I am currently in a debate with a friend of mine concerning the contributions of France during the American Revolution. My stance is that we would not have been able to win without their financial, logistical and military help. His stance is that that France's efforts were completely worthless and we won in spite of them. He also stated that France and the British didn't even engage in combat until the 1800's, which I know is just flat-out wrong.

Here is my current argument:

They gave us jack, and they didn't do any distracting.


What are you talking about? They gave us tons of financial aid and supplies. The whole purpose of Ben Franklin being in France was to broker a deal for this support.

Their military aid was helpful, as well. They landed troops in Rhode Island in the early 1780's that marched all the way down to Virginia under the command of Rochambeau (I love that name) and it was their fleet that defeated the British navy at Yorktown during the same time period, which enabled the French to land their heavier gear (artillery, etc.) because they had naval superiority over the area at that time.

The French fought alongside US troops to defeat the British commander in Yorktown, who was cut off from the rest of the British army because he was on a penninsula and couldn't be resupplied/retreat because the same French naval victory that allowed them to bring the majority of the supplies inland prevented that. If I remember correctly, the American presence there was minor, as Rochambeau ran the show, and there were at least twice as many French troops as American troops.



They didn't engage the British again until the 19th century

We are talking about France, right? They fought against the British numerous times around the world until the end of the 1790's and throught the 1800's. They fought in West Africa, India and also in the West Andies, I think. One battle that sticks out in my mind was when Napoleon went to Egypt in the 1790's with an expedition of scientists and the British Navy engaged the French Navy while Bonaparte's army was on land fighting the Marmalukes (SP?) and they kicked the crap out of the French. That's hardly awe-inspiring in terms of helping the US because this was more than a decade after the American Revolution, but France and Britain did indeed fight several times during and after the American Revolution.

This is all off the top of my head for now, I can get you some references later to back up my claim if you like, but I'm sure you can do it yourself just by googling "american-revolution France".

So, is anyone able to add anything to this discussion to help either me or him? Any assistance anyone can provide would be greatly appreciated. =o)

No, I think you've covered your bases pretty well. Sounds like your friend has been drinking the rabid-nationalist kool-aid.

I think the French entrance also forced the British to worry about their possessions in the West Indies, which certainly hurt their war effort. The British and French fought some significant battles there before Yorktown.

Your friend basically doesn't know anything.

I'm not sure what "assistance" I can offer, just that it's common knowledge that France was essential to the US's success in the Revolution.

Thank you very much for your input. =o)

It's arguable whether the US could have won without French help. I personally don't think the British could have taken control of all 13 colonies with the number of troops that they had on anything like a permanent basis. However, the French certainly were a help, and so I would say your friend is off his rocker.

Its simple make many "What if...". Maybe some another opposition againist UK should help if France didnt?

Its simple make many "What if...". Maybe some another opposition againist UK should help if France didnt?
There aren't any, really.

You need to have a navy capable of taking on the British at something like even odds, at least at times.

Apart from the question why they would have, that leaves the continental great powers of Austria and Prussia out of the equation. (Never mind that they would rather see Britain do well and prosper than France.)

Russia did have a navy, but not of the order of the French. Mostly it stayed bottled up in the Baltic, to confront Sweden if needs be.

Sweden, Denmark and the Dutch had navies roughly comparable to Russia. By the late 18th c. none of them had the ships, cash or manpower to take on Britian on the other side of the Atlantic. (Though as French allies Swedish officers and troops fought the British from India to America.)

The Portugese had a navy too, but maybe not the money and certainly not the will as they were a staunch British ally.

The Spanish? Had a decent navy and geographical access. Maybe. But what kind of example would that set for their own colonials, whom they already feared might rise and boot the Spanish crown out of the New World?

I get it to be either France or possibly Spain, but of these the French were the ones with reason to put a spoke in the wheels of the British, while aiding colonials would be too dangerous to contemplate for the Spanish.

The Spanish? Had a decent navy and geographical access. Maybe. But what kind of example would that set for their own colonials, whom they already feared might rise and boot the Spanish crown out of the New World?

I get it to be either France or possibly Spain, but of these the French were the ones with reason to put a spoke in the wheels of the British, while aiding colonials would be too dangerous to contemplate for the Spanish.

But the spanish did take part in the war, due to the Bourbon obligations, though obviously only after France marked the way. They were particularly involved in Florida, Bahamas and Antilles, but as you say there was the risk of inciting their own colonials to rebel, and actually, IIRC, they didn't want to recognise the independence of the United States at first.

It's interesting to see how the conflicting rivalries, alliances and resentments transformed this localized war into a semi-world wide conflict, with fighting in North America, Antilles, India and at some point a european theatre didn't look impossible.

Nevertheless, as the initial question was which other european power would be involved if France turned neutral, obviously Spain wouldn't take the first step.

But the spanish did take part in the war, due to the Bourbon obligations, though obviously only after France marked the way. They were particularly involved in Florida, Bahamas and Antilles, but as you say there was the risk of inciting their own colonials to rebel, and actually, IIRC, they didn't want to recognise the independence of the United States at first.
I stand corrected! Need to read up on my US history in general.:D

Wasn't about 90% of American supplies coming from outside the colonies? I remember that it was extremely high. Most of it did come from France.

