Talk:American Revolutionary War

Notice

This article focuses on the military campaign, while the American Revolution covers the origins of the war, as well as other social and political issues.

Please try to keep this article at a reasonable length. The current approach has been to summarize the war in a way that will be clearly understandable to the general reader, without cluttering it up with too many details. Concentrate on the major figures and actions, and try to leave detailed discussion of war strategies, battle casualties, historical debates, etc. to linked articles about specific battles or actions.

Instead of adding additional detail to this lengthy article, consider adding your information to an article on a specific battle, or to one of these campaign articles currently in development. Additionally, one campaign, Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga (box at right), does not yet have an article specifically about those operations.

• Boston campaign (1775–76)
• Invasion of Canada (1775) (1775–77)
• New York and New Jersey campaign (1776–77)
• Saratoga campaign (1777)
• Philadelphia campaign (1777–78)
• Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga (1778–81)
• Sullivan Expedition (1779)
• Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War (1775–83)
• Western theater of the American Revolutionary War (1779–82)
• West Indies and Gulf Coast campaigns (1775–82)

• Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War
  • American Waters (1775–82)
  • European Waters (1778–82)
  • West Indies (1778–82)
  • East Indies (1778–83)

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)

Introduction

Is it worth mentioning in the introduction that the Revolutionary War was the only major war Britain ever lost? (92.7.14.190 (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

No, because it wasn't. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

These sorts of statements almost inevitably lead to disagreements, and are best avoided unless there is some sort of clear consensus in a variety of sources. This statement in particular begs the question of what exactly "major war" and "lost" (or "won") mean. Magic♪piano 17:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As the Oxford Illustrated History of the British Army states, the Revolutionary War was indeed the only major war Britain ever lost. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

No wonder I'm experiencing Deja vu ... see previous discussion. Were you involved in that discussion? The Oxford Illustrated was brought up there too. Magic♪piano 17:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that book is only stating a fact. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Just because a book states a "fact" doesn't mean we should highlight it prominently. Would you care to address the unaddressed issues from the previous discussion (other sources supporting the claim, lack of definitions, etc)? Magic♪piano 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The American Revolutionary War was the only major war Britain lost since the Union of the Crowns. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

No it wasn't. Try expanding your reading a little. Relying on a single source won't get you very far here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was actually. The War of 1812 was a draw. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

I wasn't referring to the War of 1812. There are plenty of other conflicts that Britain has lost. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the Revolutionary War was the only one, and there are numerous other sources to prove that. (92.7.20.171 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC))

And those sources are? Magic♪piano 19:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Britannic Encyclopedia, the New Statesman, the Social History of England, Hibbert's biography of King George III etc. (92.7.20.171 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC))

"Social History of England" appears to be a popular book title. Please be more specific (author names, ISBN numbers and/or Google Book links for these). Specific page numbers where supporting statements can be found would also be useful: you know where they are, you tell us. Magic♪piano 21:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Asa Briggs was the author. (92.7.20.171 (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC))

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Magicpiano, this editor is a veteran edit warrior who is likely the community banned HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). A sockpuppet investigation is underway regarding 92.7.x.x IPs. Regardless, the assertion that the American Revolutionary War was the only war the UK lost from whatever past year (1707?) until today can be found in a few sources, it's true, but so can the contrary assertion that, say, the First Boer War has "the melancholy distinction of being the only war the British lost during Queen Victoria's long reign," according to war correspondent Charles L. Norris Newman. As you see, the sources are in conflict. One cannot have a winning record if the First Boer War is included. In this article, it is best not to try to voice the disparate sources because the debaters use such different scoring methods and the matter will stray too far from the topic: the American Revolutionary War. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am NOT a banned editor, and the First Boer War was not a major war. In fact most people have never even heard of it. (92.7.30.253 (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

I don't know what you mean by a "major war", but Britain also lost the French Revolutionary Wars, which were undoubtedly major wars. If we mentioned that the American revolutionary war was the only "major" war that Britain lost, we should also point out that this is the only "major" war that Britain ever fought alone.DITWIN GRIM (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

Infobox suggestion

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

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)

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)