Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 9

American Revolutionary War
Location	Eastern North America, etc.
Belligerents
United States; France ; Spain ; Dutch Republic; Oneida; Tuscarora; Vermont Republic; Watauga Association; Catawba; Lenape	Great Britain; German auxilliaries; Onondaga; Mohawk; Cayuga; Seneca; Cherokee;

This is an archive of past discussions about American Revolutionary War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

→

Do not feed the troll

adsfaj;dfkjasdlkfja;sldfjasdlfjasldfa;sldfkj The UK won the French Revolutionary Wars. Britain also stood alone after the Fall of France in June 1940. (92.7.24.28 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Do not feed the troll, people. 92.7.x.x is a dynamic IP edit warrior imbued with the power of Eris, bringer of strife and discord. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

category request

request to add to the "Anti-imperialism" category of anti-imperialist events or people.

108.107.116.15 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Moi

Not really appropriate here, since the colonists only won with the help of Imperial France and Imperial Spain. (92.7.6.232 (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

I would argue that it's STRONGLY connected to anti-imperialism movements, as both a cause and effect of the western Enlightenment which led almost directly to native anti-imperialist movements in the European powers. Not to mention the fact that the failure of the British to quell the rebellion led to the idea that it was actually possible to defeat a colonial power, which made it much tougher to keep residents of other colonial territories pacified. You'll notice the huge wave of successful revolutions in the following 100 years compared to the near total lack worldwide in the previous 300. --Cabazap (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point but isn't it a case of hindsight being 20/20. The concepts of anti-imperialism are anachronistic with respect to this war by about 100 years. I believe that none of the participants held such ideas and for those with new-found freedom, they would have been happy to establish their own imperial system. Does anyone have reliable sources that place this war as being inherently part of anti-imperialism?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

the concept of anti-imperialism is part of the American Revolution although the term "anti-imperialism" came later. (for example, "the rhetoric of anti-colonial revolution ... is considered fundamental to the American symbology. As a national liberation movement, the American Revolution successfully identified imperialist injustices with Great Britain" from John Rowe, Literary culture and U.S. imperialism: from the Revolution to World War II (2000) p. 5). Rjensen (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Revolutionary War had nothing whatsoever to do with "anti-imperialism". The European settlers of North America were racist slave-trading imperialists themselves seeking to steal land from the natives, and build the present American Empire. (92.7.24.28 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Do not feed the troll, people. 92.7.x.x is a dynamic IP edit warrior imbued with the power of Eris, bringer of strife and discord. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

combatants

What is the reasoning in not including the German states as combatants in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabazap (talk • contribs) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The principalities of Hesse-Cassel, Brunswick or Hanover were not at war with the USA, Britain just hired mercenaries from these countries.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

However, it seems unfair to ignore the significant participation of German mercenaries on the British side. I propose to add "German mercenaries" as combatants in the infobox without mentioning their principalities since their countries were not formally at war with the United States. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that the German polities involved in the conflict did not provide their soldiers as mercinaries, rather as auxiliaries. Rather than the soldiers being paid by the british, the German states were paid in exchange for signing treaties of alliance with Great Britian. Each of these treaties was different in scope. Some German states expected nothing but money fromt he British in exchange for their help (Ansbach-Bayreuth, ect), others expected recipricol assistance in the case of war (Hesse-Kassel). No state ever declares war on a polity it does not recognize, note that the United Kingdom did not declare war on the United States to do so would have recognized it as independent. So i suppose that by Ditwin Grim's reasoning we shouldnt include any of the indian tribes or united kingdom in the infobox as well. Each German polity that was involved in the fighting should be included in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This point has been discussed at some length before. (/Archive 9#Belligerents, /Archive 8#German States, /Archive 8#No troops from Hanover, & elsewhere.) Various argumetns have been put forward to justify treating the states as belligerents, but the key problem is that it doesn't seem to be common for historians to describe the German states as participants in the war - or discuss them at all, in some cases, even whilst acknowledging the presence of German soldiers.

This article: JSTOR 40107566 calls the German soldatenhandel "one of the most misunderstood aspects of early modern European international relations", which these discussions seem to bear out! In effect, it seems the German states provided soldiers to the UK on commercial terms - X much money for Y regiments for Z length of time - without themselves politically entering into the war. "Mercenaries" is a confusing term by modern standards, as it tends to imply a private venture rather than a "state-backed" one. This style of warfare had mostly died out by the nineteenth century, but was common in the seventeenth and eighteenth, particularly by minor German principalities - in 1743, it even extended to the surprising situation where regiments from Hesse served on both sides of a war!

Sadly, we've no article on the general concept (I keep meaning to write one) and the relevant information is split between Germans in the American Revolution and Hessian (soldiers), the latter of which does address the general issue, but in quite a muddled way that implies it was specific to Hesse, or most common in the 1770s. It all needs a bit of cleaning up and attention... Shimgray | talk | 17:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

They were not really mercenaries due to the link between Hanover and the UK. And if we list the Germans then we had better list the Irish and Scottish mercenaries who were paid to fight by the colonists. (92.7.24.28 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

As for Hesse being on both sides of a war in 1743, it might be well to note that there were at the time there were several different principalies of hesse that all existed at the same time. So a source is quite nessesary to assert that claim, because it could simply be two different hesse's that contributed soldiers. As for Hesse-Kassel during the Revolutionary war, it was bound by a treaty of alliance to contribute troops and was treated by the United Kingdom as a peer in its international realtions per the same treaty [[1]].XavierGreen (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly; it's p. 759 of the article cited, The German 'Soldier Trade' of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: A Reassessment (Peter H. Wilson, in International History Review, 18(4), 1996). It is explicit that both were from the same principality!

As to your later point, the treaties are quoted in full in col. 1158 onwards. They are indeed treaties between the British crown and [eg] the Duke of Brunswick; I don't think anyone is contesting that the German states were treated as full participants in diplomacy, or that the provision of troops was arranged by treaty! But note the phrasing: "...having judged proper to propose the cession of a body of troops to be employed in the service of Great Britain, and his most serene highness having yielded with zeal and readiness...". The key words here are "cession" and "employed in the service of"; at no point does it discuss a proposal for Brunswick to enter the war. Article I is equally clear: "...yields to his Britannic Majesty a corps of infantry of his troops, which corps shall be entirely at the disposition of the King...". While in the form of a diplomatic treaty, this is basically a commercial contract. Hesse had pre-existing treaties. These are briefly recapped during the debate (col. 1191-92) and appear to have been a succession of agreements to supply troops, occasionally with other conditions. Note that "subsidy" treaties in peacetime were a common feature of the arrangement, essentially retainers paid to ensure first call on troops once war broke out (Wilson, p. 759).

The treaty quoted on col. 1164 contains a mutual-assistance clause, but the Earl of Suffolk's appearance in the debate (col. 1198) is very informative as to how this should be interpreted. "...filled with pompous, high-sounding phrases of alliance; but I will be so ingenious as to confess to the noble Duke that I consider them merely in that light ... the true object of these treaties is not so much to create an alliance, as to hire a body of troops." Suffolk was, at the time, Northern Secretary - essentially the foreign secretary for relations with Germany and Scandinavia - and as such would have been the responsible figure for arranging the treaties. Hopefully, he understood their intent!

All this said, relying on our own interpretations of primary sources isn't a good idea. Reliable sources on the war have been quoted extensively in the early discussions, and they tend strongly towards not treating the German states as belligerents. Shimgray | talk | 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As ive stated constantly thoughout these series of discussions, the situation regarding each german polity is different. The treaty with Hesse-Kassel has much stronger language regarding the mutual alliance between itself and Great Britain, and for good reason. Since the ruler of Hesse-Kassel was the uncle of King George III. How to handle auxiliaries in infoboxes is a question that has reaching effects beyond this page, and if one looks at other pages we get a rather mixed result. For example in many of the various italian conflicts, the Papacy regularly used French auxiliaries. In these infoboxes the French are listed. Similarly it is quite common in conflicts involving large coalitions of troops to place the troops of weaker polities under the direct command of stronger ones. For instance in the pacific during world war two all allied forces were placed under the command of the United States, yet we still list Australia and New Zealand as combatants. Similarly at waterloo, the british were given overall operational command over various foriegn soldiers, ect. Note that the Brtian never offically declared war on the united states so by the logic presented here they shouldnt be considered as belligerents either. A easy solution to the problem might be simply changing the infobox to state combatants instead of belligerents, since it seems most of the oppostion has to do with the semantics of using that particular word.XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why you're arguing that the US shouldn't be considered a belligerent under this interpretation - it is unarguable that every major secondary source does consider it one. However, we have yet to find a major secondary source which considers any of the German principalities in this way, despite the fact that this discussion has been going on for about a year...

The other points: "Auxiliaries" is a very versatile term, and that itself may explain why they're handled differently - it's a word which covers a wide variety of situations and so there can be no hard-and-fast rules on what it signifies. To take a counterexample, neither Eastern Front (World War II) or Siege of Leningrad include "Spain", despite the presence of a Spanish "volunteer" division.

