What If Britain Won The American Revolution?

[@maxrobespierre9176]

What you meant to say is: “What if the British had put down the rebellion?”

[@walterblanc9708]

Yes the first civil war in America.

[@patrickmulroney9452]

there was a large libral movement in england at that time and would have been crushed if the americans had lost the war

[@PonyBoy1776]

@@walterblanc9708 yes, but actually no

[@Splube]

The winner gets naming rights

[@maxrobespierre9176]

@@Splube Really? What a stupid thing to say.

[@dylankornberg4892]

There’s a great quote from historian Edmund Morgan about just how much Britain left the thirteen colonies to do their own thing before starting to assert control after the seven years war: “Administration of the colonies was left to the king, who turned it over to his Secretary of State for southern affairs, who’s principal business was Englands relations with Southern Europe. The Secretary left it pretty much to the board of trade and plantations - a sort of chamber of commerce with purely advisory powers. The board of trade told the secretary what to do, he told the royal governors, the governors told the colonists, and the colonists did as they pleased.”

[@erstanden3637]

So a system with so much autonomy it didn't really matter? Based

[@TexanIndependence]

@@erstanden3637 Yeah, it was actually a great deal. The tax rate in the colonies was like 2% of GDP, it jumped up five fold after independence and today we are taxed like 30% of GDP. I say bring back the Crown or at the very least, "Down with the Eagle and up with the Cross"!

[@expandedhistory]

Outstanding “what-if” analysis Stakuyi! I just wanted to briefly thank you. I’ve been following you for a very long time on Tik Tok and when I found out you had a KZbin channel, I knew great things were to come. Thank you for inspiring me to embrace my love for History and making my own History channel, although not as great as yours!

[@stakuyi]

Thank you for supporting me by watching

[@zigzag913]

When it came to political conflicts britain would first defeat the opposers militarily and then grant the concessions that were being fought over, imagine an USA like Canada or Australia or New Zealand

[@christopherfancy8155]

@@basilmagnanimous7011 English is definitely an official language of Canada along with French. Canada is officially bilingual, although most people are not functionally bilingual.

[@feistyphysicist]

Indeed. I think the US would actually have been a 'better' country. Who knows?

[@prestonjones1653]

Unless they were French.

[@eddriver7815]

if Britain had won , america would have a British Parliamentary govt instead of this Republic. That would mean that like Canada , America would not have the stupid second amendment . Slavery would have ended 100 years sooner ... Americans would have Universal Health Care . There would NOT have been a Civil War ... there would NOT have been a Vietnam War ... just to name a few . Canadians would not change passports with Americans for all the gold in Fort Knox .

[@prestonjones1653]

@@eddriver7815 The only reason slavery ended in the British Empire when it did was because the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia had 90% of the slave population. It was nothing for the crown to buy and free the remaining slaves in Jamaica.

[@alehaim]

An additional ramification of the events you theorized that would happen: -With no Napoleonic wars and Poland still being partitioned by its neighbors, Prussia would keep its 1795 borders which included much of central Poland like Warsaw, and this arguably would turn Prussia less militaristic and united as it would have to contend with a much more sizeable Polish population within its borders. This could even lead to Prussia becoming the Austria Hungary of this world, as Austria would be more united through the additional south German territories and as such poland might be the powederkeg of this world.

[@dickon728]

"powederkeg" Is that Dutch?

[@alienlife7754]

You assume the Polish people would simply accept this. Which I doubt would be the case.

[@miral6694]

​@@alienlife7754 I don't think so - thus it being the powder keg instead of (or in addition to) the Balkans.

[@IIIlllIIIlI]

Please never up the production quality of this. There's something so nice about you sitting there with a decent microphone, a bunch of jpegs and a passion for history. You're scratching an itch I forgot I had

[@stakuyi]

Ha well thanks. I want to up it. It’s more so I lack the ability until I get a good editor

[@killerfluffy]

Regarding the British treatment of the rebels in your scenario: that actually makes a lot of sense given their reaction and following treatment of the upper/lower Canada rebellions half a century later.

[@joshuamajors7400]

This has always been the most interesting aspect of history for me: what if this one little fact had changed? How much of history would be different? Would the world even be recognizable to us? So many questions, so many possibilities

[@stakuyi]

It’s all a massive domino

[@apologu]

I love to think about the age of colonization, because say different countries colonized different places than our timeline everything would look so different

[@icecold9511]

I ask that of people over Japanese internment. A spy was a certainty. What if they had picked up on our counter ambush at Midway? The war was far from a sure thing at that time. We were three carriers away from a forced surrender. And the kicker? Was internment words that we did to anyone else? Men screamed out the last of their life, or permanently crippled. And all were forced to go somewhere they didn't want to go. But change that one detail of how we handled Japanese Americans, and does the story end so well?

[@GilmerJohn]

@@icecold9511 -- Hardly. The US could easily have held off Japan while building up a damn good air force. The worse that might have happened would have been for Japan to occupy Hawaii, Oz, and NZ. But land based aircraft could have kept the mainland quite safe from a Japanese invasion.

[@icecold9511]

@@GilmerJohn I never suggested an invasion. But given total naval power of the Pacific, our options would be limited.

[@madcyclist58]

00:02 British people DID win, it's just that they were the colonial British not the London Government.

[@irenaveksler1935]

What? No they didn’t They lost the war USA gained independence and gained even more land The treaty of Paris was low key embarrassing to the British

[@esrujan]

@@irenaveksler1935 The joke flew over your head. Did n't it?

[@irenaveksler1935]

@@esrujan okay?

[@irenaveksler1935]

@@esrujan what is the joke lol

[@esrujan]

@@irenaveksler1935 OP is saying that the "patriot" Americans are also British as in ethnically, culturally and in most ways possible. When John Adams meet King George III after the independence, he says "We are the same people speaking same language and following same religion just across two sides of the ocean" or something like that. So, the Americans are just the colonial Britishers living in North America who declared themselves independent of the Britishers ruling from London. At that time, the Americans are as British as the Britishers were.

