I am still ignorant about military tactics and strategies used by both sides during the ARW. I only know that the "Washingtonians" rarely used Indian tactics and guerrillas against the British. They still prefered to fight in open-fields and to shoot at each other closely.
Yes, but the militia were capable of using uerilla tactics, and did. When the first happened in New Jersey, WAhsington was astonished by it, but it caused the British real headaches, because it shut down their ability to forage in New Jersye.
A small Army which can't efficiently control such a gigantic territory as the Thirteen colonies and whose members need to feed their families.
Actually by 1781 the army was made of landless men without families, and a surprisingly high number of blacks.
The Continental Army of 1781-82 saw the greatest crisis on the American side in the war. Congress was bankrupt. Popular support for the war was at its all-time low. There were mutinies (Pennsylvania Line and New Jersey Line). Congress even voted to cut funding for the Army, but Washington managed nevertheless to secure important tactical victories which saved, not only his Commander-in-Chief position, but the Revolution.
I don't think this would have resulted in a victory. Holding onto the southern colonies, maybe; but even there, the British would have faced insurgencies which by the time of Yorktown had reduced their hold to essentially the coastal cities.
During most civil wars you can use the 1/3 rule : 1/3 of the population is made of rebels, 1/3 is neutral, the last 1/3 stays loyal.
I mean, come on. Can't we use actual numbers or estimates for this war?
Patriots were a minority in America.
What's your cite for this? Most studies make clear the patriots were a majority, as evidenced by their ability to control the country despite their numerical inferiority.
They chose to stay idle in the main cities waiting for a decisive battle, instead of pressuring the "Washingtonians" and worse the Continental Army was able to choose where and when the British forces fought ...
Well, they did try decisive battles. Washington refused to go along with it, and when Burgoyne tried to exercise political vision, he got captured.
After the war one "Irish Solution" to the rebellion would be the worst thing to do, just exile the rebellion leaders far away from America. Without french support and without leaders, the next rebellions will be smaller or won't exist.
Why wouldn't the next rebellion be the same size or larger, as the colonies increase?
He found with drilling the American Continentals (and later, even with the Rebel Virginian Militia) that
as long as the Americans were explained WHY an order was necessary, they had no problems obeying it.
Americans didn't have the Middle Ages in their cultural memory. No unquestioning obedience, no working class radicalism.
I'm reading a biography of Washington now, and there's a line after the evacuation of New York where a British officer says, "Americans: Nobody else can govern them, but somehow they can govern themselves."
Well, if by early US you mean post-ARW? Of course. But then, the USA was/is a NATION, not 13 squabbling colonies with no central authority except a 3000 miles distant foreign government more interested in enriching their own coffers and keeping the colonial borders quiet.
Well, even colonies could handle the Native Americans on their own; the Carolinas had a nasty little war which they won right before the Revolution, no?
I don't know how that happened, but its a pretty remarkable record - and the rest of the army coming up to that standard says everything on whether or not Americans could fight.
Well, Americans did stand up to regulars repeatedly, no? Bunker Hill, Brandywine, Monmouth, Saratoga....
Maybe. It would at least have been worth seeing if they'd be more willing to submit to the crap of being in the army on those terms - it would be a much-needed asset for the light infantry starved Brits.
This is a good example of British political failure; there was a source of light infantry the Brits could have turned to, and they toyed with it. But at the end of the day, they decided against relying on the slaves too much.
Pity some foreigners just came over for the hope of gain and never provided as much. The US was pretty enthusiastic about rewarding those foreigners who did serve with land grants.
Elfwine, this is an interesting question. Why did men like Lafayette, Kosczukio, etc. serve if the war was about taxes?