The French nearly bankrupted themselves supporting the American Revolution. Which was an important reason the French Revolution happened as he was forced to call the Estates General together to ask for new taxes.
just as the British had nearly bankrupted themselves fighting the French Indian war, which led to higher taxes on the 13 colonies which led to the American revolution.
@@francoismaroye7827 If your government came up with a scheme to reduce tax and pay off the debts without upsetting the balance. You would think this is a good idea unless you were smugglers making using profits. If you see your profits dropping, what do you do? You pay some thugs to attack a legitimate merchant and destroy their stock of Tea. It was called the Boston Tea Party.
@@francoismaroye7827 It wasn't taxes contrary to what the history books say. The colonists had debt free currency which Parliament outlawed in 1764. That led to an end of prosperity. The colonists would have had no problem paying the tax if they could have kept their currency known as colonial script.
Britain has it's mythical heroes too such as Robin Hood and King Arthur. The difference is we never wrote them into history by teaching them to children as historical facts.
I will point out that about 1/2 the of the army that surrounded the British at Yorktown were French troops. Without the French troops the Americans would have had an army about the same size as the British. Further the Navy bottling up the British in Yorktown was entirely French so over all Yorktown was more of a French than American Victory.
@@stanleyshannon4408 So what. I gave a piece of additional historical information in relation to one of the British generals involved in the topic. Relax mate.
@@johnroche7541 Ironically, Washington would have his reputation questioned by suppressing the whiskey rebellion. And both with no French troops. For even more unrelated historic trivia.
The American war of independence is virtually unmentioned in the British educational system. It simply was not important to the British compared to other world events of that era. The reason why may just come down to the fact that it was a French attempt at distracting Britain from other more important issues, such as making collosal amounts of money from sugar, enough to fuel the industrial revolution. The American colonies paid the lowest rates of tax anywhere in British held territories.
In 1754 General Washington no reason attacked a French encampment of Frenc 0:02 h Ensign Coulon de Jumomville . The outcome was a global conflict that lasted 7 years between France and Britain. The extra cost of protecting the 13 colonies upset the colonists as they were asked to contribute to this protection via taxes. Something that they resented paying their way. However in 1759 the British took Quebec from the French. What also is not covered fully is the Ethnic Cleansing of Loyalists from the 13 colonies. At this point the subjugation of the native Indians began.
I would urge Americans to read "LIBERTY'S EXILES" by American author Maya Jasanoff. The book tells the stories of a selected group of ordinary individual loyalist refugees.
@@stigmontgomery7901 Being married to a Septic for a great many years, she educated me to this stain on US historical whitewashing. I did a little research and found what she was saying to be so. Going to hunt this book down and finally learn the facts. Thank you.
The cold hard truth of Ukraine is like Britain in WWll we had to carry on paying for every bullet.agum and tank etc We only recently paid of that debt!
Cold hard fact - brought to you by an Ex-British squaddie with an eye to truth as opposed to nationalistic jingoism/Blxnbs/fairy tales to support a point. If the British government following WW1 had repaid the debts owed to the US factories for the supply of Ammo in that war then it's likely that come the second militaristic road trip round Europe by Germany and Italy and the pesky Japs outwitting us in Malaya the British government might, just might have been viewed differently in financial terms. We reneged on a huge debt - just refused to continue paying it. I don't like what the Septics did and the way they played their cards circa 1939 but if we had played straight with them in the years preceeding it and paid our dues they maybe they might have taken a different stance when it came to wringing every single penny they could from the British Empire before deciding to play nicely with us. Sometimes you really do reap what you sow eh!?
Fun fact. The US is a foreign country on a foreign continent for Britain. All other the other British colonies are now also independent too, without revolution. The US war of independence doesn't rank in the top ten most important events in British history. Yes, it's important, but it is barely mentioned in the UK education system. We get Hastings, the first and second World wars. The war of the Roses ect..
It's far more important for fun reasons - it gives rise to one of the greatest what ifs in human history. As a loss at the time it was more of a disappointment than a catastrophe. Losing Jamaica - now that would have been catastrophic, losing the colonies was more of an oh shit moment than an "OH SHIT!!!!!!" moment - as described to me by an American friend who had served in the US Army and went on to be a teacher in the US.
The reason the British were so upset about the Boston Tea Party was because the Americans didn't make sure the water in the harbour was boiling before they tipped the tea in.
