h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

How did the Colonies win in the American Revolution?... Good Question. Depends on who wrote your history books of course. Statistically speaking we (the US) was overwhelmingly out numbered in Navy vessels, weapons, guns, men etc... But what most people forget is that the Colonies were NOT Britania's only, nor most pressing military conflict at the time. Also the benifits we recieved from the French should NOT be overlooked but often are. And keep this in mind, the American Revolution was an Unpopular war for Britain. In the eyes of many back home the British troops were fighting their own. Some people will also mention the high number of freemasons on both sides of the battlefield, especially in the higher ranks.

Of course according to the History books I was provided in school we won because we fought harder and wanted it more and through the superior military strategies of our Founding Fathers such as Washington.

Anyway, finding a well rounded and objective overview of that war is not that easy.

OK, I looked up theophylline & caffeine in my Merck index. Caffeine is 3 times more soluble than theophylline - so there's probably more caffeine (by mass) in tea than theophylline. However, on the other hand, theophylline appears to be much more potent - by how much I can't say. It's listed as having "diuretic, cardiac stimulant and smooth muscle relaxant activities". Caffeine has none of this listed, indicating it's effects are must be much milder.

So the Merck index doesn't contradict your prof - and it does mention that small amounts are found in tea.

He could have been right, it would take much more work to find out conclusively.

dave

Keep in mind these are my recollections from a lecture over a decade ago. I was mostly stating that as one of the things that has stuck with me from my college education. Believe me the most useful was the last.

personally I think that maintaining the other colonies was why Britain didn't crush us in the War.

And because we kick *ss.

Yeah, definitely the second one.

>>good points mycroft, except I wasn't claiming the US was a great military power in its infancy, I was refering to its inception, and I was also talking about a claim Saturnine had made. I don't think the US was a great military power near its inception.<<

Dave, I didn't say you were making such a claim, I said you implied such a claim demonstrated an inadequate grasp of history. If you intended to refer to inception rather than infancy, perhaps choosing the former word rather than the latter might have been a helpful course of action when you framed the phrase "you claimed that it was a great military power in its infancy".

I'd say, as a Brittisher, that one of the main reasons the Colonial/French forces won the US revolution was that The British infantry, although technicallly the best in the world, was not designed for the type of, almost geurilla (spelling?), warfare needed in that war, also Moral would have ben low due to, as previously stated, we were fighting our own people.

actually, another reason why the americans won the war was because of their allied resources with native americans. they had a great knowledge of the lands and also the way they faught.
gorilla fighting tactics were common with the native americans and settlers. the great lakes indians like the huron and mohicans were very strong in the war

REDBONES
(APACHE SON)

Dave - lest we forget this wonderful thread, in which oddly enough, everyone involved had a higher level of education that you've ever received when it comes to history; as well as yourself admitting that you haven't got around to teaching yourself the past of the world you try (and fail) to criticise.

F96988?thread=360554

In response to your post in which you so [sarcasm]eloquently[/sarcasm] try to insult me -

>>>"Modern history - that's an oxymoron. Isn't that where people study what's been on TV for the last couple years?"<<<

Actually dave, no it isn't. It's the study of major world events in the 1900's - that is, the conflicts/politics that directly relate to the current ones. It's how you know why things happen, as well as how they will probably turn out. I have actually studied it, and I continue to study it. And I have qualifications that you will never have because your public education system is so poor that they may teach you many things, but they don't teach you anything in depth. Therefore you don't emerge from the basic system knowing much about anything.

>>>"What a great major you've chosen Saturnine. 1st, you didn't even know when the US was established. 2nd, you claimed that it was a great military power in its infancy. You claim to be a student of modern history, but obviously you don't spend too much time actually studying - unless as above, modern history really is just watching TV."<<<

Oops. Foot in mouth there dave. It's not a major, I'm not squirreled away from real life in a snug College lifestyle. I'm in the real world, living a real life, with one hell of a mind to help me along the way. I do know the essentials of American history, and if an alleged lack of in depth knowledge of a country that MY OWN COUNTRY CREATED is your only pot shot in the dark, you are standing on extremely weak ground here. Oh look, is that a crack appearing between your feet? Better move dave, the earth might swallow you up.

