What is the French and Spanish opinion on the Revolutionary War?
87792
I cant help you a lot, but french endorsed the revolution of the colonies in the us, in fact i think they even sent troops at the time consisting of the royal navy.\n\nAs of the second part, the people of both spain and france were and are totally against the occupation of iraq, i was in madrid at the time and a manifestation of 1.5 millon people crowded madrid`s center "puerta del sol" regardless of what their at the time president Mr. Aznar said. so you have a big dicotomy there, goverment endorsed the US, and people deplored it.\n\nFrance on the other side, both goverment and people were actively involved and against the iraq invasion.
880066
Yorktown\nAmerican Revolution, 1781\n\nThe Battle of Yorktown was the climax of the American Revolution and directly led to the independence of the United States of America. While others may have been larger and more dramatic, no battle in history has been more influential. From the days following their victory at Yorktown, Americans have steadily gained power and influence up to their present role as the world's most prosperous nation and the only military superpower.\n\nThe idea that a group of poorly armed, loosely organized colonists would have the audacity to challenge the massive, experienced army and navy of their rulers seemed impossible when the revolution's first shots rang out at Lexington and Concord in 1775. The rebels' chances of success seemed even more remote when the American colonies formally declared their independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776.\n\nDespite the huge imbalance of power, the Americans understood that time was on their side. As long as George Washington and his army remained in the field, the newly declared republic survived. Washington did not have to defeat the British; he simply had to avoid having the British defeat him. The longer the war lasted, the greater the odds that the British would become involved in wars that threatened their own islands and that the British public would tire of the war and its costs.\n\nDuring the first year of the war, Washington had lost a series of battles around New York but had withdrawn the bulk of his army to fight another day. Many British commanders had unintentionally aided the American effort with their military ineptness and their belief that the rebels would diplomatically end their revolt.\n\nParticipants on both sides, as well as observers around the world, had begun to take the possibility of American independence seriously only with their victory at Saratoga in October 1777. The poorly executed plan by the British to divide New England from the southern colonies by occupying New York's Hudson River Valley had resulted not only in the surrender of nearly six thousand British soldiers but also in the recognition of the United States as an independent nation by France. The American victory at Saratoga and the entrance of the French into the war also drew Spain and the Netherlands into the fight against England.\n\nBy 1778, neither the British nor the Americans could gain the upper hand, as the war in the northern colonies had come to a stalemate. The British continued to occupy New York and Boston, but they were too weak to crush the rebel army. Washington similarly lacked the strength to attack the British fortresses.\n\nIn late 1778, British commander General Henry Clinton used his superior sea mobility to transfer much of his army under Lord Charles Cornwallis to the southern colonies, where they occupied Savannah and then Charleston the following year. Clinton's plan was for Cornwallis to neutralize the southern colonies, which would cut off supplies to Washington and isolate his army.\n\nWashington countered by dispatching Nathanael Greene, one of his ablest generals, to command the American troops in the South. From 1779 to 1781, Greene and other American commanders fought a guerrilla-like campaign of hit-and-run maneuvers that depleted and exhausted the British. In the spring of 1781, Cornwallis marched into North Carolina and then into Yorktown on the Virginia peninsula flanked by the York and James Rivers. Although his army outnumbered the Americans two to one, Cornwallis fortified the small town and waited for additional men and supplies to arrive by ship.\n\nMeanwhile, more than seven thousand French infantrymen, commanded by Jean Baptiste de Rochambeau, joined Washington's army outside New York, and a French fleet led by Admiral Paul de Grasse waited in the Caribbean, preparing to sail northward. Washington wanted de Grasse to blockade New York while the combined American-French armies attacked Clinton&#39
820837
First of all, take a look at the wikipedia link below. It really does have a lot of information concerning the Philips and the War of Succession and why it was important to Spain. Essentially, it was a territorial war. The French Bourbons and the Austrian Hapsburgs both had claim to the Spanish throne, and they both wanted it. The territorial part comes in because the Spanish people didnot want to be governed by either France or Austria. They wanted a Spanish ruler. If they were governed by France or Austria, they would be come provincial territory of whichever country ruled. \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/war_of_span...
