You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.30 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Watch "The Last of the Mohicans" to get a better feel for the preiod.
Bottom
Topic Subject:Watch "The Last of the Mohicans" to get a better feel for the preiod.
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
EngineerOfDoom
Skirmisher
posted 11-04-05 03:50 PM EDT (US)         
One of my favorite movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/

It has everything in the game - European civs, alliances with native tribes, cannons, muskets, mortars... Great movie.

AuthorReplies:
jpl1
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-05 03:34 PM EDT (US)     26 / 30       
Sealcow,

I agree with you that there is no real evidence that the British committed more atrocities than the Americans. I also agree that unity among the colonists was much less than national mythology would have us believe (although I think that changed a bit by the end of the war). However, there are two things I disagree with you on.

First: “it was, like all wars, driven by wealthy people who wanted more of various things”. I have a hard time squaring that view of how the war started with how the aftermath of the war played out. Specifically, the shaping of the US constitution, which was a direct consequence of the war and was philosophically based on the Declaration of Independence, was one of the most democratically inclusive political events in history. Throughout the drafting of the Constitution, there was very wide (and well-documented) public debate, not just among the intellectual and economic elite, but at all levels of colonial society. I just don’t believe that a war started by a small number of rich men in support of their narrow interests alone could lead so quickly to a society in which shopkeepers debated the framing of the Constitution in town squares. (And although that also sounds like national mythology, I’m convinced that it isn’t.)

Second: “We were plenty self determining, and the British taxes had numerous benefits for us, such as paying for a war that stopped us from being slaughtered by French armed Indians ". Well, that depends a lot on your definition of self-determination. Certainly in the strictest sense, the colonies were not represented in Parliament and were thus not self-determining at all. The British/Loyalist argument was that members of Parliament did not only represent the interests of their districts, but the interests of all citizens of the Empire, but that seems to me to be a specious and self-serving argument. Somebody else in this forum remarked (and I agree) that the French/Indian war was really just an extension of the broader and long-standing war between Britain and France. I would just add that a large portion of the fighting against the native tribes (other than in the French/Indian War) was done by colonial militias, not British regulars. Finally, to say that “British taxes had numerous benefits for us” is just the sort of paternalism fought against by subject nations throughout history: the Roman roads, British education in India, and everything any European country has ever done in Africa are all easy examples. I doubt you would accept the same argument in any of those cases.

P.S., The Patriot was a embarrassing piece of jingoistic fluff, but at least it's led to an interesting debate.

Pale Horse
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-05 03:54 PM EDT (US)     27 / 30       
The Last of the Mohicans is set during the French and Indian War (1754-1760), not the American Revolution.

The producer/director insisted that Hawkeye carry a flintlock longrifle, which were hardly in existence then, and more likely would have been a French trade fusil or English Trade Musket.

Nevertheless, the story leading up to the climactic battle between Chingachgook and Magua it rivetting.


NOOB'XPERT wannabe
Sealcow
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-05 04:49 PM EDT (US)     28 / 30       
Since I read jp's post more recently, it gets addressed first. Firstly, I didn't say it didn't change at all, just not as much as most believe. Secondly, by wealthy people who want more, I was, for the most part, not so much referring to the founding fathers, although some of them, too, they were mostly with the intellectuals wanting to experiment, which they were; they wanted to try something new and rushed into a war to get it. I was referring with the wealthy people to people who wre perhaps not so literally wealthy, but believed they were entitled to Indian land the British prevented them from getting. Note that the British motive for this was not probably protection of the Indians, simply retaining control over it's empire, but that motive is much more ethical than wanting to take Indian's land. There are other economic factors here, but I'm not the person to elaborate on them. Next, with the self determination, saying we did not have members representing us in parliment (taxation without representation) is not the whole truth. Americans were perfectly entitled to become members of the house of commons, the only part of parliment that had any power and, by the way, forced the end of the war despite being forbidden by King George ( so forget the dictatorship trash, anyone). It's just, Americans probably never ran and, if they did, weren't elected. I could thus make that same complaint about how the republicans who overwhelmingly control every part of my state don't represent me because we couldn't get any democrats into anything thanks to the voter population. As for the 7 Years War, the British fought the French world wide, if they hadn't fought the French all over the world and battled them so fiercely, the French would have taken America. The war was fought over the colonies, and if the British had not committed HUGE resources to it, it's colonies would have been taken, and that would have been a VERY bad thing for the colonies. Also, the British war in north America was incredible, and the British won repeatedly in Canada, taking it, and, of course if they hadn't the French there could have simply walked down into America. To compare the contribution of American militia to the British army under Wolfe is nonsense, the British did most of the fighting. By the way, the benefits were paying for the 7 Years War.