If the infobox states "combatants", we will still have the problem that it will be both misleading and inaccurate to name specific German states there, rather than a loose comment about mercenaries in British service. They were not, in any meaningful sense, combatants; they provided soldiers under commercial terms, and this is how historians have viewed them. I don't think we're in a position to contradict that. Shimgray | talk | 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when has fighting wars for profit been a limitation on a states beligerency in a conflict? Polities have been fighting wars for cash for millenia, and in the sense of Early Modern Warfare auxiliaries has never been a versitile term and has a very specific meaning. The use of auxiliaries even has its own chapter in Machiavelli's The Prince! The basic problem is that the immense level of American propaganda and misrepresentation of the German troops in the American Revolution seems to have clouded the judgement of the vast majority of people today. The spanish troops on the russian front in world war two were not auxiliaries, rather merely foriegn voluneteers. They were not under the control of the Spanish Government and were not equiped or paid by them.XavierGreen (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going in circles, and you keep producing a flurry of new approaches. Please, let's go back to first principles; look at the quotes from historians brought up in earlier threads. If you are correct in your contention that the German soldiers were defined as "auxiliaries", and that this specific term explicitly signifies the belligerence of their home states, we should be able to find reliable and comprehensive reference to this in secondary sources. The absence of that reference seems to strongly imply the conclusion is not one supported in the literature, regardless of how we might get to it. Shimgray | talk | 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

this is an interesting discussion but everyone seems to be overlooking France. The war involved both the US and France (and later Netherlands and Spain). Th Hessians fought the French soldiers (as at Yorktown) but nobody suggests the German states were in any way at war with France--that would have been a very dangerous move indeed (given how close and how powerful France was on the continent). So if they are not at war with France, and did not recognize the existence of the USA, then it's hard to see how the states could be belligerents against nobody. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

They were belligerents against all the powers involved in the conflict. The States of the Holy roman empire could not legally declare war on other polities without the emperors consent, but they often engaged in wars regardless of that against each other as well as foriegn states without the emperors blessing. Contrary to your assertion, they had very little to fear from france since they were surrounded by other neutral german states and almost all of them were land-locked. Most of the polities in question were in the center of Germany and as such could afford to fight wars for profit since there was very little risk involved in carrying out such conflicts.XavierGreen (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"They were belligerents against all the powers involved in the conflict....afford to fight wars for profit "--no historian has ever made such claims; and none have called them belligerents against the U.S. Instead the RS say they rented out troops.Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems I have created a monster here, I do like the idea of simply including "German auxiliaries" as a combatant at a minimum. Honestly, I was simply interested on more information regarding their actual status during the war. I knew that a very significant number of the "British" troops in the American theater were German(or in American shorthand simply Hessians), but their reasoning for fighting isn't really discussed much. --Cabazap (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You didn't create the monster, it was just slumbering. The reasons (both diplomatic and personal) for the Germans who fought for the British are probably best covered in either or both of Germans in the American Revolution (which also covers German immigrants to the colonies and their role), or Hessian (soldiers) (covering those who fought alongside the British). Magic♪piano 19:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they could be listed bulleted under the United Kingdom, since they clearly did participate in the conflict and clearly due to the treaties under british command throughout the entire campaign. I think that would be a decent compromise.XavierGreen (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that is the best way to resolve the dispute. Vought109 (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Done DITWIN GRIM (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox suggestion

Belligerents

The war involved the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland against the Thirteen Colonies. Ireland should be mentioned in the introduction since it was before the two kingdoms merged in 1801. (92.7.24.28 (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Do not feed the troll, people. 92.7.x.x is a dynamic IP edit warrior imbued with the power of Eris, bringer of strife and discord. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And he resolutely misinterprets sources, seeing in them things that no historian thought important. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you just block him? Vought109 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The user switches between IPs...it would require blocking a large range of IPs. The single IP is blocked.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Just changing the subject, is there a reason why no German States are listed in Belligerants: Infobox? Vought109 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the subject of the thread just above this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Or simply the Revolutionary War

"or simply the Revolutionary War" is unnecessary verbiage in the lead. It is only "simply known" as the Revolutionary War to those who live in the USA. Including it in the lead is like adding or "or simply the Civil War" to the English Civil War or the American Civil War articles. If it has to be mentioned then footnote it. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is because Revolutionary War currently redirects to this article. That could be turned into a disambig page and Revolutionary War could then be removed from the lede of this article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps only Americans refer to it as such, but this is the English language Wikipedia, is it not? What percentage of native English speakers are American? According to Wikipedia's own article, the majority, and, therefore, to the largest percentage of readers and users of this particular wiki, the war is referred to as simply the "Revolutionary War".Gtbob12 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

books.google.com suggests that book titles are 10-1 for "american revolution" overr "the revolutionary war" Rjensen (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

American Revolution is another article entirely. This article is about the war while the former is about the entire revolutionary movement as a whole.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Could someone change the flag for Marquis de Le Fayette please? Not American-French. Vought109 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Lafayette served in the Continental Army. Unlike the French forces, he (like other European soldiers of fortune that fought in that army) fought under the American flag. Magic♪piano 22:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, all good then :) Vought109 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This line: The United States spent $37 million at the national level plus $114 million by the states.

Might not be right.

I'm looking at "The Early Paper Money of American, Fifth Edition" by Eric P. Newman and on page 15 it states $241,552,780 in Continental Currency being issued. That money was, at most, only redeemed at 1% at face value by 1813. Is that why the cost was stated at $37 million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TragicHipster (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Uhlan ^talk 07:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Revolutionary War

Hello, Someone can help me making the Revolutionary War redirect a Disambiguation page? There are plenty of wars that can be considered Revolutionaty, and even the American Revolutionary War don't considered themselves the primary topic as the title says. -Ilhador- (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to discuss this first. What other wars are commonly referred to as Revolutionary War? Overwhelmingly, it refers to the American Revolutionary War.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the French Revolutionary Wars? And there are much more indirectly redirects. Revolutionary War is not a common name, as the title of this article can demonstrate. It would be like redirect War of independence to here -Ilhador- (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is the most common name of the war for Americans. You can see that it is quite common in the English language here. Also, either a search on the term at Google or Google books for that matter only return results for the American Revolutionary War.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Logic error: The title of this article does not demonstrate that other titles are not common. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It demonstrate that American Revolutionary War is the WP:COMMONNAME of this subject.-Ilhador- (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

...but does not imply that the other name isn't also common. The article is correctly named. In common usage, Americans say Revolutionary War and rarely refer to it as the American Revolutionary War because it is a given.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And it doesn't even demonstrate that it's definitely the WP:COMMONNAME -- per that link, common names are "often" used, but not always; there are other factors as well. All that the title demonstrates is that it's the consensus for the best title for the topic (and likely to be the most common). Whether the topic is also the primary topic for any other title is an independent question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Either we have no primary topic, then Revolutionary War needs to direct to Revolutionary War (disambiguation). Or we have a primary topic, then American Revolutionary War needs to direct to Revolutionary War.— Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ilhador- (talk • contribs) 08:22, 1 March 2012‎ (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. There are other options, because there are two independent questions: what topic (if any) is primary for "Revolutionary War"? and what title should the topic on the a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen British colonies in North America that became a global war between several European great powers have? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explicitly acknowledges redirects-as-possible-primaries. The {{redirect}} exists because it's an option. (BTW, if there is no primary topic, Revolutionary War (disambiguation) would need to redirect to the new dab page at Revolutionary War, to avoid WP:MALPLACED. But there's no indication that that change needs to be made.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an article entitled War of independence that is nominally about the category of conflicts of this sort. If Revolutionary War continues to redirect here, the hatnote at the top here should include a link to there. Searching Google Books for '"Revolutionary War" -American -America -"United States"' yields many many results that are about the American war. Substituting "War of Independence" in the above search yields results covering a wider diversity of conflicts. This suggests (but is not definitive) that Revolutionary War is not badly placed linking here. Magic♪piano 13:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Civil War

I am aware that more than one historian has unofficially labelled the war the British Civil War, or referred to the the revolution as a a civil war. However the term 'civil war' does not appear anywhere in the article. My understanding is that while there was differences between the Americans and the British, they still considered themselves on a political level British prior to the war. They were afterall British colonies, and there was somesort of divide between the colonists and were their loyalty laid, likewise within the 'mother country'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What are your sources?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

the reference is to the Loyalists who are covered briefly here (section 1.2) and at great length in the American Revolution article. Rjensen (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson makes the point in his book on the British Empire iirc, and specifically uses the phrase British Civil War (although am not suggesting including that in the article or changing the article name or anything).

The point is made by J.C.D. Clark in ‘The Structure of Anglo-American political discourse’ for example: "The military outcome of the American Revolution had a profound impact on its interpretation. Its character as a civil war on both sides of the Atlantic was obscured and replaced by an image of a war of national or colonial liberation in which a morally united America fought a morally united Britain: American loyalists and British republicans were systematically excluded from their own society’s vision."

They are just two that come to mind and i have access to, or at least partially. It is not exactly a novel idea however and is pretty much common sense: British people leave Britain and form British colonly. British people in colony fight British people coming to enforce British rule in colony. That is pretty much the definition of civil war, and thankfully Rjensen has highlighted further areas that support such a position (although i was not just limiting the scope to the Loyalists.)

It seems that recongition that this was a civil war between mother country and colonly, and then also between colonists and other colonists, needs to be named as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a section on historiography (from various perspectives: US/UK/Canada/Caribbean/French/Spanish/German/Native), or even a separate Historiography of the American Revolutionary War? Magic♪piano 15:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

there is very little historiographical debate on military issues and a section is not called for, in my opinion. There is a HUGE historiographical debate on the political issues which fits not with this article but with American Revolution. The Loyalists are well covered there--they are not ignored as Clark incorrectly believes. As for "civil war" very few historians use that term because it suggests a war like 1861 between two regions. There was some localized "civil war" action in the Carolinas, but 90% of the war was not like that at all but fighting against an army that came from 3000 miles away. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(agreeing with Rjensen) The War of the Regulation might best be thought of as an uprising due to its limited scale.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that pointing out this conflict as a civil war adds anything of merit to the article or is correct. This seems both erroneous as well as fringe theory. Our article on Civil war defines that action as one within a Nation state or Republic which the Revolution wasn't (the republic formed after the conflict was going on and did not have foreign recognition). This was between a colony and its mother country and did not divide the Nation state (Britain) in war. Although colonists considered themselves as part of the British empire, they knew that there was a class system of citizens that did not equate them to the citizens in Britain and they knew that British citizens did not consider them as equals. I believe the matter isn't significant enough to merit mention or debate.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Am sorry but you have just rubbished two published authors as a fringe theory (am sure there are more than them out there, i have at least one more of my own but it would not fit within wiki guidelines that also suggests that it was some form of a civil war) followed up by your own opinion that you think they are wrong? You believe the matter isnt significant enough, however published authors apparently do since they have published work that states as much.