[@justinflor]

I’m a little cautious in agreeing with you that Mexico would become independent. Most of The wars of independence in Spanish Latin America were basically caused by napoleon as well. He invaded Spain and put his brother on the thrown basically causing legitimacy concerns. This of course fueled other concerns as well as giving Latin areas home rule for the first time that they would not want to give up once the Bonapartes were removed. Napoleon really changes world history

[@Steveross2851]

Your caution about Mexico becoming independent in this alternate timeline is fair. But in this alternate timeline Mexican independence is not implausible. Roughly 200 years ago, Spain was much more in decline than was the British Empire for various reasons. At the time, the Madrid government could assert much less control over the Catalan area and the Basque country than London still exercised in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Thus with or without a Napoleon, Spain would have been much less in a position to assert control in North America than was Britain. In addition the Mexicans seem to have been much more unified much earlier than the southern colonies on the east coast of North America. One reason the Confederate States of America failed was that orders from Richmond were not always followed by rebel troops from other rebel states. The main reason often attributed to the Confederate rebellion was hostility towards the incoming Lincoln administration. But by 1860 southern independence from the United States had been a long simmering issue. By 1860, increasingly, southern oligarchs questioned the need to remain affiliated with their northern counterparts as part of the United States. Thus but for President Andrew Jackson's uncommonly strong leadership, South Carolina would have seceded much sooner than it did. Other southern states would then have seceded in due course. In our timeline, South Carolina only backed down because it believed that otherwise, Andrew Jackson would have brutally suppressed any South Carolina rebellion and hung its leaders.

[@Barcaplsfkinwin]

Yeah for sure. Whilst I don't see Mexican revolution as impossible, I could also see a time line where they slowly detach from Spain like Britain and her dominions in the 20th century

[@jean-louislalonde6070]

throne.

[@lucario2188]

@@Barcaplsfkinwin That seems more plausible.

[@rataflechera]

New Spain (Mexico was just the central part of New Spain) would likely grow in economical and political importance but the model they would be after is a similar model than the British colonies in eastern North America: more control on local affairs and representation in Madrid. Note that in this timeline they don't have the example of an independent USA to follow, and even if the Spanish Empire was declining, without the Napoleonic invasions the empire could have lasted longer. One other factor. I'm not sure how this affected New Spain, but the the Spanish South American viceroyalties there were a couple of rebellions in late 18th century much for the same reasons the American and French revolutions happened: the crown needed taxes to compensate from debt previous wars. This was, for Spain was the American revolutionary war. Spain tied British resources in Gibraltar, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, allowing the American Patriots to gain their independence, but this costed money to the Spanish Crown and so they raised taxes in the Americas. But in this ATL this way didn't happened. The resentment of the Spanish Americans against the crown would be less. No example of the USA beginning independent. No Napoleonic Wars and its invasion of metropolitan Spain, so, why would Mexicans want to pursue independence?

[@nathangathercole6888]

Bring the Tiktok and Twitch fans!!! Get this vid across the planet and into common knowledge... We can all do it guys! KZbin needs to be viable for Stakuyi!

[@stakuyi]

Bless you

[@Joe-pb3bm]

We'd be more confused about *"Who's an Indian," vs which bathroom to use.

[@absolutezero523]

@@Joe-pb3bm Bro who asked stop trying to bring politics into this

[@JohnPaulHatterTheSecond]

@@Joe-pb3bm huh

[@yeetman4953]

@@Joe-pb3bm cringe

[@shawndorisian1857]

Great overview, one thing I would like to point out is that the French and Indian War is sometimes called WORLD WAR 0. The reason for that is that while the majority of the fighting was in North America, the actual war was world spanning and had a number of nations involved. Here is a partial list of nations involved: Great Britain; British America; East India Company; Nawab of Carnatic; Province of Hanover; Hanover-Prussia; Kingdom of Portugal Portugal; Hesse-Kassel; Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel; Schaumburg-Lippe; Russia (from 1762); Iroquois Confederacy; Wyandot of Ohio Country (British supported faction); Catawba; Cherokee Nation (before 1758); Mingo; Lenape (From 1758); France; New France; French East India Company; New France Colony of Canada; Bengal Subah; Maratha Empire; Habsburg Monarchy Austria; Saxony; Hesse-Darmstadt; Russia (until 1762); Spain; Sweden; Mughal Empire; Wabanaki Confederacy; Miꞌkmaq; Algonquin; Lenape (until 1758); Ojibwe; Odawa; Shawnee; Wyandot of Fort Detroit (French supported faction); and Kalmyk Khanate. There where battles not only in North America, but also in the Caribbean, the Northeast part of South America (the Guyanas), Asia-especially India (see the Pondacherry areas of French controlled India) and of course Africa. The whole of Europe would be changed. The Holy Roman Empire would still exist for example and the Ottoman Empire might have been dismemberment by the European great powers and Russia might not have gain the territory it did. As to Mexico, I have to disagree with you about independence. The reason that the Spanish colonies revolted was because Napoleon put his brother on the Spanish Thrown and the colonies felt that the legitimate government was no longer in power. It was the same for Brazil and Portugal. Lastly, I feel that if the United States did not overthrow the British then it would have been the Haitians. It was because of the Haitian Revolution that most Southern States forbid the education of Black Slaves. They where afraid that if the Revolution became known then the same would have occurred. And a small FYI, it was in 2015 that Britain finally paid off the debt for freeing their slaves and paying their owners for the loss of "property"!

[@pedanticradiator1491]

Hanover was an Electorate and Duchy of the Holy Roman Empire in personal union with Great Britain at the time not part of Prussia or a province and Haiti was a French colony not British

[@kets4443]

The French and Indian War is just the name for the Seven Years' War in North America

[@owlman_]

Mexico would still gain its independence, even if a bit later. While yes, installing Joseph Bonaparte as king set off the Latin-American movements for independence, this wasn't a new idea at all. Liberalism was spreading to Spain either way as Charles IV was an incompetent monarch, and Ferdinand VII was too much of an absolutist. This was the real kicker to the union of the empire. Add to this the fact that Hidalgo's 1810 revolt was not the first rebellion against Spanish rule. Even in the 1640s, there was a plot to break Mexico free from the Spanish Empire and to create its own monarchy. Tensions over independence were alive in Mexico for centuries, even when British North America was in its infancy. The only thing was that the tensions hadn't found its breaking point.

[@shawndorisian1857]

@@pedanticradiator1491 you are correct what I meant to say was with the Haitian Revolution, revolutions would have spread through the Americas.

[@Steveross2851]

​@@shawndorisian1857I must agree with Alfonso O. that while installing Joseph Bonaparte was a catalyst for independence movements in Latin-America, it was mainly a pretext. The stated rationales of political actors are often not the main ones. Prominent people in far off colonies have always tended to question the need to remain affiliated with their colonial masters thousands of miles away. Whenever those far away colonial masters are weakened for any reason, that only fuels independence movements. Britain's Indian and Palestinian colonies did not gain independence from Britain after World War II because Britain had become more oppressive. No, they gained their independence because World War II had greatly weakened Britain, especially financially. Thus Britain was no longer in much of a position to assert control over those colonies.

[@stephenthomas6475]

I'm English and found this a very interesting alternative history. Enjoyed it.

[@lincolnlawyer9704]

Just so you know Stephen, Britain didn’t really lose. We are still here in North America, we are called Canada. The actual true North strong and free! Ever wonder where the Underground Railroad for escaping slaves ended. You got it, Canada where all those British Loyalist moved to after the American revolution.

[@acushla_music]

I'm sure you did

[@anthonykoller4459]

If American was still part of the English empire and most of today’s technology was invented or financed by American business, I wonder what the technology would be like in the English empire of today. Would the world of 2022 would be like living in the early 20th century without jet planes or Computers etc

[@crowbar9566]

@@anthonykoller4459 What is the "English empire" you keep referencing?

[@leftmono1016]

@@anthonykoller4459 - the English would still have invented jet engines (Whittle) and computing (Turing). The industrial revolution would still have happened in central England. Not sure much would have changed.

[@ahumanbiscuit2629]

One of my favourite facts about the American revolution was that, after rebelling because of taxes, the revolutionaries had to raise taxes to support their army.

[@shrimpflea]

Yes but at least they were supporting their own army.

[@ahumanbiscuit2629]

@@shrimpflea whereas before they were supporting the army that just fought a war for them against france

[@hbkadt89]

Thanks for taking my suggestion, I found it incredibly interesting. Looking forward to more of these in the near future 😎👍

[@Jesse615]

I'm an East Coaster who has lived in Brooklyn for ten years. I am regularly in Prospect Park, where much of the Battle of Long Island took place. There's a monument to the regiment of Maryland soldiers who sacrificed themselves so that Washington could retreat to Valley Forge. Battle Hill is still called that, and now exists within Green-Wood Cemetery; the highest point in Brooklyn. Great point on there being no Napoleonic Wars -- which might mean that Hohenzollern/Prussia may not have risen to be the predominant Germanic dynasty (no Battle of Austerlitz) and so there may not have been a German Empire (and Berlin as the de-facto German capital, not Vienna) which means Europe may have avoided WWI and WWII!!

[@dickon728]

S*** happens.

[@odinfromcentr2]

There would have been something akin to WWI eventually. There are certainly enough spark plugs in this alternate Europe - the Balkans, Poland, southern Italy, even Ireland (depending on who the British monarch's in-laws end up being).

[@Jesse615]

@@odinfromcentr2 Yes. Agree completely. It's likely there would have been conflict in Europe at that time. But, without a resurgent Prussia, caused, in no small part by Napoleon, there likely would not have been a Prussian-centered German Empire, nor the Schlieffen Plan; leading to Germany being held mainly responsible for the war. So no Versailles Treaty or reparations; no economic crisis; no rise of fascism. So yes, the Balkans would be a powder keg in any scenario. But would they have been as volatile under a much stronger Austrian (probably still called "HRE" since, in this timeline, no Napoleon ended it) state. Stronger, since it need not complete for pre-eminence with Prussia.

[@ForgeFighterMKlll]

I do like the focus on the history side, as well as a stage by stage look at various elements that tend to be overlooked. I never knew how close the contenetial army came to being routed, which helps with my own world building ideas. I’ve been a fan from tiktok for a long time and happy to see you expanding your passion for this kind of content. Power to you!

[@stakuyi]

Thank you, I like to explain background more as I notice many alt hist channels do not do it

[@nateg1313]

I love these videos, as someone who has always loved history , these videos bring me happiness. Thank you.

[@varthalgamekiin4931]

Not long since I found this chanel. Honestly, as a Brit, it's so interesting to hear educated and honest Americans talk about the war for independence. This whole thing was so gripping. I learned a lot. Thank you for teaching me. Also, I would like to point out I am not patriotic towards England. If anything, I'd choose Scotland. But I mostly avoid those kinds of subjects. Still, when someone's willing to have an intelectual conversation about it, I do enjoy the debate.

[@lunkycultist5519]

Sorry but I'm a bit confused, are you English saying you'd rather be Scottish?

[@varthalgamekiin4931]

@@lunkycultist5519 I'm sorry, mum's from Yorkshire, dad's from Edinburgh. Biologically, I'm sitting on Hadrian's Wall.

[@lunkycultist5519]

@@varthalgamekiin4931 ok, that makes sence. I'm extremely patriotic, my dad's from England and my mums from Ireland, (our family gatherings are like WW3 😂) I've lived and been to school in both countries but tbh, although I love Ireland, living here has only strengthen my English identity (even though I more genetically irish) because I've always just been seen as the English boy over here. When in school I was called a Protestant on a daily basis even though I'm Catholic and whenever I went to party's, my mates would always play IRA song around me, all in good fun though, but there was one person that blamed me for enslaving his family 600 years ago apparently. I find it extremely annoying that people pass down generational hatred based on things that no one alive today did, although people do need to acknowledge what there ancestors did, people having blind animosity to a generalised group of people is stuiped imo in the long run, Prosperity can't be gained through nationalism but through cooperation. Idk though, that's just my opinion.

[@varthalgamekiin4931]

@@lunkycultist5519 My condolences for your lineage, my friend. I can only imagine how loud it gets in that house. For me, I left the UK to Australia when I was 6, then moved to Brunei when I was 8 and only came back to the UK when I was 18. I've also lived in Cyprus and America for a bit. Most of the time I just tell people I'm a resident of the internet because it's easier. I maintain that if you spend enough time living somewhere, it ends up feeling like everywhere else. At the end of the day, we're all human. Whether you're white, asian, black, atheist, catholic, muslim, none of it matters. We're all just people trying to survive. As for the whole ancestors thing, it's no different than "the sins of the father." Should a child be blamed for the actions of their parents? What makes it worse is when it's, as in your example, "generations ago people from your country did nasty things to people from my country therefore I'm justified in treating you like shit." Yeah, people in the past were horrible. They had extremely different beliefs back then. The human race has evolved. To hold onto that kind of stuff is just people looking for an excuse to hate. If they didn't have that, they'd find some other reason to point their finger at someone and say "you're the bad guy" because that lets them say "I'm the good guy." At the end of the day, it's best to treat people like that like a child saying "I don't like you because you look weird." I don't remember the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of, "if you wouldn't go to them for advice, do not accept their criticism." tl;dr: People are people, some people look for any excuse to hate, treat idiots like idiots.

[@lunkycultist5519]

@@varthalgamekiin4931 "If you wouldn't go to them for advice, do not accept there criticism" as long as you're arrogant and or self-absorbed, that's a good way to deal with the disingenuous hurling anything and everything at you to try to discredit you without actually rebutting your points, thanks, I'm gonna keep that quote in mind. I've been working for about a year now saving money and I'm going to do a 4 year course on contemporary history next year and after join the military for around 4 years, after that I plan to get into politics and make a difference, hopefully in the sector of education. It's nice to have a chat with someone online who isn't off the bat argumentative, I feels nice to be able to take something away from this conversation that isn't just rubbish.

[@AlHyckGaemsTAD]

This dude puts out some of the most well broken down and thoughtout "what-if" scenarios in the alt-hist youtube side. Also his Tiktoks are great.

[@bemasaberwyn55]

The interesting thing is the explosion of English descendants in modern day Ontario. The treatment of the Loyalists sent them north, which was advantageous for those in Canada as they British people now outnumbered the French. This also would eliminate the War of 1812 as there was no conflict between the US and Canada

[@atraxisdarkstar]

The British Crown had also given very favorable terms to Quebec in terms of autonomy and being allowed to operate in French The combination of that and the northern flight of the Loyalists is why the Canadian colonies never really considered joining when entreated.

[@muskrat1154]

Found you on TikTok and instantly fell in love with your content! Keep it up!

[@kaiserredgamer8943]

Other ramifications: - The military tactics brought about by Napoleon wouldn't have been devised early in the 19th century. - No revolutionary ideas, for the time being. - The Cape isn't taken from the Dutch (depending on the terms of the peace treaty, since the Dutch supported the colonies. Otherwise, the absence of the Napoleonic Wars means that the British wouldn't have a cassus belli to seize the Cape and the East Indies). - The colonization of Australia and New Zealand might not be as prioritized as in our timeline. - The Latin American Wars of Independence, at the very least, occurs later, with the Peninsular War and such butterflied out of existence. - Napoleon would most likely remain just some nobody in the French army for far longer - The United Kingdom and her Empire might not have a bigger industrial base in the Americas, depending on whether it preserves the Native Americans' lands or not.

[@somethingelse9535]

- Yep, no Australia since that was a direct consequence of the England losing the American colonies. - The French reverted back to a monarchy for awhile after their revolution anyway. Quite a confused history they had. I'd call it as, not much would change. - Being an English colony wouldnt have stopped them stealing Indian lands, it certainly didnt stop the Australians doing the same thing. (The English tried to stop it, but they were 12,000 miles away...) It would result in France ceding their pointless Louisiana Purchase. - Also, Mexico never did much with California when they had it. According to Richard Henry Dana (Two Years before the Mast), they had a Jesuit dominated economy that was forever in stagnation with zero investment. All that economy did was sell cow hide. It probably would have seen the same fete, ceded to the US.

[@professoroak7545]

@@somethingelse9535 no Australia as a penal colony was necessitated by the US A declaring independence, Australia would have largely gone untouched with wide expanses of land being given to nobility or as rewards, resulting in hopefully more humane treatment of my people, I think that the English would have been very unlikely to stay put as the colonies expanded and the US would look much as it does right now, although the Mexican-US relationship would have been interesting, if the Spanish monarchy did maintain power for longer its possible Texas would have been retained.

[@hoehler7]

So glad to see you on KZbin! Let’s send this around to grow view/comment counts

[@stakuyi]

Thank you very much my friend

[@truetory6231]

I agree with the majority of this but there are a few things I must question. 1. Mexican independence would be far less likely. The Latin American countries revolted against Spain partially because Spain was weakened after Napoleon overthrow the Bourbons and set up his brother as a puppet king. In this timeline. Spain’s government would not have collapse so easily, making it easier for it to hold on to its colonial possessions 2. The Holy Roman Empire might still have existed, in which case world war one might not have happened, or if it did, the sides would have been very different. For one there is no way that Britain and France would have been allies of any kind, it’s more likely that Britain and the HRE would have allied against France, just like in the war of Spanish succession. 3. I also suspect (although this is less certain) that the civil war would have still taken place, only in the 1830s instead of the 1860s. I see no reason why the southern plantation owners who rebelled against the United States would not have also risen up against the British Empire. In fact they would see it as a second attempt at an American Revolution after the first one failed.

[@godfreysanter1565]

Another alternative: what if there were no conflict in the first place? The British Government and the colonists come to an amicable agreement around the table, with British concessions on representation and American concessions allowing for some taxation.to help pay for their defence. Eventually the Americans get independence, in much the same way as actually happened with Canada, Australia , South Africa, India, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore etc.

[@Ullr52]

Love your videos! I did my capstone paper on Nathaniel Green and the southern campaign of the War for independence!

[@chamboyette853]

One thing I appreciate about this video presentation is that it does mention the conflict regarding westward expansion between the British and the Americans, as well as the reimbursement for the French and Indian war, which many Americans don't mention.

[@alkopolityk]

22:18 Louisiana was lost by France during Seven Years War and taken back by Napoleon in 1800; if there would be no Spanish-French War by that time Louisiana would remain Spanish. 22:35 What is more if there wouldn't be war at Iberian Peninsula Spain would be possibly stronger than in our timeline and inhabitants of New Spain less pron to revolution without American and French example.

[@jakedunnegan]

Wow, I'm 2.5 minutes in, and it's already wildly fascinating! Subscribed!

[@joeface6141]

Well done Video. interesting take and you are right to say after such a gigantic diversification with the world the future is so open to endless possibilities kind of exciting for the alternate timeline people.

[@stakuyi]

Thank you very much there is so much I want to cover

[@austinsfifa2185]

Largely my favorite video so far. Go full time. Let’s make this dream a reality.

[@stakuyi]

Thank you for your support

[@about29cats]

are you paying 70 euro for Fifa 2023?

[@scottuk66]

I love these subjects, firstly we were at war with the French Empire and the Spanish Empire at the time. Defeating our own people in the colonies was not a priority nor was it popular in Great Britain. English settlers declared a Republic, for their rights as Englishman were respected, ie they weren't treated exactly as Englishmen in England. Great Britain had very little appetite for reconquering the US of 13 states where more than 85% were British. This is further proved by the fact that once the tyrannic French and Spanish Empires (and allies of ethnic English settlers) were defeated, the British Empire didn't return to take the US under its control, which would have been very easy because we are not bullies.

[@paulohagan3309]

The United States is and was an enormous area quite far from Britain. The United Kingdom was already in, a massive conflict against Napoleonic France, and was not interested in taking back the colonies at that particular time. The British objective was to keep the American forces within the US and prevent their ability to threaten Canada or any of the British possessions in the Caribbean. They blockaded American ports , they bankrolled their Native American allies to harass American settlements out west tying up American forces there, and raided the American coast burning down coastal towns and cities to keep them busy and not allow them to send their forces out. They would have had great difficulty in invading the US but they could keep them cooped up and unable to cause trouble. So no, the British can be quite Brutish when it suits them and very much the bully-boys. But the US got their revenge after WW2 when they forced the weakened British to dismantle their empire.

[@scottuk66]

@@paulohagan3309 Not at all mate, the British blockaded US ports who were trading with the tyrant France. The British Empire never wanted to liberate the US, because we aren't tyrants. Britain had morals so went to war in WWI to defend Belguims neutrality, we went to war again in WWII to defend Polish neutrality. The US never forced the British to give up its Empire at all, the British simply couldn't afford it going from banker to the world before WWI to the most indebted nation in the world after WWII defending the weak whilst the US sat and sold the Empire what it wanted in the only way it knows how to do. When you're looking for bully boy nations, you need to look closer to home, the ones that never entered a real war with a real enemy voluntarily....yet invaded Grenada, Vietnam, Hawaii and a host of other weak nations. Ironically Biden has exposed American weakness after that chaotic cowardly withdraw from Afghanistan, leading to the Ukraine war and threatening Taiwan which will drag America into its first world war opening. We'll watch whilst the US collapses this time as the fragile Empire of the 21st century , and the CANZUK nations will cement out militaries that already swear alligence to the Queen to take over once again as the only force capable in the West. Ironic eh

[@paulohagan3309]

@@scottuk66 Oh a Canzuk fan.The others are not interested and that idea has quietly died. The US had to survive and so worked with the people who had previously helped them. If the British had not been distracted by Bonaparte, they would have tried to get America back. The British built the biggest empire in the world; you don't do that by being nice people. The World Wars were as much about defending the Empire as they were about alliances.Also about the policy of divide and rule on the European continent. I was on Taiwan and I spoke to an Englishman who told me that the British were helping building defense facilities on the island. So no, you won't be standing to the side when the balloon goes up. Churchill wanted the Americans to join in the Emoire and influence, if not dominate the whole world. The Americans declined and put pressure on a weakened Britain to let the Empire go which happened in due course.

[@paulohagan3309]

@@scottuk66 Something strange with your last comment. I click on it and it disappears.Request you post it again, thanks.

[@rajkaranvirk7525]

@@paulohagan3309the British let go of their colonies cause they were broke and couldn’t afford, you should be technically crediting Germany for that cause of both the world wars, not US and USSR making statements about imperialism being bad. You’re valuing words to much here buddy 😂

[@hunterenne5991]

Imma wait here the full 20 hours let's goooo

[@commonwealthy9384]

Ultimately, I think it would have been a far better alternative for the people living in today's America. Especially African-descendant people.

[@gazza3623]

Do some research

[@yeetman4953]

@@gazza3623 it would have been, the british empire was so large that any rebellion would be bad

[@brianarbenz1329]

The territory we now call the eastern U.S. becoming a Canada-like independent member of the British commonwealth (with its capital named for Benedict Arnold), slavery ending without a war, native people’s sovereignty being respected if their cultures still co-opted, national health insurance, no Hollywood westerns, no Nixon trying to deport John Lennon, and Kids In The Hall would be more popular than Saturday Night Live. I could take all that.

[@yosoyroman875]

I was supposed to be finishing my HW…but it seems I’m learning alt history instead!

[@stakuyi]

Well I appreciate you being here

[@professoroak7545]

E5 heart watcher?

[@stevethomas5849]

That was so fascinating, the detail in to the subject of a what if scenario throws up various possibilities that could happen. The butterfly flaps its wing creates a hurricane the other side of the world.

[@Foobits]

What would the world be like if the Hawaiian monarchy was never over thrown?

[@bobmcbob9856]

Always interesting to find a new channel doing alternate history work, especially one that has the budget to make videos of decent quality. I’m not done the video but I can’t wait to see what your approach to historical speculation, the butterfly effect, and other such things is since all I know of you is that you’re the guy on TikTok who gives his girlfriend history lessons

[@repure1999]

Man, I would've aced history if your show was around in the 80s!

[@stakuyi]

I appreciate it

[@Steveross2851]

This video is a huge improvement over the 'What if the Confederacy Still Existed" video. Well done!

[@alaingloster4405]

Good article and seemed logical. I seem to remember between 1908 and 1914 there were a multitude of crisis that could have exploded and I think that would continue. So I think war in Europe would would have happened. Assuming WW1 being similar, I suspect Germany (Prussia) would have done better as the late entry of the US was decisive

[@mappingshaman5280]

22:30 you're forgetting that until napoleon bought it in 1801, louisiana was ruled by spain as one of the terms of the treaty that ended the seven years war

[@toledomarcos70]

But if the Crown had won wouldn't the USA and Canada have been united as one political unit?

[@dsxa918]

I'd presume, there would be a far different Quebec and Louisiana as well, which I'm not sure this satisfied for me

[@thomasgreenwood3560]

Thanks for this video man. Loved it

[@davidcook7887]

As a 66 old English guy I was set to pick this apart big time. I ended up agreeing with all of it. Extremely well done. 👍😀

[@dansmith1763]

It’s a well thought through possible option, I can argue at some points other options are more likely but there is nothing which is impossible.

[@adamdriver1016]

good video till14.00 The British people never cared about the money, they cared about war with British citizens. The colonists werent American, they were British. The majority of British colonists never cared or wanted independence. In 1750 in New Hampshire you existed. You didnt have the time, energy or desire to fight your compatriots. The single problem with the american understanding of the war, is that they think the colonists were american. They were British, and for several decades after, they thought of themselves as British. It wasn't till the early 19th century that the idea of being american became normal. George Washington died an Englishman. He wanted ALL his compatriots to have rights of an Englishman,

[@chrisforeman9949]

These are the best alternative histories I have heard. Bravo. The only bit I disagree with is the independence of Latin America. That happened because napoleon had battered Spain which could not hold on to colonies. It’s hard for me to see the USA remaining a colony and Mexico gaining independence. Also. Would Canada and the US remained a unified country/colony?

