Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Why Britain lost

Expand Messages
  • Patrick J OKelley
    Howdy, ... Actually Britain lost because they under estimated their enemy, and they overextended themselves logistically. Logistics, not envy, lost America.
    Message 1 of 5 , May 1 2:51 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Howdy,

      >Britain & the Tories lost because of world envy against
      >Britain

      Actually Britain lost because they under estimated their enemy,
      and they overextended themselves logistically. Logistics, not envy, lost
      America.


      Patrick O'Kelley
      goober.com@...
      2nd Regiment of the North Carolina Line
      http://www.2nc.org/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jay Callaham
      ... Logistics certainly played a major part - - but the British Army was able to be a major factor for a lot of years even with that handicap. Had it been used
      Message 2 of 5 , May 1 7:13 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        > From: Patrick J OKelley <goober.com@...>
        > Date: 2002/05/01 Wed AM 05:51:13 EDT
        > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [Revlist] Why Britain lost
        >
        > Howdy,
        >
        > >Britain & the Tories lost because of world envy against
        > >Britain
        >
        > Actually Britain lost because they under estimated their enemy,
        > and they overextended themselves logistically. Logistics, not envy, lost
        > America.
        >
        >
        > Patrick O'Kelley

        Logistics certainly played a major part - - but the British Army was able to be a major factor for a lot of years even with that handicap. Had it been used aggressively, earlier - - as at Long Island when they could have gone in and finished Washington's force in New York before he evacuated Manhatten Island - - we would have remained colonies for a lot more years. I have no doubt that the split would have happened eventually - - but the Rebellion of '75 could have been capped in '76 had Howe been more aggressive.

        Logistics, coupled with the expansion of the conflict from a regional colonial uprising in New England to a world war as the French, Dutch, and Spaniards started piling on to the political pressure (the Members of Parliament railing against the war; the difficulty of raising sufficient volunteers to keep the regiments up to strength - - what I look at as the "Vietnam" mentality of the body politic); the threat to much more valuable holdings in the Indies, the Med., and India (all of which does, indeed, distill back down to logistics since ALL those garrisons and naval support squadrons had to be built up and supplied).

        I'll go with logistics at the bottom-line!

        Cheers!

        Jay
        Cm Gds
        4th Coy, Bde of Guards

        Jay Callaham
        callaham@...

        "If you do not receive this, it must have miscarried, therefore I beg you write and let me know." - - - Sir Boyle Roche, 18th century Member of Parliament

        If it says: "Send to everyone you know" - - please pretend you don't know me!
      • Webb, Martin
        I thought they left cuz of the bugges and damdable heat.................... ... From: Jay Callaham [mailto:callaham@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 01,
        Message 3 of 5 , May 1 2:01 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          I thought they left cuz of the bugges and damdable heat....................

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Jay Callaham [mailto:callaham@...]
          Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:13 AM
          To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Revlist] Why Britain lost


          > From: Patrick J OKelley <goober.com@...>
          > Date: 2002/05/01 Wed AM 05:51:13 EDT
          > To: Revlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [Revlist] Why Britain lost
          >
          > Howdy,
          >
          > >Britain & the Tories lost because of world envy against
          > >Britain
          >
          > Actually Britain lost because they under estimated their enemy,
          > and they overextended themselves logistically. Logistics, not envy, lost
          > America.
          >
          >
          > Patrick O'Kelley

          Logistics certainly played a major part - - but the British Army was able to
          be a major factor for a lot of years even with that handicap. Had it been
          used aggressively, earlier - - as at Long Island when they could have gone
          in and finished Washington's force in New York before he evacuated Manhatten
          Island - - we would have remained colonies for a lot more years. I have no
          doubt that the split would have happened eventually - - but the Rebellion of
          '75 could have been capped in '76 had Howe been more aggressive.

          Logistics, coupled with the expansion of the conflict from a regional
          colonial uprising in New England to a world war as the French, Dutch, and
          Spaniards started piling on to the political pressure (the Members of
          Parliament railing against the war; the difficulty of raising sufficient
          volunteers to keep the regiments up to strength - - what I look at as the
          "Vietnam" mentality of the body politic); the threat to much more valuable
          holdings in the Indies, the Med., and India (all of which does, indeed,
          distill back down to logistics since ALL those garrisons and naval support
          squadrons had to be built up and supplied).

