Conquer Club

This has been inspired by that WW2 post (obviously). I'd like to see what the Brits, AMericans, as well as others were taught about this war in their high school, college, university, and wherever; however, I'm mostly interested in the high school part.


I can't recall too much from my high school classes.

Basically, they said King George was insane especially when he rejected our demand for representation, our modest and reasonable demand, so we had no choice but to fight.

Reasons the British lost: Transportation and communication issues (about 3 months time), inferior morale, lack of knowledge of terrain.

Whereas, the Americans had the terrain down, and the morale, as well as the capability of engaging in guerrilla warfare and perhaps even terrorism (by today's definition, but hey that was mentioned by me, not the high school).


I really good British friend of mine told me that when she came to the States, she attended or read a book on the American Revolution and was completely taken aback by what she read. Obviously, the US may have left some things out and ignored some issues. I was wondering if you peoples of the former Glorious Empire can enlighten me. Also, anyone else is of course welcome to join in.

It was never taught in school but one thing I remember reading is that the reason for the taxation of the colonies being as high as it was, was the cost of the French and Indian War, where the British spent a lot of money defending their colonies against the invasions, which included several cases where the French let the indians go basically crazy and take colonial scalps. It was a war where the colonists were very much in favor of the British winning and defending them, then after it was over we wanted the main country to pay for it and revolted.

BigBallinStalin wrote:This has been inspired by that WW2 post (obviously). I'd like to see what the Brits, AMericans, as well as others were taught about this war in their high school, college, university, and wherever; however, I'm mostly interested in the high school part.


I can't recall too much from my high school classes.

Basically, they said King George was insane especially when he rejected our demand for representation, our modest and reasonable demand, so we had no choice but to fight.

Reasons the British lost: Transportation and communication issues (about 3 months time), inferior morale, lack of knowledge of terrain.

Whereas, the Americans had the terrain down, and the morale, as well as the capability of engaging in guerrilla warfare and perhaps even terrorism (by today's definition, but hey that was mentioned by me, not the high school).


I really good British friend of mine told me that when she came to the States, she attended or read a book on the American Revolution and was completely taken aback by what she read. Obviously, the US may have left some things out and ignored some issues. I was wondering if you peoples of the former Glorious Empire can enlighten me. Also, anyone else is of course welcome to join in.

no doubt there are going to be some differences, especially between the 2 countries that fought. Similar to Japans delayed admittance in the rape of Nanking. Your just gonna get 2 sides

rockfist wrote:It was never taught in school but one thing I remember reading is that the reason for the taxation of the colonies being as high as it was, was the cost of the French and Indian War, where the British spent a lot of money defending their colonies against the invasions, which included several cases where the French let the indians go basically crazy and take colonial scalps. It was a war where the colonists were very much in favor of the British winning and defending them, then after it was over we wanted the main country to pay for it and revolted.

I have always understood a considerable period of time passing....Washington was just a young man in the french indian war(20?). And there was a long, steady progress in raising the taxes on the colonies, ending of course with the stamp tax and ultimately the tea tax.



of course, our grievances were laid out, time and time again to King George (who is only said to have went insane later in life) The only thing that all the colonies agreed on was the the British had trampled on and taken away the colonists natural born rights as Englishman, and were most definitely treated as second class citizens

The French and Indian War was 1753ish I think so there was some passage of time no doubt.

from what i remember it was taxation, not to mention they still were not really able to help defend the colonies, treated american colonies like crap and thought they were better then the ppl they were taxing, and also religious freedom was another one.. british were trying to make the colonies only believe in a certain church... and i think there was also a issue with the britsh sending criminals over to live in the america's even when there was established british colonies and we didint like it... so ya..

(also my teacher did give the theory that tech during the war we were tech terrorists, but she was very freedom of thought and would debate with us, not just "teach". not many teachers are like that)

hah so no brits or former subjects of the Crown care to mention anything here?

give some time, and they may just appear a bit later on, you know diff time zones and such

If it's anything like the attention some of the U.S's minor wars gets they might just not have a lot to say.

Anyway, I was just thinking about this also because of the other thread. First off our history books were more than slightly out of date. I'm not exaggerating when I say as far as history was concerned it stopped shortly after the Cuban missile crisis, and you should probably still be worried about those dastardly commies . So while I don't want to go so far as to call it flat out propaganda we were basically taught it was the glorious & just revolution against Tyranny(!) that provided the direct model of proper government copied by the rest of the right thinking world.

