Jump to content

Talk:France in the American Revolutionary War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjensen (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 30 January 2015 (It does not help, and it does not fit the Wikipedia guideline of "significant"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

Translation

This article is a translation of the intro from fr:La France dans la guerre d'indépendance américaine. I did a first run, cleanup as needed. - AKeen 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ^0^y Yug 12:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Good heavens, talk about crappy neutrality.

... What means Crappy ? I'm not a native english speaker. Yug 10:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
crappy = merdique, nul  :-)

I did all I can for the translation. However, I am warning you guys now that I am relatively new with French :\ -- 24630 4:15 pm, 3 July 2006

Proposal for deletion , and apology

Britain as official US trade partner? So far as I am aware, the United States does not and has never had "official trade partners." and I am an American. This article is inadequate, and I propose it be deleted. France's participation in the American Revolutionary War was vastly signifigant, but this article doesn't cut it, sorry. --V. Joe 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted section on official trade evidence. Please notify me on my talk page if you restore it. --V. Joe 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apology
I was hasty in my call for deletions and I remove that request. What you've got so far is a fundamental improvement. Keep up the good work.--V. Joe 07:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traduttore, tradittore ... (or why this article needs a total copyedit)

My first reaction to this article was that it was horribly vandalised. Then I saw it was translated from the french wikipedia article. Although it has been improved since then, it still needs some editing. I'll be coming here from time to time, but others are welcome to dig in too (:... --Victor falk 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Fayette gains...notoriety?

Under French involvement, paragraph 2.

"The war was benefiting from popular support, La Fayette was gaining notoriety, and the avenging spirit was ready to express itself."

Totally doesn't make sense. Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge French debt

The impact of the war to French finances appears to be overstated in the current article. Robert D. Harris has re-assessed Necker's record on this, and he contradicts Calonne and the historian Marion in an article from 1976. French Finances and the American War, 1777-1783 The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 48, No 2 (June, 1976), pp. 233-258, The University of Chicago Press.

Harris argues that the deficit claimed by Calonne was fictitious, that Necker appears to have been putting the royal finances in order, and that the fiscal causes of the French Revolution should be reexamined. (Calonne did not economize upon taking office in around 1784, and he alleged that Necker had hidden a deficit.)

Harris arrives at 520M livres raised by loans by Necker from 1777 to his resignation in 1781, $252M by Fleury from May 1781 through 1782, totalling 772M livres.

Extraordinary expenditures for the same years: 1777-82 = 682M (plus 225M in promissory notes). Add to that 9M subsidies and 18M loans without payments until after the war, and finally the deficits of 1777 and 1778: 20.5M and 5.5M, respectively. (Lowering due to Necker's administrative reforms. In his loan edict of 1778, Necker claimed to have balanced ordinary revenues and expenditures.) The sum of extraordinary expenditures, per Harris, 1777-82, comes to 735M livres, only 37M less than the total extraordinary income received from loans.

Harris:

If these calculations are anywhere near correct, it can be seen that an ordinary deficit during the war years on a scale alleged by Calonne would have been quite impossible. The money raised by loans was practically all taken up to meet war expenditures. If there had been ordinary deficits, they would have had to be made up out of extraordinary income or loans. Obviously there was little or nothing left over to make up such deficits.

I propose wording that does not indicate the American War ruined France's finances.

Nelsthompson (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


France had a debt of 3,000 billion?

French troops had to be transported over great distances, which cost about 1 billion livres tournois, and further added to France's debt of a little less than 3,315 billion.

Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.O !!!! Not 3000 , but three billions and three hundred fifteen millions. That's a French to English translation mistake (fr: 3,315 billion = 3 billions 315 millions ) ! thanks for your notification.
Yug, former autor of the French article. 07:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Restore old Introduction

Extended content

The warfare between Britain and France that began in 1754 with skirmishes in North America has several different names. In America it is known as the French and Indian War (1754-1763). In Europe it is called the Seven Years’ War because the fighting there lasted from 1756 to 1763. The war in North America was fought mostly throughout the Northern colonies, and in the end Great Britain defeated France. During the peace negotiations, Britain acquired French holdings in Canada and Florida from France’s ally, Spain. However, Britain also accumulated a large debt over the course of the war. To help pay off the debt, Britain turned to the colonies to generate revenue.

The war changed the relationship between Great Britain and the colonies. Prior to the war, Great Britain had practiced a policy of salutary neglect, not insisting on strict enforcement of laws, such as the Molasses Act, which in 1733 imposed a tax on molasses, because trade with the American colonies was making Britain very wealthy and powerful. During this period, the colonists developed a nearly independent political and economic system.

