6 ms·

Myths of the American Revolution (2010)

67 points by diodorus 12y ago

bryanlarsen 12y ago
I would certainly include "the war was between the US and Britain" as one of those myths. Many historians see the American revolutionary war as an extension of the 7 year war between France and Britain -- France supplied the navy, the material, the money, and the leadership (Lafayette). America provided the cannon fodder. France spent so much on the American revolutionary war that they bankrupted themselves, leading to their own revolution a few years later. It's funny. Whenever France is mentioned in a political thread, inevitably a joke is made about the ineffectiveness of the French military. Most commenters don't realize that joke is grounded in American insecurity about their own founding myth.
- vacri 12y ago
  Revolutionary war, not civil war. And the French joke is about France being quickly overrun in WWII, followed by being kicked out of a colony by the natives (Vietnam) at a time when the US war machine was seeing victory everywhere. That the US was kicked out by the same ex-colony is generally forgotten amongst the general projection of power they otherwise enjoyed around the globe.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - vacri 12y ago
      It's hard to take a lecture on irony seriously, when it's given by someone who can't read past two sentences.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - wtbob 12y ago
    > That the US was kicked out by the same ex-colony… Except that we weren't. We won the Vietnam War: when we left, North Vietnam had pledged to allow the people of South Vietnam to decide their destiny. Then they broke their promise and invaded, the Congress refused to aid South Vietnam, and that was all she wrote.
    - vacri 12y ago
      If you mean the Paris Peace Accords, that was never ratified by the US Senate (is it a promise if the other side don't hold up their end?), and the US had been reducing troops for nearly four years by that point ('Vietnamization') due to domestic public opposition. Ultimately the USA's primary war goal was to keep their puppet state of South Vietnam - a goal that certainly wasn't met. You have to squint your eyes pretty hard and turn your head sideways to claim the US won the Vietnam War.
    - icegreentea 12y ago
      Finishing a war with exit conditions that you can't enforce doesn't really sound like winning in any meaningful sense.
      - wtbob 12y ago
        Well, we promised to assist if North Vietnam broke its promises, but after Watergate the Congress felt it could break that promise. It really was a terrible time.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Except that we weren't. We won the Vietnam War North Vietnam achieved the political objectives for which it fought the war, the US did not. The US unambiguously and absolutely lost the war. That the US momentarily achieved a pause during which it could claim that it was in the process of securing the aims for which it fought the war does not mean that it won the war.
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    Typo corrected, thanks. And yes, the meme about French military incompetence has some basis in reality, as all good memes do. But many other countries made horrible mistakes during WW2, and lost empires. Why do we make fun of the French and not the Dutch or Austrians or British or ...?
    - protonfish 12y ago
      I suppose because a few years earlier France was believed to be a superior force - the only European country that could stand up to Nazi Germany. The fast and complete defeat by the Nazis demonstrated France to be incompetent and overconfident. Austria and Czechoslovakia were more political defeats (and France did nothing to stop these) and Britain fought until the bitter end. Poland also suffered significant military defeat, but didn't earn any more respect than France for it.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  From TFA: As 1781 dawned, Washington warned that his army was “exhausted” and the citizenry “discontented.” John Adams believed that France, faced with mounting debts and having failed to win a single victory in the American theater, would not remain in the war beyond 1781.
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    Exactly. The statement acknowledges that French support was critical, but it is couched within a negative. It's also buried, not one of the headline myths.
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      "having failed to win a single victory" is not an opinion, it is fact. Are facts prejudiced against the French?
- ckozlowski 12y ago
  Somewhat unrelated, but to build on your point: the "ineffectiveness" of the French military is largely a myth as well. Their battle record over their history is quite exemplary, punctuated with the same smattering of grand victories and crushing defeats that all of it's contemporary European neighbors have had to suffer and endure as well. All together, their effectiveness skews far more towards the exceptional, and I'd argue that the stereotype of "retreating French" is largely born of the misconceptions surrounding their strategic collapse in 1940. It is that one event I'd argue that fuels the jokes.
  - panzagl 12y ago
    The French lost every major European War they entered between 1757 and 1914 (ok, we'll call the Crimean War a draw), and only survived 1914 and 1940 because of it's allies. And the real blow to French reputation was 1870, when French arrogance was at its height and efficiency at its lowest.
    - ska 12y ago
      Characterizing the loss of the Napoleonic wars as a reflection of french military ineffectiveness is inept at best.
      - panzagl 12y ago
        Actually, the Napoleonic wars highlight the very essence of the French military tradition in the modern age- tactical and operational competence (and even brilliance) pushed by arrogance beyond the limits of what is militarily possible. Though I agree that this has no reflection on the character of the individual French soldier.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- bwanab 12y ago
  While I agree completely with your conclusion about the French participation in the revolution, it had nothing to do with the Seven Years war. I think you're thinking of the French and Indian War which was the American theator of the Seven Years War of 1756 - 1763 which was 12 years before the Revolutionary war began. However, the aftermath of the Seven Years War - 1) the conquest of French Canada and 2) the determination to tax the Colonies to help pay for the war - lead directly to the grievances that ignited the Revolution.