So I wasn't too surprised to independently learn that the British thought they were more than reasonable for the times, and that perhaps someone ought consult a dictionary about the meaning of tyranny. That there may have been a few of other forces involved in shaping history, and that plenty of places find the US model of democracy to rather be a joke.

But what I really found interesting was how the war was won, and the complete, and utter lack of mention of the involvement of the French. That indeed the Revolution could be characterized as a proxy war between major powers with the US as the backwards 3rd world country where the fighting actually went down was never even remotely hinted. The previously mentioned revaluations of what was considered civilized warfare were also never mentioned as such, and were frequently endorsed as the keys to American awesomeness.

In short, we courageously surprised some evil Germans (as Germans of course were), then were clever enough to take cover and use rifles, unlike the Brits who after a while got tired of being slaughtered because they always walked in ranks so they all went home to I presume make up some lies about a war in 1812 that never happened. I think maybe the genius(!) Ben Franklin might of got a little money out of the French to buy some shoes, as there was a crippling shortage, so that the one good German could teach us how to march. Of course, i'm not sure why he bothered since we were all about the taking cover, and fighting like Indians (who seem to have been really awesome fighters, and people in general who all tragically died because they lacked immune systems). Also there were no loyalist, because everyone had seen this picture with a chopped up snake, except that Benedict guy, who sucked anyway. Then we watched Last of the Mohicans.

Oddly enough, while WWI was given only cursory attention, and WWII had a similarly interesting perspective the Civil War was given very balanced and nuanced coverage. Context even.

BigBallinStalin wrote:hah so no brits or former subjects of the Crown care to mention anything here?

It was a long time since I was at school and I didn't take history after the 3rd Year and I don't recall what I learnt at school about the American Revolution.

So I've not entered into the discussion because I don't remember anything from school. My personal knowledge of the history regarding the Revolution post school days is sketchy so I won't make myself look silly by talking about things I'm not hot on.

A pretty big deal was made of the French involvement in the war, in my schooling.

Essentially that, we never would have won had the French not given us money, so that as the British were running out of funding for the war, we didn't, and France's help blockading in the British from resupply. I'm surprised no other Americans here are mentioning that.

Of course, I grew up in a state that was crucial to the Revolution, strategically, so it was especially important to us (and of course my dad was always sure to remind me of what battles my ancestors had fought in). We went on field trips to a number of important locations of major battles (Princeton Battlefield was my favorite because of the story of General Mercer's tree and of Washington riding out between the lines to rally the breaking Continental ranks, but Washington's Crossing and Monmouth Battlefield were impressive too) or camps for the winter (Morristown, but we went to Valley Forge with Boy Scouts).

It was impressed upon us that my state made the biggest sacrifice of all the other colonies, since New Jersey was where the British were fond of gang raping women they found without their husbands around as they traveled between New York City and Philadelphia, assuming the woman's husband had gone off to fight with the Continentals. Not to mention, of course, that the most men who gave their lives fighting for the Revolution were from New Jersey. Much like how Virginia made the greatest sacrifice in the Civil War (except they didn't have to worry about that raping business).

EDIT: I just read Khiva's post. I'm pretty sure he's trolling, or trying to be funny.

EDIT 2: The Hessians were mocked, but not because they were Germans, because they were mercenaries. We weren't led to believe that Germans were the problem, but that hiring people to do your dirty work was, which, in light of things like Blackwater, I hope kids are still learning today.

Hey, don't limit me. Can't I be both?

And no that's really what passed as education. The war of 1812 seriously only came up in relation to the national anthem, and Andrew Jackson.

Edit: He made it more polite.

And yes in fairness I do recall the word mercenary being a vocabulary term, and the Blackwater thing would be accurate, except while the Hessians where definitely implied to be of questionable conduct I can't say I ever heard what was supposed to have justified that view unlike current contractors.

They never mentioned the indomitable American spirit due to our rebuilding the White House?

An ancestor of mine was stationed in Baltimore during it's siege, so I might be confusing the stories my father told me with what I learned in school, when it comes to the War of 1812, but I'm pretty sure we learned about how serious a beating we took (and that despite the odds and the lashing, we prevailed).

Where did you grow up, Khiva?

They didn't even mention it got burned! I actually first heard that on the Simpsons.

