| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Highlander |
Posted - October 24 2003 : 10:50:09 PM
It is well known that The French & Indian War became the training ground for Revolution.Heck,The Braddock Expedition is a veritable Who's Who of the AWI.Everyone knows about George Washington,but how about some of those more obscure people who got their start in F&I and went onto bigger things.Let's hear who your favorite personalities are. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Fitz Williams |
Posted - November 02 2004 : 4:10:35 PM
If Dumas had not been able to rally the troops after Beaujeu was killed, the battle would have been a quite different affair. |
| 42ndOfficer |
Posted - November 02 2004 : 04:06:46 AM
Actually,linear tactics had their place in the New World.For example,the two segments where the French & Indians suffered the most casualties during The Battle of Grant's Hill was 1.) When Capt.MacDonald's Company of Highlanders fired several volleys into the enemy when they emerged from Ft.Duquesne. 2.)When Capt.Bullit's Virginians signaled to the natives that they wanted to surrender and marched to within several feet of the natives with their muskets over their heads then,on Bullit's command,they leveled their muskets and poured a volley into the suprised natives before following-up with their bayonets.We have this sequence in GWFW(first time ever on film).
With regards to Braddock,it was never proven that he was killed by Thomas Fausett's friendly fire.It could have happened.The General also had a few friendly Iroquois braves demonstrate to his men the native mode of warfare.Unfortunately,there were also a number of Provincials within the British ranks(who had been recruited in the colonies to bring the 44th & 48th up to strength in addition to the drafts from other regiments that they received while in Ireland.Note# The commanders of the other regiments would not have sent their "best" soldiers to the 44th & 48th either)who delighted in tormenting the regulars with tales of scalpings and other atrocities.The regulars were probably psychologically beaten before they even got to the Monongahela.All of these different individuals within both regiments had not really trained extensively with each other upon arrival in the colonies(I liken it to a professional football team who were playing a championship game that had gotten alot of new drafts in and had only practiced a couple of times).And,as noted British historian Stephen Brumwell has stated in WTFRR"the fact that the army stayed on the battlefield for nearly 3 hours and only leaving after running out of ammunition,speaks volumes for their courage."  |
| lonewolf |
Posted - November 02 2004 : 02:15:38 AM
The losses on D-Day at Normandy was a result of rushing a mass of men up an open beach. The casualties were horrendous. This was an ill-conceived assault. Troops could have been deployed elsewhere and enveloped the guns on the cliffs from behind, since the guns were incapable of being turned 180 degrees. Plus the fact that no rocket armed fighter bombers were used to soften these positions up, using frontal assaults, prior to the main beach assault. Rockets could have penetrated the gun openings of the concrete bunkers, rendering them useless. Followed by napalm, which would have made crispy critters out of any personnel inside the bunkers. Tactics!
Braddock's refusal to allow his men to disperse and form firing positions behind cover of rocks and trees, got his men slaughtered. The French and Indians were firing from cover. The British, in the open, and in formation, having no cover from the fire coming from the ravine in front of them, were nothing more than target practise for the French and Indians who lost almost none compared to slaughter visited upon the British. Not a very intelligent way to fight in the forests. Gen. Edward Braddock was a stubborn, hard headed Englishman. He refused to accept advice. He paid the price for not being able to adapt to changing situations on the field of battle.
Civil War losses were unbelievable, for the same reasons. Pickett's charge at Gettysburg was a prime example of wasting good infantry. The Wheatfield battle was another. You don't expose troops in an open field, with no possible cover and little hope of survival. There is no excuse for this, I don't care what the quality of the weaponry. It is a foolish way to fight a war.
Have you noticed that the Iraqis have the upper hand, because they don't come at us in masses. They are picking us off one by one. Tactics!
