English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Also take into account the role of loyalists and foreign alliances

2007-02-05 03:53:42 · 8 answers · asked by tammy d 1 in Politics & Government Military

8 answers

It's certainly not terrorist actions, and anyone claiming that doesn't know the definition of terrorism. Many people will also claim France won the war for us, but that is incorrect.

The US military began by using covert and gorilla tactics. This kept them alive until such time as a regular army could be raised, but it was not the ultimate key to victory. Washington knew that without standing toe to toe with the Brittish army that the UK would not abandon the cause in the US. So he raised an army and got the assistance of a man pretending to be a French military officer to help him train in marching and firing commands.

The raids continued, even after the establishment of the regular army, and that did a good deal of damage to morale and welfare of the Brittish military (although the damage was superficial, it deprived the Lord Generals like Cornwalis of comforts they had grown too used to... one reason not to have fat, lazy, nobles for generals).

the other major contributor to the victory of the colonists was the use of the long rifle as opposed to the musket. Long rifles gave the colonists better range, and Washington eventually became good at picking battlefields where marshes and other terrain would hold brittish troops out of musket range, but within his long rifles' range. The long riflemen were generally lighter units, even militia, and would often retreat in favor of heavier musket units that Washington held back, making his forces effective at both long and short range.

Ultimately, washington was able to beat Lord Cornwallis back to a peninsula where he laid seige to the southern brittish army. There was no way for the Northern army (in new york) to make it down and rescue Cornwallis, and the seige had shown that the sum colonist forces were more than capable of fighting and defeating entire armies of Brittish troops. At this point, the war was over. What rushed England to the negotions, though, was the fact that, where they had been planning on being able to rescue Lord General Cornwallis' forces by sea, the French had finally showed up and blockaded the peninsula, whereby without firing a single shot in a battle they could claim victory for france... big suprise there (french rule of war # 2: In modern warfare, france can only win when America does the majority of the fighting).

2007-02-05 04:43:17 · answer #1 · answered by promethius9594 6 · 0 3

firstly the America did not use gurilla tatics, the first gurilla campaign (war) was the peninsula war which happened years after America gained its independence, it was this war where the word gurilla came from. America used irregular tatics whom Napoleon would have dealt with ven harsher than the British.
secondly America could not possibly have won its independence without the French, Spanish and Dutch military aid
thirdly Britain was fighting the war across the atlantic ocean, the Americans had some what of an advantage because as reenforcements took a long time to reach America.

2007-02-05 04:55:58 · answer #2 · answered by supremecritic 4 · 1 1

the biggest reason change into that there change into countless thousand miles from the position British troops were coming to the position the war change into. the second one maximum major element change into that the U. S. change into waiting to get eu allies (France, Spain and the Netherlands) who for the first and easily time contained in the 18th century managed to attain some type of parity with the Royal army; which made it a threat for them to receive close by naval supremacy at some factors. Thirdly, once different Europeans grew to change into in touch the British had different colonies that were some distance extra major in words of income like the west indies sugar island to guard. ultimately for the united kingdom the war change into militarily unwinnable, there change into no unmarried city or section that if captured ought to reason a give way contained in the revolt. the merely defense force option ought to were to have conquered each and every city village and hamlet contained in the american colonies, something way previous the means of the British state on the time. even with the actuality that the war change into unwinnable in words of defense force result if political compromise would have created a countless effect. there change into an major minority contained in the united kingdom that had an rather good volume of sympathy for the colonists from the starting up too.

2016-11-02 09:34:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You want an answer to your question, I am sorry, but history books after history books have been written about the
American Revolution, reasons, causes and effects. You want one answer, How (WHY) did we win?... George Washington!
The Atlantic Ocean, Taxation without Representation,
"I have one regret, that, I only have, one life, to give for my country"
Give us Liberty, or give us Death! The Colonies all had guns!
(originally to fight the Indians) and they all knew how to use them!
FREEDOM! A great movie about the war is "Patriot" with Mel Gibson! It presents a lot of the spirit of the country at that time, and the treatment of people by the English and German
troops! Do a Google search, and see what you get?

2007-02-05 04:42:11 · answer #4 · answered by Edward C 2 · 0 0

Main advantage was home turf. Food and Provisions were easily smuggled on home turf. In the same manner food and supplies were easily disturbed, stolen or destroyed that were for the opposing forces.
Attrition set in, the winter was tough but they home field advantage usually wins. Look at Britiania, was it ever really taken by any invader that it did not accept? no. Home turf is never taken easily. Especially if the defense is a just cause.

2007-02-05 04:06:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The British went to war in a traditional way with lines and advancing toward the enemy slowly we however used gorilla tactics and hit them where they least expected it

2007-02-05 04:04:07 · answer #6 · answered by L J 4 · 1 0

They used what would now be referred to as terrorist tactics. Thats how, and the brits didnt have Air support back then, and the french had to stick there nose into it.

Terrorism at its best. And they say it doesnt work. Pshh

2007-02-05 04:18:19 · answer #7 · answered by Sean 2 · 0 1

Colonists engaged in a lot of terrorist actions.

2007-02-05 04:05:41 · answer #8 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers