How true is this and what exactly are the French contributions to the American revolution?

It is funny that Spaniards and French contributed with the Americans to break free, and against the British. The American revolution, after all, was an inspiration to the French revolution which ended with Napoleon in power and with him invading Spain. And because of that the Spanish colonies broke free .

 

In short, the envy and conflicts between Europeans allowed people of the Americas to break free.

 

Pinguin

 

Originally posted by Sparten The French achieved their staretegic objectives in the North American theater, else where they were pretty convincingly defeated.

 

I think that's pretty well true.

 

The original question however was not did the French win the war from their point of view, but did French intervention win the war for the colonies.

 

The key factors there are the Battle of the Chesapeake, the only major fleet engagement won by the French (or anyone else) against the British in the 18th-19th centuries. If that had gone the other way, Yorktown would not have fallen, the British government would not have resigned as a result, negotiations would not have started in Paris, and at the very least the war would have gone on a lot longer. (And in fact French land forces played a very significant part in the battle of Yorktown itself.)

 

It's summed up pretty well on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake

 

Check out too the siege of Yorktown at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown

 

 

Still, they gave them money but not much else. They gave them money and professionals to train their army, also note so did the Prussians. At the end of the war America was indebted to France but to also the Swedes, Prussians, and Dutch for money. The French played a large role but not enough to be the deciding factor, I think the Americans were.

 

So why do Americans hate the French so much?

Different era, different situation. The American revolution as mentioned elsewhere, became a war with far more than N America at stake. Also the war was very unpoplar at home, with the colonists having much symphaty and support in the mother country as illustrated by what a friend told the British CinC N America, before he left to take up his post, "sir I wish you luck, I do not wish you success."

 

That's not the same thing as saying that the rebels could not have possibly succeeded in the longer term. I'd speculate that the rebellion would have been quelled in the 'eighties, but that the Americans would have taken advantage of the Napoleonic wars to break free at that point.

 

However, what would have happened without the French is pure speculation. What did happen was that French support won the war.

 

Even if the British had a sufficient amount of troops to fight on the battlefield, they still would have lacked enough manpower to occupy every single colony.  

Well I would say he is incorrect.  I think this idea that the french won the revolution for the U.S. is because of the french revolution.  Most historians concede that one of the main reasons for the revolution was the state going bankrupt due to the funding of the american revolution.  Did they help the americans win?  Certainly, but if memory serves so did the spanish.  Could the americans have won without french help, not sure.  I think we still would have had a reasonable chance.  There were a lot of european powers who were just itching to help someone beat the british.  The main french contribution was the french navy and french experts helping to train the americans and also fight with them.  I think someone else would have lent their military experts (didn't one of the german powers also do that?) and in regards to the french navy, I don't really know enough to gauge its importance other than when it trapped the british fleet in 1781 with cornwallis at the siege of yorktown, which helped their land forces under Rochambeau and our forces under Washington all but end the war in our favor.

 

They wouldn't have been able to do that from 1793 to 1815, twenty-odd years in which the British had a lot more on their minds than quelling a rebellion in colonies that weren't very profitable anyway.

 

You have a point. When you start speculating, where do you stop?

Quite why we felt the need to help is just down to good character

 

Anyway we got our pride back in 1812 and i dont think the bond between britain and americas ever been stronger.

http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/WI2.htm - http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/WI2.htm

 

What is surprising, however, and Koichi implied as much in his first point, is the failure to note that British tactics in North America did not ensure control of the countryside. And nothing underscores this point better than the campaign undertaken by Cornwallis from Charleston that did end at Yorktown.

 

Poor Lord North, he had enough of a time maintaining the Treasury and one could just as well blame that nitwit Lord George Germain for the series of disastrous decisions with regard to the Americans and the conduct of the military for the suppression of the revolt...then there was Charles Fox as well as the remnants of the Chathamites. Lord, it was a headache ruling over all of these digruntled gents. And then there was the rapproachment between North and Fox that actually led to the rise of Pitt the Younger--a dangerous imperialist that one but by the time he took over the government in 1784, the peace had already been negotiated. 

 

My, what a dull existence you must lead in your black and white world of factual certainties and absolutes.  Unfortunately the study of history is rarely if ever so cut and dried.

 

To remind you of what you actually said, “I'll say this though, the rebels were most certainly not on their last throes.  One should be reminded that the French assistance came after the decisive rebel victory at Saratoga.  The British were planning to run through the Hudson Valley of New York, severing the patriot stronghold of New England from the rest of the colonies.  Instead, it was the rebels who did the severing, they prevented the British in Canada from linking up with the British in New York.”

 

This is certainly one interpretation of events, probably the one favoured by American “nationalistic” school history books, for all I know, but the “facts” are not so clear cut.

 

After Howe’s capture of Philadelphia, the rebel cause was in fact all but lost, true Massachusetts and Rhode Island were still hotbeds of insurrection, but with the seat of the rebel government and administration having fled to York, Pennsylvania, and thinking of dispersing altogether [as well as plotting to remove the inept General Washington], without the events surrounding Saratoga the rebellion would have collapsed into at best isolated guerrilla bands terrorising the countryside. Certainly the French would not have entered the conflict, and might even have decided to cut their losses supplying their proxies.  
 

As regards the Saratoga campaign, there was never a formal plan to strike down from Canada to cut New England off from the Central colonies in conjunction with an attack from the coast. Such an idea had been mooted several times before but the local British forces lacked the resources to accomplish such a move. Burgoyne, however successfully lobbied Lord Germain to allow him to make the attempt, despite the fact that Howe had expressly written to Germain discounting any such attempt from the coast; his target for the next campaigning season, given the available forces at his disposal, being Philadelphia and the defeat or destruction of the main rebel army.

 

I don’t intend to dwell on the events of the campaign other than to say despite the efforts and advice of his subordinates; Burgoyne manoeuvred himself into an untenable position, and in the custom and traditions of 18^th century warfare, asked Gates for terms. There was no “decisive victory” at Saratoga, given there wasn’t even a battle there. Gates, faced with the prospect of a fight to the death, as threatened by Burgoyne, which would have caused severe casualties to his forces regardless of the outcome, and aware of a British column of indeterminate strength thought to be advancing on Albany, agreed to a Convention whereby Burgoyne’s force would cease further hostilities and be allowed to leave America providing they did not return for the duration of the conflict. The British laid down their arms in good faith, and were marched off, pending their evacuation.

 

The rebel Congress subsequently [treacherously and shamefully, in the mores of the time] reneged on the Convention at the instigation of George Washington, [who was desperate to hold on to his position and now saw Gates as a serious rival for C-in-C], and the British troops were subsequently taken prisoner.

 

Rebel propaganda, it has to be said, brilliantly turned these events into a major crushing victory for the rebellion. This had a devastating effect on both Colonial and British public opinion. It revitalised the rebellion, severely damaged the British Government’s credibility, gave the French the excuse they were looking for to openly enter the war and seemingly “proved” the British were not invincible in open battle. So the American nationalist myth of the Battle of Saratoga was born.

 

In essence, only facts are relevant in a discussion of history.  Nationalist sentiments are unnecessary, poison good judgment and analysis, and thus should be left behind.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Your statement consists of American “facts”, mine of British “facts”, which of us is correct? That’s what these forums are about, the exploration of interpretations of historical events. I don’t mind being proved wrong, but, for what it’s worth, what I find offensive is the sort of attitude that turns “facts” into dogma. Historical fundamentalism is just as bad as religious fundamentalism.

 

We will leave aside the incompetent Horatio Gates (better he should have defected to the Brits than Benedict Arnold) so as to underscore that technically, Burgoyne was outnumbered two-to-one and his bluster of a fight-to-the-death is somewhat imaginative on your part given the results of the actual encounters that forced Burgoyne into his "untenable" position and had already caused some 1,600 casualties to a force of about 7 to 8 thousand men. Given that Gates had some 15,000 men at his disposal (including the militias from Virginia, New Hampshire, New York, and Massachussets), we are addressing an encounter much like the later event at Yorktown. The real issue here is that professional troops are not supposed to lose to such rag-tag gatherings--after all those Germans were expensive--and no matter how much you would like to project an effective 20th century propaganda machine back onto the 18th century the effort is an irrelevancy.

 

Now as for your cavil over calling the encounter the Battle of Saratoga, could one not say the same thing for the more formidable Battle of Waterloo?

 

Anyway, I had earlier posted my assessment as to the limits of 18th century warfare and the financial wherewithall for long distance campaigning. Now, what I do wonder about is whether or not there were discussions in cabinet demanding an increase in troop levels? 

 

- Oh yes, our local "we hate historian history" tag-team. "Damn the facts, damn political history, damn the sources!"

 

Don't worry Challenger2 you're not alone

 

 

As to who is damning the "sources" just how do you get around the documentation of the 1770s in which the participants do accept the events associated with Saratoga as a "defeat" that carried political consequences.

 

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/turning/saratoga.html - http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/turning/saratoga.html

 

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/turning/proposal.html - http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/amrev/turning/proposal.html

 

That Parliament itself viewed the events in New York as interesting to say the least and did in effect lay out proposals that were the equivalent of restoring all to the status quo ante bellum and such certainly belies the proposition that Saratoga was some inconsequential event...we will not even go into the consequences with regard to the machinations of Vergennes.

 

Now as to relegating political history to hell, I do believe that is an appropriate place for politics is the realm of the utilitarian, and utilitarianism is the terrain where the useful is often confused for the truth therefore if you wish to give validity to the political you simply journey on an intellectual basis into the Empire of the Lie (pace Ortega y Gasset). How's that for zap, Halo?

 

It is in this context that the entire situation must be viewed and as a consequence of direct financial understanding between the two Bourbon governments. I doubt Vergennes would have ventured as far as he did without knowing the tacit financial assistance already promised by Madrid and that in the immediate future the Spanish Bourbon would honor the so-called "Family Compact". Thus, when one starts asserting a novelty such as the "French won the American Revolution" one must also understand that absent the American rebellion, the French government was in no position to challenge the English single-handedly.

 

Now, as to the contention over "national myths", surely there is no need to forge another one--in this instance the French winning the Revolution for the Americans. In fact, the French often bungled matters. The mosy obvious example is provided by the French naval defeat at Saintes in 1782. That fleet had no business being there for in fact the naval orders had commanded the French to sail for a rendezvous with the Spanish at Havana, where men, ships and supplies awaited for a combined assault against the British in the West Indies. One might say that in the lust for "gloire", the Frogs got a hoist on their own petard [to put it in the vernacular of the UK].

 

 

Good Lord, the Americans inherited that trait from their English forebearers, and the American historical landscape is replete with old myths and others of more recent vintage [e.g. Roosevelt saved America from the Depression]. But how different is such from the standard cant that the English "defeated" the Spanish Armada? That one is still repeated despite the now classic study by Garret Mattingly, The Spanish Armada, published way back in 1955. But hey, after all, it was there from the beginning as with the nonsense imagined by John Smith that is still repeated today over Pocahontas [with good old Disney PC too]. And do I need to mention that last effort from Kate Blanchett and the taking of a page from Bette Davis.

 

One might assign it to the impact of Presbyterianism on the American character [shades of Woodrow Wilson] What with all the saving grace and redemption from perdition...but keep in mind that as historians we need to keep the balance as to to the uses of history within an elementary educational concept. The building of "good citizens" does generate a lot of tripe...by the way any news as to when that lady in the palace will vacate the premises to its lawful occupants?

 

PS: How often people forget that much of history is but fortuitous accident with very little planning involved.

 

How is this inflammatory? Your going to compare this name with the german one? Thats a bit silly..

 

 

http://wesulm.bravehost.com/history/eng_armada.htm - http://wesulm.bravehost.com/history/eng_armada.htm

Indeed, they threatened Philip II's power like no other country, penetrating to the heart of his realm time and again my plundering Spain's chief cities, pillaging the American empire and decisively aiding the Dutch.

 

It's neither misleading nor offensive because it is simply a question.

I don't see how anything but an assertion can be misleading, and I don't see any great reason to take a question like this as offensive.

 

If you think the answer is 'no', then fine.

 

It struck me as a very good question and still does. A good question is one where the answer is not clear-cut.

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Mattingly said no such thing despite Elliot's attempt to portray such when he prepared the introduction to the commemorative edition and titled it "The Defeat of the Spanish Armada". In fact, in terms of events from 1589 to 1603, the English had a rather hard time of it and were more or less suing for peace when James I came to the throne and found the treasury empty!   http://wesulm.bravehost.com/history/eng_armada.htm - http://wesulm.bravehost.com/history/eng_armada.htm

-------------

 

Let us be blunt, as with much else dealing with the condition of England in the 16th century one can not escape the fact that historical reality does not jive with the bluster.

 

Sorry, Halo, that is balderdash. Simply compile a listing of events for the years 1589-1603 and you'll understand why. England had neither the economic resources nor the naval power to maintain a sustained offensive much less have an upper hand in the Atlantic. Try this on for size:

 

http://www.loc.gov/rr/rarebook/catalog/drake/drake-9-begoftheend.html - http://www.loc.gov/rr/rarebook/catalog/drake/drake-9-begoftheend.html

 

 

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Just which Armada are you speaking about, 2003?

The one sent by Philip II in 1588 under Medina Sidonia after Bazan died. That's the one the phrase normally refers to.

 

I repeat my question: are you suggesting that Armada succeeded in its mission?

 

The defeat of the Armada was of course merely winning a battle (of sorts) not an entire war. I'm not aware of anyone who claims it was.

 

In effect it was similar to the Battle of Britain in 1940 - a decisive defensive engagement, but not the same as winning WW2.

 

The point here is much the same as with the original posit on the thread: a contention that can not be sustained by the documentary evidence. When you look at the documents, you would realize that the English did not even have enough gunpowder to engage the Armada as it made its way north along the coast!

 

You have a funny idea of 'north'. It's an irrelevant question anyway as the English did not try to engage the Armada except sporadically and at a distance. There's more to winning naval engagements than gunpowder.

 

Let us be blunt, as with much else dealing with the condition of England in the 16th century one can not escape the fact that historical reality does not jive with the bluster.

-------------

 

The point here is a simple one: The ballyhoo over the 1588 Armada is not commesurate with the historical realities of the times.

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga There is a distinction between jibe (more correct to write gybe) and jive (originating from American slang distinguishing the authentic from the false [jitterbug v. jive]).

Nonsense. Jitterbug and Jive are originally simply two different styles of dancing, one to hot music (swing) and one to cool (bop,etc).  You jitterbugged to Benny Goodman, you jived to Parker and Gillespie. All that was before you rock'n'rolled to Haley.

 

In some later argots 'jiving' (in the same fashion as 'jazzing') meant fooling around in general, including fantastic talk. But 'jitterbug' never meant 'authentic').

 

Moreover you wrote " one can not escape the fact that historical reality does not jive with the bluster." The evident meaning there is 'does not come into alignment with' or 'jibe' (yes, alternative spelling 'gybe')

Attempts at being pompously petty tend to backfire

 

Not as much as being unable to accept one has made a mistake.

when someone believes they are correcting grammar or spelling...and as for North just which direction does the English coast lie along the North Sea!

And which direction did the Armada sail in? All in all, it sailed all around the clock, but the main action was sailing approximately NE by E.

The point here is a simple one: The ballyhoo over the 1588 Armada is not commesurate with the historical realities of the times.

-------------

 

Of course, in the sense that in terms of finance further effort against the colonial/rabble would not hold promise of balancing the government books.  In a way, one can posit a good argument that as part of overall administrative centralisation, the crown in Parliament had sought to integrate both taxation and the customs system so as to regularize revenues into the Exchequer. That these efforts were also undertaken domestically and proved highly unpopular within the economy of the United Kingdom should also be kept in mind. After all, in looking at the Spanish, the English observed that the costs of imperial administration were covered by the colonial economies and these regions also bore the expenses for their own defense (a domestic military as well as a coast guard). Why not the various English establishments? There are also other factors that should be placed into the equation, not least of which was the nature of English trade in the Atlantic.

 

 

 

That we have gone off-topic is regrettable, but here is another tidbit over the Armada--in actual battle. the English only "captured" four vessels of the Spanish fleet (all straggler that had fallen out of formation).

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Ah, gcl, just as Froggy went a-courtin', you went a-referencing, and still missed the beat: honkies jitterbugged while the brothas jived!

I was there. You weren't even in high school.

 

For that matter you can't have even seen any films of the period. Jitterbuggers came in all colours. So did jivers.

Further, the roots of rock-and-roll are not found in Bill Haley

I never said they were, so that's simply an evasive straw man. The rock'n'roll DANCE is mid-fifties and was popularised in the Haley era. Where the musical roots are is a totally different discussion.

but in the rhythm and blues of the Mississippi Delta (from Memphis to the Balize so to speak). It is funny that even today, some just do not want to admit the African roots of much of popular music--the Cubans did so long ago but Americans remain reticent even when it concerns such things as the shimey and the rag.

You're blathering.

That we have gone off-topic is regrettable, but here is another tidbit over the Armada--in actual battle. the English only "captured" four vessels of the Spanish fleet (all straggler that had fallen out of formation).

-------------

 

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Speaking of blathering...a ten year difference in age is not much

 

It is with something as age-critical as slang. And dance steps.

and this assumption--   For that matter you can't have even seen any films of the period. Jitterbuggers came in all colours. So did jivers.   -- is hilarious; what Hollywood portrayed and forms part of cinematic history is something else entirely.

I was thinking of newsreels and documentaries. Bringing in Hollywood is resorting to another straw man. In general though, in producing films for teenagers Hollywood itself tended to be in accord with fashion or the films wouldn't sell.

By the way, the "rock'n'roll" dance of the 50s is nothing more than the "Lindy" unless you want to get into the techniques of line dancing!

Line dancing has nothing to do with it whatsoever. I'll grant the Lindy Hop was the precursor of all the dances that involved a couple dancing semi-separately (i.e. not holding each other as with the waltz or strict ballroom dances) but line dances have a completely different ancestry.

Give it up man, I am a creole and find your schtick amusing. Jive as a word existed long before its association with dancing and is not "native" to the New York of  the 1920s.

The point was you misused it to mean 'jibe' - come into alignment with.

It never means that in any slang version.

 

At the beginning (as I wrote) I assumed a typo. You've made it more evident since that it was simply a mistaken understanding.