Indians were succesful using ambush and hit-and run tactics. And taking out settlers cabins one at a time, creating panic. Hitting them when they least expected it. Wear them down mentally, and keep them off balance. Make them sleep with one eye open. American colonials started out using guerilla warfare tactics, and killed many a British soldier. They let the British march down the roads, and picked them off from the cover on both sides of the road. It demoralized the average British soldier, who couldn't see the enemy who was killing them, and their officers wouldn't allow them to break formation. Sitting ducks! Then the Americans regressed into using the line abreast assaults. A lot of colonials had rifled muskets which were getting the job done. Open field warfare was not necessary. It may be "gentlemanly" to fight in this manner, but not very smart. You simply win or lose by attrition. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - September 03 2004 : 11:54:24 PM
quote:
Many Flags said: We have tried to educate the public for years about the "hiding behind rocks and trees" but sometimes it seems fruitless. That's why he and I usually just shake our heads and walk away when the comments about "standing in straight lines in red coats", etc. are made.
Herr Flags, I know the frustration which you and your cousin, the 1st Sjt., shares. We will never convince all, but hopefully we can place the 'seed of doubt' into enough minds to cause them to pursue the knowledge themselves. Please do pass on my compliments to 1st Sjt. MacWilliam, and my salute to you for a another wonderful installment of the 'Tales MacWilliam'. I await Part-4, of 'A Night Of Merriment'...
quote:
Kurt noted: By the end of the Revolutionary war almost all rifle companys were converted to muskets. Sure, you could hide behind rocks and trees, but by the time you reloaded that rifle, the line was within musket range.
You are absolutely right, Kurt. That is why there were Light Infantry Troops usually deployed in support of Riflemen. Normally a ratio of 2:1 LI Grunts to Riflemen, was alotted. This was the case with the Light Infantry of Lee's Partisan Legion, who sometimes worked in concert with Morgan's Riflemen. These 'light fighters' were equipt with smothbore firelocks, and bayonets; they could cover the 'specialist' while he targeted important targets like officers. This way, if the advance elements of the line got to close, the light troops could cover the retreat.
quote:
Wilderness Woman said: General Herkimer, from his seat under the beech tree, observed this and gave the order for his men to group together in groups of three or four. They could then "cover" each other. As each man was reloading, the others fired in rotation. This helped immensely in enabling the Militia to hold on for hours, until the enemy left the field.
I am not as well versed in the Battle of Oriskany, as you are, but I am familiar with General Herkmier's orders concerning the deployment of the militia. What he essentially did, was to deploy them in a Light Infantry Skirmish Formation; this helped to steady their tenious position and buy them the necessary time.
Oh, and 'Bravo!', on your defence of GW. You are 100% right, the Virginians were amongst the most capable, in a military manner, and were only bested by the experience of the New Englanders in frontier warfare.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - September 03 2004 : 11:11:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Many Flags
We have tried to educate the public for years about the "hiding behind rocks and trees"...
I can cite a perfect example of the fact that this did not usually work. One of the few Revolutionary War battles that I have studied fairly extensively is the Battle of Oriskany.
After the Tryon County Militia was ambushed in the forest, the men scattered in panic and attempted to hide behind trees while firing. Brant's warriors simply watched for the tell-tale puff of smoke coming from behind a tree, then rushed to dispatch the militiaman while he was busy reloading. General Herkimer, from his seat under the beech tree, observed this and gave the order for his men to group together in groups of three or four. They could then "cover" each other. As each man was reloading, the others fired in rotation. This helped immensely in enabling the Militia to hold on for hours, until the enemy left the field.
And I just really have to say, Lonewolf, that George Washington was very young and inexperienced, but he was no fool. And the Virginians are well noted for being among the toughest fighting men of their time. Were mistakes made? Absolutley! But in the interest of maintaining peace on these boards, be careful how you phrase your comments, please. I highly respect you and your opinions; however, because we do not and will not allow posters to dishonor your ancestors... please do not dishonor ours. Thanks! |
| Kurt |
Posted - September 03 2004 : 10:28:08 AM
By the end of the Revolutionary war almost all rifle companys were converted to muskets. Sure, you could hide behind rocks and trees, but by the time you reloaded that rifle, the line was within musket range. Muskets reload faster so you won't get another chance to aim that rifle. Bayonets get the job done faster than clubs (or that empty rifle) when the line closes on you. |
| Many Flags |
Posted - September 03 2004 : 09:43:07 AM
Well done, Sjt. Munro!! Just sitting here with Cousin 1st Sjt. Malcolm and well, his blood got up a bit on this thread. We have tried to educate the public for years about the "hiding behind rocks and trees" but sometimes it seems fruitless. That's why he and I usually just shake our heads and walk away when the comments about "standing in straight lines in red coats", etc. are made. Also, good information on Braddock....uhh, I'll leave it at that at this point. Pax Aye! Many Flags |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - September 03 2004 : 09:14:17 AM
quote:
Wilderness Woman asks: That reason was (apparently) that the smooth-bore muskets were so inaccurate...Is this information I have heard and read correct, in your opinion, Sarge... or anyone else?