67 points by diodorus 12y ago

I would certainly include "the war was between the US and Britain" as one of those myths. Many historians see the American revolutionary war as an extension of the 7 year war between France and Britain -- France supplied the navy, the material, the money, and the leadership (Lafayette). America provided the cannon fodder. France spent so much on the American revolutionary war that they bankrupted themselves, leading to their own revolution a few years later. It's funny. Whenever France is mentioned in a political thread, inevitably a joke is made about the ineffectiveness of the French military. Most commenters don't realize that joke is grounded in American insecurity about their own founding myth.

vacri 12y ago
Revolutionary war, not civil war. And the French joke is about France being quickly overrun in WWII, followed by being kicked out of a colony by the natives (Vietnam) at a time when the US war machine was seeing victory everywhere. That the US was kicked out by the same ex-colony is generally forgotten amongst the general projection of power they otherwise enjoyed around the globe.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - vacri 12y ago
    It's hard to take a lecture on irony seriously, when it's given by someone who can't read past two sentences.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- wtbob 12y ago
  > That the US was kicked out by the same ex-colony… Except that we weren't. We won the Vietnam War: when we left, North Vietnam had pledged to allow the people of South Vietnam to decide their destiny. Then they broke their promise and invaded, the Congress refused to aid South Vietnam, and that was all she wrote.
  - vacri 12y ago
    If you mean the Paris Peace Accords, that was never ratified by the US Senate (is it a promise if the other side don't hold up their end?), and the US had been reducing troops for nearly four years by that point ('Vietnamization') due to domestic public opposition. Ultimately the USA's primary war goal was to keep their puppet state of South Vietnam - a goal that certainly wasn't met. You have to squint your eyes pretty hard and turn your head sideways to claim the US won the Vietnam War.
  - icegreentea 12y ago
    Finishing a war with exit conditions that you can't enforce doesn't really sound like winning in any meaningful sense.
    - wtbob 12y ago
      Well, we promised to assist if North Vietnam broke its promises, but after Watergate the Congress felt it could break that promise. It really was a terrible time.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Except that we weren't. We won the Vietnam War North Vietnam achieved the political objectives for which it fought the war, the US did not. The US unambiguously and absolutely lost the war. That the US momentarily achieved a pause during which it could claim that it was in the process of securing the aims for which it fought the war does not mean that it won the war.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  Typo corrected, thanks. And yes, the meme about French military incompetence has some basis in reality, as all good memes do. But many other countries made horrible mistakes during WW2, and lost empires. Why do we make fun of the French and not the Dutch or Austrians or British or ...?
  - protonfish 12y ago
    I suppose because a few years earlier France was believed to be a superior force - the only European country that could stand up to Nazi Germany. The fast and complete defeat by the Nazis demonstrated France to be incompetent and overconfident. Austria and Czechoslovakia were more political defeats (and France did nothing to stop these) and Britain fought until the bitter end. Poland also suffered significant military defeat, but didn't earn any more respect than France for it.
happyscrappy 12y ago
From TFA: As 1781 dawned, Washington warned that his army was “exhausted” and the citizenry “discontented.” John Adams believed that France, faced with mounting debts and having failed to win a single victory in the American theater, would not remain in the war beyond 1781.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  Exactly. The statement acknowledges that French support was critical, but it is couched within a negative. It's also buried, not one of the headline myths.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    "having failed to win a single victory" is not an opinion, it is fact. Are facts prejudiced against the French?
ckozlowski 12y ago
Somewhat unrelated, but to build on your point: the "ineffectiveness" of the French military is largely a myth as well. Their battle record over their history is quite exemplary, punctuated with the same smattering of grand victories and crushing defeats that all of it's contemporary European neighbors have had to suffer and endure as well. All together, their effectiveness skews far more towards the exceptional, and I'd argue that the stereotype of "retreating French" is largely born of the misconceptions surrounding their strategic collapse in 1940. It is that one event I'd argue that fuels the jokes.
- panzagl 12y ago
  The French lost every major European War they entered between 1757 and 1914 (ok, we'll call the Crimean War a draw), and only survived 1914 and 1940 because of it's allies. And the real blow to French reputation was 1870, when French arrogance was at its height and efficiency at its lowest.
  - ska 12y ago
    Characterizing the loss of the Napoleonic wars as a reflection of french military ineffectiveness is inept at best.
    - panzagl 12y ago
      Actually, the Napoleonic wars highlight the very essence of the French military tradition in the modern age- tactical and operational competence (and even brilliance) pushed by arrogance beyond the limits of what is militarily possible. Though I agree that this has no reflection on the character of the individual French soldier.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
bwanab 12y ago
While I agree completely with your conclusion about the French participation in the revolution, it had nothing to do with the Seven Years war. I think you're thinking of the French and Indian War which was the American theator of the Seven Years War of 1756 - 1763 which was 12 years before the Revolutionary war began. However, the aftermath of the Seven Years War - 1) the conquest of French Canada and 2) the determination to tax the Colonies to help pay for the war - lead directly to the grievances that ignited the Revolution.