MovieChat Forums > The Patriot (2000) Discussion > needing a good reference

needing a good reference

posted 9 years ago by ChimRitchels
8 replies | jump to latest

So I searched the War of Independence/Continental War on wikipedia and was very surprised to see how few troops died as a result of battles. I understand back then most casualties were of circumstance like disease, but it just seems odd that Britain didn't seem to dedicate more of a landforce to the engagement. Especially seeing their commitment to something like that battle lf waterloo. Given it was 50 something years later, but that was absolutely epic. I am thinking it was due to the naval action/general ongoing conflict they were seeing with France at the time. Anyway does someone have a good impartial reading material that can answer my question?

[–] Inspector81 9 years ago

There were approximately 25,000 colonials killed fighting for Independence amongst a population of approximately 3 million in the Colonies, thats 1 person for every 120 that was killed. That's a sizable chunk for the population at the time.

[–] ChimRitchels 9 years ago

My bad dude I just rechecked wiki and thats accurate, must of got my facts confused. I thought it was oddly low. Still I wouldn't mind a good book about the breakdown of the conflict if you know one?

[–] Inspector81 9 years ago

My bad dude I just rechecked wiki and thats accurate, must of got my facts confused. I thought it was oddly low. Still I wouldn't mind a good book about the breakdown of the conflict if you know one?

I don't know of a good overview that is in one book, but I am addicted to Osprey's Military books which are short concise books that have great illustrations and cover the many different battles and topics of the militaries and aircraft throughout history.

Here is a list of their 18th Century books which includes their books on America's War of Independence:

https://ospreypublishing.com/store/military-history/period-books/18th-century

The "Continental vs Redcoat" book under their Combat series might have the info you're looking for.

[–] ChimRitchels 9 years ago

Thanks mate I'll see if i can get it online

[–] jason626 9 years ago

Britain did have more troops to commit but chose to keep them in India. India had important resources and was more of a important colony money wise. The 13 Colonies were an expense after the Seven Years War, and a larger one during the war. The British Army had a sever lack of logistics when it came to their supplies for their own troops, which again costs them money and time. British officers could easily skim, bribe, and hold back supplies on their own troops. British officers in the war were not always the best and brightest sometimes. One could buy their position in the Army.

If Britain did put their full weight behind the war, they could have won. Of course the price of their victory would be costly.

[–] ChimRitchels 9 years ago

You are very correct about buying position in the British Army back then. Few years back I had a mate at Royal Military Academy Duntroon (Australia) and HMs exchange fellas there were toffs still. Back then it was a matter of family that depended on your ability to become an officer. My old man made Captian with the Australia Army during Vietnam. Apparently the family went nuts (they immigrated from Liverpool in 1951). Anyway do you have a good reference to read about the India commitment back then? I'm not sure if it's something taught in schools in England but in Australia it basically not mentioned in our high school curriculum. First thing i knew about it was watching Gandhi with my mum.

[–] jason626 9 years ago

The reason why the Navy was better was due to testing and competence. Although being a midshipmen was sometimes a privilege thing.

[–] volkstraum 9 years ago

Especially seeing their commitment to something like that battle lf waterloo.

Britain had a great deal to gain as the lead force in the Grand Alliance; we're talking a battlefield in the heart of Europe. Britain could bring armies to Northern France or Belgium in a few hours' time.
The American colonies, on the other hand, were an expensive endeavor throughout the 1700s, and although open rebellion proved to be an irritating nuisance, it occurred 10,000 miles from London.

Also, in Continental America, "armies" only had a few thousand troops at best. Engagements were much smaller. Frontier forts could be manned by something like 50 soldiers, and surviving a siege with no shots fired in either direction could be considered a substantial victory. You're correct that this does not compare to Waterloo.

I couldn't believe when I read his filmography that he played a toilet (no joke) in According to Jim