Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 13

The lead
The lead of the article is too big and too complicated. It should be summarized. I think four paragraphs, as usual, would work (per WP:LEAD). Does anyone share this opinion? Anyone care to do the changes? Cheers. Coltsfan (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is pretty long. It's even longer than the opening article for the Second World War. I'd be happy to post a proposed change of the lead for discussion here? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I think the paragraphs beginning with "The British defeat in the Saratoga campaign" and "The British and their allies suffered two decisive defeats" could be condensed and merged into one paragraph about the end of offensive operations in North America. The section beginning with "the British war continued" should be merged into the last paragraph. (In other words 2 paragraphs instead of 4) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, looks too long. Needs to be condensed considerably. The campaigns go into too much detail.Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change
 * Here are my proposed changes to the article lead. All suggestions are welcome!
 * The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, began as a conflict between Great Britain and thirteen of its North American colonies, which declared independence as the United States of America after the onset of the war.


 * Following the Seven Years' War, the growing philosophical and political differences exacerbated the strained relationship between Britain and its colonies. Following the Stamp Act, Patriot protests against taxation without representation escalated into boycotts; the Patriot group Sons of Liberty destroyed a shipment of tea in Boston Harbor. The British government responded by closing Boston Harbor, and passed a series of punitive measures against Massachusetts colony. Colonists responded with the Suffolk Resolves, establishing a shadow government, wresting control of the countryside from the Crown. Twelve colonies formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their resistance, and established committees and conventions that effectively seized power.


 * British attempts to disarm the Massachusetts militia in April 1775 led to open combat. Militia forces then invested in Boston, forcing a British evacuation in March 1776. Concurrently, an American attempt to invade Quebec and raise rebellion against the British decisively failed. On July 2 1776, the Continental Congress voted for independence, issuing its declaration on July 4 . Sir William Howe launched a British counter-offensive, capturing New York City, leaving American morale at a low ebb, however, victories at Trenton and Princeton restored American confidence. In 1777, the British launched an offensive from Quebec under John Burgoyne, intending to isolate New England. Instead of assisting this effort, Howe took his army on a separate campaign against Philadelphia. Burgoyne's effort was decisively defeated in October 1777.


 * The British defeat had drastic consequences; France formally entered the war in 1778, signing a coalition with the Americans. In 1779, Spain joined the war as an ally of France. Relinquishing the north, the British launched a "Southern strategy" led by Charles Cornwallis in 1780. British strategy hinged upon a Loyalist uprising, but too few came forward. Later that year, tensions between Britain and the Netherlands erupted into open war. Suffering reversals at King's Mountain and Cowpens, Cornwallis retreated to Yorktown, Virginia, intending on evacuation, however, a decisive French naval victory deprived him of escape. A Franco-American army led by the Comte de Rochambeau and George Washington besieged Cornwallis' army. With no sign of relief, Cornwallis surrendered.


 * Whigs in Britain had long opposed the pro-war Tories in Parliament, and the surrender gave the former the upper hand. In early 1782, they voted to end all offensive operations in North America, but the war continued in Europe; Britain decisively defeated a siege of Gibraltar, and scored major successes against the Spanish, and French navies. In India, the war against Mysore and its allies would continue till 1784. On September 3, 1783, the belligerent parties signed the Treaty of Paris, formally ending the war, in which Britain agreed to recognize the sovereignty of the United States. French involvement had proved decisive, but France made little gains and incurred crippling debts. Spain made some minor territorial gains but failed in its primary aim of recovering Gibraltar. The Dutch were defeated on all counts, and were compelled to cede territory to Britain.

, it still somewhat big. I feel we can still remove some stuff. For instance, take a look at the American Civil War article. Look how it is now compared to just a year and a half ago. Actually, i think it's fine. Better than any alternative. But can't we join together the second and third paragraphs? Coltsfan (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I did think about joining them together, but for flow and neatness sake, I felt having two short paragraphs was better than one rather bloated one. Unless it can be cut down further? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I've cleaned up some parts. I guess each paragraph deals with a specific phase. The first is the summary, the second is the lead-up to the war, the third is pre-Saratoga, the fourth post-Saratoga, and the final is the wind-down of the war. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC))
 * You know what, it's quite ok. Is there anyone who has a better one? or who doesn't like this proposed one? If not, i think we have something here. Coltsfan (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten your draft. Here's how I've got it (with notes on the changes at the end):


 * The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a global conflict that began when hostilities between Great Britain and thirteen of its North American colonies erupted into war and ended with the recognition of the independence of the United States of America.


 * After the Seven Years' War, growing philosophical and political differences exacerbated the strained relationship between Britain and its colonies. Following the Stamp Act, Patriot protests against taxation without representation escalated into boycotts, which culminated in the Sons of Liberty destroying a shipment of tea in Boston Harbor. The British government responded by closing Boston Harbor and passing a series of punitive measures against Massachusetts colony. Colonists responded with the Suffolk Resolves, by establishing a shadow government, and by wresting control of the countryside from the Crown. Twelve colonies formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their resistance, and established committees and conventions that effectively seized power.


 * British attempts to disarm the Massachusetts militia in April 1775 led to open combat. Militia forces then besieged Boston, forcing a British evacuation in March 1776. Concurrently, an American attempt to invade Quebec and raise rebellion against the British decisively failed. On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted for independence, issuing its declaration on July 4. Sir William Howe launched a British counter-offensive, capturing New York City and leaving American morale at a low ebb. However, victories at Trenton and Princeton restored American confidence. In 1777, the British launched an offensive from Quebec under John Burgoyne, intending to isolate New England. Instead of assisting this effort, Howe took his army on a separate campaign against Philadelphia, and Burgoyne was decisively defeated at Saratoga in October 1777.


 * The British defeat at Saratoga had drastic consequences: France formally allied with the Americans and entered the war in 1778, and Spain joined the war the next year as an ally of France. In 1780, the Kingdom of Mysore attacked the British in India and tensions between Britain and the Netherlands erupted into open war. In North America, the British embraced a "Southern strategy" led by Charles Cornwallis. However, that strategy hinged upon a Loyalist uprising and too few came forward for it to succeed. Suffering reversals at King's Mountain and Cowpens, Cornwallis retreated to Yorktown, Virginia, intending on evacuation, but a decisive French naval victory deprived him of escape. A Franco-American army led by the Comte de Rochambeau and George Washington then besieged Cornwallis' army. With no sign of relief, Cornwallis surrendered.


 * Whigs in Britain had long opposed the pro-war Tories in Parliament, and the surrender gave the former the upper hand. In early 1782, Parliament voted to end all offensive operations in North America, but the war continued in Europe and India. Britain remained under siege in Gibraltar, but scored a major success against the French navy. On September 3, 1783, the belligerent parties signed the Treaty of Paris, formally ending the war, in which Britain agreed to recognize the sovereignty of the United States. Although French involvement had proved decisive, France made little gains and incurred crippling debts. Spain made some minor territorial gains but failed in its primary aim of recovering Gibraltar. The Dutch were defeated on all counts and were compelled to cede territory to Britain.  In India, the war against Mysore and its allies concluded in 1784 without any territorial changes.


 * -Paragraph 1: Altered to make clear global nature of conflict.  Removed a citation that didn't seem necessary for the lead. Re Note 1: Removed Whigs because only used to describe those in Great Britain and Rebels because only used in a quote
 * -Paragraph 2: Minor stylistic changes + linking to American Revolution#Origins instead of the whole article on philosophical and political differences statement
 * -Paragraph 3: Minor stylistic changes. "invested in" replaced with besieged, which is a more commonly understood word (and I think that regardless the word "in" should be dropped).  Removed a citation that didn't seem necessary for the lead (should come after period regardless).
 * -Paragraph 4: Minor stylistic changes. I don't think "Relinquishing the north" is an appropriate term, its not like they abandoned New York.  Added sentence about Mysore joining, otherwise unclear why Mysore is mentioned later.  Removed a citation that didn't seem necessary for the lead
 * -Paragraph 5: Minor stylistic changes. Revised sentence regarding non-American battles since timing didn't work for one and siege endured til peace agreement reached.   Removed a citation that didn't seem necessary for the lead.
 * -Additional thoughts: Should the footnote regarding Georgia and the Continental Congress be a footnote or a note?  The second half of "Twelve colonies formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their resistance, and established committees and conventions that effectively seized power." is unclear to me. If its the twelve colonies establishing committees and conventions apart from the Continental Congress, then the comma should be removed. I left in one footnote that seemed like it could be helpful.

Dbrote (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

, looks good. It's fine by me. Coltsfan (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence was a global war that began as a conflict between Great Britain and thirteen of its North American colonies, which declared independence as the United States of America.


 * After the Seven Years' War, growing philosophical and political differences exacerbated the strained relationship between Britain and its colonies. Following the Stamp Act, Patriot protests against taxation without representation escalated into boycotts, which culminated in the Sons of Liberty destroying a shipment of tea in Boston Harbor. Britain responded by closing Boston Harbor, and passed a series of punitive measures against Massachusetts colony. Massachusetts colonists responded with the Suffolk Resolves and established a shadow government, which wrested control of the countryside from the Crown. Twelve colonies formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their resistance, establishing committees and conventions that effectively seized power.


 * British attempts to disarm the Massachusetts militia in April 1775 led to open combat. Militia forces then besieged Boston, forcing a British evacuation in March 1776. Concurrently, an American attempt to invade Quebec and raise rebellion against the British decisively failed. On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted for independence, issuing its declaration on July 4. Sir William Howe launched a British counter-offensive, capturing New York City and leaving American morale at a low ebb. However, victories at Trenton and Princeton restored American confidence. In 1777, the British launched an offensive from Quebec under John Burgoyne, intending to isolate New England. Instead of assisting this effort, Howe took his army on a separate campaign against Philadelphia, and Burgoyne was decisively defeated at Saratoga in October 1777.


