True. The French navy at Yorktown it was that made the difference, if I'm not mistaken.
The Spanish also provided some aid to the colonies in their uprising.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
True. The French navy at Yorktown it was that made the difference, if I'm not mistaken.
Oh yeah!!! Admiral de Grasse's fleet (French) defeated the British armies that were holed up there. This 'opened the door' for what was to follow (ie the surrender of the British and america's independence!!!!). George Washington and General Rochambeau (French!) rushed south, with many French troops. Two distinguished commanders of the armies were Lafayette (French) and Steuben (Persian).
Oh yeah!!! Admiral de Grasse's fleet (French) defeated the British armies that were holed up there. This 'opened the door' for what was to follow (ie the surrender of the British and america's independence!!!!). George Washington and General Rochambeau (French!) rushed south, with many French troops. Two distinguished commanders of the armies were Lafayette (French) and Steuben (Persian).
Yeah.. but then they gave in again: From August this year... "French fries are back on the menu in the US House of Representatives, three years after the name was ditched in favour of "freedom fries".....The Washington Times newspaper contacted aides of the two congressmen behind the move to "freedom fries" to see if they could shed light on the change back.
"We don't have a comment for your story," a spokeswoman for Republican representative Bob Ney told the newspaper.
Oh yeah!!! Admiral de Grasse's fleet (French) defeated the British armies that were holed up there. This 'opened the door' for what was to follow (ie the surrender of the British and america's independence!!!!). George Washington and General Rochambeau (French!) rushed south, with many French troops. Two distinguished commanders of the armies were Lafayette (French) and Steuben (Persian).
I don't think there was any actual combat between French and British troops in this war, was there?
I don't think there was any actual combat between French and British troops in this war, was there?
There was a huge contingent of french soldiers in the american civil war. The French soldiers were led by Rochambeau (5-6000 - can't quite remember). The american were naturally led by Washington. Along with Grasse's huge fleet, it amounted to... (had to check) approx. 18.000 men (soldiers and sailors). A lot of them french. And they did have direct confrontation with the British.
There was a huge contingent of french soldiers in the american civil war. The French soldiers were led by Rochambeau (5-6000 - can't quite remember). The american were naturally led by Washington. Along with Grasse's huge fleet, it amounted to... (had to check) approx. 18.000 men (soldiers and sailors). A lot of them french. And they did have direct confrontation with the British.
Cool ... You know more about this particular war than I do, I'm thinking.
Cool ... You know more about this particular war than I do, I'm thinking.
Maybe... studied it at school (both American and French) and read a lot about it because I found it interesting. Alsd, I love history.... and... I saw the patriot (?) but there Mel Gibson won the independence for the US!
There was a huge contingent of french soldiers in the american civil war. The French soldiers were led by Rochambeau (5-6000 - can't quite remember). The american were naturally led by Washington. Along with Grasse's huge fleet, it amounted to... (had to check) approx. 18.000 men (soldiers and sailors). A lot of them french. And they did have direct confrontation with the British.
Try again........Washington was quite dead by the American Civil War which began in 1861. The French and the Spanish both gave aid to the Colonial forces in the American Revolution. Naturally, France gave more since they were more of a continental (world) power at that time than Spain, which was in the twilight of empire by this time.
The American Civil War was strictly between American combatants......the Confederate States (those that attempted to secede from the United States) did angle for aid from both Great Britain and France. Public outcry on the continent against slavery stirred up by the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves in the seceding states, kept European involvment from becoming a reality.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Try again........Washington was quite dead by the American Civil War which began in 1861. The French and the Spanish both gave aid to the Colonial forces in the American Revolution. Naturally, France gave more since they were more of a continental (world) power at that time than Spain, which was in the twilight of empire by this time.
The American Civil War was strictly between American combatants......the Confederate States (those that attempted to secede from the United States) did angle for aid from both Great Britain and France. Public outcry on the continent against slavery stirred up by the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves in the seceding states, kept European involvment from becoming a reality.
Sorry.. correct term revolutionary war.. where the french fought with the americans against the british... Battle of yorktown being the climax.
Sorry.. correct term revolutionary war.. where the french fought with the americans against the british... Battle of yorktown being the climax.
That's the one......General Cornwallis gave up the fight after he got boxed in between the American and French forces. It was a French fleet that prevented his escape via the sea.
We, the United States, also owe the French (Napoleon, this time) for that sweetheart of deal called the Louisiana Purchase.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
That's because 99% of credible authorities consider Russia to be a part of the allies. As I said, those credible authorities aren't considering the very real possibility that Russia would've had its way with the UK after it was done enslaving all of Europe.
If you want to say that the UK could've fought off both the nazis and the russians, then that's a different story. Is that what you're saying?
You do know that Russia hardly had an army left at the end of the war, don't you? It would have been very difficult for them to conquer Belgium, let alone Europe with what was left. They may have been able to build an army over the next 10 years and try something, but even that would have been a daunting task for them. My wife's grandfather was a German POW in Russia from '45 to '53 and he was one of the 1% or so who survived that ordeal. He said that he and the other POWs were forced to maintain what little equipment that the Russians had left and he said the little equipment that they had was junk. The Russians approach of overtaking the Germans by shovelling more casualties onto the fire, only works for so long. The Russians took a chunk of Finland in '39 with the same "win-by-losses" approach. The Finns out-killed the Russians 20-1, but the sheer volume of death that the Russian were willing to accept finally overwhelmed the Finns until they had to give up a major part of their country.
That said, it is stupid to minimize the US's contribution to WW2. They were a huge part in ending the war. However, if Germany had kept it's peace treaty with Russia, it would have taken many more years (some argue 15) and many more Allied losses to defeat the Nazis.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
Good ol' Napoleon!!! Another one who 'over extended' just a tiny bit!
just a wee bit there.......another great leader who always talked about history, but forgot about it when he invaded Russia....that damn Nelson guy was also an pain in the arse.
So, I guess one could argue that the U.S. helped Napoleon to finance his military adventures.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
just a wee bit there.......another great leader who always talked about history, but forgot about it when he invaded Russia....that damn Nelson guy was also an pain in the arse.
So, I guess one could argue that the U.S. helped Napoleon to finance his military adventures.
Until that damn Wellington and allied forces crushed him at Waterloo!!!
Until that damn Wellington and allied forces crushed him at Waterloo!!!
Funny Napoleon.. a hero and a fool.....
Yes........a very interesting (and very popular...it's amazing how much research literature exists on nearly every aspect of the man) study........have actually visited two major museum exhibits on him in the last decade or so......brillant, yet flawed. Waterloo was only the final, final defeat.....Leipzig was the first defeat that sent him into exile. Nelson defeated his naval forces twice....before he died.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Yes........a very interesting (and very popular...it's amazing how much research literature exists on nearly every aspect of the man) study........
Yes, he is very popular for some reason. Was it his 'vision'? His strategies (highs and lows!). There are greater and more charismatic 'great commanders' than him. Personally, I'd take Alexander over Napoleon any day (but that's my opinion!).
Yes, he is very popular for some reason. Was it his 'vision'? His strategies (highs and lows!). There are greater and more charismatic 'great commanders' than him. Personally, I'd take Alexander over Napoleon any day (but that's my opinion!).
You pretty much answered yourself there, Sparky.....one reason that the majority might show more interest in him than your favorite, Alexander, would be that Alexander was around before the printing press and fewer contemporary accounts of him made it this far forward in history.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
You pretty much answered yourself there, Sparky.....one reason that the majority might show more interest in him than your favorite, Alexander, would be that Alexander was around before the printing press and fewer contemporary accounts of him made it this far forward in history.
Of course.. but so much has been written about Alexander. People know about cleopatra, Nero, Ceasar, etc. Time shouldn't matter for historical figures. Alexander is from an exciting era and there is so much more to him and his times than the battles, etc. It's just a very interesting and 'full' time in history - could fill loads of exhibitions!
Of course.. but so much has been written about Alexander. People know about cleopatra, Nero, Ceasar, etc. Time shouldn't matter for historical figures. Alexander is from an exciting era and there is so much more to him and his times than the battles, etc. It's just a very interesting and 'full' time in history - could fill loads of exhibitions!
You're not getting an argument from me....I would rather read about hundreds of other historical figures besides Napoleon....of course, I am not a trendy person...more of a marching to a different beat kinda guy.
The point that I was trying to make about "contemporary accounts" is their value in showing many sides to a single event, era or person. The fewer contemporary accounts that exist of something often results in a bias...in other words were the accounts of Alexander that survived written by those with an axe to grind against him or those that adored him or by someone who was impartial? Or do we have to interpet what we know about Alexander by digging up artifacts? That is a process that is rift with modern day bias and interpetation of meanings.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
The Finns out-killed the Russians 20-1, but the sheer volume of death that the Russian were willing to accept finally overwhelmed the Finns until they had to give up a major part of their country.
You are comparing pre-Stalingard tactics to post-Stalingrad tactics. Apples and oranges...
This discussion could go on forever. History is taught differently in every country. I'm sure I learned totally different things about WWII in school here in Austria than German, British, American, let alone Russian students do/did. Plus it's a war that many people cannot talk about anymore because they are dead and others refuse to talk about which of course still fuels speculation.
You can tell a man from what he has to say - Neil & Tim Finn
They love you so badly for sharing their sorrow, so pick up that guitar and go break a heart - Kris Kristofferson
This discussion could go on forever. History is taught differently in every country. I'm sure I learned totally different things about WWII in school here in Austria than German, British, American, let alone Russian students do/did. Plus it's a war that many people cannot talk about anymore because they are dead and others refuse to talk about which of course still fuels speculation.