 

Incidentally you still haven't answered my question about the Armada, or should that be transferred now to the thread on the Anglo-Spanish war?

 

Which brings me to this strange observation:

"I was thinking of newsreels and documentaries. Bringing in Hollywood is resorting to another straw man."

 

Just who the heck sponsored and bankrolled the genre, Mickey Mouse? Sorry for the sarcasm but both Pathé (1909) and Movietone News (dating from 1913 and the product of the film-maker Fox) formulated the medium as an adjunct to the evolving motion picture industry. Just the term alone, Newsreel is sufficient to assert the origins of the genre. Both content and distribution was as influenced by the corporate mind of Hollywood as any motion picture. Thus, the assertion is hardly a straw-man by the mere mention of Hollywood. I need only mention that quite early the association between production films and newsreels as being the capture of history formed part of popular imagination. After seeing The Birth of a Nation in 1915, Woodrow Wilson declared: "That is how it really was!" I doubt it necessary to comment that even contemporary newsreels and documentaries lie in their exposition of material.

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Your assumption on misuse is incorrect. The juxtaposition of jitterbug and jive had nothing to do with alignment

Of course it damned well didn't. Stop trying to wriggle out by obfuscating what was actually written.

 

You specifically wrote: "as with much else dealing with the condition of England in the 16th century one can not escape the fact that historical reality does not jive with the bluster.".

 

That is blatantly, obviously and beyond doubt a mistake. It means quite clearly 'historical reality cannot be aligned with the bluster', which is perfectly conveyed by 'jibe' and is totally wrong for any variant of 'jive'.

 

It came incidentally after your statement that "the English did not even have enough gunpowder to engage the Armada as it made its way north along the coast!" which you probably picked up from some quick internet dipping, and thought wouod make a nice piece of rhetoric, without bothering to check out what actually happened.

 

It is true that after Gravelines the English fleet was very short of ammunition (not specifically gunpowder) and therefore stopped harrassing the Spanish so closely once the Armada had begun its flight into the North Sea - e.g. once the Spanish had accepted defeat and were no longer a threat.

 

They could have reprovisioned (their home ports were close enough) but there wasn't any longer any need to do so.

and you choose to persist in ignoring the racial overtones of the distinction.

I didn't ignore the 'racial overtones' of the distinction between jitterbugging and jiving, I denied there were any. Both dances were popular with both blacks and whites, and there's plenty of evidence of that.

Perhaps the allusion to dance confused you as was apparent from your reaction to the mention of "line dancing"...nevertheless your reaction does substantiate my original point.

I wasn't anything like as confused as you seem to be. Line dancing has nothing in common with either jitterbugging or jiving (or the Lindy Hop or any other of their precursors). It's roots go back if anywhere to the formal dances of the early modern dances of Europe. And it's not even danced to any kind of jazz.

 

Did you ever see a line dance?

 

The fact that you brought it in to the thread shows both how you try and confuse issues when you are losing, and how little you know about the subject.

Which brings me to this strange observation: "I was thinking of newsreels and documentaries. Bringing in Hollywood is resorting to another straw man."   Just who the heck sponsored and bankrolled the genre, Mickey Mouse? Sorry for the sarcasm but both Pathé (1909) and Movietone News (dating from 1913 and the product of the film-maker Fox) formulated the medium as an adjunct to the evolving motion picture industry.

Pathé was 1908 and started in France.

 

Some of the newsreel companies were associated with companies that produced feature films. However the actual shooting and dealing in newsreel footage, especially internationally, was handled largely by specialist intermediary agencies, just as was and is true of still news photography.

 

Why be 'sorry for the sarcasm'? Why not just give up on the 'sarcasm'? You're being read by a sophisticated audience here: sarcasm doesn't do anything but weaken your case.

Just the term alone, Newsreel is sufficient to assert the origins of the genre.

It was concerned with news and the film was rolled on reels. What's that got to do with anything? It was shot on film. That's the ultimate in blathering, to try and make something out of reels of news film being called 'newsreels'.

Both content and distribution was as influenced by the corporate mind of Hollywood as any motion picture. Thus, the assertion is hardly a straw-man by the mere mention of Hollywood.

The point is that you were trying to smear by association, using 'Hollywood' as a pejorative, indicating 'untrustworthy'. 'Hollywood' is in fact NOT synonymous with 'the film industry'.

 

You could simply have said 'Documentaries and newsreels cannot be trusted'. And possibly given some reason to accept the statement, with regard to the coverage of popular dancing in the 30s-50s.

 

I need only mention that quite early the association between production films and newsreels as being the capture of history formed part of popular imagination. After seeing The Birth of a Nation in 1915, Woodrow Wilson declared: "That is how it really was!" I doubt it necessary to comment that even contemporary newsreels and documentaries lie in their exposition of material.

-------------

 

Out of beat and out of time you just don't grasp the jive! Do you need the invoking of a sea chanty to get the color as you do all sorts of gyrations on deck! You just don't jive, boy.

 

As for your tiresomeness over the Armada, at least read this last book--which although totally devoted to the English side of events, effectively tells of the status of English supplies with regard to shot and powder:

 

James McDermott. England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2005.

 

Further, you have not even cited Felipe Fernandez Armesto. The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

 

As he wrote therein:

"... the enduring influence of the Armada has been felt in the realm of myths ... slowly accumulated from the accretions of a long historical and literary tradition the myths of a great English victory, of English superiority over Spain; of the outcome of the Armada as a symbol of an age of English national greatness in the reign of Elizabeth I; of the Armada fight as part of a war of religion. These myths are the last stragglers of the Armada, and have still to come into port."

 

Personally, I don't give a hang about your "opinions" and you do not intimidate me with all your huffing'n'puffing. And puffing you were even on the French film-maker. That you quibbled with my dating on Pathé does indicate the level of pettiness possible at your hands. We were in the context of Hollywood and Pathé licensed his operations in the United States in 1909, otherwise why should I mention Fox and Movietone in 1913. That you obviously do not even grasp the relationship between the studios and the actual proprietorship of theatres that mushroomed after 1920 is not my problem nor that these newsreels were packaged and distributed by the same personnel. As for your failure to grasp how audiences perceived what was shown, Lord have mercy.

Well, you both certainly know more than I about both the Armada and early-mid twentieth-century dance. Thus, the only thing I find myself capable of weighing in on is the debate over the use of the terms "jibe" and "jive":

 

And the winner is *drumroll*... gcle_2003! Typos are nothing to be ashamed of or deny, dr. gonzaga; we all make mistakes from time to time -- well, except for me, of course.

 

-Akolouthos

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Boy, youse a junk yard dawg in more ways than one.   Out of beat and out of time you just don't grasp the jive! Do you need the invoking of a sea chanty to get the color as you do all sorts of gyrations on deck! You just don't jive, boy.

That's simple nonsense, and about as faked as anything can be. You can't answer any points I make, so you descend to this sort of ridiculous rambling.

As for your tiresomeness over the Armada, at least read this last book--which although totally devoted to the English side of events, effectively tells of the status of English supplies with regard to shot and powder:   James McDermott. England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2005.

I know the English were short of shot and powder (it was you who said it was just powder) after Gravelines. I said so, and pointed out to you it wasn't just powder. When you've been shooting at easy targets for days, you tend to run out of ammunition.

 

But the battle (campaign would be a better word) was over by then. Somewhat more importantly, by the time the English eased off the Spanish were running short of food and water, to the extent that they had to throw their horses overboard. And they were a long, long way from home or any friendly shore. And a whole lot of them had lost their anchors as a result of the fireship action, which led to their being forced ashore going round Ireland.

 

You don't just win at sea by sinking ships - indeed at that time they were very difficult to sink. Crippling them so they can't stand up to the weather is another important tactic.

Further, you have not even cited Felipe Fernandez Armesto. The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.   As he wrote therein: "... the enduring influence of the Armada has been felt in the realm of myths ... slowly accumulated from the accretions of a long historical and literary tradition the myths of a great English victory, of English superiority over Spain; of the outcome of the Armada as a symbol of an age of English national greatness in the reign of Elizabeth I; of the Armada fight as part of a war of religion. These myths are the last stragglers of the Armada, and have still to come into port."

The simple fact was that it was a great and important English victory (with some help from the Dutch, agreed). The rest of it is babbling, because these are not claims anyone has made: certainly not claims that I or anyone is making here.

 

And give me one reason anyway why one particular writer who is not even a specialist naval historian should be taken as a superior source to the whole sequence of specialists from Mahan down to Parker and Rodger. All of whom view the 1588 expedition as marking a major defeat for Spain. Every single thing the Armada was sent to accomplish failed. The English succeeded in their much easier task (especially easier given that they outnumbered and outgunned the Spanish).

 

Less than half their ships and men eventually returned to Spain

 

Incidentally I didn't think you liked glittering generalisations, and you were also dismissive about 'Oxbridge'. Fernandez Armesto is both a generaliser (no-one who spouts out world histories at the drop of a button, let alone the generalisations of a book like Civilizations, could be anything else) and he's Oxbridge.

 

Countering, I'll quote Geoffrey Parker, also originally Oxbridge, and a specialist military (if not only naval, like Rodger): "'the capital ships of the Elizabethan navy constituted the most powerful battlefleet afloat anywhere in the world." That was demonstrated to be true in 1588. 

