No.1779433[Last 50 Posts]
The King was really just in a ceremonial position and just rubber-stamped whatever his Prime Minister and parliament favored.
George III was rarely even mentioned by the colonists either,, Lord North was the one who actually made policy, and as such, pushed the maintenance and enforcement of the Acts of Parliament which the Patriots opposed, and also the measures of the British Government to suppress the Patriot movement, including the order (technically on the part of George III, but pushed by Lord North, again) to capture John Hancock, which initiated the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and started the war.
And as PM, he pretty much de-facto led Great Britain during the war. He was even forced to resign after Yorktown because of the humiliating defeat on the part of the British (the British electorate, at the time land-owning men, blamed him for the loss).
No.1779438
>>1779433The Brits knew he was a total failure.
No.1779455
>>1779449I hate America with every fiber of my being and I pray for its destruction. I hope for an asteroid to hit or a massive earthquake happens, but whenever I see shit like this, I just can't hate America anymore. It makes hating America cringe-worthy. just say I hate American and be done with that.
No.1779456
>>1779455 America's is a turd sandwich garnished with pubic hair
No.1779457
>>1779456That's okay, just don't post whatever shit that was.
No.1779477
>>1779455>oh noooo you agree with my opinions but you're too enthusiastic and now i'm CRINGING, i'm so SCARED that the COOL KIDS will think i'm UNCOOL and side with the AMERICA LOVERS instead of MEshut the fuck up
No.1779479
>>1779457you're not even responding to the same anon. how about i post what i want and won't be shamed out of it by a cringing little cretin
No.1779525
death to republique angloise, and death to the royaume angliste. shrimple as.
(btw amerishits are so obsessed with king George because they can only see history through the lens of great personalities performing great feats. in reality he was a schizophrenic ill fit to even sleep on his own, not the satanic mastermind plotting to skin Washington alive. cheers)
No.1779531
>>1779521>noooooooo you can't just post stuff for online people online, you have to abide by societal norms while onlinedo i go to church and tell them to stop reading the bible? fuck off.
No.1779534
>>1779433Because
1) The American colonists were not really British citizens, but subjects of the crown, so arguing for independence meant arguing for separation from the crown specifically
2) The American colonists actually believed that King George was on their side, but mostly powerless to stop Parliament. When it turned out King George was basically on the side of Parliament, they felt betrayed
3) I believe King George hired Hessian mercenaries to put the rebellion down. Hiring foreign mercenaries to invade your lands and attack your subjects is not a good look.
No.1779538
>>1779449>>1779455>>1779456>>1779477>>1779479>>1779521>>1779525>>1779531The French Revolutionaries also made up a bunch of shit about their monarchs that probably wasn't true and blamed them for things they weren't actually responsible for. Why are you simping for a monarch?
You have officially hit full contrarianism and vulgar anti-Americanism when you start posting about how King George III of Great Britain and Ireland was a good boy who didn't do nothing wrong.
No.1779548
The main reason for this aside from desperate cope over not having any nobility whatsoever is that George III (and parliament in general but largely spearheaded by the king) was planning to phase out slavery within the empire, starting with the colonies. Of course the American plantation lords didn’t like that one bit and kicked off the “revolution” over it and whining about taxes, so George III was mythologized as a tyrannical monster for daring to imply that maybe black people shouldn’t be enslaved. Basically like every other aspect of the great American temper tantrum it all comes down to the emerging bourgeoisie wanting to exploit with impunity and the Crown trying to put some basic restrictions on that
No.1779557
>>1779433Just the fact that the British were preventing settlers from taking even more native land is enough tbh
No.1779559
>>1779538loves anglism and superprofits
No.1779574
>>1779557Yeah! As we all know, they stopped the settlers in Canada from going west, that's why Canada is famously only on the Atlantic ocean and Hudson Bay with nothing but native tribes east of Ontario.
No.1779577
>>1779548This is a load of hyperbolic, pseudo-historical nonsense. Name one major event in the American Revolution that was over the issue of slavery.
No.1779581
>>1779559Both the Americans and British were "anglos" and capitalist, you dipshit.
No.1779583
>>1779582Both sides represent "anglism" and "superprofits."
No.1779586
>>1779583ok? and both should have their populations massacred and raped. fag
No.1779619
>>1779614uygha I seen you do the exact same thing
How do you have so little self awareness
No.1779622
>>1779616>Turd worldists openly advocating genocidal identity politicsSounds about right
>>1779619It's different when I say it, because I actually just mean MAGAfags and redditors
No.1779623
>>1779622oh god this guy is a FAGGOT
No.1779626
>>1779625dw he's still alive in Cuba or so I've heard
No.1779628
>>1779548>was planning to phase out slavery within the empire, starting with the coloniesAnon the northern states abolished slavery before the British Empire did.
No.1779631
>>1779628Blame the various wars and Red Shield (of which several of the thrice damned “Founding Fathers” were direct associates of) machinations that resulted from America’s rebellion for that, and the only reason the northern states “outlawed” slavery was because the landed gentry was largely concentrated in the south
No.1779633
I hate lolberts more than Nazis
Punch a lolbert
No.1779640
>>1779433Okay? Seems like some faggotry. Sure nobody cares about your thoughts on dead Kings.
Why did you come here yo tell us this?
Did you confuse the url with blogspot.com?
No.1779641
Who?
No.1779647
>>1779631>and the only reason the northern states “outlawed” slavery was because the landed gentry was largely concentrated in the southYeah m8 almost like a society's laws are determined by its relations of production. Still, the fact that there was roughly a 50 year period where an enslaved person in Canada could escape to freedom by running away to the US pretty handily defeats the notion that fear of abolition was a major driving force of the rebellion, at least in the North.
No.1779697
>>1779574That happened due to the independence of the United States. Imagine if the entire prairies was opened for the burgersq
No.1779698
>>1779690Do you ever do anything but consistently bumb the worst threads on this board to say absolutely nothing?
Can you please fuck off.
No.1779703
>>1779698I heard a rumor that it’s just Pennyfag under a new identity which would explain a lot
No.1779713
>>1779449This. If you actually view the people writing history back then were just as burger brained as modern burgers, which is proof that the US has never been 'enlightened' vs today. That being said, historians literally had their objective of mythologizing George Washington and other founding fathers by making them larger than life and creating myths around them.
No.1779716
>>1779538>You have officially hit full contrarianism and vulgar anti-Americanism when you start posting about how King George III of Great Britain and Ireland was a good boy who didn't do nothing wrong.except i didn't say george was good or did nothing wrong. so i don't know why you replied to me. i also don't know why you treated 10 different people as the same poster. could you be trolling? it's likely!
No.1779719
>>1779697>That happened due to the independence of the United States.Lmao imagine thinking that the British Empire of all people had even an ounce of respect for the lives and sovereignty of Indigenous people. The treaties signed by the British with their Indigenous allies, including the 1763 Royal Proclamation which forbade settlement West of the Appalachians, were basically stopgap measures intended to consolidate British control following their conquest of Quebec at the end of the Seven Years War. Essentially the British presence on the continent was too weak to both police their Western frontiers for hostile natives and govern a bunch of uppity French Catholics at the same time. They formed military alliances with groups like the Six Nations, but the minute more colonists arrived and these agreements became unnecessary for the maintenance of British power they started violating them. If you actually read the 1763 Proclamation, it specifically refers to "Indian subjects" and "Indians living under the protection of the Crown."
<And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.In other words, they were already asserting British sovereignty over their Indigenous allies and neighbours, and viewed them at best as vassals. Moreover, the Crown never actually banned settlement West of the Appalachians as such, they simply banned settlers from doing so without the permission of the Crown. They preferred a system where the Crown would "buy" (often through deception and/or coercion or outright just pretending the natives consented when they didn't) Indigenous lands and then open them for settlement,
<And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do. with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require. that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that. if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall liehttps://www.americanhistorycentral.com/documents/royal-proclamation-of-1763-text/This was the system that was used to settle all of modern Canada west of southern Ontario, and if you know anything about the history of Canadian-Indigenous relations its riddled with basically all the same abuses. When "buying" this land from Indigenous peoples, the Crown resorted to virtually every dirty trick you can think of. This includes everything from having the English versions of the treaties say something completely different than what the natives were told, simply getting somebody else to sign them if the delegation sent by the community refused, or simply forging signatures. The fact that they were already laying the groundwork for this system prior to the American War of Independence clearly shows that they already had plans for further westward settlement, but were bound by their relatively weak position at the time.
