Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Rebellion or Revolution

This whole article is called the American Revolutionary war, but it was not a revolution is an entire population rising up against the ruling people or class. It states in the list of revolutions & rebellions that it was also a revolution in that it overthrew an existing societal and governmental order. However i believe that this should be a rebeillion, cause the entire population did not rise up against the british rule, there is evidence that familes were divided by the issues if this is the case should it not be called a civil war.

Yours Grimm MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.36.92 (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So even though the whole world knows it as the American Revolutionary War (except for those pesky Brits, who apparently like to call it the American War of Independence instead), we should change the name of the article to American Rebellion or something? I don't think so. Magic♪piano 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"but it was not a revolution is an entire population rising up against the ruling people or class". AKA, a revolution. Sourcing Wikipedia with Wikipedia is bad but; since we are Wikipedia we should use the definitions we put in articles. Here a reminder for you: From Revolution

"A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time."

I'd say that got achieved... also a revolution DOESN'T have to involve ALL the people on one side: The October Revolution sure as hell shows that. And last; how can the entire population rise up against the ruling caste; the ruling caste is also a part of that entire population... --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My point had nothing to do with definitions. It had everything to do with usage. The very first heading in WP:NAMING: "Use the most easily recognized name". Would you like to argue that the name the article currently has is not the most easily recognized? (Word definitions are usually descriptive, not prescriptive, and hence can be, and often are, wrong in some way. Perhaps Revolution is the page that needs work.) Magic♪piano 20:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"(A little known fact is that) The Greek War of Independence of 1821 (against the Ottoman Empire) inflamed the imagination of leading American political figures who caught "Greek Fever". This revolt parallels the American Revolution and brings parallels between March 25th and the Fourth of July. Thomas Jefferson , author of the Declaration of Independence, had extensive correspondence regarding the principles of democratic government with Adamantios Korais, one of the intellectual fathers of the Greek Revolution. President James Madison, major author of the American Constitution, and President James Monroe supported the (Greek) revolt in private correspondence and in public speeches. Prominent politicians such as Daniel Webster, Sam Houston, and Henry Clay championed Greece on the floor of the United States Senate. the Greek War of Independence would produce an abundance of heroes, traitors, massacres, and foreign interventions. In that regard, the Greek War of Independence again parallels the history of the American Revolution. A significant percent of American colonists remained loyal to the British monarch and lived comfortably while Washington's famished troops shivered in their winter camps. Washington himself was a target of conpiracy of other generals who wanted to replace him as commander-in-chief. Due to related quarrels with General Gates, Benedict Arnold, the leader of the American victory at the crucial battle of Saratoga, eventually deserted to the British side. The climatic battle of Yorktown was achieved only with the assistance of the French Navy.

Similar patterns formed during the Greek Revolution. At one point General Theodoros Kolokotronis was actually jailed by political rivals. Co-ordination between Greek land and sea forces was weak. Some Greeks remained loyal to the Sultan; and Greece's European Allies did not wish to see a full-fledged democracy emerge from the conflict. Thus, the revolution that began as the new cutting edge of democracy forged the spirit of the French Enlightenment ultimately was forced by Britain, France, and Russia to accept the son of a Bavarian aristocrat as its constitutional monarch. The Sultan also had powerful allies such as Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt. Pasha, in fact, would continue the fight against the Greeks after the Sultan's own forces were defeated.

The most famous American poet of the time, William Cullen Bryant, wrote on behalf of the Greeks, and hundreds of poems, editorials and news stories by less famous persons appeared throughout the national press. Cities such as Ypsilanti, Michigan, were named after heroes of the revolution, and numerous state assemblies towns, and colleges passed resolutions in support of the Greek cause. Funds were raised to aid the Greeks, and American volunteers journeyed across the Atlantic to fight alongside the Greeks. The sculptor Hiram Walker created 'The Greek Slave' a mournful marble statue that depicted a Greek woman enslaved by the Ottomans." Excerpts from an article by Dan Georgakas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.20.65 (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Why England do not win this war. Now would be much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.241.178 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong you are. Good for the World the USA has been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.76.175 (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

{RE:24 July 2009} Both your oddly structured comments seem to have no relevance to improving the article. Stabby Joe (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe, Stabby Joe, that the second of these comments was intended to take the original commenters bad grammar, and use it Yoda style to ironically imply wisdom. 149.171.235.40 (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can tell us what your remark has accomplished. Aside from being impeccably structured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.18.61 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did Britain lose? Here are several factors:

• Distance, which hampered troops movement and communications
• Public support in the colonies outweighed Loyalists
• Small and ill-disciplined British land army
• Poor inter-communication between British forces
• French, Spanish and Dutch involvement provided a two front war
• French naval and army support
• Attrition
• British troops unacclimatised to America
• British & Crown forces vastly outnumbered

(Trip Johnson (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

But, what is wrong with the French flag on this page?149.171.235.40 (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the intro

In the intro it only presents the point of view of the rebels and it makes it sound like all of the colonists were rebels. A significant proportion of them were loyal and completely opposed to any treason or sedition against the crown. With the words "Great Britain" and "America" in the intro, it reads like opposing sympathies depended on which side of the Atlantic Ocean the people lived, when in fact in the Americas some of the colonists were pro-Crown and pro-British, while some of the native Jacobins (Whigs) in Britain itself supported the rebellion. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with organization

I realize that this article, like most in Wikipedia, "just grew." Got forked as needed. The problem (for me) was this highest level article. I had what I thought was a neat reference, but couldn't find, from here, where to put it. It had to do with the "hard winter" of 1779-80 in Morristown. Never did find where it went. Suspect I will put it into Mendham, Morristown, or Park History, though it really should go into a history article someplace.

But the central problem is that being a very long war, it got forked. I think that major armies should be accounted for in a sentence or two, every six months or so. Just an opinion.

The winter got skipped because there were no major battles left to fight in the North. Holding the army together until it would be needed at Yorktown was crucial. While battles were important, they stand almost in equal importance to holding the army together until it can be focused on something really important. As usual, during the winter, this almost didn't happen (again). The history should not be skipped IMO. There are probably other omissions as well, due to the focus on "battles." Student7 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Boiler plate

Currently at the foot of this article there is a boilerplate for major conflicts that the US has taken part in. While it is true that they were in this war, I feel that this should be removed as leaving it in as the only national boilerplate on this page, if we were to leave it then similar boilerplates for the British Empire should be placed at the end of this as well. Otonabee (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we forgetting someone?

It seems to me that George III of the United Kingdom should be mentioned as a prominent figure in this conflict somewhere earlier than half-way through the article, he he he :) --Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure he merits that much attention. He played very little role in the conflict and wasn't a warrior King like Frederick the Great. Nor did he have a huge influence over British strategy which was overseen by Lords German and Sandwich. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article section suggests that he was both a major cause for the conflict, and a reason for its continuation, but militarily speaking it was his Army, commanded by officers in his commissions, that fought in it, so it seems he warrants a bit more of a mention that just a middle-of-the-article by-the-by mention he gets now. --Koakhtzvigad (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which part of the George III article you were highlighting - but it doesn't, as far as I can see, indicate that George was personally involved in the war. Things were done in his name, as a constitutional monarch, but they had little to do with him on a personal level - far less than, say, Charles III who took an active role in Spanish strategy during the conflict yet barely rates a mention in the current article.

Regarding George's mention in the the middle part of this article, even that seems a bit unessecary as George's views on the war were of far less weight than those of his ministers. A qoute from Lord North, Sandwich or Germain might be more appropriate. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

lol....that's ridiculous! What are you saying, that he didn't personally care about the American colonies? He made no policy decisions on the conduct of their retention and the suppression of the rebellion? He cared not what forces, if any, took part, and whether they won or lost against the rebels?