830652
The American victory at Saratoga was an extremely important one. It ended the British plan to separate New England from the other colonies. It also showed European nations that the new country might really be able to win its revolutionary war. This was something that France, especially, had wanted ever since being defeated by the British earlier in the French and Indian War. \n\nThe French government had been supplying the Americans secretly through the work of America's minister to France, Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was popular with the French people and with French government officials. He helped gain French sympathy for the American cause. \n\nAfter the American victory at Saratoga, the French decided to enter the war on the American side. The government recognized American independence. The two nations signed military and political treaties. France and Britain were at war once again. The British immediately sent a message to America's Continental Congress. They offered to change everything so relations would be as they had been in 1773. The Americans rejected the offer. The war would be fought to the end. \n\nIn 1779 Spain entered the war against the British. And the next year, the British were also fighting the Dutch to stop their trade with America. The French sent gunpowder, soldiers, officers, and ships to the Americans. However, neither side made much progress in the war for the next two years
324316
i think both, they had a great impact on wich side to take but i hve more feeling to thr revoloutionay war becaues that was the start of our country. the civil war was a war about taxes and thins like that, salvery came after the fact. it was to keep lincon presdent bucause that was the only thing he could have thought of. but the rev war was the satr of a new nation that broke away from one of the lagest navy and won its indepndance. i have more to say because i think of them later for some reason you can email me back for further questions: arcturus010@yahoo.com
47287
"Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!" cried the media directly implicating Spain after the USS Maine suffered an explosion in Havana harbor killing hundreds of sailors.  Spanish occupation of Cuba was blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Cubans.  Media fueled the public sentiment against Spain and the US decided to 'liberate' Cuba from the Spanish and create a free and independent Cuba.  With the US economy languishing, many thought that a war would help the economy.  Thousands were killed during the war.\n\nWith the benefit of modern forensic science, the explosion is now widely believed to have been an accident caused by the spontaneous combustion of gunpowder magazines situated too close to heat sources.\n\nKind of sounds familiar doesn't it?
141827
The French and Indian War was fought for the same reason all wars, current and past, were/are being fought/for. Territorial disputes. The Americans wanted to move into the Ohio Valley, the French and the Indians were already there. What do you get? A war, of course. \n\nBasically, the war was fought because both France and Britain wanted to control Northern Columbia.
237991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution\n\ntry the site
1149219
I've actually answered this question (well, close) earlier, it is in my string of answers a few weeks ago.\n\nBecause France and Spain were both more politically stable at the time of the landings at Jamestown and Plymouth, the American colonies would not have had the chance to develop their own form of democratic government, or have had to develop a unique form of capitalism by skating around home-country regulations. Basically, we would be just another failed Latin American state, and Canada would be just like all of the failed former French sub-Saharan states.
342791
Americans are angry at the French because of the Oil for Food scandal.  The French refused to back the Iraqi War, and used all of their power to prevent the UN Security Council from doing anything about Iraq.\n\nBut in the aftermath of the war, information revealed mass amounts of corruption with French officials and the "Oil for Food" program.  Essentially France, Germany, and a few other nations had officials who were working with the Oil for Food program and syphoning money out illegally.\n\nSo people are angry at France for their lack of support over perceived economic interests.
884918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_revolution\n\nshould help  has alot of info on it :)
192610
The French Revolution (1789-1799) was a period in the history of France. During this time, republicanism replaced the absolute monarchy in France, and the French sector of the Roman Catholic Church was forced to undergo radical restructuring. While France would oscillate among republic, empire, and monarchy for 75 years after the First Republic fell to a coup d'état by Napoleon Bonaparte, the revolution nonetheless spelled a definitive end to the ancien régime. It eclipses the subsequent revolutions of 1830 and 1848 in the popular imagination. It is widely seen as a major turning point in continental European history, from the age of absolutism to that of the citizenry, and even of the masses, as the dominant political force.
693869
They beat the English in 1066 in the battle of Hastings but no i don't think they have won a war since,they are wimps and it's a well known fact because they left the British to fight on their own in both world wars.The only good leader the French have had is Napoleon who was the Emperor of France and they did hardly anything in the second world war compared to Britain and America.They also lost the 100 year war with England(and Wales because Wales was the first country England took over to make the UK)and it just goes to show that France are rubbish and are not brave at all.
692211
It's a little premature but there has been a lot of injustice. I think it is a duty to do what you have to as long as you can get the support. A revolution is how this country broke away from England, and against taxes no less. Guess the rich better watch out.\n\nIn my state it is written in the constitution that it is our right to overthrow those in power.
874645
Wow, something that Rob Roy isn't an expert on.  You are just about as dumb as string.  I guess the schools in Scotland must not cover what we call "The War of 1812,"  I don't know what the English call it.  I assume in Scotland they call it "The war in the place that we were sent to do England's bidding (again) in 1812-1814."  Your English masters did manage to burn our capitol down, but we still b1tch slapped you.  \n\nWhy do you love Belgians so much?  Why did you edit that entry?  I was going to snidely quote your derisive comment about learning history back to you.
7224
The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and revolutionaries within thirteen British colonies in North America. The war began largely as a colonial revolt against the economic policies of the British Empire, and eventually widened far beyond British North America, with France, Spain, and the Netherlands entering the war against Great Britain. Additionally, many American Indians fought on both sides of the conflict.\n\nThroughout the war, the British were able to use their naval superiority to capture colonial coastal cities, but control of the countryside largely eluded them. French involvement proved decisive, with a naval victory in the Chesapeake leading to the surrender of a British army at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 recognized the independence of the United States of America. Because a great number of colonists fled the thirteen colonies and settled in the north, the war also paved the way for the eventual creation of what would become Canada.
387928
You should check out a history text or Wikipedia, it is pretty good. \n\nThe French Revolution is a tricky historical event. It is very complex and quite long. It began in 1789 when Louis XVI called into session the Estates General (French Parliament). Memebers of the Third Estate (commoners mostly the bourgeoisie) chose to use the session to begin a liberal revolution.