Welcome to RevWarTalk. The idea of an info graphic soundsreally interesting. If it it something you can share down the road I’d love to check it out.
I think your question is a great one. It relates to a very fundamental element of the war, yet I think it can draw a lot of different perspectives. My thoughts below:
To question #1:
– England was a global power, with colonies on several continents, america was just one of them
-They had arguably the best army in the world,
-They had arguably the best navy in the world
-The King, leading a global power, likely had an ego that supported the perspective that England could defeat any enemy, thus no one would challenge them with the realistic chance of victory
-Parliament likely felt superior, and that some backwoodsman colonists wouldn’t have the intelligence, numbers of people, organization skills, or training to really launch a victorious war
-The colonists couldn’t financially afford a war against a global power
To question #2:
-They might have felt they had no other option. For example, Ben Franklin was a strong proponent of compromise for a long time – he really felt a connection with England and wanted to reach a solution that averted war. It was only after, during good faith negotiations, he was disgraced by Parliament that he then felt that war was the only option left.
-They saw how England was responding to their issues with harsh punishments instead of support. The colonies were treated like a wealth generator for England, and not like citizens that were just in another part of the world. As such, with things getting worse, it was a decision to either allow things to get worse, or fight for change (so this is similar to the point above). And even thus, about 1/3 of colonists were loyal to Britain during the war, so it wasn’t a totally unified colonial population.
-All British war supplies had to come over by boat, this was time consuming and expensive
-The colonists knew the land and the terrain, giving a slight advantage
-Many prominent colonial military leaders used to fight for the British army (in the French and Indian war). So there were some very smart, well trained leaders that could contribute to war efforts
-The colonists had some very strong, smart, passionate people who simply believe it could be possible
-Early in the war Spain and France were providing some financial and supplies support, so the colonists had some hope for resources beyond their own
-Once France and Spain formally joined, it was a huge boost to confidence and possiblity of success
-Britain was fighting several wars across several continents. It wasnt so much a little guy vs. giant, as the American Revolution was just one of many concerns for Britain where they had to spread resources across
-And likely, the same pioneering spirit of being a colonist is likely a similar spirit that would drive them to fight for change
Have any interesting ideas from other sources? Hope these help some.
There are some folks here on the forum that are from England, thus their knowledge of the British history and perspectives might lend some great, and different insight. Anyone else have thoughts on this?