[@colinwhitby8219]

The revolution was the 1st civil war in America and the actual 2nd civil war in Britian. Both Countries are connected both culturally and politically. These two countries are bound together in history.

[@Thomas_Davies128]

Simple answer: America would be better than it is now.

[@Andy_Babb]

I don’t disagree. I occasionally wonder if it’s too late to ask if they’ll take some of us back. 😂

[@Grand_Admiral_Squid]

Wonderful video mate

[@touchthesky3948]

Very interesting. I do wonder what the likelihood is of some of the British overseas colonies remaining with the British Empire as time goes on would be, or if they would have still eventually become independent later on. I know one of the factors that caused New Zealand and Australia to feel more independent of the UK was that they started to drift more into the USA's sphere of influence as time went on, so it is an interesting thought.

[@stakuyi]

This is true

[@bigyin2586]

@@stakuyi tricky question, for neither Australia nor Canada enjoy America's massive good luck, endowed on it by nature. But, with respect, the mother country and its other ex-colonies didn't need to be lectured on liberty by a group of industrial-scale slave owners.

[@michaelbindner9883]

A more regional form of governance would have been necessitated, so there would have been no de-colonialism.

[@lincolnlawyer9704]

Sorry but by your logic Canada would be part of the US. They did try in 1812 but Canada with British help resisted. Ask a Canadian if they would like to be American, you’ll get a quick response, ‘Nice place to visit in winter but no thank you’.

[@ShadielCedre]

Love these videos! I’m actually watching this on the 4 of july

[@piyo744]

Hey, a new althist channel! Been involved in althist material for a long time so I'm happy I found a new one that's very good! One thing I would like some more info on is how this would affect India. India likely wouldn't be colonized because Britain wouldn't lose the cotton trade from the American south.

[@virginiatressider5753]

I'm also wondering if the Brits would have bothered much with Australia.

[@conquerthafuture7209]

I do appreciate all of your historical research here. Very accurate

[@midnightrambler8866]

The lesson that should be learned is to never underestimate the locals. The US ignored that lesson in Vietnam and Iraq.

[@professoroak7545]

Nah the lesson is to never fight with one hand behind your back mate 😉

[@gerrynightingale9045]

*You are confusing 'money/politics/tradition' with actual real warfare which never occurred in Viet-Nam* *There was no '200 Divisions of U.S. soldiers killing anyone w/a gun in front of them' or 'carpet-bomb cities into dust' in Iraq*

[@ATownDown32]

You really know nothing about those wars as we won literally every battle in both. We gave up on Vietnam due to it being unpopular back home and we beat Iraq twice.

[@Rowlph8888]

@@ATownDown32 What almost every battle in Vietnam 🤣

[@texasforever7887]

Santa Anna would still find a way screw things up in Mexico on his own. His ego demanded it.

[@captain61games49]

Winning the revolutionary wars would probably have an effect of australia and NZ if they get settled by the British at all. Western Australia would probully be speaking Dutch and our Northam maybe French

[@benjaminrush4443]

Grear Podcast. Liked the analogies of "In Out Timeline". Thanks.

[@117green11]

Amazing to think that had Howe listened to his officers we maybe would have had no Napoleonic war, WWI or WW2 has we know it, one decision caused so much.

[@walterblanc9708]

On an individual level its so incredibly unlikely any of us exist, so many decisions in the past all leading to the joining of 2 half sets of DNA. Any action from missing a bus, having an extra drink, going a different route and a quadzillion others needed to happen for me to be me and the same for everyone..

[@mikespearwood3914]

@@walterblanc9708 Yeah, is seriously mindboggling how many factors come into your two sets of DNA creating you. Your parents existing being influenced by events their parents and their ancestors went through, and countless decisions. The most bizarre coincidence I've heard is Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) never met his father: who died in Italy during WW2 when he was an infant, and HIS father never met his own father (Roger's grandfather): who died in France during WW1 when HE was an infant! Two generations of the same family who never met their direct male ancestor!

[@thestrategos4710]

I'm pretty sure there would have still been a WWI, though more likely earlier and probably kicked off between the British Empire and Czarist Russia in Afghanistan/Indian Sub Continent - that might well have expanded to the European mainland - Crimean War on a world wide scale.

[@zanziknight4818]

Love the narrative, I am so glad you are doing better after pneumonia!!, I’ve had that walking pneumonia, and let me tell you, that ain’t no joke at all!!

[@oliversherman2414]

As a Brit, I approve of this scenario 👍🇬🇧

[@wolfstar46]

damn this is a great analysis!

[@bulldogstrut1]

We'd all be speaking English, I guess.

[@markalvarado4450]

love your vidoes on tiktok and now on youtube keep it up man!

[@jamescrane4050]

Very interesting approach to an alternative history with many probable outcomes and fine points. However, underlying any pre, inter, or post-revolutionary discussions the issue of western land claims by eastern states would have been been very vexing to impossible for the British to unwind due to the fact that the British had left much of the colonial development - about 150 years worth - largely to the colonist and their own devices. Given both the previous King Phillips War and French & Indian War and the already existing hostiles between colonists and natives - I seriously doubt that the British could have prevented, limited or stopped any kind of large western migration by simple proclamation. In order to enforce it, they would have had to built more forts, house more troops, build more roads, and limit the growth potential of both USA and Canada - all seem rather impossible. The majority of American colonialist viewed their charters as extending from sea-to-sea and given the farming methods at the time (soil exhaustion in NE), social order (large families & even indentured servants receiving lands at time of service tenure exhaustion) & the big business of land speculation in colonial-era America, it seems rather improbable to impossible to prevent, mitigate, or stop any western migration.

[@projectc.j.j3310]

Love the video man. Keep up the “what if” series

[@seifsaaed8144]

My guess is that the United States would either have been a Commonwealth country or part of Canada.

[@bigyin2586]

No- Canada would be part of the North American dominions, primarily centred on the USA.

[@seifsaaed8144]

@@bigyin2586 Yeah, if the UK had won the American Revolution, the US would have been a British dominion like Canada was.

