How did America win the American Revolutionary War? - General

Lately in my History class we have been studying the Revolutionary War (Or for none USA Citizens, the American Revolution) and , although it's still explained quite nicely, I just cannot wrap my brain around the fact that our rag-tag little militia somehow won the war. As far as my understanding goes, several factors like the aid from foreign countries seeking to challenge British rule by aiding the USA and other small factors helped us achieve victory. I just think it seems kind of off though. There were so many factors against us (Horribly outnumbered and outgunned, troops were poorly trained, lacked even the most basic of supplies and support from the colonists was often low, with over 200,000 British loyalists in the colonies) that simple "Patriotic Spirit" and foreign aid just doesn't seem like it could've won the war by itself. So that's my question, how did the USA win the American Revolution with all of these factors against them?

France funded a lot of the war effort, and committed many troops and ships to the fight, especially after the victory of Saratoga. 'Twas the naval blockade at Yorktown that prevented Lord Cornwallis' escape.

I know it's something they teach in elementary school (a lot of that stuff eventually turns out to be wrong), but I always heard that some US forces made use of guerrilla tactics, which gave them a substantial advantage.

Guerrilla warfare works extremely well.

What Coppermoss said is correct. France saw a chance to get back at Britain after what happened with the French and Indian War, so they supported America.

We knew the land, that was a huge factor. The British were using tactics like firing lines and the like, "gentleman's war" and shit like that. The revolutionaries were using guerrilla tactics that were damn near unheard of at the time. That with the support from France helped quite a lot. Steuben's training of the revolutionaries at Valley Forge helped quite a bit too according to the history books.

I might be wrong about this but I believe the colonists were better equipped as well, the British infantry were using smooth bore muskets while many of the colonists were using rifles, this gives them a tremendous advantage because a rifled barrel has a better effective range and accuracy. [QUOTE=evilweazel;34935990]We knew the land, that was a huge factor. The British were using tactics like firing lines and the like, "gentleman's war" and shit like that. The revolutionaries were using guerrilla tactics that were damn near unheard of at the time. That with the support from France helped quite a lot. Steuben's training of the revolutionaries at Valley Forge helped quite a bit too according to the history books.[/QUOTE] The British had just come out of the French and Indian War which saw a ton of guerrilla warfare by the Natives, so to be honest they could have been more prepared.

There's many reasons. Guerrilla warfare. Attrition warfare. French support. Lucky battles. Home advantage.

It's difficult to attribute one reason. A large one is obviously the factor of distance. Being able to send messages in the time that it takes to send a boat across the ocean makes communication very ineffective. There are many other factors involved all being pretty important in some way.

I'll add my thoughts on guerrilla warfare: Militarily, the British Army for most of the 18th century fought with a "gentleman's set" of rules for war adopted after the horrible situations of the Thirty Years' War. So when the British fought the Americans, they were shocked at what the Americans would do in a war--things which defied the honor, laws and rules of which a "proper conventional war" should be fought. Examples were civilians bearing arms and conducting ambushes from buildings as opposed to meeting the enemy out on open fields with formal ranks. The colonials for the most part did not fight by the conventional "rules and laws of war" recognized by European armies since Britain was the world's premier power at the time, and they had no other hope of beating them otherwise. [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] Along with that, I remember reading how most British officers had an utter disdain for the colonials and their "unsophisticated" tactics, believing that their superior conventional military power would have wiped the floor with the colonials in short order. This arrogance is usually a recurring weakness when a conventional force has to face an unconventional one.

You have to keep in mind that the war did last a long time(Nearly 9 years). Britain was also caught between fighting the French and they could not concentrate solely on the colonies, which at the time, were really just another one of their colonies. England was so busy fighting the French full on, that the Colonial campaign was a afterthought. We also had a bonus above them in knowing the terrain and we sharpened them down until they no longer had the will to fight for the colonies.

Guerilla warfare played a very small role and it is over emphasized to a huge extent. One of the main reasons why we won was because of the fact that Britain saw no reason to hold onto the colonies after all of them were in revolt, since it would be more trouble to hold on to them than it was worth. America also won a few key battles that pushed the British into an untenable situation.

From memory Guerilla warfare didn't play a huge role and the british were fairly capable of dealing with it. The bigger issue was France funding the rebels and british hands being tied elsewhere. The troops that were there didn't have a very good position overall since the massive distance meant that it was fairly hard to support them.

Please please please don't say "home field advantage". It isn't like the British just sent an army over here blindly without a clue of where things were at. And know that there were still a good portion of Americans that were loyal to the British Crown and fought on the English side, especially in the southern colonies.