Cornwallis the British Best General had to surrender To Washington, and was so Humiliated he had one of his Underlings present his Sword of Surrender to the the man himself "Washington." Over 6000 British Troops had to lay down their arms and leave like girly men
We all know what happened in 1776 but the was only 20 years after George 111 grandfather came close to losing the crown never mind some colonies over the ocean, the Jacobite rebellion might have actually succeeded with that decision to turn back at Derby rather than carry on to London, that gave the crown time to regroup and crush them at Culloden, the last battle fought on British soil
Married to a septic - I celebrate July 4th, she just sees it as another day like the one before and the one after. It's bad enough I brought one over to our side of the moat (and she won't go home no matter how hard I bribe her or how many times I grass her up to immigration) I can't imagine the hell of having an open border with them. She's just pulled into the drive......... wish me luck!
@@stevenburkhardt1963 George Washington. He has attacked a french regiment who wanted to talk,and an Amerindian killed one of them wich led to the 7 year war wich led to the American revolution,the french revolution and so the Napoléonic war
05:28 You are still making the typical American mistake of saying "English" instead of "British". After all, Paul Revere didn't ride around yelling "The English are coming". Did he? 😉 Mind you, so is the Narrator! 🤣🤣🤣
The Paul Revere quote "The British are coming" has been debunked as a myth in itself... (look it up if interested enough) the colonists saw themselves as British at that time, so no one would've said "The British are coming". It's propaganda.
@@fannybuster No. The nations of England, Scotland and Wales formed The United Kingdom in 1707. The Colonists' revolution began in the 1770s so the army that opposed them was a British one, not a purely English one.
Great video, but I think he missed the point on the fact the 13 colonies were not that important also to the crown...they gave very little compared to Canada and India but were costing a lot to be there...Canada with its fur trade and of course India were far more important and the fight with Napoleon...the one thing we would not give up was Canada ...
It really came down to the old saying he who defends everything protects nothing. The Sugar Islands in the Caribbean were of far greater importance to the British merchants and money men/treasury thus the choice was made and the main defensive efforts against the Spanish/French and to a lesser extent the Dutch was made there and the 13 colonies were merely a distraction.
The sugar islands were a far more profitable entity than all of the 13 colonies put together. They also offered strategic naval vantage points. The loss of those islands would have been seen as catastrophic - the loss of the 13 colonies was seen, at the time, as merely being regrettable.
I learnt about the American Revolution at high school in Australia 🇦🇺 50 years ago. ( The Australian eduction version of American history was very similar to this! )
To be fair to the extent it's taught in the UK we get a similar version too. We don't like talking about it much though in school because there's much more interesting and more impactful history to look at instead, like the Romans, the Norman Invasion, the Armada, Henry VIII (divorced beheaded died divorced beheaded survived), the slave trade, the Industrial Revolution, the "American West", WW1, WW2. That's about where it stops for the regular 3 years of mandatory secondary school education (ages 12-14). Anyone opting to take history at GCSE (secondary school leaving exams taken at age 16) could study a larger number of topics more in depth but that depended on what was on the exam papers that year.
@lloydcollins6337 We also learnt about every aspect of British history. You have mentioned. The American Revolution may have been eight weeks. (one school term)
Thank you for listening to this without getting upset. History is written by the Victor's and not always the truth. Britain has its own myths and legends too.
I remember a series of popular books called "Military Lives" by the US military historian Trevor N. Dupuy and always wondered why Washington was in there with Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, Bonaparte and Caesar.
I did read recently that all but one of the founding fathers were descended from British Royalty in some way or other. As for losing or winning battles, you have to realise that the colonists were basically farmers etc, and they were facing a professional army. America got its independence because the costs and problems were a bit too much for Britain which was, as the video states, fighting on more than one front.
Eventually the colonists managed to field a trained army to match the British. Raw material was country men . British had country men and people from the slums. But like Ukraine. A year ago. Lot of untrained and badly equipped men. Now better trained and better equipped by foreign suppliers and can fight front to front against Russians
Up until the Colongot themselves an organised army they were loosing. The French trained them, armed them snd fed them. They then fought in the same way as the Brits
None of this is something that Americans don't already know. Just like every other great nation in the world they got their help from somebody else who was more powerful to help them stand on their own. Something that he pointed out that is going on even today.
