Jump to content

Talk:American Revolutionary War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.28.237.200 (talk) at 10:53, 6 August 2011 (→An Allied or American victory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleAmerican Revolutionary War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 14, 2005Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 19, 2004.
Current status: Delisted good article

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.

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)[reply]

It had no formal agreements with anyone and kept a very low profile. Rjensen (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree--no one at the time or since has considered them as belligerents. Rjensen (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The German princes considered themselves belligerents in the conflict. Nations have fought conflicts for profit since time immemorial, this is nothing odd. The various german units were not mercinaries but rather auxiliaries something very different in military science. The German polities each had different arragements with the Unitied Kingdom concerning their participation in the conflict, some had treaties of alliance with the UK, others were paid to join the fight, and one even sent troops for free on their own account simply because he sympathized with the UK's position in the conflict. To call them non-belligerents and mercinaries is a very strong American POV statement that has no bearing to the actual historical facts.XavierGreen (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
XavierGreen makes some very strong claims...what are his RS? (none given) What role did they play at the Paris peace conference (none--is that not odd if they were belligerents????) Rjensen (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Indian Tribes were at paris either, yet they are clearly belligerents. Since when does signing a treaty signify belligerence in a conflict, the UK and many of the German States signed Treaties of Alliance with each other which for several states signified the start of their participation in the conflict. Perhaps the situation will become clearer to you if you read Germans in the American Revolution which is well sourced.XavierGreen (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Germans in the American Revolution, and relevant parts of this article, I find a lack of clarity on how the participating HRE state rulers viewed their status as belligerent in this conflict. (This is particularly evident in the first paragraph of that article, where the transactions are described as somewhat commercial in nature.) Perhaps XavierGreen would add language to make it less ambiguous and more direct. (Also, if the treaties they signed were similar to those signed in other conflicts where these states were counted as belligerents, that could be mentioned.) Magic♪piano 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look through that article, and I'm really not seeing anything which explicitly supports the idea of "political" involvement rather than a commercial (or "free", in some cases) arrangement to supply troops. I am not sure how this interpretation constitutes "strong American POV" - it's simply that anything else seems quite anachronistic to me! Shimgray | talk | 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it for a bit, I'm going to remove them again for the time being. As it stands, the article itself doesn't talk about them as belligerents; there's simply some loose comments about "Over the course of the war, Great Britain signed treaties with various German states, which supplied about 30,000 soldiers", treating them as a part of the British Army. The infobox needs to reflect the article, and if we don't have evidence in the text that historians consider these states to be distinct belligerents in the way that (eg) France or Spain were, then fighting over whether or not they should be in the infobox is academic! Shimgray | talk | 20:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removal of German states as belligerents. Dutch Republic should also be removed, for similar reasons. From my reading, it seems the only involvement was in lending money to the US. I also take issue with some of the "locations" listed in the infobox. While there may have been concurrent British-French warfare in "Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, Central America; French, Dutch, and English colonial possessions in the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere", these areas had little or nothing to do with the American Revolutionary War. I propose to remove them - comments? WCCasey (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the article discusses the global nature of the war (and the importance of that to the outcome in North America), the locations outside North America ought to be listed. Magic♪piano 21:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've learned some history here. It seems incredible that conflicts in India between European powers should be considered part of the American Revolutionary War. But (at least in WP) that seems to be the case. Proposal withdrawn. WCCasey (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for allies in combat to serve under the command of another, if the German States were not belligerents than what were they? Sightseers? They signed mutual defense treaties with the UK that required them to take part in the fighting. A belligerent is simply just a fancy political/military science term for a polity taht is involved in a war. To argue that the German states were not