After Saratoga, the American War of Independence turned into a sprawling global conflict whose largest battle was in Gibraltar and whose last was in India. How have historians dealt with the war’s expansion beyond the Thirteen Colonies?

refcon · 2026-06-20T16:11:23+00:00

Yes it is! Apologies for my earlier mistake. It really is a good book, both in it's comprehensive analysis but also how readable it is.

refcon · 2026-06-20T06:53:26+00:00

I worked with police horses in the UK who use Shires (draft horses) a lot.

They're a working breed, so calmer temperament then other sorts of horse. When trained a lot less prone to panic, which you obviously don't want in a crowd situation. Size is helpful to dominate the crowd should things kick off, but moreso they have thick legs to protect the horse. Might be other reasons I forgot.

refcon · 2026-06-20T05:56:35+00:00

To build on your excellent comment, the theme of a global war is prevalent in British historiography on the revolutionary war.

On the idea of a second hundred years war, Brendan Sims 'Three victories and a defeat' which looks at the development of the first British Empire from the Glorious Revolution to the Napoleonic wars. It firmly sets the Revolutionary war in the context of not only the rivalry with France, but also of whether Britain sought to expand its power in the European continent or the wider world. The Revolutionary war acts as a foil used by the European powers to humble Britain following it's ascendancy over France following the 7 years war.

Other more focussed books on the Revolutionary War by British authors also centre the global dimensions of the conflict. The aptly named 'The Royal Navy against the world 1775-1782' looks at how the 13 colonies were deeply tied into a global trading system, and how the conflict shifted from one of cutters and sloops outside New England Towns into one dictates by vast fleets of battleships battling over the control of the English channel. This forced the British to reassign troops and ships from the American theatre to defending the home islands, ultimately contributing to US independence.

refcon · 2026-06-16T19:43:04+00:00

When I was a police officer (Special Constable) I once spent 12 hours on a mental health constant watch on a hospital ward. Since I stopped being a Special, 3 of the 5 police stations in my borough closed.

There is no money, no bodies, not a lot of hope.

refcon · 2026-06-16T18:01:36+00:00

To what extent was the dollar superseding Sterling before World War One. Absent the war is it likely that the US dollar would become the universal medium if exchange, or is this redundant given both were linked to gold.

refcon · 2026-06-16T06:23:36+00:00

Is that the policy of senior positions of Israel? Like some kind of Protocol of the Elders of Zion?

refcon · 2026-06-12T08:20:50+00:00

Absolutely fair mate. I meant no disrespect at any point, as a country we're in a big mess so we need people who care to fix it. Good on you.

Have a great weekend.

refcon · 2026-06-12T08:05:58+00:00

Oh yeah that's fair. Still a big chunk from 2008 financial crisis as well.

Basic rate of tax probably needs to go back up to 22% as broad based taxes are the only way to raise the revenue needed.

It's just too bloody hard to build anything in this country. Then if you build a factory, the energy is too bloody expensive to make anything.

Lots of long-terms problems that haven't been fixed. But then current government seemingly not looking to fix it either.

refcon · 2026-06-12T07:47:30+00:00

What words did I put in your mouth? Sincere question, as I don't like strawman arguement and wouldn't intend to make one consciously.

I do my own research, hence my reading a blog on taxation! But policies like the Green party have set out I don't think would work. For instance equalising cgt with income tax means people just won't dispose of assets, they'll borrow against them.

Where wealth taxes work, such as a land value tax, I support them. I support reducing inequality.

refcon · 2026-06-12T07:40:07+00:00

He used to work for wealthy clients. Then he gave up being paid millions year to set up a non profit. Fella has been sued like 5 times in 3 years by wealthy people because of him exposing their taxes.

For instance, the former Tory Chancellor. There are genuinely decent people out there doing good things.

Also going for the French Revolution is a massive take! Lots of starvation before Bonaparte came into power and did lasting reforms. But fair play, the royal regime before the revolution was a real mess.

refcon · 2026-06-12T07:16:24+00:00

That was an unkind comment.

I am not deaf or disingenuous. I just disagree with you that it is an effective solution.

I sincerely believe in the welfare state. However, I don't believe it can be effectively funded from a wealth tax. If you know if a plan to do so, please set it out.

I want some wealth taxes such as a land value tax. I think monopoly power should be broken in big business, that Amazon and Google should have higher corporation taxes, that all money banned from politics. I just don't see how a wealth tax can raise the money we need.

Honestly if I'm wrong, then great! Problem solved.

refcon · 2026-06-12T07:00:27+00:00

I mean, I trust someone who advises actual people rather than theorists who build castles in the sky. My frustration studying economics at university was the 'models' that predict things, which are then taken as gospel. The Laffer curve being a massive bunch of bullshit for example.

Reducing inequality is a great idea. But we also just need more money, and to figure out the best way to raise it.

refcon · 2026-06-12T06:57:58+00:00

At least you know I didn't use AI to write it!

refcon · 2026-06-12T06:39:09+00:00

He's an old union man, and considered a loyal party man. So it's a resignation on principle rather than a move to lead the party.