Is there anything wrong with a never-ending discussion? As long as it doesn't become circular?
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
naw......talking in circles is bad......nuclear? I signed the treaty.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Comments
Oh yeah!!! Admiral de Grasse's fleet (French) defeated the British armies that were holed up there. This 'opened the door' for what was to follow (ie the surrender of the British and america's independence!!!!). George Washington and General Rochambeau (French!) rushed south, with many French troops. Two distinguished commanders of the armies were Lafayette (French) and Steuben (Persian).
Maybe that's why they've changed 'French fries' to 'Freedom fries' then?
Yeah.. but then they gave in again: From August this year...
"French fries are back on the menu in the US House of Representatives, three years after the name was ditched in favour of "freedom fries".....The Washington Times newspaper contacted aides of the two congressmen behind the move to "freedom fries" to see if they could shed light on the change back.
"We don't have a comment for your story," a spokeswoman for Republican representative Bob Ney told the newspaper.
He he...
I don't think there was any actual combat between French and British troops in this war, was there?
Thank god you know...
... never doubted you though...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofOQkeLnwRA
naděje umírá poslední
There was a huge contingent of french soldiers in the american civil war. The French soldiers were led by Rochambeau (5-6000 - can't quite remember). The american were naturally led by Washington. Along with Grasse's huge fleet, it amounted to... (had to check) approx. 18.000 men (soldiers and sailors). A lot of them french. And they did have direct confrontation with the British.
Cool ... You know more about this particular war than I do, I'm thinking.
Maybe... studied it at school (both American and French) and read a lot about it because I found it interesting. Alsd, I love history.... and... I saw the patriot (?) but there Mel Gibson won the independence for the US!
I've read a lot about WW-II, some about the U.S. civil war ... Very little about the Revolutionary War.
The American Civil War was strictly between American combatants......the Confederate States (those that attempted to secede from the United States) did angle for aid from both Great Britain and France. Public outcry on the continent against slavery stirred up by the Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves in the seceding states, kept European involvment from becoming a reality.
Sorry.. correct term revolutionary war.. where the french fought with the americans against the british... Battle of yorktown being the climax.
We, the United States, also owe the French (Napoleon, this time) for that sweetheart of deal called the Louisiana Purchase.
You do know that Russia hardly had an army left at the end of the war, don't you? It would have been very difficult for them to conquer Belgium, let alone Europe with what was left. They may have been able to build an army over the next 10 years and try something, but even that would have been a daunting task for them. My wife's grandfather was a German POW in Russia from '45 to '53 and he was one of the 1% or so who survived that ordeal. He said that he and the other POWs were forced to maintain what little equipment that the Russians had left and he said the little equipment that they had was junk. The Russians approach of overtaking the Germans by shovelling more casualties onto the fire, only works for so long. The Russians took a chunk of Finland in '39 with the same "win-by-losses" approach. The Finns out-killed the Russians 20-1, but the sheer volume of death that the Russian were willing to accept finally overwhelmed the Finns until they had to give up a major part of their country.
That said, it is stupid to minimize the US's contribution to WW2. They were a huge part in ending the war. However, if Germany had kept it's peace treaty with Russia, it would have taken many more years (some argue 15) and many more Allied losses to defeat the Nazis.
Good ol' Napoleon!!! Another one who 'over extended' just a tiny bit!
So, I guess one could argue that the U.S. helped Napoleon to finance his military adventures.
Until that damn Wellington and allied forces crushed him at Waterloo!!!
Funny Napoleon.. a hero and a fool.....
Yes, he is very popular for some reason. Was it his 'vision'? His strategies (highs and lows!). There are greater and more charismatic 'great commanders' than him. Personally, I'd take Alexander over Napoleon any day (but that's my opinion!).
Of course.. but so much has been written about Alexander. People know about cleopatra, Nero, Ceasar, etc. Time shouldn't matter for historical figures. Alexander is from an exciting era and there is so much more to him and his times than the battles, etc. It's just a very interesting and 'full' time in history - could fill loads of exhibitions!
The point that I was trying to make about "contemporary accounts" is their value in showing many sides to a single event, era or person. The fewer contemporary accounts that exist of something often results in a bias...in other words were the accounts of Alexander that survived written by those with an axe to grind against him or those that adored him or by someone who was impartial? Or do we have to interpet what we know about Alexander by digging up artifacts? That is a process that is rift with modern day bias and interpetation of meanings.
You are comparing pre-Stalingard tactics to post-Stalingrad tactics. Apples and oranges...
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
THEY WOULD LIKE TO THINK THEY DID BUT THEY DIDNT
THEY PLAYED A BIT PART, HELPED OUT, HELPED WIN IT
They love you so badly for sharing their sorrow, so pick up that guitar and go break a heart - Kris Kristofferson
Nuclear, wou mean?