Talk:American Revolutionary War

Notice

This article focuses on the military campaign, while the American Revolution covers the origins of the war, as well as other social and political issues.

Please try to keep this article at a reasonable length. The current approach has been to summarize the war in a way that will be clearly understandable to the general reader, without cluttering it up with too many details. Concentrate on the major figures and actions, and try to leave detailed discussion of war strategies, battle casualties, historical debates, etc. to linked articles about specific battles or actions.

Instead of adding additional detail to this lengthy article, consider adding your information to an article on a specific battle, or to one of these campaign articles currently in development. Additionally, one campaign, Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga (box at right), does not yet have an article specifically about those operations.

• Boston campaign (1775–76)
• Invasion of Canada (1775) (1775–77)
• New York and New Jersey campaign (1776–77)
• Saratoga campaign (1777)
• Philadelphia campaign (1777–78)
• Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga (1778–81)
• Sullivan Expedition (1779)
• Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War (1775–83)
• Western theater of the American Revolutionary War (1779–82)
• West Indies and Gulf Coast campaigns (1775–82)

• Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War
  • American Waters (1775–82)
  • European Waters (1778–82)
  • West Indies (1778–82)
  • East Indies (1778–83)

'Americans'

Ok, I see there was a lengthy discussion, but what a mess!

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopaedia. In that the terms that are used in it have to be consistent across a range of articles.

So what are the issues here?

1. We have a population of British colonies (English colonies became British with the 1707 unification of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain) in the Old World, called the American colonies.

2. Legally the inhabitants are British citizens. Colloquially the 'American colonists' is reduced to 'Americans', but this refers to the entire continental population. The term also refers to the American sea lanes which include the Caribbean holdings of the British Crown, notably Bermuda

3. In the international sense, because America was at this time occupied by several European colonial empires, the name was British America, and remained so until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The rebellion of the British subjects in the American colonies against the King was not a new occurrence in European, English or British history, and the name universally applied to such events was Rebellion. The same term was used a century later by the US Federal Government to refer to the secessionist populations of the Southern states during the American Civil War, although as any people following a cause, they too believed themselves to be patriots.

4. So how would Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester have regarded them. I just changed reference to 'Americans' to rebels there, because there is no way he would have referred to them as anything but rebels.

5. And the argument that terminology used by our contemporaries, whether professional historians or readers of their books, should be used by Wikipedia is a very bad one. The former do not write for encyclopaedic content, and express their own perspectives quite often, in fact usually. The later are consumers of knowledge and not producers of it, and it seems to me that encyclopaedias are written for them, and not by them --Koakhtzvigad (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Americans, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. Far from ignoring the King and the rebellion against him, many Americans have often tended to overemphasise the role of the King and the colonists rebellion against him as as a tyrannical monarch (something which, even had he aspired to, he lacked the powers to be) and sidestep the fact that it was an essentially an act of rebellion against the authority of the British parliament which by the 1770s was the real power of the land.

In fact in the military sense the rebellion was not one against he authority of the Parliament because the Parliament could not commission officers, and so the rebels by creating officered units clearly rebelled against the King and his sole authority in that regard. This was not the likeness of the ECW split. The appeals to the Parliament and the King were both rejected, so unauthorised militias were raised. This was beyond the taxation issues.

Yet at the same time I do feel that in both this and the American Revolution articles are a little "Americanised", there isn't enough European perspective (France, Spain and Dutch, as well as British). Very little coverage of motives or strategic thinking. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the article forgets that this was a European conflict and not a North American one. Sure the tribes fought on both sides, but the causes of the conflict could not have been more European, and the participation, overt or covert also.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the significance. After July 4, 1776.... a country called the United States of America existed where the majority of people no longer thought of themselves as British subjects. American Revolutionaries, known commonly as Patriots, after independence declared in 1776 were indeed, Americans. Tories or Loyalists, still remained loyal to the Crown. Hence after the war was over, they were in exile to either New Brunswick or back to England.

What started out technically as a civil war between Britons against Britons in rebellion ended up after July 4, 1776, to be a revolution which consisted of Britons against those Americans who claimed their independence in 1776, yet were never recognized as Americans until 1783.

Prior to July 1776, it was British versus British After July 1776, it was British versus Americans

It's that simple. --Yoganate79 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very patriotic, but doesn't change what I have already said. They were, until 1783, rebels.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I also direct your attention to this--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I imagine if you ask most Britons today, they would agree with your sentiments that the Colonials were rebellious up until the end in 1783. But that is you see, the British point of view. Many American Colonials, including the Founding Fathers, saw themselves as liberators of the peoples of those thirteen colonies from their colonial oppressors over 3,000 miles away in England. I will also add, members of the Second Continental Congress tried to reason and to seek compromise with King George III and the British Parliament who were largely hostile until the very end. Therefore, a declaration of independence was their last resort and choice which they inevitably had to take. For the sake of reason, most in the American Colonies saw themselves as British subjects. That is, until they were continuously alienated by being imposed taxes without representation in London. And since their rights as Englishmen were being denied, the progression into their own self-identity as an American nation of 13 original colonies into the first 13 states, became more clear and determined by their cause.

Rebels or not.... it depends on which point of view is taken. The point being, their self-identity changed from being loyal British subjects into Americans free of all foreign interference who they thought of as their former colonial oppressors. --Yoganate79 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

However, this being an encyclopaedia, we should not be interested in point of view, right?

The self-identity of an individual, or even a large group, in a society governed by certain norms, and certainly one governed by a judicial system, are not respected. This principal was the basis of the American Civil War, and is therefore one accepted by the society of the United States which accepted the defeat of that rebellion as just.

At that time (1763) the group of people who, not having convinced the British Government to institute change in taxation policy, chose to go outside of the judicial system and therefore were pronounced rebels and traitors to the Crown.

Invoking the 'Founding Fathers' is simply legitimising the rebellion post factum.

And, I would like to remind you that the colonies were not oppressed, but were in fact a sovereign territory of the United Kingdom, and defended by it from other nations before 1763, something the colonists benefited from during the colonial history of British America, but refused to support financially later.

Since 1784 the United States has not seen other 'revolutionary' movements as independence freedom fighters or patriots, so lets not contaminate this article with foreign policy dualisms of the United States Government in the post-modern period.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

North Shoreman, this discussion is not as clear-cut as you imply. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read my response below more carefully, you will see that I referred you to the discussion at ARCHIVE 6. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

Why are actual German states listed as belligerents? I thought just mercenaries from those places were hired, and the states themselves had nothing to do with the American Revolution. Zantorzi (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)68.41.255.41 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The various German states signed treaties with Great Britain to send forces to the Americas, in effect Great Britain paid these german states themselves and not the soldiers. Therefore the german soldiers were ordinary combatants just as the french and spanish soldiers were on the American side. The mercenary stories were just political propaganda used by the Americans to spur discontent against the british and their german allies.XavierGreen (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of American etc.

I don't see why the loyalists shouldn't be considered American. Nor do I understand why the use of the word separatist is so contentious. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole issue was discussed TO DEATH in Archive 6 and a consensus was reached on the use of the term "American" and the status of loyalists. The problem with "separatist" is that it is not a commonly used term by historians of the American Revolution. If you have examples of historians of the era who do use the term, then please share. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

criteria for listing commanders

Since User:Albrecht has been bold and edited the commander list down some, I'm wondering if there should be a discussion on the subject.

