Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How France Changed the Tides of the American Revolution (2018)

battlefields.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 114 posts

Re: How France Changed the Tides of the American Revolution (2018)

#11

Post by wbl »

Jensson wrote: post #10
mncharity wrote: post #6

> 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,”…

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.

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.

Re: How France Changed the Tides of the American Revolution (2018)

#12

Post by jschveibinz »

jacquesm wrote: post #9

[flagged]

“a surprisingly large number” of my compatriots can’t even locate themselves on a map, let alone understand France’s contribution to the war of independence or any connection thereof to current politics. You are charging at windmills, I’m afraid.

Re: How France Changed the Tides of the American Revolution (2018)

#13

Post by jacquesm »

jschveibinz wrote: post #12
jacquesm wrote: post #9

[flagged]

“a surprisingly large number” of my compatriots can’t even locate themselves on a map, let alone understand France’s contribution to the war of independence or any connection thereof to current politics. You are charging at windmills, I’m afraid.

I have no illusion at being able to make a difference on this. But it is so irritating when Congress people go on about 'freedom fries' and 'French cowardice', 'surrender monkeys' etc. And I'm not even French...

Re: How France Changed the Tides of the American Revolution (2018)

#14

Post by hardlianotion »

wbl wrote: post #11
Jensson wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: How France Changed the Tides of the American Revolution (2018)

#15

Post by techie128 »

jacquesm wrote: post #9

[flagged]

The Americans entered the war too late. Ironically it was the USSR that did more to end WW II than the US. The US entered the war when they saw a real possibility of the Soviets defeating Germany and acquiring their technology.

Re: How France Changed the Tides of the American Revolution (2018)

#16

Post by Waterluvian »

InTheArena wrote: post #8
mncharity wrote: post #6

> 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,”…

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 a…

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…

Re: How France Changed the Tides of the American Revolution (2018)

#17

Post by dragonwriter »

hardlianotion wrote: post #14
wbl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN