At 15:57 -0500 on 11/19/02, 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.
My original point was about the more general topic of unit tactics
during the revolution. Disciplined formation fighting and volley
fire is THE way to win large scale musket engagements. Any other way
gets you clubbed to death by weight of fire. A pet peeve of mine is
the implicit assumption that seems to have been nailed into out
public school children (including me) that the british tactics in the
revolutionary war basically boiled down to "they were stupid idiots".
A more careful reading of history shows this to be simply untrue.
A retreat through hostile territory, under fire, is not the
best situation to be in.
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.
On the retreat, the Gage's men suffered 20% casualties.
<nod> A retreat under fire is a recipe for disaster under any circumstances.
--
_____________________________________________
Kevin Elliott <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ#23758827