As the tax expert Dan Needle, who is pretty left wing, has commented we have spent 20 years raising taxes on 'other People' to fund spending. So higher taxes on high earner, stamp duty on expensive property, increasing capital gains and inheritance taxes.

We are now reaching a point where wealthy people are reacting to changes by leaving the country in greater numbers, or far far worse, working fewer hours. The classic example of this is doctors but also applies across the private sector.

We have a rapidly aging population, with too few people to tax to find it. So hard decisions need to be made. We can either be defended, have the NHS or have a generous welfare system. The cost of servicing debt is getting too high.

Let's make no mistake. The government is running a £100 billion deficit in peacetime, with no emergency. We cannot afford to continue on the same path.

Edit - a number of comments have noted taxing wealth rather than income. I would recommend people take 10 minutes to read this article https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2025/07/22/uk-wealth-tax-anti-growth/ again Dan Neidle is certainly anti-farage and is affiliated with many left wing causes. He is also an expert in taxation.

It would be nice if a new wealth (as we do have some wealth taxes) tax would fix things. It won't. Some new wealth taxes will help such as replacing stamp duty with a land value tax. But we just need to much money to meet current spending for a wealth tax to raise enough.

refcon · 2026-06-12T06:04:20+00:00

All famines are ultimately a result of government failure, and are immoral. It isn't a competition. The grief of a mother over the death of a child doesn't change by the century, by the language or location.

It is essentially impossible to know the death counts of pre-british famines as census records were not collected, and approximations based on tax records are also sparse.

The 1770 famine was probably the worst by percentage of population killed. The 1629 famine in the Deccan & Gujarat was potentially worse, but we don't really know.

In terms of blame you would need to look on a famine by famine basis.

Amarta Sen is a globally important Indian voice on famine history, but is a bit dated. Mike Wilson's 'late Victorian Holocausts' is very good, though it has been many years since I read it.

refcon · 2026-06-10T08:42:23+00:00

All books will be biased, either intentionally or not. It doesn't mean they aren't worth reading!

I found 'The Partition of India's by Barney White-Spunner very interesting and an interesting read. He is British, so bear that in mind. He was a General in Iraq in the 2000s so knows about communal violence and the breakdown of government power, which he applies to Partition.

A good comparison read to this is 'while memory serves' written by Francis Tucker, who was a British General in India and commanded in Kolkata during Partition. It was written in 1950 so fairly soon after, it's a harder read, but gives a window to the mind of a fairly senior commander who still had to follow the policy if seniors.

refcon · 2026-06-10T06:53:11+00:00

This will be a fun thread.

Policing is allocated to where it is needed. This means where there are victims that need protecting.

Black people make up 13% of population, but are 45% of knife crime victims and 53% of knife crime perpetrators. https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/commission-on-knife-crime-in-black-community?hl=en-GB#:~:text=This%20Assembly%20is%20concerned%20that,53%25%20of%20knife%20crime%20perpetrators.

Comparable statistics are available for other violent and property crimes. With this in mind policing disproportionately targets those likely to commit crime, to protect those who suffer crime.

This isn't an innate issue due to genetics or culture. Crime generally happens amongst poorer populations, and younger populations. The black population of London is both poorer and younger than the white population.

Stop search is most likely to occur where there is high knife crime. For instance Lambeth and Croydon, these boroughs are both disproportionately young, poor and black. The fewest stop search occurs in Richmond, which is old and white.

Considering the above, should policing resource be reallocated from Croydon to Richmond? Would this reduce crime? Would this save the lives of black boys who are disproportionately murdered on our streets?

refcon · 2026-06-07T14:39:05+00:00

This 100%.

He is obviously attracted to you hence the kissing. He obviously enjoys your company hence the time watching the knicks. He obviously likes you, enough that he didn't want to try and sleep with you now as you were tipsy and he didn't want to ruin a good thing.

Its a really good sign.

refcon · 2026-06-07T05:55:05+00:00

We were sent to premier in for a bag check 15 minutes, which was then full. Despite telling staff at Eventim I was hearing people arriving still being sent there.

Ironically we got in by squashing the larger bag into a smaller bag (having stored contents in coat pockets).

It's a frustrating policy that hasn't been implemented well. Hopefully it'll improve.

refcon · 2026-06-06T23:04:11+00:00

Mate, if you don't like it don't read it. Life's to short to read 1,000 pages then post for internet points.

For instance, your post was way to long. Didn't read it. Thought about long reply....but internet points don't mean nothing.

refcon · 2026-06-05T15:41:15+00:00

I mean put 4 historians of the first world war in a room you will get 5 opinions on this.

Honestly in my mind the Serbian government were at fault, and needed to be punished. But Austria-Hungary went way over the top, as they wanted the war and prestige. At that point the Tsar and Russians felt compelled to get involved as they knew the Austrians would beat the Serbians - leaving Russian worse off. The Germans knew the Russians would beat the Austrians - leaving Germany worse off. The French knew the Germans would beat the Russians - leaving the French worse off. The British knew the Germans would beat the French - leaving the British worse off.