Engineer, the founding fathers weren't the ones who won at Cowpens and King's Mountain, easily two of the most important victories of the war. It wasn't political dreamers standing up to the British there, it was people who wanted the rights to take Indian land, and who wanted to retain elements of their culture frowned on by the British. The founding fathers were, like the communists, French revolutionaries, etc. thinkers who wanted to try out something new, but they did not represent even remotely the entire rebelling population of America. As for totalitarianism, you have no grasp on how the British government functioned at that time, clearly. A number of your other points I addressed earlier to someone who phrased them much better than you, so I won't delve again into them again. As for the 7 Years War, yeah, the colonies were a source of wealth, which is why France wanted them. France, in launching it's war, armed and incited numerous Indians, who without the British keeping the French occupied, would have been heavily supported by French troops and heavily armed by French traders. Considering the massacres (from both sides) that occured in that war, yeah, I'd say it could have been MUCH worse. And, no, the colonists weren't tired and poor, at least, not many. As for being a British servant today, thats ridiculous. Yeah, we'd be big servants of Britian, like Canada, and Austrailia. Heck, those countries WANTED to stay with Britian. Look at India, where as soon as they got the right idea of how to fight back it worked. The fact is that if we would have continued our pre-war protests, parliment, already tired of us giving them trouble, would probably have just laid off, giving us more and more freedom until we were independent. Note I said parliment, not King George, he would fight that until he died.

Anyway, I really don't want to hear another illogical tirade from engineer, and although jp was interesting to read an opinion from, I don't really think this is worth another 15 minutes of my time, so it's been nice talking to you all, beware modern propaganda, learn more about what drives wars, how the British government worked at that time, etc. Peace, everyone.

P.S. I'm to bored now to spell check or shorten/grammatically correct sentences, sorry.

[This message has been edited by Sealcow (edited 11-07-2005 @ 04:50 PM).]

Captain Snackbar
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-05 05:18 PM EDT (US)     29 / 30       
In agreement with what Sealcow said, England was never a totalitarianism during the American Revolution, it was a Mercantilism.

Also, about the atrocities, during the American Revolution, one of America's greatest heroes, George Washinton, ordered the destuction of Haudenosaunee, Seneca to be exact, villages. However, it wasn't just the killing off braves, and the burning of villages, he also ordered the destruction of over fifty miles of corn, the Haudenosaunee's main source of food, and the slaughtering of millions of Haudenosaunee women and children. And for this, Washington was labeled Town Destroyer by the Haudenosaunees. In addition, if you can name one British General that was labeled Town Destroyer by the Natives of North America, I will sincerely take back what I have just said.


"You load sixteen tons and what do you get?
You get one day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"-Ernie Ford
Sealcow
Skirmisher
posted 11-07-05 09:30 PM EDT (US)     30 / 30       
MILLIONS!

But in all seriousness, I think he makes an excellent point, both with regard to the natives and the character of the founders in general. George Washington and similar generals (Green, Morgan) did not restrian men properly with anything ranging from captured dragoons, unarmed new recruits, indians on numerous occasions, loyalists, and Hessians. The British had a much more restrained and formal army that did not do that sort of thing, although they did hang some prisoners, they would have been executed for rebellion, and not simply on the battlefield. I am, of course, talking generally.

Sorry for putting this last post, but I felt something was touched on that I had not remembered to address earlier; the morality of our founders.

« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames