Did George Washington use guerilla tactics against the British in the Rev War?

Question

I think I remember from school that the Americans had to resort to guerilla tactics against the much stronger, richer, and more technically advanced British. Why are we so angry now that modern day insurgents are resorting to the same tactics in lands we are occupying?

Answer 1

lol

I guess I am not the only one who finds irony in a country started by terrorists fighting a war on terrorism.

Yes, they would row over and plant explosives on British ships in harbors. They would tar and feather British government employees. The would take ships in ports and destroy there cargo the Boston tea party for example. Yes, our founding fathers were terrorists got to love the irony of it all.

Washington not so much though. He was British trained and fought a lot like them. he commanded the big showy armies that would go toe to toe with British troops in major battles. These where not really the troops that won the war. By won the war I mean made it painful and costly enough that Great Britain got bored with it and let us go.

Answer 2

Washington did not allow his troops to use guerrilla tactics against the British. His rival General Charles Lee, however, delighted in the use of the less than honorable tactics. The two men were often at odds with each other since the outset of the Rebellion. Lee, being the most experienced officer in the Continental Army, believed he should have been made Commander-in-Chief. We know how that turned out.

To answer your second question, the main reason is the change in technology. Today's "upstarts" have the ability to cause greater damage than during the 18th century. They also show complete disregard for the lives of children and women. The American Revolutionaries, while committing acts of terrorism against British interests in the colonies, never attacked children and women. They unleashed their terror campaign against British property and males who held allegiance to the throne. Insurgents today kill indiscriminately to further their cause.

Answer 3

This is partially a discussion in semantics. As has been introduced by some of the other responders, there are many excellent examples of irregular forces (see definition below) used in the American Revolution. So by definition it was guerilla warfare. It could also be called an insurgent movement by definition, but because they were paramilitary forces (militias) and not just an organized movement (part of the definition found under insurgency below) it is better defined as guerilla warfare.

The problem that most people have with the insurgency in Iraq is that many of them have resorted to terrorism (see definition below). While you may not readily see the difference, it lies in the selection of targets. Insurgents that use guerilla warfare aim at government entities, such as the military, police, and government officials. They specifically avoid hitting civilian targets, because the masses serve as their support and moral base. Insurgents that use terrorist tactics specifically target civilians, in an attempt to subdue resistance from the civilians.

The media uses the term insurgency quite freely; they don’t always associate what type of warfare they are conducting. So to ensure that everyone understands this concept: Within Iraq there are insurgents using guerilla and terrorist methods. It is those that resort to terrorism that truly irritate both Coalition and Iraq forces, governments, and populace.

War is never pretty, but it can be truly considered ugly when non-combatants become the focus of efforts. Almost every country can be accused of terrorist acts somewhere in its history, but those that are now considered world powers have through conventions, treaties, or international law agreed to forego the targeting of civilians. This might be looked at as a level of nation-state maturity. The offense then is that people, in these mature nation-states, can not comprehend why any human would choose to resort to those tactics. Possibly it is a lack of historical knowledge with regards to their nation, or most likely it is ignorance of the cultural, economical, and religious beliefs of their enemies.

One last view on this question: When you get into a fight you will get hit. The only question then is will you still be standing at the end melee. Both you and your opponent will assume victory is reachable. Only one of you is right.


Guerrilla warfare — (*) Military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held or hostile territory by irregular, predominantly indigenous forces.

Insurgency — (*) an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.

Irregular forces — armed individuals or groups who are not members of the regular armed forces, police, or other internal security forces.

Paramilitary forces — Forces or groups distinct from the regular armed forces of any country, but resembling them in organization, equipment, training, or mission.

Terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Answer 4

The 13 colonies were part of the British Empire, but they were pretty independent from the Empire and ran itself autonomously, except for the bureaucracy. So they decided to be their own country and it worked out very well..

Iraq was an independent state that ran itself very poorly. The leadership(Saddam Hussein) was ineffective to say the least. The U.S. troops went in to restore peace after Saddam fell and are trying to help the transition from chaos to order. The insurgents aren't helping that too much. Honestly I think the U.S. should pull out and let them do what they want.

Answer 5

We didn't exactly use guerilla tactics, by the standard of the time they were definately unconventional, however they would be considered more the tenets of modern warfare, instead of lining up in straight lines and vollying fire until the enemy is dead, we used ambush tactics and other such measures. The insurgents in iraq are using unconventional methods, but these methods are killing civilians and other targets that have no military value.

Answer 6

look up Roger's Rangers, the Green Mountain Boys of Vt.,and the Swamp Fox, Francis Marion. There were dozens of irregular groups fighting on both sides in the Revolutionary War. (really the first American Civil War.)
Dan.

Answer 7

Yes he certainly did,they werent to sure if they wouldnt to fight the British face to face(Britain was a superpower and the most feared fighting force on earth at that time)

Answer 8

Two usual responses:

1) in our country, it's ok if we do it but when others do it, THAT's WRONG. We are a nation of hypocrites, most of us are willing to admit it, many do not.

2) That was in the past, we aren't like that anymore. Sorry but, your past is a part of who you are.

Answer 9

BECAUSE ASSHOLE, THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM FROM IMPERIALISM, THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION!!! THESE ISLAMO-FASCISTS WILL NOT STOP UNTIL THE WHOLE WORLD IS AN ISLAMIC THEOCRACY AND FREE SPEECH AND FREE EXPRESSION IS TOTALLY ELIMINATED.

i'm so sick of people trying to make parallels between the good guys and the bad guys.

Answer 10

he did not he was trained buy the english and fought like them which is why his war record is 2 wins 4 losses