6 ms·

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 hav

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?
      - 082349872349872 4y ago
        Sooner, and perhaps more importantly, without all the violence. cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33931615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33931615 (incidentally, I find the timing of the Monroe Doctrine slightly suspicious, coming as it does from a slave-holding President a few years after the Vienna Convention includes an agreement [as moral imperative] to abolish the slave trade)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Nomentatus 4y ago
It's a maxim that guerrilla wars succeed with a lot of external help and supply, if they succeed at all, throughout history. That's fact. The French were financial supporters from before the shooting began; and supplied high tech gunpowder that meant that from the start the colonists' muskets had significantly more range, no small thing. Without France, nothing. The French ended up bankrupting the state due to extreme overspending on the Americans' war, and sliding into revolution themselves. (Although weather wrecking crops after the eruption of an Icelandic volcano was a large factor as well.) The Americans deserve great credit, but they owe tremendous debts of gratitude, too. Washington had to keep British costs high while not losing, he couldn't just sit. Mass conscription is difficult if you can't pay or properly feed or clothe the army you have and a big portion of your own population opposed to you.
- odd_perfect_num 4y ago
  The American Revolution was not a Guerilla war. It was primarily fought with pitched battles between opposing armies. This was the case from the first shots (at Lexington, and subsequently Concord and Bunker Hill) to the last at Yorktown.
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    It did not begin as a guerrilla war, true; but the abject failure of that initial effort made it clear to Washington that the war had to continue as an irregular war without set front lines or attempts to directly take back New York or Boston. Guerrilla wars can have large battles, but do not have established, continuing and continuous front lines. Mao's troops now and then held large battles with the Japanese (and KMT), once by choice - but his armies nearly always fought as guerillas and were far more successful in that role. Perhaps the American revolution isn't as obvious a case because the Brits tended to turtle a lot; not trying to demonstrate that they were in control of nearly the whole place and so providing a plethora of targets (unlike the Japanese, say.)
    - philwelch 4y ago
      I think the notion of "established, continuing, and continuous front line" is anachronistic to the Revolutionary War in any case. As late as the American Civil War, an army could freely roam through the enemy countryside with relative impunity until a defending army caught up with them, as happened at Antietam and Gettysburg; there was no "front line" to punch through.
chasil 4y ago
Washington lost most, if not all of the major battles that he fought. His opponent, General Howe, obviously had sympathy for the American cause, as he stayed the hand of destruction many times. It was only when General Nathaniel Green was unleashed that victory favored us, ripping Tarlelton and Cornwallis' forces to tatters, giving us Yorktown.
- odd_perfect_num 4y ago
  >> if not all Pardon? He forced the British to vacate Boston, and won decisive victories at Trenton and Yorktown. His worst defeats were delaying actions around NYC, where, in each case, he withdrew in good form. I would attribute Howe's failures to incompetence rather than treason.
pyuser583 4y ago
I’ve heard that due to the militia system, an insanely large number of Americans participated in the revolution. Much higher than the conscript armies of the 20th century - possibly as high as 13%. That’s greater mobilization than in WWII.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Much higher than the conscript armies of the 20th century - possibly as high as 13% Considering it was as high as 80% of military aged men for Germany and France, with a few other countries in the 50-70% range, why do you think 13%, even if you mean from the whole population, is higher?
  - atdrummond 4y ago
    I think they mean conscript armies of the US.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    The 13% is of total population. Not just military aged men. That could easily be 50-80% military aged men.
panick21_ 4y ago
Saying Britain didnt have the money is ignoring that the US was far worse possitioned in terms of money.

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?
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      Sooner, and perhaps more importantly, without all the violence. cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33931615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33931615 (incidentally, I find the timing of the Monroe Doctrine slightly suspicious, coming as it does from a slave-holding President a few years after the Vienna Convention includes an agreement [as moral imperative] to abolish the slave trade)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Nomentatus 4y ago

It's a maxim that guerrilla wars succeed with a lot of external help and supply, if they succeed at all, throughout history. That's fact. The French were financial supporters from before the shooting began; and supplied high tech gunpowder that meant that from the start the colonists' muskets had significantly more range, no small thing. Without France, nothing. The French ended up bankrupting the state due to extreme overspending on the Americans' war, and sliding into revolution themselves. (Although weather wrecking crops after the eruption of an Icelandic volcano was a large factor as well.) The Americans deserve great credit, but they owe tremendous debts of gratitude, too. Washington had to keep British costs high while not losing, he couldn't just sit. Mass conscription is difficult if you can't pay or properly feed or clothe the army you have and a big portion of your own population opposed to you.

odd_perfect_num 4y ago
The American Revolution was not a Guerilla war. It was primarily fought with pitched battles between opposing armies. This was the case from the first shots (at Lexington, and subsequently Concord and Bunker Hill) to the last at Yorktown.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  It did not begin as a guerrilla war, true; but the abject failure of that initial effort made it clear to Washington that the war had to continue as an irregular war without set front lines or attempts to directly take back New York or Boston. Guerrilla wars can have large battles, but do not have established, continuing and continuous front lines. Mao's troops now and then held large battles with the Japanese (and KMT), once by choice - but his armies nearly always fought as guerillas and were far more successful in that role. Perhaps the American revolution isn't as obvious a case because the Brits tended to turtle a lot; not trying to demonstrate that they were in control of nearly the whole place and so providing a plethora of targets (unlike the Japanese, say.)
  - philwelch 4y ago
    I think the notion of "established, continuing, and continuous front line" is anachronistic to the Revolutionary War in any case. As late as the American Civil War, an army could freely roam through the enemy countryside with relative impunity until a defending army caught up with them, as happened at Antietam and Gettysburg; there was no "front line" to punch through.

chasil 4y ago

Washington lost most, if not all of the major battles that he fought. His opponent, General Howe, obviously had sympathy for the American cause, as he stayed the hand of destruction many times. It was only when General Nathaniel Green was unleashed that victory favored us, ripping Tarlelton and Cornwallis' forces to tatters, giving us Yorktown.

odd_perfect_num 4y ago
>> if not all Pardon? He forced the British to vacate Boston, and won decisive victories at Trenton and Yorktown. His worst defeats were delaying actions around NYC, where, in each case, he withdrew in good form. I would attribute Howe's failures to incompetence rather than treason.

pyuser583 4y ago

I’ve heard that due to the militia system, an insanely large number of Americans participated in the revolution. Much higher than the conscript armies of the 20th century - possibly as high as 13%. That’s greater mobilization than in WWII.

sofixa 4y ago
> Much higher than the conscript armies of the 20th century - possibly as high as 13% Considering it was as high as 80% of military aged men for Germany and France, with a few other countries in the 50-70% range, why do you think 13%, even if you mean from the whole population, is higher?
- atdrummond 4y ago
  I think they mean conscript armies of the US.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  The 13% is of total population. Not just military aged men. That could easily be 50-80% military aged men.

panick21_ 4y ago

Saying Britain didnt have the money is ignoring that the US was far worse possitioned in terms of money.