'Considered the most advanced military firearm of her day...'
By whom and during what period 'of her day'?
And if it was 'the most advanced' why did the American Continental Army prefer the French model musket (1766), called the Charleville by the Americans, to the British Brown Bess?
And to amplify that choice, the United States copied the French musket for its regulation musket in 1795-the 1795 Springfield.
And classifying the War of the American Revolution as merely a 'counterinsurgency' is way off the mark.
Well, if you insist in calling it a revolution, when it wasn’t, counterinsurgency is a pretty understandable misinterpretation. Call it a war of independence, the correct title, and this doesn’t happen.
Colonies won independence from their empire, then federated themselves into a separate legal entity. No regime change, no government fell, no regicide ie no revolution. Nothing to see here, move along please.
No. The states and commonwealths that existed before the conflict still existed after the conflict (and still do). No revolution or overthrow of government whatsoever. No overthrow of an American colonial government, because it didn’t exist, each colony had a direct and separate connection to the British crown. No overthrow of the British regime or empire (ahem, we are still here, and the empire outlived and thrived after the conflict) or overthrow of a monarch or dynasty (their heir occupies the same throne still).
An American voted for and paid taxes to the same representative government before and after the conflict. No revolution. The difference was that their local government was now independent of a supranational regime. Therefore it was a war of Independence.
I’m fully aware of the need then, as now, for a creation myth to characterise a national identity. However, regardless of the amount of porcine lipgloss we apply, the pig is still a war of independence.
@Kevin F. Kiley I do not recognise this. Is this an alternative history? “The revolution turned into a world war”? Pure myth.
If this is what is being taught in US schools, this explains many things that have been puzzling me!
History has always been about evidence and interpretation. The author reports anecdotes of American casualties from buckshot as evidence confirming the use of captured ammunition by the British.
I merely observe that friendly fire is not a new phenomenon to the continent of North America or that not all Americans fought against the crown.
good for the bin
Considered the most advanced military firearm of her day, the Brown Bess
'Considered the most advanced military firearm of her day...'
By whom and during what period 'of her day'?
And if it was 'the most advanced' why did the American Continental Army prefer the French model musket (1766), called the Charleville by the Americans, to the British Brown Bess?
And to amplify that choice, the United States copied the French musket for its regulation musket in 1795-the 1795 Springfield.
And classifying the War of the American Revolution as merely a 'counterinsurgency' is way off the mark.
Well, if you insist in calling it a revolution, when it wasn’t, counterinsurgency is a pretty understandable misinterpretation. Call it a war of independence, the correct title, and this doesn’t happen.
Colonies won independence from their empire, then federated themselves into a separate legal entity. No regime change, no government fell, no regicide ie no revolution. Nothing to see here, move along please.
No. The states and commonwealths that existed before the conflict still existed after the conflict (and still do). No revolution or overthrow of government whatsoever. No overthrow of an American colonial government, because it didn’t exist, each colony had a direct and separate connection to the British crown. No overthrow of the British regime or empire (ahem, we are still here, and the empire outlived and thrived after the conflict) or overthrow of a monarch or dynasty (their heir occupies the same throne still). An American voted for and paid taxes to the same representative government before and after the conflict. No revolution. The difference was that their local government was now independent of a supranational regime. Therefore it was a war of Independence. I’m fully aware of the need then, as now, for a creation myth to characterise a national identity. However, regardless of the amount of porcine lipgloss we apply, the pig is still a war of independence.
@Kevin F. Kiley I do not recognise this. Is this an alternative history? “The revolution turned into a world war”? Pure myth. If this is what is being taught in US schools, this explains many things that have been puzzling me!
History has always been about evidence and interpretation. The author reports anecdotes of American casualties from buckshot as evidence confirming the use of captured ammunition by the British. I merely observe that friendly fire is not a new phenomenon to the continent of North America or that not all Americans fought against the crown.
As I said, if you continue to use the word revolution a modern audience will conflate that with modern Maoist paradigms.....