http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=51321
Hmmmmm What would the lower 48 be like had the battle been won?
Hmmmmm What would the lower 48 be like had the battle been won?
Cornwallis Surrenders This Date - 1781
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
Second-rate general facing the wrath of a pretty much united Europe. Not surprised he lost, If Duke Wellington were fighting, or actually a great number of better generals, the result would have been very different. Still what difference did it make to Britain rulling the waves for centuries to come?.
not a darn thing.
A lot of North Americans will point this to being a HUGE event, when it wasn't, it really was nothing but a backwater, and thats why they sent such a god-awful general.
not a darn thing.
A lot of North Americans will point this to being a HUGE event, when it wasn't, it really was nothing but a backwater, and thats why they sent such a god-awful general.
Yeah, him and Henry Clinton were probably the worse General's the british army ever had...Clinton was born in Canada, you can claim him as Canadian if you want.....I wont mind 
Ya right, an eight year backwater where the British Empire deployed it's largest expeditionary force in New York. The next largest deployment of forces by Britain was D-Day. It was a HUGE event. You lost a grand chunk of North America. And even after the revolution the British Empire still couldn't deal with it. Which brings us to the War of 1812, another three year "annoyance" right?
Very nice piece Curious. I'm sure the lower 48, would look a lot like they do now. Only the inhabitants would likely say "Eh" a lot, lol, like their neighbours north of the 49th. The Native population, might just be a tad happier too.
Daz, my friend, you seem annoyed. I must dissagree with you on Cornwallis' credentials. He was reguarded, in my recolection, as being a fierce fighter, and analytical. That doesn't sound like someone that would drop trou for no other reason then a "Oh sh*t! We're screwed!" kind of moment.
Daz, my friend, you seem annoyed. I must dissagree with you on Cornwallis' credentials. He was reguarded, in my recolection, as being a fierce fighter, and analytical. That doesn't sound like someone that would drop trou for no other reason then a "Oh sh*t! We're screwed!" kind of moment.
Last edited:
ITN, you are looking at this all wrong, your looking at it quite irrationally actually. The north American campaign wasn't the main theater of battle, the war was global. It was truely the first "world war".
Like it or not, it was a backwater. If it was seen as anything more than an annoyence, britain sure as heck would have fought a darnslight harder to keep it. Come on. You won, I'll give you that, but it was by no means the main battle front.
General Cornwallis may have been an "OK" general, but let's face it, he was no Arthur Wellsley (Duke Wellington) or a Clive of India. We sent him because he was a career soldier, not carasmatic, but a devout soldier none the less.
We had Boney to defeat, while we were upset that several of our own colonies were turning against us in this quite paramount hour of need (which it was, and actually, thats the whole point of the thing isn't it?, world wars need to be paid for) we were more worried about French global domination.
So nope, I've said it before, I'll say it again, it's big to you ITN, I won't take that away from you. But to Britain and pretty much the rest of the commonwealth, apart from being reminded of it every year, it really was not a big deal here, it never was.
Like it or not, it was a backwater. If it was seen as anything more than an annoyence, britain sure as heck would have fought a darnslight harder to keep it. Come on. You won, I'll give you that, but it was by no means the main battle front.
General Cornwallis may have been an "OK" general, but let's face it, he was no Arthur Wellsley (Duke Wellington) or a Clive of India. We sent him because he was a career soldier, not carasmatic, but a devout soldier none the less.
We had Boney to defeat, while we were upset that several of our own colonies were turning against us in this quite paramount hour of need (which it was, and actually, thats the whole point of the thing isn't it?, world wars need to be paid for) we were more worried about French global domination.
So nope, I've said it before, I'll say it again, it's big to you ITN, I won't take that away from you. But to Britain and pretty much the rest of the commonwealth, apart from being reminded of it every year, it really was not a big deal here, it never was.
I think you'll find that during the American War of Independence the British won around two-thirds of all the battles fought despite the fact that most of the rest of the Army was in Europe fighting the idiot Napoleon. That comes as no surprise considering that George Washington wasn't a very good leader and was rubbish tactically.
And the British didn't rate their possession in North America too highly - you were just a bunch of peasants without any of the technological marvels and modern amenities found in Britain and Europe. Our other possessions around the globe were considered more important to us. Despite American historians telling Americans that a bunch of pitch-fork-wielding peasants managed to defeat the mightiest military the world had ever known the truth was that the British won the vast majority of the battles and that's when we were also fighting the French in Europe at the same time.
