As a historian, does it bother you that american history shows always portaits americans as the only one figthing for their cause?

Of course it's going to bother anyone that knows about a topic that they talk about only half of the truth. Any documentary that's worth its salt is going to mention the European involvement in the Revolution. One of my favorite topics to demonstrate the French involvement in the Revolutionary War is a covert shell company created to supply the continentals with materials. I'm going to copy and paste my previous post from another thread:

"I'm typing from my phone so this won't be nearly as detailed as I would like, but here we go!

The French took a huge interest in the rebellion in the Americas because they knew how devastating it would be to the British economy. France had, after all, lost almost all of their colonies in North America after the Seven Years War (Or French and Indian War) so any way they could put a hurt on Britain would be good for them.

At the start of the war, the colonists didn't have the hard currency needed to field an army due to the Currency Act which made British silver in the colonies scarce so they sought aid from France. France at this time needed to appear neutral, so in 1775 a shell independent shipping import-export company was created between France and ally Spain (who felt their own colonies were potentially threatened by a British controlled Florida) called Roderigue Hortalez et Companie. It borrowed 3 million livres (1m from the French government, 1m from Spain, and 1m from French merchants) to cover start-up costs and to purchase and begin selling the colonists muskets, cannon, ammunition, tentage, and enough uniforms for 25,000-30,000 soldiers through neutral Dutch Caribbean islands. The idea was to sell these items to the colonists at low surplus prices, but then in turn purchase American tobacco and rice at a higher price with hard currency, which would then be sold through Europe by the merchants at an even higher price. This allowed 2 things: one was that this began giving the colonists a hard currency to begin funding a war and two it allowed the Companie to pay back the initial investors with the money acquired through selling American agricultural goods.

Early on, these supplies were critical for the Americans, who would have otherwise faced an early defeat in the revolution and also helped in the victory at Saratoga which gave France confidence to back the colonies officially in 1778 with the military treaty between France and America. At that point the Companie collapsed as the French government began supplying the colonists with far more equipment than the Companie ever could and were doing so directly instead of through vast shipping channels.

More information about the Companie and France's involvement: link "

I think what you also see about the bravery of the militia comes from the minutemen of Lexington and Concord and other instances in the Northeast at the outbreak of the war. The minutemen were a subset of the militia which volunteered to be ready to fight at any time. Because of that, these men would probably be younger and better trained than the militia which was a required service from the age of 16 to 60.

While regular militia did receive training, it just simply wasn't on par with the regular army. Some commanders, like Daniel Morgan, knew how to best utilize the militia (and even the opponents opinion of the militia) to their advantage. Or to stop a flow of about 1000 Scottish Highlanders in North Carolina from catching a ship north to fight alongside the British at the Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge And then you had some commanders who used their militia to settle personal vendettas like what happened between David Fanning and Philip Alston at the Battle of the House in the Horseshoe which took place because Fanning suspected that Alston killed a friend of his (which historians tend to agree because Alston was a scoundrel).

The civilian militia is an interesting aspect of the Revolutionary War.