Partitioning an Empire: The End of the American Revolutionary War 1782-1783 

Russia and China should deal with the drunk pirates defiling Gibraltar.

"Thanks for holding onto Gibraltar" Why???

​@@julio1116because it really annoys Spaniards and their reactions are funny

@@BadCalibre88 European Falklands

​@@julio1116 Probably, for its importance in World War 2. Just guessing based on Sam's channel.

Well UK also got pretty much bankrupted when they won Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2. The two last making them lose their superpower status.

Generally speaking, bankruptcy is preferable to losing a war and a huge part of your empire. Unfortunately (or fortunately, from our perspective) this particular bankruptcy led to the French Revolution and later the end of feudalism across Europe, so the French monarchy definitely took a fat L here

As an American, it must be said that the battle of the capes or the Chesapeake, was solely a French victory. The what ifs of history, if we would have won without them, or had that battle gone a different way blah blah blah, I don't get into. What I do know is what actually happened. And what happened was the French fleet's victory secured our ability to have a Allied victory over a British army in Yorktown and secure American independence. The first World War was not just for Britain's sake. It was the repayment of a debt that we had to the French. That's why the first thing we did was to march to lafayette's tomb. It was a nearly an identical repayment actually. We came in late and half-hearted at first, but in the end we were the deciding factor that helped secure victory and freedom for France in that war. Which is exactly what the french contribution to us was in the The War of Independence.

​@martinrabaud6807 If winning the Napoleonic Wars bankrupted Britain, the British* wouldn't have dominated the world for the next century. It accumulated a vast debt that it could afford to manage and pay off very efficiently because Britain's economy was thriving (industrialisation, expanding economy, control of world trade etc)

@@MattCellaneous While there was a lot of such pageantry with respect to France in WWI, it was largely staged propaganda designed to make Americans more amenable to entering the conflict (largely by helping them dislike French less). The idea that it actually influenced the US decision to get involved in WWI or that we felt we owed some debt to be repaid is fanciful. There were various reasons for the US wanting to get involved from from the freedom of navigation to the desire to ensure loans were repaid to grand idealistic beliefs about democracy and the international order to the insult to national honor that was the Zimmerman telegram; but repaying a debt to France was not amongst these reasons America went to war. Furthermore, as Washington himself made clear during his presidency when he abrogated our alliance with France: any obligation owed to France was owed to the Ancien Regime and was rendered null and void by the French Revolution. Let's not forget it was only US diplomatic intervention that saved Lafayette's life from the French republic and they were the murderers of benefactor Louis XVI, the French republic was never a friend or ally of the United States.

Fax Bro this guy drops gems.

Do you know of any good other channels which make videos on geopolitics/history?

Certainly my favorite

Dont forget Strategy Stuff

Oddly specific, but I agree this guy's high quality

Classic bargaining tactic: start way higher than you want and gradually 'come to an agreement' of your true goals.

Gave me a good laugh that's for sure 😂

@@LANCELOT1911Bet even the British diplomats laughed in private

BeLiEvE

Lol. The UK ended with even more debts from that war than France and lost the crown jewel of the time of their Empire. Don't make it sound it was ok, it was a heavy defeat for Britain

@@skiteufr Britain *could* and *did* effectively manage its major war debts (Pitt's First Ministry). Due to the ineffective finanical structure of the Ancien Regime, the French could not. She collapsed into revolution barely 6 years after the war ended. "lol" indeed. France demonstrably came out worse that Britain, having failed to take the West Indies (the most valuable British possessions at the time, & were recognised as such. The 13 Colonies were never the jewel of the crown). You'll be horrified to learn the war didn't end at Yorktown. It ended with the failure and disintegration of the Bourbon Alliance after the Saintes & Siege of Gibraltar.