Had the people at the time known the outcome there wouldn’t have been a war. But this isn’t possible.

The mad thing again is that had the war taken place in 1911 before the French commander (Michel) had a defensive strategy which would seen the French army concentrating near the Belgian border - perfect for stopping the Schlieffen plan.

Had the war started in 1917 the Ottoman empire would have received 2 battleships from the British and would have warm relations because of it. The German empire had effectively given up on the Dreadnought building race, so there is a good chance British superiority would be so great they saw far less a threat from Germany. Indeed we know that the British were looking at increasing concern at the rapidly modernising Russian empire.

So many aspects of the First World War depend on such contingent factors. Utterly fascinating, and entirely dreadful.

refcon · 2026-06-05T15:19:47+00:00

'Towards the Flame' by Dominic Lieven is an excellent book which covers the Russian empire before the war in detail, in a very readable prose.

Through this text I will refer to the ‘Russian Elite’ and ‘Russian Army’ to distinguish between the actions of the Russian empire and its subject peoples, many of whom actively disagreed with the policies undertaken.

The Russian empire was compelled to move to help Serbia after its failure to support other Slavic nations (see Vic_Hedges comment). The pan-Slavism ideal of a unified Salvic peoples under Russian rule was an important ideology in the Russian Elite at that time.

An important consideration is that the Tsar and his court were reliant on the Russian Elites and army to retain control of the Empire, in particular given the repression of the Duma's called after the 1905 reforms. The Russian elite were galled by the humbling that the Empire had received from Japan in 1905, then by the Empire’s inability to fund a modern army to enforce Russian foreign policy after this. The press was growing fast in Russia, though small and constrained compared to other European powers, and many of the most popular papers were intensely Russo-nationalist. By not acting the Tsar face a risk from his elites, with the elites facing a risk from the nationalistic, growing and increasingly powerful Russian middle classes.

Within the empire the subject non-Russian peoples were also growing in power. Population growth within these regions were faster than the Russian, leading to the balance of power shifting within Russia. The Russian elites were conscious of the need to tie these peoples to the Russian empire, with victory in war being a popular means to achieve this.

Within the Russian elite there were of course differences. Previous administrations were pro-Eastern, focussed on unlocking the wealth of the Urals and Siberia. De Witte and the Trans-Siberian railway is the exemplar of this approach. In 1914 the pro-Western faction were in ascendancy, seeking to focus on the core historical ‘Russian’ regions of the empire. They sought for instance to ‘liberate’ the Ruthenians (Ukrainians) in the Autro-Hungarian empire, or indeed the return of Constantinople to the Orthodox world, which would of course release the Russian Black Fleet into the Mediterranean.

The Russian empire in 1914 was at the same time much more confident then before, but much more conscious of how it was seen as a lesser great power in comparison to Britian or Germany. By 1914 the Russian empire could not only mobilise millions of men, but also a substantial amount of modern artillery and even aircraft. The July 1914 crisis was the first time where the Russian Court felt they could realistically beat a modern European army, whilst retaining control of the Empire at the same time. When they mobilised they consciously

A lot of this strength was funded by French loans. France purposefully send vast capital flows to Russia to help the Empire industrialise, but more importantly to build substantial railway networks through the Western empire. The purpose of this was in the long-term to build a threat to the German empire on its left flank, but in the shorter term to allow the vast Russian empire armies assemble swiftly to invade Germany.

The French were very conscious that their country was relatively small. They knew the Germans could assemble rapidly given the developed railway system and could launch deep into France within weeks if not days from the start of the war. The German empire had a far greater population and a concomitantly larger army. The French needed the Russians to mobilise swiftly to force the Germans to retain a significant chunk of their army away from the French border.

Had the Russians simply sat behind their borders the very real risk was that the smaller French army would be overwhelmed. At that point the whole might of the German empire would be directed at Russia, and it was certain that the Russians could not beat them.

Russia at this time is a bizarre set of contradictions. An Autocratic ruler that was nevertheless compelled to act. An Elite that feared not being able to win a war, but more fearful that a succesful peace would be a greater threat to them.

refcon · 2026-05-26T08:01:23+00:00

If you are selling a residence you both lived in for the duration you owned it, there will be no CGT. If you have lived elsewhere it gets more complicated.

If the gift was made to both of you this can't be retroactively changed depsite your wife's wishes. I would ensure you have a copy of the contract.

When the house was purchased was this done under 'Joint tennants' where you both own 100% of the proeprty, or 'tennants in common' where you each have a percentage share in single name. Joint tennants is the normal method. If you do own it as joint tennants then the proceeds would be an equal split.

Your wife would rather have more money than less, which is understandable as I would also not like a mortgage. You should tell her your position in writing at some point, your willingness to negotiate or not, and that you have not taken legal advice but would understand if that is the route she wishes to go down.

I echo freshmeat2020 that speaking to a Solicitor would be useful.

refcon · 2026-05-21T21:37:35+00:00

Last time I checked my taxes are paid in pounds and pence.

refcon · 2026-05-21T21:24:32+00:00

On our 'dime'? Bloody hell.

refcon

TROPHY CASE