belligerents is to argue that they did not take part in the fighting, which they most certaintly did. The "American Revolutionary War" was a global conflict, to argue that fighting in Europe, India, and elsewhere did not have relevency puts an American POV on the war.XavierGreen (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying this, but as noted above, there is currently nothing in the text to explain why we should treat these states as belligerents. The infobox must reflect the text, and if we're going to term them "belligerents" in the infobox, we need sufficient reliable sources to show that a significant number of historians explicitly consider those states to have been belligerents. At the moment, there's simply some loose and ambiguous comments treating them as part of the British Army, which simply isn't enough to justify inclusion, especially in the absence of any consensus to do so. Shimgray | talk | 11:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
none of the RS call them belligenerents and Hesse etc did not consider themselves such. The princes hired out soldiers as they often did to earn money. They did not come to the peace conference in Paris--even though it was close by and they had plenty of diplomats--when did they make peace with the US?- never, because they never made war. Rjensen (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"never made war" What do you call the Siege of Gibralter, or the Battle of Trenton? Picnics? The text of the article states that they were involved in combat, and hence they were involved in the war. A belligerent is a polity (state/political group/tribe/ect.) that is a combatant in a conflict. They didnt make peace with the US because they didnt recognize the United States as a legitimate state, some recognized in the early 1800's others never did[i can provide us government sources confirming this if you like]. The indian tribes werent at the Paris Peace confrence either, yet they were belligerent powers as well.XavierGreen (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Trenton was fought by American soldiers fighting for the (proto-)United States against German soldiers fighting for the United Kingdom. It was not fought by German soldiers fighting for Hesse-Kassel, which is the key distinction here. The use of nationally-raised armies on a mercenary basis is very odd from a modern perspective, but was a common feature of European warfare in the eighteenth century; it simply isn't the case that the employment of a national contingent of troops automatically implies the nation from which they came was itself belligerent.
As to your last comment, it's worth remembering that in this period, the "European" powers drew a sharp diplomatic distinction between European and non-European nations. It would have been entirely plausible for them to treat the Native American nations as informal auxiliaries and not parties to the formal treaties, but very uncharacteristic for them to treat another European nation in this way. Shimgray | talk | 19:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but here is where your wrong, the German troops fought for the Prince/Duke of their polity and were not mercenaries but rather auxiliaries. In most of the treaties the German princes were the ones getting paid by the British, not the soldiers themselves. The soldiers in most cases received there pay from the German State they belonged to. Fighting wars for profit and the use of foriegn soldiers in this manner was actually quite common up until the 1790's. In italy, almost every war had the use of auxiliaries. Even France would enter agreements to enter wars simply for pay. The practice did die off but has actually been resumed in the modern age, the British pay the Tongan Military to have soldiers in Afghanistan for instance. It should be noted that all of the German States except for Hanover fought entirely on the North American continent, since they did not recognize the United States after the war how can they have made a treaty with it?XavierGreen (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the German principalities were paid; yes, the troops were loyal to their sovereign; yes, the term "auxiliary" was sometimes used instead of "mercenary". However, I disagree with the idea that this leads automatically to the conclusion that the German principalities were "belligerents"; to draw that conclusion, and justify including it in the article, we need reliable sources to be able to show that other historians interpret it that way.
I've done some digging this evening and I've not been able to find a general work which treats the German states as cobelligerent with Great Britain -
  • The Oxford Companion to United States History (OUP, 2001) describes the sides as "...the rebellious British colonists in North America - and eventually their French, Dutch and Spanish allies - against Great Britain, supported by German mercenaries".
  • The Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War (5 vols, ABC-CLIO, 2006) has entries for the Netherlands, France, Spain and Great Britain. It does not have entries for Hesse, Anhalt, Hanover, etc., though there is one for "German Mercenaries" - "German mercenaries, or auxiliaries, were composed of various contingents of German soldiers hired to fight for the British during the American Revolution. The British government bought the services of these soldiers from six German principalities..."
Neither seems, to me, to be clearly indicating that the German states are to be viewed as belligerent nations; if they were wanting to suggest this, they're being pretty opaque about it. The key thing to note here is that the German states appear to be treated by the sources solely in the context of being suppliers of troops, unlike the other European powers; it's a pretty glaring discrepancy. Shimgray | talk | 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no one has found a single RS that says the German states were belligerents, so I removed them from the infobox; their rented soldiers stay in the main text.Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand the difference between mercenaries and auxiliaries. Most modern authors dont realize the distinction. A mercenary is a soldier who as an individual accepts payment for service in a conflict, while an auxiliary (in this usage) is an individual whose soveriegn has sent him to a foreign war under the command of foriegn officers. I suggest reading Machiavelli's The Prince if you wish to read of relevent examples. Not all of the German Princes were paid for the useage of their troops or the signing of their treaties. How can troops be considered mercenaries if they don't get paid to fight? Another seperate issue is that of Hanover which many of you have seemingly lumped together with the rest of the German States. Hanover itself was in personal union with the United Kingdom, and as a result when king george went to war with a power, so did Hanover. Like i said before, how can a nation that takes part in a conflict not be a belligerent in that conflict? No one has answered that queston as of yet.XavierGreen (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's only partly a question of what we do or don't understand. Shimgray and Rjensen have a point: if reliable sources don't say it, as a rule we don't either. You need to demonstrate that there are sources supporting your point of view. Magic♪piano 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're relying on unusually specific definitions of "mercenary" and "auxiliary" there - note that one of the two quotes above uses the two phrases interchangeably! For a good overview of the general patterns of the eighteenth-century mercenary/auxiliary "soldier trade", I recommend this article; the issue was certainly more complex than the casual use of "mercenary" might imply, but we're still a very long way from demonstrating that this constituted "belligerence" in a political sense.
As to Hanover, it did indeed have a special political status due to the personal union. However... personal unions are not absolute lockstep, and we can't just presume it entered the war without evidence which actually says so. Bear in mind the example of the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the previous century; the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars were fought by England alone; Scotland, despite the existence of a personal union (they had the same king) remained aloof, and indeed this was a point of political contention at the time - Scotland had a fairly close economic relationship with the Netherlands, and was not happy at the war intervening! Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hanover certainly did not enter the British war against France or the Dutch. It had a totally separate government, based in Hanover, and made its own decisions. King George was the nominal monarch, but he did not rule and never even visited Hanover in his lifetime, says John Brooke, King George III page 497. Rjensen (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i know it had a seperate government, but there was a mutual defense treaty signed between the two and Hanoverian troops fought at Gibralter and in India.XavierGreen (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this depends on how one defines "belligerent." The German states that supported Great Britain in 1776 committed troops before any formal treaties or compensations had been arranged. They were acting as allies, but marched under their own flags. Jefferson included "foreign mercenaries" in the Declaration of Independence, so they were perceived as a threat by congressional forces. (As far as being "mercenaries," you'll find plenty of references from the uncompensated citizen-militias to the British "mercenaries," as well. Their usage applied to any professional soldier that was paid to fight, and did not have the modern implication of a non-state actor.) But as someone pointed out earlier in this discussion, the German states really had no tangible stake in the outcome of the war, except the ideals of aristocracy and the welfare of their powerful ally. It's interesting to read your different opinions on the status of the German soldiers. I wonder if you would consider the U.S. a belligerent in World War I, when it participated in a similar manner in a distant war in which it had no vital stake except as an ally. Mingusboodle (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No RS has been given to show the German states defined themselves as belligents. They did not bother to show up at the peace negotiations in nearby Paris, which tells us they were on a cash-and-carry deal and did not see themselves as war. It's like a neutral government selling weapons to one side, yet remaining neutral (which was the US position in WWi until April 1917). Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your bringing up and old point. the germans were'nt at the negotiation, but neither were the Indians, the Native American tribes, The Canadians, or vermont which was not a part of the United States at that point. they were and considered themselves to be beligerents. Joesolo13 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No troops from Hanover

The Fremont Barnes Encyclopedia (2007) of the Revolution lists the six German states that hired troops [Hesse-Cassel, Brunswick, Hesse Hanau, Anspach-Bayreuth, Waldeck, Anhalt-Zerbst] --Hanover is NOT on the list. (VOL 2 P 742). George III did order up 4000 troops from Hanover but he sent them to Gibralter and Minorca--NOT to North America, says Trevelyan Am Rev. part II vol 1 p 38 Rjensen (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point XavierGreen makes is that Hanoverian troops fought somewhere in the war (they also fought in India as part of this war, btw). The thing that he keeps avoiding (and is the proper reason to revert) is the need to properly source evidence that the various German states were considered belligerents. Magic♪piano 17:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Hanoverians in Gibralter and India were under the British flag, not the Hanover flag. Hanover as a nation (with its own flag and command structure) itself never entered the war-- & certainly did not declare war on nearby France which was much bigger! Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hanover was united in a personal union with Great Britain at the time, King George III was the absolute monach of Hanover. If he went to war with a polity, all of his realms contributed to that conflict no?XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true--no source mentioned. George III was an absentee king and was practically uninvolved in the government of Hanover--he never visited the country once in his long lifetime and did not choose any of the ministers there--they made all the decisions, according to bio by Brooke (1974) p 42Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
He may never have visited the place, but it certaintly is true that he was the absolute monarch of Hanover.XavierGreen (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
under american mythology, he has to be absolute monarch of something, right?Ben200 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wrong. George III was a hands-on King of Britain and of the colonies, but a hands-off rules of Hanover. The British got rid of "absolute" monarchs in 1688. George I and II were deeply interested in Hanover--probably more than in Britain and surrounded themselves with German advisors, and that really annoyed the Brits. So George III decided to prove he was truly British by avoiding all involvement in Hanover--George III had no German advisors. Rjensen (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i was beng sarcasticBen200 (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
George III was legally the absolute monarch of Hanover, did he personally rule? No, but his ministers ruled through his authority as an absolute monarch. One does not need to be an active ruler to be an absolute monarch. He actually had more power in Hanover than he did in Britain, he simply chose not to use that power.XavierGreen (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what George Trevelyan has to say about Hanover troops:
George the Third had a claim of loyalty over one section of the German people. As Elector of Hanover he made to the King of England what he himself described as a loan of five battalions, who were sent to garrison Gibraltar and Minorca, and release an equivalent number of British troops for service in America. Our country, as always, did things handsomely; and Hanover was no loser by the transaction. The whole force received British pay, which was on a much more generous scale than was fingered by the inmates of any barrack in Germany. The opportunity was taken of getting the British taxpayer to provide all ranks with a complete outfit, of which the officers in particular stood woefully in need; and a British Colonel, who knew something of the life on board a transport, was told off for the duty of fortifying their minds against the terrors of the voyage; because, as the King remarked, though brave on shore, Continental forces feared the sea.
Here's what a history of Hanover has to say:
Schon in eben diesem Jahre begannen die ersten Zwistigkeiten mit den Colonien in Nordamerika, die endlich im Jahre 1776 zu einem eben so kostspieligen als erfolglosen Kriege ausbrachen, und bald darauf (1778) einen neuen Krieg mit Frankreich, wie auch (1779) mit Spanien und (1780) mit Holland herbeiführten. Das Churfürstcnthum Hannover, das sich noch immer nicht ganz von den im siebenjährigen Kriege erlittenen Drangsalen erholt hatte, blieb glücklicher Weise bei diesen Unruhen vrrschont, außer, daß einige hannoversche Truppen nach Gibraltar geschickt wurden ...
Rough translation: war breaks out with the colonies in 1776, followed by war with France (1778), Spain (1779), and Holland (1780). Hanover, still not fully recovered from the Seven Years War, was untouched by these conflicts, other than some of its troops were sent to Gibraltar ...
No mention there of Hanover making war. Here's an interesting quote from Atwood's The Hessians, in discussing whether or not the German princes were possibly violating agreements with the Holy Roman Emperor in sending troops:
But [contemporary] jurists accepted that princes who hired out troops for subsidies were not necessarily belligerents themselves
Atwood then gives a specific example from the Seven Years War, in which Kassel never declared war, but contributed troops and was occupied by enemy troops. Kassel never declared itself a belligerent in the ARW either. Magic♪piano 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think (i may be mistaken) that because of the regulations of the Holy Roman Empire that offically no member state that was under complete fief (some states had territory outside the empire, prussia ect) of the Emperor could declare war. That does not mean that the constituent states could not fight wars unoffically, they often fought each other for instance lol.XavierGreen (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category discussion

