• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(212)

Captain
Jun 27, 2000
372
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Martin Cullell-Young:
I would agree that the war was finally won thanks to the combination of more or less talented individuals (Washington, Rochambeau, Kosciusko, Pulaski, von Steuben, Arnold, and all the other figures -plus meny others- that have already been mentioned in this topic) but in my humble opinion I believe that ranking them as 'great military figures' is going a bit too far.

Martin, I agree that in terms of pure military tactics, these individuals may not have the credentials to make the cut. By and large, they didn't defeat overwhelming opponents or develop innovative tactics or practices. However, they have clearly made an impact on history: for example, Lafayette was instrumental in bringing France into the war. The expeditionary force, naval support and cash from the French is a huge reason the US was successful in the conflict.
Also, keep in mind that in this period of history, people didn't confine themselves to just one career as we do today. The military contributions are just one component of what they contributed to history. I know that Sapura stated that Monarchs were ineligible for the contest, but George Washington may have been popular enough to assume the crown in the early part of the confederacy of states. The fact that he had the discipline to pass on this opportunity helped reinforce the democratic impluse that lead to the creation of the US.

Additionally, I think that this recognition is good to help remind Americans about the debt of gratitude we owe non-British Europe. Too often I hear people say ignorant things like 'we saved Europe in both WWI and WWII.' A little humility, and recognition of these special leaders would help defuse this type of arrogance. :)


[This message has been edited by Jiminov (edited 28-08-2000).]
 

unmerged(181)

First Lieutenant
May 28, 2000
280
0
Visit site
Tactically, Benedict Arnold probably belongs in the elite class. His actions at Lake Champlain rate up there with the most impressive military achievements of this time period. Heavily outnumbered and with no navy or sailors, he managed to build a fleet from scratch, managed to cause serious damage to the British fleet (the best navy in the world at the time) at the Battle of Valcour Island, managed a miraculous midnight escape past the British fleet and, as a result, bluffed and delayed the British forces so they had to wait until 1777 to move south from Canada. This last part is especially important since the rebels had zero chance of stopping the British in 1776 but were strong enough to win the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. Coincidentally, Arnold holds a great deal of the credit at Saratoga both for turning back St. Ledger's forces in western New York that were to meet up with Burgoyne's Canadian army and for his personal leadership at the Battle of Saratoga where he was wounded. He also proved a valuable general for the British, wrecking havoc with his raids on American positions, including Richmond. Overall, he not only showed great skill at a commander but also as an admiral, a woodsman, a strategist and a master of psychological warfare.

Arnold's undoing, of course, was his loyalty. The Americans hated him for turning on them and the British disliked him both as a traitor to his own cause and the man behind the botched betrayal of West Point which led to the execution of Major John Andre as a spy. He managed to get everyone to hate him and died in debt. His ego destroyed him.

Washington was average as a tactical commander but brilliant in keeping the army together under hideous conditions while stopping conspiracies by other commanders to have him removed. The fact that he managed to win at all is incredible. The British Empire doesn't usually lose to rabble.
 

unmerged(212)

Captain
Jun 27, 2000
372
0
Visit site
I have a question that is a bit off the topic, but relevant to the issue of American military leaders. Are any of the above leaders incorporated into EU at all? If yes, what are their relative statistics.

Also, does EU have a loyalty feature? Can leaders be at bribed into changing sides, or can they at least be recruited from neutral or friendly but non-allied Nations?

Pole,
The more I think about it, Arnold belongs at the top of the heap in terms of tactical successes when compared to his peers in the American Army. Pulaski is probably second due to his ability to use cavalry for guerilla raids. He was killed at the height of his career, so we'll never know how he would have turned out if he could have gone back to Europe to be involved in the Napoleonic Wars.
 

unmerged(13)

Banned
Jan 12, 2000
2.125
0
Visit site
Kosciuszko was a very good general in my opinion..
http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_mhqspring00rev1.htm

Good book in English about Kosciuszko and what he did in the U.S as well as Europe.


