Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on August 25, 2006, 11:02:17 PM
-
The evidence is still overwhelming that without French money, soldiers and naval assets, the British would have successfully put down the American rebellion.
If you think otherwise, I offer you a few links to study:
FRANCE IN THE REVOLUTION (http://americanrevolution.org/fr18.html)
On May 10, 1781, the Concorde reached Newport, bringing Rochambeau's son and the Comte de Barras, who was to succeed Ternay in command of the French fleet. The intelligence conveyed was of the highest moment, for it brought a reply to the requests which Washington and Rochambeau had sent to France after their conference at Hartford.
In some respects the answer was not wholly satisfactory; the ten thousand French troops that had been asked for were not to be sent, and it was announced that the second division, which Rochambeau had so long expected, would never set sail. These were discouraging announcements; but the aid now given, and the still more valuable assistance that was promised, atoned for any disappointments.
Six million livres were brought to Washington, that he might sustain his troops in the field; and such were their needs that, without this assistance, it is doubtful if even the small army which Washington then commanded could have been kept under arms.
The French Contribution (http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html)
...From the outbreak of armed rebellion in 1775, many in France sympathized with the colonists. Young, idealistic French officers like the Marquis de Lafayette volunteered their services and in many cases their personal wealth to help equip, train and lead the fledgling Continental army. The French government hoped to redress the balance of power that resulted from the French humiliation in the Seven Years Wars, which gave considerable economic and military advantages to Britain. While maintaining formal neutrality, France assisted in supplying arms, uniforms and other military supplies to the American colonists....
...Benjamin Franklin, who had gone to Paris as ambassador in 1776, was able to negotiate a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance with France. From this point, French support became increasingly significant. The French extended considerable financial support to the Congressional forces. France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their purchase.
French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory. French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists against the British. At the same time, British and French (and to a lesser extent, Dutch and Spanish) forces fought for colonial wealth and empire around the world. From 1778 through 1783 -- two years after the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown -- French forces fought the British in the West Indies, Africa and India
http://www.sarfrance.net/home/h'5e.htm
Historians have estimated the overall cost of the War to the Royal French budget at 1 500 millions livres - about € five billions - (Florin Aftalion -L'économie de la Révolution Française - Hachette 1987).
Without French soliders, without French ships and ESPECIALLY without French money... the Americans would have lost.
It is simply undeniable.
-
I can deny it, I can deny it all day long.
Sure the french gave us some money, but that hardly means anything.
Sure they stepped in. But the war was already won by the time they did anything.
The only thing the french really did for us, was hire a Prussian Officer to teach us how to beat the British.
-
And the Yankee's were making all their own weapons at this time right? Kill a Brit, take his gun maybe.
-
I read a report somewhere that without oxygen, everyone would die. It's completely undeniable too, but some people still insist...
-
Originally posted by nirvana
And the Yankee's were making all their own weapons at this time right? Kill a Brit, take his gun maybe.
"Of the 300,000 muskets used by American line troops during the Revolutionary War, in excess of 80,000 were the products of America’s some 2,500 to 3,000 scattered gunsmiths using mixed components."
source (http://www.11thpa.org/neumann.html)
-
In terms of accuracy and reliability, the firearms produced in the colonies were fully the equal of, if not superior to, anything made anywhere in the world.
While French aid was invaluable, it is mere supposition to state that "without this assistance, it is doubtful if even the small army which Washington then commanded could have been kept under arms."
The truth is, Washington had managed to maintain his army in the field for six years before the French entered the war, thank you.
The truth of the matter is, the British military was over-extended even before the French entered the conflict. These forces were committed to defending a vast network of colonies scattered all over the world. The British might have withdrawn forces from India or the Far East or the Mediterranean, but this would have left their colonial assets and trade routes vulnerable.
In addition, the Americans had already inflicted significant defeats on the British at Saratoga, in the Ohio River Valley, and American privateers were causing severe losses to the British merchant fleet.