WW, you most certainly have hit the 10X on this (An old AMU/DCM saying, meaning you are right on target, bullseye). The idea of keeping a company or battalion in formation was critical 250 years ago, and it still is today. Yes, even in the era of high firepower and smart weapons, the importance of maintaining formation is just as important, for the same reasons; that being to insure a higher chance of hits due to interlocking fields of fire. The formations may have changed (To include the air angle, as well as length and width of coverage), but the concept of unit integrity, both physically as well as emotionally, is paramount to an army's success. I have known this firsthand, over a decade ago, and I know that it still hasn't changed.
In a nutshell, soldiers who go out and fight 'one-man battles', generally become casualties and inflict very little on the enemy. That is why George Washington enlisted the aid of Baron Von Steuben, to make his soldiers 'fight like the British'. Once that happened, we then started winning the major battles.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - September 03 2004 : 08:56:12 AM
I certainly have not made a study of battle methods or tactics during the 18th century, but I have been given to understand that there was a definite reason for the "linear battle tactics" of that time period.
That reason was (apparently) that the smooth-bore muskets were so inaccurate that the chances of actually hitting one's enemy were increased greatly by grouping the men together and firing as one... in a volley. The unfortunate thing about that method is, of course, that if you were in a group of soldiers who were receiving fire, your chances of getting hit were far greater. If everyone had hid behind trees and rocks, and fired separately, far fewer casualties would have occurred. However... that is not the way wars are won, unfortunately.
[Is this information I have heard and read correct, in your opinion, Sarge... or anyone else?] |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - September 03 2004 : 02:44:21 AM
quote:
Lonewolf notes: This stupid man who insisted on fighting in the forests of North America using European tactics, certainly deserved the fate that befell him. A sixty-two year old hard-headed, stubborn man, who sacrificed fine British infantry and Highlanders, for no good reason.
Actually, it was those same European tactics that carried the day at Bushy Run; when the flanking action commenced, it was formed up 'in-line' and the follow-up punch was delived from the main body in formation, firing by volley (Papers of Henry Bouquet Vol.6). Where the mistake was made, was General Braddock failing to seize the high ground to the right of his troops, and therefore preventing the encirclement by native forces. If he would have acted on Gage's advice, the British would have carried the day.
Also, I am not aware of any Highlanders present at Braddock's defeat. There may have been a few men of Highland Scot ancestry serving in the Virginia Regiment (One of whom was a suspected Jacobite, and was court-martialed before the engagement; Braddock Road Chronicles 1755), but the 42nd Regiment of Foote (The only Highland Regiment before 1757) was still posted in Ireland until 1756. The two regular regiments, the 44th and 48th, were Irish Regiments. The Independent Companies (New York & South Carolinia), were comprised of invalided soldiers from regiments on the 'English Establishment', and would not have had Highland Scot soldiers.
In addition, I do not believe that General Braddock was a 'stupid' man, only poorly assigned. He was an excellent logistican and staff officer (as his previous record reflects), but he was a third rate line officer. He had never held a combat command before the Monongahala Expedition, and thus was as inexperienced as a newly gazetted ensign.
quote:
Lonewolf also observed: They say that this was a learning experience for the Americans in the Revolution. I don't think so, since they faced each other in line abreast formation again in that war.
Well, if you look at the actual battle history of the AWI, you will see that the Continentals did not start making headway until after they had disciplined themselves in Linear Battle Tactics. A cold hard fact of life is that the 'guys hidding behind rocks and trees' of mythical lore were very ineffective against a disciplined enemy in formation. They had their use, in probing or harassing actions, but for serious fighting, they were nothing more than a nusciance to a disciplined and determined enemy.
Just some of my own observations...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| lonewolf |
Posted - September 03 2004 : 01:21:31 AM
I think it interesting that Gen. Braddock was shot by his own men (an American colonial) at the Battle of the Monongahela. This stupid man who insisted on fighting in the forests of North America using European tactics, certainly deserved the fate that befell him. A sixty-two year old hard-headed, stubborn man, who sacrificed fine British infantry and Highlanders, for no good reason. Our people won the engagement, and what a lopsided one that it was. They say that this was a learning experience for the Americans in the Revolution. I don't think so, since they faced each other in line abreast formation again in that war. This nonsense even carried over to the Civil War! Who were the "lucky" ones who got to stand in the front line? Indians were never that careless with their warriors. We never had the numbers to throw away in that type of stupid warfare. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - July 19 2004 : 09:22:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Two Kettles
Had it not been for Stark setting up and manning a barricade on the beach below the American left flank, Howe's Light Infantry might have swept unseen around the Americans and taken them from the side and the rear...
One of my 4th or 5th great-grandfathers, William McCrillis, died for his new country on that beach that day, as a member of Stark's Brigade. His name is on the monument at Bunker Hill.
|
| Two Kettles |
Posted - July 18 2004 : 5:41:09 PM
Moses Hazen was an officer in Rogers' Rangers who went on to command the First Canadian Regiment (pro-Continental) in the Revolution. I think they were even known as "Congress's Own".
James Rogers, brother of Robert, was pretty much the de facto commander of Rogers' Kings Rangers during the Revolution, and was a leading figure in Loyalist Canada following the War. His descendant, Robert J. Rogers (guess who he's named for) has written an excellent study of both brothers in "Rising Above Circomestances: The Rogers Family in Colonial America" (Amazon claims this is out of print, but I doubt it).
William Howe, brother of the unfortunate George, was a British general in the Revolution, and he and his former comrade John Stark faced each other on the beach at Bunker Hill. Had it not been for Stark setting up and manning a barricade on the beach below the American left flank, Howe's Light Infantry might have swept unseen around the Americans and taken them from the side and the rear, preventing the carnage caused by the frontal assault.
Two Kettles |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - July 05 2004 : 7:07:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Bookworm
Another soldier in both wars was Hugh Mercer, about whom I knew absolutely nothing until I watched "The Crossing" not too long ago. (And a very appealing portrayal it was, wouldn't you say, WW?)
Most definitely! Although I did wonder if the actor might have been just a little too old for the part. Nevertheless... very well done and a very likeable character. General Mercer's death was indeed a great loss for the American cause. He could have been destined for greatness. |
| Bookworm |
Posted - July 05 2004 : 10:17:34 AM
Another soldier in both wars was Hugh Mercer, about whom I knew absolutely nothing until I watched "The Crossing" not too long ago. (And a very appealing portrayal it was, wouldn't you say, WW?) As Seamus notes in his "Journal of Lt. Col. John Armstrong" -- http://www.mohicanpress.com/kittanning.html -- Captain Hugh Mercer participated in Armstrong's raid on Kittanning, was wounded there, and fell behind on the retreat. Weeks later he arrived at Fort Augusta, having found a bark canoe with which he made his way down the West Branch of the Susquehanna, traveling at night and subsisting on berries and rattlesnake meat. During the Revolution he became General Hugh Mercer, and served as one of Washington's closest aides until he was killed during the battle of Princeton -- wounded, captured, and bayonetted to death after refusing to surrender. I've seen a reference to a single biography of him, entitled "General Hugh Mercer: Forgotten Hero of the American Revolution." Mercer County, PA, is named for him. |
| Highlander |
Posted - October 30 2003 : 04:22:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SgtMunro
Major Rogers died a broken alcoholic, without a country (so to speak).
