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

101–110 of 114 posts

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

#101

Post by webmobdev »

jti107 wrote: post #3

fascinating read…I never realized the French were so involved. without their help it seems we’d have lost to the British

It wasn't just the Americans, the French also supported the indian rebels against the British. It was the French connection that made popular the tales of indian resistance in America, and how Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan (father and son, rulers of then Mysore state in colonial India) became inspirational heroes for the American revolutionaries. (Why American revolutionaries admired the rebels of Mysore - https://aeon.co/essays/why-american-revolutionaries-admired-... ). Indeed, some speculate that if the French had not weakened, the Mysore rulers might have been successful in chasing away the British from large parts of India too.

But ofcourse, as soon as America got its independence, it chose to follow the British and become an imperialist too. The defeat in America also made the British obsessed about holding on to India, and change their strategy - a few decades later, they took over the direct administration of India.

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

#102

Post by panick21_ »

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…

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

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

#103

Post by retrac »

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 British also learned from their American experience. The beginnings of something akin to the American revolution were stirring in what are now Ontario and Quebec in the 1830s, culminating in armed rebellion in 1837, with the more radical calling for a republic. The British response was largely conciliatory. The local legislatures would be partially elected, the government responsible to the elected house, and given jurisdiction over issues like taxation, along with a promise that future constitutional changes would only be made with local consultation.

Of course, the USA would have been able and perhaps willing to assist a new Republic of Canada, probably with an eye to absorbing it one day. The British were not in a position to be heavyhanded. It worked though; the King still rules in Canada to this day. One of the great what ifs of history, one of the more plausible ones, I think, is what if the British government had realized they would lose, and had quickly made concessions to the Americans 50 years before?

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

#104

Post by wbl »

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.

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.

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

#105

Post by hardlianotion »

wbl wrote: post #104
hardlianotion wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

I believe Lord Kitchener campaigned for this in WWI until it became clear to the government at large that sustaining an army appropriate to the struggle they had entered was going to be an order more difficult than envisaged.

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

#106

Post by dieselgate »

Konohamaru wrote: post #100
dieselgate wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please consider a review of the HN comment guidelines, not sure this adds to the discussion and is basically name calling and insinuating a bot https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It wasn't intended to be name-calling. It really did have the same style of something like ChatGPT.

I respect your opinion but would only suggest some context/details be appropriate instead of a one-word comment

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

#107

Post by Nomentatus »

philwelch wrote: post #77
Nomentatus wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 K…

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.

The US is large, true. More a matter of control points, such as Harper's Ferry. That's where Lee had to punch through to get to Antietam, in 1862, for example. https://www.nps.gov/hafe/learn/historyculture/1862-battle-of...

But I haven't asserted that all regular wars have front lines all the time. Just that guerrilla wars don't.

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

#108

Post by Nomentatus »

hef19898 wrote: post #86
zhdc1 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a maxim that guerrilla wars succeed with a lot of external help and supply, if they succeed at all, Not true. Show me where in "On Guerrilla Warfare" Zedong - an expert on the American and French Revolutions - claims that guerrilla warfare requires external support. Guerrilla warfare requires the support of the population (pretty much all US IW joint doctrine highlights this). Economic power facilitates guerri…

Considering how much suppory the Chinese gave to North Vietnam, I assume he knew how important support from third parties is.

Indeed, he'd had plenty himself from the USSR.

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

#109

Post by Nomentatus »

zhdc1 wrote: post #80
Nomentatus wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extrem…

> It's a maxim that guerrilla wars succeed with a lot of external help and supply, if they succeed at all, Not true. Show me where in "On Guerrilla Warfare" Zedong - an expert on the American and French Revolutions - claims that guerrilla warfare requires external support. Guerrilla warfare requires the support of the population (pretty much all US IW joint doctrine highlights this). Economic power facilitates guerri…

Mao received oodles of support from the USSR, the Long March was the Reds fleeing northward to where they could still get that support, and then being able to punch further East.

The KMT was also a revolutionary force (against foreign domination), and initially preferred by Moscow for practical reasons - the USSR would at that time only support a joint command.

Mao became leader of the Reds because the Chinese Red's intelligence officer who was their contact with the USSR and held the codes for that defected to Mao from the previous leader (who wasn't going to admit to defeat by the KMT.) After that, the money etc could only to go to Mao, since he was the only point of contact the USSR then had with the Reds.

Post WWII Soviet support, esp military material support became very large indeed, allowing the Reds to crush the KMT.

But it wasn't helpful for either side to reveal the connections; better to portray the revolution as a mass movement of the peasants and workers than show all the gears and wheels.

Mao spent plenty of time and effort downplaying everything the USSR had done for him and in massive spats with the USSR, for his own political reasons. Just as Lenin didn't credit the massive support the Germans had given him, to undermine the Czar.

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

#110

Post by odd_perfect_num »

defrost wrote: post #63
odd_perfect_num wrote: post #62

Does anyone remember where the longest siege ever in history was waged? Hint: It was in the American Revolution. Second hint: Not Yorktown or Boston. Answer: Correct! The siege of Gibraltar. Undertaken by France and Spain, the (largely inept) siege lasted more than 3.5 years and delayed the end of the war long past Yorktown.

Only three and half years? That doesn't even make the top three IIRC. The Siege of Ceuta, and the Siege of Candia were both 20+ years.

Thanks for the correction. It looks like it was the longest siege ever against the British. Certainly a massive qualifier there I forgot.
Post reply on HN