Was the Continental army really that damn good?

[@redcoathistory]

Dear American cousins. There are many outstanding and thoughtful comments here. But, can I please advise you to actually watch before feeling the need to attack myself and the British. Nobody is "coping" or "looking for excuses"...This video is giving big respect to the Continental army and is actually a compliment to an impressive foe.

[@joelpierce1453]

😂 Didn't mean to upset you like that my guy. You could have just clowned on me back by saying something about Americans coping over Vietnam.

[@survivalhax6594]

I was going to jokingly roast the British but image actually getting upset over something that happened hundreds of years ago at this point were both entirely new countries we fought it out it's over get a life lol

[@carlhicksjr8401]

There's nothing to attack, RC, and those who are attacking the UK on the subject are mistaken. Wars, ALL wars, are complicated things and it is the habit of people to want to reduce the complicated down to the simplest possible terms. Much of the time, that habit does a real disservice to to all the participants in that war, trivializing the causes just so they can pass the school test.

[@taemien9219]

Yeah if anyone is making sarcastic remarks or insults, they are merely showing they hadn't watched the video. The summary of the video is the Continental Army went from starting with nothing, and in a few short years attained the discipline and tactics to meet and beat their enemy in open field warfare. As a US Soldier, I know very well that small unit tactics as are commonly romanticized in the revolutionary war as myths and legends, and could not have turned the war the way it did. Stories about the ambush tactics of the non-regular forces and the technology used by some were not wide spread across the Continental Army. That would be akin to saying we have divisions of Green Beret, Seals, or Rangers to fight large scale battles. We don't now, we didn't back then. When you're dealing with an invasion of a large force, and all you have is muskets, some guns and mortars, and some units of rifles. You got to meet them in the field and out fight them. George Washington and his staff did just that. They utilized what they learned from their failures, integrated new tactics and doctrine from allies, and put together a professional fighting force that continues to this day to defend our nation and its ideals. As well as supporting and working with our now allies and friends.

[@Badbreathbill]

I am a patriotic American. I have read many books on the revolution. What these guys are saying is true, and they are not trashing the US. Hopefully somebody sees this comment and doesn't leave a dumb remark. My favorite book on this subject is 'Strategy of Victory' by Thomas Fleming. Thanks for the video. Much respect for you Brits!

[@anonymousnoname3022]

My US History professor basically said that the US didnt have to win the war, it just had to not lose.

[@armynurseboy]

Yup. America won the same way thd North Vietnamese an the Taliban won: survive as an entity and simply outlast the competition.

[@Badnercalabrese]

​@armynurseboy same story with how Napoleon was defeated in Russia

[@bbhrdzaz]

The attacker must vanquish, the defender need only survive. - Kung Fu

[@John2r1]

​@@armynurseboy Neither of your examples won at all. Your history class just didn't teach you about the 1973 Paris Peace Accords which was the Treaty between the US and North Vietnam that ended the war on terms favorable to the US. Or the Doha Accords which is the peace treaty between the US and the Taliban that ended the Afgan War on terms practically dictated to the Taliban by the US. Note in Neither of these cases were the governments the US was either supporting (South Vietnam) or had set up ( Republicof Afghanistan) had any involvement in the negotiations. And in both cases the US left and the other side took control over their country. The Taliban is still following the terms of the Treaty. Because they don't want a repeat of getting their asses handed to them for another 20 years. Also worth noting in Vietnam we were supposed to have been military advisors. Not fighting the damn war for them. So in Neither case did the opposition force to the US military win a single engagement. And in both cases it was US military dominance that forced the opposition to the negotiation table. In Vietnam the NVA couldn't hope to make a stand against US Air Power. In Afghanistan they literally fled over the border while the US military went hunting for the target list. And got them at least all the ones the US wanted. Military objectives complete. Political objectives... politicians can screw up boiling water so no the politicians failed as per usual

[@armynurseboy]

@@John2r1 And yet Vietnam is now a communist country and Afghanistan is back under the Taliban. The WHOLE POINT is that they didn't need to beat the US military on the field of battle. They just needed to NOT be destroyed. In Vietnam the North invaded the South a few years after the US pulled out and took over. In Afghanistan, the Taliban took back over as soon as the US left and left the Afghan government to fend for themselves. Those "treaties" were simply face saving measures for the US, because anyone with half a brain could foresee that neither the NV or Taliban were ever going to abide by them. My point stands: they achieved their strategic goals of taking over by following the exact same game plan that Washington followed: do not decisively engage, maintain the integrity of your army and wait the opposition out until the time you CAN decisively engage. Hell, in many ways it's the same strategy Quintis Fabias Maximus used in the Second Punic War against Hannibal. And I'd say achieving your strategic goals counts as "winning" regardless of HOW you got there.

[@morewi]

As an American i dont know where these myths comw from because i was always taught that we won because we were able to keep the army together until the british thought it was too costly after Yorktown

[@evangilbert5251]

Lucky you! In many places we get that Hollywood/The Patriot version, along with many other myths. Then people refuse to believe that fact later, since it undermines what they've always believed. Then they tell *their* kids about it, and so it goes

[@halavanderdrake3956]

Well... how old are you?

[@douglasfels9789]

Yeah, in school I got fed the 'plucky underdogs' gunk when I was younger. Fortunately, I was in a family that valued history and education in general. As an example, at one point I was told that every defender at the Alamo killed 20 Mexicans. You can get fed a lot of nonsense when you're young.

[@rfe8nn2]

Well every nation have myths to there story.

[@brax2364]

@@rfe8nn2 There story? Where story?

[@trenthill7781]

So Washington didn’t run down the British in a Dodge Challenger?

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

You probably misunderstood something: Washington was dodging the British, which was a challenge sometimes.🙂

[@jonathanhodgson2142]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 love it.

[@b1laxson]

@@jonathanhodgson2142 did you ever see a painting of Washington's Dodge Technical with a Knox gun on the back?

[@kevinduong337]

15 years later and that Dodge commercial still cracks me up

[@jonathanhodgson2142]

@@b1laxson I did, General Sir William How captured it from the terrorists and it now hangs in the British Museum. Really well painted.

[@carlhicksjr8401]

1. The Continentals simply refused to be defeated. The British had done every single thing a European army was supposed to do to defeat an enemy... take their harbors and ports, capture their industrial areas, defeat the enemy forces in the field, take the capital, literally the entire check list... and the Continentals simply said 'Nope. Not done yet' and kept forces in the field despite all reason and logic. 2. Every battle lost was a lesson learned. Slowly, painfully, the Continentals learned the hard lessons of European warfare in the hardest way possible... by repeatedly getting punched in the mouth until they learned to duck and weave. 3. Everyone always seems to discount the militias and irregular units the Continentals were able to keep in the field raiding, harassing, and undermining British efforts at extending control. That is a mistake. And the funny part is, the British **developed** that capability with Roger's Rangers in French and Indian War! 4. Continental diplomacy won over British diplomacy. Franklin and Adams won funding, supplies and eventually allies in the field because they simply out-charmed the Foreign Office. Yeah, I know, the words 'Adams' and 'charm' are not often used in the same sentence. 5. And eventually all this became too much for the British economy. To really, REALLY simplify it... Americans didn't win their independence so much as they made it too expensive for the British to keep denying it.

[@nyguesswho]

This is a really good answer, and really checks all the boxes. The only thing I’d add is people today often over look how damn hard it is to hold a territory an ocean away, and it’s beyond impressive the British Empire did what it did back then. Even today, where we have air support, and much better logistics and communication, it’s not an easy thing to do. You have to grossly over power your enemy to take territory, let alone hold it.

[@magmat0585]

i'd say for the Spanish and French, it was less about charm and more about getting their own back against the Brits who had smacked them both around previously. They waited until it was clear that the revolution wasn't a flash in the pan and wasn't gonna get crushed right after they joined.

[@TehKarmalizer]

@@magmat0585 agreed. You make plenty of enemies when you’re at the top smacking people around.

[@rfe8nn2]

Warfare is always about adaption. Btw the American Rebels had help from a Prussian Aristocrat. Well he passed himself off as one!!! That being said they went from Rebels to a Professional Army for the United States.

[@carlhicksjr8401]

@@rfe8nn2 The Americans had help from one faux Prussian [von Steuben], a French aristocrat [Lafayette], and one Pole noble revolutionary [Pulaski]. Von Steuben got the Continental Line regiment's infantry drill up to par, Lafayette helped train the staff officers, and Pulaski helped get the Continental cavalry properly organized. It was a multi-national team effort. And the US didn't have a professional Regular Army until 1805. All previous forces were disbanded immediately after their respective conflicts. This is why no Regular Army regiment has a lineage that goes back to the Revolutionary War, though several National Guard regiments do.

[@mikefranklin1253]

Summary: 1) The Americans learned to fight like the British. 2) Spain and France both fought the British in America. 3) The war became to economically expensive for Britian.

