, forty years earlier.
And as to ‘largely noviolent’, I imagine the Irish at least would beg to differ 
:
- Tamerlane
A-ha, but it wasn’t called a revolution; it was a “civil war.” I don’t think the term “revolution” existed - at least in the political, rather than Euclidian sense - at all prior to 1689.
Interesting. I wasn’t aware of that.
From this BBC webpage:
That’ll teach us to kick the French and Spanish out. :rolleyes:
/gross generalisation
Thanks for telling him. I felt bad being the whoosher.
We here in the USA won that war, so we can call it whatever the heck we want to! 
Welcome, Najee! I’m guessing that you are not from the USA or the UK. May I ask where you are from? And are you still in school, or if not, what do you do most of the time?
I’m asking, because I’m curious as to whether this is a question that would not be broadly known where you are from. Most little children in the US and the UK would know it, but that’s because we live here - it’s part of our basic culture.
In case you wanted to know the answer to a slightly different question, the UK has not had any *official * (or legal) influence in the United States since the end of our War of Independence, in the late 1700s. Since the US then had another war with the UK in 1812 (over trade, territory, and jurisdictional issues), I think it’s safe to say that while the US was significantly influenced by its English Heritage, it was truly not ruled in any way by the UK. As the years passed and the US became larger, wealthier, and more powerful, some people may have said the the US ruled the UK, but I don’t believe this to be the case either. The influence and alliance in both directions is significant, and it would, for example, be highly unlikely for one of the two nations to be attacked without the other coming to its defense. But it is truly influence and alliance, not actual power.
I’m guessing he knows that “England” and “America” are not the same, but he is not familiar with the formal acronyms UK and USA.
Scratch that, just re-read the OP.
I always assumed that “revolution” in the sense of the “American revolution” was based on the word “revolt” rather than the word “revolve.”
I can sort of see how the confusion arose in the OP. With the U.K. and U.S.A. reacting to global events in the same way all the time (maybe not all the time, but on major issues at least) I can see how it would be possible to be under the impression that the two countries were being led by the same person. Which you could argue they are, both are being led by Bush and Blair is just Bush’s representative in the U.K…
Did you have a fag at Eton?
I used the same term the OP used, in an attempt to point out that Colonial America had more than one country claiming ownership of the vast amounts of land. I know there were more countries involved, and I said so. My links even provide a way to find this out. You must admit, that our schools (not including good colleges) focus mainly on those three countries when teaching history.
Of course not. Are India and Pakistan the same? Iran and Iraq? Russia and Ukraine?
Najee_online–please post a reply.
We’d all be happy to hear from you. 
TIC QUESTION: What do you mean by “good Mexican?”
TIC?
I mean Mexican food that actually tastes good.
Sorry to confuse, Zee_Cee. You may not have got the newsflash: Mal is a Brit, and I was bemoaning the unwisdom of England in kicking out the other two countries, only to get our own asses booted out of the Colonies in our turn. A historical deconstruction of this poor witticism is not necessary
Yes, UK and USA ‘are’ is the same. As it’s mostly the same language we speak. The word ‘are’ is indeed the same in both countries.
I think perhaps the justification for calling the American War of Independence a revolution is the idea that the colonies didn’t just form a new independent United Kingdom of America separate from the United Kingdom of Great Britain (electing George Washington as King George I, or inviting in some unemployed German princeling to serve as king); but instead adopted a new, republican form of government. Proclaiming that one is fighting on behalf of the ideals that “…[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” goes a bit beyond one country or group of provinces simply breaking away from the control of the central authority.