Question of the Day #3
- Thread starter Bootie
- Start date
Yes and yes. The colonists themselves were extremely divided about this war. Additional British victories and further demoralization of the Revolutionary cause would have changed outcomes. Burgoyne's choices reinforce the axim to never divide one's forces in the face of the enemy. American failures to win would have kept the French from joining their side. As it was, Burgoyne's surrender demoralized the Crown and Parliament instead.
Certainly agree w/Badger73. Would have been a huge swing in morale, and had it kept the French from intervening, well...we all might well still be speaking the King's English.
Wait, that would be a good thing. Hmm.
Wait, that would be a good thing. Hmm.
Well, I, for one, am certainly glad I don't have to speak English. Vive la Revolution!
But yea, I agree with Badger and mTk. The battle of Saratoga was pivotal. When Burgoyne was defeated, that was effectively the end of the war. Morale dropped like a stone across the Atlantic, and France joined the side of the colonies. The end.
But yea, I agree with Badger and mTk. The battle of Saratoga was pivotal. When Burgoyne was defeated, that was effectively the end of the war. Morale dropped like a stone across the Atlantic, and France joined the side of the colonies. The end.
A
Artemis258
Guest
Powder and arms gentlemen, powder and arms. The french supplied the majority of the weapons and powder used in the war, with some estimates putting their contribution as high as 90% of that used in the Saratoga campaign. If the French hadn't been so willing to wage a proxy war on England, it would have gone quite differently.
Z
Zinzan
Guest
Hmmm, probably not. However better leadership would have made a MUCH greater difference, as would have much better logistics. One of those 2 were required to to give Brits a chance of victory. (British generealmanship - is that even a word - was nearly as bad as Zinzan's)
45 000 troops was possibly sufficient; IF they were supported (logistically) better.
Hudson Strategy would have worked (with better logistics), whether it would have won the war -doubtful. Extended yes; made british victory possible Yes. (Go on be definite here on something youlknow nothing about
)
Biggest problem British had was a lack of understanding of the terrain, distance and detemination of the (minority) rebels. (Yeah most of them damned colonials were loyalists; if UK had understood this would have had a chance. OTOH the lotyalist became very PRoud Americans pretty damn quick after the war so we might have been betterr off without the opportunistic bastards)
(Cross posted from YouTube)
45 000 troops was possibly sufficient; IF they were supported (logistically) better.
Hudson Strategy would have worked (with better logistics), whether it would have won the war -doubtful. Extended yes; made british victory possible Yes. (Go on be definite here on something youlknow nothing about
)Biggest problem British had was a lack of understanding of the terrain, distance and detemination of the (minority) rebels. (Yeah most of them damned colonials were loyalists; if UK had understood this would have had a chance. OTOH the lotyalist became very PRoud Americans pretty damn quick after the war so we might have been betterr off without the opportunistic bastards)
(Cross posted from YouTube)