Misconceptions We Learn in School.

[vogtmurr]

This reminds me of the enormous blackened sword which hung on the wall of my old college dining hall, under a big portrait of Edward II, who founded the college. We used to wonder if the sword was actually the implement by which he met his ignominious end. It certainly looked extremely heavy. No doubt it was a dodgy Victorian fake of some kind.

I missed this post - but maybe that was poor Edward II's stain on it, kept as some kind of sick reminder.

In the unlikely event that anyone's interested in my college sword, I found this article which sheds light on it. Apparently a Renaissance-era weapon, measuring 163 cm and weighing 3.4 kg according to this site (which if you read after the first link, you can discern the tone of bitterness in its description of where the original sword is). I don't know what that is in imperial.

I can confirm that the proposed duel mentioned in the article did not take place, disappointingly, since I was still there at the time and I'm sure it's the sort of thing you'd remember...

so it had a different origin. Who was Bladud, and did Bath ever get it back ?
7.5 lbs.

 

[Plotinus]

Bladud was a legendary British king who is supposed to have founded the city of Bath in antiquity. He's "known" from Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Bath never got the sword back... it's still there in Oriel dining hall!

 

[sophie]

I don't consider ANY detail irrelevant. Actually I'm kinda insulted that you would accuse my school of using a high school textbook for an AP course!

I don't think I've yet to use a "textbook" in college. And yes, most of what they teach you in High School, even in AP courses, is a load.

 

[Masada]

Textbooks? What are they.

 

[aronnax]

Misconception: The American people wanted to free itself from the 'tyranny' of Great Britain
Fact: Only about 45% of the American people wanted to. 20% remained loyal to the Crown and the rest tried to stay neutral.

Misconception: America won its independence from Great Britain
Fact: France, Spain and Holland won America its independence from Great Britain. Call me presumptuous, but if Britain can fight the U.S to a draw in the War of 1812 with Napoleon romping around Europe, they could have certainly squashed a much weaker and disunited America if the European Powers did not intervene. Fighting off the French was a bigger concern to Britain than losing America.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Believe it or not, the United States was better organized and had better generals in the American Revolution than 1812. There were also different strategic goals. The United States had to go on the offensive in 1812 and faced setbacks in Canada. They also tried this strategy in the Revolution and faced the same problem. During the Revolution, the British had to hold onto major cities and control the countryside, something they were never able to do. Their offensive strategies during 1812 amounted to little more than coastal raids. Some of these raids (the burning of DC) were great successes. Others (Baltimore) were abysmal failures.

I don't disagree that the European contribution was absolutely invaluable in winning the war, but don't use 1812 as your evidence.

 

[aronnax]

Alright then, I'll take your words into account. You're probably right anyway, my impression of 1812 was that is was a fool-hardy attempt to conquer Canada.

 

[Lord Baal]

Alright then, I'll take your words into account. You're probably right anyway, my impression of 1812 was that is was a fool-hardy attempt to conquer Canada.

That's exactly what it was, though most Americans will tell you otherwise. Supposedly it was to curb British excesses, specifically the impressment of American sailors. I've never seen an ounce of evidence to suggest that the sailors the British were taking weren't British citizens as they claimed, nor that it was a common occurrence.

 

[say1988]

One issue is that according to British law at the time, once a person was born of British parents or on British soil or was naturalized, they were then, and forever, British subjects. It was simply not possible to renounce citizenship. And as such anyone born in British territory, even naturalised US citizens were liable for impressment (technically speaking, you could probably make an arguement that, under British law, Madison was a subject and liable for impressment, and a traitor of course ).
On the other hand, according to US law, becoming a citizen of the US involved renouncing their former (in this case British) nationality and being only subject to the United States, and hence it was argued by them and the US government that they were not liable for impressment.

 

[LightSpectra]

That's exactly what it was, though most Americans will tell you otherwise. Supposedly it was to curb British excesses, specifically the impressment of American sailors. I've never seen an ounce of evidence to suggest that the sailors the British were taking weren't British citizens as they claimed, nor that it was a common occurrence.

The impressment issue may have been the one that was debated the most in Congress, but the problem that was on Madison's mind more than anything was Britain's support of the Natives in a state of war against the U.S.