Worth remembering parliamentary representation in the UK and it's colonies hadn't been reformed since the medieval period so you had the mad situation where Manchester (one of the largest cities in the UK, powerhouse of the Industrial Revolution) had no direct members of parliament (because it wasn't a large place when the last electoral boundaries were drawn up) whereas there was a sheep field (called the "Old Sarum" constituency) which returned 2 MPs because a town used to be there which had been levelled in the 1300s when the town moved to a better site. There was even one coastal constituency (Dunwich) which had fallen mostly into the sea in the 1600s (recording 44 houses and "half a church" in 1831) but still returned 2 MPs. Also most of the constituencies were "rotten" - the local Lord either had all the votes (I.E. he either cast all of them himself or told his tenants "Vote this way or you'll lose your farm/job/house" or the constituents were bribed to vote for a certain candidate. So, all in all, most people didn't have any sort of representation at all in the UK. The Blackadder III sketch about elections isn't all that inaccurate. This was resolved by the "Great Reform Act" of 1832 which totally redefined who could vote, got rid of all the existing constituencies and Royal control over where they were, and drew up election maps, sensible (for the time) rules about property ownership to be able to vote, and generally sorted the whole mess out.
@@spritbong5285 No they didn't. The backcountry of South Carolina had more people in it than all the rest of the colony put together yet for most of colonial period yet until 1767 had NO representatives in the Assembly. Yet they were expected to pay taxes passed by that body. Talk about taxation without representation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At that time, they were given one seat in the Assembly while the other existing 17 parishes had multiple members.
The American colonists were very lucky that the French didn't go on to take over the whole place to replace the British. They would have found the rule of the despotic French much worse than that of their fellow countrymen, the British. This is particularly true because France was Catholic, whereas most Americans were Protestants, even Puritans. The natives had done deals, made solemn treaties with the British King, while the colonists broke these continually, taking more & more land & decimating native society. It's no wonder that many indigenous groups preferred the British to the colonists. Loyalist to Britain were very badly treated by the victorious colonists, having their property seized, & in the end being forced from the colonies, many escaping to Canada.
You don't know the half of it. The American War of Independence was also a bitterly fought civil war. 300,000 loyalists out of 2,000,000 colonists were an issue, with several loyalist military formations being deployed and used in the Southern Colonies and New York, to the extent that in the late 1770s, loyalists in uniform serving the British outnumbered Washington's army. There was a lot of blood spilled between loyalists and patriots, even between those in the same family, so hard feelings after the war were going to be an issue. As many as 70,000 loyalists fled after the war, or 20% of the loyalist population. Mostly from New York, Georgia and The Carolinas, they went to Canada and the British Isles (including Benedict Arnold), where they are at least partly compensated for their losses by the British Government.
The American Revolution is a classic example of history not being as straightforward as one would expect. I think it was Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" which swayed many of the population towards rebellion. Paine was originally from Thetford in Norfolk (Lincoln's ancestors were from a village called Hingham about 15 miles north of Thetford) and many colonists viewed themselves as British. Benjamin Franklin's parents were from Northamptonshire. Franklin lived in London for a few years and his former home is open to the public.
People only know of Paul Revere due to the poem by Henry Longfellow, who was a friend of the Revere family. It was written nearly a century after the event, when there was nobody around to dispute his version.
Nr. 9 - not to forget the Dutch Republic's giant merchant fleet completely ignoring the British trade embargo and just continuing to supply the rebels with weapons. Leading even to the 4th Anglo-Dutch war (1780-1784).
The part the Dutch, especially in NY played in the unsettling of the colonies and assistance once rebellion was in the air needs to be better researched. The Dutch bore a grudge and were a constant thorn in the side of the British not just in the colonies but on the world stage also.
I find it useful when reading or listening to things discussing 'freedom' to replace the word 'freedom' or any of its synonyms with 'power' or any of its synonyms.
Completely forgetting (how convenient) They were, "The Brits" just that they were only one side of the Brits (it was akin to a civil war and they are always the nastiest when cousin fights cousin, brother fights brother and kin burn out kin.) In my four years of living in the states I won more debates over a beer with American friends by just asking them firstly if they could prove their first known American ancestor was in fact in the colonies or were they still back in Poland/Germany/British Isles/Italy at the time and if they had any proof their ancestor was in fact lining up behind Washington, the crown, or remaining indifferent and quiet. One or the other of those two options usually kept them quiet. I can only remember one speaking out and he, bless him, told me the only one he could trace back to being present on N. American soil had been recruited at sword point to join Washington's army and deserted to join the British a few months later, he had then joined the Royal Navy sailed and fought all over the world and then eventually jumped ship and made his way back to American shores about 15 years later where he met and married an American lady and started his "American line". I told him there was a book to be written there. Clearly there was no great concept of national identity or loyalty inherent in this bloke and I wonder how many other, "Opportunist" there were merely looking after the interests of number one and paying little heed to anything other than that.
