What Are Some Of The Essential Elements To America's Successful Revolution?

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:02:36 -0500

A war may be difficult to break down into coherent and manageable lines of essential elements. In fact it can be swirls of action. We should study history as it may be replete with significant examples that might explain current and future wars.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 8:06 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:06:22 -0500

People took a stand for what they believed in and didn't run away. Sometime I wonder how true that would be today.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 15 at 2015 8:23 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:23:35 -0500

1) Huge body of water between Great Britain and the Americas. We were self sustaining, and logistically capable... whereas they lacked that advantage

2) Backing of the French who hated them enough to Like us.

3) Defenders Advantage, combined with "Insurgency" Model. Once we were rooted it, there really was no way to win. It was just a matter of time. America, despite being called a Revolution was an Insurgency. A just one sure, but that doesn't change the concept that we toppled the "existing government" and replaced it.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Dec 15 at 2015 9:03 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:03:37 -0500

The War College at Quantico has some good reading on this. Some of the things I took note of was an unpopular war at home because it only supported the merchants. George wasn't very popular. Isn't France the real enemy? They have been for centuries, right? France's support had a lot to do with deflecting English sea power and troops elsewhere and an ocean away was great. So a lot of our success can be attributed to right time, place, and circumstance. Those three factors play heavy in most every other conflict. Also what would England gain by winning? Things would stagnate for a while, profits would be in the tank for a while, and then who knows? At some point, England lost the gumption to ramp it up to win and rule big time because they didn't see the value in it.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 15 at 2015 9:11 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:11:54 -0500

3% trigger pulling patriots supported and harbored by 10% active patriots sympathizers making the neutral 40% convinced that the Tory 10% and 3% couldn't pull it off even with the Brit Regulars and mercenaries and that neutrals would be better off joining the "meh, independence" 17% instead of the 'meh loyalist' 17%.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 9:49 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:49:31 -0500

In my humble opinion, it came down to cost/benefit analysis for the English. The British mercantilist system was dependent on raw goods flowing in from the colonies for the mother country to manufacture finished goods for export. Putting an expeditionary force in the Americas was prohibitively expensive, and as the 13 colonies were more and more recalcitrant to pay the taxes on their goods, and grew better and better at manufacturing finished goods themselves, the colonials need for England slackened, and the benefit to England diminished.
Couple that with other willing trade partners who were just thrilled with the notion of American cotton, tobacco, and other goods coming and going from French, Spanish, or Dutch ports and the whole system began to turn.
England tried to do it on the cheap, and paid a heavy price for it. When they dispersed their forces, they were defeated or harried into defensive positions. When they concentrated their forces, the English were vastly superior, but vulnerable to being fixed in a position, as they ultimately were at Yorktown. When Cornwallis surrendered, there just wasn't the stomach in England to dispatch another force. The crown figured they could always come back and readdress the issue, once more pressing matters with France and Spain were settled. Ultimately they did, and very nearly destroyed the Union in the War of 1812.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Dec 15 at 2015 11:21 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:21:17 -0500

The will of the people.... a willing and capable military... and a vision everyone believes in.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 11:45 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:45:01 -0500

No ROEs...Rules of Engagement.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 11:49 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:49:28 -0500

And no feckless, weak, wimp of a president running and ruining the show, all the while firing the best generals anywhere who spoke their minds...and were subsequently fired.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 16 at 2015 3:02 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 15:02:15 -0500

Thank you for the input. I used Clausewitz Trinity comparative purposes: 1. Military Genius 2. Passion of the People 3. Legitimate Government.

I got two takeaways:
1. The terrain often favored the Americans.
2. I appreciate the information about the English. We are failing in this area now. We must know the ISIS and Iraqi perspectives.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Dec 16 at 2015 7:30 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:30:34 -0500

We won by using a method of warfare we can't seem to beat today. There was a desire; an idea and belief to be independent. That idea took root into a few believers who were able to translate that into a rallying cry heard by enough to make it into a more forceful reality. It worked. A smaller more effective force that knew the land, had support, ended up beating the bigger more powerful force. For some odd reason, we're doing the same thing today whereas we're GB of old, and radical Islam is us. Maybe the lessons of today can be taught by the battles of yesterday.