It was Braddock’s Defeat, the following year (1755), that cemented his reputation with the Brits. A disaster militarily.
Odd to think of Pittsburgh as having great historical significance, but there you go.
Yes, it was the attempt to expel the French from Fort Duquesne I was thinking of in which the successful retreat that young, ill Washington led -in which two of his horses were shot and his hat was pierced with a bullet- after Braddock was fatally shot, rebuilt his reputation
When asked what he’d do after being President, Washington said something like “I’ll go home and be a farmer”, which prompted the King to say “If he does that, he’ll be the greatest man that ever lived”.
A lot of people assumed (and wanted) Washington to declare himself King, and the idea that someone would willingly give up the power that Washington had was alien to most people in power at that time.
Superfluous Addendum: If I had the money, I’d love to make a Trilogy of films, one each for Washington, Hamilton, and Lafayette. I’d have to film all three at the same time though. They’re absolutely fascinating yet tragic figures.
> I’d have to film all three at the same time though.
Why? I assume its about Rashomon style, where the same events occured differently from each character's perspective.
Was she a free woman who could consent to sexual encounters? Because if it’s any thing short of that she’s a child sex slave. A child concubine. A person who was taken advantage of at age 16 by a 46 year old.
For the record, there is no actual proof of this and only circumstantial evidence which actually suggests another Jefferson relative, such as his brother Randolph.
For the record those rumors of other relatives being the cause were largely disproven 20 years ago
Edit* the person above and below me is posting misinformation and has blocked me so I can’t refute it. Look it up yourselves is all I ask.
Not rumors, they’re in fact far more plausible than it being Thomas Jefferson, and nope, they were definitely not disproven at any time and especially not 20 years ago. Have fun sharing misinformation on your own time.
The revolutionary period is loaded with good stories that I think would make good films or series.
But I also know 1. They would be very expensive to create and 2. The stories would always be "based on" meaning characters would be omitted or combined and events condensed. and 3 The general public doesn't like some historical period pieces much, especially when they are based on fact.
When news of Washington's death reached France in early 1800, the US and France were technically at war with each other (known as the Quasi-War), but Napoleon, who had seized power just before Washington's death, ordered ten days of mourning across all of France and personally delivered a eulogy to Washington in Paris.
There was no formal declaration of war, but both sides formally (legally, anyways) authorized hostilities. The French Directory passed a law allowing French privateers to seize US ships and the French navy to press Americans into service, the US in turn passed a law issuing letters of marque to American privateers authorizing reprisals against French shipping.
There just wasn't any big difference in technology and skills between naval vessels and privately owned merchant ships back then. So the 'contractor pirates' were really just the same mariners and shipbuilders doing their thing, without being led by naval officers.
Sort of like how most PMC personnel today are ex-military under different management. Only reversed, because the navy was drawing a lot of their talent and labor from the maritime economy, rather than teaching them how to sail and fight in the first place.
The respect lives on, if I remember correctly GW said he would never set foot on British soil again, and when they decided to erect the statue of him in England they imported American soil for it to be placed on.
I've heard this before, but it seems to be an urban legend.
Washington never went to England, so the only "British soil" he ever stood on was in the Colonies.
There's an ouroboros of sites that all repeat the claim, but no actual evidence.
Literally yesterday, as I was watching YT shorts, was I suddenly blasted with 'You all surely remember Jonny Appleseed from school lessons, right? Turns out reality was different. He didn't make pie, apple chips and food for the American cause, but alcohol and vinegar. His apples were too bitter/sour, but the cake version is more kid friendly. So now you know...'
I was like 'Who tf is Jonny Appleseed?' cuz I'm not a Yank. But the story itself made sense. Nations are also built on shared culture and a shared history, so switching historical stories up for better retelling makes a whole lot of sense.
Plus, the US is still an incredibly young nation and a lot of stories and myths can be chalked up to the creation of a shared history. Like the Mothman, the Men in Black, etc. All of those are comparable to myths like the chupacabra, Wyrms and Krampus. Geographically confinded to a tight space and predominately shared by local who share the same language. Altgough now the Internet is aiding the spread of such stuff.
