"Raids, Skirmishes, and Small Unit Actions?" Topic

Where are some good sources to start researching these with an eye to scenario creation?

I am not looking for big battles, but for smaller actions involving up to maybe a couple of hundred men per side.

I am willing to do the reading myself, just point me at the sources.

If you live in any of the original 13 states, check out your local historical society or library. I grew up on Long Island, and now live in NJ. LI had small raids across the Sound by patriots on small British/Loyalist forts, as well as spy activity.
NJ had foraging by both sides, as well as guerilla warfare between patriots and loyalists. Its amazing what you can find at the local level.

Personal recollections tend to have a smaller focus and details which can be good for scenario creation.

Also county museums, historic markers, and the like often have information on the more esoteric small actions that are still fun to game.

There are four volumes of scenarios waiting to be developed by reading Patrick O'Kelley's series on the war in SC. link

There are scenarios waiting to happen in Ewald's diary, but that is probably smaller engagements than you want: link

Dale

O'Kelley's four books are superb; occasionally the English and punctuation are a bit odd (poor editing by the publisher), but very well researched and has all the most useful data for recreating them.

Simcoe's journal covers the exploits of the Queen's Rangers which, in the Southern campaigns, involved skirmishes with around 200-400 on each side, depending on who he had with him at the time (could be 71st Foot, Ewalds' jaegers, mounted Loyalist riflemen, or a large brigade of Regulars).

Similarly, Light Horse Harry Lee's memoirs has similar sized engagements.

However, if you want a "quick start" go for the two-volume orders-of-battle written by Greg Novak which cover actions lareg and small, and/or the "British Grenadier" sceanrio books (1-3) which have some minor scraps you could set up with just a few figures.

Veterans' pension depositions made in the early nineteenth century are an amazing source of information on late eighteenth-century warfare on the personal level. These depositions would have been made on the county court level, but there are published compilations out there.

One that sticks out in my mind (sorry I cannot give you the published source) was of a man in western Virginia who was ambushed near his cabin by Cherokee. His friends refused to open the door of the cabin for him, so he took a heavy beating and got scalped (and survived).

PG

Have a look here:

lib.jrshelby.com/#stexts

John Robertson's webpage has links to etext versions of Simcoe, Tarleton and (three editions of) Lee's memoirs plus much else besides. William T Sherman's 'Calendar' also listed on the above site is also useful place to look. Quite frankly if you cannot find something to spark a skirmish or raid scenario via the links given above then I am a Dutchman.

The website also has a link to pension statements of those who served in the south:

southerncampaign.org/pen

Even more work to winkle out the detail but to misquote Tom Paine a skirmish scenario 'like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.'

Try the rev war re-enactor site like this one from NJ, I wargame the Rev war in NJ because not only were the big battles but tons of small fights Loyalists against rebels. The battles were as small as patrols being fired on to units from both sides out looking for food ect.

link

give this website a try there is a lot of info and should be helpful.

Great link !

Yes, tons of small fights and big battles. New Brunswick,NJ was the center of operations for the British army for about 4 months… then they decided Manhattan Island was probably a more secure location.

Here's one not too far from the old homestead…

link

Probably could make a game out of it by making a few changes.

One of the things that I've begun to sense, is a building animosity, even brutality, between the opposing sides as the American Revolution went on. It would've been difficult to stay uncommitted and the neutrals would probably have been forced more or less to a decision. That informs the probable chances of discovering American Torys in the United States I think.

BD,

It actually started quite early on; bear in mind that there had been tarring and feathering of officials and well known supporters of the King in the pre-war years, but the start of the war saw the introduction of an oath of loyalty by the rebelling Colonies. Anyone refusing to take the oath – including, in some areas, neutrals who were doing so for religious reasons – were subject to imprisonment and/or fines.

In terms of relations between the two military forces, both the Hessians and the French remarked on the exceptional hostility felt towards the Rebels by many British officers and enlisted men, comparing it unfavourably to the much more detached, professional attitudes found between enemies in Europe. It should be said that the Americans were never treated by the regular British forces as badly as one would normally find in colonial rebellions in other empires; nevertheless, some British officers did allow excesses to be committed against those suspected of disloyalty – and of course there were always Whigs back in Britain (and a few in the Army in America), who were ready to report British excesses.

Out-and-out brutality was mostly (though not entirely) confined to the South and the western frontiers, for two main reasons. One was that there were fewer regular soldiers – and most importantly high-ranking regular officers – to restrain the worst offenders; the other was that the behaviour of the general populace in these areas – even in peacetime – was generally less civilised.

"…but the start of the war saw the introduction of an oath of loyalty by the rebelling Colonies. Anyone refusing to take the oath – including, in some areas, neutrals who were doing so for religious reasons – were subject to imprisonment and/or fines."

SM, I never knew that. I'd call that a pretty important piece of information. If you know of any links which make reference to that or indeed book recs on the American Revolution, please post. Thanks. And yes, out-and-out brutality is probably too strong a word… but I read a first hand account by a rebel of what the British were doing as they marched across NJ during the Monmouth campaign. Basically, they burned and destroyed a lot of property as they went along. You could hear the writer getting amped up about it. That was in Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier…

"the Americans were never treated as badly as…."
Supercillius:
I suggest a trip to Ft. Greene, Brooklyn, to see the monument to the 11,500 who died on the prison ships.