I was taught that there was a suggestion that the Rebel forces could be beaten in to submission by the Royal Navy blockading east coast ports preventing food and supplies getting through, but that to do this was seen as uncivilised and not acceptable behaviour it would also have impacted upon the tens of thousands of loyalist Americans .
So many of the farmers/land owners had, for whatever reason, taken out large loans from British banks to enhance their farms/lands/status and were in danger of losing their lands to the banks. Thus when the opportunity for rebellion came they jumped at it as the most likely way of ensuring their financial wellbeing. In other words they fought for financial reasons as much as any romantic, idealistic nonsense. Also if Washington had been able to join the British forces and rise to prominence (colonials reached the ceiling of their ambition by the time they reached Captain - they could not rise any further) then he would not have been a part of any rebellion unless under the British flag. He may instead have been a naval officer on a ship at the other end of the world fighting the Spanish over a rock somewhere obscure.
It is interesting that I feel as antagonistic towards the French and Spanish as the Colonists when thinking about the subject , which to be honest isn't much as the revolution isn't really a major part of our history . As you said , it's usually the rich who start wars and the comparison with Ukraine is probably valid . I doubt many at the time could see the future impact of US.independance on the world . Simon is an excellent narrator , but not the author and this was a good choice for a reaction .
The Revolutionary War saw the largest commitment of British troops overseas before the the Napoleonic Wars. On the general background and lead up to the war, Fred Anderson's 'Crucible of War' is excellent and covers the lead up to the war from the French and Indian War and how it led to the problems of the 1770s.
Before the Rev., B. Franklin went to Montreal with a printing press, to stir up anger against the British. That effort failed, but that newspaper still exists.
I don't know which historians you're talking about. Frederick the Great himself thought Washington's counteroffensive at Trenton and Princeton, where he captured more German and British Soldiers than he had Soldiers in his own army and drove the British out of New Jersey as an act of genius. It was Washinton who advanced the careers of Greene, Wayne, Lafayette, von Steuben and Knox. He drove the British out of Boston with an army of half-trained militia. He suffered from the failures of Gates and Lee during the New York campaign, and quickly counter-attacked at White Plains. His plan for Brandywine was competent and his surprise attack on the British at Germantown, where a Hessian mercenary wrote that he first ever saw British infantry running in rout at that battle. Germantown had as much to do with bringing the French in as Saratoga. And who sent Gates north and provided him with a third of his Continentals? Washington. Except for Lee's treason (he wrote an analysis of the American Army for Howe in Philadelphia) and incompetence, Washington could have crushed Clinton's rear guard at Monmouth Court House. He sent Stirling on the campaign that broke the Iroquois as a military power. It was his decision to abandon plans for attacking New York and marching south with Rochambeau to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown. It was his decision to send Greene to recover the situation in the South, which he did, driving the British back into Savannah and Charleston without winning a tactical battle. It was Washington who sent Morgan north to Saratoga and south to "Cannae" Tarlington at Cowpens. Had Morgan not become too ill to take the field, Greene would have won some of those battles. It wasn't just holding his army together, he made the army the critical strategic point of the war. As long as Washington and his army was in the field, there was a fight for independence. Given the comparatively small sizes of forces in North America during the War for Independence, it is difficult to judge him against Marlborough, Frederick, Saxe and Eugene. But in the end, he and his subordinates won that battles that mattered.
Did you know that one of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington's good buddies in France, an architect to the king of France, Alexandre Trouart, was an ancestor of Jimmy Parsons from the Big Bang theory? They would stay at his place when they were in Paris.
Excellent thank you. There's a few BBC series with Historian Lucy Worsley called History's Biggest Fibs, one series of which is a three part documentary about America, or more speifcally the USA. Worth a look, I would think they would interest you? Some full episodes are available on YT, not sure about the US ones though?
I really enjoy the historic documentary programmes that she presents. They're generally very good and actually very accurate. Definitely worth a watch if he can find them.
