Winter of 1776/77 saw a continuation of hardships. The weather on many days was very cold and George Washington's troops started to suffer from the elements and the constant flight from the British.
The provisions started to run low for both armies and morale became a problem as the shoes started to be worn bare and the soldiers left bloody footprints in the snow during their forced marches.
Several things did however start to work in the Americans favor though.
Popular support for the rebel cause started to increase as the British ran low on supplies and started aggressive 'foraging' of the residents' belongings to supply their army with food for the men and hay for their horses. The fact that some loyalists had their food supplies foraged started to erode support for the British even in Tory households.
Under George Washington's leadership - the underdog army of the Americans made a couple amazing attacks on the Hessian forces stationed across the frozen Delaware river. Washington actually crossed the Delaware River twice in horrible conditions, once during a Nor'easter and fought the ice flows to bring a minimal force to attack the unsuspecting Hessian legions. The element of surprise helped the small force of hungry and tired Americans route the German Hessians from their defensive positrons.
The Americans conducted constant guerrilla raids against the encamped British causing them to stay on constant alert with clothes on and bags packed. This constant threat of assassination diminished the morale and effectiveness of the British army. (I don't even need to make modern day comparisons- we can figure this one out)
There was also a successful attack on Trenton, NJ which drove the garrison of British from their fortifications.
The combination of increasing morale of the American army from the string of victories, perceived feeling of fighting for their country, strategy of attacks on vulnerable British positions, interruption of the British supply chains and the fatigue of the British army which was constantly under threat of attack started to turn the tide of war in Washington's favor.
Showing posts with label Revolutionary War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Revolutionary War. Show all posts
2/10/09
The Early Days of the War
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the beginning of the Revolution after the British returned to America did not go well.
The beginning of the war did though, at least from an insurgency perspective- the battle of Lexinton and Concord (shot heard round the world) saw around 1000 troops trying to arrest some American revolutionaries. This insighted the American militias to lay siege to Boston in the battle of Bunker Hill. The British repulsed the revolutionaries but lost one sixth of their 6000 troop garrison in the process.
The Americans captured Montreal and George Washington in charge of the new continental army forced the British to retreat to Novia Scotia.
Democracy was in the air. But the British were going to send reinforcements and they were going to be angry.
There were philosophers, merchants and back country riflemen who formed a loose militia of ideas/self interest that was tasked with rebelling the most powerful, organized standing army and mercenaries in the world.
The continental congress decided to try and secure New York. Anyone who's been to NYC knows that there's the Hudson, the East River and the Atlantic Ocean all surrounding the city, so you can imagine that it wasn't real realistic to expect the rebel militia, being without a Navy, to prevent the British from landing.
Land they did on Staten Island (a few miles from where we now live in Bayridge, Brooklyn) without resistance. They set up camp, secured the island and organized immediately. 35,000 troops in all as well as the German Hessian mercenaries they hired touched down on the island.
Being such an experienced army, the British were well acquainted with the necessity of sanitation and managing the provisions/water supply- so they had little trouble in the first few months with the main problems that armies of the time had- dysentery, malaria, and other 'dirty' diseases.
The Americans set up their main camp in Brooklyn and not being equipped with the knowledge the British had, started very soon to suffer from various ailments that made a portion of the army ineffective for fighting.
The thing I didn't realize is that the Howe Brothers (one ran the army, the other the British Navy) made a bunch of attempts to win the 'hearts and minds' of the American people by trying to rally the loyalist, offer amnesty to the rebels etc. (sound familiar?)
He was not successful in this endeavor and the fighting started. There were many battles fought, but overall, it was a route of the American Revolutionaries and the British took over NYC nearly ending the revolution right there. The British also took Long Island and NJ in very short order.
Only George Washington's military experience and determination could keep the 'cause' alive.
The beginning of the war did though, at least from an insurgency perspective- the battle of Lexinton and Concord (shot heard round the world) saw around 1000 troops trying to arrest some American revolutionaries. This insighted the American militias to lay siege to Boston in the battle of Bunker Hill. The British repulsed the revolutionaries but lost one sixth of their 6000 troop garrison in the process.