 * The British defeat at Saratoga had drastic consequences; France formally allied with the Americans and entered the war in 1778, and Spain joined the war the following year as an ally of France. In 1780, Mysore attacked the British in India, and tensions between Britain and the Netherlands erupted into open war. In North America, the British mounted a "Southern strategy" led by Charles Cornwallis. However, the strategy hinged upon a Loyalist uprising, and too few came forward. Suffering reversals at King's Mountain and Cowpens, Cornwallis retreated to Yorktown, Virginia, intending on evacuation, but a decisive French naval victory deprived him of an escape. A Franco-American army led by the Comte de Rochambeau and George Washington then besieged Cornwallis' army. With no sign of relief, Cornwallis surrendered.


 * Whigs in Britain had long opposed the pro-war Tories in Parliament, and the surrender gave the former the upper hand. In early 1782, Parliament voted to end all offensive operations in North America, but the war continued in Europe and India. Britain remained under siege in Gibraltar, but scored a major success against the French navy. On September 3, 1783, the belligerent parties signed the Treaty of Paris, formally ending the war, in which Britain agreed to recognize the sovereignty of the United States. Although French involvement had proved decisive, France made little gains and incurred crippling debts. Spain made some minor territorial gains but failed in its primary aim of recovering Gibraltar. The Dutch were defeated on all counts and were compelled to cede territory to Britain.  In India, the war against Mysore and its allies concluded in 1784 without any territorial changes.


 * I like it. I've just made some minor alterations; including some more links and tightening up the wording. But other than that, I think we have something here. What do others think? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC))