Am i asking for a rewrite of the article? No. Am i suggesting the inclusion of these two words will extend our understanding of the war or the politics behind it? No. All i am saying is that there exclusion excludes a viewpoint that is published and is out there, and at the same time seems pretty much common sense, and that it will provide some sort of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a bit on the British strategy in 1780 of creating a civil war in the South using Loyalist soldiers--it failed because too few men signed up....their families would become hostages to the Patriots if they did so, Clark & Ferguson are not much help--neither is a military historian -- Clark is interested primarily in rhetoric inside England and comparisons with the English Civil war of 100 years earlier. Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasnt suggesting that Clark was the best solution to the answer, just highlighting he is one of several historians that have used the term. Although i feel that the above is limiting what some think of the war as a whole. I am not familiar with any more of Clark's works so i cannot further comment on him however war is more than just a military affiar. It is a social and political one too (with that said, it makes Clark's position valid since he is providing how the war was viewed socially). A Military historian is not required to comment on war, look at the various economic historians who have focused on the economic side of the Second World War for example. As for Ferguson, he is a historian of empire and seems perfectly adequarte to make such a statement.

Further to the above discussion that calling the revolution, as a whole, in any way a civil war is a fringe theroy one conducted a quick non-exhaustive search (since one has to route through the ~40,000 results found and manually filter through the ones referring to the Civil Wars that occured in England, and then only searching through the first few pages) to point out the term is not a fringe theory one finds the following various kinds of sources (not suggested any should be used, nor that they would all be appropriate) that just use the term “British Civil War” (Again one points out I am not suggesting that this title even be including in the article, just raising further awareness that it is not just a fringe theory of people calling the revolution some sort of civil war. A search in an attempt to find works that point out it was a civil war ala the first source used above, without using the term 'British Civil War' would seem somewhat out the scope of the search engine):

In addition, regardless of what the wiki article states a civil war is, the OED defines it as such: "Of warfare, conflict, etc.: occurring within a society or community; taking place between inhabitants of the same country or state, or between the populace and the ruling power; of or relating to such conflict." and "war between the citizens or inhabitants of a single country, state, or community"

Regardless of there being a distance between the mother country and colony, they all belonged to the same state: the British Empire. The colonists and people within the British Isles and various other places were all British citizens. The Royal proclamation issued by George III on the borders of the American colonies, and the newly acquired colonies gained from the Seven Years War makes it pretty clear that the ruling powers saw the American colonists as their subjects. The opening of the revolution saw the removal of people put in power by the British government, i.e. the populace rebelling against the ruling power. Finally the Declaration of Independence makes it pretty clear that the fight for independence is because of the injustices imposed by the ruling power upon its subjects. Of course the DoI is a primary source, and takes OR to point out the fact that the king is the ruling power and the that the American colonists are British citizens conducting a rebellion/independence movement against a ruling power they no longer agree with so I am not expecting the DoI to be even used as a source.

"they all belonged to the same state: the British Empire." --well they did until July 4, 1776. London by 1777 treated it as a foreign war--against France, Spain & the US, & hired Hessians to handle much of the fighting. Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite correct on the first point, i cannot really comment on the latter points. The section entitled "British armies and auxiliaries" actually makes the point without saying it, that the various sides looked at it as a civil conflict in the opening stages at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two separate civil war theories 1) that the fighting between Loyalists/British troops and Patriots constituted a civil war 2) that the 1775-83 crisis was an Imperial Civil War in which many of Britain's Atlantic colonies and the mainland were divided. I doubt either are fringe theories as they've been widely discussed by mainstream historians.

The term "civil War" was in widespread use at the time - in 1774 the Massachusetts Assembly claimed General Gage's actions were threatening "the confusion and horrors of a civil war" [Chorlton. The First American Republic 1774-1789. p.448] and amongst both political and military historians [Kwasny. Washington's Partisan War, 1775-1783 p.183] "This civil war was brutal and showed no signs of abating after two and a half years", [Selby & Higginbotham. The Revolution in Virginia, 1775-1783 p.206] "the raid was Virginia's introduction to the brutality of civil war", [Burrows. Forgotten Patriots: The Untold Story of American Prisoners During the Revolution War. p.203] "The Revolutionary War was in many respects a civil war, during which an estimated 50,000 Tories took up arms to maintain British rule". With regard to the Imperial Civil War concept [Doyle. Secession as an International Phenomenon] discusses it at some length and [McDougall .Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History: 1585-1828] says "In one sense it was an Imperial Civil War since the colonies claimed sympathizers in the British Isles and the crown claimed Tory sympathizers in the colonies". That's really the tip of the iceberg. I'd estimate the majority of modern books on the subject refer to "civil war" at some point and it deserves a mention.

At the same time, I agree with Magicpianio's suggestion that a seperate article might be needed for a more detailed look at the various interpretations of the war (the "Advantages and disadvantages" section at the end of the current article, while well sourced, feels a bit subjective and out of place and would belong better in a seperate article).

"well they did until July 4, 1776." That's more of a gray area. Between 1776-1778 the US was an unrecognized state, and from then until 1782 /83 the only significant recognition received was from France - who as they were at war with Britain can't be counted as a disinterested party. Even after 1782 most European powers hung back until well after Britain had formally granted independence by ratified Treaty. In line with our NPOV policy, WP should avoid treating either 1776 or 1783 as the definite date of independence, because to do so would show bias to the claims of either the Loyalists or the Patriots. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"show bias to the claims of either the Loyalists or the Patriots." there were no "Loyalist claims" after 1776. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To play Devil's advocat to that statement, as the discussion is moving into realms i have little knowledge of: Did the Loyalists accept the Declaration of Independance? If so did they stop fighting? If they did not stop fighting, why did they carry on fighting? In line with the theme of Lord Cornwallis post, was there international recognition following the declaration and did the British accept that they were no longer their subjects but a foriegn state and people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"there were no "Loyalist claims" after 1776". Not sure what you mean by that - the Loyalists continued to reject independence right up until the point that Shelburne's government granted it in 1782/83 (and many even after that). Although the Loyalists were ultimately unsuccessful and many went into forced exile after 1783 that doesn't in any way invalidate their resistance to independence between 1776 and 1783. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

[outdent] after the British governors were expelled (by mid 1776) there was no regular government in the US for the Loyalists--there was either the new patriot gov't that covered about 90% of the population, plus the British military govt that controlled the other 10% or so. (coastal Georgia for a while was a brief exception). The Loyalists had no voice in either--they were outside of politics and had no role except to join the British Army. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the "civil war" issue is worth to be included in the narrative just as the opinion of a tiny number of authors. Otherwise we risk to give Undue weight to a minority viewpoint.--Darius (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How could this be a "British Civil War" when control of the UK was never in question? 12.239.145.114 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Mysore as a Belligerent

Should Mysore be added as a belligerent in the infobox on the American/French/Spanish/Dutch side? A couple of the articles on the battles that took place in India (Negapatem in 1781 and the 1783 Siege of Cuddalore) mention participation by several thousand Mysorean troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.220.203 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This would seem to be a parallel conflict, a proxy war of sorts between Great Britain and France. Mysore very likely had zero diplomatic contact with the fledgling American government. Odds are both sides were largely ignorant of their mutual struggle due to the extreme lengths of time required for news to travel from America all the way to India and back again. Not to mention the fact that communications would have to somehow evade the massive Royal Navy or seek clandestine transport therein. The enemy of your enemy may be your friend, but that does not necessarily make you military allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.80.200 (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

British Casualties

There is a relatively detailed description towards the bottom of the article describing American and Allied casualties, yet the British and Allies category is completely devoid of any information about British infantry losses. Yet the numbers are present in the overview at the top of the page. It seems likely that this information was originally included but has since been removed due to POV pushing or vandalism. Can this be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.80.200 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Order of Allies in infobox

There has been some edit waring over whether France should be included at the top of the userbox or not. Any reasons why? Uhlan ^talk 03:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved France to the head of the Allied side as I was under the impression, looking at other articles, that the largest participant is listed first. France was the dominant force in the coalition both militarily and diplomatically. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, does the most numerous country militarily come at the top of the infobox? I didn't know that. Uhlan ^talk 04:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's supposed to be based on hard statistics. It's about consensus. It doesn't really make sense for France to be listed first in the combatants list in America's war of independence. I'm sure most people would agree with that. You're right, roughly, but I still feel the U.S. should be listed first, and I'm sure I'm far from alone. CuboneKing (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, America should be listed first. (For your reason). Uhlan ^talk 07:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between the American Revolution (which understandably should focus on the American aspects) and this article which is about the global war in which the American theatre provided the spark, but played a gradually diminishing part. The common factor of the coalition is not America but France which as well as being the largest participant provided military/financial assistance to all the others and effective leadership of Allied strategy up to the Peace of Paris.

Like the Wars of the Spanish Succession, Polish Succession and Austrian Succession the common name of the conflict and the spark that set it off do not define what the war was principally about. They were all fought over the European Balance of Power. This was a global war and a renewal of the series of Anglo-Bourbon clashes during the century. From France's entry it was primarily a naval/amphibious war in which the US played a limited role because it lacked a fleet. Much of the role it did play (at Rhode Island, Savannah and Yorktown) was in co-operation with the French and was confined to continental America. By contrast France was operating globally in N.America, the Carribean, Europe, Africa and Asia, constructing a strong anti-British alliance in the process. The American Patriots' war against the British and Loyalists formed only a part of this.

The relative lack of importance of American independence to the wider war can be demonstrated by the fact that, other than France, the rest of the coalition (Spain, the Dutch Republic and Mysore) didn't even recognize the US. When Britain suspended offensive operations in America and began independence negotiations during 1782 the war continued and intensified elsewhere because it had little to do with American independence. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

By the logic of large numbers, France should be listed first at War of the Spanish Succession, since it (according to the figures in the infobox there) provided more armed forces to its side of the conflict; we find the Spanish listed first there. The same would probably apply in the Polish Succession, where French, Russian, and Austrian involvement undoubtedly swamped Polish forces in size, but again we find the Polish sides listed first. What was your point again in bringing these up?

The war became more intense in 1782 because all sides knew that the war would effectively end when the US and Britain made a treaty; they were playing for advantage. The beginning and end of the war were determined in North America. Magic♪piano 17:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I was bringing them up to illustrate the point that the common name of the conflict doesn't necessarily what the war is generally fought over, not as examples of infoboxes. IMHO France should be top in the War of the Spanish Succession list as the largest participant. It would make sense to list the two disputed parties first if the war had been fought entirely in Spain, but instead it provided the spark for a wider European war that was often unrelated to the Spanish succession. The same thing happened here, when several powers entered the war who had scant interest in American independence.

I agree the war started in America, although it had been generally accepted after 1763 that another Anglo-Bourbon war was imminent and it might just have easily begun over Corsica in 1768 or the Falklands in 1770. France's involvement began very early in the conflict, and was rooted in its desire to weaken Britain to reverse what they saw as London's hegemony after 1763. With regards to the end of the war, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion. My understanding that it was a variety of factors which brought on the end of the war, but historians often tend to emphasise France's financial exhaustion and Vergennes' concerns about the Crimean situation as his motivation to accept peace. I'll dig out my sources further tomorrow and try and dig up some sources. In-depth studies of 1782 tend to be sceptical of the popular notion of Yorktown bringing an end to the war. I'm interested, because I know from your edits to this and related articles that you know a great deal about the war and your sources may be better than mine.

Apologies if this post doesn't make total sense. I'm in a bit of a rush. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Anglo-Bourbon war was imminent and it might just have easily begun over Corsica in 1768 or the Falklands in 1770. But it didn't. It started because Americans took the initiative without foreign assistance at the time. And France only joined the war after America proved itself at Saratoga. Thus it should stay at the top. Hot Stop^UTC 20:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion (although this is a subject for other talk pages) is that the infoboxes on the various succession wars would look silly if the belligerents were not headed by the various claimants, regardless of the aspirations of their (possibly much more powerful) allies. This suggests to me that the rule of thumb that the largest/dominant participants head lists is not always a reliable one to follow. Magic♪piano 20:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with you, but if we followed the same practice with this conflict we'd have to put the Loyalists above the British. One of the benefits from putting the largest power first would be, IMHO, that we'd avoid having to make subjective judgements of the importance of the various participants. While I think it would be acceptable to place the claimants first in something like the Spanish Civil War where, despite international intervention, the war was largely fought within national boundaries I don't think it is justified in a conflict like this which involved so many other countries fighting around the globe with such little connection to the original dispute.

Hot Stop - I don't dispute that the fighting broke out in Massachusetts. However, the war quickly became swallowed up into a larger conflict. French involvement began before the Declaration of Independence when the rebels were still fighting as the United Colonies with an unclear end objective. A number of sources credit French assistance as crucial to Saratoga, so their involvement began well before that point. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep America at top. This is consistent with reliable sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Which reliable sources? I've skimmed through a dozen or so books, but none suggest the US was either the largest or most significant member of the alliance. The reasons I'd consider France belongs at the top:

1) France's strength both militarily and diplomatically. France maintained larger land and naval forces. Its regular army was 156,000 in 1786 [Black. British Foreign Policy in an Age of Revolutions, 1783-1793. p.62). In 1782, the peak year of the naval war, France had 73 ships-of-the-line to the United States's 0. [Dull. A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution p.110]. The US failed to gain any serious diplomatic recognition beyond France, and was therefore generally excluded from the ongoing discussions between the European powers such as the Spanish mediation and the Austro-Russian mediation. It was often left to Vergennes to advance the American case on Congress' behalf. (During the 1782 negotiations France also performed a similar function for their European allies while discussing peace with Lord Shelburne and the Anglo-Dutch Treaty was negotiated entirely by Vergennes). [Bemis. The Diplomacy of the American Revolution] Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Obviously France was more significant in the naval conflict, but the vast majority of France's large regular army was sitting in garrisons in France during the war. France's participation in the land war in North America was limited to the period 1780-1781, and consisted of considerably fewer troops than Washington's continental army. There was, effectively, no land war in Europe, save for the siege of Gibraltar, primarily conducted by the Spanish. This whole argument is pure contrarianism. john k (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

2) The degree to which Congress was itself dependent on Versailles. France played a major role in financing and supplying the rebels, even before it formally entered the war or the US had declared its independence. The success of Gates at Saratoga is often attributed to these French shipments. As the war went on Congress became increasingly dependent on these payments and supplies. [see various books on Benjamin Franklin's French Mission or diplomatic studies of the war]. French forces both on land and sea were crucial to Congress' ambitions to capture the coastal cities in British hands. In the post-Yorktown stalemate Washington and his advisors were aware that any move against New York or Canada depended on the involvement of the French fleet and Rochambeau's expeditionary force. [Fleming. The Perils of Peace].

3) France's construction and leadership of the anti-British coalition. The Patriots' military efforts were almost entirely confined to continental America. Although the US had unofficial contact with and received aid from the other members of the alliance it lacked any serious co-ordination with them. France by contrast fought the conflict as it had the Seven Years' War, as a global contest to seek a decisive weakening of British power, and drew up the annual global strategy for the alliance.

France's dominance is largely explained by sheer demographics. France had about 28m inhabitants while the population of America reached around 3m during the fighting (and many of these were loyalists or neutrals who contributed little to Congress' military efforts) and a much larger economy and credit machine. Therefore it was able to support a larger military establishment. I'm always open to being persuaded, but I haven't yet seen evidence in RS that America rather than France was the dominant participant.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that if you look at sources that properly treat the non-North American aspects of this war, you will find Cornwallis is right. The problem, of course, is that many (primarily American) sources don't cover things like Gibraltar, Minorca, or the West Indies theaters except as incidental to the "main" conflict. I think it is abundantly clear that France put much more effort into the conflict than the states did. Magic♪piano 20:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously doubting France's contributions (though I'm not sure how many French soldiers actually fought in America). Nonetheless, America should remain on top, if only because the war is called the American Revolutionary War, and not the Anglo-French War of 1777-1783 (or something of that nature). The war is best remembered for America gaining independence than anything else. Hot Stop^UTC 20:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"though I'm not sure how many French soldiers actually fought in America". The problem there, is that you are viewing the war as confined to fighting in America. The fact is the global war came increasingly to dwarf it. Although it still remained significant, hence the presence of De Grasse and Rochembeau, the other theatres of the war took on increasingly greater importance to Britain and France and obviously to the other Allies who weren't fighting in America at all.

"Nonetheless, America should remain on top, if only because the war is called the American Revolutionary War". You are missing the point which I was trying to make by referring to the Spanish, Polish and Austrian wars where the bulk of the fighting took place outside of those respective countries and was fought primarily over the wider balance of power. The naming of wars can often be a red herring - the Anglo-American soldiers who attacked Cartagena weren't trying to uncut Jenkins' Ear. Rather the war was triggered by a colonial trading dispute which soon (like this war) became subsumed by a wider European conflict. I'm not convinced this war's name (and there are several names by which it is known) justifies putting the US above France. If you can provide a source demonstrating it, I'd be more than happy to read it, I just haven't come across one yet.

Magicpiano is correct in pointing out the problem in the emphasis of the sources. A lot of books focus solely on the fighting in the US (except for including Canada and the Floridas) and discuss French intervention solely in terms of expeditionary forces. Sources which cover the wider war tend to emphasise France's dominant role. This article is about the wider war, not just the fighting in America and the infobox should reflect that. I've breifly tried to provide sources which demonstrate France's role in the war. Given a day or two I could assemble more. Berean Hunter mentioned RS supporting the US at the head of the infobox - I'd be interested to see them and that might help us reach a consensus. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be making an argument that the fighting in the thirteen colonies was tangential to a larger global war (not unlike the French and Indian War). Are there any sources that support that notion? Hot Stop^UTC 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was saying the opposite - that the fighting in America shouldn't be considered a limited, seperate war. America was just one theatre of the war and one of gradually diminishing importance as it was swallowed up by wider operations in which France was the leading allied power and in which the US (owing to its size, limited navy etc.) played virtually no part. As well as the US absence from other theatres of the war, France's participation in the American theatre was crucial in securing full American independence and reinforces France's dominant role in the coalition.

That the British considered the American theatre as subordinate to others is demonstrated by the decision to order Clinton to abandon Philadelphia (and New York as well if necessary) in order to be able to send troops to the more valuable W. Indies. [see various histories of the war]. "this strategic change was profound. Through unarticulated, it was tantamount to a conclusion that the thirteen colonies were no longer to be the main effort of the war".[Ferling. Almost a Miracle. p.268] "the Franco-American alliance completely altered the war for the British and the Americans, pushed naval considerations to the forefront, and brought a shift of geographical focus to encompass the West Indies, and even India. The war in North America took second place for the British, below the struggle with France, which itself centred on the security of home waters". [Black. Crisis of Empire p.155].

On the other hand, the British formally treated the American conflict as separate to the wider international war, insisting that it was an internal dispute which was none of the business of the other European powers. During their rejection of attempts at mediation, they objected to foreign intervention in a domestic matter and made an immediate French withdrawal from the Thirteen Colonies a pre-condition of any wider peace or truce. In practical terms, however, they had to treat their American opponents as part of the more general war when calculating global strategy. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question our article France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War#French_involvement seems to suggest fewer than 10,000 French soldiers fought in North America (the Continental Army was marginally larger, according to its article, though that doesn't count various militias) -- is that an accurate number? (and yes, I know how important their navy was at the end of the war, that fighting took place elsewhere, etc. etc. I just want to know if that number is correct.)

And another point that hasn't been brought up, wouldn't bumping France up marginalize the contributions of Spain and to a lesser extent the Netherlands?

And I'd also like to note that on the French Wikipedia page [2] France is listed after the 13 colonies/US. If anyone wanted to emphasize French contributions, wouldn't it be them? Hot Stop^UTC 17:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to soldiers (excluding d’Estaing's marines during the Newport campaign) serving in mainland N. America that sounds roughly right but somebody else may have a more definite figure. The Continental Army figure sounds too low for the peak size, so I presume this is referring to the situation in 1781 during the Yorktown Campaign. There were around 9-10,000 French regulars present at Yorktown, I believe.

I'm not sure how you mean that switching France and the US would marginalize Spain or the Dutch Republic, as they would both sit at the same spot as they had before.