By 1780, the British were finding it increasingly difficult to operate at large in the American countryside. Americans had perfected the art of insurgent warfare and guerilla tactics. Washinton's forces had gained greatly in military discipline and tactics, due in large part to the training instilled in them by foreign officers such as Baron von Steuben, the real father of the American army. The argument could be made that, after von Steuben cursed the American troops into shape at Valley Forge, that the Continental Army was never again in danger of dissolution.
It wasn't the French that inflicted murderous casualties upon the British at Saratoga, Cowpens, King's Mountain, and Guilford Courthouse. The difficulty in running American armies to earth is one of the main reasons that Sir Henry Clinton was content to maintain control of New York City. And perhaps the only commanders to produce original tactical thoughts on either side of the war were Daniel Morgan and Benedict Arnold. In contrast, it was only with great difficulty that Washington and Lafayette managed to persuade the dullard Rochambeau to join them in a joint campaign against Corwallis at Yorktown.
The most significant contribution that the French brought to the struggle was its fleet. The appearance of de Grasse' fleet at Yorktown sealed Cornwallis' fate, and led to the surrender of one-fourth of the British forces in North America.
-
Shoot Toad, don't even have to think about it. The British were kicking butt and taking names during the Revolutionary War. We're lucky we won that war. The British walked away from us to deal with other concerns. Otherwise we would have lost. This is pretty much accepted history.
Les
-
I think the threat of the french "piling on" was of more use than the actual support. The brits may have been arrogant and cruel but they were not completly stupid. They could see what a mess it might turn into.
lazs
-
Yeah, the British really kicked butt at Saratoga didn't they.
That was a first class military victory and demonstrated what American regular forces and militia could accomplish when properly led. Credit for this victory belongs not to General Gates, but to his subordinates Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan.
Burgoyne's army suffered heavy casualties and was forced to surrender. Prior to that, the army of St. Leger, marching eastward from the Great Lakes to support Burgoyne, were roughly handled and retreated back into Canada.
Tsk...what would we have done there without French support?
-
The best part is that the French have been regretting it ever since. ;)
-
One of the tragedies of the American Revolution and the alliance with France that it spawned was the hopes for democratic reform that it engendered in patriots such as Lafayette.
Such men as he carried the idea of reform back to France with them, and inspired large numbers of Frenchmen with their tales of Freedom and Equality.
Yet the French Revolution, when it came, got everything wrong. With no external enemy to blame for their troubles, the French ended up declaring war on themselves, and they lost. The resulting bloodbath ultimately saw the French people shedding the rule of one dictator...only to end up marching eagerly into the arms of another, a Corsican egomaniac.
-
Shuckins are you sure to know French history ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Shuckins are you sure to know French history ?
I think it was about the cake. Am I right?
-
Well Straffo, let's see if I missed anything, shall we?
Moderate reformers in France, such as Lafayette, were members of the Third Estate. When Louis XVI called for a meeting of the Estates-General in 1789 to address the financial problems of the country, the representatives of the Third Estate, which made up the largest socio-economic class in the country, being inspired in part by the example of the democratic movement in the U.S., and resentful of being marginalized by the nobility and the clergy, demanded a greater say in the making of national policy.
Being rebuffed by the king, they boycotted the Estates-General, and met to swear the famous Tennis Court Oath, which was the opening event of the French Revolution.
Any problems so far?
Ok...The moderates became known as the Girondists. The Jacobins were more radical. The two collaborated in bringing down the reign of Louis XVI and forming the Constituent Assembly. Louis XVI, suspected of plotting to collaborate with foreign powers to bring down the Revolution, was executed.
Thus France shed itself of its "dictator."
Later the Jacobins wrested control of the government away from the Girondists and instituted the reign of Terror, led by Robespierre. Both Royalists and moderate Jacobins were to be executed by the tens of thousands.
The French declaring war on the French.
After a decate of violence and bloodshed, the French were eager to embrace someone who could restore order and give it victory over its foreign enemies.
Enter the Corsican egomaniac...Napoleon Bonaparte...whose meteoric rise to "emperor" saw the return of the French government to the control of a dictator.
A very short summary of a very complex event I will admit. Yet it sorta captures the "spirit" of the times, don't you think?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Yeah, the British really kicked butt at Saratoga didn't they.
That was a first class military victory and demonstrated what American regular forces and militia could accomplish when properly led. Credit for this victory belongs not to General Gates, but to his subordinates Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan.
Burgoyne's army suffered heavy casualties and was forced to surrender. Prior to that, the army of St. Leger, marching eastward from the Great Lakes to support Burgoyne, were roughly handled and retreated back into Canada.
Tsk...what would we have done there without French support?
Please... While we did win at saratoga, it wasn't because we were better. It happened because a US sharpshooter ripped the ranking british general's head off at 400 yards with a brilliant Hail-Mary shot. The chaos ensuing was because of power grabs by some people, while others refused to step up.
We won at saratoga because the british officer corps failed.
-
And the man who placed those sharpshooters and put them to such good use?
Benedict Arnold, probably the greatest reason we won Saratoga. He may have been a pompous prettythang and (ultimately) a traitor, but he was hell on wheels leading his troops into battle. If he'd ever gotten the attention and petting his ego craved, he'd probably have been remembered as a great hero of the Revolution instead of going down in history as a back-stabbing traitor. He's always fascinated me. The first time I read about him in History class in school, I wondered what could drive a man trusted by the greatest names in the country to turn traitor. His is really a very ineresting story.
On the other side, its amazing the things the British DIDNT do that cost them the war. I mean, they were supposedly the greatest army (and navy) in the world at the time, and yet they made bone-headed mistake after mistake.
Not that I'm complaining mind you. It just makes me wonder if there werent divisions in the British Parliament we know nothing about that helped us win that war.
-
Fraser was shot at the Battle of Bemis Heights. His regulars were carrying out a flanking movement around the left flank of the American forces. The main attack took place to his east. That attack had already been broken when Fraser's regulars were engaged by Daniel Morgan's men. Even tho slightly outnumbered, Morgan's men had already broken up several British attacks.
Benedict Arnold, who had been relieved by Gates the day before, disobeyed direct orders and rode into the thick of the fighting. Seeing Fraser attempting to rally his men, Arnold told Morgan that the man was worth a regiment. Morgan ordered his men to shoot him. The British attack continued to fall apart as a result.
But the Battle of Saratoga did not hinge on the death of one man. The victory at Saratoga was the culmination of a long and extensive campaign that began in July of 1777 and ended in October of that year. Several hard-fought battles took place, and the British were roughly handled in most of them. Barry St. Leger's column, approaching from the Great Lakes, was defeated and turned back for Canada, leaving Burgoyne's forces isolated.
The Battles of Bennington and Freeman's farm inflicted heavy casualties on Burgoyne's forces and deprived him of needed supplies. The Battle at Bemis Heights was the last, desperate attempt to remedy a situation that was rapidly becoming untenable.
The Americans didn't win by luck. The British were out fought and out-generaled by Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan. Daniel Morgan would later break the back of Cornwallis' attempt to gain control of the Southern Colonies at the Battles Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse.
The Victory at Saratoga was no accident.
-
Sailor,
I once read a history of the Revolutionary War which stated that the only flashes of tactical brilliance demonstrated during the conflict came from a handful of American leaders; Benedict Arnold, Daniel Morgan, Francis Marion, Nathaniel Greene, and George Rogers Clark.
By contrast, the majority of the British generals were plodding dullards.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Well, let's see what the US Army has to say about it.
