Talk:American Revolutionary War

Province of Quebec as Belligerent

The panel at the top left showing the flags of belligerents is well done, especially listing the loyalists as a sub-category of the UK. However, considering that the loyalists are listed, as are a myriad of truly minor players like the various indian tribes, another union flag should be added as a sub-belligerent under the UK for the province of Quebec. Especially considering that there was actual combat there. Indeed, this group would be even more distinct from the general UK category than the American loyalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.6.10 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Preamble

Can someone please edit the italicized preamble and remove the comment "tpj is awsome no lie". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.78.121 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hum some informations are wrong

Did the Treaty of Paris recognize the sovereignty of the United States over the territory bounded by [what is now Canada to the north, Florida to the south, and] the Mississippi River to the west.  The article on the Treaty does not indicate that.

Bfunck (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of american regular troops : 20000, number of french troops 15000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex2603 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, the Treaty of Paris explicitly recognized the sovereignty of the United States over the territory mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of category "Resistance to the British Empire"

The category "Resistance to the British Empire" was removed from this article on two occasions recently. [1] [2] The reason for the first removal was cited as a WP:SPA which was incorrect.[3]. The second time around the reason being cited in the edit summary is "war was against Great Britain, not the British Empire" but several sources claim the the 13 colonies were a part of "The First British Empire".

1. Canny, Nicholas (1998). The Origins of Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume I. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199246769. http://books.google.com/?id=eQHSivGzEEMC.
2. University of Maryland - Department of History [4]

I am adding back the [[category:Resistance to the British Empire]] to this article. Please discuss here if you have concerns. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You really don't understand what constitutes "synthesis" do you? Of course the 13 colonies were part of the "British Empire", but that is not saying that the independence war was "resistance" against the British Empire, as your category implies. It is a gross and misleading oversimplification - first, it was against Great Britain, second, many historians have noted that the war was as much a civil war (Loyalist American vs Revolutionary American) as it was one of independence. This category is yet another example of your agenda here at Wikipedia, just like your new category "Famines in British Empire". As someone pointed out on the discussion on that, creating categories is an easy way for you to bypass Wikipedia's policies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ps per WP:BRD please do not add this back while discussion is in flight. You were "bold", you were reverted, now we discuss. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful to maintain WP:AGF. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 16:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick - The founding fathers were resisting the ideology of the British Empire. That in itself justifies this categorization. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Will you be adding this category to the founding fathers articles? To every single individual that has ever resisted the British Empire throughout the centuries? From George Washington and Ghandi to campaigners for decolonisation in Britain itself? The French and Spanish empires were a "resistance" to the British Empire, will they be added too? Your category is deeply flawed and pointless. It should be deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There can be further sub-categories in the category - each focusing on a different aspect, geography or some other sub-categorization. Having too many articles in the category is a weak argument for the deletion of the entire category. If there are other reasons why you think the category is "deeply flawed and pointless", please elaborate. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The category serves no purpose. You can not just create articles, categories and templates for the sake of it. They have to serve a purpose. Attempting to link together 1000s of articles simply for their opposition to one Empire its absolutely silly. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Thomas Paine and John Locke, it's all their fault. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Britishwatcher - Isn't linking 1000s of articles together something that makes Wikipedia unique? I hope you re-consider and I urge you to change your vote from "Delete" to "Keep" for this category since your vote could be the tipping vote. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Casualties?

Hey, just a quick, vital question. Why are there no casualties listed in the war box? I understand that a war this far back would be hard to gain an exact number, but it's surprising, still, to see not even a range listed.173.95.138.76 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well this would be a fine opportunity for you to shine. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Even more in question is how it lists American Causalities at 50,000 but the American Strength state above is far below that. Even if we take the 25,000 number that is more then 50% army death. That is staggering and hard to believe. 192.104.181.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

The infobox might be wrong. According to American_Revolutionary_War#American_armies_and_militias "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 total men under arms at one time." ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents

Your article on the Vermont Republic seems to imply that they were an ally of the US, French, Spanish, Dutch, and various Amerind tribes. Perhaps, then, they should be in the template as well. 68.39.202.90 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It had no formal agreements with anyone and kept a very low profile. Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, listing the various German states as "belligerents" here is quite misleading, I think. Whilst they provided mercenaries, this was - as I understand it - purely commercial; they weren't "politically" involved in the war. The leader of Hesse (for example) supplied troops, but they were fighting on behalf of Britain and under British command; Hesse itself wasn't a participant in the war, and didn't stand to gain or lose anything by the outcome of it. This is distinct from the involvement of the other European powers (France, etc) who were politically engaged in the war, rather than simply suppliers of manpower. Shimgray | talk | 16:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree--no one at the time or since has considered them as belligerents. Rjensen (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Strength

The strength for the two sides are way off. 50,000 British regulars? The British Army WORLDWIDE at the time numbered no more than 40,000. The French sent far more than under 8,000 soldiers to North America. In total the British Army probably had about 12,000 - 15,000 men in total stationed in North America at the height of the war. The majority of the British strength in America was Loyalists (about 50,000) and Hessian Mercenaries (about 30 - 50,000). (DarkFrontier (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

If you have sources to back those numbers up, feel free to make corrections; do make sure the source characterizes what the number actually represents (is it a maximum or some other measure? from when in the war?). The currently-presented allied numbers certainly do not represent worldwide force deployment for France (and Spain is entirely missing); it's hardly surprising the British number could be wrong as well. Magic♪piano 16:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

German involvement

The British purchased the services of 30,000 German Soldiers for $150,000, all of which went into the royal coffers of the German princes. These troops came from Hesse Cassel, Hesse Hanau, Brunswick, Anspach, Bayreuth, Anhalt Zerbst and Waldeck.

              Place               Number sent    Number not returned home

Hesse Cassel 16,992 6,500 Hesse Hannau 2,422 981 Brunswick 5,723 3,015 Anspach - Bayreuth 2,553 1,178 Anhalt Zerbst 1,152 168 Waldeck 1,225 720

Total sent was 30,067 from 1776 to 1782; 12,562 did not return... 7,754 dead and 4,808 remained in America...

All are generally referred to as "Hessians" because of their large numbers. Also, their General Knypyhausen was commander of the entire German force which contributed to the common reference to "Hessian Soldiers".