Talk:American Revolutionary War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

More information...


	This article has failed an A-Class review.
	This article was the project's Collaboration of the Fortnight (3 April 2006–16 April 2006).

Related task forces...


	British military history task force
	Dutch military history task force
	French military history task force
	United States military history task force

American Revolutionary War has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.

	To-do list for American Revolutionary War:	edit - history - watch - refresh
Related articles needing attention: Expand Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War Create Spain in the American Revolutionary War Create The Netherlands in the American Revolutionary War -- or maybe that's the same as the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, which needs a lot of work. Develop the articles on the various campaigns listed below. Create Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, which should cover a lot of things: Franco-American relations, Franco-Spanish relations, Staten Island Peace Conference, Carlisle Peace Commission, League of Armed Neutrality, Native American diplomacy, etc. There is a ton of essential information which is nowhere on Wikipedia.

To-do list for American Revolutionary War:

edit - history - watch - refresh

Northern theater after Saratoga, 1778–1781
Rhode Island – Wyoming Valley – Carleton's Raid – Cherry Valley – Stony Point – Penobscot expedition – Sullivan expedition – Newtown – Springfield – Groton Heights

[edit] German Mercenaries/Loyalists as Combatants?

The classification of German Mercenaries/Loaylists as combatants is strange, as it implies that they were a party of war in their own right (which was obviously not the case). Actually all dicisions were made by Great Britain. Mercenaries and Loyalists were integrated into the military organisation of the Royal Army. The above classification contradicts the Wiki style used for other war, too. E.g. the wars of Emperor Charles V were fought by mercenaries from different counties. But the info boxes state only H.R.E/Spain as combatants and not e.g. H.R.R/Spain/Swiss Mercenaries/Italian Merceneries etc.

This is true. The Warbox typically lists only political entities. Fixing now. Albrecht 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an error, actually. The warbox guidelines currently say this about the combatants entry: "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding." To list the 13 Colonies as allies of the Britain, and yet ignore 30,000 Germans and 13,000 American Indians who fought for the Brits, hardly helps readers to understand the combatants at a glance. Better to ignore the Eurocentric political bias (i.e. the concept of states) and instead list who actually fought in the war, as this warbox has always done. • Kevin (complaints?) 01:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The War in America versus the wider war

I note that the current "to do list" proposes reducing the "War at Sea" section in favour of a short summary paragraphs without headings. The section is poorly constructed, but reducing it will relegate the primary war efforts of the most powerful participants (Britain and France) after 1778 to an even lower status than they currently have in the article. I raises the issue of what the war was about (and, hence, what this article is about).

For the Americans, the war was a clear cut revolution and struggle for Independence (with most in favour and some against)
For the British, the war was initially a struggle to retain (or regain) the Americans' loyalty. But from 1778 it became a far more complex war with France and later Spain and the Netherlands. The war with France and Spain soon dominated British concerns, with a significant reduction of effort in America (where arguably the struggle had already been lost after Saratoga).
Similarly, for France, Spain and the Netherlands, the war in America was something of a side show. France and Spain were principally seeking revenge for their defeat in the Seven Years War, and their strategy focused on taking British possessions in Europe (Minorca, Gibraltar etc.), the West Indies (Dominica, Grenada, Tobago, Jamaica etc.) and the East Indies. While French support for the United States was of great importance, it was not the primary aim of the French war effort.

In short, if the "War at Sea", or perhaps "the wider war", is not worthy of significant mention in this article on the "American Revolutionary War", perhaps the wider war does deserve an article of its own under "American War of Independence". (For comparison, see the way the French and Indian War has evolved as a separate article to the Seven Years War. JimmyTheOne 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The "wider war" article you're talking about already exists as Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War. That article is still a bit rough, being based mostly on the turgid prose of the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica. But much could be done there, including perhaps a name change, though not to "American War of Independence", since that's a recipe for confusion with this article. (Something like "Naval War of American Independence"?) When revised, this article and that one would be complementary: this one primarily about the land war in North America (with reference to the wider naval war that eventually emerged), and vice versa. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Here is the place to describe the global war in all its bearings: the American Revolutionary War. An article should not favour one POV over others just because one side has a bigger sentimental attachment. Concerns of purely American character should be expanded upon in American Revolution or other appropriate articles. The description of military operations should give equal weight to all belligerents regardless of geography. The attempt to consolidate a U.S. monopoly over this article and to lump everything else under "Naval operations," I find, is misguided and wrong. Albrecht 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As so often happens on Wikipedia talk pages (where comments on a previous version of an article remain long after the article itself has changed), you're beating a dead horse: the article no longer lumps everything outside North America under "naval operations". The article is now structured chronologically by major campaigns, rather than land here and naval elsewhere.