From the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY:
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: FIRST PHASE (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH/AMH-03.htm)
American strategy was primarily defensive and consequently had to be shaped largely in terms of countering British moves. Uncertainties as to the supply of both men and materials acted on the American side even more effectively to thwart the development of a consistent plan for winning the war. Yet Washington was never so baffled by the conditions of the war or uncertain of his objective as were the various British commanders.
After some early blunders, he soon learned both his own and the enemy's strengths and weaknesses and did his best to exploit them. Though unable to develop a consistent plan, he did try to develop a consistent line of action. He sought to maintain his principal striking force in a central position blocking any British advance into the interior; to be neither too bold nor too timid in seeking battle for limited objectives; to avoid the destruction of his army at all costs; and to find some means of concentrating a sufficient force to strike a decisive offensive blow whenever the British overreached themselves. He showed a better appreciation than the British commanders of the advantages in mobility their Navy gave them, and after 1778, when the French entered the war, he clearly saw that the decisive blow he desired could be struck only by a combined effort of the Continental Army and the French Fleet.
Various quotes from the Second Phase of this document:
Again in 1777 the late arrival of Howe's reinforcements and stores ships gave Washington time that he sorely needed. Men to form the new Continental Army came in slowly and not until June did the Americans have a force of 8,000. On the northern line the defenses were even more thinly manned. Supplies for troops in the field were also short, but the arrival of the first three ships bearing secret aid from France vastly improved the situation.
[/b]
With the French in the war, England had to look to the safety of the long ocean supply line to America and to the protection of its possessions in other parts of the world. Clinton's orders were to detach 5,000 men to the West Indies and 3,000 to Florida, and to return the rest of his army to New York by sea.
As Clinton prepared to depart Philadelphia, Washington had high hopes that the war might be won in 1778 by a co-operative effort between his army and the French Fleet. The Comte d'Estaing with a French naval squadron of eleven ships of the line and transports carrying 4,000 troops left France in May to sail for the American coast. D'Estaing's fleet was considerably more powerful than any Admiral Howe could immediately concentrate in American waters. For a brief period in 1778 the strategic initiative passed from British hands, and Washington hoped to make full use of it.
The British forfeited several chances for military victory in 1776-77, and again in 1780 they might have won had they been able to throw 10,000 fresh troops into the American war.
For all these American virtues and British difficulties and mistakes, the Americans still required French aid—money, supplies, and in the last phase military force—to win a decisive and clear-cut military victory. Most of the muskets, bayonets, and cannon used by the Continental Army came from France. The French contested the control of the seas that was so vital to the British, and compelled them to divert forces from the American mainland to other areas. The final stroke at Yorktown, though a product of Washington's strategic conception, was possible only because of the temporary predominance of French naval power off the American coast and the presence of a French army.
French aid was doubly necessary because the American war effort lacked strong national direction. The Revolution showed conclusively the need for a central government with power to harness the nation's resources for war. It is not surprising that in 1787 nearly all those who had struggled so long and hard as leaders in the Continental Army or in administrative positions under the Congress were to be found in the ranks of the supporters of a new constitution creating such a central government with a strong executive and the power to "raise armies and navies," call out the militia, and levy taxes directly to support itself.
Allow me one repetition from the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY:
For all these American virtues and British difficulties and mistakes, the Americans still required French aid—money, supplies, and in the last phase military force—to win a decisive and clear-cut military victory
[/b][/u]
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I can deny it, I can deny it all day long.
Sure the french gave us some money, but that hardly means anything.
Sure they stepped in. But the war was already won by the time they did anything.
Just when you think laser is smart, he does this. Some of you are real cards.
-
As I said earlier Toad, French aid was invaluable. Yet it didn't start arriving in appreciable amounts until after 1778. If memory serves, Rochambeau's forces at Yorktown were relatively small, compared to the American forces deployed there, amounting to only five thousand men.