..and some info about him:


Polish patriot and soldier, b. near Novogrudok, Lithuania, Poland, 12 February, 1752; d. at Solothurn, Switzerland, 15 October, 1817. He was educated at the military schools of Warsaw and Versailles, and attained the rank of captain in the Polish army. When the American Revolution broke out he embarked for the scene of conflict and, joining Washington's army, received a commission as officer of engineers, 18 October, 1776. He served with distinction through the war, was made a brigadier general, and was voted the thanks of Congress. He then returned to Poland and lived for several years in retirement. In 1789, when the Polish army was reorganized, he was appointed a major-general and fought gallantly under Prince Poniatowski against the Russians. At the second partition of Poland, he resigned his commission and went to live in Leipzig. He headed the abortive revolution of Poland in 1794, and was wounded and captured by the Russians at the battle of Maciejowice, 10 October. Imprisoned for two years, he was liberated by Emperor Paul on parole and with many marks of esteem. Thereafter his life was passed in retirement. In 1797 he revisited the United States, receiving everywhere great honor and distinction. Congress voted him a grant of land and an addition to his pension. On his return to Europe he took up his residence near Paris, spending his time in agricultural pursuits. In 1806 Napoleon wished him to join in the invasion of Poland, but he felt bound by his parole to Russia and refused. He went to live in Switzerland in 1816, making his home at Solothurn, where he was killed by a fall from a horse. His remains, by direction of the Emperor Alexander, were taken to Krakow, where they were interred with solemn pomp in the cathedral near the tombs of Poniatowski and Sobieski. A mound 150 feet high, made of earth taken from every battle-field in Poland, was piled up in his honor in the outskirts of the city.


Some info about Pulaski,

Of all the Polish officers who took part in the American War of Independence, Casimir Pulaski was the most romantic and professionally the most prominent. He was born into the middle gentry at Warka, Poland, March 4, 1747. His family was rich and had enhanced their fortune as clients of the Czartoryski family with whose nationalist policies it was identified. His education was typical of its time, he learned a smattering of languages and manners in the service of the Duke of Courland. It was here that young Pulaski first came into contact with the interference of foreign powers in Polish affairs, that lead to the first great act of his life.

Joseph Pulaski, Casimir's father impatient with the Russian interference precipitated an armed movement called the Confederation of Bar in 1768. Casimir was one of the founding members and on his father's death in 1769, carried the burden of military command. His greatest success was in the taking and holding of Jasna Gora at Czestochowa, the holist place in Poland. His brilliant defense against the Russians thrilled all of Europe. Unfortunately soon afterward he was implicated in a plot to kill the Polish King and forced into exile.


Burdened by debts Pulaski was found in Paris by Benjamin Franklin and enlisted in for American cause. Pulaski joined George Washington's army just before the battle of Brandywine. Acting under Washington's orders without commission Pulaski lead the scouting party that discovered the British flanking movement and the American escape route. He then gathered all available cavalry to cover the retreat, leading a dashing charge that surprised the British and allowed the American army to escape. Congress rewarded Pulaski with a commission as brigadier general and command of all American cavalry. He spent the winter of 1777-8 training and outfitting the cavalry units but in March, he gave way before the intrigues of his jealous officers. He requested and Washington approved the formation of an independent corp of cavalry and light infantry of foreign volunteers.


Pulaski's Legion became the training ground for American cavalry officers including 'Light Horse' Harry Lee, the father of Robert E. Lee, and the model for Lee's and Armand's legions. Thirteen Polish officers served under Pulaski in the legion. The best assessment of Pulaski's legion came from a British officer who called them simply 'the best damned cavalry the rebels ever had'. In 1779 Pulaski and his legion were sent south to the besieged city of Charleston where he immediately raised morale and assisted in breaking the siege. A joint operation with the French was planed to recapture the city of Savannah. Against Pulaski's advice the French commander ordered an assault against the strongest point of the British defense, Seeing the allied troops falter Pulaski galloped forward to rally the men, when he was mortally wounded by British cannon shot. He died two days later and was buried at sea.


Pulaski was the romantic embodiment of the flashing saber and the trumpets calling to the charge, and that is how history has remembered him. The larger-Than-life aspect of his death has often obscured his steadier, quieter, and more lasting services. It was in the drudgery of forging a disciplined American cavalry that could shadow and report on British movements, in the long distance forage raids to feed and clothe the troops at Valley Forge, and the bitter hit and run rearguard actions that covered retreating American armies that slowed British pursuit, that gave Pulaski the title of 'Father of the American cavalry'.


