Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

Who would you have supported in the American Revolutionary War?

  • The US/Americans

  • Britain/the UK


Results are only viewable after voting.
Feb 2019
880
Pennsylvania, US
George III did really ask for anything more than the U.S Government would impose less that 10 years after the war... again, taxes to fund a war. If I go with my Anglophilia and say Britain, would my great, great (etc) grandfather who fought in the Revolution be happy he bypassed all the miserable things that happened to him? Or would he still want to kick the freaking Englisch aus? :think:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,461
SoCal
George III did really ask for anything more than the U.S Government would impose less that 10 years after the war... again, taxes to fund a war. If I go with my Anglophilia and say Britain, would my great, great (etc) grandfather who fought in the Revolution be happy he bypassed all the miserable things that happened to him? Or would he still want to kick the freaking Englisch aus? :think:
What miserable things did he miss out on?
 
Jul 2017
292
Srpska
Id have supported the crown most likely, but the Declaration of Independence is a pretty damning document, it's hellfire.
 
Sep 2016
1,326
Georgia
What's with your Francophilia? :)
Someone has to be Francophile. :cool:

Though I usually try to maintain balance and can be quite critical of certain periods, aspects and even such figures like Napoleon. I actually think that many people in France glorify him too much and often overlook how he brought his country to ruin. I mean, all those more than a million of dead French were for nothing.

Seven Years war, Franco-Prussian war, 7th Crusade, Battle of Pavia in 1525, WW2 also were all a disgrace and terrible defeats.

Many praise Richelieu and rightfully so. However, he left the country with financial problems, rebellions and without any real success in the war. Richelieu died in 1642 and victory at Rocroi happened only in 1643. When Conde arrived, his new army was in a bad shape and with a terrible discipline.

Louis XIV basically wasted all the success that he achieved in his first 20 years of personal reign. Though he at least managed to retain some of it and even installed Bourbons on Spanish throne, unlike Napoleon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Niobe and Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,461
SoCal
Someone has to be Francophile. :cool:

Though I usually try to maintain balance and can be quite critical of certain periods, aspects and even such figures like Napoleon. I actually think that many people in France glorify him too much and often overlook how he brought his country to ruin. I mean, all those more than a million of dead French were for nothing.

Seven Years war, Franco-Prussian war, WW2 were all a disgrace and shameful display.
You forgot to mention the War of Austrian Succession--where France conquered the Austrian Netherlands only for Louis XV to give it up because he wanted to appear magnanimous to the other European Great Powers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gvelion
Sep 2016
1,326
Georgia
You forgot to mention the War of Austrian Succession--where France conquered the Austrian Netherlands only for Louis XV to give it up because he wanted to appear magnanimous to the other European Great Powers.
Yeah, Louis XV was a moron and weakling. Louis XIV would probably roll in his grave, if he learned about such ,, brilliant '' decision.

I also forgot to mention Battle of Pavia in 1525, first period of 100 Years War and 7th Crusade. French Kings were captured in each of those events : Francis I at Pavia, John II at Poitiers, Louis IX in 7th Crusade. Then you also have Emperor Napoleon III getting captured at Sedan. Like, cmon man.

Many praise Richelieu and rightfully so, for the most of it. However, he left the country with financial problems, rebellions and without any real success in the war. Richelieu died in 1642 and victory at Rocroi happened only in 1643. When Conde arrived, his new army was in a bad shape and with a terrible discipline.

Hell, Spanish even had a chance to march on Paris at one point.

Louis XIV basically wasted all the success that he achieved in his first 20 years of personal reign. Though he at least managed to retain some of it and even installed Bourbons on Spanish throne, unlike Napoleon.

France also would be defeated in WW1, if it fought alone against Germany. Even if the initial plans of Germany failed like they did in 1914, France would still lose in the prolonged war.

Estates General were never summoned in 1484 - 1560 and 1614 - 1789. Parlementary Fronde in 1648 was a good place to start reforms as well. Louis XIV later reduced the powers of the judicial bodies and asserted royal authority even more in 1661 - 1675.
By the way, Louis spent more than 10 years to achieve that. Which is interesting and shows that power of the King still had limitations. Especially when it came to provinces and their Parlements. While Parlement of Paris was largely subdued by 1669, many provinces managed to hold on until 1675.
Not to mention, that Louis also failed to sentence Fouquet to death.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,407
Caribbean
Yeah, Louis XV was a moron and weakling. Louis XIV would probably roll in his grave, if he learned about such ,, brilliant '' decision.
Weak?
L14 was run by Mazarin. L15 was run by his...wife?

Back to the American Revolution. John Jay expressed an opinion on which one was weak when he wrote the NY Constitution during the Revolutionary War, completed 1777. Jay wrote and the state ratified:
"... the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,"
Jay is a Hugenot. So, I take it the wicked priest is Mazarin and the weak prince is L14.
 
Feb 2014
328
Miami
the americans were terrorists. Based on USA goals to stop terrorism, anyone following this ideal would have to support the british
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niobe
Sep 2016
1,326
Georgia
Weak?
L14 was run by Mazarin. L15 was run by his...wife?

Back to the American Revolution. John Jay expressed an opinion on which one was weak when he wrote the NY Constitution during the Revolutionary War, completed 1777. Jay wrote and the state ratified:
"... the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,"
Jay is a Hugenot. So, I take it the wicked priest is Mazarin and the weak prince is L14.
Louis XIV became King in 1643, when he was 4 years old. Mazarin died in 1661 and 23 year old Louis started his personal independent reign. His independent reign lasted for 54 years : 1661 - 1715. France became the most powerful country in Europe by 1680's under his rule. France in 1685 was even bigger than modern France. Go back and study some history. Stop being ignorant.

Louis XV was run by his mistress Marquise de Pompadour in 1740's and 1750's , for example. Before that, France was governed by Cardinal Fleury for 2 decades.

Americans were also able to achieve their independence thanks to France. I would also recommend to read historical works of real scholars, really study historical periods, facts and not base your judgement solely on some ,, quotes ''.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mastersonmcvoidson