          I'll go with logistics at the bottom-line!

          Cheers!

          Jay
          Cm Gds
          4th Coy, Bde of Guards

          Jay Callaham
          callaham@...

          "If you do not receive this, it must have miscarried, therefore I beg you
          write and let me know." - - - Sir Boyle Roche, 18th century Member of
          Parliament

          If it says: "Send to everyone you know" - - please pretend you don't know
          me!



          Visit the RevList Homepage, which includes a list of sutlers, RevList member
          photos, FAQ, etc., at

          http://www.liming.org/revlist/

          TO UNSUBSCRIBE: please send a message to
          Revlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • firstfootgrds
          Greetings Patrick and Liste, I suggest, Patrick, that if you can bring yourself to do it, you should read some books by the excellent British military
          Message 4 of 5 , May 2 5:04 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Greetings Patrick and Liste,
            I suggest, Patrick, that if you can bring yourself to do
            it, you should read some books by the excellent British military
            historian Jeremy Black, who has in fact devoted an entire volume to
            the unfortunate American conflict. Logistical difficulties, as he
            points out, only became crippling once Britain's continental enemies
            joined the fray, something that is all too often overlooked due to
            successful American publicity. The fact that England fought a war
            from 1779 to 1783 with the entire western world and came out only
            loosing the American colonies is a testament to the fact that she had
            the best military system, in terms of the actual army and logistics,
            of the time. No one was better at power projection- any other
            European colonial power would have collapsed within a few months.
            As for Howe, his strategy, or rather the strategy of the Howe
            brothers, is largely misunderstood by people who look at the American
            war from the military science point of view encouraged by modern
            military, particularly American, thinking. The Howe brothers, better
            than anyone else, understood the political dimension and character of
            the American rebels. Their intention in 1776 was to simply exhaust
            the American army, not to destroy it- to conquer the will of the
            people, as America later tried in Vietnam. The Howe Brothers
            appreciated that the average American militia man was not willing to
            fight for over a year, in cold blood, unsupported by victory. Their
            strategy was therefore to defeat Washington's army continually,
            thereby demoralizing the soldiers, leading to their mass desertion,
            which would in turn have brought the conflict back solely into the
            political realm, so that the aristocratic leaders of the American
            rebels could be negotiated with. The Howe Brothers also understood
            that destroying the American army immediately, such as at the
            Infamous battle of Long Island, would merely result in
            attritional "guerilla" warfare of the type seen later in the south, a
            type of conflict the British Army was not prepared to deal with in
            the long term. Let us not forget that at the end of the day, you want
            an opponent with whom you can negotiate a peace settlement, instead
            of long-term mindless fighting, which does not provide a satisfactory
            exit strategy. Just another angle for you to think on, Patrick, as
            I'm sure you are a man who tries to see conflicts from multiple view
            points.

            Regards,
            Will Tatum
            1st Regt. Ft. Gds.
            4th Coy, Bde. Gds.
            American born, English trained and bred

            --- In Revlist@y..., Patrick J OKelley <goober.com@j...> wrote:
            > Howdy,
            >
            > >Britain & the Tories lost because of world envy against
            > >Britain
            >
            > Actually Britain lost because they under estimated their
            enemy,
            > and they overextended themselves logistically. Logistics, not
            envy, lost
            > America.
            >
            >
            > Patrick O'Kelley
            > goober.com@j...
            > 2nd Regiment of the North Carolina Line
            > http://www.2nc.org/
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • longknife.mn@juno.com
            Thanks for what at least started out to be a great thread...even if it got a bit heated due to strong personal feelings, etc. I find the Rev war just that much
            Message 5 of 5 , May 5 12:22 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks for what at least started out to be a great thread...even if it
              got a bit heated due to strong personal feelings, etc.
              I find the Rev war just that much more interesting knowing that it was
              NOT just about the "super hero" efforts of the Colonials...as I was
              essentially taught in school 30+ years ago. The background stories and
              facts really add a lot to it...just as in a good mystery movie or novel.