It is coming out now that the wily Robert Rogers(veteran of the French & Indian War) while acting as a Loyalist recruiter,ensnared one naive Nathan Hale,so that he could attend a neck-tie party. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 28 2003 : 10:35:16 AM
Major Rogers died a broken alcoholic, without a country (so to speak).
|
| mnchiefs502001 |
Posted - October 27 2003 : 6:00:00 PM
Al Amos,
Montcalm was a European and a Frenchman. You have to look at his actions in a 18th Century context. He thought he and his regular soldiers were superior to French Canadians such as the milice and French Marines. He also had a different opinion of the Native Americans or in 18th Century terms, the Savage.
The French Canadian lived and traded with the native peoples and had a greater understanding of them. they also knew how to implement their help in tactical battles. However this concept was hard for Europeans on both sides. The class system is the main reason. It dictated actions and interactions with natives and Canadians as well as Colonists and British regulars. So we cannot say that Montcalm was entirely foolish, however it may appear that way now 250 years later.
If you want to see examples of cultural differences between Canadians and French Europeans, you can start by researching their clothing. It is fascinating the way the way the French Canadian would wear a particular artical of clothing and how it would be worn it France. Maybe this is a topic I can start on a different thread.
As far as Abercrombie, your analysis maybe dead on as he seemed to defy all tactical logic of the time. In my humble opinion, he was just not up to the job as well as inept.
Lastly Washington at Ft. Necessity, George can’t be blamed too much for his choices. There were not many areas that were naturally clear of trees to build a fort and prosecute a battle using the linear tactics of the time.
Washington was a young and somewhat naïve commander but made his choices for the fort based on the availability of water, grazing for horses, and area for a battle. What he did not take into account was the low areas that would collect water in a rain storm. However if the French did come down for a proper fight this may or maynot have mattered.
The fact that it was surrounded by higher wooded areas was more then likely not as important. GW figured the French would come down on the field to fight. After all that is the gentlemanly way of conducting battle. Washington’s age, inexperience, lack of ability to comprehend the French language, and his naivety were all contributing factors to the events at Ft. Necessity. However, not the only factors, but that is again fodder for a different thread.
Lloyd
|
| Al Amos |
Posted - October 27 2003 : 07:58:25 AM
Highlander,
I'm not much into favorite persons of history, as I don't feel I can truly understand them well enough through the writings of others to know them. Now I do have a short list of 'what were they thinking/smoking?' however.
Like Montcalm, he comes over to a totally new envirnment, one where the French has the advantage, Amerindian Allies, and pushes them away. What was he thinking? I mean really what battle did the French win when the Amerindians were NOT present in numbers? Okay Battle of Ticonderoga. Which leads me to my second person, General Abercrombie.
Although he might fall into the 'when was the last time he thought?' category. I can see, possibly, wandering around with 15,000 men and deciding not to do proper recon, etc., but allowing so many attacks to be launched after the first few were totally unsuccessful? Come on, give me a break. 
And of course poor George. What was he thinking when he selected the site for Fort Necessity?  Although, I must admit, I probably wouldn't have done much better. My fisrt night in the field during Basic Training resulted in my tent being washed away during an early morning thunderstorm. 
But back to the topic of the thread, more or less, from this time period I would most like to meet and talk with .... Washington, I suppose. Other than that I have no real favorites, sorry. |
| Highlander |
Posted - October 27 2003 : 01:43:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Al Amos
quote:
Originally posted by Highlander
You know that Braddock was killed in the battle...
Highlander,
Yes, I am well aware of the dear general's fate. I am obviously joking about where he went in passing on to the after life.
al
So who's your favorite F&I personality?
|
| Al Amos |
Posted - October 26 2003 : 9:44:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highlander
You know that Braddock was killed in the battle...
Highlander,
Yes, I am well aware of the dear general's fate. I am obviously joking about where he went in passing on to the after life.
al |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - October 26 2003 : 1:52:45 PM
Don't have one, Joe.
Just agreeing with you. |
| Hawkeye_Joe |
Posted - October 26 2003 : 1:24:36 PM
Not sure what your problem is Scott... |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - October 26 2003 : 12:40:43 PM
I suppose the missing "greats" are beyond caring at this point. |
| Hawkeye_Joe |
Posted - October 26 2003 : 12:22:50 PM
So maybe I missed a great..*shrugs*.. makes no real difference.. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