 * I think most of your changes improve my previous revisions, but I have a few comments:
 * Paragraph 1: Is there a way to avoid using the word “conflict” twice in the first sentence? With regard to linking “global conflict” to “World War”, I’d prefer not to since the American Revolutionary War isn’t generally considered to be a world war. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the first footnote should follow the comma rather than preceding it.
 * Paragraph 2: I think the comma in “by closing Boston Harbor,” needs to be removed. “Colonists responded with the Suffolk Resolves, establishing a shadow government, and by wresting control of the countryside from the Crown.” needs to be changed because it currently implies that the Suffolk Resolves created a shadow government.  I would change “Colonists responded by issuing the Suffolk Resolves, establishing a shadow government, and wresting control of the countryside from the Crown.”  I’m still confused as to who the subject of the last clause of the last sentence of this paragraph is.  If it’s the Twelve Colonies then the comma before “and established” should be removed.
 * Paragraph 4: I would probably replace the Enlightenment in Spain link with the Spanish Empire link. I’d probably change it from “of escape” to “of an escape”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrote (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * good ideas--go ahead and make these changes. Rjensen (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your ideas there; I've removed the link to world war, and replaced it with "global war" to avoid using conflict twice.
 * The comma following Boston Harbour is grammatically correct, it just helps the sentence becoming too exhaustive to read in one go. I completely agree with the Suffolk Resolves point, and I have altered it accordingly.
 * I agree with those too, I've changed them accordingly.
 * What do we think to the revised version? Think we can go ahead and replace the lead with this? I think we definitely have something here! (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Why did you change the link from Kingdom of France to French colonial empire? The former seems more appropriate to me.  Also, upon reviewing the current lead, could we sub in "Massachusetts colonists responded with the Suffolk Resolves . . . ." or something similar for "Colonists responded with the Suffolk Resolves . . . ."  That way its clear that it wasn't colonists from all 13 colonies who performed the actions described in that sentence.   Otherwise, if everyone else is in agreement, I'd be in favor of transferring it over.Dbrote (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back; I thought it was appropriate given Spain was changed to the Spanish Empire. I agree on subbing in Massachusetts colonists - already done. Other than that, I think it's about ready to transfer over too! (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Now that the revisions are complete, I think it's ready to transfer over. Are we all in agreement? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I'd be good with transferring it over. There's no RFC on the lead AFAIK, so no real reason to not just switch it in now. I assume you'll also delete the box up top saying the lead is too long when you do so?Dbrote (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and transfer it over, and delete the lead too long box. Thank you all for the suggestions! By the way, Anaruna is me, RockDrummerQ, I just changed my username. Anaruna ( talk )
 * Thanks for taking the time to re-write it. I think it looks a lot better now then it did before.  FYI, I made two minor changes to the main page. (adding a comma after "aka American War of Independence" and placing a footnote after (instead of before) a comma, per style guidelines. Dbrote (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Mercenaries
XavierGreen is starting an edit war because he believes that "mercenary" is a POV term. Actually it is standard scholarly language and was used by the British at the time. He cites Lowell 1884 who uses the term 20 times: for example Lowell p 6 Frederick of Hesse-Cassel "was one of the least disreputable of the princes who sent mercenaries to America." Lowell p 26 "the treaties between the King of England and the mercenary princes" Lowell p 32 quotes a Duke in the House of Lords saying the treaty with Hesse was  " a downright, mercenary bargain, for the taking into pay of a certain number of hirelings, who were bought and sold like so many beasts for slaughter." If XavierGreen cites a book to make his point he really ought stand by it--and I suggest he read it first. A standard scholarly work from the Hesse point of view is The Hessian Mercenary State by Charles W. Ingrao - 2003 - at https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0521533228  Hesse made it a general practice of renting out its soldiers to many different countries for many different operations. The goal was funding the Hessian treasury. If XavierGreen cites a book to make his point he really ought to read it first. Rjensen (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The term mercenary is a neutral term and is still used to refer to the Papal Guard, Ghurkas and French Foreign Legion. The term "auxiliaries" is not a good substitute, since they can be professional, volunteer or conscripted soldiers from the belligerent countries.  TFD (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The troops used were auxiliary soldiers not mercenaries. There was a previous discussioon on this which had come to the consensus to use the term auxiliaries. The source i cited uses the term auxilliary its title and throughout the text to refer to the German troops in question. The German states soldiers who served in the American Revolutionary war did so as members of their own national militaries not as mercenaries. 6 of the German principalities which fought signed Treaties of Alliance with Great Britain, which obligated them to provide soldiers to be used at the convience of the British military. The terms of the treaties of alliance signed varied from state to state. In the case of Hesse-Kassel, the treaty involved a  mutual defense compact, in which the British had an obligation to defend Hesse-Kassel from attack. There is a signifigant difference between an auxiliary soldier and a mercenary soldier, most notablely outline in Machiavelli's "The Prince". Auxilliary troops are troops of national militaries, which are sent to fight under the command of a foriegn state. Mercenary soldiers are soldiers who are hired out as private persons, not being members of a national military. This is an important distinction as reflected in international law, it is entirely lawful for a state to employ auxiliary troops, but the useage of mercenaries is illicit. Note that there are several definitions of the word auxiliary, and that many modern "auxiliary" military organizations are not auxiliary troops in the traditional usage of the word.XavierGreen (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the French Foreign Legion, Ghurkas, and Papal Guard are never refered to as mercenaries in scholarly publications, as they are enrolled members of the national militaries in which they serve, and are recognized as such under interntional law. An in reference to Rjensen's claims about Lowell, within the work i cited Lowell refers to the soldiers in question as Auxilliaries a multitude of times more than as mercenaries, indeed in the majority of examples tht Rjensen has pointed out, the term is used colloquially. The book [hessians mercenaries&f=false|German Forces and the British Army: Interactions and Perceptions, 1742-1815] by M. Wishon provides lenghty dissusion on the issue at hand, and clearly states that the German forces in question were auxiliary troops, that the term "mercenary" in reference to Hessian forces in the Revolution in a derogatory manner and its use in describing the forces in question is factually incorrect.XavierGreen (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Lowell is 1884. Better read Ingrao (2003) to get the hessian perspective, which he calls a "mercenary state."  The issue is what terminology is used by modern RS like Ingrao. isbn=0521533228  1) Brady J. Crytzer, Hessians: Mercenaries, Rebels, and the War for British North America (2015) 2)  John Phillips Resch, Walter L. Sargent - 2007 - "the news of impending Indian attacks and the fact that the British invasion army fielded dreaded mercenary Hessians spurred Massachusetts men to action during the summer of 1777"  3) Rodney Atwood, The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1980) 4) Don Nardo - 2003 "He fell in with the British and Hessians (German mercenaries) in the Trenton area" 5) Theodore P. Savas, J. David Dameron - 2006 - "Fresh troops from England, including additional Hessian mercenaries, were already riding the Atlantic on their way to the conquered port of New York City. "  scholarly articles: 6) book Soldiers for Sale: German 'Mercenaries' with the British in Canada during the American Revolution, 1776-83 (2012) reviewed in Canadian Military History 2016;  7) the main scholarly journal on the Hessians uses the term:  Hessians: Journal of the Johannes Schwalm Historical Association. 2014  p 45 "looks at Christian Theodor Sigismund von Molitor and Johann Peter Sebastian von Molitor, two brothers who served in the Ansbach-Bayreuth Regiment of German mercenaries for the British Army during the U.S. Revolutionary War."  8) news report: "The 'Hessians' in the American War of Independence. By: Scheele, Christopher. H-Net Reviews in the Humanities & Social Sciences. May2013, p1-5. 5p. Language: German. Abstract: The article presents a report on Hessian mercenaries during the American War of Independence, held in Hanau, Germany, from March 7-8, 2013. Topics of discussion included social aspects of eighteenth-century military history, sources on the history of the American Revolution and Germans' involvement in it, and the fate of German prisoners of war during the conflict" Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that some editors have strong views on this, and the term auxialiary has been added across a range of articles. I think per policy we should use the normal description in reliable sources, which is "mercenary."  I know that historians can be biased or mistaken, but it is not up to editors to correct them and provide an alternative historical narrative.  In any case the wording makes no sense.  The OED defines a mercenary as a "professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army."  Great Britain paid Hesse-Kassel to provide troops.  Auxiliary is defined as troops "engaged in the service of a nation at war but not part of the regular army."  In other words, members of a militia, such as Loyalists.  Also see Holger P. Hestermeyer, "Mercenaries", The Law of Armed Conflict and the Use of Force: The Max Planck Encyclopedia, p. 682.  It acknowledges the Geneva Convention definition and says the Hessians were mercenaries.  Do you have any reliable sources that say the Hessians were not mercenaries?  Did the Hessians swear allegiance to the King of the Great Britain?  TFD (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You obviously didnt bother to even look at the source i showed above [hessians mercenaries&f=false|German Forces and the British Army: Interactions and Perceptions, 1742-1815] by M. Wishon from 2013, which clearly explains that the German forces in question were auxiliary troops rather than mercenaries. Most contemporary and modern sources which use the term "mercenary" to refer to German troops deployed in the Revelutionary war do so in a derogatory manner, and are slanted towards an American point of view. There are a host of modern sources which use the term auxiliary, |Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History] 2014 by David T. Zabecki specifically refers to them as such, |Washington Crossing Historic Park: Pennsylvania Trail of History Guide 2004 by John Bradley specifically states that the correct term to use for describing German troops is Auxiliaries rather than Mercenaries. I can provide more examples if necessary. Note again, that these German soldiers were regularlly enrolled military personel of their home countries, and were operating under orders from their sovereigns. They had no say in whether or not they were deployed to fight. Wikipedia's own definition of a mercenary is taken from the Geneva convention" "A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by desire for private gain". The individuals in question here were obligated to serve as enlisted members of their country's militaries, and were not motivated to serve "by desire for private gain" but rather due to orders from their soveriegn.XavierGreen (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I ahould have noticed the link. Here is a better link, to Wishon's complete PhD thesis.  He says, "Though referred to in contemporary discourse as ‘mercenaries’, a term still commonly used in today’s scholarship, these subsidy troops had very little in common with soldiers of fortune,,,," What distinguishes them is that their princes "should not be considered to be motivated solely, or even primarily, for profit." (pp. 101-102)  As editors, we are not able to weight arguments and draw conclusions.  Wishon says that they are normally called mercenaries, even in scholarly writing, and that's what we should call them.  The term "auxiliary" is obscure.  Machiavelli uses the term once in The Prince without elaboration so even if were to assume readers are familiar with that book, they may not know what the word means.  We cannot assume that readers of an article about an 18th century war would know a definition that is not listed in concise dictionaries.  The debate over whether or not they were mercenaries belongs in an article about them, not here.  TFD (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have already shown you two modern publications which clearly state that they were auxiliaries and not mercenaries. This is an article concerning 18th century warfare, and quite frankly the use of auxiliaries was incredibly common during not only the 18th century, but going back towards roman times. Indeed, the use of auxiliaries in warfare has seen a resurgence in our own time. In the Syrian Civil War, the Iranian government has fielded various auxiliary forces, and news media as well as scholars refer to the |Shia Pakistani and Afghan units controlled by Iran as such. Thus it is not an "obscure" term as you state, indeed anyone who has studied in the field of military science will be well acquainted with the term. It is no more obscure than any of the various other military terms found on wikipedia pages concerning 18th century warfare. Your statement that Machiavelli uses the term once "without elaberation" in the Prince is patently false, Machiavelli dedicates an entire chapter to the use of Auxiliaries (Chapter 13 is even titled: Concerning Auxiliaries, Mixed Soldiery, and One's Own).XavierGreen (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of scholarship favors "mercenary". As for "private gain" it was the Prince who did it for private gain to maintain his power over the diet (legislature). As Ingrao says the "Profits turned from his involvement in the War of American Independence provided [Prince] Frederick with another 13 years' supply.  His willingness to draw on these funds... gave him tremendous leverage and helped ensure the cooperation of the diet for the entire reign" [Ingrao p 39] Rjensen (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The various princes are not the ones we are discussing here, we are discussing the soldiers, the soldiers themselves were not fighting for private gain, they were fighting because their soveriegn ordered them to, as is well indicated in the sources i have provided. Furthermore, not all of the German sovereigns were motivated by primarily financial concerns in signing treaties of alliance. Hesse-Kassel actually spurned Great Britains first request to provide troops, it was only once the mutual defense clause was included that Hesse-Kassel agreed to the treaty. Furthermore the treaty with Hannover was not based on financial motivation in any regard, Hannover and Great Britain were allies well prior to the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. Regardless of each principalities motivation for sending their troops to war, all of their deployed forces served as auxiliary troops to the British, and thus that should be the term used to describe them. I'm all for listing each principality individually in the infobox without any sort of descriptor or list, but the previous consensus was to list them under the header auxiliaries as i stated before.XavierGreen (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "they were fighting because their soveriegn ordered them to" that's an odd way of putting it.  They volunteered to be career soldiers to fight in the many well-paying wars  for which the prince was negotiating a role.  (they were not drafted) --and with a pension. A good deal in poor countries with very limited farm land.  Perhaps what we have here is mercenary armies that were created, maintained, and rented out at us a profit to the Prince.  The soldiers themselves were not individual mercenaries, but they certainly knew that their units would be rented out.   Otherwise, the Prince was maintaining An excessively large army that was much too expensive and unnecessary for his small country.  Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If we follow your definition, then the British soldiers fighting in the war were mercenaries as well, since the majority of them signed up to fight in order to get paid decent wages, bonuses, ect as are the bulk of modern volunteer militaries, where individuals make military service their career and livelihood. But as i stated before, regular military personel are not mercenaries, and when sent into the service of a state other than their own they are considered to be auxiliaries.XavierGreen (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is your source (Wishon) that said if the Prince's motivation was money, then the troops were mercenaries. And that source also says most sources call them mercenaries.  The fact that some soldiers in other conflicts have been called auxiliaries is irrelevant and it is an obscure term.  BTW about 2400 Hessians settled in Canada after the war with land grants.  TFD (talk)
 * You are referring to the phd thesis you linked to, not the final published book that i linked to. The section of the book i linked to specifically refers to the soldiers as auxiliaries, and states that works that refer to them as mercenaries are derogatory, and thus not neutral in their point of view and the use of said term is not appropriate here due to wikipedia's NPOV policies.XavierGreen (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I checked Google Books and most of the sources seem to use the word "auxilaries" and not mercenaries. Seraphim System ( talk ) 04:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wiki rule says we should emphasize the position of the majority of scholars. "derogatory" is not a criteria for RS. (wiki editors cannot be derogatory, but RS certainly can be.  see WP:BIASED = "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."   as for usage: I looked at google  and found 5,480 results for "auxiliary" and 26,100 = 83% for "mercenary". (search terms = hessian  "american revolution" and added "auxiliary" or "mercenary."   I get the same pattern for google scholar (859 scholarly RS use use "auxiliary" and  3,580 = 81% use "mercenary"    Rjensen (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Article titles says, "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." (The policy is about article titles, but the same concept applies.)  Of course the Boston massacre wasn't a massacre, but had propaganda value.  Still, it is the term that stuck.  TFD (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Based solely on the information provided in this discussion, it certainly seems to me that mercenaries is the most commonly used term and that using the term auxiliaries would only confuse what was going on.Dbrote (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If anything, the use of the word mercenaries would be confusing, as i have pointed out in this discussion, its usage is not factually correct as indicated in the sources i provided. Furthermore, in the infobox we are talking about principalities, the word mercenary refers to an individual, not to an entire state. There is no other armed conflict article on wikipedia that used the word "mercenary" to refer to a belligrent state in the infobox. Also, as i stated before, some of the principalities in question were obligated to fight alongside the British due to Mutual Defense pacts that had been signed (Hesse-Kassel and Hanover), just in the manner than other states in other wars participated due to obligations under mutual defense treaties. The use of the word mercenary to refer to the various principalities involved is a derogatory non-neutral statement, that goes against the wikipedia NPOV guidelines.XavierGreen (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I've read what you've written above. I just don't find any of it convincing in light of other's responses.  Dbrote (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How are the soldiers of a state bound to participate in a conflict by a mutual defense treaty considered to be mercenaries? The use of the term mercenary in refering to the German belligrents is factually incorrect as i have indicated above, the troops in question were enlisted members of the national militaries of their home countries. They are no more mercenaries than half the soldiers in the US Military, who sign up to get money for college. As i've indicated above, several of the other responses above contain patently false statements as i have shown in the sources i have provided (particularly that the word auxiliary is obscure, ect.).XavierGreen (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The book which I highly rate as the best on the subject of the American Revolutionary war is Christopher Hibbert's Redcoats & Rebels. From a British POV Hibbert uses the term mercenaries (p. 85) but also uses the term regiments and troops too. Perhaps we can use 'German regiments' or 'German troops' as a bypass for the edit war? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with using either of those terms is that they hide the relationship between the Germans and British. Dbrote (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are listed on the Pro-British side of the infobox clearly states their relationship with the British, they they were aligned with them in the conflict. I don't see why any sort of descriptor has to be in the infobox at all, merely listing them under "German Principalities" should be enough, if people want to know more they can read the relevant section in the article. And as i stated before, Hanover had no financial incentive to fight, they were formally allied with the British due to a pre-war mutual defense treaty and were in person-union (King George III was both King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover). Hesse-Kassel specifically requested a mutual defense pact be signed by the British before agreeing to its treaty entering itself into the war and demanded that its troops serve under Hessian command throughout the duration of the conflict. Hesse-Hanau offered its troops unconditionally to the British, not asking for anything in return intitially. I don't see how the term mercenary reflects the "relationship" between Britain and these states, and infact it puts a non-neutral point of view into the article which masks the reality of the situation.XavierGreen (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's avoid original research here. 80% of the RS call them mercenaries--it's the standard language used by the pro-Hessian RS as well. eg " Hesse-Hanau, Brunswick, Anhalt-Zerbst, Waldeck, and Ansbach-Bayreuth — supplied these mercenaries," says Bruce Burgoyne, A Hessian Diary of the American Revolution (1993) - Page x Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your 80% figure is apparently taken a blanket google books search, and does not descriminate between reliable sources and un-reliable and npov sources. No one has yet to respond to the potential NPOV issues, particularly regarding Hanover and Hesse-Kassel who signed mutual defense treaties with Great Britain. My assertations are not original research, i have provided scholarly sources which put forth same statements: that the use of the term "mercenary" is derived from pro-american propaganda and that the proper term to use is auxiliaries.

XavierGreen (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did two google search both came out at the 80+% level. Google books covers all books = "popular history". Google scholar only includes scholarly books and articles = "world of scholarship." If we add the criterion book published by a "university press" in google books, we get 1330 books using  "mercenaries" and 81  books using "auxiliaries" 94%  for "mercenaries" /auxiliaries
 * I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I just don't see any evidence that auxiliaries is the term preferred by historians. If you could show that, I'd change my mind. But it certainly looks like a sizable majority of scholars call them mercenaries.  Rjensen and others have provided evidence of that.  You dispute Rjensen's google books search, but haven't provided any competing evidence of consensus use yourself.  You've provided evidence that some scholars refer to them as auxiliaries and that they have reasons for doing so, but not that it is the consensus position. I can't cite Wikipedia chapter and verse, but I don't think we're supposed to get out ahead of the consensus.  I also don't think its fair to refer to it solely as pro-American propaganda, seeing how Eastfarthingan refers to a British POV book using the term mercenaries.Dbrote (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: to look at a parallel case, Swiss cantons regularly hired out their military forces in the late Middle Ages, and the term mercenary is universally used in reference to those troops, with no POV issues. Therefore, "mercenary" is clearly not solely the product of American propaganda, but a term used to refer to troops paid by other states to fight on their behalf, while still operating under the control of the polities from which they originate, in historical contexts where no such propaganda existed. Rwenonah (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a difficult one this - I have no problem with the term German auxiliaries nor do I have a problem with German mercenaries. However I do think that an appropriate wording bests describes their use especially the relationship of Britain and the German states involved (Royal Hanoverian succession). So using German states could be a good idea or go as far as Great Siege of Gibraltar with Hanover?

Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be completely fine with simply listing them as "German States" in the infobox, giving an explaination int he body of the article (which is seemingly lacking at the moment in any regard and needs to be put in anyway). No interpretation of the world "mercenary" would be appropriate to describe Hannover's participationin the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is because the Swiss soldiers who served were not doing so as members of their national (or in this instance Cantonal) militaries, they generally contracted with private military companies which were then hired out by various foriegn states. They were thus mercenaries in the true sense of the word. The individual cantonal governments had nothing to do with the service of the Swiss who hired themselves out. This is the key difference which i have been articulating since the beginning of this discussion. The German soldiers in the American Revolutionary War were not private individuals or companies that hired themselves out as mercenaries, they were formally enlisted soldiers in their national militaries. As such they were not mercenaries, as they merely served at the orders of their home state government as auxiliaries to a foriegn military. Auxiliary forces continue to be used today in modern conflicts (for a modern example see Tonga's particiapation in the afghan war, where its national military served in Afghanistan in exchange for payment from other nations).XavierGreen (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're frankly wrong about the Swiss, as this source [|shows] shows. They were, when acting as mercenaries, hired out through their cantonal governments, and remained under their jurisdiction, and representing the Swiss Confederacy, throughout their military service for other states. Please don't make untrue assertions to support a preexisting conclusion. Rwenonah (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The source you provided refers to a single instance in which via treaty the cantons guarenteed to make a regiment available for French service.XavierGreen (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Read to the end of pg. 13 and early pg. 14, where it says in a blanket statement that "Although mercenaries were sent out to fight for other countries, they remained under Swiss jurisdiction. The men who went to fight for foreign lords had to make an official military oath to the Confederation [Swiss] and they represented their country for the entire duration of the campaign." Rwenonah (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, then they would be considered auxiliaries as well, which would make sense, [since there are some 16,000 google book results with descriptions of them as such as well](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=swiss+auxiliaries#q=swiss+auxiliaries&safe=off&hl=en&tbm=bks&start=10). But as i said before, there are mainstream scholarly publications which clearly state that the use of the term Auxiliaries to describe the German contingents fighting in the American Revolutionary War is factually incorrect, and that the usage of the term mercenary in their regard stems from pro-independence propaganda and that the term is derogatory considering the realities of their participation in the conflict. I still have not seen anyone state how Hanover could be considered to be "mercenaries" in any definition of the word. I still think that simply labeling them as "German Principalities" in the infobox, and then putting details regarding their service in the conflict as well as a brief explanation mention of the auxiliaries/mercenaries bit. This article cant' be complete regardless without further explanation in the body of the text since the Germans were a major force fighting in the war.XavierGreen (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There are 44,000 hits for swiss mercenaries. On the first page of hits for swiss auxiliaries, 8 out of 10 are from the 19th century. Word usage of course changes over time. It does not matter whether the term mercenary is derogatory or incorrect, it's what they are called, and therefore what we should call them per "Common name". The "West Indies" for example are not in India, turkeys are not actually from Turkey, etc. TFD (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is getting off topic. This is not about the Swiss. It is about what the majority of reliable sources call these troops. There is evidence from Google Books and Google Scholar searches that strongly support the use of the term "mercenaries". No alternative search results have been provided to challenge the provided results. Unless a credible challenge to those results is produced, I believe the term mercenaries should be used. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look through my statements above, i'm not challenging the assertion that there are more google book hits for "mercenaries", ( | there are over 16000 for auxiliaries ) i'm challenging its use on NPOV grounds. As i indicated above, there has been much written on the fact that the use of the term mercenaries in regards to the German forces is derogatory and favors an American point of view of the conflict. As i said before, i don't see why its necessary to use any such term in the infobox, simply putting "German principalities" in the header of the dropdown box should suffice. No one has stated so far why that's a bad idea.XavierGreen (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which, again, is why Switzerland is relevant; it shows that "mercenaries" was a term commonly applied, both by contemporaries and historians, to troops whose legal status with respect to their home countries was the same as those of the Revolutionary War's Germans, which demonstrates that the term isn't derogatory. Rwenonah (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As for Hanover, my impression is that no large numbers were sent into combat in America....unlike the Hessians (broadly defined) who did a great deal of fighting. Note that British historians writing standard scholarly histories use the term without any negative sense.  Here's an example re Britain at war against France in 1793: "Eight thousand Hessian mercenaries were as usual taken into British service." [The Reign of George III, 1760-1815 Oxford History of England by J. Steven Watson p 365. Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Forces from Hannover were deployed to Gibralter, where they saw heavy action in the largest engagement of the entire war. They also were deployed and saw action at Minorca and in the Indian theatre of operations.XavierGreen (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the other Germans, is there any dispute that the Germans from Hanover were brought in due to George's direct rule over it? If so, would there be any objection to listing Hanover directly under British Empire (as opposed to in the German Mercenaries / Auxiliaries subsection)? Or should Hanover be considered part of the British Empire and be removed completely?  I personally have no idea whether the term British Empire is generally thought to include Hanover or not.Dbrote (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that King George III was the monarch of both Hanover and Great Britain, they were two entirely seperate states with seperate independent governments. Hanover's participation in the war was due to its obligations under a mutual defense treaty it had signed with Great Britain not any personal orders on the behalf of King George III. It was never part of the British Empire, just in personal union with it.XavierGreen (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Under your definitions, do you consider troops from Hanover to be auxiliaries and in the exact same position as the other states? Dbrote (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Mercenaries does seem to the established majority viewpoint so that should be used in the article. The use of the term auxiliaries could be mentioned in a footnote. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE unless auxiliaries becomes the commonly accepted term. Alcherin (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is not a policy about eliminating all biased views from Wikipedia; it is about avoiding editorial bias in giving due weight to views based on the weight of opinion in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). Propaganda or not, reliable sources largely use the term mercenaries, so that is what the article should reflect. Alcherin (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * XavierGreen, I think it might be helpful if you could take a first pass at such a footnote. Dbrote (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, no one has given any reason as to why simply "German Principalities" should not be used, and no one here yet has put forth a source stating that Hanover provided "mercenaries" or any other reason as to why Hanover should be listed under such a factually inaccurate descriptor..XavierGreen (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it purposefully obfuscates the relationship of the non-Hanover states to the war. There seems to be a fairly strong consensus that mercenaries should be used for those states.  With regard to Hanover, I, at a minimum, have expressed a willingness to concede that they might not be mercenaries.  Could you maybe explain why you think there's a better case for Hanover not being grouped with the rest?  Because your last reply on the subject certainly made it sound like there wasn't actually a difference in motivation. Dbrote (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As i already explained before, and | as is clearly indicated in the sourced wikipedia article on the subject, the troops deployed from Hanover were sent as part of Hanover's obligations under its treaty of alliance with the United Kingdom. This alliance was activated in every single war in Europe in which Hannover and Great Britain were involved in, and often was cause for Hanover being invaded by various foriegn powers during the same time period.XavierGreen (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with the other users that mercenaries should be the term we use in all articles pertaining to this topic. Auxiliaries could be put as a footnote. It isn't a POV issue if the reliable sources we use on this subject are all describing them as mercenaries. By definition, they were mercenaries; they were soldiers for hire by a foreign government. "German Principalities" wouldn't be accurate at all, as not all of the states that provided troops were principalities by structure; Hesse-Kassel was ruled by a Landgrave. It also negates the very nature of why they (the German states) are engaged in the conflict. It seems that the vast majority here agree that mercenaries is the term that should be used, all the reliable sources we use pertaining to this topic use the term, regardless of any potential bias, so shall we put this topic to bed now? It's gone on more than long enough. Anaruna ( talk )
 * I have shown multiple reliable sources which use the term auxiliaries and clearly state that the use of the word mercenary is factually incorrect and derogatory (and thus non-neutral). Principalities is a common term to reference all states of the Holy Roman Empire, but we could use German States if you prefer. As i stated before, Hanover did not enter the conflict with profit as its motive, it was due to its treaty obligations with Great Britain. Hence the term "mercenary" is inaccurate in any regard to its status in the conflict. Also, its not common practice in the english language to refer to entire states as "mercenaries" rather it is individuals who are mercenaries. Show me a dictionary entry which mentions soveriegn states under its listing for "mercenary", the word almost exclusively refers to individuals (or occasionally to behavior of individuals). I have yet to be shown another article on wikipedia where the word "mercenaries" is used next to a state belligerent in a conflict infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your sources do exist but are a small minority of scholars. Let me add a new problem: The is severe ambiguity -- common Military usage uses "auxiliaries" as associated part-time non-combat units (like transportation units or medical units or "Woman's Auxiliary Army Corps" = WW2 WACs), or as casual militia-like temporary units (Native American units for example).  eg 1) British "regular forces were and are supported by part time auxiliary military units. " (Talbot 2002); 2) Nazi "plans for recruiting Greek citizens to work in German industry and agriculture or to serve in Nazi auxiliary military units." Chimbos.  3) in WW2 "the Allied nations (except perhaps for China) tolerated and encouraged much more modern and equalitarian roles for women, and strongly encouraged them to go to work in the munitions factories and auxiliary military units. [such as WAC, WAVES]" Campbell 2013;  4) "during World War II, Australian magazines and newspapers published approving stories about women who were serving their country as motor transport drivers and mechanics in auxiliary military units. .." Clarson 2011; 5) ancient history: "A Roman law of AD 372 provided that men who were too short or weak for service with ﬁeld armies should be assigned to auxiliary military units, such as river patrol troops." Marble 2012.  Rjensen (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The consensus here is strongly against your claims.
 * I't doesn't appear to me that there is a consensus to use the word mecenaries, but i have already said that i am open to simply leaving it as "German principalities" or "German states" (which would solve the Hanover problem i mentioned) in the infobox and others have supported that as well. I think at this point a formal request for comment is in order. Ever source both you, i, and anyone else has shown has used the term German states or principalities to reference these polities, and i think as such that it is the most appropriate term to use. But in regards to your other statement, as i stated before there are two different meanings to the word auxiliaries in military terminology. Auxiliaries which are foriegn troops serving under the command of another states army, also the original meaning of the word (see Auxilia), and the second meaning auxiliaries which are support units of a regular military.XavierGreen (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As multiple people have pointed out, referring to them as "German principalities" or "German states" obscures important information about their relationship to the war (and German principalities is apparently not technically correct). There's already a RFC open for the infobox of which this is a subsidiary issue. That's how I came across this in the first place.  And the majority of those to come here certainly think they're a consensus for mercenaries. Regardless, could you explain how Hanover differs from the other states?  Because the reasons you gave for not listing Hanover as mercenaries are the same reasons you gave for not listing the other states as mercenaries? Dbrote (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "I have yet to be shown another article on wikipedia where the word "mercenaries" is used next to a state belligerent in a conflict infobox" - Look no further. I present to you, a war whose entire nomenclature is centred on mercenaries; the Mercenary War. The infobox doesn't refer to entire states as mercenaries; those are merely the states in which the mercenary troops originated from.
 * "It doesn't appear to me that there is a consensus to use the word mercenaries" - You need to look harder, then. The vast majority of people on here have pointed out it is preferable and more accurate to use the term mercenaries.
 * Rjensen has pointed out that "auxiliaries" is far too an ambiguous term to use, since it can apply to non-combatant personnel. As I and Dbrote have pointed out, naming them "principalities" or "states" obscures their relationship with the British government. The only exception you've pointed out is Hanover; perhaps that could be removed from the list entirely and added as a subsidiary to the British Empire, or even as a separate combatant as on the Napoleonic Wars page? It certainly would not be grounds to remove "mercenaries" as the preferred term.
 * Might I also suggest, that until there is a consensus for you to change it from mercenaries to auxiliaries, please kindly refrain from igniting yet another edit war by changing the preferred term without consensus? You have no consensus to change it wholesale to auxiliaries. Anaruna ( talk )
 * As i said before, there are other individuals besides me who have said that labeling them as German principalities (or states) would be an acceptable solution. You seem to be quick to jump the gun on things frequently around here, as i've stated multiple times before, the consensus on this page prior to this discussion was to have it as auxiliaries (Rjensen was part of that previous discussion). In reference to the use of the term "mercenaries" in the infobox, i am referring to states listed in a dropdown box labeled mercenaries when i say that i havent seen it on another wikipedia page before. I thought that was clear, its the entire reason for the discussion here. If it were common practice, i wouldnt be argueing against it. And i will be opening up a new RFC at some point later today.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As i said before, Hanover did not enter the war with profit as a motive, they were obligated to send troops under their pre-existing mutual defense treaty with Great Britain, similar to how other countries enter conflicts due to their defense treaties.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "there are other individuals beside me who have said that labeling them as German principalities (or states) would be an acceptable solution" - Really? Who? I've gone through this entire discussion thread, and the only person arguing in favour of naming them as principalities, or states, is yourself. The vast majority of this discussion is filled with people wanting to retain the nomenclature as mercenaries.
 * "The consensus on this page prior to this discussion was to have it as auxiliaries" - I've had a look. On Archive 11 there was a discussion, in which Rjensen disagreed with you, and no consensus was reached. There is one in Archive 9, with pretty much the exact same results, with Rjensen, again, disagreeing with you. He also makes a good point in the archives that the Hanoverians fought under the British flag, so they couldn't be listed as a separate combatant, but subordinate to the British Empire, as the Hanoverian government never declared war. From what I can see, those are the most recent discussions, and no consensus was reached to change the term to auxiliaries. So, unless you have a consensus here, which you don't, kindly refrain from igniting yet another edit war. Anaruna ( talk )
 * It seems the sources and everyone here all agree the term used should be mercenaries. The only exception is Hanover; I would be in favour of listing that as a subordinate faction to the British Empire. Hanoverian troops did fight, but its government never explicitly declared war, it only provided troops as per a treaty with the British Crown. Anaruna ( talk )
 * I'm not even sure Hanover should be treated differently than the others. XavierGreen has stated Hanover didn't join the war because King George was its ruler and that Hanover wasn't part of the British Empire, and the reasons he given for them providing troops are identical to the reasons he's given for the other states.  On what basis should Hanover be distinguished? Dbrote (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How are the reasons identical? As rjensen has stated above, most of the other states that sent troops did so out of a motivation of profit (Hesse-Kassel also wanted a mutual defense treaty in addition to profit, and Hesse-Hanau's ruler initially offered out of respect for his relative but then decided to make money off it as well) . Hanover did not participate in the conflict out of a quest for cash, its participation was due to its Treaty of Alliance with the United Kingdom, akin to how alliances have worked throughout the history of warfare. The basis for French intervention in the war was its signing of a treaty of alliance with the United States. Just because a nationed signed a treaty of alliance and participates in a war its ally gets involved in, does not make those troops mercenaries, even under the very loose definition RJensen and others seem to be proposing here.XavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we could treat Hanover as a separate combatant, as it was compelled to provide troops as per its treaty with Britain, rather than them being hired out as a neutral party. Perhaps similar to how Hanover is listed in the infobox on the Napoleonic Wars page? Other than that, the rest are most definitely mercenaries. Anaruna ( talk )
 * As i said before, on its entrance into the war, in addition to getting paid for the use of its troops Hesse-Kassel also signed a mutual defense treaty with Great Britain, something which the other principalities that made money in the deal did not get, which is also why i still think simply labeling them as German States in the infobox and providing an explanation of the situtation in the body of the article is best.XavierGreen (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making that more clear XavierGreen. I am in agreement with  Anaruna  that listing Hanover in the same manner as the Napoleonic Wars infobox would be appropriate. Dbrote (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Major change

 * Not sure what's going but tge recent changes have copy and pasted many site errors for other pages. Think it may be best to propose such mass changes here first. The copy and pasting of the refs leads me to belive the sources have not been vented by the contributor of the text.--Moxy (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They have not been copied and pasted in the slightest. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch, in my own words. At best, I paraphrased sections. The references were copied, of course; if anyone could help in fixing the eight referencing errors, that would be greatly appreciated. I was following the advice given on this article, which is precisely to be bold and make major changes. Anaruna ( talk )
 * The problem is that sources were copy and pasted from the original article thus causing errors. This fact will also lead most to belive the sources have not been vented.....as in you the paraphraser have not actually seen the source thus the text your writing is really sourced to Wikipedia. The big question....is the new text based on Wikipedia text or on the source text?-Moxy (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's largely based on the text that was either there before, or from the main articles that were linked to; i.e. Saratoga campaign. Would they need to be attributed if so? If so, where? Also, can someone help in fixing the references? I wasn't aware this would actually happen, and I'm not entirely sure how to fix said references. Anaruna ( talk )
 * This really needs to be reverted....even the references that can be seen prproperly don't link to anything because the actual books are not here to link to.  basically the changes are not advantageous to our readers. I reverted again ...simply to many problems with the sources.....best to work on a copy of the draft. --Moxy (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a mere eight sources that need to be fixed. What's wrong with leaving the revised version up and have someone fix them? Let's face it, the revised version is far better than the style of writing that was there before. Anaruna ( talk )
 * There is 8 visual errors. ....plus most other sources added that appear to link to a book don't. ...as the book is not listed here in the sources section. Plus not sure removing edit notices stating this is a summary and adding the opposite and thus regurgitating other pages is best. Again best work on a draft then propose the mass change. The reason there is edit notices is that this has been discussed before in the past....with that note added as a warning to people.--Moxy (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which sources "that appear to link to a book don't" exactly? Just so I can fix them. Anaruna ( talk )
 * Furthermore; the text sources I used would amount to too many to put in an edit summary. Is it permissible to embed them within the article itself? Anaruna ( talk )

German mercenaries as belligerents
Are we certain it is correct to list German commanders and powers as separate belligerents? This is in reference to the editorial dispute going on over on the Battle of Trenton page between myself and Xavier Green, however I believe it could be applied to the American Revolutionary War in a wider scope. It is quite right to say that the German troops were not members of the British army and Hessians had their own command at engagements such as Trenton. However, they were not serving under the command or authority of the governments of the states they were hired from. They were mercenaries hired by the British government, and, as such, fell under overall British command and authority, no? Would it be therefore incorrect to list them as separate belligerents, and not under the purview of the British? Would it also be incorrect to list their commanders' identification flags as the state they were hired from, not the British Union Flag? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Your assertion that the Germans were not serving under the authority of their home governments is mistaken. It was their home governments which ordered their militaries to North America after signing treaties with Great Britain. The treaty with Hesse-Kassel specifically stated that its forces were to remain under the command of officers of the Hessian military. In general across the military history articles of wikipedia, the flags (if any) next to a commander indicate which military or paramilitary force they belong to. For example, in WWII, the various allied states fighting in the pacific (New Zealand, Australia, ect) ceded operation command to the United States, yet we don't put the flag of the United States next to the name of the top ranking Australian at the Battle of Coral Sea or the highest ranking British officer at the Battle of Okinawa for instance.XavierGreen (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be in favor of listing them as separate belligerents and using their own flags. Excluding them as belligerents would leave readers with less information about a major component of the war and listing the commanders with the British flag would just cause confusion. Dbrote (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This has been coming up on this talkpage every now and again for the best part of a decade - I happened to glance at my watchlist and with a sinking feeling realised it was the same debate again. There are a few points to bring in here:
 * "Mercenaries" is an imperfect term; it implies individuals hiring themselves out for pay, while the 1770s situation was more akin to a commercial contract between two countries. I'd recommend avoiding it in favour of a very vague term like "auxiliaries", which doesn't have any specific meaning to confuse matters, as unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a nice snappy term for it in English - the German is soldatenhandel, "soldier trade". Sources such as make it clear it's a reasonably complex but well-documented concept even if we don't have a clean term for it.
 * However, while the states were certainly involved ... it is absolutely not the case the presence of troops under these arrangements from (eg) Hesse-Kassel meant that Hesse-Kassel was a belligerent in the war, or that anyone involved at the time thought so. I did a fairly extensive look at of this in 2012 (see Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_9 & Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_9) and could not find any reliable secondary sources discussing them as such. Nor does anyone else seem to have found one - there's a lot of arguments put forward occasionally that they "ought to be" belligerents in some way, or "obviously" were, but no historians cited for this. I would strongly advise against putting them in the infobox under a section marked "belligerents", because that's making a clear, factual, and entirely wrong claim. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the thinking behind them being listed as auxiliaries for the past several years on the talk page. If i remember correctly, i had previously argued that they should be labeled as full belligerants, but had conceded in the end that listing them as auxiliaries was more appropriate.XavierGreen (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * none of them declared war on France or Netherlands or Spain--a very dangerous proposition since no one could help them if invaded. No declaration of war = not at war = not a belligerent  they main deal was simply renting out soldiers who at all times were in units controlled by British generals. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the other points raised, I'd just note that circa 1776 a formal declaration of war was emphatically not required to declare war on another country (apologies if I'm reading in an implication you're not making). Dbrote (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Overhaul
Just so people are aware; I've taken it upon myself to, as Wiki encourages, be bold and completely overhaul the entire article. My primary aims are to improve language, sentence structure, details, references, removing unsourced content, and, in regards to improvements; formatting. Some sections appear to be all over the place while they could be easily consolidated and re-jigged. However, as I'm native to Britain, the language may slip between British English and American English, so any American editors, feel free to edit the nuances of the language. At the moment I've done essentially from the lead, right down to the section on the Philadelphia campaign, so around half the article. I aim to do the rest at some point; but for now, I'm taking a rest! This was really just to make people aware that I'm making this kind of like my personal project, so I'll be getting on with the rest of the article in due course; I won't be leaving it be! Anaruna ( talk )
 * I don't know what is going on with your signature but it is missing the time/date stamp every single time. Please fix this issue that so the archiving bot will be able to archive the threads & sections you've posted to. Shearonink (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC about infobox changes
I am proposing a revised version of the infobox. I will present the infobox below, and then explain the improvements and changes, and my reasoning for them. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC))

Reasoning for change by proposer
Most of the infobox has been kept as is, such as the strength and casualties. The most notable changes are in the results section, as well as the belligerents and commanders. I agree with user Charles Lindberg that only major commanders should be listed, fine examples of which can be found on the pages for the first and second world wars. I will describe my changes thus:

Results: The American Revolutionary War was divided into three theatres of operations; North America, Europe and India. North America is where the most decisive result of the war occurred, thus, it goes without saying that the North American theatre was a decisive victory for America and her allies. Two whole British armies were captured, which broke the political support at home for pursuing war in North America. The defeats at Saratoga and Yorktown effectively secured an American-Allied victory. Europe is where it may seem a little hazy. America had no real vested interest in a European theatre of war; this was France, Spain and the Netherlands' domain. Spain's primary war goal was the recovery of Gibraltar, whilst France and Spain together had hoped to mount an invasion of mainland Britain. Neither goal was secured; in fact, both were decisively defeated. Britain decisively repulsed the Franco-Spanish army at Gibraltar, heavily defeated the French fleet at the Battle of the Saintes, and defeated the Spanish navy at the Moonlight Battle. Nevertheless, the British were compelled to cede Minorca after a successful Franco-Spanish assault, which was regarded as a stinging blow for the British in the Mediterranean. That being said, the European front ended in an overall British victory, as the primary war aims of France and Spain had been defeated, and the Dutch had clearly lost on all counts during their intervention. In India, the war was not resolved until 1784, thus I do not believe the results of that war can be aptly included in this infobox.

Belligerents: Some notable changes include expanding the belligerents to be more all encompassing. For example, both metropolitan France and troops of the French West Indies fought against the British in the region, thus it is more historically accurate to encompass them all under the banner of the French colonial empire, referred to as the French Empire for brevity's sake. The same can be said for the Spanish Empire; both Spain and New Spain fought against the British; the Viceroys of Spain often fought without that much assistance from metropolitan Spain at all. The Dutch in India were primarily represented by the Dutch East India Company in that area. The same changes also apply to Britain. I have altered it to encompass the constituent nations under the First British Empire. I have removed Loyalists and Quebec, and left in its place "Loyalist America". I believe this accurately encompasses all of those who fought against the Patriots and their allies. British America includes all their territories in Canada; all of which actively fought against the Patriots, as well as the British West Indies, provincial and militia troops from which also fought in the war. It also includes Loyalist Americans and black slaves who fought under the British flag. The East India Company, which ruled British interests in India at this time, has been shortened to "British India" for brevity's sake, which fought against France, Mysore and the Dutch in the region.

Commanders: I agree with user Charles Lindberg that only major commanders should be listed. In this regard, I have included only those major civilian and senior military leaders which had a significant, long-term lasting impact on the overall war strategy for their respective nations, as well as the leaders of said nations. As the American civilian leadership was too expansive to list them all, I lumped them all together as the Continental Congress.

Further notes: Any further notes, such as those included beside certain nations, such as the French Empire, has been compressed into references, in order to clean up the infobox overall, and stop too much information from cluttering it. Also, I have included constituents of empires in small text, just to neaten up the infobox. Thoughts on this proposal? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC))


 * Several concerns: 1) "Decisive Allied victory", this does not actually tell the reader who was victorious as both sides had allies. 2) "shattered" isn't a technical term, that's editorializing the conflict. 3) "till" is extremely informal, I assume you mean "until" 4) French Empire almost always refers to the period of Napoleon from 1804 to 1815. 5) Why is France in small font? 6) Why is Spain in small font? 7) Continental Congress is not a person, it is a legislative body. 8) Why is Nathaniel Greene listed there when he commanded an army half the size of Horatio Gates? 9) Why are all of the German states in small font? 10) What is Loyalist America, is that a formal organization, Loyalists makes more sense. Charles lindberg (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll address each concern in turn.
 * 1) I agree, it is quite ambiguously worded. How about; "Decisive American-Allied victory", or words to that effect?
 * 2) Good point; it was something that was there before. I'd prefer "Iroquois civil war" or something to that extent.
 * 3) I'm fine with using until.
 * 4) Perhaps we could adopt something akin to what is used on the Napoleonic Wars page? Although the Holy Roman Empire was technically the legal body which fought against Napoleon, they use the term Austrian Empire, with the following in a reference mark: "The term "Austrian Empire" came into use after Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French in 1804, whereby Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor took the title Emperor of Austria (Kaiser von Österreich) in response. The Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806, and consequently "Emperor of Austria" became Francis' primary title. For this reason, "Austrian Empire" is often used instead of "Holy Roman Empire" for brevity's sake when speaking of the Napoleonic Wars, even though the two entities are not synonymous.". Perhaps we could adopt something similar to describe this to the reader? After all "French Empire" is historically correct; the French did have a colonial empire which fought in the war.
 * 5 and 6) I quote; "I have included constituents of empires in small text, just to neaten up the infobox".
 * 7) True. Then again, "War Cabinet" and "Military Junta" are both listed on the Falklands War infobox, and they're not people either. Is there a precedent that those listed as "commanders" must not be a legislative body of any kind?
 * 8) I listed him as he was Washington's adjutant for the entire war, and was regarded as one of the most gifted strategists. I'd be fine with either including Gates too, or removing Greene and just having Washington there.
 * 9) For neatness sake, really. That and they did not fight in the war as political entities, only as mercenaries under the authority of the British Empire.
 * 10) Would Loyalists on its own cause confusion, as that would only refer to the Loyalist Tory Americans who fought against the Patriots? Then we would have to separately list Quebec, Newfoundland, the British West Indies and so forth. Including them all under "Loyalist America" encompasses all of those who fought for the Crown from North America. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I have updated the infobox proposed with some of the changes discussed here. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC))