 

Personally, I don't give a hang about your "opinions" and you do not intimidate me with all your huffing'n'puffing. And puffing you were even on the French film-maker. That you quibbled with my dating on Pathé does indicate the level of pettiness possible at your hands. We were in the context of Hollywood and Pathé licensed his operations in the United States in 1909, otherwise why should I mention Fox and Movietone in 1913. That you obviously do not even grasp the relationship between the studios and the actual proprietorship of theatres that mushroomed after 1920 is not my problem nor that these newsreels were packaged and distributed by the same personnel. As for your failure to grasp how audiences perceived what was shown, Lord have mercy.

-------------

 

For Akolouthos:

 

In American colloquial jive has several strata of meaning including "agreement" and in Southern English it is used to signal agreement or accordance.

 

e.g. A soup without okra just does not jive with gumbo! Within a Black context (and here the reason for the musical) jive was authentic and jittterbug was false. No matter how hard gcl strains on this toilet he can not deny this sense of the expression: A does not jive with B.

 

The bottom line here is a simple one, myths of Nationalist origins, and in this instance the English belabouring of the Armada is a classic example, seldom reflect the actual situation. Further, it is a situation similar to what may be said of Lepanto. Oh, it was a marvelous encounter but in truth it settled little.  

 

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jive - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jive

 

I was born and raised in New Orleans, the land of "where you at" and other dialectic and lingusitic eccentricities arising in a cultural pot far older than that of the New York of the 20s or 30s, and all I can say is that I was most amused by all of the pseudo-pedantic gyrations over what constitutes correct usage of regional colloquialisms with long histories. 

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Given that you wish to wreck two threads at one go, the theme here deals with the French and the American Revolution and the Armada has had its own arena.

I just answered your post. If you don't want to post any more about the armada in this thread, then simply shut up.

 

But if you keep the discussion open, so probably will I. 

Nevertheless, you continue to gnaw at bones  and reproduce the same old cant, including "the capital ships of the Elizabethan navy constituted the most powerful battlefleet afloat"--talk about obtuse generalizations--, which is more than tiresome.

Do you know what a generalisation IS? That's not a generalisation, and it isn't cant, it's a very specific statement and it's the verdict of a highly respected specialist military historian, who I'm willing to be knows a whole lot more about the armament and equipment of Elizabethan warships and other warships of the period than you could ever dream of knowing.

For Akolouthos:   In American colloquial jive has several strata of meaning including "agreement" and in Southern English it is used to signal agreement or accordance.   e.g. A soup without okra just does not jive with gumbo! Within a Black context (and here the reason for the musical) jive was authentic and jittterbug was false. No matter how hard gcl strains on this toilet he can not deny this sense of the expression: A does not jive with B.

That's a simple mistake. The fact that other people also make it is neither here nor there.

 

In any case when you originally wrote it (long before any reference to music or dancing had been introduced), the assumption was you were at least trying to write English (since that's the official language of the forum) not indulging yourself in some local variant of black argot.

The bottom line here is a simple one, myths of Nationalist origins, and in this instance the English belabouring of the Armada is a classic example, seldom reflect the actual situation. Further, it is a situation similar to what may be said of Lepanto. Oh, it was a marvelous encounter but in truth it settled little.

-------------

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Well, Akolouthos what I can not understand is all the unctuousness over usage when even Wiki underscores the distinctions:   http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jive - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jive

Did you bother to read it?

It says (actual words) '"Jive" and " http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jibe - jibe " are frequently used interchangeably in the U.S. to indicate the concept "to agree or accord". However, while one recent dictionary accepts this usage, most sources consider this an error.'

 

Basically, a common error is being perpetuated here. As I posted before the fact that other people make the same mistake doesn't stop it being a mistake.

I was born and raised in New Orleans

Not your fault, but what has that to do with anything? Nowadays New Orleans is English-speaking.

 

, the land of "where you at" and other dialectic and lingusitic eccentricities arising in a cultural pot far older than that of the New York of the 20s or 30s, and all I can say is that I was most amused by all of the pseudo-pedantic gyrations over what constitutes correct usage of regional colloquialisms with long histories.

-------------

 

"The development of large capacity, sail-powered ships carrying cannon led to a rapid expansion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe - European navies, especially the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain - Spanish and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal - Portuguese navies which dominated in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century - 16th and early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century - 17th centuries, and ultimately helped propel the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_exploration - age of exploration and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism - colonialism .The repulsion of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada - Spanish Armada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1588 - 1588 ) by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars - Anglo-Dutch fleets revolutionized naval warfare by the success of a guns-only strategy and caused a major overhaul of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_navy - Spanish navy , partly along http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England - English lines, which resulted in even greater dominance by the Spanish."

