Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

[RuleBritannia]

Was the Revolutionary War right or wrong?

The colonists claimed to rebel for lack of representation, but think about it. Before this event, Britain just fought over 5 wars against France and helped defend the colonies. Without Britain, France would have decimated the colonies wthin months. Did Britain have a right to tax them as they did? I personally think they did.


Sounds like a good topic.

[Amaz]

I guess they did... but I'm sure the colonies must've suffered as well...

[Stildawn]

Depends on how many Americans there are here lol.

I personally (now dont kill me) would have rather the colonies stayed with Britian lol... At the rate they were going Britian could have been the "one world" thing soon lol.

[Seraph07]

Without Britain, France would have decimated the colonies wthin months. .

Really? As my history books read, the Continental Army gave the British hell for a couple of years till the French came to our aid.


Is any war really right or wrong?
What were the Brit's thinking, filling a land full of the English, Scott's, Irish and Welsh and not expecting them to rebel.
Taxes and representation weren't really the issue - the taxes weren't really that high. The British could have likely avoided the whole deal with giving the colonies a few seats on parliament and not enacting the townshend acts. The majority of the colonists had never seen England, and logically felt no fealty to a king and parliament thousands of miles away. They felt no debt to the British, As Americans fought and died along side them ( George Washington for example)
Also the colonies were the crown jewel of the Empire at that time -a fact not lost on the upper class of both sides.

[Seraph07]

Depends on how many Americans there are here lol.

I personally (now dont kill me) would have rather the colonies stayed with Britian lol... At the rate they were going Britian could have been the "one world" thing soon lol.

I will agree with you on the latter. The British are the successors to the Romans, and arguably the greatest civilization the world has known. Half the world flew under the union jack, and with British Imperialism also came British enlightment

[Stildawn]

And of course the English language lol.

[RuleBritannia]

I guess they did... but I'm sure the colonies must've suffered as well...

Do you even know how high the national debt in England was? They were going bankrupt, as they had just fought 5 full-length wars with France, the second most powerful nation on Earth. The people and the government were both suffering from debt, and something had to be done.

[RuleBritannia]

Really? As my history books read, the Continental Army gave the British hell for a couple of years till the French came to our aid.

History books tend to be biased, no matter where they are.

American history books tend to be biased to America, and so on.

In fact, the Colonists, though they did win a few battles, got their asses kicked for the most part by Great Britain.

British soldiers normally took slightly heavier casualties, as the British underestimated the colonies as nothing but untrained, foolish rebels. They were foolish rebels, but not untrained.

With commanders like Banastre Tarleton especially, Sir Henry Clinton, and others, the British were the ones giving the colonists hell until France, Spain, and the Netherlands arrived.

[Seraph07]

Foolish but trained?
First of all, the word foolish hardly matches any description of the American rebels. An infant nation with an ad'hoc government and militia army defeated the worlds greatest Empire on the battlefield and the diplomacy room.

The Continental Army did suffer many defeats at the hands of the British , but consider this:

The battle of Saratoga, where a over 7000 British soldiers were killed, captured or wounded with the loss of only about 300 Americans. Considering the British manpower at it it's height was around 100,000 no small victory. The Battle of Bennington, Valley Forge and Germantown, The Siege of Boston. All majorTactical and strategic victories, all without major foreign aid. Considering the British were facing 'foolish' rebels, surprising outcomes.

Remember the French were taking a gamble. They were not going to enter the war unless the Americans proved themselves, which we did time and time again.

Because of no center of gravity for the colonies and their sheer size, Britain could never have hoped to win the war. Look at the Eastern seaboard of the U.S.

As for the Dutch, that was the Brit's fault.

Henry Clinton, undefeated if I remember. Ironically he was opposed to a military solution.

[Amaz]

I wonder if I could pick from another viewpoint...

[Danigol of South America]

well if you mean the view point of the british its easy they will say that they were taken by surprise, which they were not, they will also say that they had limited man power cause of the distance. They will also acuse the french for helping the americans! but what they dont realize is that the english helped us the south americans get our own independance the same way the french helped the americans. I think that is it.