A very balanced presentation. Paintings of Cornwallis surrendering to the Americans should show his 2IC surrendering, initially to the French who insisted he hand his sword to the US general as an act of humiliation. Cornwallis himself did not attend the surrender as he said he refused to surrender his own sword and claimed illness for his absence. As pointed out, weapons of the time were very slow to load, none more so than the rifle. Against troops in a regular battle they got one shot and ran. Despite Mel Gibson's portrayal of heroic settlers using tomahawks this is hard to believe as someone with a short weapon like this against a trained bayonet man would be outclassed. Here in NZ where the local Maori used tomahawks for hand to hand against British troops they tended to have long handles to help counter the reach of a fixed bayonet, and these were expert warriors with such weapons.
"a war" ? the French Indian war, or as it is called in Europe : the seven years war. after being responsible for Jumonville's death Washington might be responsible for starting the whole war...
Washington never held a commission from the British Crown. He was never an officer of the British Army. In 1753, he was commissioned as a major in the Virginia Colonial Militia, and later, still commissioned as a Virginian Militia officer, served as Braddock's Colonial Aide as that officer led a British Army expedition to clear the French out of the Ohio country. After 1755, as a Colonel of Militia, he led a permanent regiment of militia against the natives who threatened the western borders of the Virginia Colony, with some success. After 1758, he resigned his militia commission and became a gentleman farmer until he was called up in1775 to lead the Continental Army, such as it was. Although his service in the 1750s was pointed at gaining a commission in the regular British army, and was something he greatly desired, he was never offered one. As far as the cause of the French and Indian War in North America, the Ohio Company and its Colony and British investors pulled strings to get the colonies to oppose French occupation of Ohio. Whether Washington started hostilities or not, it made no difference. The Ohio Company was going to get its way in Ohio one way or another. The British Crown was as keenly interested in acquiring the Ohio and French Canada as the Ohio Company, hence the Braddock Expedition and the later successful invasion of Quebec under General Wolfe. The subject of British taxes on the Colonies and the attendant Intolerable Acts is debatable. In large part, these acts, which taxed everything from tea to cards to single sheets of paper, were enacted by a parliament afraid of imposing more tax on the British in their home islands. Ad, yes, the tea thrown into the water of at least two American ports was to be almost given away, but the tax remained. No New England merchant, who had figured out how to bypass the British mercantile system and the Navigation Acts that protected it, and were already well supplied by smuggling, could tolerate having their market crashed with taxed but cheap British tea. In the end, the whole fight was over money and the control of the economy.
No, Washington had not been a British officer, except in the sense that Americans were considered members of the British empire. He had been a soldier in the Virginia militia.
The American Revolution was really the first true world war, fighting took place all over the globe. Britian could have smashed the revolution with ease just like the US could easily have smash North Vietnam, but both had very powerful friends that saved them. The British won almost every major ground battle like the US won every ground battle in Vietnam yet both lost the war.
Before that, Dutch Republic's 80-years war against the Spanish Empire (1568 - 1648) or more accurately, its resumption as part of the (contemporary) 30-years war, and the related Franco-Spanish war, Dutch-Portuguese war was fought in Europe, South America, the Caribbean and Asia. I think that period (the first half of the 17th century) qualifies as the de facto first true world war.
Washington never allowed himself to commit to a battle with the British that would decide the outcome of the war. He came close in New York (where he lost), and again when he and the French forced the British surrender at Yorktown. The British won the big cities, like New York, and Philadelphia and Charleston, but they never won the countryside, where 90% of the Americans lived. The logistical problems associated with a sustained war to suppress the rebellion, coupled with cratering popularity of the war at home in Britain, meant that the British were never going to hold on to the colonies.
You say that people are always ending speeches with God bless America and that bothers you. I'm bothered every time I see a sports team pray before a game. I don't think God is choosing one team over another.
Loyalists didn’t always leave America by choice. There was a lot of bad blood and reprisals against loyalists during and after the war. Some loyalists were lynched, or tarred and feathered, or had their homes or businesses burned down. A lot of loyalists left America because they were in danger or had lost everything.