As for American leaders, in EU, they are:


La Fayette
Arnold
Lincoln
Greene
Von Steuben
Lee
Gates
Washingon
Clark
Wayne


Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 29-08-2000).]
 

unmerged(184)

Second Lieutenant
May 29, 2000
134
0
Visit site
Dear Jiminov, Pole and Sapura,
Thank you very much for your information on the American Revolution and its military leaders. I hope you did not find my previous message derogatory or intended to cause demerit, because that was not my intention, believe me. If any of the readers of this forum has had this impression from it, I humbly beg for his/her pardon and I will submit to any kind of penitence that may be imposed on me. As I have already stated elsewhere, my knowledge of the American Revolution is not as good as I would like it to be. Every time I travel to England (usually once a year) I come back to Spain packed with books. I go to the main bookshops, but alas! so far I have been unable to find a book on this sibject. I remember seeing one some time ago, but not this year. Grrr... :(

I lived in the US for about one year, and there I could have bought plenty of books on the Revolution. I wish I had done it. So once again, please forgive me for my ignorance.

I also have some questions to ask you people...

1. What do you people think would have happened if no foreign powers had helped the Rebels (or Patriots, depending on one's views! :D). Do you believe Britain would have been able to win the war, or the country still would have been to vast to be militarily controlled against the population's will?

2. I believe that the British generalship was especially poor during this war. Could this be true?

3. I have a US 1967 encyclopedia at home that states that out of the population in the Thirteen Colonies in 1775, 1/3 was for war against Britain, 1/3 was for remaining loyal to Britain, and 1/3 remained neutral throughout the war. Any comments?

4. I imagine that atrocities were commited during the war, but I know nothing about this. I take it that Tarleton had a poor reputation among the Rebels/Patriots, but I am not too sure. I would be very grateful to you if you could provide me with any information on this subject.

Thank you very much in advance, and kind regards to all, as always.

Martin

P.S.: Pole, I agree with you, although perhaps the verb tense in your sentence should be in the past. The British Empire DIDN'T usually lose to rabble. What kind of Empire is there left? (sigh)
 

Doomdark

Design Director
Paradox Staff
61 Badges
Apr 3, 2000
5.434
11.328
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Starvoid
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • War of the Roses
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Dungeonland
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Gettysburg
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Impire
Do you believe Britain would have been able to win the war, or the country still would have been to vast to be militarily controlled against the population's will?

I also humbly admit to knowing too little about the early days of the USA, but based on my meagre knowledge I would say that the Brits could probably have won that war and prevented American independence for some decades at least.

However, I don't think that the colonies would have accepted British rule forever, unless both king and capitol had been moved to the other side of the Atlantic. ;)

Still, if the original war of independence had failed there is no guarantee that the USA in anything like its present form would have risen. In fact it is quite unlikely.

/Doomie
 

unmerged(13)

Banned
Jan 12, 2000
2.125
0
Visit site
Still, if the original war of independence had failed there is no guarantee that the USA in anything like its present form would have risen. In fact it is quite unlikely.

It's more likely than unlikely :) Had the first independence conflict failed and the Brits were victorious in my opinion it would have led to more wars of independence. One reason for this is that the Brits would have punished the leaders of the rebellion very harshly and this would have pissed off much of the population leading to more revolts.
Anyways, there was never any possibility of the British holding onto a vast tract of land across the Atlantic for a sustained period of time. Especially since they would soon be involved in their own little problems closer to home, the Napoleonic Wars being an example.


Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 29-08-2000).]
 

unmerged(184)

Second Lieutenant
May 29, 2000
134
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Sapura:

Anyways, there was never any possibility of the British holding onto a vast tract of land across the Atlantic for a sustained period of time. Especially since they would soon be involved in their own little problems closer to home, the Napoleonic Wars being an example.


Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 29-08-2000).]

To my knowledge, one of the causes of the French Revolution was the spreading of the ideals of the American Revolution once Rochambeau's veterans had returned to France (combined, of course, with the Enlightment). Besides, the costs of France's involvement in the American Revolution was one of the causes of the terrible state of French finances during the latter years of King Louis XVI's reign.

Bearing all this in mind, wouldn't it be too much to assume that, had the Brits won the war (or hadn't France been involved in the war), no French Revolution would have happened? And without the Revolution, such young officers as Bonaparte and his future marshals would not have had the chance to be promoted so quickly. Hence, no Napoleonic Wars.

George Washington as King George I of the United States? Hmm, seems hard to imagine, although I read somewhere that had the British government forgotten its (unsound and stupid) prejudice against the Colonists and had offered nobility titles to certain key landowners in the Thirteen Colonies before 1775, then perhaps the breaking point would not have been reached. This book also claims that the Revolution was greatly aided by the fact that the landowners class was being affected by the taxes imposed from London, thus providing the Idealists (Franklin, Payne and others) with the leaders they needed to command armies and fight battles.

George Washington, Duke of Boston? This still sounds strange to my ears...

Kind regards to all.