I'm also slightly confused by your comment on the French Wikipedia. By them do you mean the French editors or the French sources. Neither the English or French WP is an RS and the content of this article should be determined by English-language RS. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll start with the last point first, but I would assume French sources would be more likely to emphasize the French efforts. Also, I'm not sure why foreign language sources can't be considered, I could find anything at WP:RS to support that. As to the point of marginalizing Spain/Holland, putting France above would highlight France's contributions and make them stand out from the other European powers more than they should. And our article says the Continental Army's peak was about 17,000 but I did base my comment more on the Yorktown Campaign, where the numbers were about equal. Hot Stop^UTC 18:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd hope French language sources would apply the sort of objectivity which really define an RS. Is there any evidence that the order in the French infobox was constructed using RS? Either way the French WP can't be cited as an RS, so its not really relevant to this article. The policy on other languages is at WP:NOENG, I think it exists largely because it prevents those who can't read the language from verifying it, but there can be exceptions. Was there a particular French source you wanted to introduce?

In terms of the scale of its participation there's an argument, I suppose, that Spain should also be above the US (given the Armada campaign, Gibraltar and Minorca, Florida and C. America, the planned invasions of Jamaica and the wider war at sea) but its far less clear-cut. Spain didn't exert anything close to the dominance that France did over the alliance, and its own projects tended to rely on French support. I wouldn't advocate moving Spain up in the order, unless anyone else does. I don't think that marginalizes Spain, it simply accurately reflects its contribution. The Dutch entered the war reluctantly and were very dependent on France (who negotiated the final peace treaty on their behalf) and its participation was considerably smaller than that of France, the US or Spain.

Even 17,000 sounds a bit too low for the peak size to me, but I might just be confusing the paper total (Congress was often wildly overoptimistic about the number of recruits it could raise each year) with the actual total. I'm not sure what bearing this has on the current discussion on the infobox, though. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox cont'd

So, has anyone found any sources that support the US being at the top of the infobox? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't particulary care if France or USA had the most troops. The fact is, I just can't believe that Wikipedia hasn't made any guidelines for this sort of thing already. Uhlan ^talk 03:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't we follow consensus here? The US has always been on top, and there's no consensus to change it in the above argument. I suggest taking it up with WP:MILHIST. Hot Stop^UTC 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why sources are needed to justify the order of things in the infobox. There are essentially two differing editorial opinions on what should be done, each of which is justified on somewhat rational grounds. This means that it is an editorial decision (i.e. consensus) and not a question of fact as to what is or is not done. Magic♪piano 12:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn’t pretty much everything in the article need to be verified if challenged, even the contents of the infobox?

Consensus requires a basis in RS. If RS are produced that supports that position I'd welcome reading them, and I'm open to being convinced. At the moment I wouldn't say we've come anywhere close to the point of no consensus, it is still an ongoing discussion. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering there's no firm guideline on how combatants should be ordered (I suggest, again, you take that up with MILHIST), there's really no point in enumerating sources. You seem to be making up a rule that the biggest participant in a war in terms of shear numbers goes on top automatically, but that rule doesn't exist. It should be fairly the obvious the main reason to keep the US on top is that it felt the impact of the war more than any participant (and if you try to dispute that, then there's really no hope for you). Hot Stop^UTC 13:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What reliable source says what order we should put things in the infobox? I'm not denying that the facts presented in the infobox (force strength, who the participants are, etc) need to be sourced, but the presentation is an editorial decision. You are essentially arguing an editorial opinion: that force strength determines order. Others disagree. This is where the consensus is lacking. Magic♪piano 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop - "It should be fairly the obvious the main reason to keep the US on top is that it felt the impact of the war more than any participant" I wouldn't totally disagree with the second part of the sentence, but that in itself is an unsourced statement and also appears to be creating a rule to apply to ordering the infobox.

Magicpiano - My request for a source was partly based on Berean Hunter's justification for seeing the US at the top - "This is consistent with reliable sources". I do accept your point in terms of no source supplying a definite statement that "X should be top of the Wikipedia Infobox" but at the same time that doesn't mean RS are absolutely irrelevant to determining the order of the box. If arguments rely on an assertion of fact, as Hot Point's immediatly above does, then they surely require RS to be deployed if challenged. I perhaps misphrased the question at the top of this section, and should have asked what sources support the arguments used to justify the US being on top.

If I could put the question another way, what criteria do you consider the infobox order is currently constructed by (not just France/US but of all participants) and how is the manner in which each participant conforms to these criteria judged and verified? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to the Wikiproject: Military History talk page in order to get a more thorough consensus. Uhlan ^talk 03:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was no American involvement there would have been no war. The top spot should be the saved for the country that is the reason for the war: USA. Position number 2 should be for the largest ally, position three for the next largest, etc. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet - This comes back to the issue of RS again. What are your sources for either of those statements? Particularly bearing in mind that both the outbreak of war and French involvement in it pre-date the Declaration of Independence. Aside from the caveat that the US should be first, would I be correct in saying you're endorsing the idea that the infobox should be ranked by size?

As I've said, I'm open to persuasion that the US belongs top, but a necessary step towards either reaching Consensus or No Consensus is to establish the criteria of the current order, and how it is verified that each participant meets that. Without that we appear to be relying too much on the personal opinion of editors, rather than RS.

Regarding the suggestion for broader community infobox guidelines it sounds a good idea, particularly if there is a failure to establish a consensus here. Would it be fair to say there is agreement about a need to establish a basis for both which and in what order participants are presented in the infobox? I'd admit to not having much experience of how guidelines are drawn up, as I work primarily on creating or improving articles. Can anyone clarify how exactly the process works? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the relevant template's guide states "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article."

To change it (or for clarification), you'd either need to discuss it at the template's talkpage or MILHIST's talkpage. I think the latter is more appropriate because you'd probably get more eyes on the issue (in fact I'm going to leave a courtesy note about this discussion there, without addressing the broader issues). Hot Stop^UTC 16:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not in favor of putting France first in the infobox. I am in favor of putting the US first because of the general importance of that country to the conflict. There would be no conflict if it weren't for nascent nation-making notions of the soon-to-be Americans. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for putting the US first:

The US (technically, its predecessors) and Britain started the war (surely LordCornwallis does not dispute this grade-school fact)
The end of the war was predicated on events pertaining to North America. The fall of the North government was a fairly direct consequence of Yorktown, and it brought the peace party to power in Britain. France, due to financial straits, was considering making terms in early 1781, but success at Yorktown persuaded them to continue the effort for another year.(Dull, Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, pp. 120ff) There were hawks in the late 1780-early 1781 French councils arguing for an expansion of the war; Vergennes was opposed (on financial grounds), and carried the day.(Murphy, Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, p. 325) Peace negotiations in 1781 foundered because King George refused to accept US sovereignty as a groundrule; Vergennes then chose to campaign in 1782, rather than abandoning the US.(Murphy, p. 332) American negotiators gained their own terms at the peace table, better than Vergennes expected them to get.(Mirza, The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, p. 188) (Mirza also opines that France was the big loser in the war, a sentiment I've also seen expressed elsewhere, and that US negotiators basically sidelined the French in their work.) Magic♪piano 18:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The argument that the French had more troops involved seems, at least as so far presented, to be completely specious. Taking the effective size of the entire French army, the vast majority of which had no involvement in the war, and claiming that this means that France had greater involvement in the war than the Americans, is absurd. Especially since there's no consensus that the party with the greatest strength should be listed first in these infoboxes. Note the article on the Korean War, where the Chinese actually did have more troops than the North Koreans, but the latter are mentioned first. Note World War I, where the British and French are listed ahead of the Russians, even though the Russians had the largest army. Although the Revolutionary War obviously was not just a continental war in North America, it was nonetheless primarily that, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of reliable sources on the subject focus on that aspect of it. And the primary protagonists in that continental war were the Americans, not the French. john k (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding immediately. I'm a little tied up in non-WP activities. I'll try and address the various points in detail tomorrow. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, apologies for not responding immediately. Another unexpectedly hectic day. I've part-written the response, so if I have time I'll post it later tonight or, if not, tomorrow. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox pt 3

Sorry for the delay. Thanks for bearing with me. Apologies, also, for the length of this post. I've actually trimmed it down a fair bit, but I wanted to adress the various points made in detail.

Hot Stop: Thanks for that info.

Binksternet: I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Aside from the caveat that the US is ranked first, you appeared to be suggesting that size was otherwise a good basis for listing the remaining participants with your statement "Position number 2 should be for the largest ally, position three for the next largest, etc.". I didn't take that to mean you were advocating France at the top.

Clearly fighting began in Massachusetts but it's a huge leap from that to saying "If there was no American involvement there would have been no war" or to imply that the issue of US independence was the cause of the war's outbreak in Spring 1775 (more than a year before the Dec, when most Patriots still opposed independence). "It is quite anachronistic to think in terms of two different nations going to war" [Rodger. Command of the Ocean p.331] Perhaps I am in turn misunderstanding what you are saying but is it your view that the Anglo-Bourbon War only broke out due to the initial fighting in America and that the post-1778 coalition's primary goal was American independence?

Magicpiano: No dispute over where the war broke out. (The issue was whether it was the US that fought it for the first fifteen months). Nonetheless I think we can all agree that the American theatre was the virtually exclusive one for the first three years. There is possibly some merit in using date of entry into the war as a rough guide for the order (the top four would remain the same). On the other hand, if we were to use where the war began/first participants more generally, it would mean Serbia being ranked first in WW1 because of the war's origins there.

The American fighting was largely brought to an end by events triggered by Yorktown, but was increasingly detached from the rest of the war which continued along the overarching theme of reducing British power. It was ended for a series of reasons: war exhaustion, the growing Crimean Crisis and the fact that through endless horse-trading the European powers were each able to establish what they felt was a satisfactory peace that rebalanced power. Vergennes was driven by the belief that he and Shelburne could restructure European diplomacy for a new era, starting by containing Russian ambitions in the Crimea. The popular term "peace party" oversimplifies Shelburne and Fox's position, which was broadly pro-peace with America so as to be able to better prosecute the war against the Bourbons, the "real enemy", unless they were to give Britain satisfactory terms (eg. a return to the 1763 Treaty). If there's a need for citations for the above, please ask and I'll supply them but this post was already so lengthy I didn't want to add more to it.

The key territory in the dying stages of the war was Gibraltar, which was guaranteed to Spain by the alliance with France, rather than America. "By depicting America as the axis around which all diplomacy revolved, Morris overplays the excitement and novelty of the birth of America and forgets that, for contemporaries, the European negotiations were of much greater significance" and "American independence having become inevitable, the real question of the peace negotiations was how Britain and France would settle their differences: would they continue the war or would they strive to make peace, who would gain most, and how would the balance of power be affected?" [Stockley. Britain and France at the birth of America. p.74]

Vergennes was firm in his support of independence throughout the conflict, but that just reinforces France's role. The French assumed the cause of independence as a key part in its main objective of severely weakening British power and restoring its own role as the arbiter of Europe. However, Vergennes maintained that while bound to support US independence, the Treaty of Alliance did not commit him to support the extensive territories they were demanding. He was taken by surprise by the scale of western territory which Britain gave up, which amounted to little more than an enormous bribe to push the Americans to the separate peace Shelburne had sought throughout the year. Vergennes described it as a "defection", and in many ways it fractured the Franco-American alliance.

Mizra's summary is pretty accurate IMHO. The war was a miscalculation by Vergennes, and involved France doing the heavy-lifting for Spain and the US without securing anything tangible on its own behalf other than the mirage of future co-operation with Britain. It certainly didn't overturn the balance of power in the way he'd hoped. But benefits gained from the war surely don't define the relative importance during the fighting? I'm not convinced that the RS support the idea that the wider war ended because the American theatre did, or how that would emphasise the US importance to the coalition over France given that independence was also a French war aim and "French help was the single most importance factor in determining the outcome of the War of Independence" [Ferling. Almost a Miracle p.564]).

John K: The problem is that argument a) sidesteps the role of the navy, which was the principal focus of the war effort after 1778 (in terms of peak SOTL France had 79, Spain 58 and the US 0). b) rests on the assumption that troops in Metropolitan France weren't involved. During the Armada of 1779, there is an army "40-50,000 strong on a 120-mile front from St Malo to Le Havre" from whom "a massive blow was clearly about to be delivered somewhere" [Longmate, Norman. Island Fortress: The Defence of Great Britain, 1603-1945" p.201]. The presence of French, Spanish and Dutch troops/ships in Europe dictated what assets the British could send to other theatres. Various RS indicate the principle theatre of the war was in European waters to which events in all other theatres were closely linked. [e.g. Black. Crisis of Empire p.155)

The concept of N. America as the principal theatre rests on the idea that post-1778 this was basically a land war, and also a limited one in which forces in one part of the world had no bearing on those in another. Yet its naval/amphibious emphasis and global dimensions are well-documented in RS. The supremacy of the American theatre isn't borne out by the British gov'ts order in 1778 to abandon Philadelphia, New York and RI if necessary (which would have removed the entire British presence on the US seaboard), in order to secure its other territories against France. [Syrett. The Royal Navy in European waters. p.20] From 1778 the British stopped sending new units to America [Black. Crisis of Empire. p.155] . As Congress struggled with finances and recruits, troop strength fell rapidly, meaning they couldn't take major offensives without French assistance.

A sample of RS on the general issue:

"From the British viewpoint, the whole campaign that ended at Yorktown was only a relatively minor part of the war which, by 1781, involved fighting in Europe, America, Africa and Asia, in which the fighting in N. America was assuming steadily decreasing importance".[Grainger. The Battle of Yorktown: A Reassessment. p.1]
"What began now was a war for empire against Britain by France, later joined by Spain, in which the US was a very junior partner". [Bicheno. Redcoats and Rebels. p.115]
"War with France could not be long delayed. This would be a real war, potentially a mortal threat to Britain, which reduced the American rebellion to a sideshow. [Rodger. Command of the Ocean. p.335]
"France, like the other European countries, placed more value on the W. Indies" [Chavez. Spain and the Independence of the United States. p.82].
Even before the country's formal entry into the war "Secret French assistance sustained the drive to declare independence in 1776 and further - and greater - aid from Versailles in 1777 was a key factor in the rebel victory at Saratoga" [Ferling. Almost a Miracle. p.564]
There's a rough outline of France's material non-military aid to the US here[3]

With regard to John K's point about sources: Many of these books focus so single-mindedly on the American theatre to the extent that they are effectively works on that subject rather than the wider war which is the full subject of this article. [Rodger. The Insatiable Earl p.266] "But most of the books are written about the fighting in America, and even those which view the world war as a whole, take the Americas crisis as a reference point. The effect is to prejudge the central issue of the war, to ignore the most difficult decisions to take, and to distort the understanding of the rest". Therefore while useful guides to strategy in the American theatre, they often tend to be incomplete ones when addressing the entire war. There is no disagreement here that in the American theatre alone the US should be top. This would be fine if this article was confined to the pre-1778 war or only American operations, but it covers the global war. Therefore the infobox needs to rely more heavily on RS that focus on this. If we focus disproportionately on US/Canada, we begin to veer towards systematic bias of the sort seen at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War.

I think I should re-emphasise (perhaps I didn't make it fully clear) that my argument has progressed from suggesting the participants be ranked purely by size (although this would have the benefit of comparative simplicity) to how RS present them in terms of importance (which I'd expect we could agree is not totally unrelated to size). The sources appear to outline France's dominance of the coalition in financial, political/diplomatic and military terms. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I must admit I skimmed your post, because it's way too long for me to read. But it seems like your cherry picking sources to meet your POV. Also, they seem to come from the British "we would've won the war if it weren't for those pesky French" (which might be true, but still). Honestly, anyone of us could post THOUSANDS of sources treating the US more prominently than the French. Hot Stop^UTC 15:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

They are a pretty broad range of sources from both European and N. American authors. If you dispute what these RS are saying, you really need to produce sources that challenge the statements they make. (Not just that they focus on the American theatre, but describe its supremacy in the global war on which this article is about). British strategy is obviously very important to the war, as it is the common factor which links all the theatres.

BTW none of this is my POV. Several of the sources I've quoted here don't reflect my own views of the war (which are of course irrelevant to article). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop - There are certainly thousands of works, mostly pitched to American audiences, that "treat the US more prominently than the French". As LordCornwallis correctly notes, these sorts of sources are of limited use in this discussion because of their inherent bias. I've seen a number of his sources, and he's not misusing them (cherry-picking quotes).

I'll briefly comment on this line by Lord Cornwallis: "I'm not convinced that the RS support the idea that the wider war ended because the American theatre did". I think the way to characterize this is that decisive action in North America was a precondition (i.e. a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, condition) for peace. Even if fighting were to have stopped on the rest of the global stage, the war (or at least guerrilla-style resistance) in North America would probably have continued. Magic♪piano 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

LC, if you personally don't agree with the argument your making, why are you making it?

MP, What's wrong with those sources aimed towards Americans audiences? If a majority of sources are aimed at Americans, doesn't that say something about who the war was most important to.

LC again, I think part of the reason people haven't provided sources to say America should say on top is the lack of criteria. Simply put, the only thing that would really solve the issue would be a source saying "America should be on the top of any encyclopedia's infobox referring to the war," but of course it's not. There's a level of judgment/common sense that seems to apply both here and other infoboxes about combatants. For the sake of it, I can go through some of the reasons why the US should stay on top.

1) The US fought the war alone for its first three years. Sure, weapons used may have been French-made, as a source you presented suggests and they covertly provided aide to the US, but that means nothing. Would we list the US atop infoboxes for the numerous late 20th century wars where it provided aide to countries?

2) The US had the most at stake. Is there any disputing this?

3) France only entered the war after Saratoga where America proved itself.

4) In the main theater of the war, France provided few soldiers. Even you agree that France had at most 10,000 soldiers in the US.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post. I think another thing you should ask yourself is 'why isn't anyone agreeing with me?'. You've done a pretty impressive of job of finding sources (I'm not quite sure how you found all of them), but I just don't know why you're fighting for this if you personally don't agree with it. Hot Stop^UTC 04:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Magicpiano: I'd agree, although the extent to which the US was able to continue fighting without support is questionable. (Certainly the US couldn't have taken NYC alone. Grainger [Yorktown: A Reassessment p.178-179] estimates it would have needed both French control of the seas, and an army of around 30,000 French troops to seize). Loyalist-Patriot guerilla-fighting of the sort seen during 1782 sounds more likely. It might well have ended in a long-term truce with both sides holding their positions, of the sort proposed during the Spanish Mediation.

In this case the opposite almost happened, with the global war nearly continuing over the question of Spain's insistence on Gibraltar (to which the US was indirectly committed due to its own alliance terms with France, but probably would have ignored) in spite of the fact that the British had accepted Independence. I think we could agree that the war's ending was very complex given the differing Allied goals in various theatres, Britain's determination to get a separate American peace and the fact that (as in most 18th century wars) they were negotiating while the fighting was still going on.

Hotstop: "In the main theater of the war, France provided few soldiers". Again that relies on the assumption that America was the main theatre and that it was primarily a land war. The RS I've produced don't support either assumption. In refuting them you would need to produce RS that directly challenge them. Clearly a book that focuses exclusively on one theatre is of limited use in drawing up an infobox which reflects the whole war. Now that you have supplied the criteria in the guidelines (thanks again for that) we have something more concrete to work from and assess by using RS.

The RS seem pretty clear about France's leading role both in terms of "military contribution and political clout" on a global level. The Allies lacked a direct command chain, but decisions about global strategy generally tended to be taken largely in co-operation between Floridablanca and Vergennes. The US doesn't seem to come top in any of the three criteria in the guidelines. If you were to propose splitting off the American theatre into its own article, then I'd support the US being at the top of it, but the main article is, and should be, about the entire global war.

"I think another thing you should ask yourself is 'why isn't anyone agreeing with me?'." From WP:CON "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view".

