Comparison of U.S. and British Strategy in the Revolutionary War

1429 Words6 Pages
The possession of provinces, cities, fortresses, roads, bridges, etc., may be the immediate objective of an engagement, but never the ultimate one. Karl Von Clausewitz The American Revolution is an historical analogy of David and Goliath. As in the biblical story, the numerically inferior and untested Colonial forces led by General George Washington (David) prevailed over Great Britain’s vastly superior and experienced forces led by General William Howe (Goliath). Some will claim that America’s victory, like David’s, was the result of divine providence but military strategists will tell you that it was America’s superior strategy that delivered the military outcome necessary for it to assert independence from Great Britain. General George Washington’s strategy of erosion effectively outlasted Great Britain’s will to fight a costly war on American soil. Comparatively, Great Britain wholly underestimated the colonists and did not employ a coherent strategy but rather relied on a poorly executed belief that colonial support for the war would disappear with the occupation of key American cities. Roots of the American Revolution reside in a series of laws and taxes implemented by the British government following their support of the colonies during French and Indian war. It is important to note that the French and Indian war was part of the much larger Seven Years war fought between 18th century powers Spain, Great Britain, France, and the Holy Roman Empire. While Great Britain emerged a victor of the Seven Years war, it was nearly bankrupt at its completion in 1763. This led the British government to raise revenues throughout its empire in order to reset its forces. Ironically, while Great Britain was attempting to prepare for the next war against its European neighbors, it was creating the conditions for an unforeseen conflict with the
Open Document