Spain did participate, as did Holland.

Let's see. It was Lafayette who followed Cornwallis to Yorktown and informed Washington about the British position, and De Grasse who ensured that the British couldn't relieve Cornwallis by defeating the British Navy in the Battle of the Capes. Yorktown itself was a joint American-French operation. I'd say that right there is a major French military contribution, n'est-ce pas?

Aegis - You are correct. French help was essential. Militarily, they didn't do
much in the New World until 1781, but without De Grasse and the French fleet,
the absolute worst case for Cornwallis is that he is evacuated, more likely he
wins. With respect to money & materiel, they made large contributions from
the moment they decided to intervene after Saratoga (1778).

No one has yet mentioned the Dutch. Although they made no substatial military contribution, IIRC they did help out financially.

Aegis - You are correct. French help was essential. Militarily, they didn't do
much in the New World until 1781, but without De Grasse and the French fleet,
the absolute worst case for Cornwallis is that he is evacuated, more likely he
wins. With respect to money & materiel, they made large contributions from
the moment they decided to intervene after Saratoga (1778).

No one has yet mentioned the Dutch. Although they made no substatial military contribution, IIRC they did help out financially.

I said Holland was involved. There were Native American tribes on both sides, too.

A lot of places helped. France sent military and finanical support, the French navy, and recognized American independence. Spain sent money and supplies (I think something like 90% of the gunpowder used by the Continental Army came from Spain) and declared war (trying to take Gibralter more than anything else, but still attacking Britain).

I really think it was France that was responsible for most weapons and gunpowder.

Looking it up, I think you're right. I forget what it was that I read. Maybe it was that most of it was transferred through the Spanish colonies or something, I'm not sure. Still, the vast majority of the supplies of the continental army came through European sources, so I think it adds further evidence that the United States couldn't have achieved independence without their help.

I am pretty sure that they didn't even have enough shoes in the continental army til the French got involved.

IIRC there was also a naval war in Europe that helped the Americans. In fact there was a naval blockage of the British isles by a combined French/Spanish fleet. An invasion of England was also planed but due to an epidemic of typhus among the French troops it was aborted. However it weakened GB Economically. Several convoys send to strength the British army in NA were captured or sunk by French and Spanish navies too.

Your friend is completely ignorant on the subject.

Your friend is completely ignorant on the subject.

A victim of American propaganda, sad really, denying the past because of the present-which is a stupid reason nonetheless. We've established the French were extremely important, if not essential, so there you go. As far as Spain and Gibraltar, what kind of stories can be told about that?

I have never heard of this American propaganda and I am in the midwest most important part of the US.

I have never heard of this American propaganda and I am in the midwest most important part of the US.

What do you mean by important? Are you saying it it the most nationalistic? That may be true, but I don't think you used the right term.

I don't mean propaganda so much as its directed by the government, but by personalities and news network. Just think of the whole 'freedom fries' days and spilling french wine into toilets.

I don't mean propaganda so much as its directed by the government, but by personalities and news network. Just think of the whole 'freedom fries' days and spilling french wine into toilets.

I never knew that wine thing happened. Spilling alcohol is a sin, in particular French wine. Those jerks should be jailed for life.

A victim of American propaganda, sad really, denying the past because of the present-which is a stupid reason nonetheless. We've established the French were extremely important, if not essential, so there you go. As far as Spain and Gibraltar, what kind of stories can be told about that?

Huh??? I told Aegis that her friend, who thinks that France didn't contribute to American victory in the Revolution, is ignorant of the subject. How does that make me a victim of any propaganda? The British couldn't escape Yorktown because of the blockading French navy & that's only one example of many. How does this translate to, "denying the past because of the present?" Are you trolling or just making no sense?

Huh??? I told Aegis that her friend, who thinks that France didn't contribute to American victory in the Revolution, is ignorant of the subject. How does that make me a victim of any propaganda? The British couldn't escape Yorktown because of the blockading French navy & that's only one example of many. How does this translate to, "denying the past because of the present?" Are you trolling or just making no sense?

I was agreeing with you, using what you said to support that, it was Aegis' friend it was directed at.

The really sad part is, my friend has a degree in History and is a huge history buff. =o/

The really sad part is, my friend has a degree in History and is a huge history buff. =o/

Seems that some schools hand out degrees like paper napkins. I also know someone with a history degree that doesn't know anything about anything that happened before last week.:(

Uh....All i can think to say is this: Lafayette.

I was agreeing with you, using what you said to support that, it was Aegis' friend it was directed at.

Ah. My apologies. Coming right after my post & not specifying another person it appeared you were responding to me.:)

Ah. My apologies. Coming right after my post & not specifying another person it appeared you were responding to me.:)

Then I apologize as well. Let us put this dark age behind on us and gallop towards a bright new day of sunshine and friendship:high5: :deadhorse: :spank: yep... that was fun
ok, as for Lafayette, there is a college not far from here named after him, and not only did he help us out alot here, he went back to France and helped out the revolution as well.