It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did the American war of Independence benifit the UK? My 4th of july post

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Well it 4th of July and I have been thinking......

Did the lose of the American war of Independence benefit UK?

I would say 100% yes.

I think it came as a shock to Britain and acted as a wake up call. It pointed out some huge social flaws with Britain and helped us reform enough to weather the wave of civil unrest and revolution that shock Europe a few years later. Over the next 60 years Britain would slowly reform its parliament to remove corruption and abolish institution such as slavery that would have been impossible if the America had still been apart of the Empire.

But the main thing I think is losing the war saved the UK.

The defeat showed some shocking weakness in Britain armed forces. The start of the war showed the British army was too small woefully disciplined and trained. It also showed how unready the Royal Navy was.

13 years after the American war of independence ended a bigger far more destructive war started in Europe, the French revolutionary wars.

Europe relying on tactics from the 7 years wars saw there armies crushed and swept aside by the French during the French revolutionary war and Napoleonic wars.

Britain unlike Russia, Austria and Spain learned new tactics and flexibility’s from the American war of Independence. From new skirmishing tactics, use of rifles, light infantry tactics, equipment changes, logistics management and the need for commanders to be more flexible. All these changes resulted decades latter in crushing French defeats in the Napoleonic wars.

As mentioned the weakness of the Royal navy was also shown. In 1776 the Royal navy was mostly mothballed sitting in ports after the 7 year war. French, Dutch and Spanish ships had free rein to the Americas to supply it and latter land French troops that would tip the scales of victory to the American patriots. Not only that but the French could threatened the more valuable colony’s in the Caribbean and even England itself meaning needed reinforcements to America had to be diverted.
If Britain had used its navy correctly then it could have blockaded Europe. Not only would have it ensured the safety of the homeland and its other colony’s but would have cut supply’s off to America to a trickle that would have uncountably led to the patriots defeat.

When the French revolutionary wars broke out the UK learned from that mistake blockading the European continent rending France impotent outside of the continent. Apart form the pesky War of 1812 that the UK dealt with it oversea colony’s remained mostly unthreatened from 1796-1815 from European powers.

So the American victory in the war of independence may very well have been a victory too for us in the UK and why we are not flying the tri colour and have Bonaparte sitting at Buckingham palace.

Happy 4th of July.

edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
come on man, America was an outpost of a super power, nothing more nothing less, it became the center point of a by proxy war between two super powers, nothing more nothing less.
At one point in that war the two super powers used the American flash in the pan with some good propaganda mixed in and had a pretty good go at it, one of those super powers walked away as it was not financially viable to keep it afloat as the Indonesian spice trade was far more lucrative.
It was the by product of funding the American uprising that lead to the fall in the French establishment, so in the end it was a good move by England, they kept the spice routs,and France crippled itself.
That is it.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

I agree but it was that proxy war in the unimportant America that highlighted the huge deficiency's in the British empire.

We (UK) were able to sort them out and learn from them so when REAL war broke out 13 years latter we were able to
survive and defeat France.

The proxy war of 1776 yes backfired on France. It cause there social unrest due to there inflexible absolute monarchy a allowed Britain to correct fatal flaws in it military that could have lead to British forces been sweaped aside like the other armies of Europe.


Thats the whole jist of what I said. Britain lost the Americas but for 150 odd years after won the world.
edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The war of independence was highly costly on the British purse as about 20% of the nations income was spent on it, and who knows a few seats in the house of parliament and who knows what would of happened

With the spice trade at the same time picking up and no need to waste expenditure on securing the US we started making serious money as while they may of been a newly independent nation they still wanted our stuff so we made even more profits than before which helped ramp up the empire



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

I agree but it was that proxy war in the unimportant America that highlighted the huge deficiency's in the British empire.


If i recall correctly, the British empire predominantly fought the American colonies with reserve soldiers, while exerting their greater military force on the trade routes in Indonesia and the Caribbean. This pretty much speaks for itself. The British classed spices and sugar as more valuable than the American colonies. The only reason why they didn't send most of their professional soldiers to take on the colonists, was because they were afraid that doing so would weaken their hold on the trade routes and spices.

With that said, i do agree that the war may have bolstered Britain's position in the long run, but i don't think their military power was too deficient, especially considering they were more focused on retaining the trade routes, rather than the colonies.
edit on 4-7-2014 by daaskapital because: clarification



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

It not so much the size of the army that was Deficient but the tactics the British army was using.

From the start of the war to the end the tactic employed changed from those used during the 7 year war to a much more flexible style that high lighted the importance of light infantry. It also lead to many reforms with officers.

One of the reason for the defeat at Lexington and Concord and the phyric victory at bunker hill was due to use of the inflexible style of war previously used and very low discipline and training that had seeped into the British army in the years of peace leading up to the war. If the British army had been fighting as it did in 1783 at the start the revolution would have been crushed before it began, instead the Officers acted like headless chickens and the enlisted like a untrained mob.

Sure it was sufficient to garrison the sugar islands but was not ready to fight a war.

If the British army had been in the state it was in 1776 when Napoleon came into power then it would have ended in disaster for us like it did for Austria, Prussia, Russia and Spain.
edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I agree in that Britain's adaption to warfighting was important, and the lack of flexibility early on contributed to their defeat at the hands of the colonies.

As for war readiness, i am of the opinion that Britain would have walked all over the colonies if they had invested greater military might and attention. I think the fact that they were more concerned in the Caribbean, was the deciding factor in them losing the colonies. That, and that fact that the French, Spanish and Dutch had entered into an alliance, which greatly aided the colonies.