[@poil8351]

The british became more focussed on the wider aspects of the war. Keeping Gibraltar and campaigns in india. Also the royal navy had to maintain a large blockade against the dutch and keep enough ships in the english channel to prevent a invasion by the french and Spanish. Also the wider global aspects help the usa. Poor relations with prussia after the seven years war came back to bite the british hard because Frederick the great held a grudge against the british and as result prevented the british from getting german reinforcements by closing prussian borders. Which further reduced manpower capcity.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@poil8351 Prussia was in no position to send reinforcements in the first place. With Russia, Austria and to a lesser degree France at their borders, they had other interests than supporting the British. Also, 18th century Prussia wasn't in total control of all the tiny German "states" further to the West. Braunschweig/Anhalt/Coburg/Hessen/Hannover and what else (even as a German I can't tell you all the principalities) happily sent their household/guard/grenadier regiments for money.

[@MajorCoolD]

@@ottovonbismarck2443 Keep in mind this was after the 7 years war and while Prussia and Great Britain were allies during that conflict, the previous british Monarch had died and didnt think as highly of the Prussians as his father did. This lead to a number of 'unsettled debts' (be they real or simply perceived by Frederick the Great, the Prussian Monarch), that the new King George never paid and which left Frederick a little miffed, seeing how the war, while ultimately won by Prussia and GB, was rather ruinous for Prussia, while Great Britain basicly gained the Sub-Continent of India, which was famous for it's spices and other valuable tradegoods. This is why there are more than a few theories concerning Baron von Steuben, a Prussian Officer who was instrumental in reforming the american continental army having actually been sent by the Prussian King to support the Colonies to basicly get back at the (ungratefull) british. Of course none of this was ever proven.

[@trevorfuller1078]

It also was influenced in no small way by a change of government in London in 1763, at the war’s end, when the new Tory government under the King’s Favourite,’ Lord Bute, unilaterally decided to abruptly terminate the war that the successful partnership of the Duke of Newcastle as Prime Minister & his Leader of the House, William Pitt, the Elder’s (Lord Chatham) & their Whig Party’s carefully & successfully built-up political & military alliance with Frederick the Great’s Prussia! The timing of the termination of this conflict (The Seven Years War, 1756-63) was highly controversial & problematic for Frederick & Prussia as they were not as yet then in a totally advantageous position, as they had not achieved all their avowed & declared war aims, which also found them stymied & disadvantaged them to a degree, in the ensuing peace negotiations to a large degree in their minds than, in which they would have otherwise found it desirable to be! This curt, unsympathetic & disloyal treatment as Frederick and the Prussian leadership viewed it, by Britain under the new Tory administration would subsequently not be forgotten by Frederick & the Prussians, who some 15 years or so later, spurned away & eschewed all British attempts to enlist Prussian support during the American War of Independence either on the battlefields or in diplomatic circles too! He (Frederick) wanted to demonstrate to Prussia’s neighbours, but especially to the British that failing to live up to established international agreements, understandings & expectations would always have serious consequences for any country or former ally, thus found to be wanting in one way or another in his or the Prussian government’s opinions, in these types of matters!!

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

@@MajorCoolD See, family isn't always your friend, especially so in European monarchies ... 🙂 You certainly knew that the English king was more or less "German" with family relations to Prussia. Further, Catherine the Great was born a Prussian princess; she was some sort of cousine to Frederick II. Sounds familiar ? I've heard a story in which Steuben (not "von" Steuben) couldn't make it in the Prussian army and the Continental Army was his last straw. Rumors about homosexuality, debts, etc ... you know what people say. No confirmation on anything !Neither was he a high-ranking officer. Nevertheless, he was instrumental in transforming the rebel scum into a proper army, which of course makes my old Prussian heart beat in the rythm of "Prussia's Glory" 🙂 My ancestors were 3/4 (East-)Prussian (with some Polish blood mixed in) and 1/4 Alsacian. A few world wars later, the family ended up in Aachen/Rhineland.

[@snidecommenter7117]

I read an article where one American Revolutionary War commander said something like this to his men, "Our fight is to bleed them. Attack, inflict casualties, run. We don't need to hold the field. We can replace our losses, they can't. Eventually they will give up."

[@andrewward5891]

That’s pretty much what happened. Washington won very few outright victories against the British but he always got the bulk of his army intact even when defeated so the British could never get in a knock out punch (the battle of New York was a close one). Time was in the patriots side because of the huge cost to the Crown to conduct a war thousands of miles away.

[@hoosieryank6731]

"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." I think either Greene or Morgan said that.

[@Chris-mf1rm]

@@hoosieryank6731 Greene I think.

[@phillipbainbridge9107]

To the channel: Don't delete my factual comments. Are we subjugate to the crown? No, I didn't think so. We not only expelled you tyrants twice then we made sure that you were no longer interested in supporting the confederacy, which would've made you lose a third time. I have ancestors whose families were patriots and loyalists. The loyalists' land was confiscated and donated to an AMERICAN Ivy league University. Stop flapping your gums about that which you know nothing about. How about you go start another penal colony somewhere, stud. You may now appropriately tuck your tail and run, dear boy.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Sounds like how the Vietcong fought. Pretty effective for a committed home militia against a superior foreign occupying force

[@ssazerac]

My Military Science Professor put it this way. A US lieutenant in Vietnam and a British lieutenant in the Revolution felt exactly the same in that "We won all the battles but lost the war."

[@nobodyisbest]

Except that the US lost many battles in Vietnam. Carlton Meyer of g2mil has assembled a list.

[@mickeysteppe]

Pyrus of Epirus

[@grimbyrne195]

The British lost a lot of battles in the American Revolution.

[@Cyd99]

Not everything is meant to be taken literally obviously there was small ambushes and well planned attacks but no America lost no major battles in Vietnam

[@marshallscot]

Except for the 10,000 redcoats captured and killed at Yorktown.

[@SultanOfAwesomeness]

I appreciate how this historical approach actually gives more agency and merit to both sides of the conflict. The British were much more adept at non-linear warfare than people gave them credit for. Likewise, the Americans weren’t this rag-tag guerrilla force, but an eventually professional one capable of challenging them in linear combat and holding their own.

[@JohnnyWishbone85]

That's how it usually works when you really *learn* about history.

[@Mis-AdventureCH]

100% in the conventional battlespace. At the same time the American harassment of logistics and destruction of loyalist forces in the south played a huge role.

[@mattowen3310]

Battle of king’s mountain was indeed a bunch of mountain men getting together with their hunting rifles and surrounding a British encampment who were buttressing their ranks with loyalist. There is a reason it is an enduring theme, because it did happen

[@Chris-mf1rm]

Almost. The Crown forces were nearly all Carolina Loyalist militia, except for a few 'regulars' (NY Provincials) and the commander Major Ferguson (a Scot) was the only Brit.

[@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606]

That story is the reason why the Appalachians are in part nicknamed “Appalachistan” because like Afghanistan it would be a war of attrition a figurative meat grinder the lack of heavy infrastructure would make it impossible to move in heavy equipment from the coastal region making it a foot war. And that’s with modern interpretations in the 1700s it was worse for the British

[@Thobeian]

​@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606 That's weird, because King's mountain wasn't even in the Appalachias. The difference between the Piedmont and the Appalachian mountains really wasn't very different at this point in colonial history, especially in the impoverished South. They were mostly rugged frontiersmen. Also it is ironic that one of the biggest wins for America was when they fought other colonists. The same thing happened at the Battle of Moorre's creek, which was basically a glorified ambush maneuver

[@christophercarrier2902]

@@ThobeianYes, but 1. Appalachian is a cultural region not limited to that mountain range. 2. The Overmountain Men at King’s Mountain were very much of that culture.

[@Spankee99]

I am not a historian but it always felt like the British lacked a clear strategic vision for how to win besides “destroy the continental army”

[@mitchellline4242]

The other 2 main strategic goal I know of was capturing Philadelphia (the U.S capital at the time) which the British did accomplish but didn't have any larger impact. And then later in the war thr British strategic goal was yo secure the southern colonies and mobilize the loyalists there.

[@b1laxson]

As it was a rebellion it pretty much is the goal of the ruling power to suppress the uprising with low collateral damage. You want your farms and factories still running... the you being the rulers. Burning farms and breaking factories of the rebels is still breaking the rulers own stuff. So the goal is usually to destroy the rebels, the continental army, and the rabbal rousers... the Ben Franklins etc.

[@davidsoulsby1102]

You have to see it in a global viewpoint. Add to that that as stated many of the colonial troops were "British" and ex military, with a good sprinkling of other europeans, Germanic/Dutch etc. Its not too far a stretch to call it almost a european war, with european armies. Now the global bit, India, Africa, to name just the largest, all needed Troops and supplies. The European Wars also needed Troops, Supplies and a standing army. It's not too different to Germanys wars in 1914/40s, too many fronts, biting off more than they could chew...... Add to that the fact almost half the parliament actually supported the cause until it became violent. France had a lot to do with it becoming violent to assist there conflict.

[@jackattack2608]

Yet, had the British truly destroyed the entire Continental Army, captured or killed George Washington, and taken Philadelphia while scattering the Congress there, they probably would have won the war and demoralized the rebellion enough to regain total control of the Colonies again. They just couldn't do all of that.

[@carbidegrd1]

You have to keep in mind, this wasn’t Africa or the far east, the racial hatred wasn’t there, they didn’t even speak a funny language, brother was fighting brother.

[@HeroicCid]

I think the ‘myth’ such as it is comes from the battles of Lexington and Concord, specifically the retreat from Concord, where it very much WAS small Continental guerilla ambush tactics kicking the hell out of a British force that was ill prepared to fight such a battle. As these were the first battles of the war, people are left with the impression that is how the entire war was conducted.

[@rhydon777]

Exactly. I agree with almost everything here, except your expert who can't name an instance of successful American guerrilla tactics. Lexington/Concord, Trenton and pretty much every action lead by Francis Marion/The Swamp Fox. These battles while small in the grand scheme of the war were very important to Continental morale. That is where the 'myth' which really isn't a myth comes from.

[@userJohnSmith]

Yes and no. In truth this was key to winning the war. Lots of small cuts, all the time, all over, plus a handful of victories with regulars and a French blockade. We were guerillas first and foremost, it's also where we excelled.

[@felixloewenich2202]

@@userJohnSmith The continental army was an army, set up for pitched battle, not a guerilla force

[@userJohnSmith]

@@felixloewenich2202 Not everyone with a rank was a regular.

[@mattyb7183]

Regarding the British use of light infantry. General Howe - who was CinC of the British army for a large chunk of the war - wrote a manual on light infantry tactics. When he moved the army to Canada, after evacuating Boston, he had the entire army drill in light infantry tactics. Plus, the army adapted its uniforms and equipment to better suit the terrain and climate. All very different from the typical Hollywood image of the robotic redcoat mindlessly marching to their deaths.

[@b1laxson]

Do you know any link where I could download Howe's book?

[@couespursuit7350]

Howe failed in his vision. A book on light infantry tactics is all nice and such but a winter camping in 1776 to crush Washington and his Army would have been a more fruitful endeavor.

[@Lonovavir]

Hollywood is a poor source of information for many things. Also, actual tactics are hard to film beyond flanking.

[@philipvecchio3292]

Do you know if that's William Howe or his brother? His brother died in the French and Indian War taking Fort Ticonderoga, known then as Fort Carillon because it was controlled by the French. It was this upstate New York, Vermont area where Robert Rogers and Roger's rangers also were developed. It doesn't mean that. William Howe didn't use his brother's tactics or develop more light infantry tactics. It's something that I didn't recognize until I saw a reenactment of the Battle of Fort Carrion at Fort Ticonderoga. They mentioned in the reenactment the death of General Howe, and it confused me because Howe was such a. Big part of the American Revolutionary War. He was later relieved because many felt he was too sympathetic to the Americans. His Brother maintained his command of the naval task force responsible for the blockade of The colonies. His brother would have a storied career in the Navy while William languished more in obscurity having been seen as a failure. Robert Howe would be in charge of defenses in the English channel during the Napoleonic Wars. They dusted him off as an old man in their time of need.

[@philipvecchio3292]

It looks like they both publish about light infantry tactics, but George Howe did first. Both were involved with the war of Austrian succession. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howe,_3rd_Viscount_Howe

[@samnichles447]

The American’s most consequential victories (Cowpens, Saratoga, Guilford Courthouse, Eutuaw Springs) were hybrid victories where local militias combined with professional American soldiers to defeat or attrit the British forces. Also worth noting is that British success was generally inversely proportional to their distance from the Royal Navy.

[@CSSVirginia]

100%. Without the French Navy, Cornwallis would not have been under siege at Yorktown.

[@canalesworks1247]

There is another factor. Head to head, colonial forces actually had a motivating cause, which held their ranks in tradtional European style co nflicts. The British army was made of of lower class individuals who HAD to serve as opposed to starvation.

[@ralphstrickland7110]

Kings Mountain is not a “consequential victory”?! You’re right about how the Brits suffered when they strayed too far from the support of the RN, but they couldn’t subdue the revolution otherwise. They should have paid closer attention to how they were pissing off large sectors of the local population when they moved south.

[@mike-cl7pb]

We didn't lose the war we simply gave up due to interests elsewhere mainly India due to pressure from the French Spanish and Dutch. It was about trade and economic interest. Brtian was still involved in North America years later Canada and the Pacific North West as were the French and Spanish (Mexico) Obviously the French revolution didn't help with the later Napoleonic threat. The chances are the USA would not exist as it does now coast to coast if other interests or collaboration took place and the power existence of indigenous Red Indians would be far greater.

[@captainamerica6525]

Indeed! Fine analysis!

[@sgtmtrush]

We did have one often overlooked advantage in fighting the British and that is the fact we were, after all, British.

[@billmmckelvie5188]

I like that! 😂

[@michaelbailey8729]

Top hole old chap.

[@fixento]

No, were are not after all British, Europeans to some extent but not British.

[@idonthavealoginname]

@@fixento It was a British colony ffs, just look at the names of the Colonial Generals etc, all English surnames, the draftees of the Declaration of independence,all English or British ancestry including George Washington.Read some history fool.

[@johnnewton2949]

@@fixento The Thirteen Colonies were British. The founding fathers were of British descent. The American constitution was written in English and America's first language is English.

[@FlorinSutu]

2:24 - - Not only France and Spain, but also Holland. That was a world-wide war, exactly like WWI or WWII. It was fought on land between Great Britain and its 4 enemies (the Americans, one of them) in North America, the Caribbean archipelagos and Florida (a British colony at start, Spanish at the end), Europe (siege of Gibraltar), Africa (South Africa) and Asia (India, Ceylon and what is now Indonesia). Most Americans do not grasp that the war in North America was only a piece of the puzzle. (I am American, for the record.) In addition to better known fleet actions offshore the 13 colonies, there were also heavy naval battles in the Caribbean Sea (British vs. French + Spanish + Dutch) , offshore Europe (Dutch vs. British and French + Spanish vs. British), near South Africa (British vs. French + Dutch) and offshore India, Ceylon and present time Indonesia (British vs. French + Dutch). In only one day and one night, the rich Spaniards of Havana raised 500.000 silver coins that paid the salaries of both the French Army and the Continental Army who sieged Yorktown.

[@jean-louislalonde6070]

You know this war much better than I do!

[@JonDoe-ln6nl]

Oh yes, the poor Empire… everyone is against us. Why? Why don’t they love us? Maybe the Redcoats were defeated because they didn’t win the hearts and minds of the people.

[@FlorinSutu]

@@JonDoe-ln6nl - - Yes, we, the Americans, should ask ourselves why the vast majority of the planet hates us in this very moment.

[@evanmoore3114]

And the Kingdom of Mysore, though you did mention there was fighting in India.

[@FlorinSutu]

@@evanmoore3114 - - As you know, in India the local kingdoms were fighting for both sides, some allied with the British, some allied with the French.

[@ryanziegler1410]

Excellent myth-busting! I grew up surrounded by Revolutionary War myth about the plucky miltiamen firing from behind trees and stuff like that, but the truth is a lot more interesting. In the order book and diary of Captain Robert Kirkwood of the Delaware Regiment, you get a different picture. It was a regular army made of poor men from the eastern towns who enlisted for three years or the duration of the war, marched twenty miles a day, and thought mostly about filling their stomachs. They fought courageously in line of battle, and their main accomplishment was becoming an army that could stand toe-to-toe with the British. Even if they usually couldn't win, they could still make it not worth it for the British to keep fighting, and that's basically what happened.

[@redcoathistory]

That sounds a great book, thanks for the info.

[@swampyankee]

The Delaware Continentals were well trained and a tough bunch.

[@owoodward72]

The Diary of Joseph Plumb Martin is another excellent primary source for life as a Continental soldier.

[@MrChickennugget360]

part of the idea of the "British marching in lock step being shot at by people in the trees" is based on the French and Indian War in the 1750's there were lots of early engagements where the British got tore up really bad by French and Indian fighters. This memory was already common during the early stages of the American Revolution.

[@blogovitchxyz]

Unfortunately most Revolutionary war history in the us is little more than thenskirmish at lexington and concord.

[@revere0311]

Honestly it’s awesome to see the Continental Line receive the respect they deserve. Great episode!

[@briansteiner2886]

The reason the British lost was because they weren't able to accomplish their strategic goals, which made many of their victories hollow. Meanwhile, the Patriots did accomplish their goals: don't let the Continental army be destroyed, don't allow the British to cut off the Colonies from each other, and (eventually) force a British army to surrender. This ultimately led the British public and parliament to lose support for continuing the conflict.

[@MrChickennugget360]

that while making the war unpopular and expensive in Britian.

[@MrChickennugget360]

one thing thats important to remember is that most American soldiers fighting in the revolution are not back woodsmen. Some were but most were either farmers or regular towns people. The demographics of who was fighting on the Patriot side changed with middle class fighting more in the early stages and poor single men (including a large number of freed slaves- as much as 10%) who did not own land fighting toward the end. This is due to the men who owned their own farms having to return home to maintain their farmlands and families, while young single men were "free" to enlist. And of course, for slaves being the in the Army meant getting out of slavery. The Rhode Island regiments were the main "black" regiments since they had open hostility to slavery while also being pacifist Quakers- the result was that they encouraged freed blacks to join their regiments, so they did not have to take part in violence.

[@Mulberry2000]

@@MrChickennugget360 They were not supermen and had power training, most of the American army was not that good, a few regiments were, but other than that they were not effective in battles. What they could do was tied British forces down and move away. If they got into a pitch battle with the British army they usually lost, even with big numbers. Of course Saratoga is an outliner. What happened was the Americans were radicalised by propaganda (we see this with Hamas and the Taliban, all they had to do was survive to win the war), and had training in light infantry tactics, this is why they were nearly won the war at the start. Once at they got into pitch battles, they started to lose, it was then the French came to their aid directly. The point about radicalisation and training is the war had to be planned in the long term, it takes time (years) to radicalise men to train them to fight other people that are considered the same as you. Most wars involve a demonisation of the people you want to fight and kill. We have seen this in the war with Ukraine, and Gaza, its takes a long time to reach that point when you are starting from scratch. So my view is the British could not do anything to stop the war from starting, one was they were out of the loop, two they were full of hubris and were shocked at what they considered their own people fighting against them.

[@MrChickennugget360]

@@Mulberry2000 dude you have no idea what you are talking about. Radicalization is not nearly as important as you seem to think it is. Mass political propaganda like what you are talking about is not even a thing until the last hundred years.

[@Mulberry2000]

@@MrChickennugget360😁😆😅😃😀

[@mitchellline4242]

I think the continental army was best summaried by General Nathaniel Greene: "We fight, Get beat, and fight again." Very similar to the Spanish during the peninsular war. It wasn't due to amazing battlefield victories but instead their ability to take loss after loss and keep going.

[@UkrainianPaulie]

Yet we did win. Saratoga, Fort Stanwix, Cowpens, Trenton and Princeton, Yorktown. We fought you to stalmates at Monmouth, Guilford Courthouse etc. It wasn't one-sided.

[@mitchellline4242]

@@UkrainianPaulie bruh I'm an American 💀

[@davidsoulsby1102]

@@UkrainianPaulie Did you not listen to what was said in the video? A classic example of why non Americans just shake their heads.......

[@mitchellline4242]

@@banjwolf brit cope

[@ericanthony9536]

@@banjwolf There is perhaps more mythologizing about American military performance in Vietnam than what is being discussed here in regard to the Revolution: we who served there (USMC) were continually undercut by the politics and media at home.

[@richardwells8954]

One BIG issue that is easy to miss is that it was Providence that intervened at several crucial moments. 1) When the British tried to break the American siege of Boston, a storm stopped their attack; 2) When the Americans were cornered on Harlem Heights, they evacuated by boat - and were protected by a heavy fog in the morning as the evacuation continued. When the last American boat was out of musket range, the fog lifted like a theater curtain (both British and American diaries); 3) In the second battle of Trenton, the Americans escaped over frozen roads to avoid total loss and the British tried to follow later on thawed, muddy (slow marching) roads; 4) Gen. Nathaniel Green led Cornwallis through the back country of the Carolinas and crossed the Dan river when a heavy storm rose and cut off the British attempt to follow his army; 5) The ONLY time that the weather allowed the French fleet to assist the American army was when they had Yorktown surrounded and allowed then to capture an entire British army. We Americans know that the British army was a formidable foe. We are also aware that our victory required Divine protection. One part of the verses of our national anthem reads: "Blessed with victory and peace, may that Heaven rescued land, praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation".

[@rikk319]

Divine protection would have helped BEFORE the rebel forces had to retreat from New York. Divine protection didn't help all the bayoneted American soldiers during that battle, or the years of inhumane conditions prisoners faced on prison hulks in the harbor. Divine protection didn't prevent all the starvation, frostbite, and disease at Valley Forge, either. Or the numerous cases of loyalist and native forces defeating rebels in their own homesteads or small villages. Or the majority of losses rebel forces experienced overall. Claiming all the good events and ignoring the bad ones doesn't speak of divine intervention...it speaks of human experiences to be expected in war.

[@chandlerholloway3900]

I didn’t know about these examples but I have heard many others like these. Thanks for sharing. I’m definitely a believer of the divine intervention throughout the war and that divine inspiration was given to the Founding Fathers to write The Constitution. The fact that all those great minds came together in one place at the right time in history, is the hand of the divine at work. Now more than ever I feel it’s important for me to remember, “the power that hath made and preserved our nation… And this be our motto - ‘In God is our trust.’

[@chandlerholloway3900]

James Madison, often referred to as the father of the Constitution, wrote: “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution” (The Federalist, no. 37, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1983, p. 222). Alexander Hamilton, famous as the originator of The Federalist papers and author of fifty-one of the essays, said: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interest” (Essays on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Paul L. Ford, 1892, pp. 251-52). Charles Pinckney, a very active participant and author of the Pinckney Plan during the Convention, said: “When the great work was done and published, I was struck with amazement. Nothing less than the superintending Hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war … could have brought it about so complete, upon the whole” (Essays on the Constitution, p. 412). President George Washington, during his first inaugural address in 1789, said: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency” (First Inaugural Address, 30 Apr. 1789).

[@weaselwolf8425]

This nation has made 200+ years of painful progress, and the moment it stopped following God it has gone down the proverbial shitter. Without a doubt I believe that God is the biggest reason we were able to win the conflict. The fact that we're able to secure allies even out of the Russians/Germans, that the Continental Army and militias were willing to keep fighting even after all the defeats, Valley Forge. Etc... it was a brutal conflict, some would rightfully consider it our first civil war (after all we still spoke the same English, played the same games, and held the same government practices). There was so much that should've gone wrong during the war, heck even the help from the French and the Spaniards wouldn't of been possible without the fighting spirit of the Continental Army, I assume very well that most Americand were Christian or at least theist.

[@weaselwolf8425]

Prussians not Russians l

[@deacondale5360]

Great job. You have earned a new subscriber. I am a Yankee Patriot. The American Revolution is far more complex than even many of it's students understand at their endeavor to do so. So many engagements of of Continentals and Regulars. Militia and Rangers etc. The truly amazing events were Washington keeping the Continental Army alive long enough for French assistance and the citizenry of the Colonies to endure the conditions. Please continue your insightful casts into this over simplified period. Please cover the Howe brothers, and the implications of their personal sympathys as accurate as you can.

[@OhhJim]

One thing we aren't taught in American schools is that many British citizens and MPs were Whigs-the opposition party to the King's Tories. They were fine with the British losing the war if it meant loss of influence for the Tories.

[@theunovanative7640]

Seethe British, everyone knows George Washington ran down their horses in his legendary Dodge Challenger, while the inventor of Electricity Benjamin Franklin destroyed all ground troops with his Electricity

[@dylanlange5521]

It does help that the Baron Von Steuben was able to drill the army relentlessly while in winter quarters at Valley Forge. The Continental Army didn’t even know how to properly use the bayonet, mostly using it as a cooking utensil. “Appalled by the state of U.S. forces, Steuben took the lead in teaching soldiers the essentials of military drills, tactics, and discipline based on Prussian techniques. He wrote Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, which remained the army's drill manual for decades, and continues to influence modern U.S. army manuals.”

[@waynenash6008]

The will to win was never really there from the Brits,, half of parliament sympathised with the rebellion from the start, general Howe, loved all things American, and just hoped it would all fizzle out, not pressuring the rebels after there defeats

[@Mulberry2000]

Rubbish

[@waynenash6008]

Parliament voted to go to war by the narrowest of margins, and there was a large anti war lobby blocking funds throughout the campaign, add to that gen,Howes American mistress made little secret of passing British plans to the rebels ,to the frustration of many of Howes officers, Howe also expressed a will to settle in America once the rising was over,, and continually refused to press the enemy after his victorys, even leaving washington unmolested the entire winter at valley forge, so whats rubbish?

[@Electroman-xk6dc]

@@waynenash6008 thank you for your well informed reply...very interesting

[@waynenash6008]

@@Electroman-xk6dc 👍

[@Mulberry2000]

@@waynenash6008 u missed out a world war. That’s why u comment is rubbish

[@77Cardinal]

I'm descended from a man who started as a private in the colonial militia and got chased around by red coats quite a bit. According to him the army had to beg for everything including basic training and organization. Oddly enough I now live in Canada in a place where Loyalists resettled. My good neighbor has the surname, "Hessian". Britain had European allies too.

[@MattCellaneous]

The reasons the British lost the war: 1. The British were far too militarily reticent during the New York campaign to destroy Washington because of familial sentiment. 2. Logistics 3. The British long persisting in a false belief about the size and zeal of American loyalists. 4. Logistics 5. French support and intervention 6. The British political inability to make any concession to American liberties during the war. There were secret negotiations but nothing presented to Congress. These are only the reasons the British lost, not the reasons the Americans won.

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

You forgot to mention logistics 🙂

[@b1laxson]

I would put the French as the #1 reason. Far more of that doing with the French not even in the Americas but obliging British armies and navies elsewhere in the world. The revolution was amid many colonial and european issues. IT was never the "whole" British army present.

[@tannorfosterfoster1978]

@@b1laxson the French weren’t doing the fighting it was the colonist it is the man who wins the war not the weapons

[@andygeorgeparkinson2515]

It’s not a direct comparison but maybe part of the reason for the Brits “ losing “ ; When younger I worked with many Americans who had fought in Vietnam and many would say that after several years it was the people and politicians back home who gave up believing in “ Victory “ and so the the Army , with many conscripts who shared that feeling , lost faith in that concept of “ victory “ as well and just wanted out .

[@V.B.Squire]

Would be interesting to compare the revolution to Vietnam and Afghan, and how Americans forgot the lessons from their own revolution.

[@peterwebb8732]

Revolutionary-romantics love to depict the British as being under the domination of the “tyrant” King George. Reality is that Britain was a Parliamentary democracy in which both the costs and ETHICS of fighting against people that they regarded as “fellow Englishmen”, was hotly debated. Britain had gone deeply into debt during the Napoleonic Wars, and Britons had been complaining about the costs of foreign wars for centuries before America was even a thing. What, you think Americans were the first people to realise that wars were expensive?😮😂

[@V.B.Squire]

@@peterwebb8732 which is why I find it ironic america could forget Afghans and Vietnamese could see them the same way they saw the British, and no the American government still hasn't realised wars are expensive they don't see it as their money.

[@peterwebb8732]

@@V.B.Squire The intetesting comparison is the degree to which in ach conflict, a majority were either uncommitted, or sided with the British - in the colonies, or the Americans in both Vietnam and Afghan. At least, initially. Wars tend to be polarising, but there is little reason to believe that the majority of South Vietnamese actually wanted to be run by the Communists, or that the majority of Afghans wanted to be run by the ataliban. Our American friends assert that the arguments for their revolution are righteous and obvious, yet quite a few colonists moved to Canda or the British colonies in the Caribbean. Just like many North Vietnamese moved to South Vietnam, given the chance. The comparisons are not always flear. One that is, is that in any democratic system, there will always be someone trying to get political over the costs of war. That includes the US government, which is one reason why it left Afghan in such a disastrous manber.

[@ericanthony9536]

@@peterwebb8732 The disastrous exit from Afghanistan was solely due to our disastrous president, Joe Biden. I hope this will always be symbolized by the video images of the civilian refugees falling off the planes leaving Kabul and the 13 Marines who needlessly lost their lives because our sniper was not given permission to take out the terrorist he had in his sights.

[@MichaelCorryFilms]

As an American, I was never under the impression that it was Backwoods/light infantry that defeated the British. I think a lot of that comes from Braddock in the previous war. I did hear the attitude that it was those irregular tactics and resilience that bought us enough time to get good enough to stand up to British. As far as the British being incompetent in the wilderness, well they had their Indian allies. It is true that perhaps the British light infantry wasn't given enough credit.

[@mikehillas]

Most of the American forces were not frontiersmen or woodsmen at all, but just farmers and the inhabitants of small towns. These people didn't always hide behind trees and stone walls to snipe at the British. For the first few years of the war, the Americans really didn't have more skill at infantry combat than the British regulars, although they certainly improved as the war went on. I think the British eventually lost simply because they didn't assign enough men to the war. They wanted to win on the cheap, and it didn't work out.

[@peterwebb8732]

When your supply line includes crossing the Atlantic, there is no such thing as war “on the cheap”. Do you really think that Americans were the first people to complain about the cost of foreign wars? The cost of overseas military campaigns has been hotly debated in Britain since the Crusades.

[@zetectic7968]

The British had extended supply lines & the intervention of the French Navy caused problems (Quiberon Bay). They also had a shortage of troops due conflicts elsewhere.

[@MajorCoolD]

Not to mention that they were financially strained to begin with. One of the reasons why they wanted to Tax the Colonies and with the Stamp act being the only one they actually tried to enforce (aside the whole issue with whom the Americans were allowed to trade with).

[@tereseshaw7650]

General Clinton in New York was ordered to send 1/2 of his troops to Jamaica to relieve [I don't remember his rank off-hand] Rodney. Also do not forget the cataclysm of the Gordon Riots in Britain.

[@AmericanRevanchism]

My thoughts on the most decisive reasons for America winning: 1. Americans won the political battle in America. This was a civil war in America and the Patriots drew more support to their cause than the British were able to draw support from Loyalists. Things such as the Jane McCrae incident, Cooper Valley massacre, Thomas Paine and Enlightenment ideology, and the British trying to recruit slaves helped to cement immense popularity from colonists to the Patriot cause. 2. America won the geopolitical battle abroad. Getting the French to give supplies early in the war and declare war later on was big. As well as getting Spain to join as well. 3. Poor British coordination and grand strategy. Communication distances certainly caused issues with coordination, but the British leadership didn't have a solid strategic plan to win. 4. American leadership (Washington primarily) avoiding a decisive defeat. Americans were able to escape when needed, avoid grand engagements when needed, and generally survive. 5. British lacked support at home. A number of British were either sympathetic to the American cause or didn't see fighting the war as strategically worth the cost.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The British could always control coastal cities. As long as they occupied. Outside of those cities British control was temporary. After the troops left an area previously the British weren’t in control

[@jonathangiven9073]

Something a read recently discussed how the colonists were left to their own devices as they moved further from major settlements. The British military wasn’t offering protection to those colonists. So as the colonists organized to better deal with the Native American challenges, those “militias” improved their skills. So…the failure/choice by the British to protect those colonists, contributed to the development of a trained militia.

[@swampyankee]

Agree with pretty much everything, though during the French and Indian War the Regulars also had thousands of Colonial troops. The Colonials fought and won some battles without assistance from the Regulars such as the Battle of Lake George. The shear number of Brits, for all of us were Brits then, eventually just plowed over the French and Canadians. The Brits pretty much won command of the sea before the war officially started curtailing French reinforcements and supplies. Many of the American officers during the Revolution cut their teeth as junior officers during F&I, including Washington.

[@Trebor74]

Washington actually started the f&I war. His patrol came across a French patrol and he shot their commander.

[@ColonelMetus]

The French and Indian War? Inagine how bad that smelled, what were they fighting over? Fabreeze?

[@Turf-yj9ei]

The biggest thing people miss is that it wasn't the just the Americans that beat the British. It was the Americans French Spanish and Dutch combined that beat the British and only in one theater. It was a world war and the British won pretty much everywhere except North America.

[@AVKnecht]

The main reason was that the crown couldn't be bothered anymore. The island of Jamaica alone made more money for the crown per year than all of the 13 colonies combined.

[@rahjah6958]

I’ve never understood why this so hard to grasp 😂 Not worth at all and end of lol, literally no point to continue

[@mitchellline4242]

That's very misleading. The 13 colonies didn't provide much money but instead provided raw materials (most notably lumber for the royal navy)

[@UkrainianPaulie]

Lame ascertation. You lost. Yet deflect and say you were bored. Sound like a revisionist to me. 😂

[@AVKnecht]

@@mitchellline4242 Yeah, because Canada is known for having no trees and could never supply this lumber, right.

[@greg_4201]

yep. 5x more in fact

[@brianniegemann4788]

French backing made a huge difference once it was secured. At the siege of Yorktown, French ships landed thousands of French marines. They kept British resupply ships away. The French and British were great competitors and had frequent confrontations. It was more than Lafayette. They probably wanted to rebalance the scales of power after losing the French & Indian War.

[@tscully1504]

I thought Robbie did a great job clarifying the facts quickly. I felt the film 'The Patriot' particularly unrealistic. Really, my thought, has always been 'how the heck did we win that war?' I guessed it was perhaps the advantages of an insurgency against foreign troops fighting at the end of a huge supply line. The development of material aid from outside parties (ie France) and the test of resolve over time. The same sort of thing we have seen time and again even in the current era. I have thoroughly been enjoying your series, the sections on the Zulu War and Indain Mutiny in particular with the battlesite visits really adding much tto my understanding. Thankyou!

[@ottovonbismarck2443]

Saratoga & the French. If the rebel scum had lost at Saratoga, the French probably would not have increased their support. And it tells a lot if you need to call the French for military help. Just saying ... 🙂

[@redcoathistory]

Thanks a lot for the comment and support. Much appreciated.

[@peterwebb8732]

Part of it really was due to the fact that Britain was not the tyranny that revolutionary propaganda, depicted. It was a Parliamentary democracy in which the rights, wrongs and costs of fighting wars had been debated since the time of the Plantagenet kings. Britons were asking why they were fighting fellow Britons….. people far closer to the English in blood and culture than the Vietnamese or Afghans were to Americans. You don’t get good history by citing one side’s propaganda, and nothing else.

[@dajolaw]

@@peterwebb8732 Spot on. While there were Loyalist sympathies in the United States, there was also a strong current of American sympathies back in England. The radical Whigs were very sympathetic to American grievances; and moderate Whigs and Tories grew more disillusioned as the war dragged on. Many in Britain never wanted this war and blamed the North Ministry for the crisis more than the rebels, eventually leading North's ouster.

[@Mulberry2000]

he did not

[@ScarletImp]

I think one crucial aspect that some people forget: The British regulars weren't fighting a clear foreign enemy -- they were fighting their own brothers, fathers, uncles, cousins. People whom just a decade earlier would've been on their side fighting the French. And men like Howe, I'm sure, couldn't stomach the constant shedding of fellow British blood, even if some of them were in open rebellion. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if officers in the British army had personally known Washington before the war broke out.

[@JamesThomas-gg6il]

We were fighting for our homeland. It's was a do or die situation. Both sides had to learn new tactics, however we also had to learn to fight the most powerful army in the world and we had to do it their way. Took some time and yes at the end the continentals were the equal of most other armies of the world. Yes France and Spain helped a lot but they could pull out whenever they wanted, Washington knew that so he pushed for the army to be better trained and disciplined like the mother country. Remember at the time we were all brothers now we are cousins.

[@peterwebb8732]

Sorry, but the British Army was not “the most powerful army in the world. “ Britain had for some time had the most powerful NAVY in the world, but their Army was mostly designed as an expeditionary force, to fight small wars overseas while the Navy protected the British Isles. Add to that, the need to have forces in other parts of the World AND simultaneously counter more powerful European militaries and the idea that Britain in the 18th century was the equivalent of a modern superpower, is outright fantasy.

[@The2ndFirst]

You understand "we" wasn't really "We". Many of us (Speaking as an American) had no intention of separating from the crown, and many others cared nothing about it, only to be in the way of armies moving thought and appropriating things that I had bought by my labor.

[@JamesThomas-gg6il]

@@The2ndFirst yes I understand it was about three equal parts. Those for separation, those against separation and those that didnt care one way or another. I also say " we" because I'm an American but I wasn't actually involved of course.

[@The2ndFirst]

@@JamesThomas-gg6il Fair play to you then.

[@nickdial8528]

​@@The2ndFirst I aay we because my family was massively involved

[@jdotoz]

-Nobody ever got around to trapping Washington. -The loss at Saratoga was enough to get more active European help. -British generals, for various reasons, often failed to assist each other. This contributed significantly to the defeats at Saratoga and Yorktown.

[@davetomlinson9063]

Fight for your home is a great motivation.

[@phenom568]

The simple answer to this is the British never had enough men in the colonies to win. They could beat the American army in the field but they couldn't chase it very far or hold the gains. The British badly underestimated the number of American royalists that would be willing to join the army. By the time the war brought in Spain and France Britain had already started leaning toward giving up the northern colonies but keeping the southern. When Cornwallis surrendered they decided it wasn't worth the resources.

[@66kbm]

The reason the British lost the war, simple...Mel Gibson.

[@Sewblon]

In university I was taught that the main reason the Americans won the war of independence was what happened on the sea, not on the land. The Royal Navy would have been the best fighting force in the world at the time. But, they were spread to thin to be effective, which made them easy prey for American privateers.

[@welshwarrior5263]

Great info and always kept interested. We'll done mate.

[@redcoathistory]

Thanks mate! Back to South Africa for Friday's video

[@MQuinn-eb3zz]

As an American who went to school some 40-50 years ago, I was taught that the reason the Americans won was that all we had to do was keep a reputable army in the field and allow the expense of logistics beat the British. On the whole, this basically says the same.

[@Wien1938]

Best book on this subject is With Zeal and Bayonet Only, which looks at the British Army on campaign in the American war.

[@redcoathistory]

Thanks - will defeintely get a copy.

[@Wien1938]

@@redcoathistory You won't regret reading it. Superb work from a PhD thesis (I think).

[@vaudevillian7]

Seconded, it’s a great book

[@michaelwant8501]

I've just this instant placed an order with Amazon UK. Thanks for the recommendation!

[@BigDaveSolomita]

I cited this book in my master’s thesis. The book is excellent.

[@macvena]

The Americans didn't give up, applied Fabian tactics, and utilized regular and irregular tactics. The French, Spanish, and Dutch provided invaluable aid. The British were essentially fighting a world war costing an astronomical fortune.

[@matthewjones39]

Irregular tactics weren’t that common during the revolution.

[@greghoyt4061]

The British Army has pretty much always been on the smaller side, but it’s always been of a higher than average quality to make up for this and has proven to be adaptive and flexible when need be throughout its history. Yes, they were a bit self-assured and haughty during the opening stages of the French and Indian War (it was the first time British regular forces of any significant number had fought in North America), and it got them a number of bloody noses. However, it soon became apparent to them that this was going to be a very different kind of conflict than they had fought back in Europe, and they opened their ears and were willing to try something new. They learned A LOT about woodland fighting and tactics from the ranger companies who already had almost a century of accrued experience and, at the behest of the at-the-time Duke of Cumberland, started to develop their own dedicated units for such purposes and developed tactics to counter light infantry. To think that they had shelved such units and tactics by the time of the Revolution and had returned to being an army purely of “tin soldiers” who simply got obliterated by farmers hiding behind trees and rocks is very ignorant. The war was very, very hard-won. The British Army has an incredible track record, and a lot of it comes down to its ability to adapt and evolve.

[@redcoathistory]

Thanks a lot. Can I ask what books you would advise me to read to learn more about the French and Indian war?

[@greghoyt4061]

@@redcoathistory Oh boy, you just asked quite the question… It was an incredibly pivotal event for Americans and Canadians. It was by far the largest conflict fought in North America up to that point. It was very, very bloody with a lot of horrible savagery and barbaric vengeance on both sides, and there were A LOT of very significant people in it who would go on to lead and fight on both sides of the Revolution. The two conflicts are joined at the hip. So, there are mountains of material on the subject. You could easily spend years researching it and still learn something new. Just from the tactical evolutionary aspect of it, it got the British Army’s feet wet with (at the time) irregular warfare and it essentially forged it into the force that was able to deal with just about anyone, anywhere on the planet. This was the war that made the British Army “The British Army”. Wikipedia’s article is half-decent for an introduction and, with all of the embedded hotlinks, you’ll be able to dive in and get a general grasp on more specific aspects, battles, people, etc. of the conflict. There are a number of decent documentaries on KZbin, as well. For movies, you can’t go wrong with The Last of the Mohicans. It’s a drama and there’s definitely some embellishing and exaggerating, but it’s a good flick and it does a good job of portraying the conflict. The ambush scene is excellent and acts as a sort of parallel to the Braddock Expedition and showcases the British Army’s initial inexperience with woodland warfare. For a more birdseye view of the conflict, I’d recommend The French and Indian War: Deciding the Fate of North America by Walter R. Borneman. For a more specific look into the British Army during the conflict and the life of the common soldier in this strange new land, I’d recommend: - The Red Path: A History of the British Army During the French and Indian War by Sir John Fortescue, which is one of his 13 volumes on the British Army’s history. - Redcoats by Stephen Brumwell, a British historian who specializes in 18th Century Britain and Colonial America. I’d recommend pretty much anything by him, really; his books on Colonial American history are top-notch. Like I said, you asked quite the question…

[@kodor1146]

"The British Army has pretty much always been on the smaller side, but it’s always been of a higher than average quality to make up for this and has proven to be adaptive and flexible when need be throughout its history." This couldn´t be more wrong. The English armed forces in general and the English army in particular always were very mediocre and never on par with the their continental counterparts as the French not to mention the Germans.

[@virgiliustancu9293]

The British made the mistake of antagonizing the entire local population exactly as the Americans did in Vietnam. In this case, you cannot win if you fight at a distance, the war becomes terribly expensive.

[@charlesmaximus9161]

American of Loyalist descendants here (Tidewater Loyalists, southern DelMarVa). Although I’m not a professional, but an amateur historian, I’ve nevertheless studied the war and the period leading up to it my whole life. And I am of the opinion that the history of entire war needs to be revised and regarded for what it truly was; a civil war. Our first actual civil war, to be exact.

[@lonniesides9302]

Thank you. I've been saying this for awhile...like 30 years.👍

[@ScarletImp]

Pretty much. It was Brit-on-Brit action, with whole families splitting over which side they were on. Many still identified with the Crown, couldn't stomach the idea of fighting what was effectively the parent of their colonies.

[@lukebertrichardson7799]

Most of the myth comes from Braddock's defeat. Where over 80 Militia troops were burned and tortured to death for holding a skirmish line long enough to be surrounded and captured. Yet their action gave the remnants of Braddocks army time to create distance and disengage (flee, retreat, rout, run away to fight another day.) Many reports have Braddock forcing men from the shelter of trees into a firing line. Which was not a bad idea, a couple of concentrated volleys might have stopped the enemy's sudden rush.

[@crashrr2993]

I think the British could have won it in the first year if Howe had pushed harder - as some of his subordinates argued. However, from his perspective, the Continental army was in disarray and many rebels were deserting, the British were winning the engagements, so there seemed no need to cause unnecessary bloodshed of, what were, British people. Howe had lost his older brother in war, and knew the pain of such loss. Regrettably for the Brits, Washington pulled off a surprise win at the Delaware River, and from that point on, Howe lost his advantage.

[@jasonfrerichs6583]

It was basically a war of attrition. England couldn’t maintain funding or supply lines. They also didn’t have popular support back home.

[@peterdonegan5038]

At Valley Fprge the Prussian Baron von Steuben standardized the drill used by the various colonial forces and turned the into European style army.

[@manlybaker3098]

There is the rumor that he added "Take aim" to the firing procedure. He drilled the Army in effective use of the BAYONET. Being gay wasn't such a big deal then ... especially if you were damned good at what you did.😉😉😉

[@pikunichris]

A French officer on seeing the American army for the first time after von Steuben had trained it, asked George Washington why he hadn't been told that Prussia had allied itself with America because he was seeing Prussian troops not American troops. Many Americans of the time greatly admired the Prussians and in many ways, America became another Prussia, especially when you look at how many wars we have fought over the years.

[@taterbug70]

My favorite lie told about war is that it's based on the fighting ability alone of the military. It's not a sport with a referee. It's about winning. Winning. Doing whatever it takes to win.

[@MonkInTheWild]

Why the Brtis lost, isn't it obvious?!!! The British didn't have fighting for them an Australian from Leathal Weapon ("lethal") and the French guy who helped saved the world in The Core!

[@b1laxson]

"They had green eyes" - surely that Frenchie had bred with a being of ancient powers

[@arslongavitabrevis5136]

LOL 😂😂😂

[@richardstephens5570]

Mel Gibson is actually an American.

[@patrickcloutier6801]

That is a reasonable hypothesis. The British won more battles than did the Americans, but few British victories ended in a crushing defeat of the Colonials, and those that did were not exploited to the degree necessary to cause a Patriot collapse. General Washington's strategy might be analogous to the naval strategy of the "fleet in being": as long as the Americans could keep an army in the field, they were NOT losing, while for the British, the existence of such a Colonial force meant that they were NOT winning. The Americans lost more battles, but they won the LAST major battle at Yorktown and that was the one that mattered.

[@Tareltonlives]

Leadership, professionalism, discipline, good officers, Dutch powder, French aid at every opportunity, Von Steuben. The British Army grew in experience and prowess through the war, and the Continentals' job was to be able to keep up, and I think they did. All they had to do is hold their own until logistics, France, and the Whigs took their toll.

[@Tareltonlives]

The militia myth is busted at Camden- all sides were exhausted, starving, wilting, practically melting in the Carolina heat. The British and Patriot regulars held and the militia didn't.

[@kleinweichkleinweich]

"von Steuben" he was not exactly dutch

[@Tareltonlives]

@@kleinweichkleinweich I said dutch powder, not dutch officers. Steuben was an invaluable acquisition from the Prussian army since Frederick chose neutrality- he invented a simplified but efficient drill to allow the American regulars the same firing ability as their opponents.

[@kleinweichkleinweich]

@@Tareltonlives van Steuben would be a dutch name meaning a person from Steuben wheras von Steuben means a member of nobility from Steuben in German

[@Tareltonlives]

@@kleinweichkleinweich Ah I apologize for the typo! Thanks for catching it

[@georgestreicher252]

Most people believed that the war was over at Yorktown. That is simply not the case. The British stayed in the Hudson Valley for some time after the war, so Washington kept an eye on them from his headquarters at Newburgh, NY. I believe the British did not continue to pursue the war because it was draining their treasury.

[@blakesnow4290]

Well I think Robbie underplayed the use and role of guerrilla tactics by the Americans, one major example being Francis Marion the Swamp Fox, he is responsible for tying down large numbers of British troops in South Carolina with hit and run tactics that saw huge success.

[@chaz_eptv1430]

Don’t forget about Martha Braton

[@toddbuckler1617]

I read a good book when I was younger about the Swamp Fox and was thinking the same thing you mentioned.

[@nickloughren1919]

One major factor early on was the commanders George the 3rd sent over didn’t like each other and refused to cooperate with each other which created a weakness we exploited to reduce your numbers and made your successes less decisive

[@JoeyArmstrong2800]

It's hard to pin point, it's a collection of many thing but it seems like after 8 years the British just got tired of dealing with the Colonials. It just would have gone on and on. Afterall they still had Canada.

[@redneckgaijin]

That's part of it. I've read a couple of books that suggest that, after 1777 and the entry of France into the conflict, the British knew that they couldn't achieve a military victory in America, and the best they could do was maximize their holdings for leverage in the peace talks. The exceptions were George Germain and, of course, George III, who was the one driving force behind Britain's no-concessions-total-victory stance to the bitter end. The point being, it's hard to give your best effort in a cause you've already decided is futile.

[@JoeyArmstrong2800]

@@davidmcintyre998 Britain was broke and tired. Wars shouldn't go on for 8 years without any peace discussions. Americans didn't want to talk. So that was that.

[@JoeyArmstrong2800]

@@davidmcintyre998 I didn't say they didn't go on to further the Empire. I said they were done funding a war against the Americans.

[@gotpaladin9520]

Ive seen lots of comments saying "The British were tired"...like they didn"t have the War of 1812 a couple decades later. LOL

[@martinhegarty9522]

I would have thought that having the majority of Britain's troops fighting in Europe would have been a major contributing factor.

[@santamanone]

He mentioned that in the video. G.B. was also at war with Spain and France.

[@sublime7617]

It is. It was a world war

[@martinhegarty9522]

@@sublime7617 My point is that if we weren't fighting Napoleon at the time we could have sent more regiments to America.

[@sublime7617]

@@martinhegarty9522 correct

[@C0NSTANTINUS]

@@martinhegarty9522 they weren’t fighting napoleon during the revolution

[@manlybaker3098]

Many of the Americans were veterans of the French-Indian War and were familiar with the terrain. Many were also raised hunting on a regular basis.

[@EricDaMAJ]

If Gentleman Johnny hadn’t tried to march his army through a howling wilderness utterly devoid of roads y’all might’ve won.

[@robertdewitt814]

He nailed it. Washington won using European tactics and by keeping his army together until the British lost their will to fight.

[@markjones7063]

Yank here. We really didn't "win" the war in the common use of that word. We simply made the situation uncomfortable enough to make waging further campaigns of questionable value. I believe that in the end, the Brits had enough of the Colonies and certainly enough of the prospect of another 4-10 years of fighting to subdue them. This predicament was replayed in Vietnam and later in Afghanistan for both the Americans and Soviets.

[@redlandz1977]

One aspect for the British was that you had ministers in Britain who were essentially running the war. Yes, they had generals in America directing troops, but they were writing up battle strategies and having to run them by people an ocean away. This would slow up any (overall) actions they wanted to take.

[@FranciscoPreira]

Things are hardly ever the same as they are tinted, specially when the colors of History are upon them. In other words read and allways suspect the easy ways, allways try to find more sources, because there is allways more under the surface than our eyes see, thanks for sharing.

[@danz1182]

The key point is the last one made by the guest which is that the Colonials grand strategy and the skill of their leaders in that realm often gets overlooked. Not only were they adept at avoiding fights they could not win, they were excellent at postitioning their forces to take maximium advantage of an point where the British overextended themselves. Saratoga, Guiliford Courthouse, Yorktown were all made possible because the British forces overextended and the Continental forces were ready to exploit the mistake.

[@thatcouncilestatekid1832]

Sounds like the former British officers trained the continental army to eventually defeat the British 🇬🇧

[@GR-cf4qh]

I think it’s one of those things where there’s a kernel of truth to it that has been blown all out of proportion. The Americans did use guerrilla tactics at certain times and places. They did have units composed of frontiersmen who were instructed to target the officer corps. They made extensive use of militias, whose tendency to break and run after the first shot or two could be mistaken as a guerrilla tactics. All of that makes for a great American mythology about average farmers and shopkeepers grabbing their muskets at a minutes notice and defeating the world’s most powerful army in their struggle for freedom. The reality is more like you say with the Continental Army slowly becoming a competent and professional force that could go toe to toe with the British.

[@ColonelMetus]

The British didn't know how to fight in the countryside, they just marched into American gun lines which would then vanish back into the woods

[@piney4562]

Did you not watch the video?

[@chaz_eptv1430]

@@piney4562the video is wrong.

[@patkelley4071]

Washington played a large part in the eventual American victory, as he was a master of retreat, able to withdraw his forces and survive repeatedly. He also had some surprising talents, like Henry Knox, a bookseller who became a master of artillery. Knox caused the British withdrawal from Boston without a shot fired, when he moved a number of cannon in pieces and reassembled them on the heights overlooking the city. The British realized they would lose an exchange, because their ships' cannons couldn't be elevated to fire on the American cannon, and decided not to engage. The final straw was the war of attrition that Cornwallis was drawn into, losing forces without chance for reinforcement in a moving series of battles from South Carolina to Virginia, where he was trapped by combined American and French forces. Cornwallis went on to become a very successful Viceroy of India, an intelligent man caught in unfortunate conditions.