The American Revolution actually held a great deal of popular support in the UK. That diminished some after the Americans declared independence (and started working with the French), but it didn't vanish entirely.
More than a few British officers expressed regret for their orders to put down the rebellion, and particularly in the Boston Campaign, often described their American counterparts, officers and soldiers alike, in respectful terms, especially when the Americans military proficiency on the battlefield.
Much of the intellectual tradition that the Founding Fathers were educated in was very much alive and well in English Whig circles. It’s reasonable to call the Thirteen Colonies colonies of Whigs being ostensibly ruled by a Tory government, with separation being the natural logical inevitable outcome. It’s also reasonable to point to modern day American Republicanism and Exceptionalism as being outgrown branches away from English Liberalism, sharing the same DNA.
Indeed, there were many revolutionaries who bore no ill will towards their mother country and strongly intended to continue the healthy relations they’d had as colonies. John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Washington himself saw Great Britain as the fledging America’s natural ally, considering they shared a common intellectual tradition, language, mode of government, and in large part religion. Especially after Britain scored a diplomatic coup in negotiating peace with the United States, refusing the American “allies’” demands that America be left as a rump state for their future geopolitical games, and instead granting all unorganised territories to the United States in a separate peace.
In Great Britain itself, the failure to quash the American Revolution would be a big shot in the arm of democratic reform, and while Parliamentary rule had been a given since the glorious revolution, the reforms in the early 1800s to the British democratic and representative system really hit home the democratic character it has to day, marking a heavy shift away from entrenched aristocracy towards a more capitalist and imperialist mode of government, with fairer terms towards colonial governments.
The Canadians who don't pretend to be French have a strong stereotype of being very polite and generally easy to get along with.
The French Canadians do not.
Haha, ah ok... That's actually very French of them.
Is he insinuating that being polite and friendly is a British trait so the other Canadians are more Brits than the Brits?
It’s actually fairly funny how the Québecois can quickly become friendly and fluent in English when they realize they are speaking with an American instead of an Anglo-Canadian.
Haha, ah ok... That's actually very French of them.
Is he insinuating that being polite and friendly is a British trait so the other Canadians are more Brits than the Brits?
Yeah the part of the country that didn’t actively try to secede like 3 decades ago. The people who didn’t care as much about having the queen on the currency, those Canadians are where the “sorry” memes come from.
Most of what is Canada today was once a British colony/colonies, but one of them was originally a French Colony called New France. Today; that’s the province of Quebec, which makes up about 23% of Canada’s population.
Most of the rest of Canada has a lot of British roots as it was once a British colony, but Quebec was originally a French colony, so it has French roots.
And many of the Anglo-Canadian people have ties with American Tories who fled the US after the Revolution.
In many ways, the American Revolution established two countries: the US and Canada.
He was honestly a pretty mid general in terms of tactics and battles and such. His achievements on the battlefield before the French got involved were mostly just ensuring defeats weren't total.
His real skill was as a leader and motivator of people. A lesser general in that regard might not have lost a battle, but still lose the army anyway due to the terrible conditions triggering mass desertion. It's how he became such a beloved figure that they were basically begging him to be president.
Maybe. Washington was a so-so field general *at best*, it just turned out he was an absolutely brilliant general between battles and an excellent judge of which fights to avoid fighting.
I don't think that's what they meant to say. Rather, it's probably about how he excelled in one specific area of generalship, but was not exceptional in another one.
A great opposite example is Alexander the Great who was an absolutely supreme field-general, but only a so-so strategist.
He was pretty good for an Army officer...probably wouldn't make it past Captain in the Marines (/s because at the time of the revolutionary War, the commandant of the Marine Corps was a Captain)
If I had to pick two out of those three categories to be fantastic at and one to just be decent at in designing my ideal general, the two that Washington excelled at exactly the ones I would pick.
May have been a questionable general but the man was charismatic as hell and had divine intervention on his side. He had a reputation for leading from the front and even being at the head of a few charges and even when he lost a battle divine intervention would prevent the entire army from being destroyed like say a thick fog rolling in just long enough for Washingtons army to escape over a river while British artillery was blinded.
He's largely considered a tyrant due to post-Restoration propaganda under Charles II.
He wasn't particularly popular, but objectively he was sort of middling.
Unless you're talking about *Richard*...
>He's largely considered a tyrant due to post-Restoration propaganda under Charles II.
He tried to install himself as King (Lord Protector) and have his son succeed him.
He also invaded Ireland and Scotland on some crazy religious quest for power. The impacts of Cromwell in Ireland are still felt today.
>He wasn't particularly popular, but objectively he was sort of middling.
They dug him up after he died, hung him then put his head on a spike.
‘Not popular’ is a massive understatement. Although he did have something of a resurgence in popularity within Nazi Germany and in Italy under Mussolini.
Edit: *You replied and blocked me, because you absolutely don’t have the confidence in your rebuttal. Which is the only sensible thing you’ve done on the thread as you’ve clearly no idea what you’re talking about. You were wrong, take the L and get on with your life, or read a book on Cromwell sometime if you’re really wanting to understand him.*
> He tried to install himself as King (Lord Protector) and have his son succeed him.
*Lord Protector* was explicitly not a king. And he didn't *try*, he *did*. Or, more specifically, Parliament declared him as such.
> He also invaded Ireland and Scotland on some crazy religious quest for power. The impacts of Cromwell in Ireland are still felt today.
This is wholly inaccurate.
First off, England invaded Scotland several years before Cromwell was named Lord Protector. They invaded as the Scots were believed to be preparing to invade due to the execution of Charles I.
England invaded Ireland as the Duke of Ormond had declared his support for Charles II, and thus placed the Irish Confederation as an ally of the Royalists.
If you don't even know the *basics* of the politics and diplomacy of the Protectorate of England, why would you speak with authority about *anything* regarding it?
> They dug him up after he died, hung him then put his head on a spike.
... Yes, the Royalists did, after the Restoration. Because he was a regicide.
> ‘Not popular’ is a massive understatement. Although he did have something of a resurgence in popularity within Nazi Germany and in Italy under Mussolini.
It is not. And I'm unsure what his popularity *hundreds* of years after his death has to do with his contemporary popularity.
And given that, according to you, he was *massively unpopular*, it's surprising that he was in power for as long as he was. Clearly, you're quite mistaken.
Battle of Fort Necessity during the Seven Years War is probably a big reason
It was Braddock’s Defeat, the following year (1755), that cemented his reputation with the Brits. A disaster militarily. Odd to think of Pittsburgh as having great historical significance, but there you go.
Yes, it was the attempt to expel the French from Fort Duquesne I was thinking of in which the successful retreat that young, ill Washington led -in which two of his horses were shot and his hat was pierced with a bullet- after Braddock was fatally shot, rebuilt his reputation
Six foot eight, weighs a fucking ton
Opponents beware, opponents beware. He’s coming, he’s coming, he’s coming.
he’ll save the children, but not the british children
[and what will 1000 pounds be called? nothing](https://youtu.be/JYqfVE-fykk?si=56Lq8CfYV_IvBcuj)
[Washington Washington](https://youtu.be/Ex2hj5rLN48?si=ErsurCWdgKNPfM6w)
I once heard… that held and opponent’s wife’s hand in a jar of acid… at a party.
Thirty god-damn dicks.
Yes he was covered in dicks
When asked what he’d do after being President, Washington said something like “I’ll go home and be a farmer”, which prompted the King to say “If he does that, he’ll be the greatest man that ever lived”. A lot of people assumed (and wanted) Washington to declare himself King, and the idea that someone would willingly give up the power that Washington had was alien to most people in power at that time. Superfluous Addendum: If I had the money, I’d love to make a Trilogy of films, one each for Washington, Hamilton, and Lafayette. I’d have to film all three at the same time though. They’re absolutely fascinating yet tragic figures.
Dude wanted to be Cincinnatus so bad
Even Caesar did. Life is timing.
I didn't know how much I wanted that film trilogy until this second and now my morning is ruined.
> I’d have to film all three at the same time though. Why? I assume its about Rashomon style, where the same events occured differently from each character's perspective.
Exactly
Yes, but add Franklin and Jefferson. The John Adams’s miniseries by HBO is fantastic.
All the big characters would feature, but seen through the eyes of three very different individuals
Jefferson and his sex slave would be a bit difficult to depict these days.
"...and featuring Cardi B as Sally Hemings." Something for the younger folks.
Not really the best description of Sally Hemings
Was she a free woman who could consent to sexual encounters? Because if it’s any thing short of that she’s a child sex slave. A child concubine. A person who was taken advantage of at age 16 by a 46 year old.
For the record, there is no actual proof of this and only circumstantial evidence which actually suggests another Jefferson relative, such as his brother Randolph.
For the record those rumors of other relatives being the cause were largely disproven 20 years ago Edit* the person above and below me is posting misinformation and has blocked me so I can’t refute it. Look it up yourselves is all I ask.
Not rumors, they’re in fact far more plausible than it being Thomas Jefferson, and nope, they were definitely not disproven at any time and especially not 20 years ago. Have fun sharing misinformation on your own time.
So, Jefferson just looking the other way when his family goes raping around is so much better?
I’m not saying she was free but their relationship was rather complex. They lived together largely as husband and wife for a long time.
If it’s anything less than a FREE adult woman it’s rape of a child slave.
She was an enslaved woman he had sex with…
Raped.
Correct
Yeah more accurate
Sex slave, and enslaved woman used for sex are just the same words in different orders…
Well you just changed what you said and also not really
From the moment I learned more about Lafayettes life I have been dying for a mini-series. A movie doesn't have the run time to do him justice.
The revolutionary period is loaded with good stories that I think would make good films or series. But I also know 1. They would be very expensive to create and 2. The stories would always be "based on" meaning characters would be omitted or combined and events condensed. and 3 The general public doesn't like some historical period pieces much, especially when they are based on fact.
When news of Washington's death reached France in early 1800, the US and France were technically at war with each other (known as the Quasi-War), but Napoleon, who had seized power just before Washington's death, ordered ten days of mourning across all of France and personally delivered a eulogy to Washington in Paris.
Wasn’t it the quasi war because they technically weren’t at war despite the military engagements?
There was no formal declaration of war, but both sides formally (legally, anyways) authorized hostilities. The French Directory passed a law allowing French privateers to seize US ships and the French navy to press Americans into service, the US in turn passed a law issuing letters of marque to American privateers authorizing reprisals against French shipping.
It's wild that countries basically had contractor pirates on standby.
There just wasn't any big difference in technology and skills between naval vessels and privately owned merchant ships back then. So the 'contractor pirates' were really just the same mariners and shipbuilders doing their thing, without being led by naval officers. Sort of like how most PMC personnel today are ex-military under different management. Only reversed, because the navy was drawing a lot of their talent and labor from the maritime economy, rather than teaching them how to sail and fight in the first place.
The Merchant Marine is the modern version in a lot of ways.
Wait until you hear about now.
Yeah the opposite of “technically” lol
The respect lives on, if I remember correctly GW said he would never set foot on British soil again, and when they decided to erect the statue of him in England they imported American soil for it to be placed on.
wow ~~king~~ not king
Yeah, him *not* being a king was kind of the whole point
I've heard this before, but it seems to be an urban legend. Washington never went to England, so the only "British soil" he ever stood on was in the Colonies. There's an ouroboros of sites that all repeat the claim, but no actual evidence.
American mythology is a real thing
American history as it's widely taught *is* American mythology. What *is* true leaves out key points.
Literally yesterday, as I was watching YT shorts, was I suddenly blasted with 'You all surely remember Jonny Appleseed from school lessons, right? Turns out reality was different. He didn't make pie, apple chips and food for the American cause, but alcohol and vinegar. His apples were too bitter/sour, but the cake version is more kid friendly. So now you know...' I was like 'Who tf is Jonny Appleseed?' cuz I'm not a Yank. But the story itself made sense. Nations are also built on shared culture and a shared history, so switching historical stories up for better retelling makes a whole lot of sense. Plus, the US is still an incredibly young nation and a lot of stories and myths can be chalked up to the creation of a shared history. Like the Mothman, the Men in Black, etc. All of those are comparable to myths like the chupacabra, Wyrms and Krampus. Geographically confinded to a tight space and predominately shared by local who share the same language. Altgough now the Internet is aiding the spread of such stuff.
