Well when I was in school, Herc, we didn't get taught much about British history to be honest. Just the basics really like WW1 and WW2, oh and the industrial revolution. I think talking about the empire nowadays may be too PC for teachers.

Perhaps one of the few major wars lost by Britain and that too in its own territory with vast ties by blood. How is the American war potrayed in English history books-- a civil war, liberation war, anarchy???? Its perhaps odd that Britain lost America, one of its few territories that it had connections with in bloodline. Even Britain and India parted ways with a handshake and cup of tea. The Yanks broke the tea crates in Boston Harbor and had bloody good fight.

As already mentioned, at the time, it was seen as a very low priority for Britain, and at the time, arguably rightly so. At the time, 'America' was not some glistening metropolis, and frankly Britain had much better places to use its troops. Same story later with the war of 1812, which was about as low a priority as it was possible to get, and yet many choose to see it as a true American victory, despite the fact that it was very costly (Washington being burned etc), and Britain was hardly even trying. With the revolutionary war, or war of independence, it was a just war - the colonists were being unfairly taxed, just as British subjects were, but the colonists had the opportunity to fight back. In the circumstances, it was a good thing, as it helped America develop as a country, which provided an essential trading partner for Britain in later years.

 

In summary, it wasn't taught much when I was at school, but that was not very recently...

French assistance both on land and sea was absolutely critical to the American victory.  At Yorktown Cornwallis offered his sword to the French commander, Rochambeau I think, who then directed him to give his sword to Washington.  The cost of French aid to the American revolutionary effort also helped to bankrupt the Bourbon monarchy leading to the events of 1789. 

 

I don't know if UK history books find it more unpalatable to lose to the Amercians or the French.   But certainly America was not a major military force in those days.  In 1812 the U.S. Regular Army numbered about 6,000 men, or roughly one percent of the force that Napoleon invaded Russia with that year. 

"Perhaps one of the few major wars lost by Britain and that too in its own territory with vast ties by blood. How is the American war potrayed in English history books-- a civil war, liberation war, anarchy???? Its perhaps odd that Britain lost America, one of its few territories that it had connections with in bloodline."

"Same story later with the war of 1812, which was about as low a priority as it was possible to get, and yet many choose to see it as a true American victory, despite the fact that it was very costly (Washington being burned etc), and Britain was hardly even trying. "

 

Nobody, neither Britain nor America, won the War of 1812.  It was a stalemate.

 

Although the British do have the bonus that they razed Washington DC to the ground and set the White House on fire.

 

 

not sure on stalemate....  Britain never fully commited to the war. they achieved their objective. ie prevent the US from taking Canada.not sure what the US achieved out of their war aims????

 

Paul

the us didn't achieve much from that war and ran an appalling risk for what they did get.

probably the only thing the got as a direct result of the war was the british cut back their support of the indians in the nw area.  they had been providing some arms and powder to the indians under treaties going back to pre revolution days.

 

as it was they ran the risk of the british seizing the mouth of the mississippi and building a series of forts on the west bank which would have gravely interfered with american expansion.  had that sloop been a couple days slower arriving it's not unlikely the british could have outflanked jackson's defenses to the north and captured the city.