It seems to me that there are enough "independent" commanders that there should be lists of commanders separate from this article (a la World War I and World War II), assuming they should all be listed. This would remove list creep that occurs here. Alternatively, as Albrecht hints in one of his summaries, there ought to be reasonably well-defined criteria for inclusion in the list here—perhaps some balance of rank in the organization, number of troops commanded, and fame for other reasons. (For example, Albrecht removed Benedict Arnold from the American list, but left Arnold on the British list. Considering he held "independent" commands in the Continental Army, and is famous for holding one of them, it makes me wonder what Albrecht's criteria are.) Magic♪piano 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree (say like Allies of World War I, Allied leaders of World War II)

fwiw i might have edited Arnold the other way, notable command at Quebec, not really notable under the British, even in Virginia. and kept comte d'Estaing, but i take it the criteria is losers are not notable. Pohick2 (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Arnold No. 2 (and, to think of it, perhaps Lafayette) was an oversight. (Albrecht's boldness is unfortunately not always backed by consummate attention to detail.) I see no problem combining the "short list" approach with a link (and others...) to the page Commanders of the American Revolutionary War. Of course, my selection may be flawed, but that's a separate issue. Albrecht (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As a notorious "purist," I would abstain from expanding criteria beyond the intuitive areas of "rank in the organization, number of troops commanded," these being the most difficult to distort or abuse. And I would be very cautious indeed about putting too much stock in "fame for other reasons," lest a certain frigate captain return to mock and eclipse full admirals. (To say nothing of the agonizing POV Wars that inevitably follow: Fame according to whom?) Of course, I am aware of a certain interiorized, endemic concession to this last: Why else does George Washington invariably figure at the top of every list? There can be no "doctrinal" answer to these questions: At the First Battle of the Marne, I was confronted with an Allied supreme commander, Joffre, and six Allied field armies, one British and five French. In a perfect illustration of the limits of any system or rule, my habitual method shattered in its collision with this scenario: Whatever their actual seniority, each commander held the same de facto rank for the purposes of the operation; and whatever minute differences in the actual strength of the Allied armies, calculations based on numbers alone seemed a cynical and meaningless abstraction. Though the total force was overwhelmingly French, I did not wish to (perceptually) snub the British by listing Sir John French last. I resorted to the expediency of simply listing the commanders according to the geographical positions of their armies, west to east. I would not recommend this as a general rule ... Albrecht (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew that "fame for other reasons" was going to be contentious when I wrote it. :) How is this for an initial idea:

• this article lists only commanders-in-chief and top-ranking admirals
• Commanders of the American Revolutionary War lists all land commanders at Major General (and/or ranking commanders in various theaters, or ... pick your criteria) and higher (is that a too-long list?), and all Admirals known to have participated

I suspect there may be issues with even a simple scheme like this, but it simplifies what gets shown here (down to an already decent-sized list, considering the number of changes in some of those positions) and punts the problem to Talk:Commanders of the American Revolutionary War. Magic♪piano 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

btw, the article appears to be written: Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War Pohick2 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a good start, although it needs some criteria-based culling and maybe better organization. Magic♪piano 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

yes i would say make a list article for the unabridged list, and then add the essay about leadership, with culling of names to that article. Pohick2 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll just note that this is a perennial issue. I gave up a couple of years ago trying to limit the commanders in the box to just the independent commanders of army-sized units, but the struggle continues. Several more could obviously be trimmed from the still-bloated list. We did indeed used to have a link to "more commanders" in the infobox, linking to the military leadership article. You'll likely find a better version of the infobox in the history, back a few years.

Whether Joseph Brant, who commanded fewer men than a typical colonel, belongs in the box is debatable. Other Native leaders "commanded" (in the Indian sense) more men and had more influence among Natives, but few people have heard of those guys. Perhaps Brant, who became more important after the war, is a fitting Native representative for the infobox.

I see that someone has gone so far as to add the Watauga Association to the list of belligerents, which strikes me as funny. —Kevin Myers 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The question of "important", "influential", and "famous" leaders of Natives and Loyalists (like Brant and Tarleton, to name two well-known ones) was the first objection I thought of after proposing the above scheme. (I put those words in quotes because they are typically subjectively measured.) The question of where top German commanders (including the highest-ranking officers to serve from each principality that contributed troops) is also a good one.

Pushing the list out of this article (and being hard-nosed about expanding what is here) would probably help the stability of this article in that area.

According to Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War, the CinC's of USA and Britain were:

• George Washington
• King George III (overall CinC post vacant -- we could list Thomas Gage and William Howe as CinC's of North America)
• Jeffery Amherst (Army CinC 1778-1782)
• Henry Seymour Conway (Army CinC 1782-1783)
• John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich (First Lord of the Admiralty 1771-1783)

Who were equivalent figures in France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic? (Or should I just be bold and reduce the list now to that set, with a pointer to the full list?) Magic♪piano 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

People interested in pursuing this can continue the discussion at Talk:Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War. I've made a proposal for inclusion criteria on that list. Magic♪piano 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

German States

Why are the German States that were involved in the conflict removed from the info-box? They each played important roles in the conflict, signing treaties bringing them into the war, and in several battles were principle combatants. I thought that this issue had already been tackeled previously and that there was consesus that they be included? XavierGreen (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the last three archives, and didn't really see a consensus. Some discussion, but nothing that smacked of significant agreement.

The German principalities signed treaties with Britain to provide troops. They did not issue war declarations of their own, and the troops provided were required to swear an oath to King George.[1] While their citizens/subjects played an important role in the conflict, the belligerent status of the states themselves is debatable. (I'm somewhat indifferent on the subject of including them in the infobox, myself; they had nothing to declare war against at the time most of the agreements were signed, and declaring against the US after the DoI would have entailed an implicit recognition.) Magic♪piano 16:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The states signed treaties to be party to the conflict for the duration. You do not need to declare war to be a belligerant in one. The United States has fought many wars since 1945, yet has not declared war since then. The motivation of the participation in the conflict varied from state to state. Some were allied with Great Britain before the war even began, most were motivated by profit. The soldiers sent by the German states came from their national militaries and fought against the militaries of France, Spain, and the United States. I would say that would establish their participation as a belligerant in a conflict under international law.XavierGreen (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see valid arguments both ways on this one. There is the problem that these states did not declare war - but that was a fairly common occurence in the eighteenth century. Despite their sizable commitment of forces against France during the War of the Austrian Succession, the Dutch Republic remained neutral - yet we count them as one of the belligerents in the infobox. On the other hand I'm not sure I'd support listing every single one of the German states which hired out troops, because it would be disproportionate to their size and impact. It could open the door to including small units of troops from very small nationalities (ie. a unit of Corsican exiles fought with the British at Gibraltar, and there were Irish units whose alliegance was essentially to the Stuart Kings rather than the French in whose army they fought).

I'd probably advocate something like a single entry calling them German Auxileries - which would seem to cover them in a neutral format. The subject of German states in the war is currently covered in the article Hessian (soldiers), but I had considered splitting it into two articles one covering entirely the 1775-83 war, and one their wider use during the eighteenth century. If an article was created specifically about their involvement in this war, then that could be linked to. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the House of Stuart would technically still be the United Kindom, since they claimed to be the legitimate goverment of that country. Perhaps an entire article could be devoted to the make up of the alliances of the belligerants just as world war one and two have, that way we can include all of the combatants yet keep the infobox tiny.XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The other issue that would coincide with this one is that of the Native American tribes. These were not considered sovierign nations at the time and fielded less troops than many of the German states, yet they are included in the infobox as well. If the native americans are included should not the German states be included as well?XavierGreen (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Native Americans. Like the Germans I don't think it is really feasible to list them all out even if they only contributed a handful of troops. I think the idea of a seperate alliances article, where this stuff could be gone into in more detail, has a lot of merit.

With the Irish Jacobites that was kind of my point although its worth adding their loyalty wasn't to the United Kingdom (which wasn't set up until after 1800) or even to the Kingdom of Great Britain but to the seperate Kingdom of Ireland which since 1714 they recognised as being headed by the Stuarts rather than the House of Hanover and which they fought with the French to restore - but it would be confusing if that were added to French/US-led side in the infobox.