After the war, however, British leaders reevaluated their relationship with the colonies, ending the policy of salutary neglect and proposing reforms and new taxes. This reevaluation was caused by conflicts between Great Britain and the colonies during the war, such as the colonial assemblies’ insistence on controlling the militia units raised to fight the French, the increased colonial independence, and colonial smuggling of French goods into the country during the war. In addition, the war had left Great Britain deeply in debt. British leaders viewed American prosperity as a resource and taxing the colonies as a means to relieve British debt. Conflicts arose as Great Britain attempted to reassert its power over the colonies; they viewed Great Britain’s attempts to tax them as interference into internal matters. The colonies believed that Great Britain had jurisdiction only over external issues.

Hide is the introduction as write by user:74.170.56.51, he destroyed the article 3 times, and then put a bad introduction which was not reverted.
So, I corrected (see the change)
Based on the last good introduction available : 30 january 2008, by Valentinejoesmith (Valentinejoesmith)
Yug 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Haley

Who is Haley and what purpose does that giant biased paragraph serve? The second one to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.97.250 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haley don't display any famous historian of French or american history. Also, just "Haley" (without name) virtually means "every Haley on the earth" -> I deleted "Haley argue", and replace it by "Some argue". 220.135.4.212 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Reaction to French Involement

The reaction in the colonies to the French entry into the war was not an overwhelmingly positive one, as it left a number of American officers unhappy. Notable amongst them was Benedict Arnold who up to this point had been one of the most fervent supporters of American independence, and the outstanding hero of the cause for his services in Canada and at Saratoga, was apalled by the alliance with France. The reason for this mainly stemmed from his early experiences fighting against the French in the Seven Years War where he saw the French and their Native American Allies commit a number of atrocities.

Combined with this was also a disgust for the French absolute monarchy, which was far less democratic than the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom. To some this new alliance also seemed to combine with a growing elitism within the Continental Army, as demonstrated by the appointment of untried European aritstocrats such as Lafrayette over more expereinced American officers.

Overall many considered the new alliance a betrayal of the radical foundations on which the new Republic had been established. In Arnold's case this played, along with many other factors, a large part in his descision to defect to the British. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a source. Codik (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too have some questions about the present version of this. I looked for a usable source and came up empty-handed. Perhaps we would be better off not commenting on "American Reaction to French Involvement." --Coleacanth (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the following line from the lead: Recognition of France's participation in the Revolution was mainly manifested in the United States' appreciation of French military heroes like the Comte de Rochambeau and the Marquis de Lafayette. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment seems to be purely subjective more than anything else.

First off, ennemies of my ennemy are my allies. WW2: USA and UK allied with Staline against Hitler. Allying with such high caliber scum as Staline isnt a "betrayal of the radical foundations on which the new Republic " in your mind?

Second. The so democratic monarchy of UK was imposing unfair taxes, hostile acts and chauvinistic laws to protect UK citizens at expense of continentals, all this in the same time refusing any legal representation of continentals. That's for the democratic part.

Third. "Atrocities" Well atrocities had been committed on both parts and atrocities had been commited on american soil and on american people by british. And Georges washington himself had been defeated by french in that french and indian war, didn't look to be so hateful towards France some years later as you seem to pretend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a present day bias?

Is it me or is this is usual alternating the reality of the french support? "A naval and distant support". I don't think all the money, advisors, ground troops, resources, aside from their navy to combat the most fierce navy in teh world could be considered distant support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.4.140 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC) this is all wrong dont leason to them :) thankss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.101.215 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first link in the English Bibliography does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.60.249 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-American_alliance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.73.116 (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need to. They are seperate, distinct subjects. French involvement in the war began before the alliance, with public opinion, covert assistance to the rebels (etc.). Even after 1778 France's involvement in the war wasn't confined to its alliance with the US. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

There are no footnote links in the text but only a list of sources at the end. I think someone fix this soon. Thank you. Risssa (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many troops did France send?

From the article: "About 3,000 French joined with 2,000 Americans in the Siege of Savannah, in which a naval bombardment was unsuccessful. An attempted assault of the entrenched British position was repulsed with heavy losses.

"Support became more notable when, in 1780, 6,000 soldiers led by Rochambeau landed at Newport...."

Does this mean the French sent a total 9,000 soldiers? Thank you. Risssa (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that France's contribution was not limited to the American theatre. France fought in Europe, East Indies, in the Carribean and on the high seas. Blaue Max (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did France send a total of 9,000 soldiers to the US? Rissa, copy editor (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

or American War of Independence

Why did you revert the addition of "(or American War of Independence)" as it is the common name for the war in Britain? -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an article on France and the United States, where that is not the most common terminology. Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Frances involvement in the war, the war was between some British American colonies and the Britain, I point you to the MOS:LEADALT "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." The American War of Independence is a significant alternative name and so should be included in the lead. Do you have a policy or guideline reason for excluding the significant alternative name? -- PBS (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read the rule more closely. It talks about the title of this article. The current title is "France in the American Revolutionary War". There are a mere 10 Google hits for "France+in+the+American+War+of+Independence"&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C27&as_sdtp= "France in the American war for Independence" And apparently none of them are titles. My point is you have not found a "Significant alternative name" for The current title "France in the American Revolutionary War". Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is a descriptive one (and a subsidiary title) of which part of the description is the name of the war. If you run the same Google test that you did above how many Google hits to you get for the current descriptive title? -- PBS (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjensen If you run the same Google test that you did above how many Google hits to you get for the current descriptive title? -- PBS (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find about 110 scholarly sites for "France and the American Revolution" and "France in the American Revolution". Also many cites at [France "the American Revolutionary war"] These including scholarly books, articles and chapters with titles like "The war at sea: France and the American Revolution"; Dull, " France and the American Revolution seen as tragedy"; Sheldon, France and the American Revolution 1763-1778; List of works relating to the French Alliance in the American Revolution; "Recent Books On France And The American-Revolution-An Essay-Review"; The American Revolution and the French Alliance; Lafayette and the Close of the American Revolution; The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution; etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the "American Revolution" revolution but about the "American Revolutionary War" so we can discount all the searches such as "France and the American Revolution" and "France in the American Revolution". When you substitute in "American War of Independence" for "American Revolutionary war" what is the %age difference between them? Doing the search that you do:
If instead of using scholar and use google books: and do a similar search
  • [France "American Revolutionary War"] returns About 24,300 none of the first 10 include French or France in the title.
  • [France "American War of Independence"] returns About 52,200 results and in the first 10 volumes The French Army in the American War of Independence (1992) and French Engineers and the American War of Independence (1995)
As you acknowledge this is a descriptive name and as the results show both names for the war are used why should the MOS guidance not be followed and both names for the war be included in the lead? -- PBS (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very heavily about the relationship between France and the United States, but PBS Wants to use terminology that is primarily British, when Britain had very little to do with this particular relationship in terms of diplomacy, finance, public opinion and so on. In other words, the articles really about "France And the American Revolutionary war", And it says very little about "France, Britain, and the American Revolutionary war". Rjensen (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have given neither a source based reason or a MOS guideline based reason for excluding the other common name for the war from the first sentence. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think PBS is motivated primarily by pro-British POV that is in no way called for. The article deals with France and the United States. We are talking about TITLES: there are only three books that match the pattern intitle:french intitle:"American War of Independence"; they are dated 1921, 1975 and 1992. With only ONE usage in the last 40 years this is not a significant alternative title. Rjensen (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjensen. (1) This is a descriptive title it is not based on common name. (2) Why is it that when you run one test you do not compare it with the other? Using the same search but substituting "American Revolutionary War" in place of "American War of Independence" returns five titles, three of which are based on Wikipedia content. -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add the alternative title, you must demonstrate that it is a "significant" title. There has been only ONE use of that alternative title in the last 40 years. I do not think that is significant, and I think the reason you wanted is to upgrade the visibility of Britain where does not belong. Not a single readers going to be inconvenienced in the least or misled at all by the current title. Thus it does not help anyone, and it does not fit the guidelines. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 January 2015

France in the American Revolutionary War → Anglo-French War (1778–83) – I doubt this will pass based on the American WP:POV and WP:BIAS, but it would be easier to start from this article and expand than start a brand new one. The concurrent British-French warfare in Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, Central America and the French and British colonial possessions around the world had little to none to do with the American Independence. It seems incredible that conflicts in India between European powers should be considered part of it. I propose to rename it into a WP:NPOV title. Uspzor (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaue Max and Calidum what is your evidence to back up your claim? -- PBS (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits? Blaue Max (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a link to the hits that you think show that there is a common name because this seems to be a descriptive title, and as such it defines the scope of the article, rather than this being a common name, which would be a different reason for the current title -- PBS (talk)
  • Oppose. No, we should not change the scope of this article to make it a completely different article because it would be easier to start from this article and expand. If you want an article on the Anglo-French War, by all means, write one. A new one. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't said that I wish to change the scope of this article, I said that this article name is a truly wikipedian creation. Every google link is referring to this page, and google books and scholar don't return any result that isn't Wikipedia itself. I don't know how someone can say this is the WP:COMMONNAME.Uspzor (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Order, isn't that a musical group?

>....even a hero for aspirations for a new order inside France.

"New order" needs to be explained and linked. Readers new to this subject, for whom the term "new order" has no historical significance, won't understand what this means. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1778?

>In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), French troops fought alongside US soldiers against Britain in 1778.

Shouldn't this be "....against Britain from 1780-1782" or 1780-1883"? Rissa, copy editor (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War&oldid=644910392"