Our goal as an editor on WP is to get the articles to best reflect the views of RS (whether or not we personally agree with them). It's not our job to fight for our own personal POV (which is totally irrelevant) to be included in the articles. Other than Magicpiano, none of you have cited any RS to support your arguments. Which RS have you consulted that support your assertions? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea that reliable sources treat French involvement as more important than American is just totally specious. You're cherry picking arguments that support what you want to say, not actually providing a fair summary of what reliable sources say. The fact that you are dismissing American books written for American audiences is the real tip-off there. Some of your sources are clearly asserting revisionist views - most notably the Grainger, which is noted as a "reassessment." The idea that Yorktown was a minor sideshow is just totally ridiculous, as is the general idea that the British cared more about the naval war with France than they did about the American colonies. In the context of wars between Britain and France in the eighteenth century, the war of 1778 to 1783 was easily the least consequential. Unlike every other Anglo-French war, it had no continental component, there was no French threat to the Low Countries or Hanover, nor any real threat of invasion or subversion of Britain. British domestic politics were riven by disputes over the American colonies and what policies to pursue in the American war. The French war was basically uncontroversial, and mostly just a rehash of the naval components of the much more significant Seven Years War. Even after 1778, the primary British goal in the war was to recover its North American colonies. Defending its various other colonial possessions against the French and Spanish was important, but was entirely auxiliary to the main issue. This can be seen from the fact that after Yorktown, the North government fell, peace negotiations were opened by the new Whig government, and the wars with France and Spain were not pursued (by either party) after the British recognized the fact of American independence. The war was about North America, and it was the North American component of it that was ultimately of greatest historical importance. The Anglo-French war was basically inconsequential to the larger course of Anglo-French rivalry in the long eighteenth century. I don't really have time to try to find reliable sources to back my argument at the moment, but that doesn't really matter. You haven't provided any evidence that your argument is actually the majority point of view - highly selective short quotations from a couple of sources doesn't demonstrate anything - to prove your point you'd need to show that most of the general histories of the Revolutionary War treat it the way you want it to be treated here. Even then, you'd still not have very much of a case, because there's not any actual rules or consensus saying that the order of countries in the infobox is to be based on who contributed most to the war effort. You just made that up. john k (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First off I'd direct you towards WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. The accusative tone in your two posts is unnecessary. Some of your points give the impression that you haven't fully read the discussion or made an effort to examine the RS produced. If you have already, perhaps it would help if you did so again.

"The fact that you are dismissing American books written for American audiences is the real tip-off there." I didn't actually. It was Magicpiano who referred to American audiences and I don't think they dismissed them. Nor is this a question of the historian's nationality, many America-focused accounts of the war are written by Europeans, many which deal with the wider war are by N. Americans. A number of the books I provided were written for (largely) American audiences. I also provided an RS which set out the obvious limitations of a source which only focuses on one theatre of the war.

"because there's not any actual rules or consensus saying that the order of countries in the infobox is to be based on who contributed most to the war effort. You just made that up". Except it was Hot Stop who supplied the guidelines, and they clearly didn't make them up.

"You're cherry picking arguments that support what you want to say, not actually providing a fair summary of what reliable sources say" I'd say the quotes were reflective of the general attitudes of the books produced. I've already provided a large number of RS including a number of standard works. I can provide more. I don't at the moment feel under any great obligation to, as I've already provided the vast majority of sources while nobody else (save for Magicpiano) has provided a single one.

"I don't really have time to try to find reliable sources to back my argument at the moment, but that doesn't really matter." It does, that's the basis of WP:V. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who suggested the size of the army was the deciding factor? Au contraire mon ami. You started this whole thing with the edit summary Move France to the top, as it was the largest Allied participant. I merely cited the relevant template which says size of the forces is one factor to consider (I'm paraphrasing of course). Hot Stop^UTC 01:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, you posted the relevant guideline. To quote it in full "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article". Obviously you didn't make it up. This discussion is now focused on how the various Allied participants should be ranked according to what RS say about their military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. You need to produce the RS you feel support placing the US above France according to these criteria. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And why are you disregarding the last part (different metrics)? Hot Stop^UTC 01:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Has there been a consensus about which differing metrics can be used to rank the participants in this article? I'm not sure that there has. If you want there to be you'd need to outline them (show how they'd apply to all the participants) and supply RS. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there's been a consensus to have the US on top for the last 8 years for some reason. Hot Stop 13:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Our infobox lists:

"50,000± Americans dead and wounded & 6,000± French and Spanish (in Europe)"

This alone would seem to illustrate the obvious greater military contribution by the US than France. The 50,000 in the box is cited.

I also have serious doubts that soldiers fighting in Gibraltar would have considered themselves as participants of the American Revolutionary War. My comments about reliable sources stands. I have never read that France was the more important combatant although I am aware of their contributions. After reading what you have supplied LC, nothing about my position has changed. There is nothing that I need to hunt down in sources which explain that the US was a more significant combatant than the French - this is inherent. You have not presented a RS which illustrates the converse to any degree which would make a compelling argument.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

HS: An existing consensus in the article can't by itself be used as a justification for rejecting a change. You need to make a positive case using RS why the US should be top according to the stated criteria.

BH:I think you may still be conflating the American theater with the global war in its entirety. What are the sources that say it wasn't and which war do they consider it part of? The two standard works on Gibraltar [McGuffie. The Siege of Gibraltar] and [Falkner. Fire Over the Rock] both include it in the war while [Anderson. Europe in the Eighteenth Century. p.346] describes it as "by far the greatest military operation of the war". There isn't anything inherent about this at all. RS need to be provided that support the argument per WP:V.

Some further samples of RS on the global context:

Global War

"Nevertheless, from 1778 the perspective shifted. Great Britain was now involved in an international war in which victory in America was no longer the sole or even the most important objective. [Whitley. Lord North p.183]
"In no earlier war had France and England committed their fates so completely to the seas". "Both powers could use their military forces only to the extent which sea power allowed. Everything depended on the control of maritime communications. [Mackesy. War for America. p.162]
"After 1778 putting down the rebellion became secondary to the global struggle with the Bourbon powers, France and Spain. The center of the war effort in America shifted seaward and southward as Britain sought to protect its possessions in the West Indies" [Wood. The American Revolution. p80-81)
"What had begun as a rebellion - a family quarrel of sorts - at Lexington and Concord in 1775 had become a world war with the involvement of France". "At Yorktown in 1781, France's crucial aid had solved the family quarrel. The United States was anxious to make peace. France, as O'Hara and the British Ministry rightly feared, was not quite ready to come to terms with Britain. For Louis XVI and the Comte de Vergennes, his foreign minister, the war on the American mainland was never more than secondary theater of operations. [Greene. The Guns of Independence: The Siege of Yorktown. p.xvii]
"At the same time the Cabinet decided to relegate the American campaign to a minor role, sending most of the troops to the West Indies. They accepted Sandwich's argument that with war against France now certain, the colonial rebellion had become a sideshow" [Rodger. The Insatiable Earl p.237]
"It was in Europe, after all, that the real power to conduct wars lay: the powerful governments, the wealth, the capability of sending these forces all over the world, and of supplying them" [Grainger. Yorktown p.179].
"Still more galling to the Americans was the low priority accorded to them by their French allies, for whom North America was just a minor piece in a global game. [Harvey. A Few Bloody Noses p.390]
The British cabinet's view, clearly key in establishing worldwide strategy, are instructive here "The object of the war being now changed, and the contest in America being a secondary consideration" [Rodger. Command of the Ocean. p.335]. "The problem that now faced the King and North was how best to deal with the threat of renewed war with the French, who would certainly try and seize the West Indian sugar islands. The King had already expressed the opinion that should a war against France become inevitable, 'the only means of making it successful' would be to withdraw most of the troops from America and employ them against the French and Spanish settlements" [Hibbert. George III p.160]
"To the French, the defeat at Saratoga, appeared to be a providential chance to use Britain's misfortunes in America to avenge the defeat's of the Seven Years' War by humbling the British and readjusting the European balance of power in France's favor" [Syrett. The Royal Navy in European Waters p.17].
"The Ministry had altered its entire scheme of operations. With France's entry into the war, it had determined to switch the major effort away from the Continent to the Caribbean where the navy could defend the British sugar islands and possibly help capture some of the French ones" [Wickwire. Cornwallis and the War of Independence p.108]
"The Four major theatres in the renewed war between Britain and France were the West Indies; Britain itself, threatened with possible invasion across the Channel; The Mediterranean: and India" [Harvey. A Few Bloody Noses p.391]
"The decisive difference, however, lay in the fact that that Ireland was perceived as vital to Britain in a way that the American colonies were not. When the French had intervened on the American side, Britain's primary concern had been for the safety of the sugar islands, not the mainland colonies: hence the despatch of the British fleet to the Caribbean which in turn cleared the way for the French navy to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown". Marshall (ed.). The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Eighteenth Century. p.270]
"But the main threat now lay in Europe" [Simms. Three Victories and a Defeat. p.616]
"Those three were France, Spain and the Netherlands, only one of which, France, would even recognize American independence before 1782, let alone become a formal ally of the US" [Brecher. Securing American Independence. p.4]
"After 1778 putting down the rebellion became secondary to the global struggle with the Bourbon powers, France and Spain. The center of the war effort in America shifted seaward and southward as Britain sought to protect its possessions in the West Indies" [Wood. The American Revolution. p.80-81)
"Key parts of the Dutch colonial empire were either in British hands or in the hands of the French, who thereby gained ascendancy over their ally" [Dull. A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution p.126]
"In monetary terms the West Indies were far more valuable to France and Great Britain than the thirteen American colonies" [Fleming. The Perils of Peace p.5], principally because "sugar was then as important as the economies of W.Europe as oil is in our own times" [Miller. Broadsides p.59].
"Spain necessarily had to accept these changes in French strategy, being the weaker partner in the alliance" [Middleton. The War of American Independence p.170]
"Above all, Britain would need to protect the sugar-producing islands of the West Indies. In the Atlantic economy, sugar remained a far more lucrative crop than Chesapeake tobacco or Carolina rice" [Rakove. Revolutionaries. p.227]
"But whatever the French did, the war hereafter would be as much a maritime as a military one. American independence consequently was as likely to be won in the English channel or Caribbean as one the battlefields of New York and New Jersey. [Middleton. The War of American Independence. p.109]
"It was but one legacy of d'Estaing's spectacular lack of success in campaign 1778. His failures also shattered America's dream that the French alliance portended a speedy end to the war. It was now painfully apparent that substantive changes in the war were overtaking the Americans. An American victory was unimaginable without French help, while for France, victory was unlikely without Spain's assistance. Each European power had important ends that it hoped to accomplish before it agreed to peace, a reality that might mean interminable war for an America that had pledged never to make a separate peace while France remained at war. An American rebellion that had begun for the purpose of securing greater autonomy from Great Britain had morphed into a war in which the United States was in the grasp of the faraway powers of Europe". [Ferling. Almost a Miracle. p.321]
"During the first two or three years of the war - when America was the only theatre of operations - the level of British military mobilization was low." [Simms. Three Victories and a Defeat. p.618]
"Having lost its gamble to subdue the Americans before the French entered the war, the North Ministry reappraised British strategy in March 1778 and decided that the European conflict would take precedence over the struggle in North America". [Miller. Broadsides: The Age of Fighting Sail 1775-1815. p.48]
"Her [Spain's] entry into the war consequently widened the conflict, diverting Britain's resources from recovering the colonies. Seventy percent of her [Britain's] war effort, consequently went on areas not directly related to that objective. From 1778 France and Spain set the war's agenda, forcing Britain to respond as best she could, while the Patriots waited to profit from her misfortunes, with or without the help of the Bourbon powers." [Middleton. The War of American Independence. p.321]
"By 1779 both the French and their allies the Spaniards were embroiled in the struggle against the British who now reverted to a policy of keeping a few footholds on the American coast and pursuing primarily a naval war" [Somerset. William IV. p.24]
"For Britain the worst crisis of the war was brewing near home" [Miller. Broadsides p.59] *"Placing England in greater danger of invasion than at any time since 1690-1692". [Kennedy. The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery. p.108]

French Role in America

"Without French troops the Continental army could not mount a serious offensive anywhere" [Mackesy. War for America p.489]
"The French contribution to victory was crucial. The entire campaign was inconceivable without the French Navy. And it is very unlikely that Washington's seven to eight thousand Continentals could have successfully besieged a larger enemy force, even with an additional two or three thousand Virginia militiamen: The French regulars from Rhode Island and the West Indies, who together numbered slightly more than the American line troops, were essential to the land operations". [Scott. From Yorktown to Valmy. p.73]
"Congress with engaging but naive loyalty clung to its confidence in the Court of France and continued to trust the subtle Vergennes to treat the interests of the United States as if they were those of his own sovereign. Never in history has one people voted to put its entire destiny more absolutely, more trustfully, under the control of a foreign government" [Bemis. Diplomacy of the American Revolution p.189-190]
"For the French, the colonial rebellion was a surrogate war which drained and distracted the British. Without French arms supplies the American war effort would probably have collapsed in 1776. [Harvey. A Few Bloody Noses. p.250]
"It is not true, as some have argued, that the rebellion would not have started without the tacit support of the French: nevertheless it was French intervention on the American side that won it" [Harvey. A Few Bloody Noses p.247]
"Moreover Congress' supineness before Luzerne's demands was less a result of its own failings than a symptom of underlying American weakness and dependence on France. The early months of 1781 were a low point in the American war effort: revolts broke out in the Continental Army and the American currency collapsed. Government finances were only restored through massive infusions of French money, obtained chiefly by Franklin (rather than the amateur blustering diplomat Colonel John Laurens, sent to France to obtain supplies for the Continental Army). Furthermore the French expeditionary corps at Newport was needed to drive Britain from America" [Dull. A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution. p.119-120]
"The decisive event of the war was the entry of France on the anti-British side early in 1778" [Anderson. Europe in the Eighteenth Century. p.343]
"Washington had plenty of reasons to believe that the war in America would continue despite the defeat at Yorktown. British troops still occupied New York, Wilmington, Charleston and St. Augustine. True Britain had lost a quarter of its [American] army at Yorktown but her remaining forces in America were several times larger than Washington's own army" [Miller. Broadsides p.89]
"Without money and supplies from France the survival of the United States would have been unlikely, and without French naval and military help the expulsion of the British from all their American positions would have been almost impossible. [Dull. A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution. p.110]
"In his general orders for 20 October Washington fulsomely acknowledged the part played by his allies. He knew well that the victory at Yorktown would not have happened without the French army and fleet. Yorktown was essentially a French victory, since four out of five of those engaged were soldiers and sailors of Louis XVI. Even if the 22,000 seamen on de Grasse's fleet are discounted, which is a nonsensical method of assessing the outcome, the French still provided almost twice as many regular soldiers as the Patriots". [Middleton. The War of American Independence. p.289-290].

Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. I will not be swayed by any amount of sources that you bring here. My basis for keeping the US first in the infobox is that they are generally the most important country to the conflict. There are no specifics you can point to try and overwhelm me with detail. The forest, the forest! I refuse to be snagged by innumerable trees on my way through the forest. Please quit this quixotic quest and acknowledge the bigger picture. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"My basis for keeping the US first in the infobox is that they are generally the most important country to the conflict". RS, please? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it: There are no reliable sources that I care to bring here to prove my point. I consider the USA to be—generally—the most important combatant. The elements making up my conclusion are various, but the main point is that there would have been no conflict without the nascent nation pushing for it and keeping to it. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. You are the only one here who thinks France should be first. You have been unable to convince any others. Let it go. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide RS that support the US being top. Articles are not constructed by how either you or I feel about something, but by WP:RS. What do your RS say? Or is this just your personal opinion? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You have not convinced anyone else of the rectitude of your position. See how wasteful your effort is here? You could be building any one of the other articles about military history but no, you are spending hours and days of your time in a senseless campaign to move one piece of information up a few millimeters. Declare a moral victory and pull out. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't spent a great deal of time on this discussion as I've been gathering these cites for non-WP stuff anyway. I'm not convinced your view on this has been developed by consulting what mainstream RS say on the global war, but rather your personal opinion. I'm tagging the article for SB issues (as much for wider problems with the article as just issues with the infobox). For now, as this seems to be pretty unproductive, I'm prepared to leave it there if others are. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Cornwallis, I'm afraid you might be barking up the wrong tree here. You have conclusively and thoroughly won this argument, but unfortunately you appear to be dealing with people of limited mental agility. They reckon America is the most important faction, because they are American and like America. They will continue to think so no matter how amply proven it is that the "American" element of the war was simply background context for Round 3 of the Second Hundred Years War. They cannot bear to be put in the same category as the various other local factions embroiled in the Big War, as they cannot comprehend that they were not always the most important show in town. It is pathetic, but that is how it is. They will change it back indefinitely. Batchuba (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that people in the United States are so focused on the importance of themselves in the conflict is that they would not be citizens of the United States if not for the war. Whatever the war was, or became in the end, the creation of the United States may have been the most significant lasting result. It likely was for persons living in America, regardless of what side, if any, they supported. Perhaps this is the big picture that seems to be lost in some of this discussion. While there certainly was a wider war, with consequences far beyond the United States, I am aware of no other combatant whose existence as an independent nation was a direct result of the AWI, and there can be no doubt that the establishment of the United States was a significant event in the long term. Of course, acknowledging the significance of the United States' existence does not necessarily equate to a pro-US viewpoint. So while perhaps the US attitude toward the AWI can be a bit self-centered, the fact that the war--among all other things--in the end produced the United States as an independent nation seems to say something about the importance of the United States to the conflict. Mdyank77 (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I should add--since this is the page for the military side of things--that this seems to be a case where the relative importance of the combatant nations in an armed conflict is defined by the outcome, rather than by military strength or contribution at the time. If it can be acknowledged that the creation of the United States was the most significant lasting consequence of the war, and if it can be acknowledged that the creation of the United States was the direct result of a desire, on the part of some Americans, to establish themselves as that independent nation, then it seems that there is a solid argument to be made that the US was the most significant combatant, even if the fighting in America became peripheral to the broader war between European powers. Of course, there is room for rational disagreement on all of this. Mdyank77 (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Did the French have the largest force?

The numbers in the infobox have me confused. I'm wanting to think the Continentals and what is called Militia are separate. The reason is that it list the Americans as having 50,000 dead or wounded soldiers. The Continental Army is listed as having 35,000 troops. Combing the two gives the number of 79,500 soldiers, which still seems like a high casualty rate per soldier. The French and Spanish (in Europe) are listed as having 6,000 dead or wounded. I'm wondering if something is wrong with the statistics. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding the stats.--Southronite (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This (unsourced) line from the article might explain it "About 250,000 men served as regulars or as militiamen for the Revolutionary cause in the eight years of the war, but there were never more than 90,000 men under arms at one time." So 1 out of 5 doesn't seem too high of a causality rate. Hot Stop^UTC 13:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's probably best to treat the article's current figures with a pinch of salt. Aside from that, the numbers presented in the infobox also need to be changed to reflect the global war (including its naval aspect) so they aren't a great help in determining the issue. Estimates in the RS for deaths of American soldiers (Patriots that is, excluding Loyalists) tend to be around the 25,000-30,000 mark of which most, as was usual in the era, were from disease rather than combat-related.

On a related note, would there be support for the idea of splitting the Combatants section into a separate article? At present it is pretty sizeable, and excludes the post-1778 participants. Once they're included it would become even longer and unwieldy. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Alpaabeticly, I bleive its a standerd compromise in these issues.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is usual practice I'd support it as a compromise if a consensus can't be reached on which is the most important nation. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Shockingly, you would support a "compromise" whose result is exactly the same as what you want to happen anyway. john k (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't. It would move the Dutch (the weakest of the powers) to the top and France would remain where it is. Hardly reflecting the RS in terms of importance, but in absence of all else it is a compromise if they are clearly labelled as being in alphabetical order. You really need to cool down. WP rarely works well when it is adversarial rather than collaborative. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I didn't think of that. Having the Dutch at the top would, I have to say, be even more ridiculous than having the French at the top, especially since alphabetical order puts the US at the bottom. john k (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

write breifly about American war fir thier independence from british control at the end of 18thc ?

In 196.190.154.162 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)