Historically speaking ....
Isn't it amazing how history is recorded and reported depending upon the country in which it is published?
What's a student to do?
Isn't it amazing how history is recorded and reported depending upon the country in which it is published?
What's a student to do?
But that changed in an awful hurry though, didn't it?
You won battles, we won the war. Get over it Blackleaf.
But as I've said before ITN, I'd like to hve seen you take on some real opposition, like Wellington. I know the iron duke wouldn't have quit as quickly as the canadian and the rank and file officer. But as I say, they were busy doing other things.
Like fighting the french all over the world....which had to be paid for. That's the point I never understood, everyone knew their taxes had to go up, there was huge global war on, it wasn't as if Britain raised taxes for the sake of it.......the french had their eye on the new world no doubt.
Like fighting the french all over the world....which had to be paid for. That's the point I never understood, everyone knew their taxes had to go up, there was huge global war on, it wasn't as if Britain raised taxes for the sake of it.......the french had their eye on the new world no doubt.
England and France were not at war at the beginning of the American war of Independence - they had signed the Peace of Paris in 1763 which held until France entered the War of Independence on the American side in 1778. In fact the Americans have much to thank the French Monarchy at that time for the gift and loan of vast amounts of money, several thousand troops and the commitment of French fleets to the Americans and IMO I do not believe that the Americans would have won their war if France had not aided them. The victory over Cornwallis at York was only possible because the French fleet bottled up the harbour and prevented Cornwallis from receiving reinforcements and later escaping.
As far as Boney is concerned - well frankly, Bonaparte was not even on the scene then daz_hockey - France was still a monarchy.
Cornwallis was a somewhat enigmatic figure - although a peer of the British empire, he sided with the Whigs in parliament, who during the war kept on advocating a settlement with the colonies. In fact in 1766 he stood up with 4 peers in opposition to a Declaratory bill which was an affirmation of the British governments right to tax the colonies - go figure. At the same time he was certainly the most effective British Commanding officer in America. If anything, Great Britain lost its American colonies through a mixture of sheer incompetence in its political and military leadership, stupidity, and arrogance. And of course the loss was keenly felt by Great Britain - it was a big thing.
As far as Boney is concerned - well frankly, Bonaparte was not even on the scene then daz_hockey - France was still a monarchy.
Cornwallis was a somewhat enigmatic figure - although a peer of the British empire, he sided with the Whigs in parliament, who during the war kept on advocating a settlement with the colonies. In fact in 1766 he stood up with 4 peers in opposition to a Declaratory bill which was an affirmation of the British governments right to tax the colonies - go figure. At the same time he was certainly the most effective British Commanding officer in America. If anything, Great Britain lost its American colonies through a mixture of sheer incompetence in its political and military leadership, stupidity, and arrogance. And of course the loss was keenly felt by Great Britain - it was a big thing.
Yeah, let's all say what a great comment the last one was, when frankly, it was subjective, and bias....and frankly wrong. Your sitting in North America, of course it's a big thing to you. Go to the principal participants (.i.e. Britain, France, Spain the netherlands etc...cus lets face it, the United states was a minor player in this war) ask them what they record s these events.
Same thing, over and over again: "no biggie" "minor blip", "small iritance", what effect did it have on history (up until the rise of the USA as a superpower (Thanks to WW1 and WW2 + the mass migrations, not actually anything to do with Britain's failure) nothing, Britain still went on to be the Superpower it was for hundreds of years, patrolled the Atlantic, keeping AMERICA safe and out of French hands. simple, your history, however you may think it isn't, is subjective and one-sided.
(and by the way, I'm a student IT teacher with History as my side option, I know what I'm talking about, whereas you actually think you do........but you dont)
Same thing, over and over again: "no biggie" "minor blip", "small iritance", what effect did it have on history (up until the rise of the USA as a superpower (Thanks to WW1 and WW2 + the mass migrations, not actually anything to do with Britain's failure) nothing, Britain still went on to be the Superpower it was for hundreds of years, patrolled the Atlantic, keeping AMERICA safe and out of French hands. simple, your history, however you may think it isn't, is subjective and one-sided.
(and by the way, I'm a student IT teacher with History as my side option, I know what I'm talking about, whereas you actually think you do........but you dont)
Last edited:
Minor blip ? No big deal ?