Threaded discussion

 * This seems to need to be said every once in a while: the Iroquois flag is anachronistic, a product of the 1980s.Source, JStor access needed. It should not generally be used in ARW articles, since it did not exist then.  Magic ♪piano 15:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I generally like your changes but had a couple concerns. I think adding the constituents of the larger belligerents unnecessarily lengthens an already long infobox.  The American-Allied leaders list is also pretty long at this point.  Are there any that can be culled without making the list disproportionate with regards to the relative importance of the various theaters?  Finally, and this cuts in the opposite direction of my previous concerns, but I liked having the dates of entry/exit for the belligerents, which seem to have been removed.  Dbrote (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer Magic, I hadn't actually known that! I always assumed the Iroquois flag was a historical banner. I'll remove it.
 * Dbrote; I'll address your points in turn.
 * The dates of entry/exit for belligerents are still there, they're just in reference form. I feel it neatens up the infobox without cluttering it; I thought it was a good enough compromise to still include that information while tidying up the format of the box itself. I introduced similar changes to the Napoleonic Wars article infobox.
 * I agree that the list of leaders is pretty long; do you feel we can cut it down to solely the rulers / civilian leaders of those nations? The commanders of various theatres can be included in more detail in their dedicated articles, i.e. Philadelphia campaign and such. That is, after all, what they are there for. That does bring up the issue of the United States though; do we include the Continental Congress as an embodiment of their civilian leaders and George Washington, or just Washington? While Washington did the fighting, Congress did all the negotiating, after all. Personally, I would argue to keep them both.
 * In terms of the constituents, I agree it does look a little messy; we could just shorten it to their overarching empires? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I've updated the infobox with your suggestions, Dbrote, and I have removed the Iroquois flag. Personally, I think it looks much better than before. Thoughts? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC))
 * With those changes, I think your revisions look great. One additional thought: With regard to the leaders section, there's now some blank space on the British side.  I'd suggest filling it in with Howe, Clinton, and (if he can be fit in without making the British column longer than the allied column) Gage.  It wouldn't add any length but would provide some info about whose running the military side of things in the NA theater.   Dbrote (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree! Maybe we could summarise them and add Jeffrey Amherst? He was the commander-in-chief of the British forces worldwide, so it could save the infobox getting cluttered. It would also raise questions as to why we don't add Gates, Greene, Rochambeau and the others to the American-Allied column. Personally, I feel that theatre commanders like Howe, Clinton, Cornwallis, Gates, Greene and so forth belong on their respective campaign pages. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I added Amherst. Thoughts? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I'm afraid I'd be out of my depth to discuss whether Amherst should be listed, as I'm not familiar with him (or the non-North American theaters of the war) at all. Dbrote (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Three additional thoughts: Should the Iroquois Confederacy be removed from the infobox? The main article states they didn't ally with either side and that their constituents were split. Also, does listing the phrase "Subsequent economic, political, and social upheaval in France leads to the French Revolution" in the "Results" section imply that the American Revolutionary War was the sole cause of the French Revolution?  It was certainly a cause and economic, political, and social upheaval in France led to the Revolution, but it seems like the implication is a little strong when written in that manner.  On the German Mercenaries/Auxiliaries issue, I obviously think it should be decided by the discussion occurring concurrently on the Talk page.Dbrote (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree re French Revolution and I dropped it. I also agree that Iroquois Confederacy be removed--it did not take sides. Rjensen (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree; I've removed the Iroquois as a separate combatant. As the consensus below seems to be that "mercenaries" is the appropriate term, I've reverted it to that. In regards to the French Revolution, I've re-worded it so it comes off as less strong; what do you all think to the revised version? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I'd remove the word "subsequent" from the French portion. I'd also reword slightly; the debt didn't "contribute" to the Revolution (to be clear, I do think what you're trying to get across is much better than the prior version).  Any ideas for alternatives (I'm afraid I can't think of any)? You'll need to change the use of the word auxiliaries in the troops section as well to maintain uniformity. Dbrote (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a tough one. I've had a go at re-wording it, what do we think to it now? I've changed auxiliaries too, as well as tightened up the text in the strength & casualties section, largely for neatness sake. It worked wonders for the Napoleonic Wars infobox, so I thought I'd replicate it here. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
 * How about "French war debts contribute to a fiscal crisis, ultimately leading to the French Revolution." I'm not sure I'm in love with the wording of the last clause, but maybe the structure is more conducive to an acceptable final result?  I like the embedded link you added there.  Regarding the font changes to the strength/losses, I think that makes it harder to read and the increased spacing between lines makes it seem like not much space is saved.  Is there a happy medium that could be reached on that front?  Dbrote (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That could work, but would it not imply the fiscal crisis was the sole cause of the French Revolution? Regarding the font changes; I did try compiling them into collapsible lists, sort of like how the German mercenaries are listed in the combatants box, but it doesn't seem to like it. When I get to British-German casualties, it fucks up the entire format. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I think you're right. How about "French war debts contribute to a fiscal crisis that ultimately begat the French Revolution."  Also, I'd recommend changing the French Empire link to Kingdom of France (I'm ambivalent about calling it the French Empire or Kingdom of France in the text) because the current link excludes France proper. I think that makes clearer that its the fiscal crisis in particular, and not the war debt itself, that caused the revolution?  For the same reason I'd recommend changing the portion of the footnote stating "refer to the colonial empire that the Kingdom of France ruled" to something along the lines of "refer to both France proper and the colonial empire that the Kingdom of France ruled."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrote (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be perfect! I'll change the footnote so it is clear it is the colonial empire that the Kingdom of France ruled. Once those changes are made, I think if we're all in agreement, we can go ahead and transfer this box over? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I'd just suggest again that the link for French Empire should be to Kingdom of France, not French Colonial Empire since IIRC French support came directly from France. Other than that, I think its good to go, pending a resolution of the subsidiary German mercenaries question that is still being debated.  Regardless, maybe leave it open a bit longer to see if anyone else chimes in with suggestions we hadn't thought of? Dbrote (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point actually, I'll alter it but still keep the French Empire tag. I think the issue of the German mercenaries can always be changed upon consensus on that discussion too? Anaruna ( talk )
 * Eastfarthingan made an addition to the main page infobox's results section that I like and would suggest adding to your revision (right above Iroquois civil war probably): "British retention of Canada" As far as copying it over, I'm not familiar enough with RFC procedure to know what the timing requirements are for that (or how they would interplay with the mercenaries sub-discussion) Dbrote (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do like that too. I don't think we can add much more to it, so I'll go ahead and copy it over. Whatever the result of the mercenaries discussion is, we can always edit that in later. Anaruna ( talk )
 * Dbrote, Rjensen - I was just thinking, is it really appropriate to include Amherst in the British commanders? Could the argument then not be made; why not include Lord Sandwich, the commander of the Royal Navy? And therefore, why not include them for the opposing nations too? I think it should just be the King, Germain and North. Anaruna ( talk )

Removed 'Continental Congress' groups don't belong in the commanders section, they only belong in the combatants section. Charles lindberg (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole infobox was agreed by consensus here. Nobody objected to Continental Congress being included at the end of the discussion. If you wish to change it, please start a new discussion. Anaruna ( talk )
 * per Template:Infobox military conflict, see for yourself what this section is designed for. Charles lindberg (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2017
Why does the second paragraph in the header describing the background to the war say "after 1785"? This seems like an obvious typo and is very confusing for those trying to gain a rough sense of the war's timeline. I'm guessing they meant to say 1765, since in 1785 the war was already over. 2601:19B:B00:9DBD:15DD:FBC5:C3C:88BC (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Main Leaders

 * User Charles Lindberg is, yet again, engaging in pointless edit warring, this time over the inclusion of "Main Leaders" in the commanders section of the infobox. I would like to point out a few things:
 * - This very same user objected to there being too many commanders in the list, which is why it was reduced to main leaders in the first place.
 * - "Main Leaders" are not just headings - they are links. Links to the rest of the field commanders of the war, which, due to the objection in point one, could not be included in the infobox. There is no other link in the main body of the article to the commanders of the American Revolutionary War - what better place to include it than the commanders section of the infobox? Similarly used over on the page for World War II.
 * - Inclusion of these headings were decided by consensus here on the talk page. No-one objected to their inclusion. I might add, this was a discussion Charles Lindberg barely participated in.
 * - This user seems to be under the impression that edits from others require consensus, but him reverting edits agreed by consensus by others does not require a consensus.
 * Some may feel this is bad faith; but I am simply stating the facts. How is it "redundant" to include a heading-link that leads one to a more detailed list of commanders of the war? There is no other edit explanation provided besides "redundant", when one is actually offered at all. Why is it redundant? (Anaruna (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC))

WP:PAGESIZE issues
The Pagesize tool says that this article is now clocking in at 108kb readable prose size, above the "100kb almost certainly should be divided" or WP:TOOBIG (two days ago this article was at 89kb). Because of the article's present size we are now running into accessibility issues especially considering WIkipedia's worldwide audience and the amount of people who access this encyclopedia on mobile platforms and with older browsers. Shearonink (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you! I agree; I've been trimming the sections to summarise them far better than they were before, and re-writing whole sections to improve their quality of English, information they include, and formatting. I would suggest we split the "Analysis of Combatants" section into an article unto itself. It's a massive chunk of this article as it is, and it's a topic that could be explored in so much depth that it could rightly deserve its own page. It needs a lot of work, but I'll gladly take on that task in due course. (Anaruna (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC))
 * - What are your thoughts on this? The article is pretty large for its focus as it is, there's quite a bit of detail to cover. I think we could split "Analysis of Combatants" into its own article. As I say above, it would need a lot of work to get it up to scratch on quality of English and references, but it's an effort I'll gladly undertake! (Anaruna (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC))
 * I think the topic is so important as to justify length--but I will try to trim it down. I count 93,000 bytes, or under 15,000 words. the advice at wp:toobig is badly flawed: it assumes people will 1) only read the entire article straight through and 2) that 30 minutes is the maximum attention span. that's probably advice for articles on video games. Both are false for a serious article pitched at a university-undergraduate audience. I think readers will focus on the specific topics they are interested in and will spend the time they need for that in several blocks. 3) the advice about dial-up connections slowing readers down is a 10 years out of date--and false--not many people will want to read this advanced material at faster speed than a dial-up connection.  Rjensen (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think length is a consideration to at least keep in mind in terms of providing accessibility for our worldwide readership. I know people in the United States who still only have dial-up so yes, article-length would still be a consideration for them.  Not everyone can afford an updated machine or browser. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Shearonink; it is a consideration we need to be mindful of. Especially when we consider those who are accessing via mobile or outdated modems etc. The Analysis of Combatants could definitely merit its own article, it's a rather hefty topic to get into. I could write out a draft page (but leave it un-linked on other pages so nobody accesses it yet) and post it here, see what people think? (Anaruna (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC))
 * the old-modem argument does not work. Anyone with a 1200 baud modem can download the whole article in the 30 minutes that we are allocating to them and will not be inconvenienced. Rjensen (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Strengths / Casualties
I've been thinking; the strength and casualties box is looking a little cluttered now that total figures have been added. Is there any way we can remedy this? Perhaps have the figures in collapsible lists? Or should we scrap the two boxes altogether, as is the case on pages such as World War II, and simply have the figures for casualties and strengths in the main body of the article itself? Casualties already has its own section after all, and strengths can easily go into the overhaul of analysis of combatants. What do we think? (Anaruna (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC))

French Empire
If you need to say "France and its colonies", just write "France and its colonies". It makes no sense to write about a French Empire, because French Empire is a specialized concept referring to how France was ruled, instead of whether or not France ruled over other countries. It just doesn't work like British Empire. The infobox right now does a worse job than if there were just written "France" instead, because it's misleading.

