Greentext

3981 readers

2463 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

529

Anon studies history (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sort of. My understanding is the Revolutionary War was won by causing enough attrition (disease and deserters) among the British that they decided it wasn't worth it. Washington lost more battles than he won, but he mostly focused on supply lines and whatnot, so he generally caused enough damage to be successful. American soldiers could resupply locally, the British had to ship it in, and Britain wasn't super invested in keeping the supplies coming.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Please refer to the “in part”, part of my comment.

But yes, you’re correct on those fronts as well. Again, attacking supply lines and such is essentially what my comment is describing