On the other side of he coin, I think there is an argument for putting Ireland as a seperate entry in the British-led column. The Irish Volunteers constituted a force which, although allied to the British cause, was in no way controlled by it. After the Constitution of 1782 the majority in the Irish Parliament appeared to regard themselves as a seperate country allied to Britain through the crown similar to the Dominion of Canada post 1867 and its armed forces as a seperate entity. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) One way to deal with smaller players deserving of recognition is to put them in separate "List of" articles: List of German principalities in the American Revolutionary War, List of Indian nations in the American Revolutionary War (although the PC police may have something to say about this name), and so on. Those articles can then be linked in the belligerent fields here. Alternatively, only list the major belligerents here (probably USA,UK,France,Spain), and push all the rest into separate articles (List of United States allies in the American Revolutionary War, List of British allies in the American Revolutionary War) linked by "...full list" in the infobox. Magic♪piano 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a mixture of those. I agree with the creation of the German list and the List of Native Americans, but along with the major players (GB, US, Dutch, Spanish, French) in the infobo I'd suggest a German Auxileries as well.

Perhaps the article describing the anti-British coalition should be called List of French allies in the American Revolutionary War or List of Franco-American allies in the American Revolutionary War because the common factor in the anti-British alliance was the French rather than the United States. The Spanish refused to acknowledge the US and their relations were so cold to the extent that the eventual recognition of American independence was probably better received in London than it was in Madrid. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support listing Indian Allies in each side as well as halving the List of Allies pages. However I think that at the very least. Hesse-Kassel should be listed in the infobox, as they provided more than half of the German troops in the Americas and was very important in the war, hannover might fall into a similar situation as well though i dont know how many troops they put into the gibralter theater exactly. I would then suggest listing the others as Minor German Auxiliaries or Other German Auxiliaries linking to a page titled German Auxiliaries in the Revolutionary War. Or i would support just listing a link to each of the alliance pages in the infobox and no countries at all.XavierGreen (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hanover contributed 3 regiments to Gibraltar, 2 to Minorca, and 2 to India. The latter I've only seen documented in this German source (which I have not read in detail yet); they probably served mainly in actions of the Second Anglo-Mysore War; the only conflict of this war they were in was the Siege of Cuddalore. Magic♪piano 21:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New Georgia Encyclopedia project is underway

The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge ten articles, which I have copied to project space; one of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Revolutionary War in Georgia.

Our goal is to get the NGE articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,000 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in accomplishing this. Please note that the original NGE article (linked in the required attribution section of the above article in project space) has images, but NGE is unable to convey those to us at this time, as they are individually licensed by NGE. Also, please note that the NGE would like for us to parallel, to the extent possible, their selection of internal links (where they link to an internal NGE article, they would like for us to also link to our equivalent Wikipedia article). Cheers! bd2412 T 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

For consistency on our end, it should probably be called Georgia in the American Revolution (or Georgia (U.S. state) in the American Revolution) -- there are already a few "<state> in the American Revolution" articles. I'll take a look at it. Magic♪piano 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine - we can make redirects from any potential alternate titles. bd2412 T 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace, now at Georgia during the American Revolution (to correspond with existing New Jersey during the American Revolution). bd2412 T 03:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

currently the lead says:

The war ... whereby the colonists rejected the legitimacy of the Parliament of Great Britain to govern them without representation, claiming that this violated the Rights of Englishmen. In 1775, revolutionaries gained control of each of the thirteen colonial governments, set up the Second Continental Congress, and formed a Continental Army. Petitions to the king to intervene with the parliament for them resulted in Congress being declared traitors and the states in rebellion the following year. The Americans responded in 1776 by ...

(my bolding) All the colonists? All Americans? I think that the first needs a quantity qualification and the second needs a type qualification. Without such qualifications it implies that all colonials were revolutionaries, when not all colonists supported the revolutionaries, and not all the British colonies in North America had revolutionary governments -- there were more than 13 British colonies in North America -- so why "each of the thirteen colonial governments" and not just "of thirteen colonial governments"? -- PBS (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree... if I recall correctly (and I have an article on it somewhere), colonial support for succession was roughly equal to opposition; but the largest part of the population had no firm committment one way or the other. I have an article on it from the Willam and Mary periodical. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does the USA have thoer pre 1777 flags, should the flag used the majority of the war be used?