- This topic has 7 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
Yes, but it would have taken longer. Don't forget that in 1789 the French Revolution began and Britain would have had more pressing issues closer to home that would have made the American Revolution seem like small potatoes. It would have given them an incentive to end the war so they could concentrate on the continent.
Were the French mostly helping with supplies or were they a significant source of troops as well? Probably a high school-level question, I know…
I'm with scout but with a reservation… they supplied most of our powder as I remember but we were grinding down the resolve [as insurgent movements seem to do]. Many English swear wd didn't win but that they turned us loose thinking we'd fold and return in due time.The money problems that led to the Fr-Rev were in large part debits run up helping us. Couldn't pass on a chance to stick it to John Bull!
French helping hands were crucial if not indispensable to the success of American Revolution.As France and Ireland were hereditary enemies or rivals of Britain in the centuries preceding U.S uprising it is naturally that France chose his side during the dispute ,first secretly and finally openly .We must keep in mind that Britain was the most powerful nation on earth and France was very jealous of this status.The victory at Yorktown, the last major engagement of the American Revolution that effectively ended the conflict in the American's favor was only possible due to the effective help of French fleet and soldiers.With Irish men filling the ranks of Washington in one hand and French sailors on the sea in the other hand ?preventing Cornwallis army any resupply and/or escaping solutions ? the British?s defeat was inevitable.To acknowledge French dominant role in this battle the legend says that claiming he was ill, Cornwallis sent Brigadier General Charles O'Hara to represent him in the surrenders signing ceremony. Approaching the allied leadership, O'Hara attempted to surrender to Rochambeau but was instructed by the Frenchman to approach the Americans.
To my knowledge securing the aid of the French was critical in the war as Benjamin Franklin spent a long time there during the war trying to get the support of the king. I will have to look it up but I know the French eventually sent many troops, uniforms, and other supplies and they were stationed in Rhode Island (I think, or nearby).As for winning without them in my opinion I don't think Washington had the odds in his favor in the beginning where he tried to face the British in a European-style of battle and so he had to resort to guerilla tactics which was successful against the British and I can imagine it would be very unnerving to their generals. At this point I still believe Washington couldn't win the war but he could prolong it so long as he could keep his "ragtag" army held together until Franklin could get help from France.
Do you think the Americans could have won the war if France had not helped them when they did?
No. Britain was at or near the height of their naval Empire and they could have easily crushed the Americans. It wasn't for aid from France and Spain, and the Netherlands to some extent, we probably would have lost.