Just a quick quote:


The capture of a British army at Saratoga encouraged the French to formally enter the war in support of Congress, as Benjamin Franklin negotiated a permanent military alliance in early 1778, significantly becoming the first country to officially recognize the Declaration of Independence. On February 6, 1778, a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance were signed between the United States and France. William Pitt spoke out in parliament urging Britain to make peace in America, and unite with America against France, while other British politicians who had previously sympathised with colonial grievances now turned against the American rebels for allying with Britain's international rival and enemy.

Later Spain (in 1779) and the Dutch (1780) became allies of the French, leaving the British Empire to fight a global war alone without major allies, and requiring it to slip through a combined blockade of the Atlantic. The American theater thus became only one front in Britain's war. The British were forced to withdraw troops from continental America to reinforce the valuable sugar-producing Caribbean colonies, which were considered more important.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 4-7-2014 by daaskapital because: sp



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I don't think it made a ha'p'orth of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Britain still tried to control much bigger countries like India, China, Russia within the next 100 years; and with a similar record of success.

As to Napoleon...he was defeated because he unwisely took on the whole of Europe and Russia.

Britain was fortunate to have two exceptional commanders in Nelson and Wellington.

Yes we contributed, but the writing was on the wall.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

The alliance was something I pointed out in the OP.

That was one of the deficiency of the British empire it inability to enter into a protected war with the other major European players.

Again one of the issue was the lack of readiness this time with the Royal navy. 13 years later when it was ready it quickly blockaded the continent making France and its the allies Spain impotent and also took out the Danish fleet for good measure at Copenhagen when it looked like the fleet would fall to the French. But in 1776? No such luck most the ships of the line were sitting in port unmobilized. By the time it was it was far to late and the Spain,French and Dutch alliance had the head start. A mistake that wasn't again repeated.
edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley

Britain was fortunate to have two exceptional commanders in Nelson and Wellington.




But those commanders used tactics built on the lessons learned in the defeat of 1783.

Many of the the older and experienced officer and NCO at the start of the French revolutionary wars and Napoleonic war were veterans of the American war of Independence.

Without those lessons I think Britain would not have stood a chance in the peninsular war. It army would have suffered the same problems as the armies of Russia, Prussia, Span and Austria.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I think we are talking in circles, and i also think we actually agree with each other, haha.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital
a reply to: crazyewok

I think we are talking in circles, and i also think we actually agree with each other, haha.


I got that impression haha.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

But those commanders used tactics built on the lessons learned in the defeat of 1783.


I don't know if that's true or not.

It seems an odd sort of argument to say the British forces became militarily superior because they lost one of their colonies.

I was always of the belief that Wellington cut his military teeth while serving in India; Nelson had little experience in the American War of Independence. The vast majority of his campaigns were against the Napoleonic navy.

But even if that were the case, the British army that served under Wellington was pitifully small, ill-equipped, and lacking in battle experience. It was no match for Napoleon's army.

For instance, the Battle of Waterloo was won because Wellington commanded a much larger army, the vast bulk of whom were not British (Dutch, Belgian, Prussian).



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley


It seems an odd sort of argument to say the British forces became militarily superior because they lost one of their colonies.


Defeat brings weaknesses in to question. Or it should.



originally posted by: CJCrawley
I was always of the belief that Wellington cut his military teeth while serving in India; Nelson had little experience in the American War of Independence. The vast majority of his campaigns were against the Napoleonic navy.

True on those two back grounds.

But the army's and navy's they both inherited still benifited from some of the new ideas and reforms instituted after the defeats in 1783.

Look at General John Moore. He was a veteran from the War of American Independence. He served at the start of the Peninsular war. Alot of the British army still using the old ways crumpled when the main French forces arrived, Moore though and the core of his army he personally trained managed to make a good stand and win a victory at Corunna, allowing the bulk of the British Army to retreat saving it from total destruction and allowing it to fight another day.

Wellington adopted a lot of Moore light Infantry doctrine (though not all) and used it latter on to great effect




originally posted by: CJCrawley
But even if that were the case, the British army that served under Wellington was pitifully small, ill-equipped, and lacking in battle experience. It was no match for Napoleon's army.

For instance, the Battle of Waterloo was won because Wellington commanded a much larger army, the vast bulk of whom were not British (Dutch, Belgian, Prussian).



There was far more than watreloo to British Involvement.

Look up the pensular war. Apart from the retreat from Spain at the start. Wellington whipped army after army of the French normaly while out numbered. Only useful allies was Portugal in that theater and only after it was retrained by Britain and staffed with British officers.
edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Nice post. I always enjoy seeing others thoughts on history.

The lessons learned thing and all.

The one weird thing about war is that it encourages people to think up new ways to do things (things that aren't always war related). The ones who remain stagnant in their ways of thinking are always defeated.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

Exactly.

France and Britain came away with new ideas during the 1770's

Prussia, Russia and Austria were still stuck in the 1750's when 1796 hit.

So France went through them like knife through butter.


You can also see the effect in the war of 1812. Due to the continental war Britain only had a skeleton force in Canada but managed to rip through the USA in away that would have been impossible 30 years before.

And in turn the USA adapted to that.
edit on 4-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Hell yeah you benefited you guys got to witness ID4 with Will Smith.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: crazyewok

Hell yeah you benefited you guys got to witness ID4 with Will Smith.


Eh? Sorry whats ID4?



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Independence Day!!!

But I don't know why people call it ID4, so I'll adapt the question to Why???




As for the OP...

What Language is currently in use in the States???
It's not French, German or any other European equivalent who were colonising the Americas...

More over, what percentage of Presidents are descendants of British forefathers rather than our European counterparts???

As the old saying goes, they won the Battle, not the War!!!



Peace Crazy!!!



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Well you went back for 2nds in 1812 so maybe something wasn't learned after all.
That said, you also had to deal with Napoleon at the same time.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join