The Brits like to make a big deal out of the French supplying the Continental Army and then turn around and act like Lend Lease wasn't all that important.
To anyone that is listening, the war did not end at Yorktown,Va there were still other engagements until 1783 when the treaty of Paris, officially ending the American revolution.
Yorktown was Admiral De grasse's victory.. history remembers Washington, Gates, Lafayette, Rochambeau, Lauzun, Steuben.. but whitout the naval ability of Admiral De Grasse, the battle would never occured or been won, with the Royal navy at sea support.
That's true, but it doesn't make it De Grasse's victory alone. All of the elements for victory had to come together, otherwise the British would have either emerged victorious or slipped the noose.
Keep it in context, the British at the time still viewed the colonies as their own only throwing a tantrum, regardless of what the colonists said they wanted. The fact that foreign mercenaries were being used to kill them only made the colonists even angrier and increased militia turnout. I doubt they would have cared if France invaded England, considering that's what they viewed the British as doing to them.
You make a fair point but you also seem to clearly underestimate the role the US played in the war. 1) the US did not join at the end of the war, 2) they fought the war on 3 fronts: Western Europe, Africa and the Pacific 3)before they became militarily involved they allowed the allies to fight by supplying them with weapons and ammunition. Without that help the British and the Russians would not have been able to hold out and beat back the Germans.
The spanish attack to the british positions in Pensacola opened the Second Front in 1781 . The spanish troops of Louisiana, Florida and New Spain commanded by Bernardo de Galvez helped decisively to the final victory of Washington in Yorktown.
I love this part of history : at that time, an army of 20 000 men was enough to hold several states of america while many european battles involving an average of 200 000 men had few consequences on the war destiny. This was the glorious colonial era!!!!
"The Bristish" a well established & disciplined Super Power vs it's colonist we couldn't have won the war without brave colonist, trick tactics & allot of help from Franch/ other nations.
Sore losers. It doesn't help that the second war with Britain ended in a stalemate in large part due to the young 20 year old US Navy having their way with the Royal Navy that was already centuries old. That was also a huge embarrassment for the "Mistress of the Seas." This is a pretty good list of the naval actions during the War of 1812 if you want to see what I'm talking about: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_naval_battles_of_the_War_of_1812
Joe Mumma not really. You never beat any of our first rate ships of the line. Or second. Or third. Or fourth. Not even fifth rates. You never beat Collingwood or any of our admiral with a full fleet
Jim, most excellent work, my congrats! Acta, I don't think you missed anything, you are just extremely observant. Notice the musket locks are also "backwards" so the editor must have flipped the image to have them appear to be shooting to the left.
HaHa!! Listen at all the whiny Redcoats on here crying because they lost the war. The British had hyped themselves up as being the greatest empire in the world and they failed to defeat a revolutionary government/army with less money, less manpower, less combat experience, a very small navy (compared to the British) and with less equipment. The American leadership was much smarter than the British, realizing their limitations and choosing to fight smaller scale battles they actually had a chance to win, racking up enough victories to secure the help of the French and Spanish. They also used unorthodox methods the British weren't as adept at, such as guerrilla tactics and the use of American rifles to secure some victories. The British had the advantage (especially early on) in almost every way and simply have no excuse for why their forces were unable to squash the revolution early on before the French were even able to enter the war. The British failed to adapt to American tactics and that ultimately cost them the war. That American diplomats were able to secure an alliance with France and Spain in such a non-conventional war, also shows the superiority of American diplomacy. Supporting a revolution usually means supporting the underdog in a fight and that entails great political risk if the revolution fails. The British on the other hand, had already established alliances with other countries before the Revolution began, yet their diplomats failed to capitalize on them. The British can make up all the excuses they want but the Americans beat them, period.
Great blend of reenactment, historical artwork, and documents. Appreciated the voice-over info. But did the video really need to be reversed giving us "left-handed" muskets? I shoot a LH PA flinter (bad right eye) so that detail really jumped out at me. All in all, a most informative video. Thanks.
@gipcambero That's not true. Even if the US had lost the revolution, the union of colonies would have gained dominion status by the 1860s and from then on would have been independent for all intents and purposes.
I wasn't talking about Yorktown. But if you want to talk about Yorktown, neither the Americans nor the French could have done it alone. It's a perfect example of a well-executed joint operation. The British do like to try to give the French all of the credit, though. Funnily enough, you don't see me going onto Waterloo videos trolling the Brits by calling it a splendid German victory.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the "left-handed" muskets. I shoot a LH PA flinter (bad right eye) so it really jumped out at me! I did the classic double-take when I saw it.
I thought video cameras were invented in the 1900s? My hole life has changes. I can't beleive they videotaped their war with so much HD definition. Is this real???
i researched that one of my great great great great great grand dads died fighting for england at the batle of yorktown virginia. i would hate to be the last man killed in a war. i would be gutted lmao.
You're oversimplifying things again. I never used the word "saved" for that very reason. And if you're going to talk about casualties as the singular factor as to who "won" a war or "saved" someone, you ought to be aware of the fact that the British took most of their casualties fighting in the colonies rather than the Caribbean and Europe and elsewhere. Again, that's the problem with oversimplification. But you guys still tend to enjoy doing it.
The American Revolution continued till 1784. The British was still occupying parts of the American colonies till 1784 , most notably New York. The British still occupied spanish Florida till 1784. There were skirmishes after Yorktown
@MrSRB2011 I love the Brits. And I thank them for the great traditions they passed on to we American cousins. BUT you cannot say you have the best: food, weather, teeth, complexion, or best-looking women. (France, Italy, Greece, Spain for that). In your list of "bests" though you forgot Rock Music. Cannot even father the last 40 years of music without Great Britain's influence! You took our blues music, repackaged it and gave us back some of the greatest music EVER! God bless you mate.
Funny that you jump straight to the Prussians. Most of Wellington's troops were German and Belgian. He was in overall command just as Washington was at Yorktown. Valid. And even British historians claim that Blucher's arrival was what sealed the victory. Just so you know.
@wolffromsteam Cornwallis was going to entrench himself at Yorktown as it was, French or no French... Greene's army was still intact in the south. All he had to do was wait for Washington to meet him on the outskirts of Yorktown. The Americans couldve done it themselves. What they couldnt do was beat the Royal navy in the Chesappeake.
I guess if you were talking to a Frenchman it would matter a little more. Frankly, we got what we wanted. Though I do always love it when a Brit acts like the colonists "betrayed" Great Britain in some horrible, unforgivable way.
The superlative British victory at Saintes (in which 1000 US sailors and Marines were present - Thomas, p. 67) the following year was more important than any set back on the East Coast of America as it secured the Caribbean for the British, which generated significantly more revenue than all 13 Colonies combined.
Decisive battlefield victories? Nope, just the war as a whole. One would think that the Europeans would have figured out by now that not every war is won by large tactical engagements.
@gipcambero Actually the British were fighting the Spanish, Dutch and the French at the same time, with the main bulk of British forces in Europe, so the fact we lost America is no shame.
It's not like the Brits didn't already hire tens of thousands of German mercs and Iroquois tribes to slaughter their colonial brethren or anything like that.
@jordanj942 Yes you are correct. A good number of the British people hated the king and supported the rebels. In fact many British referred to the Americans as their brothers which is understandable considering most Americans at the time were British by blood and culture. Also it's fair to mention that there were many Americans who wanted to remain loyal to king. Americans never hated the British people, most of the hate was directed to the king.
@1stLordTheAdmiralty1 France won that war as America won WW2. Same process, same results. I'm french and thankful toward America for helping us in 1944. Please American, do the same for 1780 !
The over-the-mountain men were Scots-Irish immigrants who were given land on the outskirts of the colonies, to help quell Indian uprisings. After 40 years of frontier experience, these Scots-Irish where very proficient at Indian tactics and gave the Brits a sound thrashing. It is also noteworthy that these Scots-Irish also had a bitter history that went back to early English conquests of Scotland and what become known as the Ulster Plantation in Northern Ireland. In essence a blood feud.