The three ship loads of supplies mentioned in the Army history you cited went to the Continental Army. This would have had little impact on the fighting at Saratoga. Of the fifteen thousand colonial troops engaged there, a little over a thousand were dispatched by Washington. The remainder were made up of the regulars in Gates' army and a large number of militia. I doubt that the three ships carried enough supplies to fully equip both the Continental Army and the large numbers of troops engaged at Saratoga.
Saratoga is arguably the most brilliant victory by American forces in the entire war, even when compared to Yorktown, and was achieved almost totally with our own men and resources.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Saratoga was one battle, not the whole war.
Allow me to reiterate: Without French soliders, without French ships and ESPECIALLY without French money... the Americans would have lost.
It is simply undeniable.
The American Revolution would never have succeeded without the help of the French.
-
Toad, French or no French, the war was entirely about slav....
oops, sorry: wrong war, wrong thread.
-
Toad,
Fair enough. Final victory could not have been achieved without French aid. No doubt about it. Yet there were victories, especially early in the war, that were the result almost solely of our own efforts.
Undeniably, those efforts were unsustainable, in the long run without French aid. Yet still, the bulk of the fighting on land in North America and the casualties endured, were American.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Enter the Corsican egomaniac...Napoleon Bonaparte...whose meteoric rise to "emperor" saw the return of the French government to the control of a dictator.
A very short summary of a very complex event I will admit. Yet it sorta captures the "spirit" of the times, don't you think?
You just miss a point , under the corsican dictature people were ,ot less free than under the revolution or under the Capet/Valois/Bourbon.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Sailor,
I once read a history of the Revolutionary War which stated that the only flashes of tactical brilliance demonstrated during the conflict came from a handful of American leaders; Benedict Arnold, Daniel Morgan, Francis Marion, Nathaniel Greene, and George Rogers Clark.
By contrast, the majority of the British generals were plodding dullards.
Regards, Shuckins
Have to agree, if it hadn't been for his physical problems, Morgan would have been one of those with his name in the history books alongside Washington and Franklin. He was a backwoods scrapper, rough as rough can be and tough as old boot leather. Great grasp of tactics though and the tenacity of a bulldog. Fighting was what he did, and he did it very well.
Greene's forte was organization. He pulled supplies out of his butt and kept his men going when other leaders and other armies would have starved in the same place. While he made some early mistakes, he also had a good grasp of tactics and knew how to make the most out of what he had. He used small, light bands of fast moving infantry to constantly harass the British and draw them into battles in terrain chosen with care to give the advantage to our troops.
-
Straffo, I'm not trying to make the point that the French people were less free under Napoleon than they were under Louis XVI. I merely pointed out that he was a dictator.
The reason that the French were no better off under Napoleon than they had been under the Bourbons was the result of the ruinous wars that he involved them in. The economy was wrecked and the French army suffered more than one million casualties. Civilian casualties are difficult to assess, but definitely numbered in severl hundred thousands.
Several of these wars resulted from his egomaniacal desire for more fame and more conquests.
-
I'll reply later ... for now I need to assimilate the wine I drank
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Toad,
Yet there were victories, especially early in the war, that were the result almost solely of our own efforts.
True.
We also had a lot of help from the British Generals. ;)
-
Rarely, if ever in human history, has any coherent, organized army been able to permanently put down a sustained, well-supplied and locally supported partisan movement. Armies can defeat armies, but they simply cannot keep fighting a war with what we, today, refer to as insurgents. It becomes too costly, and, unlike the American revolutionaries, the British had no viable way of producing loyal soldiers in the colonies, much less fanatics that did not play by the rules of 18th century combat. The war could well have gone on and on and on, taxing both sides and turning the colonies into a wasteland, but, in the end, it would simply have proven unsustainable for the British, no matter how great their technological superiority.
-
Ok, France can have New Orleans back. Napolean was planning on taking it back anyway, thats why he sold it. Just never got around to it because a bunch of slaves and diseases. Look at what you missed out on. You can have Nagan to as a sign of good will.
-
We could what if all we want. Without Baron Von Steuben the french might not have made a difference at all.