How did America push threw first 4 years of the revolutionary war with out any help

[Zangeiti]

So, I have been thinking about this allot. I mean America in the begging of the war were just bunch of farmers with very, VERY limited supplies. And I mean they fought against the worlds strongest Empire at the time. With extremely low troops and low morale and no food. I am talking about before France helped out and that was near the end.

So what do you think it was that kept them fighting with no aid, food, Medical supplies, And limited guns and ammo.

[dashflash890]

Europeans were just that weak back then. They couldn't handle our American superiority.

[Unionoob]

So, I have been thinking about this allot. I mean America in the begging of the war were just bunch of farmers with very, VERY limited supplies. And I mean they fought against the worlds strongest Empire at the time. With extremely low troops and low morale and no food. I am talking about before France helped out and that was near the end.

So what do you think it was that kept them fighting with no aid, food, Medical supplies, And limited guns and ammo.

When person has to defend his home and his family he is capable to lot of things.

[Deleted]

The idea of having to pay taxes is a strong incentive to do whatever it takes to not pay taxes.

[Zangeiti]

The idea of having to pay taxes is a strong incentive to do whatever it takes to not pay taxes.

The reason we rebelled isn't because only of taxes. You guys were taking our food and making us take care of your soldiers

[Al3sinth]

When person has to defend his home and his family he is capable to lot of things.

This^

Not meeting head on for volleys in fields, and using guerrilla tactics instead was quite useful. These were hard working men that knew how to hunt, track, and stay hidden.

[Hyve]

When person has to defend his home and his family he is capable to lot of things.

Pretty much this. I think the reason it dragged on so long was because of the sheer scale of the war itself. When you fighting for all you hold dear, you're going to be a lot more focused and determined. Don't forget though, once they started throwing a lot more command and organisation into it, their victories were getting fewer and fewer, because as a young nation who do you put in charge?

The same thing is happening in Syria at the moment. Initially there were a lot of victories because of the momentum of the rebellion, but now there are loads of different commanders, and a serious lack of inter-commander communication, it has slowed down quite a bit. Imagine the same situation, just without the technology of today.

[Rend Blackhand]

Back then it took Britain 3 months to cross the Atlantic to send a message for reinfocements from home and then it would take time to assemble troops and food and then another 3 months to get them across the ocean. It wasn't easy for the british or the traitors.

[Epicpopsicle]

Logistics and everyone had to walk everywhere

[Kalis]

So, I have been thinking about this allot. I mean America in the begging of the war were just bunch of farmers with very, VERY limited supplies. And I mean they fought against the worlds strongest Empire at the time. With extremely low troops and low morale and no food. I am talking about before France helped out and that was near the end.

So what do you think it was that kept them fighting with no aid, food, Medical supplies, And limited guns and ammo.

Britain having to garrison a worldwide empire and only having a finite number of troops to do so.

The time it took to send reinforcements from Britain was a major hindrance in a campaign where the strength of the enemy is difficult to assess, and Britain maintaining relatively small garrisons as they didn't expect to be stabbed in the back by their kin.

France supplying the traitors well before they officially entered the war.

I'm sure there are numerous other reasons.

[mizeri]

the rebels blended in with the crowd, where the brits were pretty much a target, rebels knew the land a lot better, and they were mostly outdoors men so they knew how to live off the land.

[Vacuous0]

Well part of it was logistics, everything was slower back then.

The biggest cause though was the initial mismatch between the fighting styles of the Americans and the British. Not all, but many engagements saw the american forces making use of terrain advantages and early guerrilla tactics. That combined with knowing the lay of the land gave them quite a boost.

Still though, if you know the history, you'll see that it was largely due to some SERIOUSLY bad moves by the British. They shot themselves in the foot repeatedly. I forget his name, but there was one general in particular that was trying to march his army through miles of dense nasty forest...while towing along wagon after wagon of his personal items and entourage. Needless to say, when he ended up finally running into the American forces (complete with woodsman sniping from the trees), it didn't end well. Obviously, we wouldn't have won in the long run, but for those first few years, the British were acting like they were still in old Europe and it burned them in both the North and the South.

[hammock]

A few reasons.
1. Washington kept escaping
2. Americans used ambush/guerrilla tactics
3. Logistics. Britain couldn't get troops in efficiently and quickly.

[Selenti]

So, I have been thinking about this allot. I mean America in the begging of the war were just bunch of farmers with very, VERY limited supplies. And I mean they fought against the worlds strongest Empire at the time. With extremely low troops and low morale and no food. I am talking about before France helped out and that was near the end.

So what do you think it was that kept them fighting with no aid, food, Medical supplies, And limited guns and ammo.

Same thing that kept the Iraqis going for years after we "won" the war. Distance. If we had been connected by land to Britain, the United States would not exist today. We'd have been demolished. Actually, the comparison is insufficient--while places like the Middle East are really distant from us in the modern day, we have technologies that make that distance not as important. Transporting troops from the Old World to the New in that time period was incredibly difficult, and fantastically expensive.

[shamantime]

Illuminati.

[dinouille]

When person has to defend his home and his family he is capable to lot of things.

correcting it for u

when a man has to defend his home ...


feminism inc

[Deathcries]

the rebels blended in with the crowd, where the brits were pretty much a target, rebels knew the land a lot better, and they were mostly outdoors men so they knew how to live off the land.

You do know only 1/3 of Americans back then did fight for Freedom. the other 1/3 was stayed out of it, and the other 1/3 helped the British. Same thing is kind of going on Today. You have 1/3 of Americans who fight for individualism, low taxes, and small .gov. The other 1/3 fight for collectivism and socialism, who would still probably have fought for the British Empire today, and the other 1/3 who just want to stay out of it.

[Deleted]

A few reasons.
1. Washington kept escaping
2. Americans used ambush/guerrilla tactics
3. Logistics. Britain couldn't get troops in efficiently and quickly.

4. Incompetent leadership from English forces
5. Large support from France
6. Multiple theaters of war being open

And i'm sure there are other factors to take into account...

[Deletedaccount1]

Illuminati.

yes

[Zecora]

So, I have been thinking about this allot. I mean America in the begging of the war were just bunch of farmers with very, VERY limited supplies. And I mean they fought against the worlds strongest Empire at the time. With extremely low troops and low morale and no food. I am talking about before France helped out and that was near the end.

So what do you think it was that kept them fighting with no aid, food, Medical supplies, And limited guns and ammo.

Distance, local knowledge, local support and irregular tactics.