There were lots of people who fought for the King, and its no wonder that this article is protected and requires this

In this article, inhabitants of the thirteen colonies that supported the American Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans," with occasional references to "Patriots," "Whigs," "Rebels" or "Revolutionaries." Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are usually referred to as "Loyalists" or "Tories." The geographical area of the thirteen colonies is often referred to simply as "America."

The fact that the King did not participate in the warfare or in-theatre strategy has nothing to do with it. He remained the ultimate Commander of the forces that fought in the colonies.

Is it so hard for the current 'Americans' to accept that the United States was created as part of a rebellion, and that the 'revolutionaries' were rebels against the King of England? Calling them 'Americans' disenfranchises other 'Americans' that remained loyal to the King, the population of Canada that did not become 'American', the Spanish and French populations of America that would only become 'American' until much later in the 19th century, and of course the American tribes that would not become 'American' until the 20th century.

Where the rebels called 'American' at the time of the conflict (before the Declaration)?--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that George didn’t care about the welfare of America and its inhabitants – everything I’ve read suggests he showed a deep interest in them. Nor did I in anyway suggest that some Americans didn’t take up arms in support of him – 30,000+ did, and estimates I’ve seen (which include black, white and native Americans) suggest somewhere around half of the inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies supported the continued link with Britain.

However, George’s role as a constitutional monarch debarred him from any major control of strategy and any participation in the combat. This article has only limited space into which to cram a fairly long global war, so given George’s fairly limited role in the actual mechanics of the war he doesn’t rate a huge mention here – while in contrast the article could really do with more about the politicians who actually did direct Britain’s war effort.

You do raise a significant point about the usage of America – yet it doesn’t really seem to connect with the rest of your observations about George III. I’ve previously highlighted the inconsistent usage of American in this and related articles (where it is used at times to describe all the inhabitants of America and at others to describe only those who fought for independence – leading to ambiguous statements such as "the Loyalists were defeated by the Americans"). This issue has never really been resolved, but the hatnote you highlight at the top of the article was created to serve as a sort of compromise.

Finally, although the issue of nationality is and should be entirely irrelevant when it comes to editing wikipedia it is worth pointing out that I am not (nor have I ever been) an American. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lord Cornwallis said - "it doesn't, as far as I can see, indicate that George was personally involved in the war". A personal involvement need not mean a physical one of course, and I know you will agree with me on this.

Participation in the strategic decision making, given the distance, is perhaps a sign of wisdom rather than 'debarrment'. However, It is my impression that that King certainly aided the positive outcome of the campaign in every way, notably by aiding in the creation of forces available to his senior officers, which was his sole responsibility. It is somewhat akin to the participation that the presidents of the United States have had in the Iraq and Afghanistan deployments of their own forces.

Yes, I noted your comments in the debate on the usage of 'Americans', and addressed it separately.

It was not my intention to suggest that you personally as a Canadian are responsible for the editing of the article, but that the readers of the article might be interested in finding out that nationalism does not come from rhetoric. 'Americans' were created from rebels, and no amount of patriotism will change history. In fact I think this realisation would seriously contribute to issues in US social psychology and consciousness, particularly just about now.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to George, I do agree that involvement in a war can exist without active physical participation or control over strategy, but what I was trying to say was that his command was limited in a mechanical sense, and this article describes the mechanics of the war. George's opinions on the war are of relevance to wikipedia, but they seem to me to belong largely on GIII's article rather than here. It comes down to George's role as a constitutional monarch rather than an absolute one. The Seven Years War article repeatedly talks about Frederick the Great both because of his active role as a commander in the field, but also because he controlled Prussia's strategy throughout. George III did neither of those things in this war - while he did have the final say on military appointments he rarely refused the decisions of his ministers and while he was consulted about British strategy he played virtually no role as an architecht of it and he rubber-stamped the choices of North, Sandwich and Germain. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the article be rewritten with GIII as its main personage in the least! All I'm saying is that the King ought to be mentioned as a significant contributor to the prosecution of the military activities not in the least for authorising the raising of troops. I happened to come here while expanding another article, and that individual had to personally appeal to the King several times before he was allowed to raise a regiment, initially a provincial one, and later to convert it to a regular one. The raising of that regiment was crucial to the present day independence of Canada, so clearly, though perhaps the King's decision was a minor one in the scheme of things, it was on the whole very important.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, the American colonials were in open rebellion against King and Country. As Head of the British Armed Forces, King George III was Head of State of British America and all those who showed defiance and rebellion against the colonial governments administered in the Thirteen Colonies were in effect, traitors to King George III.

Keep in mind, the British Parliament under Lord North formed His Majesty's Government. Lord North pleaded with the King over numerous occassions to accept his resignation as prime minister, but the King would not accept. So to say that King George III had no authority over the course of the war is rubbish. He was a very well informed King who received regular briefings on the progression of the war until the very end. Somesources even said that the King was contemplating on sailing to the American Colonies in order to directly quell the rebellion himself.

Now granted, since I am American, I will always have an American point of view. But I believe that King George III is a central figure in the war. He is not a figure for Americans to conveniently demonize and make a villian out of. But a central figure in which American Colonials overthrew their own monarchy and replaced it with a republic. --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Córdova y Córdova

My removal of Luis de Córdova y Córdova was reverted with the following comment:

"RV removal of Cordova - a major figure in the war participating in the Armada of 1779, Siege of Gibraltar and Battle of Cape Spartel"

My only question is: How important can he be if he's not mentioned in the article outside of the infobox? If he's included in the article in a meaningful way it would make sense to have him listed as a commander, but the present situation just confuses readers. I'm inclined to re-revert until his importance in the war is actually laid out somewhere in the text. Llakais (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can think of plenty of reason why he might not have been previously mentioned in the body of the article. A bold editor would have actually done a small amount of work to verify the allegation in the edit history, and then actually added a mention of Cordova in a suitable place. (In fact, if someone is not bold before me, I will do this, since from other things I've worked on, he seems to have been a major figure in the Spanish Navy during the war.) Magic♪piano 03:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So sorry for pointing out a problem. Llakais 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Historical assessment"

The "Advantages/disadvantages of the opposing sides" sub-section of three - long - paragraphs has three citations, but all are from the same author. It seems like this is the assessment of one author, not a broad concesnus. Shoreranger (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mysore

If the Mysoreans didn't partake in this, a lot of articles need to be checked. 72.220.157.252 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC) What is this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.199.116 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Page Layout

I am new to the Wikipedia community. I was on the American Revolutionary War page, and I noticed that its orientation is very off, and I do not think it should be like that. I really am unsure towards how to fix the situation, but I know that it is not right. If you examine the version history of this page for November 21, 2009 and November 12, 2009, then you would see that the current page from the last edit made everything right justified versus the 12th where it is not. I just figured I would point this out. BK1241 15:50, 21 November 2009 (GMT)

'Americans'

Ok, I see there was a lengthy discussion, but what a mess!

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopaedia. In that the terms that are used in it have to be consistent across a range of articles.

So what are the issues here?

1. We have a population of British colonies (English colonies became British with the 1707 unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain) in the Old World, called the American colonies.

2. Legally the inhabitants are British citizens. Colloquially the 'American colonists' is reduced to 'Americans', but this refers to the entire continental population. The term also refers to the American sea lanes which include the Caribbean holdings of the British Crown, notably Bermuda

3. In the international sense, because America was at this time occupied by several European colonial empires, the name was British America, and remained so until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The rebellion of the British subjects in the American colonies against the King was not a new occurrence in European, English or British history, and the name universally applied to such events was Rebellion. The same term was used a century later by the US Federal Government to refer to the secessionist populations of the Southern states during the American Civil War, although as any people following a cause, they too believed themselves to be patriots.