Flag of La Fayette in the info box

The info box features the Marquis de La Fayette with an American flag while Rochambeau, Grasse and Suffren have French flags. Although he also acquired the US citizenship, labeling him only as American would be more than misleading. FSchneider (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flags in the infobox represent military allegiance, not citizenship. Lafayette had a Continental Army commission, and fought in the American army; the others you list all fought under the French flag. Lafayette wasn't (to my limited knowledge) an American citizen during the war. (It's debatable, under the circumstances, whether Knyphausen should be listed with a British or Hessian flag because of this; but he presumably traveled with a Hessian standard, not a British one.) Magic♪piano 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know this for a fact, but I would bet that Hessian (a catch-all term for several German states supplying mercenaries to the British) troops carried their regimental or other unit standards, but not a national flag. The German states themselves were not belligerents (see lengthy debate above). WCCasey (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think WCCasey is right. Rjensen (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


you are indeed correct Lafayette was not a US citizen during any portion of the war -Defectu tui omnis iam (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to the user that thought to put in the avarge age

I found an article for you to read on this subject from what i gathered from it the avarge age was 26 and 1/3 years but its a hard read and cant be certin so to any out there who wish to look so we can inculed the avarge age that would be great here is the link http://www.nps.gov/vafo/historyculture/upload/Demographic%20Survey.pdf
-Defectu tui omnis iam = your failure is always present 03:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French dead and wounded

This article only has "50,000± American dead and wounded" in it's infobox. Shouldn't there be an estimate of french dead and wounded, for completeness? Also, native casualties. Greswik (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV Bias

This article, and all of the articles in it could do with a massive clean-up. The opening paragraphs are far too long for a start. Not only that, but there is an enormous amount of POV bias throughout this and the related articles, no doubt written by hardcore patriots from both sides of the pond, but I'm willing to bet there are more from the western side of the pond. There is a great deal of American-slanted bias in this article, ranging from disputes over what goes in the infobox result row, even though what people keep changing it to do not correspond with similar articles of different wars (for example other wars just feature the treaty that ended the war), to how certain parts are written. For example the opening paragraphs state that the minutemen nearly "destroyed" the British column at Lexington & Concord. No they didn't, they inflicted heavy losses by comparison, but they didn't nearly destroy the column - they had several opportunities to do so, but didn't take it. It's little things like this that add up to the bias levels in these articles.

Given the nature of this article however, I do believe that it will be impossible to maintain a decent level of consistently good writing throughout, because no matter how over-sourced things are, details will always get removed by both sides and replaced with new ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Allied or American victory

I see a bit of edit-warring over the infobox results as to whether this is an Allied or United States victory. What do the reliable sources say? Which term is predominant in reliable sources?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

start with the latest scholarly survey: Almost a miracle: the American victory in the War of Independence by John E. Ferling - 2007. Also The Oxford companion to American military history by John Whiteclay Chambers & Fred Anderson - 1999 p 615 speaks of the causes of "the American victory " see online page 615. Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of argument is the reason why the result field should indicate the treaty only, which is adequate to describe the winners and losers. If sources are to be consulted, they should include those that give substantive treatment to the international aspects of the conflict. Magic♪piano 20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensen has presented sources which call it an American victory. Do you have sources which call it an Allied victory? When searching, I have only come up with the word allied being associated with the siege at Yorktown and the context is only for the battle and not the war.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Magic wants more international sources--try Richard Holmes, ed Oxford Companion to Military History (2001) p 43 article on the war says "it left Britain defeated." This is a British reference book. From political science see Power Politics (2002) by Martin Wight--it says "Britain was isolated and defeated, and her first empire was shattered." online p 33; or try History of Europe (2002) by Chaurasia where it has a section that explains "Causes of the defeat of the English in the American War" p 278 online Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that the Brits were defeated. This is about whether it is viewed as an American victory or a combined allied victory.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the main ally was certainly France and the historians agree that the outcome was severe financial trouble leading to the French Revolution, with no significant offsetting gains. Dull, Diplomatic History of the Am Rev says the war was a "disaster for the Dutch." (p 126) Spain did OK (--it got Florida, which was worthless & did not get Gibralter, which it REALLY wanted. Rjensen (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Magicpiano is absolutely and obviously right. I would add that the territorial losses listed in the Infobox should make the extent of Britain's defeat abundantly clear, without us having to pronounce any verdict. Also, I'd be pretty reluctant to take examples of "American victory" in the literature as indicating anything at all. (Alas, only in the minds of overzealous Wikipedia editors could this be an either/or scenario.) E.g. A history of the territorial evolution of Germany might mention the "Prussian victory in the Seven Years' War" without, of course, meaning to imply that Britain did not also win the war, or that Britain's victory was any less "real." It simply would not be relevant to the topic.
Rjensen, while I enjoyed your little narrative ("OK, but Spain never got what it REALLY wanted!"), I think you'll find that the scholarly literature pretty universally describes the American Revolutionary War as French and Spanish victories.
I should probably also express a sort of resigned amusement that in the minds of some editors, British and American sources are all you need to represent a "global perspective." Albrecht (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I argued that the RS hold the result was a victory for the US, a defeat for Britain, France and the Dutch, and a limited success for Spain. I cited numerous scholars from the US and Britain--and India--while Albrecht and Magicpiano have cited zero sources to support their positions--the Wiki rule is that challenged positions that have no RS should be deleted as personal opinions. Rjensen (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, my preference is that the result only list the treaty. I'm willing to defer to consensus on what sources say if "X victory" is to be added, provided a suitable diversity of sources is used (which I think Rjensen has gone some way to doing). That said, saying "Britain lost" is like saying "Allies won", IMHO. Magic♪piano 02:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion in order: 1 (best) = American victory & British defeat; 2) Allied victory & British defeat. (It's true that "Allied victory" implies "British defeat", but the Infobox should make it simple for readers who are spending 60 seconds on the article. Rjensen (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that it would be necessary to label the defeat. Usually in the infoboxes, it is considered adequate to label a clear victor and defeat is implied. Again, this is an effort to find out what the majority of sources state concerning whose victory this is and form consensus concerning that. I have been searching my bookshelf, google books, etc. and have seen it called an American victory. I haven't found a case where it is called an allied victory nor have I seen where the Treaty of Paris is mentioned as being the outcome without the author stating clearly that the Americans were the victors.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the reasoning I have seen so far, World War 2 was a Soviet victory as they dealt the most damage to the Germans and Japanese. To not call it an Allied victory would be disrespectful to the French, Spanish and Dutch involvement, the French involvement being decisive. It is no secret that without the French the Americans may not have won the war, or at the very least it would have dragged on much longer than it did. The Americans did most of the fighting in the American Revolutionary War yes, but they were not solely responsible for the victory. Calling it such would be arrogant on part of the Americans, and ignorant to the decisive support they received. If it is to stay as an American victory, then World War 2 should be changed to a Soviet victory. Sure British and American involvement may have been decisive in opening up a second front, but hey, the Soviets undeniably dealt the most damage to the Axis forces. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Also, how are we supposed to determine what a "reliable" source is? Most of the people so far have just said "the history books that I have found on the shelf said it was an American victory". Ok, great, what are these history books called? Who are they written by? Do they cite their own primary sources? Are they written by reliable authors? I think we have to accept that the general "history book found on the shelf" in both American and Europe will be biased. History books are biased, no matter where they are written. Finding a primary source will be much better. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Your arguments are synthesis. It would be arrogant and ignorant to call it anything other than what may be found in reliable sources. I have yet to see anyone cite any source which calls the victory allied. Do sources call WWII a Soviet victory? If so, that may be an argument to have on that talk page but not this one. The term allied victory appears to have emerged during the Napoleonic wars.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anon editor complains about apparently unidentified sources of dubious reliability. I direct him/her to WP:Reliable sources for a description of what sort of sources are considered reliable for use here. Furthermore, Rjensen has helpfully identified specific sources above (including some that do not necessarily present a US-centric view of the war). I have not located any sources that add anything notable to this discussion. Some histories of Spain that I encountered characterize that country more as a helper who gained (but not all of what she wanted). I also invite the editor to describe what sort of "primary source" s/he's looking for. The assessment of win and loss can be done retrospectively at anytime, by anyone. Magic♪piano 19:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite amusing that a historical source either primary or secondary must say Allied victory in order for it to be put as so. I suppose wikipedia is in theory propagating the notion now that European involvement for the Americans during the revolutionary war does not even deserve a credible mention for the outcome, just because a few history books list it as an 'American victory'. It seems there is some POV bias going on here. In that case, the Second Battle of El Alamein can be listed as a British victory, for the sole reason a history documentary I watched said it was. Also, I did not state that the sources were of dubious reliability. That is a straw-man argument. I merely stated people just seemed to be saying "well according to the history book I found on the shelf said it was an American victory". Of course it does, because its most likely an American book that they picked up. A link to a well-respected source, primary or secondary would be useful. Then again, this is an American website, so I would expect that a topic that holds such magnitude within the US will be exempt from POV issues. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
there are three issues here. 1) is national bias a major factor--no scholar thinks so. 2) Wiki relies on the RS, and none have been located that call the war an "Allied victory" [they do call Yorktown an Allied victory]. The RS all say the results included a British defeat and an American victory, but they are vague re the Allies as a whole. 3) Finally, substance. The US gained all it asked--and more!--but the other allies had mixed-to-poor results. France did win revenge over hated England, but its material gains were minimal and its financial losses huge. It was already in financial trouble and its borrowing to pay for the war used up all its credit and created the financial disasters that marked the 1780s. The Dutch clearly lost on all points. The Spanish had a mixed result --it did not achieve their main war goals (Gibralter); they did gain territory (Florida) that proved worthless. Rjensen (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-American sources from my bookshelf;
From Oxford's Illustrated History of Britain by Kenneth O. Morgan, p. 616 which unequivocally states:
"1781 Surrender at Yorktown: American victory over British troops"
From John Keegan's A History of Warfare, p. 67 which states:
"Virginia Capes, 1781: victory for the American colonists guaranteed"
Keegan pontificates on p. 348:
"Yet, despite foreign assistance, the victory was unquestionably the Americans' own and the example they gave was a major stimulus to the demands laid by the French constitutionalists against Louis XVI when, in 1789, he was finally compelled to summon his subjects, unassembled for more than a century, to agree to a new system of taxation."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you, Rjensen, but Spain did better that just not getting Gibralter and getting Florida, which "proved worthless". They regained Minorca and a place as a major power in the Caribbean, both of which were rather important, even vital. They also ran rampant over much of the Mississippi valley and made some major claims in the aftermath, even if the US never took their mainland claims very seriously. Anyway, not saying, just saying. Pfly (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"did better" is dubious. They got the status quo of 1775 back. They did not "run rampant" in the Mississippi Valley--they largely ignored it and anyway it had been theirs since 1763. Rjensen (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So now a nation has to perform massively well in order for it to be called an Allied victory? Since France was conquered in the Second World War, they shouldn't be included in the victory in that case. Yes, France had territorial ambitions too, but it is no secret that their involvement was decisive in the eventual independence of the American colonies. Calling it an "American victory" on its own is just plain arrogant. Yes, I'm sure you will throw the "Oh well nobody else calls it an allied victory" line at me again. Why is that I wonder? The "Allied victory" for World War 2 is not sourced. The "Coalition victory" for the Napoleonic wars is not sourced. Why is it the American Revolutionary War has to be sourced otherwise in order for that notion to be propagated? Whether you want to admit it or not, there is some bias going on here. Why not just leave it as "Treaty of Paris"? It will save on all of these arguments. The article for the Treaty of Paris, as well as the territorial gains information below clearly dictate the results of the war. The result for the Seven Years War is just a list of treaties, not "Allied victory" or anything like that. The result for the War of the Austrian Succession is also a treaty. If this article requires a source for the treaty to be the result, as someone pointed out before then this has set a precedent, it must be ensured that all other articles, such as the ones I listed above have a source also that explicitly states the treaty was the result of that war. I propose leaving it as Treaty of Paris, and it will prevent arguments on either side. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Revolutionary_War&oldid=443326723"