No.1779733
>>1779703>that annoying dirty no hygiene looking fuckerOf course.
No.1779853
>>1779538OP here, I didn't state my point was that it's bizzare how much focus he gets compared to the guy actually in charge.
No.1779907
>>1779433portraying the revolution as a liberatory revolution against an absolute monarchy makes it more morally simple
No.1779908
>>1779729I'd say avatarfagging as an idealistic liberal is even more embarassing, tbh smh
No.1779912
>thread full of handwringing about people 300 years ago not being heckin' based and wholesome
No.1779971
>>1779908i stirnerpost occasionally as a joke. sasukeposter literally posts a sasuke pic on every single post
No.1780894
>>1779614>>1779622Why do /leftypol/ burgers assume everyone here is a Westoid when we have threads specifically dedicated to Brazil, Latin America and South Asia?
You're a big whiner about "anti-idpol" idiots on reddit (
https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/1773788.html) and yet you dismiss Third Worldist criticism and hate as "identity politics." What is the reason for this inconsistency?
No.1780912
>>1780417imagine being so butthurt by anti-americanism that you felt the need to post this.
No.1780923
>>1779912>>1779978>>1780415>>1780897What's done is done. The only point of re-litigating crimes done centuries ago is to rub salt in old wounds and sow anger and distrust.
No.1780925
>>1780894You're right, friend. Instead of simply assuming that the people posting "unlimited genocide on the West" are just white American college students, we should simply have them post hand.
No.1780932
>>1780923This is one of the most consistent talking points of the reactionaries. I see it all the time. In the United States it was often said during reconstruction, less than a decade after slavery ended. For example, black people in the reconstruction era, who "became free" had zero skills outside of farm labor, were illiterate, and had no connections beyond other slaves and their former masters. It was therefore unsurprising that their first employers were often their former masters. They would go to work for their former masters as sharecroppers, and sharecropping as a system was barely better than slavery. So to say that "what's done is done" and that past oppression is all water under the bridge, is to either be reactionary, or incredibly young and naive. When you are old and weary, and the injury sustained in your 20s lingers in your 50s, you will not speak such nonsense.
No.1780937
>>1780925>haha, only white people think this>haha post hand, because in my idiot mind, all nonwhite people have dark skinMy hand is pale so I'm not even going to bother playing your game. It makes no difference.
Your sample size is flawed since you are posting on an English language imageboard. People are posting "Death to America" in every language, and on every continent. Go to Haiti and ask them what they think about the United States. Go to Cuba. Go to Iran. Go to the DPRK. Instead of fixating on the pallor of hands like a jackass, try to interrogate why it is people hate America. And maybe interrogate why your identity is tied up with America (if it is), and why you view criticizing it as fundamentally cringe. Ask yourself why you are repeating the disproven meme that "only white college students" hate America, ask yourself where you got that meme from, and maybe question why you think it's an effective argument.
No.1780962
>>1780943>we have to move forward positively!<continues to demand everyone who disagrees with them posts hand, because your opinion is only valid if you are sufficiently dark>makes a false equivalence between roman conquest in ancient gaul and shit like the haitian indemnity controversy which still has ripple effects felt to this dayyou are supremely foolish.
No.1780979
>>1780943>let bygones be bygones! move on!ok this only works if both parties consent to "move on" and there is no power differential, which is almost never the case. Look at Israel/Palestine for example. Should Palestinians just "move on" from the Nakba while the second Nakba is happening? Even though their settler-colonial oppressors use old testament mythology to justify their claim over the land? You lecture people to forget the past and move on constructively, but that only makes sense when you are talking about two people of equal stature, who both decide to mutually forgive each other of past grievances. When it comes to the oppressions of large communities, classes, nations, etc. all disadvantages are passed on intergenerationally, and to tell a people to "forget" their oppression at the hands of a nation, for example, and to "just move on" is a recipe for them to do the opposite. They will remember even harder, because they can see the snake tongued apologists telling them to forget so it can happen again.
No.1780988
>>1780932the difference is reactionaries say "what's done is done" while constructing monuments lionizing their fighters and producing black propaganda about their enemies. you're doing the thing where tankies will say freedom is bad because conservatives say insincerely that they think it's good.
No.1781006
>>1780982>It is too late, I have already drawn myself as the bearded aryan, and you as the soyjakpeak discourse
>>1780988>reactionaries say "what's done is done" while constructing monuments lionizing their fighters and producing black propaganda about their enemiesYes. And the United States is a reactionary political project.
>you're doing the thing where tankies will sayooh tankie strawman time. define "tankie". Tell me where you first heard this term? What compels you to use it? Are you even aware of the historical context in which the term originated?
>freedom is bad because conservatives say insincerely that they think it's good.I don't htink "freedom is bad." I think freedom is an imprecise buzzword, much like "tankie." Freedom to do what? Whatever you want? oppress others? What about freedom from oppression? There are many different types of so-called "freedom" and they cannot co exist. The appeal to "Freedom" is the most emptyheaded appeal anyone can make because by itself it means nothing.
No.1781027
>>1780962I'm saying that this is a stupid performative game that upper class white people play, mostly with other white people, that is fundamentally un-serious.
Also, are you saying that the Roman conquest of Gaul doesn't have ripple effects still felt to this day?
>>1780979I'm not saying that anyone needs to move on from anything. I'm saying that many self-identified "leftists" are using historical crimes to essentially create a sort of alt-reaction and "progressive" ethno-nationalism and promote fundamentally bad politics.
It's not that you should forget the past, but that leftist politics is fundamentally about moving forward in the conditions as you find them instead of obsessing over the crimes of the past and trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Or, in the case of this thread, low key defending the King of England and British Empire to own the Americans epic style because… uh… slavery and capitalism or something.
No.1781028
>>1781006>nooooo u mad, you're totally mad dude, i got you good dudeyou're pretty good at the discourse yourself
No.1781033
>>1781006>Yes. And the United States is a reactionary political project.No shit? Maybe don't stan the British Empire though?
No.1781040
>>1781027>this is a stupid performative game that upper class white people play, mostly with other white people, that is fundamentally un-serious.What is? state precisely what you think is a performative game? The beginning of the conversation was somebody (I have no idea if it was you) claiming that criticism of america is "whinging about things from 300 years ago" this to me, seems to be a massive dismissal of a great many legitimate grievances, and those grievances are not merely a performative game of upper class whites. upper class whites are chortling into their whine glasses about how stupid and weak the poor are.
>Also, are you saying that the Roman conquest of Gaul doesn't have ripple effects still felt to this day?No. Of course it does, you were the one (correct me if I'm wrong since I might be juggling multiple anons) who was originally being dismssive of it by drawing a false equivalence between it and things that happened much more recently. It was a deliberate effort to be dismissive by comparing things from 2000 years ago to things from 300 years ago. When I pointed out the difference (without being dismissive of either thing) you are now going "Ooooooooh so you think gaul isn't important?????" even though you (or somebody) clearly didn't think it was important in the first place, which is why you (or somebody) used it as a point of comparison.
>I'm not saying that anyone needs to move on from anything. I'm saying that many self-identified "leftists" are using historical crimes to essentially create a sort of alt-reaction and "progressive" ethno-nationalism and promote fundamentally bad politics.who is justifying "progressive" ethno nationalism in this thread? Please show me where so I can either figure out whether you're mischaracterizing them or not. It certainly wasn't me.
>It's not that you should forget the past, but that leftist politics is fundamentally about moving forward in the conditions as you find them instead of obsessing over the crimes of the past and trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.Nobody's trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It's that reactionaries START CONVERSATIONS by saying "oh why are you crying about oppression that was years ago" and then when people respond to that, smuglords show up to say stupid shit like "anyone who disagrees with this reactionary take is a white upper class person haha post hand"
>>1781028>responds to nothing I saidok
No.1781041
>>1781033>No shit? Maybe don't stan the British Empire though?i never once stanned the british empire
No.1781065
>>1781039>muh tankee scarecrow sez freedom is bad<I don't think freedom is bad I think it's an empty word!>that's only slightly less dumb!why? quit your dismissive scoffing and actually explain yourself, if you're capable.