Martin
 

unmerged(13)

Banned
Jan 12, 2000
2.125
0
Visit site
In my mind that era was the era of Revolutions. There were huge explositions occuring all over Europe and America. The American civil war, the French revolution as well as the Polish partitions. It was a nasty time :(*


Martin, what big is this that you speak of?

Sapura
 

unmerged(184)

Second Lieutenant
May 29, 2000
134
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Sapura:
In my mind that era was the era of Revolutions. There were huge explositions occuring all over Europe and America. The American civil war, the French revolution as well as the Polish partitions. It was a nasty time :(*


Martin, what big is this that you speak of?

Sapura

I agree with you, Sapura. That must have been quite a hectic time! By the way, I am ever so sorry, but I have not understood your question. 'Big'? As 'large'? I am befuddled...

Kind regards.

Martin
 

unmerged(13)

Banned
Jan 12, 2000
2.125
0
Visit site
LOL,


Oh my god, sorry about this. I have the flu, my head feels like there's a Swede living in it :D

I meant 'book', which book was it that you quote about here?

Sapura
 

unmerged(184)

Second Lieutenant
May 29, 2000
134
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Sapura:
LOL,


Oh my god, sorry about this. I have the flu, my head feels like there's a Swede living in it :D

I meant 'book', which book was it that you quote about here?

Sapura

Aaaah... so it is 'book'! If I am remember right, it is a book called 'The making of the Prefident'. It is written by a comedian who also writes about History who, as far as I can tell, seems to know quite a lot on the subject. The book is about how George Washington rose from American landowner to US President. I have it either at home or in another house I am going to move soon, so I will check it as soon as possible, so that I can give you the complete bibliographic reference.

I am sorry about that flu. It is globalization again, although in Spain we usually get the flu epidemics from November onwards, more or less. Then, of course, you are now in the middle of winter whereas here it is sweltering hot. Anyway, I hope you will get better.
Flu... another chance to indulge in endless EU games, but only if one is a beta-tester. (sigh)

Kind regards.

Martin
 

Davout

Saw what you did there
72 Badges
Aug 22, 2000
2.211
232
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
If I can steer this post back to its original purpose before the digression into the merits of American Revolutionary generals, my selections with EU queries are as follows in chronological order:

1. Albrecht Wallenstein - The only 30 year war general to beat Gustavus Adolphus (Battle of Alte Feste), and with a tactically inferior army. My EU question is how does the game handle mercenary generals such as Wallenstein, Von Arnim and Bernhard of Saxe Weimar who were theoretically open to the highest bidder?

2. Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne - I have a particular fondness for his Rhineland campaigns. My EU query is whether generals can change sides as Turenne and his contemporary, the Great Conde, who served on the rebel and royalist sides of the Fronde respectively before swapping teams half way through, with Conde eventually becoming a Spanish general after the collapse of the Fronde, before returning to France after the decisive Battle of the Dunes?

3. John Churchill and Eugene of Savoy - Individually the two generals had exceptional campaigns in the Low Countries and Italy respectively. However, their joint campaigns in Germany were models in allied operations. In EU, do 2 generals from allied armies operate jointly in the same battle or province, or does 1 general assume command whilst the other is merely a spectator?
 

unmerged(184)

Second Lieutenant
May 29, 2000
134
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Davout:


...how does the game handle mercenary generals such as Wallenstein, Von Arnim and Bernhard of Saxe Weimar who were theoretically open to the highest bidder?

My EU query is whether generals can change sides as Turenne and his contemporary, the Great Conde, who served on the rebel and royalist sides of the Fronde respectively before swapping teams half way through, with Conde eventually becoming a Spanish general after the collapse of the Fronde, before returning to France after the decisive Battle of the Dunes?

3. John Churchill and Eugene of Savoy -

A very good point there, Davout. Mercenary generals (and troops) were a widespread phenomenon during this time, when national armies did not exist (with some notable exceptions, such as the Swiss) and professional armies were the rule of the day. There are several examples of armies commanded by generals from another country. One example is the Connetable de Bourbon (is this the right spelling?) who was French commanded Spanish armies in Italy during the 1520s. And then, of course, we have the thousands of Irish and Scottish soldiers and officers who served in the armies of Spain, France and other countries (Gen. Keith in Prussia, and others in Russia).

Kind regards,

Martin
 

unmerged(164)

First Lieutenant
May 4, 2000
224
0
I hate it when those Swedes get in your head!

American revolution.....I am a bit late jumping in on this but nonetheless I will comment.

