Halo said
ahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahnolrn2historyI was gonna write out a huge post explaining why, but I don't want to get into a debate with all the 'murrikans here. It suffices to say that a colossal portion of the rebellion's victory was to do with luck, and to do with the aid of foreign nations who wanted to mess with Britain (the French in particular, as well as the Spanish and Dutch, all sided with the US at various points, if I recall correctly). And also, I think, to do with the fact that (particularly, but not solely, at the beginning of the war) the British (or, rather, Howe) were not willing to go all-out. Had they been, the rebellion would have been crushed very early on.Although thinking about it, I prefer the question "were the rebels actually the underdogs?" more than "could the British have beaten them?" That'd be much more fun to argue. >:3EDIT: Not that I'm claiming to be an expert on the Revolutionary War. I've never studied it in detail; my opinions on it are based mainly on what I've read around the internet from historians every single time this argument comes up.

The victory conditions were stacked in our favor. All we had to do was fight Britain to a stalemate unfavorable enough that they'd give up. The prospect of maintaining an American colony had to be so prohibitively expensive that any future attempts at control would be untenable. Which, turns out, was easy to accomplish -- simply by being in a state of open rebellion, Washington's mere existence was proof that we could not be ruled. It didn't matter that his army always lost -- he had an army, and he would always have an army -- would always be able to find international support from enemies of Britain, would always find colonists willing to replenish his ranks, would always and forever occupy *some* british territory *somewhere*, and nothing about that is a wise investment for an evil Redcoat overlord.

TLDR -- of course America won. We had the smallest, poorest, worst-trained and badly led troops, but we also had the simplest victory conditions. That's the same thing currently giving us trouble in the middle east, too. It doesn't matter that you can kill a thousand terrorists with the click of a mouse -- that doesn't fuck with their odds of winning *at all*.

Foxxie said
We are capable of being serious when we think something or someone is idiotic. We also usually maintain a high level of seriousness when a crisis or deeply personal situation is brought to our attention.The true beauty of Spam is that you can never tell when some people are going to ignore a thread like this one or gather around and grump in it.

I love that this thread in particular managed to spin into a rather serious debate that had nothing to do with the content of the OP at all.

Normally it's either serious debate or completely unrelated to the subject matter. It's kind of amazing to see both at once.

mdk said
The victory conditions were stacked in our favor. All we had to do was fight Britain to a stalemate unfavorable enough that they'd give up. The prospect of maintaining an American colony had to be so prohibitively expensive that any future attempts at control would be untenable. Which, turns out, was easy to accomplish -- simply by being in a state of open rebellion, Washington's mere existence was proof that we could not be ruled. It didn't matter that his army always lost -- , and he would always have an army -- would always be able to find international support from enemies of Britain, would always find colonists willing to replenish his ranks, would always and forever occupy *some* british territory *somewhere*, and nothing about that is a wise investment for an evil Redcoat overlord. TLDR -- of course America won. We had the smallest, poorest, worst-trained and badly led troops, but we also had the simplest victory conditions. That's the same thing currently giving us trouble in the middle east, too. It doesn't matter that you can kill a thousand terrorists with the click of a mouse -- that doesn't fuck with their odds of winning *at all*.

Aaannnnddd this (amongst other reasons) is exactly why I said this:

Halo said Although thinking about it, I prefer the question "were the rebels actually the underdogs?" more than "could the British have beaten them?" That'd be much more fun to argue. >:3

But it's still undeniable that the British could have won at multiple points despite those victory conditions being stacked against them. You say "of course America won" - well, uh, actually, no, it was never that clear-cut. America would always have gained independence eventually, one day, for the reasons you said or as part of the collapse of the British empire, but there was absolutely no guarantee that Washington would win independence with his rebellion (indeed, he very nearly lost multiple times and only got away with it via luck and foreign aid.)

What the fuck is wrong with you people

Frizan said
What the fuck is wrong with you people

Who the fuck are you?

Azarthes said
I think you're the true beauty of spam

I almost missed this baseless flattery.

I would have been crushed.

Foxxie said
I almost missed this baseless flattery.I would have been crushed.

good
i was waiting

Halo said
Aaannnnddd this (amongst other reasons) is exactly why I said this:But it's still undeniable that the British could have won at multiple points despite those victory conditions being stacked against them. You say "of course America won" - well, uh, actually, no, it was never that clear-cut. America would always have gained independence eventually, one day, for the reasons you said or as part of the collapse of the British empire, but there was absolutely no guarantee that Washington would win independence with his rebellion (indeed, he very nearly lost multiple times and only got away with it via luck and foreign aid.)

And also with dirty fighting.

Halo said
I'm English. I consume underdogs for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.Which unfortunately turns into self-cannibalism during the World Cup, but aside from then...

You're supposed to love the plucky underdog.

Kangaroo said
You're supposed to love the plucky underdog.

England *is* the plucky underdog in World Cup soccer :/.

I mean.... well. Anybody who speaks English is a plucky underdog in World Cup soccer, so really, it's 'God Save the Star-Spangled Kangaroo Queen' for two months every four years.

Halo said
I'm English. I consume underdogs for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.Which unfortunately turns into self-cannibalism during the World Cup, but aside from then...

I thought you were british.

scribz said
I thought you were british.

Not when it comes to convenience of humour. People like to blame the English for everything, after all - the perennial oppressor, to believe some.
I do actually consider myself more "English" than I did a year ago, though, for pretty obvious reasons that I'm almost sure I've explained before.

Jster said
There is no reason to reinstate it. That would be stupid. It's time to put this topic to bed. No one cares anymore, it wasn't even anyone's favorite planet when it was actually a planet.

This. At the end of the day, there is still a tiny rock orbiting our Sun.

Halo said
Not when it comes to convenience of humour. People like to blame the English for everything, after all - the perennial oppressor, to believe some. I do actually consider myself more "English" than I did a year ago, though, for pretty obvious reasons that I'm almost sure I've explained before.

Because people referred you as English due to your accent and therefore self-fulfilling prophecy, yeah?

Mildly relevant, if out-of-scale, gif I just found.

why is Saturn close to the sun than Jupiter in that gif?

Halo said
Uhm. No. Please read the article, dude. A public audience vote at a single debate doesn't reinstate Pluto as a planet.I rather doubt they'll reinstate it arbitrarily. They have defined what a planet is, now, and until there's a reason to change that definition they won't. As was said in the article, we don't really have enough evidence to construct an accurate definition of "planet", yet - so they'll keep the current definition, the one that excludes Pluto, until there is.It's actually a very interesting issue, though. Not because of Pluto or even because of planets/space/astrophysics/whatever, but because of the universally applicable problem: how do we scientifically define things, and, thus, categorise them? How unique does a category have to be? And so on. It strikes right at the way we conduct scientific research.

Australia Syndrome

Antarctic Termite said
Mildly relevant, if out-of-scale, gif I just found.

It's not just wrong on the scale, it's wrong on the basics of what it shows. That's not how the solar system is moving through space.

Jorick said
It's not just wrong on the scale, it's wrong on the basics of what it shows. That's not how the solar system is moving through space.

From a certain perspective maybe, like using some fixed point independent of galactic movements. Since 'our motion through space' is only really defined relative to other stars/galaxies, arguably we're *also* moving this direction, along with everything else.

Jorick said
It's not just wrong on the scale, it's wrong on the basics of what it shows. That's not how the solar system is moving through space.

Hey why don't you 3D render it the correct way then, big shot?