 

Enough said...

 

And as for "meanings" perhaps you would care to be misled?

 

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=jive&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact - http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=jive&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

 

In the world of Ebonics you just don't jive particularly in grasping the invasion of the North by Southern Blacks after 1910. Nor would you even know that both jazz and jive are terms coeval with the Razzy Dazzy Spasm Band of 1895 in New Orleans, but you can take that up with Herbert Asbury or perhaps you'll fight the good fight along with Dan Cassidy and claim its all Irish!

 

Originally posted by drgonzaga Never let it be said that peculiar Anglophones do not fight tooth and nail over their mythologies. Perhaps a certain individual may try to intrude upon Wiki and its delineation on the Navy article:   "The development of large capacity, sail-powered ships carrying cannon led to a rapid expansion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe - European navies, especially the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain - Spanish and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal - Portuguese navies which dominated in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century - 16th and early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century - 17th centuries, and ultimately helped propel the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_exploration - age of exploration and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism - colonialism .The repulsion of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada - Spanish Armada ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1588 - 1588 ) by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars - Anglo-Dutch fleets revolutionized naval warfare by the success of a guns-only strategy and caused a major overhaul of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_navy - Spanish navy , partly along http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England - English lines, which resulted in even greater dominance by the Spanish."   Enough said...

Not relevantly.

 

Note 'repulsion' of the Spanish Armada. That means, fairly clearly, that the Spanish Armada was defeated by the English (I already noted the Dutch assistance, which was, to be fair, relatively minor and towards the end). Which was the whole point of the argument.

 

That the Spanish did their best to copy the English innovations that led to English superiority is reasonable (why would they copy the English if the English weren't superior?) and I haven't said a single thing about any events other than those of 1588 so the rest of that quote is irrelevant.

 

You're still on the hook for having made the ridiculous implication that the English did not defeat the Armada in 1588.

And as for "meanings" perhaps you would care to be misled?   http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=jive&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact - http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=jive&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

You're always quoting things you don't seem to have read.

 

Originally posted by that site jive   • noun 1 a style of lively dance popular in the 1940s and 1950s, performed to swing music or rock and roll. 2 N. Amer. informal exaggerated or misleading talk.   • verb 1 dance the jive. 2 N. Amer. informal talk in an exaggerated or misleading way.   — DERIVATIVES jiver noun.   — ORIGIN originally US, denoting meaningless or misleading speech, later the slang speech associated with black American jazz musicians: of unknown origin.

 

Note very strongly that it doesn't say anywhere that 'jive' has the same sense as 'jibe' meaning align with. So it doesn't back you up at all.

 

I pointed out long ago that 'jive', like 'jazz' could mean meaningless talk. 'Rock'n'roll' has similar connotations in the phrase 'Don't give that old rock'n'roll'. But that's not the same thing at all.

 

En passant, I have to agree with the source that people did jive to swing and to rock'n'roll. After all, I've seen people try and jive to traditional jazz. It doesn't work, because a cool dance needs cool music, but that's people for you.

In the world of Ebonics you just don't jive particularly in grasping the invasion of the North by Southern Blacks after 1910. Nor would you even know that both jazz and jive are terms coeval with the Razzy Dazzy Spasm Band of 1895 in New Orleans, but you can take that up with Herbert Asbury or perhaps you'll fight the good fight along with Dan Cassidy and claim its all Irish!

-------------

 

correct me if Im wrong but wasn't the statue of Libery a presant from the French

 

I think it is also important to mention that it was one of the rare times where the French Navy bested its Brittish counterpart.  The fact that they were capable of Blocking Yorktown after having dispersed the Brittish fleet shows that they dealed a fatal blow to the brittish moral (their Navy being the pride of their armed forces) and to their logistics (they did need support from England).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They didn't only send ships, they also sent artillery and soldiers, though I grant they didn't send many troops. Neither did the British for that matter. Most of the soldiers fighting for the British were in fact Indians.

 

Originally posted by tommy I do not think so, the French navy was destoryed in the West Indes, and they could not combined with the American trooops to destory the main force of British in New York.

 

The French navy wasn't destroyed in the Caribbean until the Battle of the Saintes in April 1782, about six months after Yorktown had seen the effective end of the war of independence itself. As Turenne pointed out, without the French navy and army Yorktown would certainly have been relieved.

 

We are all aware that France did not win the revolution for the Usa, but it cannot be denied that France funded and supported the americans and that support proved instrumental.  French soldiers were active across the american conflict, the fleet was actually effective (as we mentionned, it was sunk after Yorktown) and the american forces used much french equipements, especially when it came to the artillery.

 

Cornwallis was never in New York, do you mean Clinton?