(August 19, 2011 at 7:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Do you feel that the American Revolution was effective because of it's ability to subvert British forces, or through armed resistance?

---

To be fair, I'm not certain we're disagreeing about the same thing. I would also advocate anything other than armed revolt up and until and even during such time as armed revolt became a last resort. I'm merely questioning what the citizens final means of redress would be were he to allow those that govern him to remove his right to bear arms.

American revolution was effective because the French King wanted his bayonnets to deprive the British of their North American Empire. We Americans think we are something for kicking out the British "Superpower of the day" out of our little backwoods hick town of 13 colonies mostly on our own, thanks to the deified Washington, with the French playing but a minor role commensurate with cheese eating surrender monkeys.

In fact the British were not quite the superpower, but merely a power on par with France, Spain, Prussia, Russia, etc, and it was French money, arms, highly trained troops, and above all world class fleet, waging a world wide war against Britain that was instrumental in securing American freedom.

It was the bayonetts of another tyrannt, not our freedom loving pitchforks, that was most critical in making our revolution effective.

French revolution was effective both because the King was at first too reluctant to use his bayonetts, and because when called on, the bayonettes proved very reluctant.

That's a rather unkind view of rebel forces, completely eliminating them from the picture Chuck. You managed, at the same time, to give credence to the very notion of armed resistance with your nod to the French.

(August 19, 2011 at 7:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's a rather unkind view of rebel forces, completely eliminating them from the picture Chuck. You managed, at the same time, to give credence to the very notion of armed resistance with your nod to the French.

I give the node to the French army and navy, not the populace

Any guy with a gun shooting at the enemy is A OK in my book.

---

Would it be fair to say then Chuck, that you do not subscribe to the view that people in a representative government have a right to rebel, insomuch as violent rebellion is concerned?

(August 19, 2011 at 2:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure how a military coup would be any different in this regard. If General so and so wants to call himself King of Kentucky, fine, but I'm going to take a few shots at him.

I accede to that.

Just had practice shooting last Saturday, shot an artillery sniper rifle
Among other beautiful guns

Quote:Do you feel that the American Revolution was effective because of it's ability to subvert British forces, or through armed resistance?

If it wasn't for the French we would not have won....although the British may have tired of the effort involved in suppressing the revolt, declared victory, and gone home. We've done that in the past, too.

I'm aware of this, I was attempting to maintain focus. (rare of me I know..lol) I'm still left wondering who the french would have come to the aid of had civilians not revolted in the first place. Or if Chuck is suggesting that oppressed people should just ride it out until some third party comes to their rescue.

(August 19, 2011 at 7:25 pm)Chuck Wrote: American revolution was effective because the French King wanted his bayonnets to deprive the British of their North American Empire. We Americans think we are something for kicking out the British "Superpower of the day" out of our little backwoods hick town of 13 colonies mostly on our own, thanks to the deified Washington, with the French playing but a minor role commensurate with cheese eating surrender monkeys.

In fact the British were not quite the superpower, but merely a power on par with France, Spain, Prussia, Russia, etc, and it was French money, arms, highly trained troops, and above all world class fleet, waging a world wide war against Britain that was instrumental in securing American freedom.

It was the bayonetts of another tyrannt, not our freedom loving pitchforks, that was most critical in making our revolution effective.

French revolution was effective both because the King was at first too reluctant to use his bayonetts, and because when called on, the bayonettes proved very reluctant.

The french do deserve some credit, but from what I've learned about the American Revolution, your belittling of the American patriots is heavily exaggerated. The British lost the war to us for many reasons, but primarily because they were entrenched in antiquated battle techniques. Their superior numbers and ships meant nothing because they could not redesign their war machine to adapt to the colonists fighting style ... Americans fought dirty. Patriots were often expert marksmen who would take out British officers (a fact the British found repulsive). Patriots regularly ambushed the Brits from treelines and dugins and then disappeared. The Brits were still use to lining up in a fuckin field and firing at eachother like ducks in a row. The colonists were also very familiar with the lay of the land and understood that fighting large numbers required strategic positioning. Your cavalier statement about colonists fighting the British with pitchforks is just ludicrous.

I will concede that the French were instrumental in helping the colonies win, but your implication that we as Americans didn't earn our own independence but rather stumbled over the french for it seems more like an exaggeration to aide in making your point. Also, Britain was most assuredly a super power of the time, just because they weren't the only one doesn't make them any less intimidating.

Quote:but primarily because they were entrenched in antiquated battle techniques.

Baron Von Steuben....who apparently was not a baron but may at least have been a Prussian soldier....busted his butt teaching Washington's army those "antiquated" battle techniques.

The notion that Americans hid behind trees and shot at the British from cover is largely a myth. It happened on the retreat from Lexington/Concord and again at Kings Mountain...although that was Rebels against Tories under British command.

Otherwise, it was not until we mastered proper drill that we were able to stand up to the British. The Battle of Monmouth being the eye-opener for the Brits.

(August 19, 2011 at 9:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:but primarily because they were entrenched in antiquated battle techniques.

Baron Von Steuben....who apparently was not a baron but may at least have been a Prussian soldier....busted his butt teaching Washington's army those "antiquated" battle techniques.

The notion that Americans hid behind trees and shot at the British from cover is largely a myth. It happened on the retreat from Lexington/Concord and again at Kings Mountain...although that was Rebels against Tories under British command.

Otherwise, it was not until we mastered proper drill that we were able to stand up to the British. The Battle of Monmouth being the eye-opener for the Brits.

You're right, as I understand Baron was an honorary title given to Von Steuben and he is definitely credited with turning the patriots into a true colonial army and a big contributor in turning the tide of the war. The amount of ambush attacks by americans has always been debatable by revolutionists historians, but one things for sure, something that my professor of American History pointed out to me years ago, you don't beat an army that outnumbers you ten to one by being completely incompetent and counting on a foreign country to beat them for you. (... and you certainly don't beat them with pitchforks).

It might also be worthy to note: As I recall, Von Steuben was discharged from the Prussian army and found his way to Ben Franklin through French connections. He was actually considered a successful military leader while with the Prussian army and it leads one to wonder why he was discharged. I theorize that it was very possible that he was objecting to those old antiquated battle techniques and developing better tactics, thus the powers that be disapproved of his "untested theories" (or even perhaps pure envy got him fired). Regardless, it gives credence to the fact that he taught the colonial army those military tactics I aforementioned ... some of which are still employed today.

Let me see if I can find a link for better info.

I'm only pointing out that taking all credit from the colonial army is at the very least, inaccurate. They had weapons, they had a teacher, even if it's true that they sucked giant ass, which is only true in the start of the war - Rhythm still does have a valid point.