Has there ever been something you heard about history that you always laughed off at bullshit, only to be shocked when you find out it was actually true?
This movie for example with the evil british basically being nazis to the colonist. I always thought it was just made up shit to make the bad guy more evil for the sake of the story, but it wasnt that uncommon.
The movie is set in South Carolina, and in the southern states, the british beat back the colonial army, and then put the Loyalist in charge and then really did horrible thing. Shit like decapitate people they believed to be patriots, killing and butchering pregnant women if they found out the father was a rebel.
I even heard that they had whipped the mother of a rebel and when the guy found out, he basically crucified the guy in revenge. The southern theater of the American Revolution was fucking brutal. But to be fair, even the British were disgusted with what the loyalist did .
This is probably the worst, least historically accurate movies to ever try to pass itself off.
Yes, British rule could be cruel. Both sides officially frowned on acts of brutality. But there were incidents anyway, on both sides, though probably not nearly as prevalent as in other wars of that era.
British go into debt fight the French and Indian War (colonists & British vs French and Native American sects), British tax the shit out of America, America is a lawful land and finds the taxes unlawful. Seems pretty tight.
>could you pay taxes and stuff to this land that you've never seen or been to, a land with a different culture and dialect, so we can protect your self-sufficient economy with our military, despite the fact that you're capable of doing so yourselves?
>no representation in parliament
>get taxed to shit for wars you don't really care about
>barred from settling past Appalachians
>barred from trading with anyone other than Britain, basically be a captive economy for them
keep crying desu, you got beat by a bunch of farmers
>passes him the Constitution instead of the Declaration of Independence
This is from Redcoats and Rebels by british historian Christopher Hibbert
This is from "Victory at Yorktown: The Campaign That Won the Revolution" by historian Richard Ketchum
Also, Douglas Brinkley called Richard "the finest historian of the American Revolution."
The well poising seems believable, as does the rape but - the bayoneting of a woman, specifically noted as pregnant, sprawling her blood onto the wall into a clever limerick, cutting open the womb of another pregnant woman and giving a specific description of what the perpetrators said?
I feel the following paragraphs would shed some scepticism on what is clearly propaganda of the time.
I think its just you had no idea that shit like this happened in a "clean war" like the revolutionary war, so its hard for you to digest it.
There are some things that were propaganda, like that one British officers wife who was killed, and then the colonist ran stories about how it was their indian allies who had done it. But shit like that has mostly been proven to be false, while what I posted has not.
>I think its just you had no idea that shit like this happened in a "clean war" like the revolutionary war
Excellent strawman, sir. Truly remarkable.
Post the sources of those passages, as well as the remainder of them instead of those cherry-picked screencaps and then we can talk about credibility.
This is all certainly very believable. Nasty shit happens in war all the time.
The question is how widespread it actually was and whether it was something that was a matter of actual policy by the Brits.
A couple of cherry picked examples don't really prove widespread atrocities or shed much light on that, two of these and possibly all three are literally the same incident.
>provide you with books, who wrote them and the actual screencaps of what I was claiming
>"hurr I dont believe you just because. Post sources!"
>A couple of cherry picked examples
The point is, people always like to smugly claim that horrible shit didnt happen during the war, when that isnt true. And providing examples of it happening isnt cherry picking.
Im not trying to say the British were all evil or anything like that, just showing that some atrocities did happen
"Canada" at the time was essentially just Quebec.
They had recently gotten a bunch of special privileges/protections from Britain and were worried about losing them under a potentially Francophobic, secular, non-Catholic, republican government.
Op never said it was widespread. The fact that these things occurred during the WOR which was during a time famous for its gentlemanly warfare makes it surprising. Tavington really was that much of a chode though.
Look at how the redcoats treated allied civilians they just liberated
>Enraged at the huge amount of casualties they suffered in seizing the city, the troops broke into houses and stores consuming vast quantities of liquor with many of them then going on a rampage. Threatening their officers and ignoring their commands to desist, and even killing several, the troops massacred about 4,000 Spanish civilians.
>The wanton sacking of Badajoz has been noted by many historians as a particularly atrocious conduct committed by the British Army: many homes were broken into, property vandalized or stolen
>Spanish civilians of all ages and backgrounds killed or raped, and many officers were also shot by the men they were trying to bring to order.
