Why did Britain lose the war over America's independence???

Galteeth

As far as motivation, one must also understand the British mercantilist system. Colonies existed for the benefit of the motherland. The wealthy colonists saw themselves as Britons (with perhaps a slighty exagerrated sense of how free that was suppossed to make them) and were worried about having their role relegated to those of colonial subjects, similar to what happened to the Irish. America being founded by discontents (people who for one reason or another will willing to leave the realtive civilization of England and Europe for the dangerous wilderness of America), there was a certain cultural character in play here as well.

As far as the actual war, it's not so much that the americans won, as they outlasted the British. No one doubts that the American army could have crushed the vietcong, but there were limits in play (respect for human life, limits to the number of troops that could be mobilized without impossible civil discontent, as well as not drawing the soviets into the conflict directly). The significance of the entrance of France into the war an anot be understated. Imagine if the Soviets declared war on America over Vietnam. You can bet that the vietnamese conflict would soon be an afterthought. Faced with an existential threat, holding on to the American colonies just wasn't worth the time, money, and troops.

russ_watters

Though the thread is mostly just chitchat now, there is a third reason you missed: The British were fighting a war several thousand miles from home, which mean their troops in the US had to be almost completely self-sufficient. That helped neutralize their advantage of being a large country with a powerful military.

arildno

That is certainly an important factor.
Coupled to Astronuc's mention of over-extension of the Empire, and my own mention that the British Crown's near bankruptcy as a result of the Seven Years' war, this indicates that the resources the Crown had available was rather limited.
Not the least when held up against a militia-trained populace that had reached a level of affluence&self-confidence who thought it the most natural thing in the world should be self-government, in particular with regard to taxation.

mheslep

Ssshhhh. The secret plan is to get claim on the North Sea oil as Norwegian citizens, then renege.

turbo

Why would anybody want Newfoundland? The cod stocks are severely depleted, and their stunted "timber" is suitable only for turning into toothpicks. What's left? You can't make much of a living selling funny accents.

Astronuc

And besides, the British spell funny.

Studiot

Don't you guys spell phoney the same way as us then?

turbo

A. A. Milne was English, and he followed the English tradition of using "u"s as frequently as possible. Hunny? Please!

brainstorm

Doesn't anyone think that ideology played a role. If loyalism among the colonists had remained dominant or even sufficiently strong, I would think it would have been possible to repress rebellion just by ridiculing anyone foolhardy enough to suggest such a thing. Maybe media and hegemonic techniques have advanced a great deal since the 18th century, but can you imagine being able to successfully instigate a rebellion against the US, British, or other hegemonically well-situated modern government?

On the other hand, maybe you could say that the political philosophies of nationalism, republicanism, etc. that were popularized in the 18th century WERE the ideological fuel for garnering sufficient interest in rebelling for colonial independence. If pro-imperial ideology had been developed more strongly than republicanism, couldn't the colonists just have been motivated to remain in solidarity with the British empire in the interest of imperial solidarity and prosperity through unity?

mgb_phys

And where everything had to be carried over the north atlantic in wooden ships.
Which is why this little beastie should be America's national animal



In 1776 many ships only made the crossing once before being ruined, although it prompted the use of copper bottoms.

russ_watters

As former military, I tend not to focus much on ideology except when it plays a big part in the tactics of the soldiers (see: Japan in WWII). But certainly popular support for any war will play a part in whether a war is even fought or how much effort is put into it.

brainstorm

True, the force that leads to abdication by one side or another is not determined by which soldiers believe most strongly in their cause but by which fight most effectively, right?

But, I'm still interested in what motivates soldiers to pick one side over the other, especially in civil wars or insurgent revolutions. I'm also interested in how an ideology can be used to promote warfare and then modified to achieve the same goals of the losing enemy by political means after the fact.

It sounds like conspiracy theory, but once a war is fought to establish dominance of a particular ideology, that ideology can be appropriated more easily to serve almost any political goal because it has become little more than a rallying cry for team-spirit. This is why I think it is possible to use the ideologies of democracy and republic to garner support for a commander-in-chief and strong central command.

I wonder to what extent the ideologies of independence and freedom were utilized to promote economic agreements benefiting GB through colonial industrial exploitation. Once the colonists were free to regulate their own political-economy, did they not pursue trade with Europe out of capitalist self-interest? This seems to be the same pattern that occurs when slavery is abolished in favor of a wage-labor system where workers voluntarily serve whoever will pay them to. Similarly, look how popular anti-colonialism became in the period following WWII with the effect of creating many small post-industrial economies with substantial prosperity as the result of imports.

Sorry to throw so many broad examples together in one post. I'm just pointing out how the instigation of war can be part of a larger ideological progression that can eventually achieve economic domination regardless of which side wins the war militarily.

You fight communism only to get a political economic system where central planning drives a military-industrial complex and other economic institutions that ensure economic dependence on central government. And of course the defense (and other government-driven industries) are devoted to the goal of preserving freedom and preventing communism, while simultaneously creating an economy of trickle-down government spending.

russ_watters

Yes, and in WWII, ideology often worked against the Japanese. They fought to the last man in cases where a staged withdrawal would have both inflicted more casualties on the US and enabled the retreating troops to survive and fight again. Interesting and complicated question. In the Civil War, probably hundreds of thousands of people died largely because the best general of the war (Lee) decided based on loyalty to his home state. I haven't heard anything to suggest he felt an actual ideological connection to the South beyond that. Not quite sure what you're getting at with that, but it doesn't strike me as conspiracy theory either. The idea that the conquering entity would harness the pre-existing ideology to help pacify the locals seems reasonable. Can't think of any examples of that, though.
Not sure about all that...I'll think about it some more.

lisab

Any idea where the timber came from? Or what species were used?

mgb_phys

The victory was built in 1760 and used 6000 trees, 90% of which were oak and the remainder elm, pine and fir (presumably for masts and spars?)

Galteeth

He was a supporter of slavery, although not an initial supporter of succession.

arildno

At this time, Norway was a great exporter of timber. So was Sweden and Finland.