1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Delicious77 [7]
3 years ago
13

Compare and contrast the continental army with the british army

History
1 answer:
Furkat [3]3 years ago
7 0

British Advantages

•British forces superior to American forces in experience,

training, equipment, and organization.

•At the beginning of the war, British forces outnumbered

Continental forces; for example, British general William

Howe's expeditionary force in 1776 numbered 32,000,

compared to American general George Washington's force

of less than 20,000.

•Britain’s navy was the biggest and strongest in the world.

•Abundance of funding allowed for long-term war planning

and the hiring of foreign mercenaries for reinforcements.

•Britain had key alliance with Iroquois and other Native

American peoples.

•British bases in Canada provided a stable base of

attack.

•Almost a third of colonists were still loyal to King George

III.

•Splintered families, with brother fighting against brother,

undermined American unity.

•A weak central governing authority placed the

Continentals at a disadvantage.

•Britain’s total population was three times that of

colonies, providing a larger pool of potential recruits

American Advantages

•Patriot zeal for independence, in contrast to lower motivation among opposing troops, especially Hessian mercenaries.

•Superior knowledge of home ground coupled with effective guerrilla warfare tactics, such as attacking from the

rear and adopting enemy uniforms as a disguise.

•Financial and military aid from France and Spain.

•Whereas Britain changed its commander in chief in the

middle of the war, American commander in chief George

Washington saw the war through from beginning to end.

•Though improperly trained in warfare compared with the

British, Continentals were familiar with guns and had

gained experience and skills fighting Native Americans.

•Poor decision-making on the part of the British, including

over-cautiousness and delays in moving troops, helped the

Patriots win.

•Though some colonists were Loyalists, they were not as

well-organized as the Patriots; many Loyalists feared

harassment and therefore kept their sympathies private.

•The British public was divided and tentative in its support

of the war.

•The Continentals supported themselves from a sympathetic surrounding population, whereas the British had to

supply themselves from thousands of miles away

You might be interested in
The main purpose of the law of april 6, 1830 was to:
Pani-rosa [81]

Answer:

Explanation:

The Law of April 6, 1830 was issued because of the Mier y Terán Report to counter concerns that Mexican Texas, part of the border state of Coahuila y Tejas was in danger of being annexed by the United States. ... It also outlawed slavery in Texas.

8 0
3 years ago
If you could ask Ishmael one question, what would it be?
sammy [17]

Do you watch anime? ;-;

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the Cold War shape the second half of the 20th century?
matrenka [14]

Answer:

the senses in which politics had become global. Intercontinental rockets not only meant that the most destructive weapons known could now be propelled halfway around the world in minutes but also, because of the imminent nuclear standoff they heralded, that a Cold War competition would now extend into other realms—science and technology, economic growth, social welfare, race relations, image making—in which the Soviets or Americans could try to prove that their system was the best. At the same time, the decolonization of dozens of underdeveloped states in Asia and Africa induced the superpowers to look beyond the original front lines of the Cold War in Europe and East Asia.

These technological and political revolutions would seem to have raised the United States and the Soviet Union to unequaled heights of power. The Soviets and Americans advanced rapidly in the high technology required for spaceflight and ballistic missiles, while techniques for the mobilization and management of intellectual and material resources reached a new level of sophistication, especially in the United States, through the application of systems analysis, computers, bureaucratic partnership with corporations and universities, and Keynesian “fine-tuning” of the economy.

By the mid-1960s the vigorous response of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations to the Cold War challenge seemed to ensure American technological, economic, and military primacy for the foreseeable future. A mere five to seven years later, however, it became clear that the 1960s, far from establishing an American hegemony, had in fact wrought a diffusion of world power and an erosion of the formerly rigid Cold War blocs. Western Europe and Japan, now recovered from the war, also achieved dynamic economic growth in the 1960s, reducing their relative inferiority to the United States and prompting their governments to exercise a greater independence. The Sino-Soviet split, perhaps the most important event in postwar diplomacy, shattered the unity of the Communist bloc, and Third World countries often showed themselves resistant to superpower coercion or cajoling. By 1972 the U.S.S.R., despite its achievement of relative parity in nuclear weapons, was obsessed with the prospect of a hostile China, while the United States, having squandered its wealth, prestige, and domestic tranquillity in the Vietnam War, was trying to scale back its global commitments. The Nixon Doctrine, détente with Moscow, the opening to China, and uncoupling of the dollar from gold were the symptoms of this American retreat.

4 0
3 years ago
Wealthy landowners the best definition
AnnyKZ [126]

Patricians Answer:

Explanation: I just took the test

3 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Who was the person responsible for the call of a crusade and why
miskamm [114]

Pope Urban II was the person responsible for the very influential speech that called for the start of a crusade. He wanted to take back the Holy Land from the Muslims, along with the leader of the Byzantine Empire writing him a letter asking for help. This was a very powerful speech which started the rise of the Crusaders, who Pope Urban II promised if they would fight in this war they would get the remission of their sins, even if they died in battle.

7 0
4 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which events led to the end of ww2 in Europe
    9·1 answer
  • The french and indian war eventually became part of the larger world conflict known as
    11·1 answer
  • In which circumstance would the U.S government most likely be able to constitutionally limit a citizens right to freedom of reli
    6·2 answers
  • PLEASE HELP!!
    7·1 answer
  • Which person is CORRECTLY paired with his work during the Renaissance?
    5·2 answers
  • Please! need help
    7·1 answer
  • Relative location of Orlando Florida
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following describes an economic effect of European imperialism in Africa
    12·2 answers
  • Evaluate each statement and select the one that is most accurate:
    5·1 answer
  • What type of army was the U.S. facing in Vietnam​
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!