Forum Replies Created
- June 1, 2017 at 1:46 am in reply to: British Light Infantry and the Adaptability of the British War Effort #9149
Dead right guys. By the 1770’s the British had light companies attatched to their regular battalions. Along with the grenadiers they were known as flank companies as the grenadiers stood on the right and the light bobs stood on the left. Great strides had been made during the French and Indian War but tactical doctrine had become stale between then and the start of the revolution. General Howe reinvigorated the system and it was the experience of officers fighting the rebels that helped the British beat Napoleon.
Of especial note is the fact that the retreat from Lexington and Concord was gallantly covered by light infantry who went at the Militia with their own tactics. General Howe’s light infantry became experts in their business to rival the best Yankee militia. Not to mention the Hessian Jägers, Allied tribesmen, and their own loyalist militia and legions,
Hi guys, been absent otherwise I’d have chimed in earlier.
These are very good questions, and I’ve spent a fare share of time considering them myself. Unfortunately motives to age long questions are very hard to answer but I’ll have a go. Discussion being what we are all about here.
Britain wasn’t expecting trouble so soon after the 7 years war.
Britain had a powerful army, that had been successful in colonial campaigns in the past, though with a sketchy record in Europe.
Britain had a large and powerful navy, though as yet still rivalled by France.
Britian did not consider the Americans to be Americans, they were British subjects, therefore they felt no military threat from them.
King George and his ministers were utterly out of touch with colonial issues, and consistently failed to grasp the increasing seriousness
The British were complacent about American uproar about taxation because the British payed higher taxes at home
They did not think the Americans had the military capability, economy or organisation to confront them without allies.
Distance alienated them from the realities of dealing with the problem, and we’re out of step with royal governors and vice versa.
Britain didn’t actually think revolution was in the air, they thought it was general unrest/rioting which was common at home.
Britain reacted to an American problem in a British way, they deployed the army which was the police, highlighting the gulf that had grown.
Britian it is true sadly thought the Americans second class British citizens, but ones that nonetheless had it good, didn’t take them seriously in Parliament.
The issues of a colony demanding parliamentary representation was unheard of, there was no reference point in dealing with this issue.
Britian was reeling under the strain of paying for the 7 years war and therefore money minded, and not interested in reforming colonial policy.
America was a colony and therefore an asset to be used.
The idea that subjects proclaiming loyalty to the King would rebel like in 1642 didn’t seem real, though it was to those on the ground.
The good ship arrived in American waters last month I think. Plenty of tweets of her at Yorktown. Anybody seen her yet?
That’s so kind of you to say, I often end up feeling like I’m teetering on the edge of ignorance myself, yet everyone is always so kind.
I pinpoint my interest in history back to when I played toy soldiers with my dad, and coloured in the pictures he used to draw for me. He would tell me about famous generals and battles, and the informs I saw on TV just sort of got hold of me and never let go.
I’m a fan of the ACW too, though I can’t hold forth about much concrete. Look forward to hearing from you on here.
I’ve been amusing myself now and again by reading Don Troiani’s Facebook posts about how innacurate TURN is, and how mad people get when he brings it up. I guess that proves it’s good entertainment!
Josh.June 4, 2015 at 8:07 pm in reply to: British Light Infantry and the Adaptability of the British War Effort #8991
Looks pretty cool!
Hi, pleased to make your E-aquaintence!
It’s a very interesting point. But I agree with RevWar1776 Aus would still have come into being as it would have become increasingly impractical to send large fleets of convicts and indentured servants, there is a thin line between the two but a slight difference nonetheless, to highly populated colonies like the 13 states. Given the First Fleet was in a way the first mass transportation of its kind it’s more than likley the move was prompted by the opening of Australia rather than the loss of America.
I think there are definite “Founding Fathers”, and for me they would be of the “First string” names, like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson and John Adams too, people like that. Indeed for my money (no dollar bill pun intended!) it’s a rather ill defined and indeed personal decision who you would describe as an FF. For instance I’d not single out every signer of the Declaration but certainly everyone who drafted it must be considered one, for it was their words and ideas that were accepted. However the on the other hand the members of the first 2 Congresses cannot be all excluded for the same reason, I mean you could argue that every soldier in the Continental army was one, so it’s hard to quantify for me. I do agree that the name is often used to unrealistic extremes by publishers, it’s an emmotive tag.
Very apt for Gates and Arnold! Even to the point that Arnold was wounded.
“When you have occasion to put into winter quarters or cantonments in an enemy’s country, you should place your worst troops, or those you can least depend upon, in the out-posts: for if the enemy should form the design or cutting them off, though he would be the more likely to succeed in it, yet the loss, you know, is of the less consequence to your army.” Memories of Trenton?
Also I love the tongue in cheek style, it must have been written at least partly by an officer,and the language is brilliant!
A parapluie is apparently an umbrella!
Josh.January 9, 2015 at 5:26 pm in reply to: Resource on Native American influence on early colonial life? #8848
I’m so glad you liked it! And thanks for the comments!
Josh.January 7, 2015 at 4:49 pm in reply to: Resource on Native American influence on early colonial life? #8832
Just saw this.
Tough question, I really need to read up on this. But here’s what I know.
When the then English hit Jamestown the Powhattan tribe entered a sort of love hate thing with them, depending on who was in control of the tribe. The peak of this was the “Killing Times” when Indians managed to almost utterly wipe out the entire colony except for those who managed to fortify themselves inside the stockade. Jamestown limped by with last minute help from new incoming settlers but there was no Pilgrim dinner with the Indians, though they had helped them before this. The “Starving Times” suggest a lack of willingness to help, and they only gave permission to the English to settle there because the land was useless to them. That’s what I’ve heard anyway.
Moving on to 1760ish. Things have changed, British and French colonial expansion has boomed, spreading down the whole east coast, and the French cutting into the interior. The Indian tribes now played a different game, instead of waiting the foreigners out or immediatly trying to wipe them out, they allied with one or the other and traded with them.
The reasons for this is quite simple, most Eastern tribes were now semi economically dependent on the European trade. A traveller once said that not one Indian item he came across had been made with traditional materials. They had guns, cloth, glass, mirrors, steel and all sorts to make forest life easier. The problem was how to remain sovreign.
The British and French didn’t go in for the utter destruction of races (intentionally that is, disease was something they had no control over, save for the psycho’s who gave out the smallpox blankets) the British certainly depended on trade to make their empire, and Indians were both skilled trappers and many of them held the land that was rich in furs. The British colonial system was for protectorates, dependencies and allies, all operating under the hood of the British empire, but still essentially and culturally seperate, this gave them allies, this gave them trade and it gave them the land without having to fight for it.
The problem was the French were doing similar, and they were doing it better. The Iroqouis played the game the best of all the tribes, and kept head above water for a considerable time. It was a long held tradition amongst the confederacy to be neutral from the French and the British and to dominate neighbouring tribes through the uniting force of “Pax Iroqouia”, on a small scale it was imperialism in itself. But the Europeans threatened their hold on power so they artfully played them off agaisnt one another. It came back to bite them when the French and Indian War broke out and they were forced to choose sides from who they thought was the lesser of two evils (The Iroqouis had been friends with British Indian agent Sir William Johnson and he convinced the Mohawks to go with them).
With the French eliminated things might have got dodgy, the British might well have eventually betrayed the Iroqouis but they never got the chance, the Americans got in the way of British Indian exploitation and the Iroqouis confederacy split in two over who to fight with, it utterly destroyed their league. After that it was all up to America really.
This is my series on the Iroqouis so far. I should have a source list at the bottom of each post.
If it wasn’t for the painting I probably would never have heard of it. Hey what do you think of this mysterious fellow. Ever hear of him?
Josh.January 7, 2015 at 1:34 am in reply to: British Light Infantry and the Adaptability of the British War Effort #8829
And all reliable soldiers too!
Josh.January 7, 2015 at 1:32 am in reply to: George Washington and the Efforts to Replace Him as General #8828
Yes Arnold may well have felt a mix of grievences and an inclination to think he was giving his all for a lost cause. Things where a bit grey if I’m not mistaken when he skipped town as it were. Obviously I’m British so I can’t really critisise his choice in flags, but I do applaud the sentiments of many in Britain who met him after the war. Not sure if he was a bad human being, although he certainly showed disloyalty and a self serving interest, he was a talented soldier, if the British had won he’d have been a hero at least in Britain, but since they lost he was a traitor in both places.
Washington’s admirable personal qualities are doubtless a principle reason why he kept command and went on to lead his country, sensibly and wisely through its earliest years.