6 ms·

> The stunning success at Saratoga gave Franklin what he had been pleading for — explicit French support in the war. Or, in contrast to a story of straightforw

> The stunning success at Saratoga gave Franklin what he had been pleading for — explicit French support in the war. Or, in contrast to a story of straightforward military system-y tipping point, perhaps ... > The Battle of Saratoga was [...] not pivotal in convincing France that the rebels could defeat Britain. [...] French support depended far more upon court intrigue [1] > “sometimes history happens by accident,” and what more can one say about a revolution whose fate hung upon whether a French chevalier (Beaumont) suspected of being a woman turned over documents incriminating the French king of violating a treaty with Britain? Or that the social climber (Beaumarchais) who negotiated both the return of the evidence and support for the American cause would be best remembered for penning The Marriage of Figaro and The Barber of Seville? Or that the fate of American independence would take place in an environment more riddled with spies than a John le Carré novel? [1] Like ChatGPT, sometimes the stories of history are "we started out saying X, and now are unable to change course...". [1] https://www.amherst.edu/alumni/learn/bookclub/pastfeatures/2011-features/unlikelyallies/review https://www.amherst.edu/alumni/learn/bookclub/pastfeatures/2... review of "Unlikely Allies: How a Merchant, a Playwright, and a Spy Saved the American Revolution" https://www.google.com/books/edition/Unlikely_Allies/bERCMoBKslkC https://www.google.com/books/edition/Unlikely_Allies/bERCMoB... (has Preview)

kergonath 4y ago
That would make for a very compelling TV series, with not much need for dramatisation beyond historical facts. Beaumarchais in particular is a fascinating character. And the Chevalier d’Éon of course, as an enlightenment cross-dressing James Bond.
InTheArena 4y ago
As someone who studied American history, this point of view always irks me a little bit. The reality of it is that all of the assumptions that America would have lost without French support is trying to prove a counterfactual. There are a lot of reasons to think that it would not have been so. Every southern campaign that the British had tried to pull off was a disaster. The cost to the British crown of maintaining and continuing the war was ruinous. there were many near disasters that the British just barely avoided. Washington’s position at Monmouth was set up to be decisive and Lee’s disasterous commands there played a huge role in continuing the war. Cowpens and Kings Mountain denied the British their different strategic goals. Knox managed to trap the British under the threat of guns at Boston and it was considered a miracle at the time that the British were able to evacuate to Canada. Their luck ran out at Yorktown. Furthermore, Washington understood what most of his contemporaries did not. Simply by having an army in the Field, he denied legitimacy to the British. Washington and his generals laid out strategies that would one by one eliminate British armies in the field. To borrow a concept from the navy theoreticians Washington had an army in being. The British could not achieve their goals without the utter destruction of Washington’s army and could not maintain the armies for long periods of time. The British had to win - all Washington had to do is not loose. At the same time, political will to continue the war would eventually run out for the British. They only had one way to win, and very many ways to loose. The fact that it was Yorktown and not Monmouth has to do with the differences between Lafayette and Charles Lee. But let’s ignore all of that - I think at some point the colonies would have gone down the same path that the French eventually went down - a levee en masse. I suspect running into a large well armed colonial mass conscription army would have ended things very quickly. Anyways - the French are important to the story - but it’s like claiming that American won World War I.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  The Revolutionary war reminds me a lot of modern insurgencies in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It wasn't won on the battlefield it was won in secret backroom deals that made sure the supplies and money kept flowing in.
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  If I may, I feel a bit irked that we often see these outcomes as binary. Wouldn’t the absence of French involvement be likely to have caused a considerable change in social, political, and economic landscape, regardless of who ultimately “won”? I’ve been thinking about how different paces to the Ukraine war’s culmination (eg. we increase support by 10x tomorrow) could have significant impacts on future attitudes and behaviours of all actors, especially Russia. I am not a professional student of history and I really don’t know this war all that well, but as an audience of the future, isn’t “what were the conditions of victory?” no less important than “who won?” I might be making no sense…
  - ericmay 4y ago
    I’m not sure lack of French support would have made a difference with how we understand America today assuming the Americans had still won, but had the British won, frankly, I think the US would have been better off in many respects.
    - jongjong 4y ago
      The US would not have been anywhere near as successful financially and its population size would probably only have been a fraction of what it is today.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        Yea maybe. Interesting to think about. Pros/cons.
      - Larrikin 4y ago
        Would slavery have ended sooner or later if the British had won?
Jensson 4y ago
The Brittish hammered down basically every other rebellion, without French intervention they would likely have ramped up further. They barely sent any troops to America and gave up really quickly, for example in the Second Boer War they sent 5 times as many soldiers, if they had sent that many to America which they probably would have without French intervention then America would have lost completely, no doubt.
- wbl 4y ago
  The second boer war takes place with entirely different international domestic political and military context. The UK had a small professional force that it needed to husband not a large force of conscripts that enabled it to send troops to Africa without fear and firearms that let them be useful together with the means to supply them.
  - hardlianotion 4y ago
    No conscription in British army of the Boer War era. I believe conscription for the British army was an innovation that came into being during the First World War.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Modern conscription was an innovation of the First World War, though the militia (restricted to domestic employment, AFAIK) had conscription to fill units in the 18th to early 19th Century.
      - hardlianotion 4y ago
        And in any case, I misread parent comment.
    - wbl 4y ago
      So I don't really know the history but I thought British Army planned on mass call-ups either voluntary and then if needed by conscription long before WWI, as mass mobilization isn't something you can do overnight without prep.

kergonath 4y ago

That would make for a very compelling TV series, with not much need for dramatisation beyond historical facts. Beaumarchais in particular is a fascinating character. And the Chevalier d’Éon of course, as an enlightenment cross-dressing James Bond.

InTheArena 4y ago

As someone who studied American history, this point of view always irks me a little bit. The reality of it is that all of the assumptions that America would have lost without French support is trying to prove a counterfactual. There are a lot of reasons to think that it would not have been so. Every southern campaign that the British had tried to pull off was a disaster. The cost to the British crown of maintaining and continuing the war was ruinous. there were many near disasters that the British just barely avoided. Washington’s position at Monmouth was set up to be decisive and Lee’s disasterous commands there played a huge role in continuing the war. Cowpens and Kings Mountain denied the British their different strategic goals. Knox managed to trap the British under the threat of guns at Boston and it was considered a miracle at the time that the British were able to evacuate to Canada. Their luck ran out at Yorktown. Furthermore, Washington understood what most of his contemporaries did not. Simply by having an army in the Field, he denied legitimacy to the British. Washington and his generals laid out strategies that would one by one eliminate British armies in the field. To borrow a concept from the navy theoreticians Washington had an army in being. The British could not achieve their goals without the utter destruction of Washington’s army and could not maintain the armies for long periods of time. The British had to win - all Washington had to do is not loose. At the same time, political will to continue the war would eventually run out for the British. They only had one way to win, and very many ways to loose. The fact that it was Yorktown and not Monmouth has to do with the differences between Lafayette and Charles Lee. But let’s ignore all of that - I think at some point the colonies would have gone down the same path that the French eventually went down - a levee en masse. I suspect running into a large well armed colonial mass conscription army would have ended things very quickly. Anyways - the French are important to the story - but it’s like claiming that American won World War I.

WeylandYutani 4y ago
The Revolutionary war reminds me a lot of modern insurgencies in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It wasn't won on the battlefield it was won in secret backroom deals that made sure the supplies and money kept flowing in.
Waterluvian 4y ago
If I may, I feel a bit irked that we often see these outcomes as binary. Wouldn’t the absence of French involvement be likely to have caused a considerable change in social, political, and economic landscape, regardless of who ultimately “won”? I’ve been thinking about how different paces to the Ukraine war’s culmination (eg. we increase support by 10x tomorrow) could have significant impacts on future attitudes and behaviours of all actors, especially Russia. I am not a professional student of history and I really don’t know this war all that well, but as an audience of the future, isn’t “what were the conditions of victory?” no less important than “who won?” I might be making no sense…
- ericmay 4y ago
  I’m not sure lack of French support would have made a difference with how we understand America today assuming the Americans had still won, but had the British won, frankly, I think the US would have been better off in many respects.
  - jongjong 4y ago
    The US would not have been anywhere near as successful financially and its population size would probably only have been a fraction of what it is today.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Yea maybe. Interesting to think about. Pros/cons.
    - Larrikin 4y ago
      Would slavery have ended sooner or later if the British had won?

Jensson 4y ago

The Brittish hammered down basically every other rebellion, without French intervention they would likely have ramped up further. They barely sent any troops to America and gave up really quickly, for example in the Second Boer War they sent 5 times as many soldiers, if they had sent that many to America which they probably would have without French intervention then America would have lost completely, no doubt.

wbl 4y ago
The second boer war takes place with entirely different international domestic political and military context. The UK had a small professional force that it needed to husband not a large force of conscripts that enabled it to send troops to Africa without fear and firearms that let them be useful together with the means to supply them.
- hardlianotion 4y ago
  No conscription in British army of the Boer War era. I believe conscription for the British army was an innovation that came into being during the First World War.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Modern conscription was an innovation of the First World War, though the militia (restricted to domestic employment, AFAIK) had conscription to fill units in the 18th to early 19th Century.
    - hardlianotion 4y ago
      And in any case, I misread parent comment.
  - wbl 4y ago
    So I don't really know the history but I thought British Army planned on mass call-ups either voluntary and then if needed by conscription long before WWI, as mass mobilization isn't something you can do overnight without prep.