[@merrittmarcus13]

Another amazing video

[@r_p_m7330]

Eventually would have become an independent member of the Commonwealth like Canada. And have a Parliamentary system of Government that better represents the population. Not a system set up to give slave states more power to control Blue states.

[@doomsdayrabbit4398]

Part of the problem is that our legislature is too damn small.

[@Phil-ey6yh]

This is a very concise, well considered "what if". It's a pretty crazy idea to try and imagine the world without America doing all that historically "American" stuff. Also, the relative boons that major european powers would have had by being able to exploit the money and resources of the North American continent would have been a complete game changer for the major empires. This was a really interesting exercise.

[@HowWeGotHere]

I mean if you look at the Recent History of the US you have to rethink this concept as my losing the 13 Rebellious Treasonous Colonies is in the long Game was really a Win for British North America/Canada

[@Bob_just_Bob]

Interesting take on the what ifs of history. Great video

[@Chonkyraccoon997]

Makes me very happy to see this dude doing so well, excellent content every time, reckon he’d be cool as fuck to get a beer with

[@stakuyi]

I do prefer cider not going to lie

[@Chonkyraccoon997]

@@stakuyi England has some good cider if you ever cross the pond it’s on me my dude

[@hjblanchard9661]

This is so interesting, thank you.

[@icecoffee1361]

The fact Great Britain lost the revolution war is no shock, if you look at the population of USA,France,Spain, Britain had no chance and the fact they won the biggest battle of the war is never spoken about.

[@shrimpflea]

It is spoken about but when you lose a war you lose a war.

[@daniellastuart3145]

@@shrimpflea yea much like the USA losing the 1812/14 war

[@philipmcluskey6805]

just loved this. excellent

[@idcgaming518]

23:20 1833? Bruh, we were fighting slavery back in the 1820s, so I think it was abolished a wee bit earlier than your sources. Hell, in 1700 (I think) there was a court ruling that any slave that stepped foot on the soil of Britain, was considered immediately free. And even before that, as early as the mid-late 1070s, William the conqueror had banned "the sale of a man by another man, on pain of fine paid to me (william)", and the church institutions within England had, in the 1100s, rebuked slavery as a horrible and unholy act.

[@mikaruyami]

One of the reasons that the colonists were denied more representation was due to the fact that the parliament for the colonies pass a law that allowed indentured servitude for life. Parliament back home considered this a form of Slavery (which it was) and so during the the talks with the colonies' representative (Benjamin Franklin), one of the requirements for them to get more representation and have more of a say in parliament back home was to revoke it.

[@about29cats]

Nah, he was right. Your source is "Trust me bruv". Also England didn't have slaves on the Homeland because they found it a benefit in outsourcing them to their colonies, they could avoid black people all together as they found them repulsive and inferior. That is why Britain sent almost 1 slave for every colonist. Everyone points out America's reluctance to give up their slaves, but that was largely Britain's decision as it made up too large a percentage of their economic power at the time. You clicked on this video because you want to imagine British people being better than they are in reality. You can't win a war without your allies and you definitely couldn't have beat America in the Revolution. Imagine controlling 25 percent of the world's land and then losing it all in less than a century. UK smaller than New Zealand. UK economy produces 1.5 Trillion dollars less than Germany, Japan produces twice as much revenue as UK annually. I thought you guys won WW2 what happened? What slowed you down? You didn't win shit. Would've ended up like Vichy France, a puppet of Hitler, if the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor. America got a 25 kill streak and dropped a M.O.A.B. on Hiroshima and then again at Nagasaki. Only thing that saved UK was the British Channel and indirectly the Japanese for unleashing the giant cock of the United States Military. How come the English haven't won a battle on their own since Agincourt? Also brush your teef bruv the tea be staining them pearly whites.

[@professoroak7545]

@@about29cats well not sure where to start with you.......but here goes. First of all the UK still has one of the most powerful economies in the world and considering their size it is very impressive. Second England abolished all trading of slave in the British empire in 1800 so your completely wrong. Third if America had not of got involved then they would have been morally disgusting and certainly not fighting for freedom, the fact they hesitated at all shows they were cowardly, and on top of that if Germany had of conquered Europe and consolidated its power it would have proceeded to walk over America like it was a flea. Fourth America worked in collaboration to build the bombs and it was the allies not the americans that deployed them. Finally fifth you are a racist patriotic obnoxious probably second amendment banner waving IRA member caricatured stereotype of an American and no one has any respect for your opinion on any platform except for American ones where the loudest person is the only one heard.

[@about29cats]

@@professoroak7545 lol at least I'm not British

[@haroldrupert4957]

I am British and enjoyed your so interesting video . Thanks for sharing .

[@seb_draghici]

I always pondered: I know that the Colonies also talked to parts of Canada to join the revolution but they were more sympathetic to the British, but wouldn't British troops and supplies come from Canada directly instead of bringing it via the Atlantic? I'm just curious. Thank you

[@phasorthunder1157]

At the time, there was really no anglophone population in what is now Canada. It was still dominated by the Quebecois, and they numbered only 70000 in 1775. So, Britain still had to ferry in troops from the mainland.

[@stevenweaver3386]

The English Maritimes colonies were sparsely populated , and didn't have much to offer. Niva Scotia included present day New Brunswick and only had a population of 20,000. Half of that was in Halifax. Any meaningful supplies would have to vome by ship from the UK.

[@keiths81ca]

Halifax was founded in 1749, and served as a naval base. One reason why Nova Scotia did not join the Rebellion.

[@iseeyou5061]

18:55 Alternate history starts here

[@newanimatedboss]

If the British won we would all have those cool British accents 😭😭 (jk)

[@keithmorrison6176]

plus international pasports to go to all commonwealth countries.

[@shrimpflea]

No we would not. Accents are regional not national. Canadians don't have British accents, they developed their own. We would probably speak very similar to we do now only with a few British sayings and slangs holding on longer.

[@snacks1184]

@@shrimpflea and wear trousers, not pants.

[@Cassius4]

WhatIfAltHist did two videos on this topic, “what if the American Revolution failed” and “what if the American Revolution never happened”. I would love to see your take on if the war just never happened as well

[@LiamL763]

The answer? America would be like Canada.

[@metacosmos]

for most americans, to be like Canada means to lose the American essences and way of life and to turn a socialist country.

[@LiamL763]

​@@metacosmos Don't know what the american essence is but yeah no civil war over slavery, no psychotic infatuation with guns, and no broken healthcare system so whatever meaningless word you wanna call it be it socialism or communism colonial north america would without a doubt have ended up like modern day Canada had a faction of colonists not broken away from the empire.