[RuleBritannia]

The battle of Saratoga, where a over 7000 British soldiers were killed, captured or wounded with the loss of only about 300 Americans. Considering the British manpower at it it's height was around 100,000 no small victory. The Battle of Bennington, Valley Forge and Germantown, The Siege of Boston. All majorTactical and strategic victories, all without major foreign aid. Considering the British were facing 'foolish' rebels, surprising outcomes.

Well, consider this.


Battle of Camden, 2,100 British soldiers defeat a 3,700-man American army and suffer fewer than 100 losses, while the Americans lose around 2,000 troops.

Battle of Brandywine, outnumbered British defeat Americans with few losses.

Battles of Waxhaws and Fishing Creek, crushing American defeats, even when they outnumbered the British 5 - 1 in Fishing Creek and heavily in Waxhaws.



The British simply didn't care much about the rebellion, because if they did, they would've fought like they did in the Anglo-Marathan Wars of 1750. The wars were continually crushing defeats for the Marathas and decisive British victories (800 British vs. 30,000 Marathas, Marathas lose miserably).




The colonists were untrained fools who, without France's money, supplies, troops, and navy, could've never won.

[Amaz]

and guns... but who's keeping count on this debate?

[Seraph07]

The British simply didn't care much about the rebellion, because if they did, they would've fought like they did in the Anglo-Marathan Wars of 1750. The wars were continually crushing defeats for the Marathas and decisive British victories (800 British vs. 30,000 Marathas, Marathas lose miserably).

Come on man show some maturity. Think about some of the things your saying, and atleast take the time to look up some of your claims.


The British conquest of India took place during the revolutionary war, and most of it was fought after or aroun the Napoleonic wars. It did not take place during the seven years war period.

It should also be noted the colonists made use of muskets and artillery, where as the Marathas had spears and whicker shields

The mustering of a 30,000 man Army for one battle in Colonial America was strategically and tactically improbable.


The British of course would slaughter the Americans in open combat -it takes years to create a proffessional army that could even hope to compare to the British Line.
My point was the Americans were still able to stand up to the British on the battlefield.


If the British didn't care about the rebellion, then it makes perfect sense they spent huge sums of money, thousands of lives, and the better part of a decade trying to end the rebellion, right? No.
The 13 colonies were the the cash cow of the Empire at the time, one that they were not ready to let go,

The British were fighting several wars all over the world at the time as well, it should be noted.

The colonists were untrained fools who, without France's money, supplies, troops, and navy, could've never won.

Thats like saying Britain would have been conquered by Nazi Germany if it weren't for the United States- It's an idiots way of looking at history.

British soldiers normally took slightly heavier casualties, as the British underestimated the colonies as nothing but untrained, foolish rebels. They were foolish rebels, but not untrained.

Right, so you felt the Continental Army was poorly or well trained?

Lastly, why your insistance of calling the Colonists fools? Didn't they win after all, and go on to father a super power ? It's akin to calling the British Idiots, as they were essentially two of the same people seperated by an ocean.

[Amaz]

I have facts but it's not very supporting to my opinion... what is your opinion stilldawn?

[Seraph07]

Wo ya'll, there's no antimosity on my side. Just a friendly debate.
I'll try not to take offense at my ancestors being called 'foolish' for fighting for their independence however.


Happy 4th of July everyone, btw
Had I not told you all already

[Amaz]

you're 3 days late... happy 7th of July

[Stildawn]

Um well. Im not american... and from what I know (which is limited so ill probably get sassed by you all) the Brits had the upper hand til the French came lol....

But like Ive said before... I wish the British Empire didnt lose it lol... Cause they would have been epic as by now lol.

[The Donz]

Moved posts.

[Chesh]

It was envitable that part of the Empire would eventually revolt and rebel. People were debating, thoughts were progressing and theories were evoling.

Although the original question doesn't ask on what side was it right and wrong. What it right for the Rebels to rebel, or right for the British to defend the Colonies? It's two sepreate questions but the question asked could be interputed as either, and asking whether the British had the right to tax the Americans, opens up a whole other can of worms, as what is the difference of them being taxed to us being taxed now?