>>>"So you sit somewhere watching TV, getting tatoos, and listening to music, and you think that makes you an intellectual? Well, everyone has their own delusions... "<<<

No, that doesn't make me an intellectual. In fact, I don't claim to be an intellectual at all. It may be a title folks wish to bestow on me, but that's none of my business. What gives me the edge above you dave, are the following things -

1) I've travelled outside my own country
2) I've conversed with people outside my own country
3) I know about existence beyond my own country's borders
4) I have a better education and a better mind than yourself
5) You are unwilling to sit down and teach yourself world history basics before you participate in such conversations as this. The internet is a wonderful tool for facts and figures, but you need to know the lateral filler between these things in order to have well rounded knowledge. You do not.
6) I am willing to admit that others know more than me, and learn from them
7) I can admit when I am wrong, or make mistakes.

*sigh* How many times have you heard this before dave? You must be tired of it by now.

Oh, and by the way, the comment I made was that the US was a wealth of power. Not a great military power. I do hate to be misquoted. And I was right - and like I said in the thread, I believe, it was. A wealth of power is not necessarily one that uses it's wealth immediately.

actually TB, the native americans were allied with the British during the revolutionary war. There's one theory that says that's why they were treated so poorly by the US afterwards...I don't by it, but there it is.

Saturnine - blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Way to toot your own horn - too bad you don't know how to play

If the information provided in a recent American TV series shown on British TV is anything to go by, it is little wonder that American's have a biased idea of the War of Independence. During the introduction, the commentator mentioned the the War of Independence marked the death knell of the British Empire. Not to mention complete avoidance of the real cause of the War of Independance, and it wasn't taxes. That was the excuse, just as WMDs was the excuse in a more recent conflict.

In 1745 the British Empire was only just getting into its stride. The death knell came 170 years later in 1914-18. The Coup de Gras came in 1939-45.

It should also be remembered that at the time, the British had more pressing problems nearer to home with the French. So the French involvement on the side of the colonists was a little more than just friendly support.

Donald

What's wrong dave, don't know how to address what I said with any intelligence? Nope. Thought as much.

first Dave, it wasn't me that said the Native Americans were allied to the Brittish, secondly I thought different nations allied themselves to both sides? I don't know that well as my interest in the Napolionic Wars is centered mostly on the European conflicts and the battle tactics used therein. I will willingly admit to not knowing much about what went on in Asia and North Africa during what was essentially, that is in all but name, the first world war.

sorry, that should be "it wasn't me that said the Native Americans were allied to the Colonial forces"

thanks dave, anyway, lets give a big shout out to the native americans that paived the way for the americans who took over their tribal lands and put them on desert waste land reservations and fed them rotted horse meat and stagnent water.

sorry TB, my bad.

Saturnine - say something intelligent, and I'll give you an intelligent response.

All-

Haha, much apoliges (spelling?) for my previous post, I was in a very cynical mood, having just read "Adbusters." My polar posts aside, I would like to pose a question to any non-american here:
What do you think of the USA's approach to political campaigning? Here, most the canidates focus on bashing his/her opponent, and getting as much media exposure as possible. Also, many of the canidates accept "donations" (More like Bribes, really...) from private corperations. (spelling?) Oh, one more thing, I'd just like to say that the advise from our own government to lie about our home country when abroad (to say we're from Canada, for example) is pretty reflective on the horrorendous foreign policy of our commander-in-theif, (oops! ) don't you think?

Actually, Jon Edwards was notably for his 100% positive campaign. He did a great job - he'll probably get the nod one of these times.

>>the native americans were allied with the British during the revolutionary war.<<

Dave, it's refreshing to see someone so well versed in the finer points of his own country's history freely making sweeping statements that less accomplished individuals (such as George Washington, to pick one at random) might feel leave one open to accusations of crassness or complete ignorance.

That's true. Some canidates take a very refreshing stance and just focus on the issues. personally, I was rooting for Dennis Kucinich, but I knew in my heart it was a lost cause. Oh well. Surely, though, you will agree that for the most part, campaigning is a very negitive and unpleasent buisness, no?