@@skibbideeskitch9894 again. Don't make it sound like you won the war because your pathetic country only won a siege. Most of Britain's carribbean possessions were in French hands by the end of the war except Jamaica (which was the only thing saved by the Saintes). The trade with India was heavily disrupted. At the end of the war, the Bourbon alliance was stronger than ever : Spain won back Florida, won back Menorca. France used the conquests of the carribbean to pressure Britain into a Peace treaty. It handed back most of the captured islands except Tobago but well, it wasn't really important as France already had Saint Domingue, the richest colony in the world at that time and didn't want to take too many islands from Britain has it would have been a heavy burden to defend and control (reason why they were as bargain to end the war and not as prizes). The French revolution was a good and much needed thing. The most important turning point in western history that created the liberal world we live in today, and turned a country attacked from all sides into the conqueror of Europe... So again, i know that you British like to turn your numerous defeats into victories or you try to take credit from the contribution of others, but the American revolutionary war was a clear defeat on all fronts for Britain It was diplomatically isolated for the first time as it had not alliance with a great power of the continent and the challenge on all fronts proved too much for Britain.

@@skibbideeskitch9894 In the long-term, America's independence severely and negatively affected the so-called "position of dominance" that Britain had in the Americas. Had there been no American independence, then Britain's position in the Americas (and thus the world) would've been more secure throughout the 19th century and beyond. But Britain's defeat in the hands of USA and France prevented that. Also, France's extraordinary performance during the Napoleonic Wars against multiple coalitions show that France was not weakened at all by the conflict in North America. Even after Napoleon's defeat, France was STILL a major power in Europe in 1816 (unlike Germany in 1946). France lost its dominant status in Europe ONLY after the Franco-Prussian war in 1870s and not after the conflict with UK in 1780s. UK may not have faced the true and ultimate consequences of its defeat against USA/France in the short-term. But the long-term was not very kind to UK who got dwarfed by USA.

@@herrlord-rk7ir Does any of that of that change the fact France came out of the war in a worse state than Britain, that it severely crippled the Ancien Regime, or that American Independence didn't interrupt Britain's upward trajectory as a world power? The British Empire was more powerful in the early 19th century than at anytime before American Independence, because A) Post-1815, France and Spain were no longer threats, and B) She had a marked superiority in naval power, industrialisation and world trade. These factors were not reliant on controlling a colonial state in the Americas which, if Independence didn't happen, may never have progessed much beyond the Proclamation Line of 1763. France did very well for much of the Napoleonic Wars. She ultimately also lost the Napoleonic Wars, in great part due to Britain's marked superiority at sea & GB's ability to draw on vast finanical & imperial resources. Her 18th century victories in the Seven Years War and 11th hour success against France and Spain in 1782-1783 enabled this.

I mean we only say that because Napoleon invaded Russia if he managed to not do that and focus on the continent it would have been the best thing to ever happen to the French

@@michaelsurratt1864 Not at all. The worst events in France took place even before Napoleon came to power. The horrors of the French revolution haunt the country to this very day.

@@poiuyt975 The French revolution brought about enlightenment that is the foundation of our modern western civilization.

@@michaelsurratt1864 Napoleon never lost a single battle in Russia. Only the British ever defeated Napoleon

@@tylerclayton6081 regardless of him losing any battles he invaded with 600,000 and left with 90,000

Thank you, very pleased you like them.

Yeah, US schools basically go straight from Yorktown to the Treaty

The next Other Great Game episode will go up to the Suez crisis and a bit beyond. I’d also like to cover Potsdam and the settling of the post-war order at some point. But unfortunately Cold War history isn’t really my area of interest. I actually found it a bit dry when I studied it academically. But I certainly wouldn’t rule out doing such topics in the future.

@@OldBritannia Alright thats quite fair. I do wanna see the next episode of the great game, I think the series depicts the more unknown rivalry between the US and the British Empire pretty well, while in most other historical records the Americans are always portrayed as being the friendly neighbour who would one day aid Britain in their time of need, of course people always forget that the American's weren't helping for free, and the cost would be Britain's hegemony.