>british bust their ass in the seven years war that primarily benefitted the the Americans
>ask for a tea tax to try and pay off the massive dept incurred by that costly war
>americans throw a fit
way to ruin pax britannia you cunts
The war has a reputation for being fairly humane and it wasn't. There was a brutal war of attrition in upstate New York that was guerrilla warfare at its worst. In the South it was pretty bad too. A lot of the hatred in the war was ethnic and religious. Irishmen had a score to settle with Englishmen, and the Anglicans had it out for the Presbyterians and Congregationalists.
It's generally regarded as a clean war because Howe, Washington, Clinton, Lafayette etc. were such noble people. But they weren't the rank and file.
The concept of demonizing the enemy and making them less than human so soldiers have no problem killing them ,there was propaganda even then that's how all war works
Always be skeptical of this shit
The majority of sieges throughout history if ended through force (rather than capitulation) would end in some form of looting, most likely accompanied by killing civilians and rape. do you disagree?
>Britbongs gonna Brit
It's totally believable because that's what war, especially sectarian violence, is all about. There were many instances of Loyalists joining up because they had suffered horrific acts of violence at the hands of the "Committees of Safety" i.e. Patriot lynch mobs. There was one guy I read about whose family had been killed by the Patriots who went on to be an absolute terror.
>Brits overall were better than the French in the peninsula wars.
You mean with the civilians?
The French committed some massacre because they were fighting against a guerilla
The British literally massacred allied civilians they were supposed to liberate out of butthurt.
In the places the French conquered and where they didnt meet guerillas (aka everywhere that isnt Spain or Tyrol), they never did such thing after taking a city, even though the inhabitants were citizens of the enemy nation and not allies they were supposed to liberate from a common enemy...
But the French in trying to put down the guerilla were more brutal regardless of if it was necessary. Also pretty sure the British paid for the majority of their food while the French under Napoleon continued the 'foraging' method.
>Yes, British rule could be cruel
In all cases it was. You cannot give me a single instance where British rule was completely benevolent all the time. Brits like to turn a blind eye to this, but if you look at how, in all senses of the word, evil, cruel and downright oppressive (even to its own people) the British were during their entire history, you'd be surprised as to why people portray the Nazis as the ultimate evil, and not the British.
the only reason there were so many Spanish guerillas in the first place is because the French army would 'requisition' (i.e. loot) supplies from the places they passed through, and hang anyone who resisted.
firstly, the 'British' atrocities were mostly committed by Americans, just ones who were fighting for the Loyalist cause.
secondly, the patriots were worse.
>The militia rounded up the Christian Lenape and accused them of taking part in raids into Pennsylvania. Although the Lenape denied the charges, the militia held a council and voted to kill them.
>After the Lenape were told of the militia's vote, they requested time to prepare for death and spent the night praying and singing hymns.
>The next morning on 8 March, the militia brought the Lenape to one of two "killing houses", one for men and the other for women and children. The militia tied the Indians, stunned them with mallet blows to the head, and killed them with fatal scalping cuts.
>In all, the militia murdered and scalped
>29 women, and
Myth : Napoleon's army was a bunch of thieves who came in villages to steal everything they could
Reality : Historians collected many of Napoleon's letters to his staff. Almost all of them have the same obsession : Logistics.
Nothing about the Grande Armée's logistic was made up or improvised. Everything resulted of an extremly complicated system so that all soldiers could always have gold in their pockets and so, could pay for their food and their clothes.
In fact, Napoleon was the first french leader to have created a specific minister for the Administration of the army. The regiment of the train, to keep soldiers fed up, was really well done : In 1812, there was one car for 17 soldiers.
If you ever read a book about the Grande Armée, you'll see many, many soldiers were shot for looting. The only moment in wartime where the soldiers could loot was in immediatly conquered land, when the soldiers were hungry, pennyless, and tired. In that case, the officers decided to just turn the eyes when there was petty stealing.
In all other instances : The french army paid for their food.
I dont know much on the topic but it seems believable
It would explain why there were so few civilian insurrections in the places the French occupied.
I mean, they occupied most of Europe for a decade and the only place that rebelled was Spain (out of dumb loyalty to a retarded king).
If the French had been nothing but thieves and pillagers, there would have been many more revolts.