No.1781319
>>1781065>I think it's an empty word!>Le on authority Not the anon, although guaranteed you never thought about it yourself.
Instead someone else fed you that viewpoint where it equates to negating the concept entirely.
What is the difference in practice?
When I think a person's will and desires are bad from - that said person doesn't have any at all because they mean nothing to me?
Sure it's a different way of processing it, but in the end as result they're both going to be subject of negation.
No.1781350
I think it's because for the time, American nationalism and anti-colony sentiment was immediately for American self-determination and policy independent of Britain. It did not want to follow the capitalist empire that sucked the resources and labor from colonies to import to the mainland as commodities, rather the United States wanted to be its own source of capitalist production AND the market that trades commodities rather than a glorious bank for Britain to build its wealth from.
That's why American history teaches the taxes on tea and the stamp act, America had no control over these taxes and thus the bourgeoisie in America had no power to leverage their purchasing power.
The second reason, of course, was expansionism and concquering lands to make more Anglo American babies and suck up the resources and profit all for themselves.
It was a bourgeois revolution, it was good because it ended the British expansion into North America and the Caribbean so that Australia would take the brunt oif the British empire's endless desire for profit. The additional boons was a balance between the president, courts, and congress, as long as no political parties form! It's a very decentralized democracy that needs a supermajority of support to pass policy as to not fuck over a huge minority.
It was a bourgeois revolution, that's bad because the goivernment functions entirely for the interests of the American Bourgeoisie, for nearly half a century literally only the white Bourgeoisie of America could vote. It was incrementalist policy, protest, and the threat of leftist dissent that begrudgingly Abraham Lincoln's Republicans free the slaves and give African Americans voting rights, it was the Democrats who had to le women vote to separate them from black rights movements and to crush progressive radicalism brewing in first wave feminism, and the Dems again who actually told the south to quit it and let black people vote without literacy tests, until the voter ID laws and polling both laws were put in place.
No.1781359
>>1781319what do you mean by freedom? go ahead. say it. is it freedom to oppress or freedom from oppression?
No.1781430
>>1781359It took this long to actually ask what they think?
Fucking moron.
No.1781444
>>1781363Obviously Voosh is a disgusting shill but saying 'we should nuke all Americans' is in fact vulgar anti-Americanism
No.1781450
>>1779433Wait, so let me get this straight.
You want the British empire to be portrait as some sort of liberal democracy (good), Instead of some sort of dictatorship ruled by a king (bad)?
How will the reader / viewer know who's the bad guy?
No.1781476
>>1781444>we should nuke all Americanswhere ITT did anyone say this? quit shadowboxing.
No.1781478
>>1781430i said earlier in the conversation that freedom is a subjective and empty word used to justify just about anything. They should have defined it when they first introduced it to the conversation, but they did not, and now that i have asked, still I do not receive a response.
No.1781482
>you're saying the british empire good
<no i'm not
>you're saying nuke all americans
<no i'm not
>you hate freedom
<no i don't
damn this thread sucks. just one retard baiting with shitty accusations and not even engaging in conversation
No.1781663
>>1781363Soft rehabilitation of the British Empire to the point where you portray them as some kind of champions of abolition and Indigenous sovereignty is insanely cringe. It also betrays a serious misunderstanding of these issues.
No.1782021
>>1781663literally point to where i rehabilitated the brits you lying piece of shit. fourth time i've been accused of that ITT and zero times you and your buddies have been able to answer where it is happening?
No.1782027
>>1782021Idk if this is you specifically, but people definitely implying that the British were meaningfully better on the questions of slavery and Westward expansion:
>>1779697>>1779557>>1779548 No.1782170
>>1781359>what do you mean by freedom? go ahead. say it. is it freedom to oppress or freedom from oppression?Still not the anon anon, but what is freedom? Freedom is obviously whatever Stirner said.
No.1782293
>>1781478>Freedom is a subjective wordLiterally the only reason to say this nonsense is if you need to be able to justify imprisoning people for incredibly spurious reasons
Honestly, kill all cultists, whether spiritual or political, they can't be reached, just shoot them, kill them
No.1782702
>>1782027those weren't me but the brits really did have treaties with the indigenous and halted westward expansion. they did it for realpolitik reasons, and probably would have broken those promises eventually. I made this post:
>>1781369>This is not a defense of England, but an indictment of the colonists. No.1782703
>>1781501that aint' me stupid.