4. So how would Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester have regarded them. I just changed reference to 'Americans' to rebels there, because there is no way he would have referred to them as anything but rebels.

5. And the argument that terminology used by our contemporaries, whether professional historians or readers of their books, should be used by Wikipedia is a very bad one. The former do not write for encyclopaedic content, and express their own perspectives quite often, in fact usually. The later are consumers of knowledge and not producers of it, and it seems to me that encyclopaedias are written for them, and not by them --Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Americans, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. Far from ignoring the King and the rebellion against him, many Americans have often tended to overemphasise the role of the King and the colonists rebellion against him as as a tyrannical monarch (something which, even had he aspired to, he lacked the powers to be) and sidestep the fact that it was an essentially an act of rebellion against the authority of the British parliament which by the 1770s was the real power of the land.

In fact in the military sense the rebellion was not one against he authority of the Parliament because the Parliament could not commission officers, and so the rebels by creating officered units clearly rebelled against the King and his sole authority in that regard. This was not the likeness of the ECW split. The appeals to the Parliament and the King were both rejected, so unauthorised militias were raised. This was beyond the taxation issues.

Yet at the same time I do feel that in both this and the American Revolution articles are a little "Americanised", there isn't enough European perspective (France, Spain and Dutch, as well as British). Very little coverage of motives or strategic thinking. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the article forgets that this was a European conflict and not a North American one. Sure the tribes fought on both sides, but the causes of the conflict could not have been more European, and the participation, overt or covert also.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the significance. After July 4, 1776.... a country called the United States of America existed where the majority of people no longer thought of themselves as British subjects. American Revolutionaries, known commonly as Patriots, after independence declared in 1776 were indeed, Americans. Tories or Loyalists, still remained loyal to the Crown. Hence after the war was over, they were in exile to either New Brunswick or back to England.

What started out technically as a civil war between Britons against Britons in rebellion ended up after July 4, 1776, to be a revolution which consisted of Britons against those Americans who claimed their independence in 1776, yet were never recognized as Americans until 1783.

Prior to July 1776, it was British versus British After July 1776, it was British versus Americans

It's that simple. --Yoganate79 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very patriotic, but doesn't change what I have already said. They were, until 1783, rebels.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I also direct your attention to this--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I imagine if you ask most Britons today, they would agree with your sentiments that the Colonials were rebellious up until the end in 1783. But that is you see, the British point of view. Many American Colonials, including the Founding Fathers, saw themselves as liberators of the peoples of those thirteen colonies from their colonial oppressors over 3,000 miles away in England. I will also add, members of the Second Continental Congress tried to reason and to seek compromise with King George III and the British Parliament who were largely hostile until the very end. Therefore, a declaration of independence was their last resort and choice which they inevitably had to take. For the sake of reason, most in the American Colonies saw themselves as British subjects. That is, until they were continuously alienated by being imposed taxes without representation in London. And since their rights as Englishmen were being denied, the progression into their own self-identity as an American nation of 13 original colonies into the first 13 states, became more clear and determined by their cause.

Rebels or not.... it depends on which point of view is taken. The point being, their self-identity changed from being loyal British subjects into Americans free of all foreign interference who they thought of as their former colonial oppressors. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

However, this being an encyclopaedia, we should not be interested in point of view, right?

The self-identity of an individual, or even a large group, in a society governed by certain norms, and certainly one governed by a judicial system, are not respected. This principal was the basis of the American Civil War, and is therefore one accepted by the society of the United States which accepted the defeat of that rebellion as just.

At that time (1763) the group of people who, not having convinced the British Government to institute change in taxation policy, chose to go outside of the judicial system and therefore were pronounced rebels and traitors to the Crown.

Invoking the 'Founding Fathers' is simply legitimising the rebellion post factum.

And, I would like to remind you that the colonies were not oppressed, but were in fact a sovereign territory of the United Kingdom, and defended by it from other nations before 1763, something the colonists benefited from during the colonial history of British America, but refused to support financially later.

Since 1784 the United States has not seen other 'revolutionary' movements as independence freedom fighters or patriots, so lets not contaminate this article with foreign policy dualisms of the United States Government in the post-modern period.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

North Shoreman, this discussion is not as clear-cut as you imply. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read my response below more carefully, you will see that I referred you to the discussion at ARCHIVE 6. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of American etc.

I don't see why the loyalists shouldn't be considered American. Nor do I understand why the use of the word separatist is so contentious. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole issue was discussed TO DEATH in Archive 6 and a consensus was reached on the use of the term "American" and the status of loyalists. The problem with "separatist" is that it is not a commonly used term by historians of the American Revolution. If you have examples of historians of the era who do use the term, then please share. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

Why are actual German states listed as belligerents? I thought just mercenaries from those places were hired, and the states themselves had nothing to do with the American Revolution. Zantorzi (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)68.41.255.41 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The various German states signed treaties with Great Britain to send forces to the Americas, in effect Great Britain paid these german states themselves and not the soldiers. Therefore the german soldiers were ordinary combatants just as the french and spanish soldiers were on the American side. The mercenary stories were just political propaganda used by the Americans to spur discontent against the british and their german allies.XavierGreen (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

criteria for listing commanders

Since User:Albrecht has been bold and edited the commander list down some, I'm wondering if there should be a discussion on the subject.

It seems to me that there are enough "independent" commanders that there should be lists of commanders separate from this article (a la World War I and World War II), assuming they should all be listed. This would remove list creep that occurs here. Alternatively, as Albrecht hints in one of his summaries, there ought to be reasonably well-defined criteria for inclusion in the list here—perhaps some balance of rank in the organization, number of troops commanded, and fame for other reasons. (For example, Albrecht removed Benedict Arnold from the American list, but left Arnold on the British list. Considering he held "independent" commands in the Continental Army, and is famous for holding one of them, it makes me wonder what Albrecht's criteria are.) Magic♪piano 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree (say like Allies of World War I, Allied leaders of World War II)

fwiw i might have edited Arnold the other way, notable command at Quebec, not really notable under the British, even in Virginia. and kept comte d'Estaing, but i take it the criteria is losers are not notable. Pohick2 (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Arnold No. 2 (and, to think of it, perhaps Lafayette) was an oversight. (Albrecht's boldness is unfortunately not always backed by consummate attention to detail.) I see no problem combining the "short list" approach with a link (and others...) to the page Commanders of the American Revolutionary War. Of course, my selection may be flawed, but that's a separate issue. Albrecht (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As a notorious "purist," I would abstain from expanding criteria beyond the intuitive areas of "rank in the organization, number of troops commanded," these being the most difficult to distort or abuse. And I would be very cautious indeed about putting too much stock in "fame for other reasons," lest a certain frigate captain return to mock and eclipse full admirals. (To say nothing of the agonizing POV Wars that inevitably follow: Fame according to whom?) Of course, I am aware of a certain interiorized, endemic concession to this last: Why else does George Washington invariably figure at the top of every list? There can be no "doctrinal" answer to these questions: At the First Battle of the Marne, I was confronted with an Allied supreme commander, Joffre, and six Allied field armies, one British and five French. In a perfect illustration of the limits of any system or rule, my habitual method shattered in its collision with this scenario: Whatever their actual seniority, each commander held the same de facto rank for the purposes of the operation; and whatever minute differences in the actual strength of the Allied armies, calculations based on numbers alone seemed a cynical and meaningless abstraction. Though the total force was overwhelmingly French, I did not wish to (perceptually) snub the British by listing Sir John French last. I resorted to the expediency of simply listing the commanders according to the geographical positions of their armies, west to east. I would not recommend this as a general rule ... Albrecht (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew that "fame for other reasons" was going to be contentious when I wrote it. :) How is this for an initial idea:

• this article lists only commanders-in-chief and top-ranking admirals
• Commanders of the American Revolutionary War lists all land commanders at Major General (and/or ranking commanders in various theaters, or ... pick your criteria) and higher (is that a too-long list?), and all Admirals known to have participated

I suspect there may be issues with even a simple scheme like this, but it simplifies what gets shown here (down to an already decent-sized list, considering the number of changes in some of those positions) and punts the problem to Talk:Commanders of the American Revolutionary War. Magic♪piano 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

btw, the article appears to be written: Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War Pohick2 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a good start, although it needs some criteria-based culling and maybe better organization. Magic♪piano 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

yes i would say make a list article for the unabridged list, and then add the essay about leadership, with culling of names to that article. Pohick2 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll just note that this is a perennial issue. I gave up a couple of years ago trying to limit the commanders in the box to just the independent commanders of army-sized units, but the struggle continues. Several more could obviously be trimmed from the still-bloated list. We did indeed used to have a link to "more commanders" in the infobox, linking to the military leadership article. You'll likely find a better version of the infobox in the history, back a few years.

Whether Joseph Brant, who commanded fewer men than a typical colonel, belongs in the box is debatable. Other Native leaders "commanded" (in the Indian sense) more men and had more influence among Natives, but few people have heard of those guys. Perhaps Brant, who became more important after the war, is a fitting Native representative for the infobox.

I see that someone has gone so far as to add the Watauga Association to the list of belligerents, which strikes me as funny. —Kevin Myers 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The question of "important", "influential", and "famous" leaders of Natives and Loyalists (like Brant and Tarleton, to name two well-known ones) was the first objection I thought of after proposing the above scheme. (I put those words in quotes because they are typically subjectively measured.) The question of where top German commanders (including the highest-ranking officers to serve from each principality that contributed troops) is also a good one.

Pushing the list out of this article (and being hard-nosed about expanding what is here) would probably help the stability of this article in that area.

According to Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War, the CinC's of USA and Britain were:

• George Washington
• King George III (overall CinC post vacant -- we could list Thomas Gage and William Howe as CinC's of North America)
• Jeffery Amherst (Army CinC 1778-1782)
• Henry Seymour Conway (Army CinC 1782-1783)
• John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich (First Lord of the Admiralty 1771-1783)

Who were equivalent figures in France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic? (Or should I just be bold and reduce the list now to that set, with a pointer to the full list?) Magic♪piano 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

People interested in pursuing this can continue the discussion at Talk:Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War. I've made a proposal for inclusion criteria on that list. Magic♪piano 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

German States

Why are the German States that were involved in the conflict removed from the info-box? They each played important roles in the conflict, signing treaties bringing them into the war, and in several battles were principle combatants. I thought that this issue had already been tackeled previously and that there was consesus that they be included? XavierGreen (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the last three archives, and didn't really see a consensus. Some discussion, but nothing that smacked of significant agreement.

The German principalities signed treaties with Britain to provide troops. They did not issue war declarations of their own, and the troops provided were required to swear an oath to King George.[1] While their citizens/subjects played an important role in the conflict, the belligerent status of the states themselves is debatable. (I'm somewhat indifferent on the subject of including them in the infobox, myself; they had nothing to declare war against at the time most of the agreements were signed, and declaring against the US after the DoI would have entailed an implicit recognition.) Magic♪piano 16:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The states signed treaties to be party to the conflict for the duration. You do not need to declare war to be a belligerant in one. The United States has fought many wars since 1945, yet has not declared war since then. The motivation of the participation in the conflict varied from state to state. Some were allied with Great Britain before the war even began, most were motivated by profit. The soldiers sent by the German states came from their national militaries and fought against the militaries of France, Spain, and the United States. I would say that would establish their participation as a belligerant in a conflict under international law.XavierGreen (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see valid arguments both ways on this one. There is the problem that these states did not declare war - but that was a fairly common occurence in the eighteenth century. Despite their sizable commitment of forces against France during the War of the Austrian Succession, the Dutch Republic remained neutral - yet we count them as one of the belligerents in the infobox. On the other hand I'm not sure I'd support listing every single one of the German states which hired out troops, because it would be disproportionate to their size and impact. It could open the door to including small units of troops from very small nationalities (ie. a unit of Corsican exiles fought with the British at Gibraltar, and there were Irish units whose alliegance was essentially to the Stuart Kings rather than the French in whose army they fought).

I'd probably advocate something like a single entry calling them German Auxileries - which would seem to cover them in a neutral format. The subject of German states in the war is currently covered in the article Hessian (soldiers), but I had considered splitting it into two articles one covering entirely the 1775-83 war, and one their wider use during the eighteenth century. If an article was created specifically about their involvement in this war, then that could be linked to. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the House of Stuart would technically still be the United Kindom, since they claimed to be the legitimate goverment of that country. Perhaps an entire article could be devoted to the make up of the alliances of the belligerants just as world war one and two have, that way we can include all of the combatants yet keep the infobox tiny.XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The other issue that would coincide with this one is that of the Native American tribes. These were not considered sovierign nations at the time and fielded less troops than many of the German states, yet they are included in the infobox as well. If the native americans are included should not the German states be included as well?XavierGreen (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Native Americans. Like the Germans I don't think it is really feasible to list them all out even if they only contributed a handful of troops. I think the idea of a seperate alliances article, where this stuff could be gone into in more detail, has a lot of merit.

With the Irish Jacobites that was kind of my point although its worth adding their loyalty wasn't to the United Kingdom (which wasn't set up until after 1800) or even to the Kingdom of Great Britain but to the seperate Kingdom of Ireland which since 1714 they recognised as being headed by the Stuarts rather than the House of Hanover and which they fought with the French to restore - but it would be confusing if that were added to French/US-led side in the infobox.

On the other side of he coin, I think there is an argument for putting Ireland as a seperate entry in the British-led column. The Irish Volunteers constituted a force which, although allied to the British cause, was in no way controlled by it. After the Constitution of 1782 the majority in the Irish Parliament appeared to regard themselves as a seperate country allied to Britain through the crown similar to the Dominion of Canada post 1867 and its armed forces as a seperate entity. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) One way to deal with smaller players deserving of recognition is to put them in separate "List of" articles: List of German principalities in the American Revolutionary War, List of Indian nations in the American Revolutionary War (although the PC police may have something to say about this name), and so on. Those articles can then be linked in the belligerent fields here. Alternatively, only list the major belligerents here (probably USA,UK,France,Spain), and push all the rest into separate articles (List of United States allies in the American Revolutionary War, List of British allies in the American Revolutionary War) linked by "...full list" in the infobox. Magic♪piano 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a mixture of those. I agree with the creation of the German list and the List of Native Americans, but along with the major players (GB, US, Dutch, Spanish, French) in the infobo I'd suggest a German Auxileries as well.

Perhaps the article describing the anti-British coalition should be called List of French allies in the American Revolutionary War or List of Franco-American allies in the American Revolutionary War because the common factor in the anti-British alliance was the French rather than the United States. The Spanish refused to acknowledge the US and their relations were so cold to the extent that the eventual recognition of American independence was probably better received in London than it was in Madrid. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support listing Indian Allies in each side as well as halving the List of Allies pages. However I think that at the very least. Hesse-Kassel should be listed in the infobox, as they provided more than half of the German troops in the Americas and was very important in the war, hannover might fall into a similar situation as well though i dont know how many troops they put into the gibralter theater exactly. I would then suggest listing the others as Minor German Auxiliaries or Other German Auxiliaries linking to a page titled German Auxiliaries in the Revolutionary War. Or i would support just listing a link to each of the alliance pages in the infobox and no countries at all.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hanover contributed 3 regiments to Gibraltar, 2 to Minorca, and 2 to India. The latter I've only seen documented in this German source (which I have not read in detail yet); they probably served mainly in actions of the Second Anglo-Mysore War; the only conflict of this war they were in was the Siege of Cuddalore. Magic♪piano 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New Georgia Encyclopedia project is underway

The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge ten articles, which I have copied to project space; one of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Revolutionary War in Georgia.

Our goal is to get the NGE articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,000 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in accomplishing this. Please note that the original NGE article (linked in the required attribution section of the above article in project space) has images, but NGE is unable to convey those to us at this time, as they are individually licensed by NGE. Also, please note that the NGE would like for us to parallel, to the extent possible, their selection of internal links (where they link to an internal NGE article, they would like for us to also link to our equivalent Wikipedia article). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For consistency on our end, it should probably be called Georgia in the American Revolution (or Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Revolution) -- there are already a few "<state> in the American Revolution" articles. I'll take a look at it. Magic♪piano 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine - we can make redirects from any potential alternate titles. bd2412 T 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace, now at Georgia during the American Revolution (to correspond with existing New Jersey during the American Revolution). bd2412 T 03:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

currently the lead says:

The war ... whereby the colonists rejected the legitimacy of the Parliament of Great Britain to govern them without representation, claiming that this violated the Rights of Englishmen. In 1775, revolutionaries gained control of each of the thirteen colonial governments, set up the Second Continental Congress, and formed a Continental Army. Petitions to the king to intervene with the parliament for them resulted in Congress being declared traitors and the states in rebellion the following year. The Americans responded in 1776 by ...

(my bolding) All the colonists? All Americans? I think that the first needs a quantity qualification and the second needs a type qualification. Without such qualifications it implies that all colonials were revolutionaries, when not all colonists supported the revolutionaries, and not all the British colonies in North America had revolutionary governments -- there were more than 13 British colonies in North America -- so why "each of the thirteen colonial governments" and not just "of thirteen colonial governments"? -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree... if I recall correctly (and I have an article on it somewhere), colonial support for succession was roughly equal to opposition; but the largest part of the population had no firm committment one way or the other. I have an article on it from the Willam and Mary periodical. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does the USA have thoer pre 1777 flags, should the flag used the majority of the war be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.52.54 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Separate article for the European/International War

It would be impossible to give adequate coverage to the international aspects of the war on this page, except as a brief sidenote. While individual battles are covered well on wikipedia, there is no unifying article connecting the military campaigns of 1776-1783 taking place outside the 13 colonies, so its disjointed. Perhaps one solution would be to create a category box? The American Revolution, a global war by Richard Ernest Dupuy is a good source on the topic. --Gary123 (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some campaign-level coverage of military activities outside North America in Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War, but there is no focused campaign/theater article like European theater of the American Revolutionary War (and the naval operations article IMHO lacks coherence and focus). Also probably worthy of more detailed treatment are the East Indies campaigns of the American Revolutionary War (covering not just the military actions in and around India, but also the logistics, successful and failed, of bringing men and materiel to that theater) and an article covering similar subjects in the West Indies, Central and South America.

The campaignbox {{Campaignbox American War of Independence: European Waters}} probably contains all of the notable actions in Europe. Magic♪piano 16:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the authors of this article know the difference between the American Revolution, and the American Revolutionary War, which was primarily a world war between the major European powers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.201.152 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Preamble

Can someone please edit the italicized preamble and remove the comment "tpj is awsome no lie". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.78.121 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of category "Resistance to the British Empire"

The category "Resistance to the British Empire" was removed from this article on two occasions recently. [2] [3] The reason for the first removal was cited as a WP:SPA which was incorrect.[4]. The second time around the reason being cited in the edit summary is "war was against Great Britain, not the British Empire" but several sources claim the the 13 colonies were a part of "The First British Empire".

1. Canny, Nicholas (1998). The Origins of Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume I. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199246769. http://books.google.com/?id=eQHSivGzEEMC.
2. University of Maryland - Department of History [5]

I am adding back the [[category:Resistance to the British Empire]] to this article. Please discuss here if you have concerns. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You really don't understand what constitutes "synthesis" do you? Of course the 13 colonies were part of the "British Empire", but that is not saying that the independence war was "resistance" against the British Empire, as your category implies. It is a gross and misleading oversimplification - first, it was against Great Britain, second, many historians have noted that the war was as much a civil war (Loyalist American vs Revolutionary American) as it was one of independence. This category is yet another example of your agenda here at Wikipedia, just like your new category "Famines in British Empire". As someone pointed out on the discussion on that, creating categories is an easy way for you to bypass Wikipedia's policies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ps per WP:BRD please do not add this back while discussion is in flight. You were "bold", you were reverted, now we discuss. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful to maintain WP:AGF. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick - The founding fathers were resisting the ideology of the British Empire. That in itself justifies this categorization. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Will you be adding this category to the founding fathers articles? To every single individual that has ever resisted the British Empire throughout the centuries? From George Washington and Ghandi to campaigners for decolonisation in Britain itself? The French and Spanish empires were a "resistance" to the British Empire, will they be added too? Your category is deeply flawed and pointless. It should be deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There can be further sub-categories in the category - each focusing on a different aspect, geography or some other sub-categorization. Having too many articles in the category is a weak argument for the deletion of the entire category. If there are other reasons why you think the category is "deeply flawed and pointless", please elaborate. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The category serves no purpose. You can not just create articles, categories and templates for the sake of it. They have to serve a purpose. Attempting to link together 1000s of articles simply for their opposition to one Empire its absolutely silly. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Thomas Paine and John Locke, it's all their fault. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher - Isn't linking 1000s of articles together something that makes Wikipedia unique? I hope you re-consider and I urge you to change your vote from "Delete" to "Keep" for this category since your vote could be the tipping vote. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Province of Quebec as Belligerent

The panel at the top left showing the flags of belligerents is well done, especially listing the loyalists as a sub-category of the UK. However, considering that the loyalists are listed, as are a myriad of truly minor players like the various indian tribes, another union flag should be added as a sub-belligerent under the UK for the province of Quebec. Especially considering that there was actual combat there. Indeed, this group would be even more distinct from the general UK category than the American loyalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.6.10 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Casualties?

Hey, just a quick, vital question. Why are there no casualties listed in the war box? I understand that a war this far back would be hard to gain an exact number, but it's surprising, still, to see not even a range listed.173.95.138.76 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well this would be a fine opportunity for you to shine. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Even more in question is how it lists American Causalities at 50,000 but the American Strength state above is far below that. Even if we take the 25,000 number that is more then 50% army death. That is staggering and hard to believe. 192.104.181.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

The infobox might be wrong. According to American_Revolutionary_War#American_armies_and_militias "About 250,000 men served as regulars or as militiamen for the Revolutionary cause in the eight years of the war, but there were never more than 90,000 total men under arms at one time." ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hum some informations are wrong

Did the Treaty of Paris recognize the sovereignty of the United States over the territory bounded by [what is now Canada to the north, Florida to the south, and] the Mississippi River to the west. The article on the Treaty does not indicate that.