>get taxed to shit
>British tax the shit out of America
>OH MY GOD IT'S HORRIBLE HIGH TAX WE HAVE TO PAY NOW
The revolution started because 13 colonies' economy(on individual level) would turn into a wreck if the British would enforce abolition in their colonies. Whether it was likely or unlikely scenario it's another question(in my opinion it was completely implausible by 1776 as sugar plantations were still very, very, very important business) but to think that fairly low tax, that was said to be temporary caused widespread uproar? Unlikely.
That was the point that was raised by the colonists in courts.
Then again 30 years war wasn't really about whether Protestantism was superior over Catholicism or the other way round despite that this was the reason that was voiced by both sides.
You're forgetting one thing: at the beginning, France could manage to sustain its troops without looting, but by the time of the Peninsular War they couldn't anymore. Also, the troops got more and more vicious the less willing they became to be conscripted into the grand armee.
no shit? it happens with pretty much every single ""historical"" american movie ever released
a great movie nonetheless even if resembles too much braveheart in his plot (and even the cast)
napoleon did the same and his army was very disciplined when it comes to "imoral acts"
needless to say that parts of their army led by other generals weren't - e.g.: soult, massena and the rest of the gang who were as interested in looting shit as they were in conquering lands for france
>Britain wins the seven years war
>colonial America gets a shit ton more land and money
>British want to set up a reservation for Indians that fought for them
>"colonists please don't ruin reservation"
>colonists ruin reservation then get picked on my Indians
>moan at Britain to give them an army to protect them
>army is sent over.
>Britain wants colonists to pay for the army
>"MUH FREEDOMS, OH MUH POOR FREEDOMS "
>"sorry we will pay for the army colonists but could you at least stop illegally trading, we need the tariffs to pay war dept"
>they spaz out and ruin shit.
>Britain doesn't take it seriously
>trivial war, easy to win
>colonists can't fight in open battle properly so instead use underhanded tricks
>still winnable by British
>suddenly France joins
>Britain gets worried for its more valuable carribian colonies that France heads for
>gives up on the American colonies to go fight for carribian
>america is born.
Not so glorious if you think about it
>You cannot give me a single instance where British rule was completely benevolent all the time
Not him and I'm American, but there wasn't a single ruling state in that time period that could even be remotely viewed as completely benevolent.
Even look at America after they left, our beloved George Washington put down a tax rebellion using federal firepower. Not that that's a bad thing, but people who think those guys up in Oregon are doing something remarkable haven't read up on their own history. Old Georgie would have put them down by now.
Yeah, the Brits were real nice. Oh wait.
"During the Revolutionary War, Jackson, at age thirteen, informally helped the local militia as a courier. His eldest brother, Hugh, died from heat exhaustion during the Battle of Stono Ferry, on June 20, 1779. Jackson and his brother Robert were captured by the British and held as prisoners; they nearly starved to death in captivity. When Jackson refused to clean the boots of a British officer, the officer slashed at the youth with a sword, leaving Jackson with scars on his left hand and head, as well as an intense hatred for the British. While imprisoned, the brothers contracted smallpox.
Robert Jackson died on April 27, 1781, a few days after their mother Elizabeth secured the brothers' release. After being assured Andrew would recover, Elizabeth Jackson volunteered to nurse prisoners of war on board two ships in Charleston harbor, where there had been an outbreak of cholera. She died from the disease in November 1781, and was buried in an unmarked grave. Jackson became an orphan at age 14. Following the deaths of his brothers and mother during the war, Jackson blamed the British for his losses."
Britbong captures thirteen year old boy, tells him to shine his shoes, slashes him with a sword and nearly starves him to death in retaliation. Then they get smallpox.
Jackson lives and his entire family dies, in spite of trekking across the land with a sword wound, malnourished and suffering from Smallpox.
Then he goes on to rally a bunch of American army discards, Indians and pirates to royally fuck up the foglanders in New Orleans.
We should have sent him to Canada, they'd have been given full Freedom. That man's life is the story of a true American hero. Fuck the Brits.
also, at the siege of yorktown, when the british started to run low on food, they just killed their horses and kicked all their black troops (slaves who they promised freedom to) out into the middle of the battle where they pretty much all died from canon fire