[@metacosmos]

@@LiamL763 exact, australia, newzealand and canada are the samples on what would be the states if they had remained faithful to the british crown.

[@torinjones3221]

I think what is mostly being missed is most likely the UK parliament would have started having seats for colonial possessions and become more of a federation type empire probably making it more stable in the long run.

[@notgabbyb]

history hubby 🥰

[@warcraftskater]

Really good clip man and alot of good points

[@Paulo-ov4yo]

When your fighting for your home, you fight that much harder, but how the American colonialists won is just the same as the US experienced in its future wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

[@UserName-om6ft]

the US won its wars in Iraq, Gulf War 1991 US victory, invasion of Iraq 2003 US victory, US war against ISIS US victory, as for Afghanistan the UK was also in Afghanistan with the US so the UK lost that as well, the UK also lost 2 other wars with Afghanistan several years before, first time UK lost to Afghanistan was in 1842, then the UK lost to Afghanistan in 1919, then the UK lost to Afghanistan again when they were in Afghanistan with the US, the UK has also lost wars like the Aden Emergency 1967, Boer War 1881, Cyprus Emergency 1959 ect...

[@terrack3005]

@@UserName-om6ft US victories hey...lmfao

[@warrenreid6109]

I like the work plan you follow when making these videos.

[@paulfaulkner6299]

May I say that I found your insights interesting and (I am English/British) learned something from your film. I have never been to the United States but I am absolutely fascinated by the country's history and diversity ad am only now really beginning to learn anything of the Spanish involvement in what is now Latin America in its entirety. We (The Brits / Yanks) had our fall outs but essentially you carry our values (Magna Carta, rule of law, etc, etc). I would love to see a number of similar length films on, for example, how Columbia broke apart to become a rump state, the loss of panama & Venezuala. How / why Bolivia lost that bit of territory between Peru & Chile. Why there are around 20 (without counting) "Spanish" speaking countries in the Americas but just the one Portuguese one (Brazil). Why did "New Spain" implode and break up in the way it did but Brazil didn't. Also Where did the money go? All that looted gold, etc - yet Spain and Portugal were essentially bankrupt throughout both of the 19th & 20th centuries and are pretty poor now. The UK was financially stretched by the so called world wars but considering our size on the world stage, we were and still are a phenominal economic powerhouse. Why? What is so different about us (the English speakers) when compared with Hispanohablantes or Portuguese. What is it about the way "we" do things that makes us so successful when contrasted with the poverty prevalent from Mexico down, almost all of Africa and Asia? I'm 60 and these are the sort of things i ponder when I think about our world and the undeniable fact that black or white, English speaking, Chinese speaking, German speaking or any other native language speaking individuals are essentially the same. We want to be able to feed our families and live in peace and relative prosperity. Most people "by default" are set to help others rather than exploit or abuse them - then there is that small percentage which doesn't. Why? Thank you for this and the other films of yours which I've so far seen. I have subscribed today.

[@uberpinkwarrior]

Bit late to reply, but I'll try and add some context to clear this up. Don't take this as hard fact, cause it is complicated, but... Basically, war. Portugal had a good start, but Spain kind of choked them to death. Best way to describe it is they had a giant pile of money but no income, eventually they just ran out. This was made worse by various contlicts, which they often couldn't win due to a lack of, well, everything but money. When someone beat them in a fight they took some money cause people wanted it to keep existing to spite Spain, while Spain couldn't kill it because... So Spain! This is where it gets fun. Spain spent a good deal of money building the "Golden Armada", the largest navy ever seen (like, in terms of size and scale, makes the US's current navy look quaint in size). Estimates are around 20,000 vessels of various size. This let spain be the dominant power on Earth at the time, since they could just throw infinite warships at problems and win through sheer number. Want to fight them? Their navy can hit every port you have simultaneously due to size while still matching your entire fleet in spare ships. So "privateering" aka legalized piracy happened, bleeding spain's wealth. Which forced a war between england (the source of privateers) and spain (who suffered from them). Long story short, Spain lost, losing basically their entire fleet in the process, which meant they couldn't protect their shipping lanes anymore and had most of their standing army (which were on those lost boats) kind of... not exist anymore. Which meant they became the whipping boy of Europe. Not helping was they kind of pissed of everyone else, so everyone just dogpiled them in vengeance. This was followed by them losing all their colonies since they couldnt afford to put soldiers in the colonies to keep em under control. Without colonial wealth or even the ability to protect its own borders, the only thing it could do was harass Portugal, basically guaranteeing both of them would be borderline irrelevant on the international stage forever more. Hope you find this interesting. I'm leaving out a horrid amount of detail (especially regarding Portugal and all the colonial stuff), but like... Too much for 1 youtube comment.

[@anthonyschiuma6290]

Hi Stakyui it was really cool you mentioning Staten Island as it is the forgotten borough as well as I am from there and live very close to the conference house really interesting video great work!!

[@mikaaalto3135]

I believe that America would have been more like Canada now if Britain had won. A little less violent and somewhat more civilized.

[@shrimpflea]

Probably true. Oh well.

[@daniellastuart3145]

yes and the USA would be 3 or more different country's with

[@Illindi]

Nice thought experiment, nice vid 😀

[@welsh_Witch]

We would of beaten them if they didn't run to the French

[@wetbed6597]

yall still lost to the french lmao

[@oilybat3269]

Skill issue

[@JoshVA79]

Great video love you content, and love for history.

[@Hollows1997]

One thing I think you take for granted in this video is Australia, Australia only really started to develop once we lost America as our penal colony. Otherwise, nice video.

[@RellikSlacan]

There is an interesting book called "Manufacturing independence" which goes into the logistical nightmare of arming the Contential forces and how we just did not have enough guns. 2/3 of Washington's force at valley forge had muskets. And many of those guns were Hunting weapons not built for the rate of fire military use needed since heat treated barrels were not a thing for anouther 70 years

[@Aidankiwi]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop interchanging Britain with England!!!!!! They are not one and the same. As a historian you must be aware that England ceased to exist as a sovereign nation in 1707, long before the events being discussed here.

[@andym9571]

@Val O'Connell When it comes to the ' British' the Scots , Irish and Welsh 'punched' way above their weight compared to the English when it came to the governing of Britain and...the armed forces

[@JerGol]

This is brilliant and fascinating.