I love the newer American Revolution stuff I think it's by people profile (?) they're 3 hours long but very informative. Learned more about General "granny" Gates & Benedict Arnold how he & Major(?) Morgan are the true thinkers of Saratoga(?) I need to rewatch lol
1. "George Washington lost way more battles than he won and he spent most of his time running away from fights." Washington had a poorly equipped militia of amateurs fighting a large, well supplied, highly professional army. He used hit and run tactics because under those circumstances, he would have been insane to make a frontal attack. This is why amateurs shouldn't teach history. If I'm not mistaken, a few years ago the British speaker in the video made a video bio of Benjamin Franklin so error filled he had to apologize for it. 2. "...crossing the Delaware....would have failed if not for a British commander disregarding a warning notice." No, a commander of German mercenaries employed by the British. 3. "The native Americans joined the British preferentially" They fought on both sides. Some Native American tribes, such as the Oneida and Tuscarora nations, allied themselves with the American colonists. 4. "King George 3 did not put extra taxes on the colonies just to be a big meanie." When you want someone's financial aid, don't tell them they must give it to you whether they like it or not and that the decision was made by a legislature in which they don't have any representation. Britain passed The Declaratory Act which stated that the British parliament had the authority to make any law whatsoever for the American colonies. 5. Any stories of American heroes of the Revolution are fictitious. Nah. America had its heroes. For example Francis Marion - known as the "Swamp Fox" - was a guerilla warfare expert who led a band of militia fighters in hit-and-run attacks against British forces in the Southern colonies. His tactics helped disrupt British plans and keep American hopes alive in the South. Also, John Paul Jones was a naval hero known for his daring exploits at sea, including the capture of British warships. 6. Yorktown wasn't the end.... Although the British didn't recognize American independence for a couple of more years, Yorktown was really the end of major fighting. When the British prime minister :Lord North was told about Yorktown, the first thing he said was "Then it's all over."
British Fought the French Indian War 1754-1763 which grew into the Seven Years war in Europe, 1756-1763 because the French couldn't bring enough power to bear in North America and were beaten out of the lands they held there in a swath from quebec to louisiana. They were taxed to pay for the french-indian war. The French Indian War fought by the British army and north american colonists who fought on the british side cleared the french away from the western US and opened it up for eventual american expansion. But the success of the French Indian War was a great boon for the eventual United States of America and removed the French as a potential enemy. Poor old Samuel Prescott.
What is the name for a citizen of the US? Canadians and Mexicans are North American, people who live in South American are American too. So what does the great nation call its people?
In the War of 1812 the indians werre split mostly for the British but certainly not complletely. 6 nations in New York supported the American, some tribes in the mid west supported the Amaericans and obviously a number of tribes fought on the side of the Americans against the Creeks. Indigenous peoples like anyone else fought for what they thought were their best interests and that depended whether they were simply desparte and felt nothing would help with the Americans even though it did not look good for the British, some fought for loot like the Souix and some based on wanting to be on the winning side. The other thing is we should never consider there being some for of central command, they fought when they thought it to be their advantage . not for some overall strategy, in fact in Upper Canada when things were going bad for the British/Canadians there was a real fear the 6 nations in Upper Canada might switch sides. After the war started and the British fears of the threat of American invasion the British wanted Michigan as a buffer state to better protect against what they regarded as a future American attack. Also being left out is the particularly early finacial support from the Dutch. Also Britain had to maintain a large army at home due to the thrreat of French invasion.
Napoleon didn't appear until aboit 20/25years after the Revolutionary war in the US. The British were fighting the French in the 7 hears war and French/Indian war though. That's why the French backed the US in their revolution against the British and basically bankrupt themselves in the process which then led to the French revolution. The French Kimg (Louis 16th) made the mistake of paying for and funding s war to be rid of the rule of a king/monarch in krder to form a republic without giving s thought to what'd happen if the US won amd deposed a king. Surely he must've seen that by funding that and helping them that it'd open the door for the same to happen to France too? Showing that you could indeed get rid of a king and form a Republic. You'd of thought he'd have maybe considered that as an eventual outcome. No? 🤔🙄🤔
The outcome was mostly due to British indifference and forebearance with French interferance with just enough violence for American pretense to claim some sort of 'great victory' for nationalist propaganda.
Sir . The Boston tea party ,all the boats in Boston Harbour that night where American. The actual tea caddys were Chinese, so they belonged to China. At the end of the day, Great Britain lost the war. America is one of the few countries in the world that have beaten GB in war. The other thing is that Great Britain asked the USA for help in the WW2.
@@michellepeoplelikeyoumurde83732006 the lend lease debt was paid off. And as in WW1 the isolationist parties in the US were happy to take our money and let us get on with it until American lives were affected. However the American soldier was as brave and courageous as any in both world wars. The fought and died just as hard as any.
Do you know the British TV programme QI? High brow, celebrity panel quiz show. If you don't you really should watch a few episodes. I think you'd really like it. Incredibly informative. It's all over RU-vid. Look up the clip about the Boston Tea Party. I think you'll get a surprise. There's lots of clips about America, because American history of America prefers mythology to uncomfortable facts. The Alamo, for instance....fought in defense of slavery (you, being a fairly honest historian, probably already know what underpinned the Texas War of Independence). Really, QI, worth watching for the high brow humour as much as how informative it is. The ones Stephen Fry hosted are better than the current Sandy Tostwig episodes. It got kinda tired, going through the motions after Stephen left and recent episodes are a bit flat, lacklustre and.....frankly.....crap.
None of this is controversial or new, i learned all this in grade school...maybe they dont teach this anymore? Disagree with comments on native americans...as usual you had people that mistrusted or hated and others that did not.
As the parody comedian Al Murray said "God is clearly British - thats why we don't have earthquakes in this country. You don't shit on your own doorstep"
@stanleyshannon4408 What utter crap! The empires of France, Spain, and the Netherlands fought on the tratiors side. The colonies would have lost without those empires
And smuggled in huge amounts of ammo. But this video is just a British chauvinist having a dig at American chauvinism with not real interest in the international complexity of the situation.
@@chrissouthgate4554 Morocco if I remember correctly, the Barbary pirates did actually roam shores to enslave people but they could be bought free. The Dutch Republic's power had been in decline for almost a century, it was still the world's biggest trader but the British navy was much more powerful so official policy was not to pick a fight with the British by supporting the revolution. Hence the smuggling of ammo rather than sending it openly. An important centre of the smuggle was the Carribean island of St. Eustatius and when a US American ship passed the governer decided to salute it with it's American flag and that is an act of recognition, but the government in The Hague needed a bit more time to make it official.
The best Generals and a lot of men were fighting other wars, the Revolutionary war was very divisive for both sides and many British generals did not want to fight their "own people".
Interesting video and always good to get factual accounts of historic events rather than the myths and legends that always seem to get generated in hindsight. An important fact to me is that there were no Americans at the time of the war of independence, everyone was a British colonist who had, certainly at one time, been loyal to the Crown and many remained so during and after the war. So it was never a war of 'American' independence as there was no such country. In the video John states that loyalists at the end of war were allowed to join a state or move elsewhere, Canada etc. In actual fact there was much bloodletting and violence between the victorious rebels and those who remained loyal. Maybe a lot of old scores being settled but it became very violent and loyalists and free slaves were forced out, to Canada, Florida, the Caribbean and Africa. This is never mentioned in history books either. It is well described in Maya Jasanoff's book "Liberty's Exiles". An instructive read. @JohnSmith-bx8zb below mentions it too as Ethnic Cleansing which it pretty much was.
These facts are no surprise to any American who has studied American history after the sixth grade. Sadly, there are far too many who have not. At 17:32, you referred to " being bullied "as a reason for emigration to the colonies. The genocidal British policies towards the Scots and Irish were a bit more than bullying. Regarding fact 2 about Molly Pitcher I will see and raise , one King Arthur. Enjoyed the video but the narrator had a definite "tone", something I hadn't noticed in other content I've seen with him. Sorry sir, U.S. vs Great Britain final score two/nil.😊
And before bringing up our shameful treatment of the Scots and Irish I suggest you take a look at the treatment of Native Americans handed out by the US government almost immediately after the victory in 1783.
@adriansmith3427 My apologies. I had been misinformed by the American public school system of the 1970s. I will have to do further research. Although a two minute Google search suggests the war was a draw with the only real lovers being the indigenous people.
@NSYresearch "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who." As the descendant of French Canadian settlers, the Ottawa, the Huron, and Irish who fled the potato famine, I have always been about the "losers" side of history. I'm fully aware of America's atrocities and failures, and I am cognizant of the tendency to whitewash the past. I was making a snarkey, honest, and I hoped, humorous response to the video. You must admit that referring to the systematic decimation of entire peoples as "being bullied" by anyone is pretty f***ed up?
Good thing Washington had good generals. Lee is considered a great general. But the loss of Stonewall Jackson led to losing the civil. Granted the North would eventually win, but had Jackson not died, the war would have lasted a bit longer.