[@garyhowell8607]

Hollywood never let facts stand in the way of a good storyline

[@redcoathistory]

Very true, Sir.

[@Dutchbrother07]

I noticed he denied that the British leadership were aristocrats living lavishly but there is lots of evidence to support that conclusion in their own journals and letters. Some of them considered it a big field trip and thought it would be an easy win and back to England for a promotion. They spent their time in the cities as the cities were on water and the Americans wanted to avoid the British navy

[@skypilot7162]

These comments are amazing. People are so defensive about their opinions on this. Born and raised in the U.S. and served in the military, BUT: I think I'd have fought with the loyalists in the revolution. Mind you, I say I'd have fought with them at that time; I'm not talking about the government of England today or saying I wish I lived in 2024 London. But I don't think England had done anything evil enough to justify our going to war at the time.

[@David-ns4ym]

Very true. I might be for the same reason. I’m gonna tell you a story. It’ll be up to you if you wish to verify any of it. The Boston tea party was a thing because of a dispute between Freemasons. An England Freemason was the harbor master in Boston harbor and he was giving preferential treatment to certain ships in the easr India company. The USA Freemasons were unhappy about this and did the dumping of tea to show him. The tea dumping was planned from the Masonic lodge on a second floor of a tavern in Boston you can have a drink in to this day. A fascinating bit of rivalry. As masons we are supposed en follow the rules of the land. But I am learning we can have a rebel side too. Bro Simon Bolivar for example rebelled against Spain in South America and Bolivia named after him. Many of these masons led uprisisings in Cuba, Haiti, and many other South American countries. Of course Ben Franklin is the ultimate rebel as was George Washington. England ended slavery before the USA and forced Portugal and Brazil to end slavery by naval blockade. Masonry is so deeply entrenched in the USA. During the ACW almost 1 in 6 men who served on either sides were masons. Sometimes the south would do degree work to northern soldiers and vice Versa. Sherman was pissed a subordinate would spare confederate rebels from being hung for horse theft during his March to the sea if they were masons. A deep dive will reveal all

[@geomod6850]

This is a fascinating topic and I could listen for hours. A point I rarely see mentioned is the fact that many settlers at the time were Scott-Irish. They could see their chance at real land ownership and true freedom, but they had to tear through the red coats to get it....and so they did. Revenge for generations of abuse by the British monarchy and true freedom by way of land grants as payment for service all wrapped up into one.

[@shawncoleman8530]

American here. I usually sum it up as this: the revolutionaries won the first battle at Concord and they won the last. Everything else was a chaotic mess. I'd also suggest that the weather and disease played a significant role as well. Ultimately, the European continental pressure from Spain and France was a substantial impact too.

[@etorawa9367]

As an American, I'm reminded of the quote 'Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics' - Omar Bradley. The British Army simply lacked the supplies and logistics to win a long war.

[@claiborneeastjr4129]

The French aid and naval blockade of Yorktown (Oct. 1781) were of immense help. I'm not sure we would have won without French support.

[@bencopeland3560]

When I was a kid, growing up in Vermont, a dominant narrative was that Benedict Arnold, before he became a traitor, had delayed the British fleet at the Battle of Valcour Island. Arnold lost the battle but, in doing so, prevented the British from reinforcing their army in the Hudson River until the following year.

[@outdoorlife5396]

The Brits lost because of Long Supply Line in the first place. It had about a 1/3 support, 1/3 who didn't care about the war and a 1/3 who hated the British. The more they did to move the middle, they lost support and the middle. The Americans just had to prolong it, not lose. Same in 1812. Except there were no loyalist. The farther the Brits got away from the ports the worse it got.

[@charliesmith4072]

Those of us Americans who studied the "revolution" in college have no illusions. First, at the peak of British regular forces there were about 40,000 men. The Continentals had a total of 400,000 men in various military formations. Second, the Hessian regulars had a rather high desertion rate, giving us our first wave of German immigrants. Third, and probably decisive, we had the French navy hanging around. But fourthly, and most important, all we had to do was not lose. We could have gone on fighting for fifty years, but the British had other fish to fry. As an aside there was the Battle of Trenton which shallow Americans think of as a great victory. It wasn't. It was simply proof that we Americans will kill you in your sleep on Christmas Morning if it suits our purposes.

[@JeffreyCotle]

The British found out the hard way about our Pennsylvania long rifles. One of them was used at the battle of New Orleans to get the British general. Andy Jackson paid a barrel of Tennessee whiskey to have this done. 😊

[@loganv0410]

From my slight study of the Revolution I'd like to add 2 factors, which may be worth a vid later: - Logistical disruption: The Continentals stretched British supply lines then repeatedly disrupted them - Luck and Timing: As a soldier we always trained to skill and welcomed Luck. The French came to Yorktown just as Cornwallis had exhausted his logistics, and blockaded his resupply routes at _just_ the right time.

[@redcoathistory]

Thanks a lot. I'm always looking for new angles for videos.

[@johnnewton2949]

It should have been all over very quickly at the The battle of Long Island. Washington's army was roundly defeated, but only through outrageous good fortune (or outrageous incompetence) they managed to escape across the East River.

[@1986Phoenix29]

the britsh war doctrine had them fighting a European style skirmish line fighting with muskets while the Amercians favored a guerrilla style with rifles that were a lot more accurate at a distance. The early war the Americans got their butts kicked because they tried to fight the same way as the british.. Also, the professional training they received from the Prussian Von Steuben helped them be a much more organzied and professional fighting force.. But, the underlying factor really is that the Brits really didnt have their hearts into the war, most were ambivalent to the colonies. They just wanted to be paid back for the Seven Years War....

[@Sarge1886]

I always thought that we won the Revolution because we employed tactics that the British considered underhanded like targeting officers, attacking in the winter or at night, and employing riflemen (to target officers and other high value targets). We did it because a militia couldn’t stand up to a British regiment and we continued to fight like that because, in war, fighting fairly is for the stupid and poor tacticians

[@cptkiddokidd5137]

The image of the "woodsman light infantry vs. the stupid lines of redcoats" really only took root with what happened at Concord Bridge. I don't think any educated Americans hold that myth as it pertains to the rest of the war; it's certainly not what is taught in military schools. The empire over the sea was always a logistical challenge for the Crown, even before the war. We have always been an unruly bunch, difficult to govern. Combine that later with drill, discipline, and good general officers, and it made the British task monumentally more difficult.

[@DaveGarber1975]

The American Revolution is a good example of why a country can lose battle after battle after battle but still win the war. The British definitely didn't win American hearts-and-minds---in fact, the longer the conflict raged, the more Americans opposed reunification with Great Britain, partly due to the conduct of British soldiers. Or so I understand.

[@schizoidboy]

I remember reading about Washington in the book "Who's Who in Military History" by John Keegan and Andrew Wheatcroft. They pointed out that Washington, despite his detractors understood strategy, and understood he had to maintain an Army in order to win the war. He didn't risk his men in operations that were pointless and he made sure they were trained and disciplined as well. There was also Nathaniel Greene who developed a strategy to wear down the British forces. I personally have the feeling that to fight a war in America you have to be mindful of logistics. When Cornwallis destroyed his stores in order to be able to keep up with Greene's forces Greene claimed "Now I got him" and rather than get him in a pitched battle he simply forced him to chase after him whereupon he was worn down by the few confrontations he had with their forces. I'm not sure about this but the militia also controlled the countryside, which denied the British supplies they couldn't get from dominating the cities.

[@Ontonaut]

The example of the war against Greene’s southern army is part of this “myth” he’s debunking that was actually accurate. A strategy of retreat to cause a pursuit and weaken with surprise guerilla attacks worked in that case

[@Kcutthth]

The fact that Washington took farmers and non-conscripted people from thirteen colonies that were united in name only and formed any semblance of a cohesive military is a historical miracle. The Americans engaged in guerrilla tactics and knew the terrain. The other fact is if we didn’t have the support of the French navy we would’ve lost the war.

[@redneckgaijin]

There's a factor you missed: the piss-poor British high command. Individually each of the cabinet secretaries, generals and admirals involved was an intelligent and capable person (except possibly for Lord Sandwich). but no two of them could agree or work together on ANYTHING. Carleton sabtoged Burgoyne, Howe ignored Clinton, Arbuthnot and Graves ignored Clinton, and Clinton undercut Cornwallis, and Germain tried to micromanage the whole thing from across an ocean with no understanding at all of the country being fought over. The Howe brothers came the closest to a coordinated, effective strategic command, and they had the most success on the American continent in the war, but neither man had their hearts in the war, nor did they feel any sense of urgency about it. The Continental army had major problems, but nothing like the complete dysfunction of the British military command during the war.