Ironically, the previous arrangement (one article on the land war in America and another on the wider naval war) which you call an "attempt to consolidate a U.S. monopoly over this article" was actually British in origin: it was copied directly from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The original 1911 text slowly disappeared from this article, though much still remains in the "naval operations" article, which was essentially the story of the Royal Navy in the war.

There is still much work to be done on campaigns outside North America, to be sure. Two notable examples: the Great Siege of Gibraltar and the San Juan expedition, two major operations involving British, Spanish, and French (but not American) troops, had almost no mention on Wikipedia until I added them very recently. I assume that their lack of coverage on Wikipedia was due to editor disinterest rather than a conspiracy to exert a "U.S. monopoly" over coverage of the war, but your mileage may vary. As John Shy noted in his introduction to Piers Mackesy's classic British study of the war, British historians and readers have traditionally been relatively uninterested in this war, which may explain the sorry state of articles like the Second Anglo-Mysore War and the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War. No one is likely to blame the condition of those articles on American sentimentality for the Revolution, but anything is possible. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So sorry; I blundered in here while making the rounds at WPMILHIST. I stand by what I said above, as a general principle, but I guess that doesn't really matter now. Cheers to all. Albrecht 03:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wealth of Nations

It may be worth weaving in The Wealth of Nations into the "War's end" as the fall from favour of mercantilism meant that those the theoretical underpinnings for holding an empire were weakened. -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Such an issue would be better addressed in the main article American Revolution; this article is about guys shooting at each other. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War

I've just noticed that the introductory section somewhat tentatively credits Richard Holmes (military historian) with the idea of the Revolutionary War as a civil war within British North America. In my experience, this is the normal and uncontroversial way of viewing the conflict in English Canada. Just my 2¢, Quartier Latin1968 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Just another routine case of bad writing creeping into the article. Same story, different day... --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 05:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I must have been having a bad day when I wrote that. I blame the government. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this explanation ought to be inserted into the introduction, rather like a health warning:-

"The War of Independence is often a misunderstood conflict. It has been mythologised as a rebellion of the American colonists against the British, but it was more in the nature of a civil war. Most of the participants initially thought of themselves as Brtish in some sense, identifying themselves with one of the two factions in the British parliament. The rebels incorporated the union jack in the first version of their flag, and referred to the colonial loyalists as 'Tories'. Many loyalists enlisted in scratch British units (some of them serving under the infamous Banastre Tarleton). In turn, there are many instances of loyalist civilians being 'tarred and feathered' or driven from their homes and busineses in a form of 'political cleansing'. In Britain, the governing elite were split down the middle. Some British officers resigned their commissions rather than fight the rebels. The war was so unpopular that the government resorted to employing Hessian mercenaries."

--Train guard 11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The perception of the conflict as a civil war amongst the British played a major role in the collapse of popular support inside parliament itself. The conclusion of the artical presents the British position as one of solid unity, whereas in realitiy it was the collapse of popular support in parliament for the conflict that led to the war ending. The over-empahsis on the military reasons for the British faliure can easily be balanced out with a few lines mentioning the divisions within parliament, the lack of support amongst parliamentarians for attacking their own colonists, and the wavering and collapse of support as the conflict dragged on with no resolution. --Korona 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Revolutionary War Campaigns

Could someone familar with this topic and article figure out how American Revolutionary War Campaigns could be worked in/linked to? -Ravedave 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That article, a copy-and-paste from elsewhere, is about U.S. Army campaign streamers that date from the war (like here). It needs a lot of cleanup, needless to say. There's no need to link it in this article, since that's what categories do for us. Plus, it just repeats info already here, and not as well. It should be massively rewritten into something called United States Army campaign streamers or United States Army named campaigns, and linked in the United States Army and Continental Army articles. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phrasing in the Introduction

Should the wording really be "...was a war that erupted..."? I'm not an expert, but the actions of both the Continental Congress and George III don't appear to warrant using the word "erupt". -Fsotrain09 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, ok, but what would you have? "Came to pass"? "Happened"? I'm having trouble finding a verb that seems to do what you want it to. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "was fought"? Mainly, I think the verb should be less abrupt. -Fsotrain09 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It came to me finally-- "was a war between..." Keep it simple. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Title of This Article

A search of Wikipedia for the phrase War of Independence brings up titles referring to the Wars of Independence of at least sixteen countries. The term Revolutionary War is applied to just one country. I doubt the United States' war was much different in principle to the many others. In referring to it as Revolutionary are we not just clinging to the patriotic mythology of which we Americans are so fond; which we learned at school instead of history and which we get bombarded with by Hollywood?

I have read the archived discussion concerning changing the title and the arguments against it have a strong flavor of nationalistic bluster: "We won the war so we get to choose the title."

I think objectivity should take precedence over nationalism. Kjb 02:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia articles are named. We don't decide what the correct proper name for something ought to be; rather, according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict, "The most common use of a name [in English] takes precedence." The most common name for this war seems to be "American Revolutionary War". For example, a "GoogleDuel" of the various common names gives these numbers of hits:

American Revolutionary War (697,000 hits)

American War of Independence (363,000)

War of American Independence (50,400)

War of the American Revolution (19,100)

Personally, I prefer the last title, but obviously that's out. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I suspect that your Google search reflects only that most references on the Web to the War are written by Americans. In Wikipedia, the Spanish, French and German language articles on the first British-American War are titled, respectively, Guerra de la Independencia de los Estados Unidos, Indépendance américaine, guerre de l, and Amerikanischer Unabhängigkeitskrieg, each of which translates directly to American War of Independence. The situation appears to be that everyone outside of The United States refers to the war as a War of Independence. Even within the United States, the American War is uniquely named; every other country's war for sovereignty is called a War of Independence. In summary, everyone refers to this kind of war in general as a War of Independence. Everyone, except those in the United States, refers to this particular war as a War of Independence. The passion with which we Americans cling to our name for it suggests, to me, jingoism, which is out of place in Wikipedia. Kjb 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--I have just been reading through the Talk page on the Seepoy Mutiny (aka First Indian War of Independance - depending on your POV). Their consensus has been to name the article Indian Rebellion of 1847 - which is not it's commonly used name anywhere, as far as I know, in order to stop the article taking on a viewpoint that is either NPOV or inaccurate. (The war was both a mutiny AND a (although not national) war of independance.) --I would suggest that this is a suitable 'example of good practice' as it were to justify the current naming of this article. The existing Revolutionary War is based upon only fact and inspires no prejudgement about the justness of the cause of the rebellion. In common useage a War Of Independance is most often seen as being a struggle against unjust opressors and the American Revolt is just as bad in the other direction. Leave the current title as is, I would suggest.--88.96.3.206 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're doing Google counts, then "American Revolution" is by far the highest, 17 million versus 670,000 for American Revolutionary War. American Revolution is even higher than just Revolutionary War [1]. I think the title is fine as is, but American Revolution would also be fine. --Awiseman 07:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Onion article

The Onion has an article spoofing this page. We should probably watch out for vandals. --199.89.64.177 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Little did such founding fathers as George Washington, George Jefferson, and ***ERIC IS A FAG*** know that their small, querulous republic would later become the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, the Unified States Of America." Priceless... 72.130.177.246 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Mercenaries

The Hessians, who are in this article referred to as German Mercenaries, were in fact soldiers not unlike those of any other European army in the 18th century. While some volunteered, most were peasants, petty criminals, and unfortunate travelers who were forced into the armies of several German princes by recruiters desperate to meet their quota. The princes, in turn, offered these armies to foreign powers for exorbitant amounts of money. This is in stark contrast to the modern-day idea of a mercenary as an individual who, of their own free will, offers their dubious services in exchange for personal profit. Thus, it would be much more accurate that Hessians in this article should be referred to as Germen auxiliaries, and not as mercenaries.

We use the terms used by the published scholarly works. Boatner's Encylcopedia of the American Revolution, Cowley & Parker's Reader's Companion to Military History, Mackesy's War for America all use the term "German mercenaries", to name just the first 3 books I pulled off the shelf. The only source I know of off-hand which slightly questions this traditional label is Fischer's Washington's Crossing, where he says the Hessians "were not mercenaries in the usual sense" (p. 59). Note he doesn't say they weren't mercenaries, just not in the "usual sense", and for different reasons than what you cite. (Hackett argues that the Hessians "believed in service to their prince", i.e. they were still patriots, even though serving in a war that was not their own.) Because the army was rented as a whole, the Hessians were mercenaries collectively rather than individually, which is why the term mercenary is usually applied to them as a group. If you know of any source which challenges this traditional label, we can discuss it here, but otherwise we use the terms the scholars use.

Likewise, recently someone changed "German" to "Germanic" since they said "Germany didn't exist at the time", but not only have they confused the creation of a nation-state with the age-old geographic expression, they are going against standard scholarly usage. As always, sources are needed if one wants to challenge conventional terminology. --Kevin (complaints?) 18:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

By the definition of the Wikipedia article on mercenaries the 'Hessians' were indeed not mercenaries and calling them such is in some ways offensive. Lending out armies to other sovereigns was not rare throughout history. And except for that there is very little difference between the recruitment of the 'Hessians' and British troops (for example the newly raised scotish regiments). (Actually, this system is very similar to how the Greek City States armies worked, yet no one would call them mercenaries (actually corecting myself, Alexander the Great did and committed atrocities against them)). Caranorn --85.93.203.82 22:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I notice that this section was removed tonight, it's probably vandalism but ain't sure so I'll place it here for now to make sure it's not forgotten.

Suppressing a rebellion in America also posed other problems. Since the colonies covered a large area and had not been united before the war, there was no central area of strategic importance. In Europe, the capture of a capital often meant the end of a war; in America, when the British seized cities such as New York and Philadelphia, the war continued unabated. Furthermore, the large size of the colonies meant that the British lacked the manpower to control them by force. Once any area had been occupied, troops had to be kept there or the Revolutionaries would regain control, and these troops were thus unavailable for further offensive operations. The British had sufficient troops to defeat the Americans on the battlefield but not enough to simultaneously occupy the colonies. This manpower shortage became critical after French and Spanish entry into the war, because British troops had to be dispersed in several theaters, where previously they had been concentrated in America.^[1]

--Caranorn 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work catching that. When an anonymous user removes a section from an article without leaving an edit summary, it's always vandalism (unless they were removing patent nonsense). Feel free to revert all unexplained deletions. —Kevin 22:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I added some stuff to the combatants and generals of the war. Edit at your will if you must. --RedFoxBandit 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War??

From the leading paragraph: "In 1777 the war became a world war, involving Britain against France, Spain and the Netherlands."

This sentence needs to be removed; Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands and the US don't constitute the world and the term world war has a different and defined meaning, namely the wars between 1914 - 1918 and 1939 - 1945. Ironcorona 15:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Historians in fact call it a world war (Black p 2 calls it a "global struggle"). The British, French, Dutch and Spanish empires included important parts of Asia (esp India), Africa and South America. Rjensen 06:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "international" conflict would be better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.221.217 (talk • contribs) .

It was obviously an international conflict. But it was also a world/global conflict and readers need to know that. Rjensen 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I reverted to revision 87437199 dated 2006-11-13 00:30:50 by Llama man because it looked like a lot of information was still left out after a vandalism clean-up. Mufka 02:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/Talk%7EAmerican_Revolutionary_War_ecad.html"

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.