Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.
What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.
Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.
Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.
Sorry, I meant causalities not deaths.What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.
Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.
Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.
What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.
Sorry, I meant causalities not deaths.What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.
Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.
Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.
My point is that there would have been an American Revolution and probably a victory without Washington. Washington was only one of many who made it possible. As a military commander, he lost about as many battles as he won. When he lost Philadelphia to the British, Congress considered replacing. Without the help of the French, there would have been no victory.
What a bunch of idiots. The colonies would have attained their freedom with or without Washington.
I would say Hitler should be at the top of the list, with 800,000 British deaths in WWII of which 60,000 were civilians.
Washington was a great president, but not necessarily a great military leader. He certainly had the tenacity and the respect of his troops, but so did other generals such as Gates and Greene.Sorry, I meant causalities not deaths.Combat dead were about 326,000 for the Brits.
Hitler and Napoleon failed. Washington, however, was responsible for the dissolution of the first British Empire.
My point is that there would have been an American Revolution and probably a victory without Washington. Washington was only one of many who made it possible. As a military commander, he lost about as many battles as he won. When he lost Philadelphia to the British, Congress considered replacing. Without the help of the French, there would have been no victory.
Flopper, I know it was a simple error; I do that all the time. Washington lost more battles than he won, but he won at Boston, he won at Trenton and Princeton, and he won at Yorktown. Why he was important and the others weren't was that he never gave up, never gave in, kept an army in being, was indefatigable in the cause, indomitable in spirit. No other American general could have held the army together, no other American could have succeeded as our first president.
Washington was a great president, but not necessarily a great military leader. He certainly had the tenacity and the respect of his troops, but so did other generals such as Gates and Greene.Sorry, I meant causalities not deaths.
My point is that there would have been an American Revolution and probably a victory without Washington. Washington was only one of many who made it possible. As a military commander, he lost about as many battles as he won. When he lost Philadelphia to the British, Congress considered replacing. Without the help of the French, there would have been no victory.
Flopper, I know it was a simple error; I do that all the time. Washington lost more battles than he won, but he won at Boston, he won at Trenton and Princeton, and he won at Yorktown. Why he was important and the others weren't was that he never gave up, never gave in, kept an army in being, was indefatigable in the cause, indomitable in spirit. No other American general could have held the army together, no other American could have succeeded as our first president.
I don't want to take any glory away from the colonist who fought and died to establish the nation, but there were many external events that made the victory of the colonist possible. The stupidity of George III in not understanding how strongly British citizens in both the Americas and in England felt about rule by Parliament instead of by the arbitrary whims of a monarch was a major factor. Many soldiers refused to fight the colonist and as a result the King had to call on the Germans to supplement the British troops. Also George didn't have strong support in Parliament. Parliament was far more concerned about the war with France than they were about the colonies. The roll of the French was crucial. The French declared war on the British in 1778. They sunk British supply ships and actively engage the British in several crucial battles. Probably the greatest benefits of having the French involved was it distracted the British and reduced the resources available to be sent to America.
HINT : She sits on a throne and wears a crown.
Now that's outside box but very interesting, ginscpy.
If the British had taken New Orleans, would they have used it to give us something they wanted very badly, or would they have kept it, and began a new war to create a British Mississippi River valley and take everything west from Texas to the Rocky Mountains.
Good thought.
Now that's outside box but very interesting, ginscpy.
If the British had taken New Orleans, would they have used it to give us something they wanted very badly, or would they have kept it, and began a new war to create a British Mississippi River valley and take everything west from Texas to the Rocky Mountains.
Good thought.