This deccision bby France is thhe most pivotal reason for the shappe of the worldd internattionally right now. Just one example is that no independence at this moment would mean no Independence in the future for the colonies because Britain industrialised and got steam powered gunboats within a few decades and a France that doesn't go into revolution, remaining financially and militarily recovered, would mean no modern Germany either, but small German states remaining, with Prussia the largest, as before -Therefore no world wars

"porchugese"

As an American I’ve always found the relative darkness surrounding the end of the revolutionary war in our country interesting. In school we’re taught the battle of Yorktown ended the war, and not that in continued for years on afterwards. Nor are we taught the extent of the global reach of the conflict, it’s just taught to us as the French came to help us after the Battle of Saratoga. The final years of the war and the period directly after until the ratification of the Constitution are glossed over most likely because the period was a total shitshow with States threatening war with one another over trade and land rights and insurrections against the weak federal government. I also find it very interesting that in spite of the war fought between our two countries and the aid France gave us, we almost immediately turned our backs on them and began trade with England. I think it was always inevitable due to shared culture and language the two nations became close allies, even regardless of the many bumps in the road leading up to and after the “coming out party” of sorts of the US-UK relationship with American funding of and entry into WW1.

@@kenchem9253 The mistrust lasted beyond WW1. Dough Boys were not strictly allies, although on the same side. Check out videos from US WW1 Museum Kansas. Even at the start of WW2 from the US perspective the two countries did not entirely trust each other. They had to learn to respect each other at each level by common experience. I enjoy watching some of the better US reaction channels, if only because I enjoyed touring US for three months back in the 1990s. My northern English dialect, spoken with my friend, often had us confused for Irish by enthusiastic Irish Americans. We tried to let them down gently as my friend's forenames are James Stewart, which we declared to show Celtic origins. We were asked in Texas if we had come all the way from England on the bus. 🏜🌎🏝🚌🏖🌍🏞 It seems those naval battles' significance was over exaggerated?

It was only France that was bankrupted. The other powers trundled onwards. Spain's finances were fairly solid in the late 18th Century and it was more onerous on the peasantry compared to France (Of course in theory, in reality the French system was clearly worse.).

@@johnnotrealname8168 I was thinking of when Napoleon decided to just take the whole country for Spain and Netherlands.

@@alansmithee8831Which country? Also he invaded the Netherlands.

Yeah, they just gave it up to America even though a case can be made that it was Spanish-Allied natives that won the territory.

Yea, I'm guessing the Natives would have been slaughtered regardless, but after Britain abandoned their Native allies, Americans wanted their revenge for siding with Britain

@@Joker-no1uh I think Britain was supporting a war between the Indians and the Americans after independence actually. Also the reason for independence, one of them, was moving into Indian land out West over the Appalachia mountains.

Really interesting topic for a dissertation. A much neglected battle. If only Rodney had ordered a general pursuit...

@@OldBritannia Agreed. A missed opportunity to make a grand victory even grander.

For once ! They finally face a coalition. Most of the time it's the otherway around. France facing coalition.

One of the points he doesn't show though is that the Americans were in effective occupation of Kentucky and southern Illinois/Indiana at the time, which gave them a few extra good cards at the negotiating table.

That's not fair, the French won fairly often and it was usually a disaster lol

@@primarchvulkan5097 Not on the sea they didnt

@KnowzsPenge That's not entirely fair, the French navy performed quite well in both world wars. During ww2 the French even arguably had the 3rd best battleship class after the Iowa and South Dakota classes with the Richelieu after the US retrofitted it with massive AA compliment (far better than anything the Germans had and superior in all but gun size to even the Yamato)

@@primarchvulkan5097 What an earth are you talking about, the French Navy saw no action in ww2. You do not know what you are talking about. For the majority of the second world war following the defeat of France it served as leverage, one of the few, over the Germans & Italians. Some elements of the fleet were seized by the British, some neutralized, and some destroyed at Mers-el-Kebir where the British sunk one battleship, put two out of commission, and damaged a fourth. The remainder of the main fleet gathered at Toulon on the French Mediterranean Coast. Two in progress battleships had fled the mainland during the Fall of France to Dakar and Casablanca. The single best Naval battle the French ever had was the battle in the video. The best battleships were the ships that actually fought other powerful ships and won and it weren't the ones in question.

@@KnowzsPenge en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_French_Naval_Forces you dropped this L... lol

The American wars destroyed the idea that France had of itself.. which led to all the other things that you mentioned later on. It started here though.

Sure France lost it's superpower status after 1815 but even after the ruining of the coalition wars. France still stayed top 3 world power along with the new superpower UK and Prussia/germany.

For this video in particular (though sources are at the end) or just in general?

@@OldBritannia In general.

@@lloyd9500 Well, I'm Irish, and certainly not a fan of the British Empire, and I think he has presented the story in a impartial manner, sympathetic to all sides in turn, seeking to understand motives, and understand actions. It's seems the Channel name has put your back up? It maybe about British history, so what, but it seems to me more about British strategic thinking over the centuries, a super interesting topic. I think you are looking for a different kind of history of the British Empire, that has its own validity of course, but it's not what this channel seems to be aiming for.

Only read part of it I'm afraid to say, must get round to the rest if you recommend that highly.

Trafalgar actually changed nothing. Even worse Nelson, Britain's greatest admiral, was killed in the engagement. Napoleon's victory at Austerlitz ended the war of the 3rd coalition which was pretty much an outright victory for the French leaving Britain to be on the losing side. And Napoleon kept on fighting for another ten years aferwards. So it's hard to see the importance of Trafalgar outside of the naval battle itself.

@@josephyates9936 you are a pathetic little soul. The result of Trafalgar was the Royal Navy was dominant for 150 years plus right round the world, and with that control, we have the world empire, and of course with the world trade,business, military and making sure we put certain countries in their place and that could even apply to you was ever hole you come from?

@@josephyates9936 Trafalgar was the final cherry on top of Britain's navy supremacy's cake. It decisively ended any faint embers of Spain/France actually trying to compete navally with Britain, locking in a perpetual unchallengeable enemy for Napoleonic France.

Quebec may yet become independent. Quebec is currently bribed to stay in Canada, but with the end of endless economic growth, such a model may become unsustainable. Canada itself has a lot of troubles on the horizon, and limited ways to address them.

@@shorewall To be honest, I highly respect Canada and would never wish for Quebec to be independent as a way to weaken Canada. But I do legitimately believe independence of Quebec would be better for both nations. It's legitimately hard to run a bilingual nation that's bilingual in theory only, and in practice is only monolingual in the relevant territories. Both Quebec and Canada would thrive as independent nations not focused on one another. I wish Canada the best though. Canadians are great generous and polite people, I'm saddened to see Canada go down the craphole with terrible cost of living, housing crisis, immigration, and an incompetent Trudeau government.

Honestly, my mapping process isn't much different from Dr Ludwig's tutorial here on YT, as that is where I learned from. Just watch that and find a style you like from the internet. But I will get round to making a full video at some point.

" I would say being 150 year long worldwide top colonial and ecoomic and military bemouth" - a "bemouth" which could never defeat any great power without having militarily more powerful allies to do most of the fighting for them and which lost to the Zulus who were only armed with spears and shields in the nineteenth century...

@@josephyates9936 Zulu Kingdom had firearms and eventually vanquished by British en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ulundi , Isandwana was just one over emphasized engagement a "bemouth" which could never defeat any great power without having militarily more powerful allies to do most of the fighting for them " A bemouth that that dwarfed every other nation economically and territorially bigger than any of its rivals and a naval power which "none" of its allies could dream of (there were no Prussian or Russian or Austrian naval personnel in Battles of Nile or Trafalgar or WWII in Royal Navy) and if they utilised alliances and military coalitions to advance their interests , it displays they were smarter than their adversaries (unlike French till 1815 , Germans till 1945 both wasted their manpower for failed bids to create their own imperial sphares only to be crushed or Russians during Great Game in 19th Century) Having a larger land army does not make you a better military. Having a better and larger navy and diplomatic means persuasion in diplomacy to create alliances in 17th - 20th Centuries made Britain a global superpower though.