Bfunck (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of american regular troops : 20000, number of french troops 15000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex2603 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, the Treaty of Paris explicitly recognized the sovereignty of the United States over the territory mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Strength

The strength for the two sides are way off. 50,000 British regulars? The British Army WORLDWIDE at the time numbered no more than 40,000. The French sent far more than under 8,000 soldiers to North America. In total the British Army probably had about 12,000 - 15,000 men in total stationed in North America at the height of the war. The majority of the British strength in America was Loyalists (about 50,000) and Hessian Mercenaries (about 30 - 50,000). (DarkFrontier (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

If you have sources to back those numbers up, feel free to make corrections; do make sure the source characterizes what the number actually represents (is it a maximum or some other measure? from when in the war?). The currently-presented allied numbers certainly do not represent worldwide force deployment for France (and Spain is entirely missing); it's hardly surprising the British number could be wrong as well. Magic♪piano 16:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've considered this problem before. One of the issues with this is whether to use peak numbers or total numbers. One of the problems with this article, is it has a slightly Americo-centric nature to it (it ignores British/Spanish/French/Dutch troops in Europe/India even though after 1778 they were all in a sense "active"). It is a common trait among historians (American, British and other) just to talk about the war within what became the United States as if it were a self-contained war in which the French and Spanish intervened. In truth it was after 1778 a world war in which the war in the Thirteen Colonies was only one theatre amongst many. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

German involvement

The British purchased the services of 30,000 German Soldiers for $150,000, all of which went into the royal coffers of the German princes. These troops came from Hesse Cassel, Hesse Hanau, Brunswick, Anspach, Bayreuth, Anhalt Zerbst and Waldeck.

              Place               Number sent    Number not returned home

Hesse Cassel 16,992 6,500 Hesse Hannau 2,422 981 Brunswick 5,723 3,015 Anspach - Bayreuth 2,553 1,178 Anhalt Zerbst 1,152 168 Waldeck 1,225 720

Total sent was 30,067 from 1776 to 1782; 12,562 did not return... 7,754 dead and 4,808 remained in America...

All are generally referred to as "Hessians" because of their large numbers. Also, their General Knypyhausen was commander of the entire German force which contributed to the common reference to "Hessian Soldiers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The blanket term Hessian to refer to all German soldiers hired by Britain probably had its orgins in a much earlier war than this, as it was a common British pratice in the eighteenth century. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Claims of bias

Painful to know that many people will use this page as their own historical reference. It is biased and almost always inaccurate (particularly with regards to casualties and numbers involved). Wikipedia is a curse to military history (well not US Mil. History anyway because Wiki always invariably favours them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.0.223 (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that the history you learned might be the thing that's slanted? What sources are you recommending?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you Berean Hunter. If somebody wants to claim bias, they should at least have sources to back it up. Otherwise they should shut it.

Here are some stats... [6]

US:

KIA and mortally wounded: 7,000

Disease: 63,000

TOTAL: 70,000

UK:

KIA and mortally wounded: 4,000

Disease: 27,000

TOTAL: 31,000

A more thorough look...

US dead

KIA: 6,824, incl. naval

POW deaths: 8,500

Disease, etc.: 10,000

[TOTAL: 25,324]

UK side: 15,000 KIA+DOW, incl...

Lost at sea: 3,000

Tories and Canadians: 3,000

German mercenaries: 3,000

NAm Indians: 500

American allies:

French: 10,000 battle dead, 75% at sea.

Spain: 5,000

Netherlands: 500

[TOTAL: 37,324 battle dead, all sides, all theaters, plus 18,500 Americans dead of disease, which would give an overall total of 55,824 w/o Brtitish, French and Hessian disease deaths. It looks like about a third of the battle dead (ca. 11,500 French, US, UK) died in the war at sea.]

And as much as the British like to painfully deny it, they did indeed lose and were defeated in the American Revolutionary War. They may have won a lot of battles. However, they didn't win the ones that count. Someimes life just isn't fair.Yoganate79 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth remembering that three of the heroes of American independence were John-Paul Jones, Thomas Paine and Horatio Gates (and numerous other Brtish/Irish born figures) while a number of American-born guys Henry Clinton, Joseph Galloway and Benedict Arnold strived to retain the connection between the colonies and London. Trying to manipulate a modern politicial one-upmunship over the war seems to miss the whole point of the conflict. Were Button Gwinnett or Benjamin West really American of British???? To try and turn the conflict into a 20th/21st Century Britian vs US competion really seems to miss the point of the entire event. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth remembering WP:FORUM too, and not commenting on the contributors or their apparent motives. - BilCat (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Only war Britain lost

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as No consensus to add this info in any form to the article. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The introduction should mention the fact that it was the only war Great Britain ever lost. (92.13.6.78 (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

Not without a reliable source, or better, several reliable sources, that state that. It probably depends on what one's definition of "war" is, and one's definition of "Britain". - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Britain did lose other wars. War of Jenkin's Ear I believe was a defeat. It was also defeated as part of the alliance during the French Revolutionary War. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

The War of Jenkins' Ear was a draw. We won the French Revolutionary Wars in 1814 and again in 1815. (92.13.6.78 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

This is where the definition of "war" comes into play. Is the War of the Second Coalition a separate war? (It ended with a real honest-to-god peace treaty.) As Bilcat points out, do you have a source that says this, or is this just your opinion? Magic♪piano 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The War against Revolutionary France ran from 1793 to 1815 with a few pauses, and Britain won. (92.13.6.78 (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

The War of 1812 was another draw that both sides often claim as their victory. I doubt one should mention the lost war without mentioning the draws also, which would really make it too much info. Anyway, it's probalby already covered somewhere on WP, so we could link to that if mentioning the Loss(es). - BilCat (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at WT:HIST#Was the American Revolutionary War the only war Britain ever lost? and WT:MILHIST#Was the American Revolutionary War the only war Britain ever lost?, asking for reliable sources to be provided here. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A claim that this is the only war Britain has ever lost needs a strong supporting reference to be included. Without trolling through the hundreds of years of British history, it seems hugely unlikely to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it's true actually. The so-called Irish War of Independence ended in stalemate in 1922 and both sides had to compromise. Michael Collins himself admitted that the IRA could not continue fighting the British army because it was so low on ammunition. It was another 27 years before southern Ireland became an independent country. (92.12.62.147 (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

Until you provide sources supporting your position, it remains nothing more than your opinion, and thus unworthy (just like my opinion, and that of other editors) of inclusion here. Magic♪piano 16:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army (1994) states that the American Revolutionary War was the only war Britain ever lost. It must be remembered that Operation Musketeer was a complete military success in November 1956 until Eisenhower intervened, which he later greatly regretted since Nasser proved to be extremely anti-West. (92.12.62.147 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

We need the exact article and page number in order to verify that first. - BilCat (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The introduction by David Chandler and Ian Beckett on page xvii states: "Britain has lost only one major war, namely that for American Independence between 1775 and 1783". (92.12.62.147 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC))

I agree with BilCat: what do you mean by 'Britain' or 'Great Britain'? The United Kingdom fought the American Revolutionary War. The Kingdom of England certainly lost other wars, such as the medieval wars in France. How about the Norman invasion of 1066 - was that a loss for 'Britain'? WCCasey (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nit: Kingdom of England (before 1707); Kingdom of Great Britain (or United Kingdom of Great Britain) (1707-1801); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922); United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1922-present). Magic♪piano 22:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the book is about the history of the British Army, it should define its scope somewhere. I do note that the quote given from the book states "only major war", which is quite different from "only war", no matter the scope. Still, for such a claim, a wider range of sources would be best, including some non-British sources. - BilCat (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would think that some of the Afghan campaigns/Wars possibly count as losses - certainly not victories.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

WRT scope, "the British Army" as a meaningful concept doesn't really go back any further than the 1660s, which helpfully gets us out of the thorny problem of the medieval wars. "Britain" as a unified entity really means the eighteenth century and onwards. I suspect "major" here is implicitly defined as "involving a European power" - you could probably make a case that the Afghan expeditions somehow weren't defeats, but it would be a pretty tenuous argument. Shimgray | talk | 20:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• 'First Anglo-Afghan War : "...also marked one of the worst setbacks inflicted on British power in the region after the consolidation of British Raj by the East India Company". Infobox says "British withdrawal from Afghanistan".