Vorodan 82.56.30.118 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Revolutionary War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003243/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title%3DS9770 to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title%3DS9770
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/dunsmore.cfm
 * Added tag to http://www.colonialwargaming.co.uk/Miscellany/Army/Commissions.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091031064002/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheet_ship_biscuit.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheet_ship_biscuit.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.19thusregulars.com/html/hardtack.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Peace of Paris
I want to make a grammar correction to what now says:

"Prime Minister the Earl of Shelburne was reluctant to accept American independence as a prerequisite for peace, as the British were well aware that the French economy was near-bankrupt, and reinforcements sent to the West Indies may well reverse the situation there."

"may well reverse the situation there" is present tense, which is obviously not intended. It should say:

"Prime Minister the Earl of Shelburne was reluctant to accept American independence as a prerequisite for peace, as the British were well aware that the French economy was near-bankrupt, and reinforcements sent to the West Indies might well reverse the situation there."

That's it. I've never trie to edit a frozen article before and I dont have time to learn all the ins and outs of this, so please forgive me if I'm doing this incorrectly.

97.115.108.11 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC) PoloniusMonk July 4, 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017
Please change the "Franco-Spanish victory" to "British victory" in the "Europe" heading in the "Result" section of the right hand pane. In the article under the "Final years of the war (1781–1783)" tab, it describes the Franco-Spanish army as "decisively defeated" after the Siege of Gibraltar as well as other British successes in multiple other Battles in Europe.

Under the "Peace of Paris" tab, Britain had all of its terms met, where as the other Countries had little no to gains from these Treaties, leaving Britain in a dominant position. (Apart from the United States, though this edit is being suggested toward the Europe heading.) Please see the article on the Peace of Paris treaties for more information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Paris_(1783)).

It also seems as if this change was only made Recently (03/07/2017 15:20 by the editor "Pietje96") from "British Victory" to "Franco-Spanish Victory" with little to no reason as to why apart from one person's perspective. (Citing "Bias" instead of providing any reasonable facts on to why he made this change.)

Thank you very much for taking time out to read this. Look forward to hearing back. Cheers. 46.208.67.95 (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will need to ask for to step forward on this subject before a decision can be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done A comment was added as well stating that the change cannot be made without first seeking consensus. Requesting RPP. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. According to these lads, it may have been a British Victory in Center America too just because Britain retained Jamaica, despite having lost most of their Caribbean islands. What about Latin America, where the Brits were thrown away by the French too. Guyana I think, is that right? Let's include the South American theatre eh? no way! Seriously, would it be annoying for you, if I gather twenty multilingual references in English, French and Spanish, describing the Brits never had a successful presence in Europe during the war? It takes me 20 minutes at all. Applying to common sense, it was a British defeat in Europe. Why? *France and Spain did not lose (in Europe) a single inch of their territory to Great Britain. FACT. Any British attempt invasion/conquest was made upon the French or Spanish land, in Europe? NO. FACT. Great Britain lost (in Europe) the island of Minorca (bigger than Jersey and Gibraltar put together) to a Franco-spanish army? YES, FACT. Even by sea the French and Spanish intercepted dozens of convoys that helped the rebels to achieve independence (don't forget Action of 9 August 1780, where Britain even begged Spain for peace). FACT. Do you call that a British Victory? Did Britain suppose any threat to Spain or France at all? NO. FACT. It was to busy losing to the americans. If Britain would had dominated Europe by sea as it did during the Napoleonic Wars, it would had blockaded the entire Spanish and French coasts, thus crippling any attempt to supply weaponry, military help or money to the rebels. The Brits were nowhere in Europe during the war, this is why the Spanish Navy kept blockading Gibraltars Rock for almost three years. Yes, almost three years they were, bored, in the strait of Gibraltar. This applies to common sense? yes it does, and I consider it to be really laughable. A British Victory in Europe you say!  This is what I propose in order to avoid a huge waste of time and reach consensus [hopefully]: In the Infobox should be read one single result, and this is Allied Victory. Nothing else. Results of the war that occurred in other continents (this applies to Europe, India and so on...) should be deleted and thus moved elsewhere (aftermath section I suppose). Thanks for your attention. Pietje96 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be making deductions and reaching conclusions ourselves. You should go ahead and take the twenty minutes you think it will take to find a good source or two saying the British lost in Europe. If you do that a change might be appropriate. Dbrote (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on Infobox

 * I think that's a bad idea unless Pietje96 turns out to be right that there wasn't a British victory in Europe. If the British are generally considered to have won in Europe, then such a change would make the infobox much less informative.  Dbrote (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm right to say there was not a British victory in Europe, this is why I'm asking to change the infobox results. Have you even bothered to read what I wrote? Who say the British are generally considered to have won in Europe? this is a fallacy. In case you're asserting the opposite, no offense but your notions in history (interpretations I'd say) are totally fruitless. There's no source claiming it was a British Victory in Europe but a personal deduction made by some man (moved by particular interests?) dressed as an historian. Those sources indicating British Victory in Europe are biased, and probably written by a British man itself. Is that correct? Cheers Pietje96 (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, can you link the particular sources in question? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure. And by the way, those sources were indicated in the following old version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Revolutionary_War&oldid=787114748#cite_note-16  First note cited as a source: Spain failed in its primary war aim of recovering Gibraltar, while the French naval defeat at the Saintes and the Spanish defeat at Cape St Vincent precluded any major invasions of the British West Indies, as well as any invasion of mainland Britain due to revived British naval dominance This is not a source but a citation made by an amateur. It is, of course, FALSE. First: Spain's primary war aim was to recover places in order to extend its dominions. It may be true that one of those "primary war aims" could had been the conquest of Gibraltar for Spain, but Id would had had the same importance as the island of Minorca. Fact. Spanish defeat at Cape St. Vincent has little to do with any invasion of the British West Indies. That battle occurred in 1780 and by 1782 the Spanish Navy had seized the Bahamas, Roattan Island and Florida in the West Indies, not to mention that by 1783 Spain and France were about to invade Jamaica when Britain sued for peace. FACT. You just have to open a history book to read this. About the sources mentioned we have: Syrett 2006, p. 105. First. There's not even the title of the book used to cite this notation. Second. I suppose it may be the book The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War, written by Mr. David Syrett (1998). Even the own author of this book concludes, p. IX:  "The inability of the Royal Navy in the American Revolution to decisively defeat American, French, Spanish, and Dutch naval power in European waters"; also The Royal Navy in the American war, unlike other eighteenth- century naval wars, such as the Seven Years' War, the French Revolutionary, and the Napoleonic Wars, was unable to decisively defeat Britain's enemies' navies in European waters. Of course page 105 does not mention a "British Victory" on European soil. Now we have these two other sources: Chartrand & Courcelle 2006, p. 86. & Black, Jeremy (1999). Warfare in the Eighteenth Century. London: Cassell. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-304-35245-6. Both refer to the siege of Gibraltar, a place the British Crown retained. Nothing else. No aftermath of the war in European continent is given, nor do these historians assert the British won the war on European soil, waters or whatsoever. Oh and by the way, Dbrote's contributions to Wikipedia are fruitless as he has only registered to discuss in here. He could be a vandal with a fake account too. I may ask some admin to check on him. Pietje96 (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American Revolutionary War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927073929/http://orbat.com/site/uk_orbats/files/6/The%20British%20Army%201775.pdf to http://orbat.com/site/uk_orbats/files/6/The%20British%20Army%201775.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/uhs/WebSite/Courses/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Garraty%20Short%20History%20Chapters%201-18/chapter_threei.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.hudsonrivervalley.org/ROCHAMBEAUINCONNECTICUT/Historical.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230232052/http://mahe.gov.in/mws/leftmenupages/history.html to http://mahe.gov.in/mws/leftmenupages/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130408094150/http://www2.si.umich.edu/spies/letter-1780july15-code.html to http://www.si.umich.edu/spies/letter-1780july15-code.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829101137/http://cupid.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/het/fiske/critical.rtf to http://cupid.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/het/fiske/critical.rtf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120709095712/http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/Constitution/RoadtotheConstitution/ExhibitObjects/NotWorthAContinental.aspx to http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/creatingtheus/Constitution/RoadtotheConstitution/ExhibitObjects/NotWorthAContinental.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205224555/http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/bib.html to http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/bib.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comedy article
I just read this article for the first time in several months. Still laughing

I particularly like the bit about the 'murder of a teen'--Godwhale (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

War of the Regulation
No direct mention of this event here? --BeckenhamBear (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Revolutionary War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170605125852/http://www.w3r-us.org/history/rosters/frgraves.htm to http://www.w3r-us.org/history/rosters/frgraves.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong dates
Delith (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Can't believe this was not fixed but British reinforcements arrived May 25th, not March 25th. I'm unable to edit that. Hoping someone else can.

Course of the war War breaks out (1775–1776)

Major Campaigns of the American Revolutionary War ... On March 25, 4,500 British reinforcements arrived with generals William Howe, John Burgoyne, and Henry Clinton.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2018
I want to fix the grammar in one of the lines 207.75.218.20 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Role of Mysore
There is one source cited which doesn’t really support the proposition that Mysore’s attack on British Forces in India bore any relation to the American Revolution. The source reads like speculative fiction. Barring any conclusive source that demonstrates that Mysore was allied with the Americans or any historical record that the King of Mysore coordinated in any way with the Americans, the references to Mysore should be removed. Botendaddy 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)