              I hope it continues.
              And I side with Mr. Arndt in one respect...even if I don't share all of
              his views... I find it difficult to do the type of research the rest of
              you do. I don't have the same access or time to devote to it as some of
              you do and that is true of most of us I am sure. So I fully appreciate
              and admire the ability of some of you to be able to back up your
              information with documents etc. I can only rely on what I hear and read,
              and I am guilty of not recording this information as well as I probably
              should, trusting my own judgement of my interpretation to suffice for my
              own personal uses. This of course becomes a problem if I have to share
              information with others as I often can't remember just exactly where I
              found the information, but I try to make that clear. Since Mr. Arndt
              didn't likely question his own judgment (nor would most of us) he never
              thought to imply that he might be mistaken, etc when he was just trying
              to engage in a discussion. This forum of discussion is often like that
              we'd have over a glowing bed of coals with (preferably) a few cold drinks
              to grease the conversation. So if we remember that and respond with an
              "I respectably disagree" rather than a "You must be DAFT!", we'll all be
              better for it. Or at least that is what I think of the matter...but I
              could be wrong...ha, ha..(grin)....
              Differences of opinion based on access to different resources, and
              personal bias, such as on the subject of the War of Royal
              Treachery....(or was that Colonial Treachery ...) can only add to our
              understanding of the period if we choose to balance our knowledge of any
              subject with the possibility that we may be misled by a different source
              of "facts".

              Continuing the original line of discussion...
              Whether certain individuals conducted acts of a terroristic nature does
              not make them "terrorists" unless that was their sole function. Anything
              done to frighten the public to achieve a specific military of political
              goal could be interpreted as terroristic, but what does it matter what it
              is called and where do you draw the line? How about we stick to what was
              done, why it was done (opinion/fact), what was its intended outcome and
              what was the result?

              Was the American Rev. war the catalyst for the world conflict that
              erupted? Much of that had already started as I understand world history,
              so perhaps the conflict in the colonies just added fuel to the world
              fire. It seems to me that much of the world (if you believe some of the
              news reports, etc.) views America today much in the same light as Briton
              was viewed then...a dominant world bully with global conquest in mind.
              No matter the facts...personal opinions often overrule. Much of the
              reason for the war boils down to human nature...how many conflicts can
              you think of that were solved with "talk"??? How many survived the test
              of time? Would any agreement with Briton and America have lasted? With
              (as I have been told) 1/3 of the public favoring and ultimately starting
              and engaging in conflict with the "Mother country", 1/3 opposing it (what
              if they had acted first??!!!) and 1/3 indifferent... how different would
              world history be but for a few different facts?
              Were the Colonialists just lucky to engage in their efforts when they or
              did they see an opportunity or were they just so peaved that they didn't
              care? If this forum wasn't more focused on "what happened and where"
              rather than "what could have happened" we could get into a long
              discussion of whether the world itself would have been better off without
              the end result. (No French revolution, ...America, the Australia without
              kangaroos..., no Canada but a larger America with the western half
              controlled by the Spanish and most of NW Canada and N. California to
              Washington state by the Russians....steak and kidney pie (tried
              it...yuck..) instead of "hamburgers"...etc. etc. etc.)...but we'll save
              that discussion for the campfire I guess and there are other forums for
              that discussion...and rightly so.

              J. Bruce Aurand
              (Full time corporate "Computer Repair Man"...or is that
              "terrorist"...thanks for the laugh Patrick...I know that was not the
              point, but ....)

              (previous message, etc.)
              Logistics certainly played a major part - - but the British Army was
              able to be a major factor for a lot of years even with that handicap.
              ...(snip)...
              ...Logistics, coupled with the expansion of the conflict from a regional
              colonial uprising in New England to a world war as the French, Dutch, and
              Spaniards started piling on to the political pressure...
              ... the threat to much more valuable holdings in the Indies, the Med.,
              and India ....

              I'll go with logistics at the bottom-line!

              Cheers!

              Jay
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.