RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

allgivenover · **07-07-2015, 03:41 PM**

(07-07-2015, 02:10 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: In 1770 the American Colonies were one of the most prosperous places on earth. People were wealthier, happier, healthier, and freer than those in mainland Britain.

Well... because they thought they could get away with it, and while what they had was pretty good (among the best on earth at the time), they wanted to do things their own way.

This is way, way off.

Show Content

Off-topic Content(Elaboration)

The colonies rebelled because of several reasons, not because "they could get away with it" and they certainly weren't "freer than those in mainland Britain".

It basically boiled down to political voice, limitation of expansion, and restriction of trade and other rights.

The colonists fought alongside the British in the French-Indian war, and were very resentful of the fact that the burden of paying for that war was levied on them in the midst of a tighter trade restriction. The British would only allow the colonists to trade with Britain, which although traditional and accepted since the colonies inception was a bitter thing to endure in addition to the tax burden.

Before, the colonists hadn't ever had to pay taxes, the reason being because the colonists made Britain wealthy by selling them raw resources on the cheap and then importing expensive finished goods from the motherland. So the tax burden leveled solely on them after fighting alongside the British in a war in which many of them gave their lives for the crown was a bitter thing. This alongside the reality that they had no political voice, as the colonists were not allowed to elect a representative to the house of commons.

After the war against the French the colonists felt it was their right to expand westward into what is modern Ohio, the crown denied this western expansion, which further angered colonists, who were eager to carve out better lives out west.

Initial peaceful protest against this was met with several stupid moves on the crowns part. First they began quartering additional soldiers among the colonists, and leveled ADDITIONAL taxes to pay for it, then they prohibited free and open assembly of men, when the colonists became angry they took away due process and trial by jury.

Finally the Boston tea party happened (the only thing that ever gets taught in school), and after that British soldiers were sent to confiscate weapons and powder stores, which started the fights at Lexington and Concord, which ignited the war.

Hugely off track I know, but it was certainly not "because they felt like it". Initially the colonists were extremely amiable in working things out with the British, but the crown was worn by George III in that period, he that thought leniency from the crown would weaken his position. Many historians consider him today to blame for the decline in British power and the ultimate end to the imperial era.

About Garleans and Doma, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see Imperial Garlean occupation as possibly being pleasant given what we know from the Ala Mhigan invasion, their solution to the primal problem, and their reaction to the Ninja rebellion in Doma.

[split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes