At 14:11 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:57 pm, Trei, Peter wrote:
> > Kevin Elliott[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we
> > succeeded in the revolutionary war by "inventing a new form of
> > warfare". The reality is that the british were marching in
> > formation for very, very good reasons. Their tactics were an early
> > form of Napoleanic tactics (the techniques perfected by Bonaparte
> > and used to SMASH most of the rest of Europe). They evolved from
> > several factors notably: [snip]
>
> Actually, they were marching for quite another reason - they were
> in retreat back to Boston, via Lexington. The redcoats had very light
> casualties up to the point when Gage decided to pull back.
If I might ask, if they had suffered light casualties, why were they in
retreat?
He hadn't expected to take any at all. He'd been surprised by the
resistance (remember the british hadn't thought of themselves as
being "at war" at this point) and so, being surprised and unsure of
the new situation, he retreated.
> Untrained at small-unit tactics (and tired - they had been on
> the move all the previous night marching from Boston),
> they marched along a road flanked by ridges, stone walls,
> and farmhouses - great cover for the well-rested militia
> who had no particular place to get to, friendly civilians,
> and great local knowledge. The British set out flankers
> to guard the line where they could, but topography
> sometimes made them useless.
This is how I remember reading about it. Home court advantage.
At times certainly. But over the whole scope of the war? Not particularly.
--
_____________________________________________
Kevin Elliott <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ#23758827
