I’ve been thinking a little bit about the foreign help, mainly French, that the US received during the Revolution. The arrival of the Marquis de La Fayette probably provided the biggest immediate morale boost, but I think that Baron von Steuben contributed most to the war’s success.
On the other hand, the efforts of the French Navy should not go unnoticed.
While I think Marquis de La Fayette was important too, I went with Baron von Stuben. He taught the troops to fight in a way that proved to be really advantagious. Plus he helped them standardize things like camp layouts and sanitation, and those methods were used for over a century because they were useful and logical.
The Comte de Vergennes. The people listed in the poll may have helped the colonies tactically. But Vergennes was the French foreign minister - he provided strategic aid to the revolutionaries without ever setting foot in America.
Frederick North.
I vote for Pitt the Elder, and the other members of British parliament who didn’t take immediate, severe measures to counter unrest in America.
the kings Louis XVI of France and Charles III of Spain. They bankrolled the war.
I agree with Elfkin and vote for Von Steuben. He had a lasting effect on the army as well as an immediate one. He gave the Revolutionary Army just enough European discipline and imposed just enough order and logistics to beat the Redcoats at their own game.
I would say Stuben and Rochambeau as a tie. The first for making the Americans more of an army and the second for providing the second army to ensure success.
No one would consider King George III as a possibility?
De Grasse and Rochambeau were the commanding officers of 1000s without whom the Yorktown surrender would not have taken place. I do not rank drillmaster von Steuben in their class because they commanded many more men, and Rochambeau, at least, was influential in strategy- it was he who first suggested the march south to try to bag Cornwallis at Yorktown. For that reason I will go with Rochambeau.
I get your point but ------- Steuben created a way for the Americans to be commanded. Without that key step the French may have found themselves without American forces to support. Assuming the Revolution hadn’t ended before then in a loss for our side.
I’m inclined to vote for DeGrasse. Without him, Cornwallis’ army would have just sailed away (or never been in danger to begin with, if there was no French army there).
What’s amazing is that was almost the only real significant naval defeat of the British fleet over a span of a couple centuries.
Stuben was instrumental in turning the colonists into an army, but DeGrasse’s defeating the British navy won the war.
Louis XVI. Everything France did was with his blessing.
George was pretty much a figurehead. North ran things.
It’s not quite in the spirit of the OP, but it’s an interesting answer. Generally, there’s a big gray area where there is enough oppression to spark protests but not enough to start or sustain a revolution. If there had been more concessions from the King (e.g. representation in Parliament for the colonies, equal taxation, etc.), it’s likely that there would not have been enough popular support for the revolution. Sure, some people would have been unhappy living under a King as opposed to a republic, but the unhappiness wouldn’t be enough to grab a gun and start shooting redcoats. That stuff’s dangerous if you lose! The hardcore Patriots might have sparked a few Ferguson-like local revolts, but they would peter out after a few weeks and wouldn’t reach the critical mass necessary for a real popular revolution.
What’s more, DeGrasse was exceeding his orders, or at least bending them, in going so far from France’s Caribbean possessions while the whereabouts of a British fleet that might threaten them was unknown. And he mortgaged his own possessions in France (and took up a subscription among the people of Cuba) to raise money Washington desperately needed.
There’s no evidence DeGrasse had republican leanings. Why he risk so much personally to aid the American cause is unclear, and he left no diary. Personally, I think DeGrasse just really wanted the mission to succeed and did everything he could think of to ensure that.
Whatever the reason, it would be the last chance – France’s coffers were exhausted and no more help would be promised. Indeed, the crushing debts would be a factor in the fall of the government in the coming French Revolution.
Historian Barbara Tuchman has suggested that sometimes, some people just step up when history calls. Who knows. But DeGrasse’s mission was absolutely instrumental in turning a long, slowly failing rebellion into sudden, stunning victory.
We Americans probably owe the people of Cuba for their passionate outpouring of help in this dire moment as well.
One of my favorite historical vignettes was related by Rochambeau. He was apparently on a launch or boat of some sort going to meet Washington, who had arrived ahead of his column. As Rochambeau approached the dock, he could make out the tall, dignified figure of Washington waiting.
Suddenly Washington began jumping up and down, waving his arms like a schoolboy. Rochambeau was shocked by the uncharacteristic display. Turning, he saw the cause of Washington’s moment of boyish abandon – on the horizon, the sails of DeGrasse’s fleet entering the Chesapeake. One after another, the great masses of canvas were drifting into view. And with them, the chance of victory.
My vote is for Von Stueben. As noted above, his training of the Continental Army was vital in giving Washington an army that could fight effectively on the battlefield, and provide a force with which the French could work to win at Yorktown. But just about all of those mentioned in the poll played important roles.
Not so. George III reigned in an era when the King could still pick the Prime Minister and play an active role in politics. He picked Lord North, refused his repeated offers of resignation, and often dictated policy. He was a very hands-on monarch who was not above using royal funds and patronage to help his favorites and try to hurt his enemies in the House of Commons. After Yorktown, the King actually drafted a letter of abdication, so closely was he associated with Great Britain’s losing war strategy, but didn’t sign it. For a great book on the Revolution through British eyes, with plenty of interesting insights into British politics, society and military decision-making, including the King’s very active role, I recommend Stanley Weintraub’s Iron Tears.
I was just going to post that he gets my vote. Had he just given them a few parliamentary seats, the whole crisis would’ve fizzled away. Granted, given the somewhat unstable nature of the German claim on the throne, and the lack of power (and thus prestige) that negotiating with armed rebels would imply, it wasn’t a wholly unreasonable decision. But still.