@1stLordtheAdmiralty I know that the Frnch gave financial support but it was partly to blame for the downfall of the French monarchy about 20 years later.
@mjm0787 Your own prejudices against Americans don't change the fact that Britain was defeated. In history classes in America, it is always taught that the French helped the colonists, and also that the colonists did a lot of damage themselves. After the Battle of Bunker Hill, the French foreign minister said that the British army would be defeated with two more such costly victories. Did you also forget that the British brought in the Hessians before Americans had France's help?
you are right about the yankes join both WW late but if it was not for them we would of lost at least WWII look at the allies the british war pretty much by them selves
It's not just the 13 colonies but the potentiality of what those 13 colonies would entail in just 100 years: a industrial giant of a country which would dwarf the largest empire of the time in both economic and military terms. The loss foreshadowed the rapid demise of the British Empire.
Well, I know what you mean when you say that (France did take the largest when it came to war price, not to mention gave a lot of funding to support US too). However, let us not also forget that Spain and Netherlands (was Quebec mentioned?) were also completely ignored in this too. True, they didn't spend much time fighting directly on US soil, but they did stretch out UK military so US and France wouldn't take the full assault. Arguably this is the smallest WW in world history as of 1778-1782.
More or less. Washington had very personal reasons for wanting to attack New York instead, and a victory against either Clinton or Cornwallis would have ended the war, but de Grasse wasn't willing to sail that far north and since he'd only be able to blockade Yorktown for a certain period of time, attacking Cornwallis had the best chance of success. Most famous Generals who fail in the end fail because they're not willing to look past their own egos and desires or listen to anyone else.
About "Bloody Tarlton": This wonderful little documentary neglects to mention that the massacre was precipitated by his horse being shot from under him whilst they were surrendering ;)
I hate how is always George III who was "evil". Ever though it could be his ministers? Lord North for example. If I were the King I would have sent my son over there to establish a Regency. Established a gentry and nobility.
@gipcambero The Yanks might have beaten us Brits but final war between us was in the war of 1812, after which the States were neutral till later in the First World War in which they became allies of both us and the French against Imperial Germany and again in second world world against Nazi Germany and Japan. without the USA, Britain and France would have lost both wars.
@gipcambero Exactly, but where was it credited? I think the UK and France should have allianced together,onsidering Americans had fought against France in the Past..
yes indeed Gibraltar was the longest siege of the war & involved the largest battle of the war. The Saintes battle avenged the defeat at Yorktown & kept the Caribbean British..
Hi. Are you saying the video is untrue, or the comments? We worked hard to research and present the facts as best we could in the video. But of course 'history is written by the winners', so you never know exactly what the truth is.
Rochambeau also told Washington that he came to serve, not to lead. He also had 8,000 soldiers, not 11,000. It was also Washington's strategy in the south that led to the opportunity to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown to begin with. Things are a bit more complicated than you seem to realize. It's not just numbers.
At the end of the day 90% of all gunpowder in the US army was supplied by France and France supplied munitions as early as 1776. France made the war a global conflict. Spain,Holland and Sweden wouldn't have got involved if it weren't for the French..That's what? 5 nations versus Britain.. and to say that North America wasn't exactly a gold mine compared to other British Empire assets such as the Sugar Cane islands it's understandable to see where the British loyalty was at the time.
One subject not mentioned is the fact that the people of britain was revolting against a tyrant king , many in secret supported the colonies war for independence due to either relatives living over there or having lost relatives serving in the British army over there! With the country fighting on most continents the treasury was nearly bankrupt and an increase in taxes meant more people wanted an end to the conflict! A decision was made to sacrifice america for the greater good of the British empire as other colonies was far more lucrative and the British navy and forces was sent to protect them from other empires life France and Spain!
Alright, alright. We know all the things about if the British didn't treat us like crap. But the truth is. We are cousins. Just because we Americans broke off from them does not mean we can treat them bad again. We did what needed to be done to save our people then. The British are now our closest friends in the World and we need to treat them likewise. As I said, we are cousins. We all have our roots either in Europe or Britain.