I'll be the first to say the problem wasn't the state, but that particular school system still clinging to some kind of demented 50's mentality (and dress code), but in answer to your question I am from the great state of Texas.

i was never taught this in history i was taught it in 5th and 8th grade and in 8th grade we did very little with it so alot of the stuff i did learn about it was was paul rever, concord, stamp act, paper act, tea act alot of he reason why we broke off of britian but we really never covered the war. the only reason why i know so much about it is causs of my own reaserch

The american revolution was barely mentioned in my high school history classes, only as a side refrence as to why we had the Loyalist surge of immigration.History is sadly neglected in Canadian high schools. I never really looked into it so I know very little about the details, only that it was the result excessive taxation and an unresponsive home country.

Okay, well just to clear this up now, the issue WAS NOT EXCESSIVE TAXATION.

It was taxation WITHOUT representation. That's something these modern day Tea Party morons keep willfully ignoring. They are represented. Most of them are even the beneficiaries of tax CUTS.

pimpdave wrote:Okay, well just to clear this up now, the issue WAS NOT EXCESSIVE TAXATION.

It was taxation WITHOUT representation. That's something these modern day Tea Party morons keep willfully ignoring. They are represented. Most of them are even the beneficiaries of tax CUTS.

The Tea Party does not have much to do with taxation pimp. And it has a lot more to do with representation; specifically, whether the various practices engaged in by the last administration and the current one have anything remotely to do with what the people who elected those people want. In other words, when people say they don't want $100 billion going to AIG, and then $100 billion goes to AIG, are their representatives really representing them?

Again, I think the Tea Party folks are misrepresented by both sides of the media and on both sides of the aisle.

On the topic at hand.

The greatest course I ever took in college was a small class where we discussed actual military strategy. One of our first topics was how the British could have won the American Revolution. My point was that the British should have burned some of these places to the ground (like Boston or Philadelphia)... wage a war of total annihilation. However, I was roundly criticized by people in the class (rightfully so) because the point of the American colonies was to generate wealth for England. Therefore, burning the colonies wouldn't do a whole lot of good.

thegreekdog wrote:On the topic at hand.

The greatest course I ever took in college was a small class where we discussed actual military strategy. One of our first topics was how the British could have won the American Revolution. My point was that the British should have burned some of these places to the ground (like Boston or Philadelphia)... wage a war of total annihilation. However, I was roundly criticized by people in the class (rightfully so) because the point of the American colonies was to generate wealth for England. Therefore, burning the colonies wouldn't do a whole lot of good.

If I remember correctly the idea of total war didn't appear until the U.S. Civil War with Sherman's March to the sea and the burning of Atlanta. But, I agree with you on your point. If they waged total war they would have won the war. Hell, that is how they won the Boer Wars.

jsholty4690 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:On the topic at hand.

The greatest course I ever took in college was a small class where we discussed actual military strategy. One of our first topics was how the British could have won the American Revolution. My point was that the British should have burned some of these places to the ground (like Boston or Philadelphia)... wage a war of total annihilation. However, I was roundly criticized by people in the class (rightfully so) because the point of the American colonies was to generate wealth for England. Therefore, burning the colonies wouldn't do a whole lot of good.

If I remember correctly the idea of total war didn't appear until the U.S. Civil War with Sherman's March to the sea and the burning of Atlanta. But, I agree with you on your point. If they waged total war they would have won the war. Hell, that is how they won the Boer Wars.

They would have won; but they would have engendered a lot of ill will and they would have lost a lot of economic viability in the colonies (which may be the reason they pursued the war in the first place).

jsholty4690 wrote:If I remember correctly the idea of total war didn't appear until the U.S. Civil War with Sherman's March to the sea and the burning of Atlanta. But, I agree with you on your point. If they waged total war they would have won the war. Hell, that is how they won the Boer Wars.

So then what was the Third Punic War all about? (To give just one example)

Hello, British person here. Or rather, A citizen of The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland.

Pre-revolution the colonies actually had more representation than we did in the British Isles.

You actually had lower taxes too, which were mostly spent protecting you.

We then decided that we didn't want America, but as we didn't want you to sulk, we pretended to have a war that we would "lose".

Tiggy D Amour wrote:We then decided that we didn't want America, but as we didn't want you to sulk, we pretended to have a war that we would "lose".

Yeah, that explains why you'd come back for revenge 20 years later.

pimpdave wrote:

Tiggy D Amour wrote:We then decided that we didn't want America, but as we didn't want you to sulk, we pretended to have a war that we would "lose".

Yeah, that explains why you'd come back for revenge 20 years later.

We left something behind. It was down the back of the couch.