[Curious] Britian's PoV of the US's war for Independence.

[Aalyy]

That's pretty ridiculous. The United States had only existed about 2 years before the French Revolution. The primary force driving the French Revolution were the severe economic injustice and rampant starvation.

No. The American Revolution rocked Europe. A piddly little upstart bunch of colonies defeated the mammoth colonizing empire of Britain. That was huge and set an example for other nations to follow. Of course it wasn't the sole reason but Historians agree that it was one of the driving forces.

[semaphore]

Still, Britain, the massive power that it was, knowing how much the Americas were worth, seceded to 13 colonies. To put it into terms, it's like America giving up a space station that is producing millions of dollars a minute to some enemy nation because it costs too much money to travel to space. Also, Britain was very bitter about it. They directly supported Indians to fight against the United States via weapons and supplies, and abducted Americans for various reasons.

It's analogy more apt than you realise. A space station doesn't produce millions of dollars, it just sits there - and that's what the American colonies were to Britain. The value of the colony was that Britain was able to trade with it. The colonies by itself did not really generate income (when Britain tried to tax them, they rebelled), and indeed were an expenditure.

[Xanjori]

I'm very surprised that your British schooling doesn't teach you about American history, here in America we learn about the entire world. In Washington, World History is required for a full year to graduate high school.

But we do. My studies on WW1 and WW2 both covered American Isolationism and the Depression, then of course study of the Cold War covers America and Russia from 1945 to 89. We also cover the Civil Rights movement quite extensively. For other countries, we also did a whole exam/essay set on Mussolini and Italy from the end of WW1 to the start of WW2, as well as covering Hitlers rise to power.

One thing to note as well, is that when studying History at school a lot of it is based on what shapes the country you live in. For example the 1th and 20th century brought a lot of change to Britain, and you can still see the impact of those changes in life in Britain today. Serious history only has about 2 years at school, and then a further 2 years at college, fitting in 200 years of history into 2/4 years is quite a lot.

Oh and whoever mentioned that Brits dont study things like Dunkirk, I really have no idea what school you attended but at my school we definitely did look into Dunkirk a fair bit.

[Blood Fox]

Ed

Its odd how bias seems to seep its forlorn little fingers into education. I think I remember a thread in here were Europeans were polling on which individual they wish never existed in history between Napoleon and Hitler, and for some godawful reason, Napoleon had the most votes..

It seems as if you're educated in certain places, Napoleon is a villain.

Of course its going to be fairly biased its to help impove national pride. I find it hard to belive people wished napoleon never existed however I'm larly baised on that.

Also thee french reveolution was because people were starving in the streets, not to lower the importance of the american revoloution however they were basicy crying about overpiced tea.

[Axi]

I am a British Oxford History graduate who spent 2 years in the US at Ohio State and UCSD.

There is no embarrassment attached to it in our national psyche, on the contrary our loss of the colonies were steps towards a realignment of the empire that would allow us to deal more decisively with far more severe problems closer to home that arose in the long and short term future. Britain remained the undisputed top world power until at least WW1, and in many measurements until the close of WW2.

If you are unfamiliar with British education you have to realise that history at secondary(high school) level is taught more so as a skill here, than as a basis for any 'baseline' general knowledge. The two world wars are popular teaching topics therefore because source material is easy to acquire and very diverse in its form and content.

It is also worth considering that British history stretches back a great deal further and consequently branches off far more than does US history. It really is not overly disingenuous to state that it gets swamped by other more important events in British history, but is rightly on the historical top tier in the US.

[yetgdhfgh]

Britains power has always been with its navy we invented battleship diplomacy where if we wanted your country we would park the royal navy outside your harbour and say "your move"

Britains army has always been small and professional it just wasnt suited for the gurella style of combat that they endured during the revolutionary war where you would have sharpshooters capping officers leaving the soldiers without leadership not sure what to do. Its the reason why nearly every major battle the americans fought the british on open soil they lost.

Washington knew he could never defeat the british on the open battlefield he knew it was a war of attrition that if he could outlast the british we would just give up and go home and in the end we did.

Just like vietnam and you could argue iraq if you lose the support of parliament and the people then the war ends

[Stuffs]

As biased as I am towards this country, as said before, no one really gave a fuck about us. It may have started the domino chain to shrink the British Empire, but its no stretch to say that other stuff was bigger at the time.

Even though the French Revolution was partly inspired by the Americans, it was the French that caused sweeping changes in Europe at the end of the day.

Add to that, they have more to teach-We have been around for a very short time. Beyond the whole 200 year period, our history is European history for all intents.

[xenaros]

I only did GCSE history (age 16 qualifications) and it was never even mentioned so the only "facts" I know about the war is from movies.

