Hey /his/ I've been wondering, how would history be different

>>2736223
pax brittania would have begun sooner

>>2736223
Even if the Revolutionaries lose, or it never breaks out into war, you're likely to see some sort of low-scale agitation continuing on after or instead of the war. And it would cost way more than the colonies generated to keep a staff of Redcoats occupying the Colonies, or even just the northeast, on a full-time basis.

You'd probably see an earlier start to the Dominion system, or something similar to it because there's a very good chance that Parliament is going to offer up some slice of self-rule to keep agitation down.

history would end, people would just accept the infallible logic, science, intelligence, rationality and reason of the Anglo and that this a natural evolution of history, technology would advance further, standards of living would be much higher, there would only be 1 world war where the Anglo finishes off the last stubborn stragglers, the world would be an objectively better place

File: gross burders.jpg (28KB, 796x442px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 796x442px

These would be the world borders
>>2736241
>low scale agitation
It was just a few big whigs who wanted war, the rest were fine with petitioning the king

>>2736255
>It was just a few big whigs who wanted war, the rest were fine with petitioning the king
Those "few big wigs" managed to get roughly 1/4 of the then standing British army committed just to Massachusets by 1774, before open war even broke out. You don't need to have a majority of people favoring war, almost no modern insurgency gets that; you just need enough to force an armed presence that is more expensive and troublesome than the area is worth.

>>2736283
>area is worth
>he doesn't know america made money for england by buying goods
1/4 of the army seems unfeasible, unless you meant 1/4 of all regiments that had not fully recovered from the 7 years war

>>2736295
>1/4 of the army seems unfeasible, unless you meant 1/4 of all regiments that had not fully recovered from the 7 years war

Yes, I meant that. The British army had about 45,000 fit for duty in 1775, not counting various militias from around the empire or in Britain itself.
http://www.americanrevolution.org/britisharmy1.php
Although I'm going to have to retract my previous statements; I was looking at the Redcoat strength at the end of the siege of Boston, which was substantially reinforced to get 11,000, and consequently 1/4; British army strength had of course ballooned considerably by then.

Still though, to have about 4,000 men at the time of the beginning of hostilities https://books.google.com/books?id=PqZcY9z3Vn4C is a serious, serious commitment, especially since that is holding just one city, and that barely. I still maintain my larger point, as long as you have a fairly widespread, even low-level dissent, the cost of keeping an army there full-time is going to rapidly be more expensive than what the colonies are making you, necessitating some kind of deal.

>>2736332
>americanrevolution.com
Sounds like a trust worthy surce anon, any counter arguemnts you have>?

>>2736397
I didn't make an argument you dumbass, I cited to a fact, from a website that has its own internal citations, which in this case comes from

> Clode, Military Forces of the Crown, I, 268.
>Court and City Register, 1775, and 35 Commons Journal, pp. 35-37.

But hey, if you think the claim is inaccurate, show your chops. How big WAS the British army in the middle of 1775, and what information are you using to get that?