The Americans captured Montreal and George Washington in charge of the new continental army forced the British to retreat to Novia Scotia.
Democracy was in the air. But the British were going to send reinforcements and they were going to be angry.
There were philosophers, merchants and back country riflemen who formed a loose militia of ideas/self interest that was tasked with rebelling the most powerful, organized standing army and mercenaries in the world.
The continental congress decided to try and secure New York. Anyone who's been to NYC knows that there's the Hudson, the East River and the Atlantic Ocean all surrounding the city, so you can imagine that it wasn't real realistic to expect the rebel militia, being without a Navy, to prevent the British from landing.
Land they did on Staten Island (a few miles from where we now live in Bayridge, Brooklyn) without resistance. They set up camp, secured the island and organized immediately. 35,000 troops in all as well as the German Hessian mercenaries they hired touched down on the island.
Being such an experienced army, the British were well acquainted with the necessity of sanitation and managing the provisions/water supply- so they had little trouble in the first few months with the main problems that armies of the time had- dysentery, malaria, and other 'dirty' diseases.
The Americans set up their main camp in Brooklyn and not being equipped with the knowledge the British had, started very soon to suffer from various ailments that made a portion of the army ineffective for fighting.
The thing I didn't realize is that the Howe Brothers (one ran the army, the other the British Navy) made a bunch of attempts to win the 'hearts and minds' of the American people by trying to rally the loyalist, offer amnesty to the rebels etc. (sound familiar?)
He was not successful in this endeavor and the fighting started. There were many battles fought, but overall, it was a route of the American Revolutionaries and the British took over NYC nearly ending the revolution right there. The British also took Long Island and NJ in very short order.
Only George Washington's military experience and determination could keep the 'cause' alive.
2/8/09
The American Militia
The most amazing thing about the success in the founding of this country is the fact that an unprofessional citizen militia repelled the most powerful military in the world.
The closest situation I can think of in modern times would be if Sarah Palin's husband's 'Secession' party faced and then repelled the American Military to go on to establish the Republic of Alaska.
The problems of a fuzzy chain of command and lack of basic resources such as blankets and adequate rations at certain points of the war were compounded by the extreme differences in the philosophical views of the various participants in the war over just what Liberty was.
Members of the 'gentleman class' such as George Washington wanted to create some sort of parliamentary system independent of Great Britain, but certainly not the radical Athenian Democracy patriots such as Thomas Paine wanted. Slaves took Liberty to mean their divine right to be free and fought both on the British/Loyalist and the rebel side. Merchants took liberty to mean an end to crushing tariffs and the ability to have commerce benefit them and their community.
There were of course advantages the American Militia had, a perceived moral superiority, familiarity with the terrain, a supportive citizenry (non loyalists at least) but the single greatest advantage it had was the Atlantic ocean. Throughout history, the protection of the supply line and ability to relieve troops has been the greatest decider of who is victorious in war. The difficulty of moving large amounts of troops and supplies over the Atlantic made it necessary for the British to try and have a quick and decisive victory. The longer the war drug on, the more it would be to the advantage of the American rebels.
George Washington was a successful military man, having served in the Virginia militia in the French and Indian Wars. He was a practical man just what the future nation needed.
Although there was a Continental Congress that gave George Washington vague command over a small federal Army, this was certainly not the professional standing Army we have now with paid soldiers.
The closest situation I can think of in modern times would be if Sarah Palin's husband's 'Secession' party faced and then repelled the American Military to go on to establish the Republic of Alaska.
The problems of a fuzzy chain of command and lack of basic resources such as blankets and adequate rations at certain points of the war were compounded by the extreme differences in the philosophical views of the various participants in the war over just what Liberty was.
Members of the 'gentleman class' such as George Washington wanted to create some sort of parliamentary system independent of Great Britain, but certainly not the radical Athenian Democracy patriots such as Thomas Paine wanted. Slaves took Liberty to mean their divine right to be free and fought both on the British/Loyalist and the rebel side. Merchants took liberty to mean an end to crushing tariffs and the ability to have commerce benefit them and their community.
There were of course advantages the American Militia had, a perceived moral superiority, familiarity with the terrain, a supportive citizenry (non loyalists at least) but the single greatest advantage it had was the Atlantic ocean. Throughout history, the protection of the supply line and ability to relieve troops has been the greatest decider of who is victorious in war. The difficulty of moving large amounts of troops and supplies over the Atlantic made it necessary for the British to try and have a quick and decisive victory. The longer the war drug on, the more it would be to the advantage of the American rebels.
George Washington was a successful military man, having served in the Virginia militia in the French and Indian Wars. He was a practical man just what the future nation needed.
Although there was a Continental Congress that gave George Washington vague command over a small federal Army, this was certainly not the professional standing Army we have now with paid soldiers.
2/5/09
The Hessian Army joins the mix
Reading: "Washington's Crossing" David Hackett Fischer
Before I started reading this book I had no idea that the British were actively trying to contract other states to help them fight in the American rebellion but indeed they did.
The British had the most effective Army and Navy in the world but were very stretched from recent fighting on five continents. The sun literally never set on the British Empire and they wanted more than the 35,000 troops they had mustered to put down the rebellion.
They tried to hire out part of the Russian army from Catharine the Great, but she refused. They tried to get the Netherlands to let them rent their Scottish brigade, but they refused as well. The Prussians were also courted, but did not agree to lend their services.
Finally, the British turned to Hesse-Cassel, a small state in what is now in central Germany. In this period, continental Europe was in a constant state of War. The small European states maintained large armies for defense of their territory and rented them out for a high price when they were not in use.
The Hessians were a very effective fighting force, sort of like the special forces or Spartans of their time. The 'soldier trade' was one of the biggest industries in their impoverished area of Germany at the time.
The Hessian Army was not run the same way the British army was. While the British army used a combination of reward and punishment in training it's officers, the Hessian army was drilled by brute discipline. This made them more aggressive fighters and prisoners, including Americans were not spared when captured.
I still can't get over two things:
1) Nations of the 1700's would rent out entire sections of their military forces.
2) It wasn't just the British George Washington's militias were fighting.
On the first point, I know that in ancient times, this practice was common and some empires (the Carthaginians especially) had their militaries made up almost exclusively of mercenaries, but I didn't think that this practice continued in the Western World after the age of Nation States.
I had always thought that nations went to war with/against each other for treaties, expansion etc., but I did not believe that a king would 'rent' his military out.
On the second point, I mean come on- isn't this supposed to just be the 'good' Americans against the 'bad' British?
I never learned the 'World War' perspective in school.
Before I started reading this book I had no idea that the British were actively trying to contract other states to help them fight in the American rebellion but indeed they did.
The British had the most effective Army and Navy in the world but were very stretched from recent fighting on five continents. The sun literally never set on the British Empire and they wanted more than the 35,000 troops they had mustered to put down the rebellion.
They tried to hire out part of the Russian army from Catharine the Great, but she refused. They tried to get the Netherlands to let them rent their Scottish brigade, but they refused as well. The Prussians were also courted, but did not agree to lend their services.
Finally, the British turned to Hesse-Cassel, a small state in what is now in central Germany. In this period, continental Europe was in a constant state of War. The small European states maintained large armies for defense of their territory and rented them out for a high price when they were not in use.
The Hessians were a very effective fighting force, sort of like the special forces or Spartans of their time. The 'soldier trade' was one of the biggest industries in their impoverished area of Germany at the time.
The Hessian Army was not run the same way the British army was. While the British army used a combination of reward and punishment in training it's officers, the Hessian army was drilled by brute discipline. This made them more aggressive fighters and prisoners, including Americans were not spared when captured.