We didn't have the greatest Generals facing off againist one another in the revolution. I think that the English failed to take the revolt as seriously as they should until it was too late. They failed to grasp the determenation of the Independence movement. We were after all English citizens and should be thankful that the good King saw fit to protect us from the savages that inhabited the wilderness (right?).

As for the 'what if'.....I believe that at some point and time probably during the time of Naploeon, we would have broke away. Would we be where we are today, probably close since I believe a 30 years would not have mattered much to the development of the U.S. The Louisiana Purchase might not have happened but at some point and time the U.S. would have gained the area and probably by the end of 1815 if I guess correctly.

If the U.S. did not gain independence in this fashion I suspect that our growth would have certainly been stunted and I could easily see several independent countries making up the U.S. potentially you would have had N.E. United States which would have probably spread to the Chicago area, a southern states coalition (Confederate states if you will), Texas, Western Coast U.S (this would have probably been a splinter state of Mexico actually after one of their many 1800's revolutions. I suspect there would have been a French related state/colony probably Louisiana maybe St. Louis. Mexico (if they could have held things together at all) would have probably been the biggest beneficiary of a failed American Revolution.
 

unmerged(90)

Marshall Ombre
Feb 13, 2000
3.550
0
Visit site
Despite some efforts and proposals by beta-testers, mercenary leaders are not implemented in the game. Each leader has a given 'nationality' (ie country he works for), date of arrival and date of death...

I doubt this can be changed before the release, but is a definitive feature for EU2 :D
 

unmerged(212)

Captain
Jun 27, 2000
372
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Martin Cullell-Young:
I hope you did not find my previous message derogatory or intended to cause demerit...

Martin, I personally didn't find it at all offensive. In fact, I think that your attitude is excellent and can hopefully serve as an example who get easily upset by opinions that differ from their own.

With this in mind, I do have a few thoughts on the questions that you posed -

1. What do you people think would have happened if no foreign powers had helped the Rebels (or Patriots, depending on one's views! :D). Do you believe Britain would have been able to win the war, or the country still would have been to vast to be militarily controlled against the population's will?

- Economically, the US had no manufacturing capbabilities so they had to import nearly everything from Europe or the West Indies. The French and Dutch initially provided credit the Americans could buy clothes, guns, tools, etc. Later on, the French military involvement helped neutralize the British naval superiority. In some cases this was direct action and in other cases this was due to the combined threat of a French/Spanish attack on British interests in Europe.
- The second part of the question is: could the British have held the colonies by military force if they had defeated the American Rebels. It's a good question and nobody can answer it definatively. But if you look at the way the conflict evolved, which was from a minority of highly motivated patriots into a more popular movement, I think the answer is no. The initial armed conflict at Concord provided an emotional spark which was fanned into general animosity towards the Redcoats. So, as the American Colonists had become accustomed to a period of relative freedom - the 'genie was out of the bottle.' This of course disregards the fact that the British would be hard pressed to maintain an occupation force of sufficient size to pacify all 13 colonies.

2. I believe that the British generalship was especially poor during this war. Could this be true?

It certainly wasn't innovative. There were several times that when the British were fighting the main colonial army at the Battle of Long Island (in modern New York) that they had Washington on the run. However, they didn't have the traditional wing of cavalry to press the advantage, and as a result, waited for their troops to regroup before advancing. This allowed Washington to retreat with the bulk of his forces intact. At this time (August 1776), survival was a key goal for Washington. An outright defeat, or the capture of Washington himself may have spelled the end of an organized resistance.

3. I have a US 1967 encyclopedia at home that states that out of the population in the Thirteen Colonies in 1775, 1/3 was for war against Britain, 1/3 was for remaining loyal to Britain, and 1/3 remained neutral throughout the war. Any comments?

- I've seen similar information presented in a different way. Basically, the belief is that 1/3 of the population was either rebel, loyal or neutral at the start of the conflict. The percentage of loyalists was probably higher in the South (due possibly to a reliance on plantation-style farming, which mirrored the British estates) and there were more patriots in the north, particularly Massachusetts.
- However, the patriots were definately better organized and more committed to their cause - so they had a bigger impact than their numbers would suggest. Most of the time, when the British military moved into an area, it would attempt to set up a loyalist local government. However, after they left - the patriots would re-assume control. There were very few loyalist regiments that saw any action in the war.

4. I imagine that atrocities were commited during the war, but I know nothing about this. I take it that Tarleton had a poor reputation among the Rebels/Patriots, but I am not too sure. I would be very grateful to you if you could provide me with any information on this subject.