Third Anglo-Afghan War "While it was essentially a minor tactical victory for the British in so much as they were able to repel the regular Afghan forces, in many ways it was a strategic victory for the Afghans. For the British, the Durand Line was reaffirmed as the political boundary between Afghanistan and British India and the Afghans agreed not to foment trouble on the British side. In the aftermath, the Afghans were able to resume the right to conduct their own foreign affairs as a fully independent state." Infobox: "Treaty of Rawalpindi *Strategic and political gains for Afghanistan resulting in Afghan independence with full sovereignty in foreign affairs. *Tactical victory and strategic British gains with the reaffirmation of the Durand Line."

The treaty of Rawalpindi is even celebretated as Afghan Independence Day ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to make that case, just that some suitably dedicated and myopic person would inevitably do so... ;-) Shimgray | talk | 20:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Leave it out. Britain has so many different meanings and as can be seen from the arguments here, as does weasel words like "major".

The British like all nations tend to airbrush out their defeats (or explain them away by blaming a specific general or politician), while emphasising their victories as a national triumph with the help of a British hero.

Often the outcome of a war is a political fudge so that both sides can claim a "victory", also because Britain has had a democracy longer than most a change of a ruling party rather than a complete regime change is how defeat is handled. For example compare the different way Argentina handled the defeat over the Falklands War with the way the British handled their defeat in the Suez Crisis.

So to play the devils advocate:

Assuming one takes the personal union of Charles II and the founding of the British Army as Britain, the Raid on the Medway and the outcome of the Second Anglo-Dutch War was not exactly a high point in British military history. Indeed the Anglo-Dutch Wars as a whole tend to be airbrushed out of popular history and as a part of that series of wars some historians argue that the Glorious Revolution was nothing but a successful Dutch invasion later cloaked in British nationalism as a revolution to disguise a national humiliation.

In the First Boer War the British failed to gain the objectives for which they went to war. Despite arguments to the contrary here Britain lost the Anglo-Irish War. More recently the withdrawal from some parts of empire was a messy affair (eg Aden and Kenya) which has a comparison with the withdrawal from the American colonies, not so much a direct military defeat but an acceptance that the territory was costing too much in blood and treasure. -- PBS (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Britain was not defeated at Suez. The operation was a complete military success and was already won before the Americans stupidly forced the Allies to withdraw - something Eisenhower later described as his "greatest foreign policy regret". Britain won the Boer War in 1902 and Britain did not lose the Anglo-Irish War. If Britain had lost then all 32 counties would have become an independent country in 1922. Instead the result was a draw, with both sides having to compromise. (92.3.204.205 (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Your comment on Suez is moving the goal posts, it was a political humiliation (as it drove a stake through the heart of the notion that Britain was still a major power), more so than the American War of Independence which was also a political defeat and not a military one. I think you are confusing the Second Boar War with the First. Losing a civil war in which about a quarter of a state's territory passes to the rebels would usually be called a major defeat for a state. I noticed also that you completely ignored the Second Anglo-Dutch War which given that Great Britain was in a personal union, that both England and Scotland (see Steve Murdoch. The Terror of the Seas?:Scottish Maritime Warfare, 1513-1713. p. 239.) were in the war -- declaring war and making peace was (is?) by royal prerogative -- it was a major British defeat but one outside the major scope of the book you cited which chooses to define Britain as an entity that existed only from 1707 and the act of union. -- PBS (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, I think we've proven the statement that "Britain has lost only one major war, namely that for American Independence between 1775 and 1783", is far too controversial to add to the article. It will just prompt more discussions on whether or not such and such was a loss for Britain, or if it was a major war or not. Given that this article is about the Amer. Rev., not the British Army, it's best not to devote a growing portion of the talk page to discussing other conflicts. - BilCat (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case, the so-called "Irish War of Independence" was not an actual war, and nor was it recognised as such by the government. It was just a series of attacks by terrorists dressed in civilian clothes on soldiers, policemen and civilians. The fact remains that Britain has only ever lost one war, the American Revolutionary War. (92.3.204.205 (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your inputs I believe that a case for adding the fact that it was the only war Great Britain ever lost has not been proven and has been said is unclear and ambiguous. Perhaps we should close this now as no consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What has certainly been proven, and is referenced, is that this was the only major war the British army ever lost. (92.3.204.205 (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Except for that pesky definition of "major war"; we may have one citation for such a statement, but we don't seem to have seen the definition of this term yet. We also seem to not have any sort of broad consensus among a diversity of sources in support of such a statement. At best, it appears to be one historian's (or editorial board's) opinion (and apparently one Wikipedia editor's). Magic♪piano 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army is a reliable source. Suez may have been a political defeat due to the US betrayal, but the military operation itself was a complete success. At the very least it should be mentioned that the American Revolutionary War was the only conflict in which a British government acknowledged defeat. (92.3.204.205 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

I didn't say the source wasn't reliable; I said it appeared to be standing alone, and that a significant term it uses ("major war") remains undefined in this discussion. Furthermore, the quote you gave above doesn't say what you are now suggesting for language (that it is the only conflict in which a British government acknowledged defeat); if you want the article to say that, please cite it. Magic♪piano 18:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find any other war that Britain lost apart from the American Revolutionary War. It is strongly debatable whether the Irish War of Independence could be described as a real war, certainly the British government never regarded it as a war. In any case the IRA did not win, their stated aim was that all 32 counties would become an independent country and a republic. Instead both sides had to compromise and so the southern 26 counties became part of the British Commonwealth with the British monarch as Head of State for the next 27 years. The northern six counties of course remain part of the UK. If Michael Collins had not signed the Treaty then the British army would have been ordered to resume the fighting at once. (92.3.204.205 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

The First Boer War and the Afghan Wars (with the possible exception of the second) were certainly defeats. There's also the French Revolutionary Wars, which can be considered a defeat if viewed as distinct from the Napoleonic Wars. If we go before 1707 there are numerous examples of English defeats - the Hundred Years War, most notably. john k (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The First Boer War was never acknowledged as a defeat, instead there was a truce until the Second Boer War. The Middle Ages wouldn't be part of British history. I suppose a major war could be defined as one involving more than two countries, or one that took place over a number of years. (92.8.146.102 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

I don't care what you think "major war" means; how do the sources using the term define it? Magic♪piano 15:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is defined as an armed struggle between two or more countries' armed forces. The IRA would not qualify as it was not a real army, just a terrorist organisation. (92.8.146.102 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

I concur with Milb1 that the discussion should be closed as "No consensus". In the last few posts, we're rehashing the same arguments, and they're not directly related to improving the article itself. Perhaps the IP can take up this issue directly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, which is more appropriate for such a broad-ranging discussiona, and try gain a consensus on the issue there first. - BilCat (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Only major war

In reference to the above section, would it at least be a good idea to add to the introdiuction that it was the only major war Britain lost, as per the British army book source? (HantersSpade (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

There is clearly no consensus for adding the information. I'm closing thie discussion now. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well surely the Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army is a reliable source? The First Boer War was by no means a MAJOR war, unlike the American Revolutionary War. (HantersSpade (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

As per the above discussion, reliability of the source is not the problem. Magic♪piano 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A major war is officially defined as either a war between two superpowers, or a conflict involving several different countries. Under that definition the American Revolutionary War was indeed the only major war that Great Britain ever lost. (HantersSpade (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC))

"Officially defined"? Where? Can you demonstrate that the Oxford's editors subscribe to this definition? (Heck, can you demonstrate they even use the phrase "major war" in this assertion?) Magic♪piano 18:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm the phrase as quoted above ("lost only one major war, namely...") is in the introduction to the Oxford History of the British Army (p. xviii of my 1996 edition). However, it's a concluding remark to the introduction, with no definition given; I've skimmed the sections discussing the ARW without seeing anything which expands on it, or any meaningful emphasis on the term. As noted above, I suspect the definition they use is "war with a major (often European) power", but there's not much to go on here; I'd be a lot more comfortable including it if they'd "shown their working", or if we had some evidence that it indicated a firmly understood taxonomy of "major" vs "minor" used by historians, rather than an individual and thus fluid dividing line.