No.1782730
>>1779449>>1779713>This. If you actually view the people writing history back then were just as burger brained as modern burgers, which is proof that the US has never been 'enlightened' vs today. That being said, historians literally had their objective of mythologizing George Washington and other founding fathers by making them larger than life and creating myths around them.this is especially true when you count how young alot of the founding fathers were, most were 20s frat boy age with the exception of franklin who was an old man and washington who was in his 40s which by todays standards would still be insanely young to be a president
No.1782884
>>1782702>and halted westward expansionNo they didn't, they just wanted it to be regulated by the government to give it a veneer of legality. At most they slowed it and made it more organized, but the same proclamations which banned unsanctioned Western settlement also declared the Indigenous peoples to be subjects of the Crown.
>probably would have broken those promises eventually.Not "probably," they did break them the minute it was convenient. I don't really expect people to know a lot about Canadian history, but on this question especially you don't get the full picture unless you know what the British were up to in the parts of North America they held onto.
No.1783245
>>1779458I think his mental impairment only started becoming an issue later in life, like during the Napoleonic wars. iirc that is when they started to become more severe and leading to longer episodes of disability
No.1783324
>>1782730Youth back then isnt the same social role of youth now. Even if they were all over thirty five, what difference woukd it make in their perception?
No.1783328
>>1779433Mot of the zfounding Fathers were old money heirs to tobacco plantations. They made their profit by selling tobacco to England.
Also, the American flag is based off of the British East India Trading Company from what I heard.
No.1783815
>>1781040>What is? state precisely what you think is a performative game?One-upmanship in regards to any progressive belief.
>The government should stop abusing the indigenous tribes and honor their treaties with them<Oh yeah? Well I think the indigenous tribes won't have justice until all white Americans are deported back to Europe>Oh yeah? Well I think white Americans deserve nothing less than genocide!<Oh yeah? Well all of Europe should just be nuked!A little bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea. You take a generally good idea and turn it into a game where you prove you're the most moral person in the audience by showing you have the most extreme belief.
>claiming that criticism of america is "whinging about things from 300 years ago"Complaining about shit from the American Revolution as is, in fact, "whinging about things from 300 years ago" especially if that thing is saying that
the Patriots weren't fair towards George IIIEspecially if you take that so far as to start
portraying the British Empire as a champion for African slaves and indigenous rights No.1783851
Well if we're being honest, constitutional monarchy is objectively a superior form of government to whatever petty-bourgeois republicanism the Americans cooked up.
No.1783855
>>1783851Whatever form of governement Americans will adopt will automatically become ultra shit.
No.1802103
>>1779433 (OP)
Same goes for the Haitian Revolution for black nationalists, and just like the American revolution, it was a matter of geophagy and circumstances.
For starters the revolution was not started by slaves rising up, but by the condition of the French Revolution. The French revolutionary government granted citizenship and freedom to free people of color in May 1791, but white planters in Saint-Domingue refused to comply with this decision. So a force was sent to free the slaves and arm them to fight the local nobility. It was basically taken over by a few local generals who then trained the former slaves into a decent enough fighting force to defeat whatever little resistance they encountered.
Four decades later the few Haitian officers had been trained in French and American armies who then trained the former slaves into a fighting force were dead or very old, and the army's only experience was to suppress rebellions. Foreign observers noted the army that had too many officers, "generals" who were actually civilians with no military training, like General Damien Delva (a wealthy tribunal clerk). The troops were gives guns and uniforms but ignored discipline and tactics. It was an army that could stop a small rebellion, but had more trouble battling a resolute enemy: its men would rather be at home growing food for their families than fighting the Panyols. The constant infighting, backstabbing, and general distrust between high-ranking Haitian politicians and officers did not help.
No.1802104
>>1802103The Dominican Haitian war is genuinely interesting to read up about because on one side, you find zerg rushing while the other side employs basic Sun Tzu tier tactics. and focus on training their soldiers to shoot rifles and march for hours without looting every village they come across. they also utilized defensive positions and ensure that cavalry serves a purpose beyond being a fancy ride for the officers and elites
Unique IPs: 45