The shot heard ‘round the world. It launched a war for the ages and, for 13 colonies, was the start of the quest for independence. The Revolutionary War (for a refresher, check out this link) changed the world and provides an incredible case study about the underdog. While I will begin by exploring how the Americans were the underdog in the Revolutionary War, using some information from this Smithsonian resource, I will also explore the other side, looking at how the British may have actually been the underdog. But first, the typical story.
The British army numbered 42,000 professional soldiers, and in addition, employed 30,000 German soldiers (considered some of the best in the world). The navy numbered 270 ships. The American army numbered 230,000 untrained men, but only 20,000 were fighting at any one time, and the navy numbered just 27. Furthermore, the British army was far better supplied. The British had a prospering empire with a large economy, while America was barely a nation. For most, this information would indicate that America was clearly the underdog.
Let’s look at the other side of the argument, though, with some information provided from this outline and this resource. First of all, the American side had superior leadership, with leaders like George Washington (for more info on Washington see here). And the United States garnered the support of the French, eliminating the British naval and military size advantage. And while Britain had a better trained army, it was fighting far from home. The colonials were fighting a defensive war, using guerilla tactics (for which the traditional British soldiers had not been trained) and knowledge of the land to gain an edge. In fact, over 70% of these defensive wars are won by the defender, like the United States, as explored by Ivan Arreguín-Toft in this report, mentioned in the first post of my blog (Arreguín-Toft refers to defensive wars as “asymmetrical conflicts”). So is it fair to consider the Americans the underdog, when the British were equally, if not more, challenged, and statistically, the United States had better odds? It seems Britain may have been the true underdog.
While I have made the case for Britain, this is a blog about how the underdog wins, and given that Britain lost, I’d like to evaluate how America won and consider the colonists the underdog (though I will come back to Britain). Are there any similarities in how Turkey has succeeded (see earlier blog post) and how America won? The two reasons for success identified with Turkey were a strong national identity and a departure from the norm. To a large extent, this holds true in this example. If we change “strong national identity” to “strong cause”, then we can see clearly how the American side had an advantage. By creating a strong cause, and thus a strong motivation for fighting, the Americans ensured victory. And the second reason, “departure from the norm” also holds true in the Revolutionary War. The Americans used guerilla warfare and knowledge of the geography, as mentioned, to wreak havoc on the British. This was a very unusual type of warfare during the time period and a definite departure from the normal fighting style. The two methods, strong cause and a departure from the norm, seem to hold true and thus hold merit, which we will have to continue to explore in depth in the next weeks.
To end, let’s come back to the point about Britain as an underdog. Unfortunately, no conclusive decision can be made as to which side was truly the underdog. This reveals the difficulty in labeling someone as an underdog; the decision is subjective. And perhaps this reveals that there is a difference between the perceived underdog (the United States) and the statistical underdog (Britain). Thus, the underdog isn’t always as he seems. I’ll keep these points in mind as we examine other shots heard ‘round the world in upcoming weeks.
I found this post very enjoyable to read because it forced me to reexamine the way I view the Revolutionary War. Although I have always considered the Americans the underdogs of that conflict, this post made me really think. But there was one thing you didn't account for. Even though the Americans were able to ally themselves with the French, that alliance was only helpful in overcoming the British naval advantage, and was a rather late addition to the war. One could even say (or put in a textbook) that forming the alliance with the French was one way in which the Americans overcame their disadvantages. The British army was still better equipped, better trained, better paid, and better fed. Although this may just be my way of attempting to justify the perspective that I was taught, I disagree that the British were the statistical underdogs.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. And perhaps I oversimplified the British advantage. But on the other hand, consider the fact that the British didn't get any major allies besides a few Native American tribes (by major I mean a large Western nation). Personally, I feel the British weren't able garner allies due to the type of battle it was. It goes back to the idea of a defensive war. The defender is more likely to get outside support since its cause is seen as noble.
DeleteAnd while better trained, the army was better trained for traditional warfare. But given that this was guerrilla warfare, which the Brits weren't trained for, the training became irrelevant.
I guess this goes back to the point that there is no good objective way to determine the underdog.
I agree, one of the biggest factors that leveled the playing field of the Revolutionary War was a strong, unifying cause. Ultimately, whoever is willing to fight until the last straw should end up on the winning side. I think that as Britain was building a distant colonial empire, the Brits were not as invested in the conquest of America as the Americans were invested in fighting for their personal freedom. In the end, the American people steered a nation to democracy. But that makes me curious, is a common enemy the only way to unify a nation to strive towards goal? You gave the example of Turkey, which formed through a shared national identity after WWI. Yet, is there better way, or is conflict the only catalyst to strengthening national identity and moral conviction?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment Rohan. I think your point of identity formation is very interesting. I wonder if perhaps we should divide identity formation due to a common enemy up further. So for example, both Pakistan and America formed part of their identity by a common enemy (India and the British). But for Pakistan, this has continued to be part of the identity, while for America the enemy has become more of those who aren't democratic or who deny freedoms. The former isn't an alternative, while the American identity is based on an alternative, and I think is thus more healthy. However, that is still a type of enemy.
ReplyDelete