Let me see:
France - the cost of the American war to France was estimated to be about 1.5 billion livres - enough to bankrupt the French national budget and which led to the summoning of the estates general in 1789 which led to the arrest of King Louis XVI.
Netherlands - attacked by the British in retaliation for aiding the Americans and the nett result was capture of Dutch colonies, trade and ships, and as a consequence the Prince of Orange was blamed for everything ( neglecting the navy, delay in joining the neutrality league etc ) and this led to the resurgence of the French political party , the Stadholdership was overthrown, and the United provinces of the Netherlands were incorporated into Napoleon's empire ending 150 years of independance.
England - the fall of the incumbent government and their replacement by the opposition, and King George III threatening to abdicate if peace was made.
And the shame of being beaton by a ragtag army of despised colonials - given the outcome, I am not surprised that so little is written about the American war of independance in England. Really Daz_hockey, read a little wider and be less myopic.
I have great respect for the British, they have contributed a great deal of good to the world and have much to be proud of but the American war of independence was not one of their finer moments, either politically or militarily.
Let me see:
France - the cost of the American war to France was estimated to be about 1.5 billion livres - enough to bankrupt the French national budget and which led to the summoning of the estates general in 1789 which led to the arrest of King Louis XVI.
Netherlands - attacked by the British in retaliation for aiding the Americans and the nett result was capture of Dutch colonies, trade and ships, and as a consequence the Prince of Orange was blamed for everything ( neglecting the navy, delay in joining the neutrality league etc ) and this led to the resurgence of the French political party , the Stadholdership was overthrown, and the United provinces of the Netherlands were incorporated into Napoleon's empire ending 150 years of independance.
England - the fall of the incumbent government and their replacement by the opposition, and King George III threatening to abdicate if peace was made.
And the shame of being beaton by a ragtag army of despised colonials - given the outcome, I am not surprised that so little is written about the American war of independance in England. Really Daz_hockey, read a little wider and be less myopic.
I have great respect for the British, they have contributed a great deal of good to the world and have much to be proud of but the American war of independence was not one of their finer moments, either politically or militarily.
Last edited:
I sense that you use mac? I hope you don't teach your students on that platform.
Much is written of it in Britain but our historians tell the truth. The Americans didn't actually win the War of Independence because they were led by a man who was no good at fighting a military campaign and they lost two-thirds of all the battles they fought. How was that a victory?
As for the War of 1812, the British also didn't lose that and the Americans didn't win. That ended up as a stalemate - and most of the "Brits" that the Americans were fighting in that war were actually Canadians.
Here's what a reader has to say about the new book "A Few Bloody Noses" which explains that the Americans weren't as "victorious" in the War of Independence as most of them today imagine them to be - and that the British won most of the battles. It certainly blows away all those outrageous, glorifying myths that American historians tell their public -
"At last, a book about the American War that scrapes away all that patriotic, American propaganda surrounding this conflict for the last two-hundred years and produces an unbiased, accurate and honest version of events!
Most American writers would have you believe that the British were military inept buffoons during this war, but that isn't the truth, just patriotic boasting! In fact, the British won most of the battles, the Americans spent most of the war on the defensive and were saved by the King of France in the end (the Americans must be one of the few nations in the world who had to rely on the FRENCH to save their butts rather than the other way around).
Another American myth that's destroyed here is the idea that the Americans won the war by sniping at the dumb British redcoats from behind trees with accurate rifles. In fact, BOTH sides used rifles, but mostly smooth-bore muskets. Therefore, the Americans never had any range advantage over the British whatsoever.
George Washington is also correctly exposed as a mediocre general who lost two-thirds of the battles he fought against the British and wasn't the great military genius his admirers would have us all believe today.
Also, and perhaps most interestingly, the myth about 'British tyranny' provoking the American Colonies to rebel is examined and smashed. In fact, the American Colonies had all the freedoms that the Britons back home did.
Trouble started when a radical, hard-line group of the American elite came to power in the American Colonies and wanted to break away from Britain to pursue their own agenda. Only when this was refused, the cries about 'British tyranny' began.
But, then again, if you're an American rebel trying to engineer a war and stir up unjustified trouble, what else are you going to say to encourage Americans to join the army and hate the British! British tyranny to the Americans is a myth also.
This book is a good and insightful read, but I doubt it'll go down well with American readers as it explodes the myth of their 'creation myth', and they won't like that!
Great book! Acquire and read if you want to know the REAL American War, other than nonsense like Mel Gibson's 'The Patriot'!"
amazon.co.uk