Was lack of food a factor in either the English Civil War or the American War of Independence?

[NB I'm listening to the excellent "Revolutions" podcast at the moment http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/]

I know little about European history, but I would argue that the American War of Independence was more a formality than anything. Britain's influence was already waning and the colonies were mostly self-sufficient at that point. The hand that fed them wasn't Britain, so independence was simply a matter of not letting a third party take money out of your pocket any longer.

This doesn't necessarily mean food.

It also doesn't apply 100% of the time. Does anything?

To be more precise, that's not the purpose, that's the means. The purpose is to extract the maximum value out of the livestock. Now, to do that, governments must find the right balance of propaganda, social programs and freedom. It differs for different countries. Western countries are no exception: it's just that people are taught that government serves them, while the opposite is actually true. Government is power and anyone who believes it is there to serve his interest and protect him is a fool.

Not sure if I agree with this. Governments are a necessary outgrowth of agriculture: producing more food than you personally can consume means the population can grow in proportion, which necessitates a mechanism for distribution. The fact that governments can exert power beyond their purpose of food distribution is incidental rather than central to their role.

This post reminds me of popular depictions of the French Revolution. You always see these hungry mobs and callous rich people, "let them eat cake" and all that. In reality though, was that the poor in France had a better standard of living than the centuries before. The true catalyst of the revolution was a bankrupt government being forced to turn to the middle class to bail them out.