Misconception: America won its independence from Great Britain
Fact: France, Spain and Holland won America its independence from Great Britain. Call me presumptuous, but if Britain can fight the U.S to a draw in the War of 1812 with Napoleon romping around Europe, they could have certainly squashed a much weaker and disunited America if the European Powers did not intervene. Fighting off the French was a bigger concern to Britain than losing America.

Although the French and Spanish played a large part in the Revolutionary War, Americans are the ones who fought and died the most. It's quibbling to say that they didn't "win" the war because they had allies. Also, I disagree with "Fighting off the French was a bigger concern to Britain than losing America." Britain poured so many resources into the war because the Thirteen Colonies was their most profitable oversea possession and they perceived that shipping as many soldiers and supplies as they did to reclaim it was worth the cost. France intervened in order to deprive Britain of this, and to open trade back up with the New World (previously denied by the Navigation Acts). Why would fighting off the French be a concern at all except because they were allied with the Americans?

 

[say1988]

I think that was actually in reference to the War of 1812.

 

[civ_king]

Misconception: The American people wanted to free itself from the 'tyranny' of Great Britain
Fact: Only about 45% of the American people wanted to. 20% remained loyal to the Crown and the rest tried to stay neutral.

Misconception: America won its independence from Great Britain
Fact: France, Spain and Holland won America its independence from Great Britain. Call me presumptuous, but if Britain can fight the U.S to a draw in the War of 1812 with Napoleon romping around Europe, they could have certainly squashed a much weaker and disunited America if the European Powers did not intervene. Fighting off the French was a bigger concern to Britain than losing America.

if they didn't help it would definitely taken longer, but inevitably the Colonists would win simply due to the logistics of fighting a war so far away at that time

 

[.Shane.]

lol, this thread invents misconceptions that didn't exist!

 

[Antilogic]

The impressment issue may have been the one that was debated the most in Congress, but the problem that was on Madison's mind more than anything was Britain's support of the Natives in a state of war against the U.S.



Although the French and Spanish played a large part in the Revolutionary War, Americans are the ones who fought and died the most. It's quibbling to say that they didn't "win" the war because they had allies. Also, I disagree with "Fighting off the French was a bigger concern to Britain than losing America." Britain poured so many resources into the war because the Thirteen Colonies was their most profitable oversea possession and they perceived that shipping as many soldiers and supplies as they did to reclaim it was worth the cost. France intervened in order to deprive Britain of this, and to open trade back up with the New World (previously denied by the Navigation Acts). Why would fighting off the French be a concern at all except because they were allied with the Americans?

To add specifics to your post (not disagreeing, just keeping organized), look at the Battles of Boston, Saratoga, Monmouth, Cowpens, and Guilford Courthouse. Take a look at how well-run the Southern Campaign was once Nathaniel Greene was put in charge.

People point to Yorktown and say "See? The French won it!" because Washington had French boots on the ground and effective French naval support (for the first time in 1781, despite French help being in the works since 1777). However, people don't seem to question why General Cornwallis, who is presumed competent, would place his force on an easily-encircled peninsula with poor supplies and little in the way of artillery.

The reason? General Greene had run an incredibly effective campaign against him, depleting his forces and supplies.

 

[aronnax]

Although the French and Spanish played a large part in the Revolutionary War, Americans are the ones who fought and died the most. It's quibbling to say that they didn't "win" the war because they had allies. Also, I disagree with "Fighting off the French was a bigger concern to Britain than losing America." Britain poured so many resources into the war because the Thirteen Colonies was their most profitable oversea possession and they perceived that shipping as many soldiers and supplies as they did to reclaim it was worth the cost. France intervened in order to deprive Britain of this, and to open trade back up with the New World (previously denied by the Navigation Acts). Why would fighting off the French be a concern at all except because they were allied with the Americans?

Because France really really really hated Britain. France really really wanted to reverse the fortunes of the 7 Years War. If anything, the British considered the American Rebels less of a threat than one posed by France. Which threatened Britain's survival more? The American Colony of 2 million of which only half the population wanted independence or the Kingdom of France with 16 million people and less than 100km away from Britain. Much of Britain's Navy, the strongest force of the British military was held up in Europe, trying to intercept and defend Britain against a Franco-Spanish Invasion. Although the invasion never materialised, the threat was very real. 40,000 French troops were raised at Le Harve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armada_of_1779

Had the full force of the British Navy been sent to the Atlantic, they could have focused more of the strength there and win. Most of the major Cities were on the coast and could had been captured by the British. A couple of months of stockpiling of troops and supplies and it was a matter of time until the British struck into the heart of America and took the countryside as well.

if they didn't help it would definitely taken longer, but inevitably the Colonists would win simply due to the logistics of fighting a war so far away at that time

Are we talking about the same Britain who fought in India and succeeded in conquering a huge chunk of it against both local and foreign forces just 20 years before the revolution?

