The Revolutionary War is only perceived as noble by the descendants of the colonists. In England it is looked at completely differently and not as flatteringly. One's view of a war and its outcome is dependent upon the perspective of the observer.
2006-12-09 02:28:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by booksofstars 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The British officers were combatants. They weren't killed because of their class but because they directed and lead troops in battle. They were the "head" of a military formation. If you cut off the head the body dies. So it was a good military strategy.
During the great terror after the French revolution many nobles and those associated with nobles were hauled before Kangaroo courts and convicted of imaginary crimes and beheaded. I'd say there is a huge difference between the two.
2006-12-09 04:53:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Personally, I do not consider any war "noble". Armed conflict is a sordid affair that can never be considered noble. That being said, the reasons for both the French and American revolution are "noble". In both cases, the respective nations wanted to aquire freedom. In the case of the Americans, it was from the British and in the case of the French it was from a fuedal system of government that denied its citizens their basic rights. However, the French revolution went out of control with the "reign of terror" and other revolutions and counter-revolutions. The gilloutining of anybody who dissents, to me at least, was a negation of the very rights that the French revolution tried to gain. In that sense, the French revolution is less noble.
2006-12-09 02:36:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by A Person 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably because the British broke the rules of war by torturing and murdering innocents.
In those days if a man chopped down a tree in the wrong spot he would be tortured at the officers command for stealing the Kings wood...The American army wasn't really an army yet they were people fighting for their existence...so I'm sure they remembered what the officers did to them and didn't care about rules of war.
2006-12-09 02:28:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by chefzilla65 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
1 - Who perceives that war as particularly noble?
2 - When was there ever a rule (unspoken or otherwise) that officers weren't supposed to be killed during battle?
3 - The only valid claim those officers had to their class and rank was their ability or the ability of their ancestors to lead troops into battle, and to die in battle is certainly a risk that goes along with that.
2006-12-09 02:30:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by mattzcoz 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Being that one and all the settlers in u.s. have been British electorate and financed and guarded by using British troops and British funds , while they desperate to overthrow the government of the day it became right into a revolution , No different words describe it that's what it became into dazzling or incorrect . And the British settlers had good reason to accomplish that being there became right into a lunatic on the British throne on the time . in the event that they have been taken care of correct with their very own representative government and taxes possibly the historic previous books might now be very distinctive
2016-10-18 00:39:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The waging of war involves killing. All warring people kill, and killing leaders is most efficient. When you say "noble" that depends on who's doing the telling.
Pearl Harbor was a "noble" act in Japan, and the use of poison gas in WW I was a "noble" act in Prussia.
2006-12-09 03:15:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by JIMBO 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
speaking form a US point of view,a nd simply put the rev war was the first revolution of its kind in history that questioned the divine right of kings to rule, it was the first event that put power in the hands of the people, no other nation had a govt like ours before hand, the am rev also led to the french rev, which was of course soemthieng of a debacle but also it led to the slave revolts int eh 1800s and the abolsihment of official slavery int eh world
2006-12-09 06:38:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by cav 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why do you inject personal morality into the realm of civil or international war? It never works out that way.
2006-12-09 07:40:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