I'm sure that most of my reading is biased on this subject. I've read about a few executions of supposed traitors and floggings of deserters, but I don't know of any of the traditional raping & pillaging.

[This message has been edited by Jiminov (edited 29-08-2000).]
 

Dark Knight

Troll-slayer
2 Badges
Jun 8, 2000
9.512
1
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
Originally posted by Martin Cullell-Young:
1. What do you people think would have happened if no foreign powers had helped the Rebels (or Patriots, depending on one's views! :D). Do you believe Britain would have been able to win the war, or the country still would have been to vast to be militarily controlled against the population's will?
There's no question that without the intervention of France, Spain, and the Netherlands, Britain would have been able to subjugate the rebels. Britain was fairly slow to recognize how serious the situation in the colonies was, and so did not raise a force capable of carrying out serious actions in the colonies until 1777, two years after the rebellion began. However, European intervention beginning the following year forced the British to devote large numbers of soldiers to defending their other colonial possessions. The intervention of the French, Spanish, and Dutch navies also led to a struggle for naval supremacy that forced the British to devote still more resources away from the American colonies and also had a direct impact on the war in the colonies by allowing Cornwallis to trapped between two colonial armies, a French army, and a French navy at Yorktown, the surrender that caused Britain to abandon serious hope of regaining the colonies. Without intervention, the larger British armies with full command of the sea would slowly have pushed back the rebel forces and won back control over all the colonies. How long it would have been until another, even more serious American rebellion is another question...

2. I believe that the British generalship was especially poor during this war. Could this be true?
Not really. American propagandists grossly exaggerated the defects of the British generalship. However, a few of the British commanders actually were incompetent and they had their greatest impact at the beginning of the war. Most notably, General Howe, the commander of the main British army in North America during 1776 and 1777, more or less lost the war singlehanded. In 1776, he was excessively slow in taking Long Island and New York City and so lost his chance to cut off and destroy Washington's army, an event that, if it had occurred, would have doomed the rebellion. In 1777, he was supposed to march north to Albany with his army and meet Burgoyne (actually a competent, if not particularly good general, despite American propaganda), who was marching south from Canada with a smaller army. However, Howe arbitrarily decided that instead of going north, he would take his army south to Philadelphia. This resulted in Burgoyne's army being outnumbered 3 to 1 by a rebel force, which forced it to surrender at Saratoga, the event that brought France and eventually Spain and the Netherlands into the war. If it hadn't been for General Howe's idiocy, the rebellion may well have failed.

3. I have a US 1967 encyclopedia at home that states that out of the population in the Thirteen Colonies in 1775, 1/3 was for war against Britain, 1/3 was for remaining loyal to Britain, and 1/3 remained neutral throughout the war. Any comments?
The idea that 1/3 of the people supported the rebellion, 1/3 were against it, and 1/3 were neutral derives from a letter of John Adams
written long after the war. He was only intending to mean that the number of people who opposed the war and the number who were neutral were significant, but later historians tended to take his remark literally. It's very difficult to determine the exact extent of support and opposition to the rebellion, especially as it varied across the colonies. However, the percentage supporting it was definitely larger than either of the other two groups. The Tories (those supporting Britain) were very weak in some colonies, but were possibly a majority in New York, New Jersey, and Georgia. More than 70,000 of them left the colonies during the rebellion, and, as this is only a fraction of their true strength, the total number of Tories must have been very considerable.

4. I imagine that atrocities were commited during the war, but I know nothing about this. I take it that Tarleton had a poor reputation among the Rebels/Patriots, but I am not too sure. I would be very grateful to you if you could provide me with any information on this subject.
There were some atrocities committed during the war, although nothing on the order of those pictured in a certain movie that shall remain nameless. Indian tribes carried out some atrocities (e.g. ransacking of villages and scalping) in frontier areas, which were then grossly exaggerated by American propaganda, which claimed that the British encouraged it. Aside from this, most atrocities occurred in the south (Georgia and the Carolinas) where there was very bloody irregular warfare between Tories and rebels. Both Tarleton and Morgan, his American opposite, participated in some of the carnage in the south. Aside from this, the only atrocity I can think of is that when the Continental Army was carrying out a fighting retreat from New York City (a bastion of Toryism), its officers decided that right before they left they would burn the city to the ground. However, the final British attack drove them out before they put their plan into action. Unfortunately, a few rebels who were hiding in the city after the British arrived did set fire to various buildings and a substantial part of the city did burn down.