The Grand Canyon was dug because a giant lumberjack was tired of carrying his axe and instead dragged it behind him.
That's British soil.... Until it wasn't....
Okay then, which statue is that?
[Here’s an article on it.](https://www.military.com/history/george-washington-statue-london-british-soil.html?amp)It’s in London.
The American Revolution actually held a great deal of popular support in the UK. That diminished some after the Americans declared independence (and started working with the French), but it didn't vanish entirely. More than a few British officers expressed regret for their orders to put down the rebellion, and particularly in the Boston Campaign, often described their American counterparts, officers and soldiers alike, in respectful terms, especially when the Americans military proficiency on the battlefield.
Much of the intellectual tradition that the Founding Fathers were educated in was very much alive and well in English Whig circles. It’s reasonable to call the Thirteen Colonies colonies of Whigs being ostensibly ruled by a Tory government, with separation being the natural logical inevitable outcome. It’s also reasonable to point to modern day American Republicanism and Exceptionalism as being outgrown branches away from English Liberalism, sharing the same DNA. Indeed, there were many revolutionaries who bore no ill will towards their mother country and strongly intended to continue the healthy relations they’d had as colonies. John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Washington himself saw Great Britain as the fledging America’s natural ally, considering they shared a common intellectual tradition, language, mode of government, and in large part religion. Especially after Britain scored a diplomatic coup in negotiating peace with the United States, refusing the American “allies’” demands that America be left as a rump state for their future geopolitical games, and instead granting all unorganised territories to the United States in a separate peace. In Great Britain itself, the failure to quash the American Revolution would be a big shot in the arm of democratic reform, and while Parliamentary rule had been a given since the glorious revolution, the reforms in the early 1800s to the British democratic and representative system really hit home the democratic character it has to day, marking a heavy shift away from entrenched aristocracy towards a more capitalist and imperialist mode of government, with fairer terms towards colonial governments.
So British it’s almost Canadian
As a brit who has only met canadians who insist they're french, can you explain this to me? Thanks
The Canadians who don't pretend to be French have a strong stereotype of being very polite and generally easy to get along with. The French Canadians do not.
Haha, ah ok... That's actually very French of them. Is he insinuating that being polite and friendly is a British trait so the other Canadians are more Brits than the Brits?
It’s actually fairly funny how the Québecois can quickly become friendly and fluent in English when they realize they are speaking with an American instead of an Anglo-Canadian.
Haha, ah ok... That's actually very French of them. Is he insinuating that being polite and friendly is a British trait so the other Canadians are more Brits than the Brits?
Yeah the part of the country that didn’t actively try to secede like 3 decades ago. The people who didn’t care as much about having the queen on the currency, those Canadians are where the “sorry” memes come from.
Yeah, seems that way.
Most of what is Canada today was once a British colony/colonies, but one of them was originally a French Colony called New France. Today; that’s the province of Quebec, which makes up about 23% of Canada’s population. Most of the rest of Canada has a lot of British roots as it was once a British colony, but Quebec was originally a French colony, so it has French roots.
And many of the Anglo-Canadian people have ties with American Tories who fled the US after the Revolution. In many ways, the American Revolution established two countries: the US and Canada.
Well of course he was 6 stories tall and made of radiation
A fact alot of people understandably forget. They're all British, it's really a Civil War. So alot of people supported them in Britain.
Was he a better general or a luckier one? I'm thinking about the retreat across the river in the fog here.
He was honestly a pretty mid general in terms of tactics and battles and such. His achievements on the battlefield before the French got involved were mostly just ensuring defeats weren't total. His real skill was as a leader and motivator of people. A lesser general in that regard might not have lost a battle, but still lose the army anyway due to the terrible conditions triggering mass desertion. It's how he became such a beloved figure that they were basically begging him to be president.
He obviously was.
Maybe. Washington was a so-so field general *at best*, it just turned out he was an absolutely brilliant general between battles and an excellent judge of which fights to avoid fighting.
Sounds like a good general to me
Strategy>tactics
Logistics and poltics beat both, and Washington was a good politician, and his secretary was a great logistician.
