Why did the British lose the american Independence war?

[Turkey]

My arse, the Puritans for a start were religious nuts - that pretty much set the precedent for things to come.

That might explain the inability of every single american to think in more than two directions.

[Joe McCarthy]

My arse, the Puritans for a start were religious nuts - that pretty much set the precedent for things to come.

Cromwell was the only commoner to overthrow the monarchy and the Puritans ruled under the Protectorate despite being a minority. To deny the Puritans were superior specimens in light of these facts is in my view misguided.

[Joe McCarthy]

That might explain the inability of every single american to think in more than two directions.

More like it explains why we're the most powerful nation in history. Puritanism provided a good survival strategy for wealth accumulation and national power.

[Balmung]

That might explain the inability of every single american to think in more than two directions.

The problem with that logic is few American caucasians today are colonials. Much of the present caucasian population density of America came from immigrants for other European countries.

SO HA!!

[Beorn]

More like it explains why we're the most powerful nation in history.

Can you justify that statement?*






*Disclaimer: Not a go at you.

[Turkey]

Cromwell was the only commoner to overthrow the monarchy and the Puritans ruled under the Protectorate despite being a minority. To deny the Puritans were superior specimens in light of these facts is in my view misguided.

Cromwell was responsible for the deaths of more Englishmen than WW1 and WW2 combined.

[Joe McCarthy]

Can you justify that statement?*






*Disclaimer: Not a go at you.

It's not so much an opinion as a statement of fact.

[Joe McCarthy]

Cromwell was responsible for the deaths of more Englishmen than WW1 and WW2 combined.

That's sort of like saying Jefferson Davis was responsible for more American deaths than the Great War. It is a highly partisan statement. Charles I was a tyrant by any reasonable appraisal.

[Óttar]

George III had to choose to engage troops to keep the colonies in America or if proceed to the definitive occupation of India. He chose the latter option.

I read a bit of a book called "Liberty's Exiles" about American Loyalists during the war. It mentions one particular man leaving for British India and living out the rest of his days there. It also brought up that initially, Robert Clive, the Major General who secured India for the British, a brilliant military strategist, was going to be sent to British North America to do battle with George Washington. He went to India instead. That would have been an interesting alternative history. Robert Clive vs. George Washington. What might have been... The British might could have lost Bengal without him, so it's just as well I guess...

The fact that the French King sent $100 million to the rebels' war effort, that, and the additional help of the Spaniards certainly couldn't have helped any.

[Joe McCarthy]

The problem with that logic is few American caucasians today are colonials. Much of the present caucasian population density of America came from immigrants for other European countries.

SO HA!!

Puritanism has immersed the whole culture, though it certainly affects immigrants less than descendants of the original settlers; much to America's disadvantage, I might add.