I tell my wife, be quiet, baby. Old Britannia has posted a video. 😊🇬🇧🇬🇧

Yes it's perhaps not the most rational of terms. I think it does serve to nicely divide the initial focus on the West (America and West Indies), and post-1783 focus on the East (India), so I still find it a useful term for these types of videos.

@@OldBritannia I like it, because as an American, the only British Empire I know is the Eastern one. Talking about the First British Empire helps me to remember that Britain once controlled about half of North America.

The 4th Anglo-Dutch War was kind of a sideshow to the revolutionary war. The Dutch were trade rivals but nominally neutral to the British. Dutch traders supplied the Americans and the French with things like materials to build ships, circumventing British blockades, claiming a Free Trade position based on treaties from previous Anglo-Dutch Wars. The British captured some of these shipments, claiming that they were "contraband" and thus exempt from the treaties.. Dutch Republic then tried to join an armed neutrality league along with Russia, Denmark, Sweden to protect their trade interests. The British found out and declared war to prevent this, had the far stronger navy at this point, and hit Dutch colonies and trade hard. The end result was minor in terms of territorial changes, but basically settled the end of the Dutch East-India Company and increased debts and economic decline that spiralled the Dutch Republic into low-level civil war and later becoming a French puppet state until Napoleon's defeat.

The Dutch got wrecked. Another nation who drank from the poisoned chalice of aiding the Rebels.

​@@MrCheesyPants I love how he says they played with fire and got third degree burns. Sums up what happened perfectly.

Ah yes you’re quite correct. Very silly error on my part, apologies.

The battle of Chesapeake was strategic defeat for the British and it completely changed the course of world history. The USA would be a country like Canada today if they had not won the war of independece which hinged around the naval engagements at Chesapeake.

New England would be like Canada or Australia today if they didn't become independent. Shackled in a subordinate position, eventually granted commonwealth status perhaps, but never developing into the equivalent of the USA today. Or London would have had to take the back seat to the demographic explosion possible in New England, essentially colonizing the Colonizer, with New England becoming the strength, and wanting the equal, or greater, say. The only way for Britain to hold America would be to clip the wings and bind the feet, so as to hold back their enormous potential. Britain had a lot of advantages, but it was an island nation, limited by geography, while America was almost completely unlimited. If America gained access to the tech and economy of Britain, as it did in our timeline, it had the greater potential.

they use coalition

@@teamgamespace5708 I mean military tactical and strategic lessons

Yes getting their allies to do most of the fighting for them - did the British pass on those milatary tactics? Even then Napoleon was winning for almost fifteen years so it's hard to see any relevance of the military tactical and strategic lessons that the British learnt during the American war of independance. @@richardcaves3601

Most probably know it as one of the lines in Hamilton (though it's very brief and doesn't really mention the battle)

No many French either I can tell you.

​@@mrsupremegascontbf America is a smaller part of European history than European history is American

@@barmybarmecide5390 That's an interesting way to put it and very true. The entire Americas is largely a footnote in European history. Where as in America European history is considered our history as Westerners. However Americans definitely had a profound impact on European history starting with the American Revolution which caused the French Revolution causing revolutions all throughout Europe.

@@kingkiron2934 The American Revolution and particularly the French decision is To support, is arguably the most pivotal event in history for the shape of the modern world in multifaceted ways

no your not

@@Adamm17004 well when I Saw the comment section it was just me Then I refreshed it after I posted this And I saw 2 other guys that had posted comments 1 min before me so sry