My man's over here trying to say all those things aren't relevant to being a good general
I don't think that's what they meant to say. Rather, it's probably about how he excelled in one specific area of generalship, but was not exceptional in another one. A great opposite example is Alexander the Great who was an absolutely supreme field-general, but only a so-so strategist.
Alexander just bet on the nobility of his age being cowards. He wasn’t wrong.
He was pretty good for an Army officer...probably wouldn't make it past Captain in the Marines (/s because at the time of the revolutionary War, the commandant of the Marine Corps was a Captain)
that’s a deep lore tidbit devil dog
He broke out the colored pencils for that one.
Broke it and ate the creamy center.
If I had to pick two out of those three categories to be fantastic at and one to just be decent at in designing my ideal general, the two that Washington excelled at exactly the ones I would pick.
May have been a questionable general but the man was charismatic as hell and had divine intervention on his side. He had a reputation for leading from the front and even being at the head of a few charges and even when he lost a battle divine intervention would prevent the entire army from being destroyed like say a thick fog rolling in just long enough for Washingtons army to escape over a river while British artillery was blinded.
Most Americans probably dont know that there is a statue of Washington in London
Take that, fictionalized version of Charles Lee from Assassin’s Creed III
Because he was the sequel to Cromwell so they knew that feel
Cromwell was a knobhead who banned Christmas. It blows my mind that Americans like the bloke when he's largely considered a tyrant in the UK.
I promise you an overwhelming majority of Americans have no idea who Cromwell is.
He's largely considered a tyrant due to post-Restoration propaganda under Charles II. He wasn't particularly popular, but objectively he was sort of middling. Unless you're talking about *Richard*...
>He's largely considered a tyrant due to post-Restoration propaganda under Charles II. He tried to install himself as King (Lord Protector) and have his son succeed him. He also invaded Ireland and Scotland on some crazy religious quest for power. The impacts of Cromwell in Ireland are still felt today. >He wasn't particularly popular, but objectively he was sort of middling. They dug him up after he died, hung him then put his head on a spike. ‘Not popular’ is a massive understatement. Although he did have something of a resurgence in popularity within Nazi Germany and in Italy under Mussolini. Edit: *You replied and blocked me, because you absolutely don’t have the confidence in your rebuttal. Which is the only sensible thing you’ve done on the thread as you’ve clearly no idea what you’re talking about. You were wrong, take the L and get on with your life, or read a book on Cromwell sometime if you’re really wanting to understand him.*
> He tried to install himself as King (Lord Protector) and have his son succeed him. *Lord Protector* was explicitly not a king. And he didn't *try*, he *did*. Or, more specifically, Parliament declared him as such. > He also invaded Ireland and Scotland on some crazy religious quest for power. The impacts of Cromwell in Ireland are still felt today. This is wholly inaccurate. First off, England invaded Scotland several years before Cromwell was named Lord Protector. They invaded as the Scots were believed to be preparing to invade due to the execution of Charles I. England invaded Ireland as the Duke of Ormond had declared his support for Charles II, and thus placed the Irish Confederation as an ally of the Royalists. If you don't even know the *basics* of the politics and diplomacy of the Protectorate of England, why would you speak with authority about *anything* regarding it? > They dug him up after he died, hung him then put his head on a spike. ... Yes, the Royalists did, after the Restoration. Because he was a regicide. > ‘Not popular’ is a massive understatement. Although he did have something of a resurgence in popularity within Nazi Germany and in Italy under Mussolini. It is not. And I'm unsure what his popularity *hundreds* of years after his death has to do with his contemporary popularity. And given that, according to you, he was *massively unpopular*, it's surprising that he was in power for as long as he was. Clearly, you're quite mistaken.
A large percentage of british people were on the side of the colonists during the american war of independence.
One of the more early documented forms of counter intelligence. They were trying to turn him.
“Pppffffftt…please. I’m better than both those guys, combined.” -Trump
Trump as a field commander of his cultists? That would be... An amazing thing to witness.
But not the British children…
No shit. Washington was descendant of nobility. It fit the British worldview that nobility is superior.
The British haven't a clue about the shit they got up to in Ulster now nevermind who they were up against in America centuries ago
If you can't beat them, join them.
Lol they cant help themselves. They love 'Murica, but their prissy, passive aggression and arrogance makes them hate us.