I still can't get over two things:
1) Nations of the 1700's would rent out entire sections of their military forces.
2) It wasn't just the British George Washington's militias were fighting.
On the first point, I know that in ancient times, this practice was common and some empires (the Carthaginians especially) had their militaries made up almost exclusively of mercenaries, but I didn't think that this practice continued in the Western World after the age of Nation States.
I had always thought that nations went to war with/against each other for treaties, expansion etc., but I did not believe that a king would 'rent' his military out.
On the second point, I mean come on- isn't this supposed to just be the 'good' Americans against the 'bad' British?
I never learned the 'World War' perspective in school.
2/4/09
Early Revolutionary War- The British Army
Reading: "Washington's Crossing" David Hackett Fischer
When I was younger and learned of the Revolutionary War, my main memory of the war is the famous painting - 'Washington's Crossing'. All of you have seen it- Washington standing triumphantly on a boat crossing the icy Delaware River.
The main theme of the war that I remember is the British Troops were stuffy and ill prepared for the hardy American frontiersman and were slaughtered by a smaller force that didn't march in lockstep and used the natural terrain to their advantage.
While it's true, that Americans certainly did use terrain and unconventional tactics as any insurgent force would, the idea of the British Redcoats being unprepared for total war is a joke.
During this period the British military forces were without rival. They had come off a string of successes in the French and Indian War and the Seven Years' War in Europe. They had destroyed every adversary that they had faced.
The British Army was organized into regiments which largely would operate independently of each other and were responsible for their own recruiting, training and general specializations. There were Scottish Regiments (recently subjugated to Britain at the time) who still spoke Gaelic, there was a regiment called the Green Feathers (later the Green Hats and later still the Green Berets) and many other regiments that specialized in various types of warfare.
This is very similar to the Roman 'Century' method where Legions would often operate independent of each other so they could work in separate parts of the empire. Having autonomy builds on soldiers having a stake in the fighting and speeds decision making.
The British were a professional, volunteer army. Their average general at the time had 30 years of Military experience while the American Generals had an average of two years of experience.
The early outcome of the war was predictable, stunning defeat after defeat for Washington's Army. The Americans did have a strong advantage though since the definition of victory for the British had to be total victory, while the definition for victory for the rebels had to be avoiding total loss.
The British were not going to be easy to defeat, and they had mercenaries... but that's another post.
When I was younger and learned of the Revolutionary War, my main memory of the war is the famous painting - 'Washington's Crossing'. All of you have seen it- Washington standing triumphantly on a boat crossing the icy Delaware River.
The main theme of the war that I remember is the British Troops were stuffy and ill prepared for the hardy American frontiersman and were slaughtered by a smaller force that didn't march in lockstep and used the natural terrain to their advantage.
While it's true, that Americans certainly did use terrain and unconventional tactics as any insurgent force would, the idea of the British Redcoats being unprepared for total war is a joke.
During this period the British military forces were without rival. They had come off a string of successes in the French and Indian War and the Seven Years' War in Europe. They had destroyed every adversary that they had faced.
The British Army was organized into regiments which largely would operate independently of each other and were responsible for their own recruiting, training and general specializations. There were Scottish Regiments (recently subjugated to Britain at the time) who still spoke Gaelic, there was a regiment called the Green Feathers (later the Green Hats and later still the Green Berets) and many other regiments that specialized in various types of warfare.
This is very similar to the Roman 'Century' method where Legions would often operate independent of each other so they could work in separate parts of the empire. Having autonomy builds on soldiers having a stake in the fighting and speeds decision making.
The British were a professional, volunteer army. Their average general at the time had 30 years of Military experience while the American Generals had an average of two years of experience.
The early outcome of the war was predictable, stunning defeat after defeat for Washington's Army. The Americans did have a strong advantage though since the definition of victory for the British had to be total victory, while the definition for victory for the rebels had to be avoiding total loss.
The British were not going to be easy to defeat, and they had mercenaries... but that's another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
