American Revolution

>>573615

No. What the French did was turn the American Revolution into something that could face the British army and win in classical, set-piece military engagements.

That is not strictly necessary for a revolution to win, and there is the distinct possibility that the Revolution could have continued in a real guerilla fashion even without French aid.

It would, however, almost certainly result in a very, very different American "character" for lack of a better word, post-revolution, and of course, there's not guarantee that it would have worked in that mode.

>>573644
>the Revolution could have continued in a real guerilla fashion
It never was a real guerilla fashion in the first place. American histories like to teach it like it was a war totally won through guerilla warfare , when in reality no war in history has been won like that. Those kinds of tactics are only to weaken the enemy for major engagements or strategic maneuvers, in which the more disciplined British force would still have the upper hand. Wars aren't fought in trees.

>>573644
This, it made it a lot cleaner.

>>573673
>more disciplined
And paid less. American soldiers had the chance at being awarded land if they didn't defect. That's like, reserved for kings and barons in other countries.

>>573673

>It never was a real guerilla fashion in the first place. American histories like to teach it like it was a war totally won through guerilla warfare , when in reality no war in history has been won like that.

Of course they have. The Peloponesean war springs rather readily to mind, as do half Byzantine-Sassanid wars that the Persians "won". Moving to an era closer to the American revolution, you have France's abortive attempts to subdue Italy during the 16th century, and the Dutch revolts against the Spanish.

>Wars aren't fought in trees.

Wars are fought in political arenas. If the British can't administrate and extract wealth from the American colonies, they lost, no matter how many battles they win. All Washington has to do is be too hard and too expensive and too bloody to put down, even if he never wins a single battle.

>>574368
Washington doesnt pull men out of his ass, he has to pay for them as well. With british control of port cities and sea lanes it wouldve been the eaiest to supress rebellion ever.

>>574385

Which is a concern every guerilla (or really, any non-state actor trying to perform military endeavors) has had to face. The Guises, the White Lotus society, the various Timurid rebels, they were all perpetually on the verge of running out of cash. A lot of the times they find the money somewhere.

But, yes, it's a very real concern, and would likely be the cause of a guerilla Washington's defeat rather than battlefield losses. But of course, if you have a similar political situation that led to the first uprising, you're likely to produce a second before too long.

>>573615
Siege of Gibraltar

>>573673
I dunno, Francis Marion basically threw the British out of the Carolinas through guerrilla warfare.