I really like Simon Whistler and his videos, but my biggest issue with this particular video is Simon keeps saying "most Americans" in this video as if we Americans are unaware of these "Uncomfortable Truths". I don't know where they get that idea, I'm no historian yet he had no truths listed here that were unknown to me. Additionally, some of his info here about these "Uncomfortable Truths" is as fuzzy as the the misconceptions he's trying to dismiss; for example Paul Revere was not only one of many riders sent out prior to the battle of Lexington & Concord. He was a leader in the militia, also known for his illustration of the Boston Massacre, & in addition to the midnight ride he served as a currier. Another example of his fuzzy truths is that in addition to the aid he mentions that Americans received from the French, we also received a good deal of aid from the British in the form of the blunders of several of their generals.
Sorry mate but I lived and worked for four years in the US and the ignorance of US factual history - (not the Hollywood version) was ubiquitous. There was even less appetite for discovering the realities. Blissful in their ignorance. For many of the people I met/worked with/related through my wife these would be "Uncomfortable truths". As such they would never be considered beyond watching this clip - reverting back to comfortable ignorance for most I fear. As a Brit and having been a product of centuries of, "Uncomfortable truths" which end up not being so if and when the individual readily recognizes there is no such thing as infallibilty and what makes a good film or book does not necessarily make good historical reporting.
Yes your reply is sorry. While I’ve lived abroad for a bit over 3 of my 63 years the rest of those years I’ve lived here in the U.S. & that includes years on each coast plus years in the mid-west. So I expect my sample size of encounters with US citizens is likely far larger than yours. Additionally, while my time living in other countries certainly broadens my perspectives it by no means made me a greater expert on their culture than the locals. Such an assumption on your part smacks more than a little of geographic bigotry.
@@billfilios2677 Yes, granted your sample size is infinitesimally larger and for sure a wider spectrum than that I sampled. I can only state my findings and opinions and it probably would not stack up against any sort of larger grouping or professional polling. It was a statement of my opinion and we are all aware of how awry opinions may or may not prove to be once unravelled. However the statement was not concerning your findings/knowledge/dare I say, opinion. My post was concerning my findings/knowledge/dare I say, opinions. As such we are surely allowed to differ? All but inevtiable at some point. I have lived, worked, was educated, have holidayed and otherwise visited a wide selection of geographical areas in my long years on this planet. I'm significantly older than you. Including 7 years in Germany, the aforementioned 4 in the US, was educated in the Far East for 3 years, Cyprus for 3 years, Belgium, Central America, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Ireland and travelled to many others - mainly Europe but not exclusively. I don't do nationalistic bollocks and bullshit from any source (IMHO that rarely ends well) more so when it emanates from the two main nations in my life UK (by accident of warfare and birth - I should have been born in Egypt but nationalistic fervour there prevented the aircraft taking off from Britain and all passengers, including heavily pregnant Mum was ushered off the plane as it was waiting to take off. I emerged a few days later in England. The US being the second as I have been married to an American for 37 years (though she has long since taken British citizenship) and my offspring was born there. So I have a soft spot for the US and most things American. "Geographical bigotry"? Well done! There's an insult I've not come across before, I'd have chuckled about that one a long time ago it I'd heard. I might even borrow that one for future use. I sincerely hope you feel better having got something or other off your chest. Wend your way in peace, harmony and i hope you keep an ear and a mind open for nationalistic bollocks and bullshit - some of those people peddling such can be quite tiresome and irksome on top being just plain fucking imbecilic.
George did that thing that matters most he won Wellington he beat napoleon al by himself no Germans or prussians it wasn’t a British victory it was an allied victory but Wellington took all the credit
The fact that america did what it had to do is what evey single army did. The end speaks for its self. Without america yal would of been wiped out the face of the earth. Even now. Plus look at all the war crimes yal did. Love yal but let the past rest yal were shame.
Most of the Americans who were in the continental army (which did the bulk of the fighting) were poor farmers who risked their lives and what little they owned to fight the British. Only a few rich guys like Washington actually participated in the actual fighting. And while rich patriots woukd have been at risk of being hung for treason if America had lost probably most would have used their money and influence to flee to Europe or French or Spanish colonies in the Americas.
Simon Whistler is a typical Englishman. He often says English when he should be saying British and that sort of thing is one of the reasons why the Americans wanted out.
Americans were a mixed bunch. They were farmers entrepreneurs ect. Ofcourse they needed help. These guys got it done. George never stepped on British soil again🙏💛
