Britain enlisted six million men to war in World War 1. Of those, three quarters of a million were killed, leaving five and a quarter million surviving.
They didn't have to go any where unlike the British who had to ship their soldiers across the Atlantic. They also new the land better than the British.
Probably absolutely. I'm not sure of the exact number, I'm looking for it myself
Before the formal start of the American Revolutionary War, events such as the Boston Massacre contributed to the escalation of hostile sentiments especially among the colonists. The opinion of British soldiers involved in the Massacre (or any of the other pre-war confrontations) would most likely have been approving, as British opinion of the colonists was generally negative, even contemptuous. It is possible that some few British soldiers were apathetic or even sympathetic toward the welfare of the colonists affected by the Massacre.
During World War I, yet true for any military conflict involved trenches, soldiers survived the trench-warfare conditions through a variety of means. Above all, they kept their heads down; that is, they made use of their below-ground position to avoid enemy bullets.
Because First The British Soldiers Caused 5 Deaths And 6 Injuries By The King's Incident.Also He Send The Soldiers To Protect The Colonists When The Colonists Didn't Need Any Protection, They Where Just Fine.
yes
The English language has not really had any trouble managing to survive. Because of the British Empire, the English language was spread across the world.
Because they were patriotic and didn't know any better.
Yes, and as an example, some are at NORAD (North American Air Defense Command)
They didn't have to go any where unlike the British who had to ship their soldiers across the Atlantic. They also new the land better than the British.
Everyone deserves a defense in a court of law. What if they were not guilty? I don't believe they were. After all, the American Patriots were screaming at the squad of British Soldiers who were guarding the tea warehouse, and started throwing stones and other things at them. The British were very, very scared. There were more Patriots than British soldiers. The soldiers that had been in the military for a while understood clearly that their instructions were to NOT shoot any Patriots. Well, one of the British soldiers turned out to be a teenager who had never seen combat and, in fact, had been in the British army for only a short time. He panicked and fired at the Patriots, hitting one of them and killing him. That sounds a lot like self-defense, I think.
Probably absolutely. I'm not sure of the exact number, I'm looking for it myself
Before the formal start of the American Revolutionary War, events such as the Boston Massacre contributed to the escalation of hostile sentiments especially among the colonists. The opinion of British soldiers involved in the Massacre (or any of the other pre-war confrontations) would most likely have been approving, as British opinion of the colonists was generally negative, even contemptuous. It is possible that some few British soldiers were apathetic or even sympathetic toward the welfare of the colonists affected by the Massacre.
Before the formal start of the American Revolutionary War, events such as the Boston Massacre contributed to the escalation of hostile sentiments especially among the colonists. The opinion of British soldiers involved in the Massacre (or any of the other pre-war confrontations) would most likely have been approving, as British opinion of the colonists was generally negative, even contemptuous. It is possible that some few British soldiers were apathetic or even sympathetic toward the welfare of the colonists affected by the Massacre.
Before the formal start of the American Revolutionary War, events such as the Boston Massacre contributed to the escalation of hostile sentiments especially among the colonists. The opinion of British soldiers involved in the Massacre (or any of the other pre-war confrontations) would most likely have been approving, as British opinion of the colonists was generally negative, even contemptuous. It is possible that some few British soldiers were apathetic or even sympathetic toward the welfare of the colonists affected by the Massacre.
Oddly enough, yes. On August 25, 1814 a tornado stuck Washington D.C. This was during the War of 1812 and at the time the British were occupying the city. The tornado killed a number of British soldiers.
Dunkirk was a rout of British soldiers by Germans. The British Expeditionary Force was retreating back to the coast. The defining of it as a 'failure' might be partially mitigated by the heroic efforts of many (including French yacht owners) to save hundreds of thousands of soldiers - including about 100,000 French! But it was clearly not a "victory" for the allies in any meaningful sense.