Our curriculum included WW1 (the Somme, Galipoli, Franz Ferdinand, the German Empire). The Treaty of Versailles, the rise of the Nazi's and the European War (Pearl Harbour was mentioned but no other Japanese affairs included). I guess these were the chosen subjects because of how deep they were and how they are so relevant to today. In previous years we learned about Industrial Revolution (mostly about the first trainlines and canals, boooring) and the English Civil War (boring!).

I would like to have learned more about the British Empire and it's rises and falls, including the Napoleonic Wars, colonic wars etc. Maybe they were taught in higher education, I never asked. You'd think more of our nation's heritage would be taught but we learned more about Germany than we did Britain.

[Aalyy]

Ed
Also thee french reveolution was because people were starving in the streets, not to lower the importance of the american revoloution however they were basicy crying about overpiced tea.

You clearly know next to nothing about the American Revolution. It was a result of decades of conflict and grievances. The only thing tea had to do with it was the King giving one British company a monopoly on the tea trade in the colonies. This pissed off the colonists so they dressed up like Indians and threw a whole lot of money's worth of tea in the water... aka...The Boston Tea party. That may be the most famous reason but the majority of them had nothing to do with tea.

[Axi]

As biased as I am towards this country, as said before, no one really gave a fuck about us. It may have started the domino chain to shrink the British Empire, but its no stretch to say that other stuff was bigger at the time.

Even though the French Revolution was partly inspired by the Americans, it was the French that caused sweeping changes in Europe at the end of the day.

Add to that, they have more to teach-We have been around for a very short time. Beyond the whole 200 year period, our history is European history for all intents.

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but the British Empire was actually at its greatest extent as late as the 1920s, if there is some kind of prevalent idea that the loss of the colonies deeply impacted British colonial ambitions, its very far from the truth.

[Blood Fox]

You clearly know next to nothing about the American Revolution. It was a result of decades of conflict and grievances. The only thing tea had to do with it was the King giving one British company a monopoly on the tea trade in the colonies. This pissed off the colonists so they dressed up like Indians and threw a whole lot of money's worth of tea in the water... aka...The Boston Tea party. That may be the most famous reason but the majority of them had nothing to do with tea.

8 was trying to make a joke, bahh its still too early to make coherent thoughts. Anyways 8 really don't think most british people learned enough about it to really have an opinion

[Aalyy]

I am a British Oxford History graduate who spent 2 years in the US at Ohio State and UCSD.

There is no embarrassment attached to it in our national psyche, on the contrary our loss of the colonies were steps towards a realignment of the empire that would allow us to deal more decisively with far more severe problems closer to home that arose in the long and short term future. Britain remained the undisputed top world power until at least WW1, and in many measurements until the close of WW2.

If you are unfamiliar with British education you have to realise that history at secondary(high school) level is taught more so as a skill here, than as a basis for any 'baseline' general knowledge. The two world wars are popular teaching topics therefore because source material is easy to acquire and very diverse in its form and content.

It is also worth considering that British history stretches back a great deal further and consequently branches off far more than does US history. It really is not overly disingenuous to state that it gets swamped by other more important events in British history, but is rightly on the historical top tier in the US.

Britain is a very old nation with a lot to be proud of. Of course the American Revolution is a huge source of national pride for us. Britain has just as much to be proud of. You guys basically ruled the world for, like, ever. I'm very interested in European History because, as an American, it's my history too. I'm Scottish, French, and German. I went to into the sciences in college but I'm very interested in History as an amateur. It helps give perspective on events occurring today.

[Stuffs]

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but the British Empire was actually at its greatest extent as late as the 1920s, if there is some kind of prevalent idea that the loss of the colonies deeply impacted British colonial ambitions, its very far from the truth.

I was thinking more along the lines of it caused a chip, one of many. Each step leading to another, each successively bigger. We weren't worth the time and money, with what they'd have to redirect their forces from.

That's not to say, if they directed their forces here, the crack wouldn't pop up elsewhere.

[yetgdhfgh]

You could argue it was the USA who destroyed the british empire in the end
After WW2 britain was bankrupt and owed so much money to the USA that the USA more less or owned britain
if you looked what happened during the suez crisis where the US told britain to end the suez crisis our colonial power was at a end

I guess sigmund freud was right Every Son kills his Father

[Axi]

I was thinking more along the lines of it caused a chip, one of many. Each step leading to another, each successively bigger. We weren't worth the time and money, with what they'd have to redirect their forces from.

That's not to say, if they directed their forces here, the crack wouldn't pop up elsewhere.

It certainly did create a chip at the time, but subsequently in the next century or more Britain more than bounced back and compensated by acquiring other colonies in Africa and Asia that proved to be immensely wealthy in their day. Britain's power actually grew significantly afterwards, although not necessarily as a result of US independence.

Ultimately British colonial decline was much later, almost entirely during the 20th Century.

[Fawxey]

Im guessing the never teach you about WWI either, seeing as Churchill failed miserably at taking Gallipoli >_>

EDIT: Then again, Lawrence of Arabia did mess with the Middle east quite a bit, i guess that would be your "Victory" *shrugs*

Nothing personal, its just my country would not exist if you didnt lose to begin with.

They don't always only teach you about the winning side. Gallipoli was a massacre for Australia and it is taught in essentially every year of High school.

[semaphore]

I was thinking more along the lines of it caused a chip, one of many. Each step leading to another, each successively bigger. We weren't worth the time and money, with what they'd have to redirect their forces from.

That's not to say, if they directed their forces here, the crack wouldn't pop up elsewhere.

The loss of the 13 colonies wasn't the first step of British colonial decline. The Treaty of Paris was actually the final step that in essences ended the First British Empire. The rest of Britain's colonies (i.e. Canada) remained loyalist. The reason Britain could not divert more resources to America wasn't to prevent "the crack" happening in other colonies, it's because Britain faced the prospects of an European war, which was an infinitely more pressing matter.

The Second British Empire, which is what most people think about by "British Empire", actually emerged some years after American independence. The breakup of that empire was directly attributable to the strain of World War I (and to a lesser degree, the failure of Imperial Federation earlier).

It certainly did create a chip at the time

It wasn't so much a chip as it was the heart and soul of Britain's overseas colonies. Their loss was so substantial that when Britain bounced back, as it were, her new acquisitions were considered a second, distinct empire from the first one, which was focused around the 13 colonies.

[Deleted]

I'm very surprised that your British schooling doesn't teach you about American history, here in America we learn about the entire world. In Washington, World History is required for a full year to graduate high school.

So you were taught everything? You pretty much had to know World History in it's entirety to graduate. The point that is clear is that in the UK there were many variations of what you learnt depending on your years at school and local authority. Here in the UK each county has or at least in my day "had" control over the syllabus taught. I moved from one south corner of the Uk to the other south corner mid secondary school. I spent the first half of secondary learning the political situation in Europe prior to WW1 and what led up to it, and then the second half learning about the end of WW2 and it's affect on the world (not just Europe).

And I really, honestly don't mean this as a diss but it has to be said. America has history, but compared to the rest of the world it cannot be considered to have a major part of it. Sure 500 odd years plus what we have learnt prior to it's discovery, but that's sat beside every other countries 500 years plus what happened prior to that. That's a LOT of history to learn and even though I look back at my school years with fondness I really didn't want to spend my entire life in school just to learn ALL history.

[Marimba]

So you were taught everything? You pretty much had to know World History in it's entirety to graduate. The point that is clear is that in the UK there were many variations of what you learnt depending on your years at school and local authority. Here in the UK each county has or at least in my day "had" control over the syllabus taught. I moved from one south corner of the Uk to the other south corner mid secondary school. I spent the first half of secondary learning the political situation in Europe prior to WW1 and what led up to it, and then the second half learning about the end of WW2 and it's affect on the world (not just Europe).

And I really, honestly don't mean this as a diss but it has to be said. America has history, but compared to the rest of the world it cannot be considered to have a major part of it. Sure 500 odd years plus what we have learnt prior to it's discovery, but that's sat beside every other countries 500 years plus what happened prior to that. That's a LOT of history to learn and even though I look back at my school years with fondness I really didn't want to spend my entire life in school just to learn ALL history.

Idk bout others, but I was taught Middle Eastern, Greek, Roman, Renaissance, Enlightenment, British, Spanish, French, Colonial and U.S. history all in depth over the course of high school. The U.S. by itself may not have as long of a history, relatively speaking, but we are taught about the history of old world empires as well as the history of nations that had direct influence on its formation and the roots of its ideology.

[Axi]

The loss of the 13 colonies wasn't the first step of British colonial decline. The Treaty of Paris was actually the final step that in essences ended the First British Empire. The rest of Britain's colonies (i.e. Canada) remained loyalist. The reason Britain could not divert more resources to America wasn't to prevent "the crack" happening in other colonies, it's because Britain faced the prospects of an European war, which was an infinitely more pressing matter.

The Second British Empire, which is what most people think about by "British Empire", actually emerged some years after American independence. The breakup of that empire was directly attributable to the strain of World War I (and to a lesser degree, the failure of Imperial Federation earlier).


It wasn't so much a chip as it was the heart and soul of Britain's overseas colonies. Their loss was so substantial that when Britain bounced back, as it were, her new acquisitions were considered a second, distinct empire from the first one, which was focused around the 13 colonies.

Be extremely careful in following this differentiation of the British Empire pre and post 2nd treaty of Paris. Sadly a luxury that often quoted published historians enjoy is that their coined phrases are contained in several hundred pages of justification. The Empire was a continuous entity, and to differentiate it like that with such reliance on the silent inference(policy) can end up misleading people.

Policy can be differentiated, Empire as an entity did not cease at that point. The importance of that will be understood if you have ever had to discuss other European Empires with far more distinct phases.