(As to the counterexample suggested above, the First Anglo-Boer War is discussed briefly along with other 1880s activity on pp. 196-7, where it's characterised as one of "numerous small wars and colonial campaigns", so they're consistent on that point at least.) Shimgray | talk | 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

GERMAN/SOLDEIRS

The german soldeirs were bought to fight the war for Britan. when king George the thrid found that there was a amazing numbers of rebels were in New jersey. he was amazed but then he found that they were going to fight. "he said give me the mint". he bought 20,000 solderis from germany to fight in New Jersey and New York city. his army was very good. they took New York city and drove the rebels into Pennslvaina. now he kept buying thesse men until 1780 when they were not worth the money any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braveryisheaven (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd support at least one flag of a German principality on the British side. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought almost all troops of 18th-century European monarchies were effectively mercenaries as opposed to conscripts or volunteers in standing armies, so their mercenary status wouldn't disqualify them. Also, the German involvement was absolutely political-diplomatic, as the British King was also sovereign of Hanover in Germany and had strong ties with fellow princes there - and that is why he was able to access German troops. So in that sense the German involvement was political rather than purely financial. I have a hunch that the German princes would also be willing to support the British because for them this was a proxy war against France. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"but I thought almost all troops of 18th-century European monarchies were effectively mercenaries as opposed to conscripts or volunteers", why do you think the British redcoats are called "regulars", they were a professional standing army.

The troops from the various German States were regulars as well, they were professional soldiers from their states' national militaries.XavierGreen (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

US flag

The article appears to be using the modern US flag in the infobox, historically inaccurate. Can we please switch to the flag used at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell all the flags used in the infobox are the 13-star Betsy Ross flag which was used at time. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Its the United Kingdom not Britain

Great Britain is the name of the land mass that Scotland, England and Wales are on. The overall country is referred to as the United Kingdom. Also, this is the only time the UK is referred to as Great Britain when in that little battle box. Just looks inconsistant and is overall incorrect, as how can a country go to war with soil and grass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.212.134 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain is the common name for the country in the eighteenth century. Before the 1800-1801 Act of Union that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland they were two seperate but closely linked states the Kingdom of Ireland and Kingdom of Great Britain. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No troops from Hanover

The Fremont Barnes Encyclopedia (2007) of the Revolution lists the six German states that hired troops [Hesse-Cassel, Brunswick, Hesse Hanau, Anspach-Bayreuth, Waldeck, Anhalt-Zerbst] --Hanover is NOT on the list. (VOL 2 P 742). George III did order up 4000 troops from Hanover but he sent them to Gibralter and Minorca--NOT to North America, says Trevelyan Am Rev. part II vol 1 p 38 Rjensen (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point XavierGreen makes is that Hanoverian troops fought somewhere in the war (they also fought in India as part of this war, btw). The thing that he keeps avoiding (and is the proper reason to revert) is the need to properly source evidence that the various German states were considered belligerents. Magic♪piano 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hanoverians in Gibralter and India were under the British flag, not the Hanover flag. Hanover as a nation (with its own flag and command structure) itself never entered the war-- & certainly did not declare war on nearby France which was much bigger! Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hanover was united in a personal union with Great Britain at the time, King George III was the absolute monach of Hanover. If he went to war with a polity, all of his realms contributed to that conflict no?XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not true--no source mentioned. George III was an absentee king and was practically uninvolved in the government of Hanover--he never visited the country once in his long lifetime and did not choose any of the ministers there--they made all the decisions, according to bio by Brooke (1974) p 42Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

He may never have visited the place, but it certaintly is true that he was the absolute monarch of Hanover.XavierGreen (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

under american mythology, he has to be absolute monarch of something, right?Ben200 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

wrong. George III was a hands-on King of Britain and of the colonies, but a hands-off rules of Hanover. The British got rid of "absolute" monarchs in 1688. George I and II were deeply interested in Hanover--probably more than in Britain and surrounded themselves with German advisors, and that really annoyed the Brits. So George III decided to prove he was truly British by avoiding all involvement in Hanover--George III had no German advisors. Rjensen (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

i was beng sarcasticBen200 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

George III was legally the absolute monarch of Hanover, did he personally rule? No, but his ministers ruled through his authority as an absolute monarch. One does not need to be an active ruler to be an absolute monarch. He actually had more power in Hanover than he did in Britain, he simply chose not to use that power.XavierGreen (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what George Trevelyan has to say about Hanover troops:

George the Third had a claim of loyalty over one section of the German people. As Elector of Hanover he made to the King of England what he himself described as a loan of five battalions, who were sent to garrison Gibraltar and Minorca, and release an equivalent number of British troops for service in America. Our country, as always, did things handsomely; and Hanover was no loser by the transaction. The whole force received British pay, which was on a much more generous scale than was fingered by the inmates of any barrack in Germany. The opportunity was taken of getting the British taxpayer to provide all ranks with a complete outfit, of which the officers in particular stood woefully in need; and a British Colonel, who knew something of the life on board a transport, was told off for the duty of fortifying their minds against the terrors of the voyage; because, as the King remarked, though brave on shore, Continental forces feared the sea.

Here's what a history of Hanover has to say:

Schon in eben diesem Jahre begannen die ersten Zwistigkeiten mit den Colonien in Nordamerika, die endlich im Jahre 1776 zu einem eben so kostspieligen als erfolglosen Kriege ausbrachen, und bald darauf (1778) einen neuen Krieg mit Frankreich, wie auch (1779) mit Spanien und (1780) mit Holland herbeiführten. Das Churfürstcnthum Hannover, das sich noch immer nicht ganz von den im siebenjährigen Kriege erlittenen Drangsalen erholt hatte, blieb glücklicher Weise bei diesen Unruhen vrrschont, außer, daß einige hannoversche Truppen nach Gibraltar geschickt wurden ...

Rough translation: war breaks out with the colonies in 1776, followed by war with France (1778), Spain (1779), and Holland (1780). Hanover, still not fully recovered from the Seven Years War, was untouched by these conflicts, other than some of its troops were sent to Gibraltar ...

No mention there of Hanover making war. Here's an interesting quote from Atwood's The Hessians, in discussing whether or not the German princes were possibly violating agreements with the Holy Roman Emperor in sending troops:

But [contemporary] jurists accepted that princes who hired out troops for subsidies were not necessarily belligerents themselves

Atwood then gives a specific example from the Seven Years War, in which Kassel never declared war, but contributed troops and was occupied by enemy troops. Kassel never declared itself a belligerent in the ARW either. Magic♪piano 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually think (i may be mistaken) that because of the regulations of the Holy Roman Empire that offically no member state that was under complete fief (some states had territory outside the empire, prussia ect) of the Emperor could declare war. That does not mean that the constituent states could not fight wars unoffically, they often fought each other for instance lol.XavierGreen (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)