History books are always written by the victors, could you imagine "Los Alamos" described by the Nazi's?
It is always best to read both sides, clearer picture are found in the fuzzy areas when books are placed side by side.
Cornwallis Surrenders This Date - 1781
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
History books are always written by the victors, could you imagine "Los Alamos" described by the Nazi's?
It is always best to read both sides, clearer picture are found in the fuzzy areas when books are placed side by side.
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
Could you please give some context or point me to the book from which you gathered this assertion. "Sniping" was not by my accounts utilised or a developed tactic at least, until the Civil War. If it has been said to be used against the British, that would be an eroneous comment.
The American's employed, what would later be called "Guerilla" tactics and "Skirmishes" or "Hit and run" tactics, against the British, which were effective in demoralising the troops.
Last edited:
I thought that was your basis on refuting the original assertion, but if it a rebuttle in this book, I will have to check it out, to see where the original claim came from. This would be the first time I've seen this claim used in the War of 1812.Is it not this book?
As much as the "Skirmish" or "Hit and run" tactice was a usefule one, it was in my opinion, based on "Still Hunting" techniques taken from Native American's
Forget it, I found it. 1770's actually.
Complete retraction, my bad, I got my time line mixed up. Had I looked at my notes, I would have not looked silly. Allas, here I am, lol. A Bear in a tutu. Wearing a propellered beanie no less.
Last edited:
Personally I am pleased I didn't have to learn to drive on the wrong side of the road!
Driving on the left hand side of the road must surely be safer than driving on the right hand side of the road when you consider that most people in the world are right handed.
That may be one reason why British roads are the safest in the world.
Good grief Blacky give the rah rah British cheer a rest. Your country is going to hell in a hand basket, don't you read the news? Opps sorry it's written in Arabic these days, my sincere apologies.
Is it?, Have you lived here for most of your life?, no, well then.
And well, if the french did make themselves impoverished because of America's defence (ARE you SERIOUSLY suggesting that AMERICA is responsible for England beating them?..and NOT Nelson or Wellington?)...come on, get off your high horse.
(No Durka, I wouldn't dream of teaching on a Macintosh..I'm just using a rather old and dodgy Laptop with a very old keyboard!!).
The history that is often taught in America is indeed bias...but then I would expect that in the rest of the world too.......simply put, Blackleaf is RIGHT...for a change, everything he's said about that Book is CORRECT....Britain was an irritance to the Traders and Merchants who ran the british colonies, so of course they wanted them out, and most "patriots" had their coffers full of Trader money anyway FACT.
Not 5 years before the events of the war were ALL the founding fathers very loyal....But I suppose they were more loyal to money when it came down to it...disgraceful really.
Exactly right CDNBear, money pretty much was thr reason for the whole thing, why else would they have an illuminati sign on their money?. I'm just shocked that anyone can claim that Britain wasn't fighting France before during and after their war, because that's clearly what the taxes were for.
I've got it on good authority from a history scholar I know (an American from Ventura actually) that British Tea and other foodstuffs were being shipped by the british Royal Navy at a vastly cheaper price than what the Traders could afford to undercut them at.
And THAT didn't please them any.....it's all about money...
I still remember reading that King George, when hearing about the ex-colonies win, stated that his boiled egg was of much greater morning news to him.
It's a victory because you surrendered. Suck it up.
There were 50,000 British troops and roughly 5,000 Canadian militia in the War of 1812.
And yes, it was a stalemate.
He had eggs for breakfast because he starved his people to poverty (via tax) for the "annoyance" across the Atlantic. Just ask William Pitt.
Oh my goodness, nothing about my little tirade, fact is, it's the end result that counts, Britain lost, the american colonies won simple as in the end, fair means or foul..
Still think it was all about money though
Excellent piece of historical work Blackleaf, if you're a self-absorbed Brit that is.
You might want to let the author know that West Virginia didn't exist at the time of the American Revolution.
Hey hey, he's a "self-obsessed" Englishman ITN.....you know we don't like that.
But a lot of it isn't wrong...but as I said, results are results, and we know the final results of that cus were living today....the world's evilist word that...."what if"
But a lot of it isn't wrong...but as I said, results are results, and we know the final results of that cus were living today....the world's evilist word that...."what if"