To add specifics to your post (not disagreeing, just keeping organized), look at the Battles of Boston, Saratoga, Monmouth, Cowpens, and Guilford Courthouse. Take a look at how well-run the Southern Campaign was once Nathaniel Greene was put in charge.

So what? When the Americans won Saratoga, the Brits won the Philadelphia Campaign. Both have far reaching effects. Philadelphia opened up the South for the Brits. Saratoga brought in the French. I remember reading that Clinton had to evacuate Philly because he wanted to strengthen the defense of New York against a possible French-American Attack. Both sides had excellent generals and effective use of them.

I would also like to add that after the Spanish captured Florida, it secured the southern flank for the Americans to head north. I know that its not a deciding factor in the Southern Campaign, but it did impact the course of war.

People point to Yorktown and say "See? The French won it!" because Washington had French boots on the ground and effective French naval support (for the first time in 1781, despite French help being in the works since 1777). However, people don't seem to question why General Cornwallis, who is presumed competent, would place his force on an easily-encircled peninsula with poor supplies and little in the way of artillery.

I'm not pointing at that, I'm pointing at how resources were diverted away from the US Campaign because the Brits were trying to defend themselves in Europe.

 

[civ_king]

Because France really really really hated Britain. France really really wanted to reverse the fortunes of the 7 Years War. If anything, the British considered the American Rebels less of a threat than one posed by France. Which threatened Britain's survival more? The American Colony of 2 million of which only half the population wanted independence or the Kingdom of France with 16 million people and less than 100km away from Britain. Much of Britain's Navy, the strongest force of the British military was held up in Europe, trying to intercept and defend Britain against a Franco-Spanish Invasion. Although the invasion never materialised, the threat was very real. 40,000 French troops were raised at Le Harve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armada_of_1779

Had the full force of the British Navy been sent to the Atlantic, they could have focused more of the strength there and win. Most of the major Cities were on the coast and could had been captured by the British. A couple of months of stockpiling of troops and supplies and it was a matter of time until the British struck into the heart of America and took the countryside as well.



Are we talking about the same Britain who fought in India and succeeded in conquering a huge chunk of it against both local and foreign forces just 20 years before the revolution?



So what? When the Americans won Saratoga, the Brits won the Philadelphia Campaign. Both have far reaching effects. Philadelphia opened up the South for the Brits. Saratoga brought in the French. I remember reading that Clinton had to evacuate Philly because he wanted to strengthen the defense of New York against a possible French-American Attack. Both sides had excellent generals and effective use of them.

I would also like to add that after the Spanish captured Florida, it secured the southern flank for the Americans to head north. I know that its not a deciding factor in the Southern Campaign, but it did impact the course of war.


I'm not pointing at that, I'm pointing at how resources were diverted away from the US Campaign because the Brits were trying to defend themselves in Europe.

Yes, what happens is people get pissed over taxes, besides the US had nothing that wasn't replaceable

 

[jagdtigerciv]

I'd like to add: Franklin Roosevelt was a good president. Though admirable and had good intentions, he marks the beginning of an increasingly large American bureaucracy and federalist state that later emerged into what we see today. The United States was founded as the very antithesis of this.

 

[Cutlass]

I'd like to add: Franklin Roosevelt was a good president. Though admirable and had good intentions, he marks the beginning of an increasingly large American bureaucracy and federalist state that later emerged into what we see today. The United States was founded as the very antithesis of this.

Which was no longer working nor what the American people wanted...

 

[Kentharu]

I knew it... You went to Hogwarts!


In other news.

Myth: The founding fathers were religious zealots.

Mostly promoted by Fox news.

 

[negZero]

One I just remember from grade 5 social studies, "There were only 4 ancient civilizations Rome, Greece, Egypt, and China".