The Two fat Lardeys have some great skirmish scenarios for their game. I do not play their rules, but have used their scenarios.

Some great resources so far. thanks, I'll be busy reading for a while, but don't stop.

Gaming scenario books are just fine too.

<<I suggest a trip to Ft. Greene, Brooklyn, to see the monument to the 11,500 who died on the prison ships.>>

And I'm afraid that I have to suggest a little reading on the subject and less reliance on propaganda. Not only is the figure wildly exaggerated (it is unlikely the British captured 11,500 PoWs in the entire war), but a good part of the blame for the deaths that did occur, lies with Congress.

1) The number is based on the excavation of Wallabout Bay in the 1920s. Archaeologists found approximately 11,000 corpses (I'm guessing they counted the skulls) and just made the parochial assumption that all were from the prison ships. They took no account of the fact that the bay was a dumping ground for anyone in NYC and its environs who could not afford a proper funeral and burial in one of the city's cemeteries. The corpses were interred in the mud-flats with little ceremony and no attempt to distinguish between friend and foe, military and civilian. They included all the British, Hessian and Loyalist soldiers, and poorer civilians who died in NYC between 1776 and 1783; bearing in mind the numbers of deaths that followed the arrival of recruits from Europe each spring – literally hundreds in 1779 alone – the "prison ship martyrs" would account for only a fraction of the corpses found (probably no more than the Anglo-German dead from the Convention Army).
[Boatner's "Encyclopedia" covers this in more detail.]

2) In the 18th Century, PoWs remained the responsibility of their own government, not that of their captors. The former would send food, clothing and pay to the latter to be distributed to the captives. The only exception to this was a treaty between Great Britain and France, because they fought each other so often, that they would treat each other's PoWs as their own troops and balance accounts when the war ended.

Sadly, it appears Congress and the various States refused – partly through lack of money, but also in some part through bad faith – to provide the normal support to the prisoners, who were mainly privateers rather than Continental soldiers or sailors. Congress worked on the basis that if it didn't look after the prisoners, then the British would either have to do it at their own expense, or else let the prisoners starve (all the more likely as the British themselves were often short of rations – ironically, because of the efforts of other privateers) giving Congress a tailor-made propaganda coup to lay before the English Whigs. Win-win for Congress.

Prison hulks were a perfectly normal form of containment for PoWs and criminals in those days. Normally, of course, PoWs would be exchanged as soon as possible, and not held for such long periods precisely to prevent these situations arising; unfortunately, bad faith again by Congress and the large number of Rebel prisoners who dishonoured parole documents during the Long Island campaign, made it difficult militarily to justify releasing such large numbers of prisoners.

The British had originally put PoWs in the main sugar warehouse in NYC, but moved them out on humanitarian grounds because their numbers and the lack of support from Congress meant that conditions had become unbearable. What mistreatment of the PoWs did originate from their captors was entirely the fault of the Loyalist who was commissioner of prisoners in NYC, and the Loyalist groups among the guards (the prisoners themselves attested to this). When Clinton came back to NYC in 1778, he had the man replaced and made improvements to the conditions of the prisoners.

Always pays to be suspicious when someone starts bandying the word "martyrs" about.

Your point on the numbers seems correct. Please excuse me for relying on the monument.
As for "Congress' responsibility", I see that as possibly true, but no excuse for mistreatment by the custodians. Similarly, British troops short of food? Please. Such was used to justify Andrersonville too, with more justification.
And Privateers are worse, why?
Cruelty is cruelty. Legalisms do not change it.

I remember the site of the Baylor attack I went there as a kid I lived in Maywood NJ.

Cool! My Aunt lived in Maywood briefly after having lived in Teaneck since I was born at least.

In the ACW, at least, 200 men per side is not a small battle, it's a small skirmish! A single regiment usually contained more men than 200.

Pan Marek

It is difficult to apply the moral absolutes of the C21th to what was a very different world ('The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there' H E Bates IIRC). I think it important to bear in mind that in C18th gaol & prison conditions for civilians were rudimentary at best. Thus appalling as the conditions may have been in the prisons & hulks of New York etc they were probably no worse than in civil prisons such as Newgate or the Clink or any other civil prison in Britain, France or Spain (or dare say it the Simsbury Mine). This is not to excuse them it is to set the context. The question that may be asked is were the 'military prison conditions' any worse than that? Honestly I do not know.

The officals, prison commissaries and the like, charged with the care of the POWs seem to have been motivated as much by peculation and greed than by wanton cruelty (though I am sure that was not entirely absent in many instances). It was the custom that if you were in gaol that you had to pay for anything – usually to the turnkeys and gaol keepers. It seems monstrous to us but that was how things were in the C18th and early C19th. This revenue stream was a valuable perquisite to the officeholders BUT a source of impoverishment and destitution to the inmates. This was particularly ironic in a civilian cases where the prisoner was confined for debt. The very system of confinement being inimical to the discharge of the debt! However, I digress (not for the first time). Naval discipline could be harsh, one only has to look at the treatment of the recovered Bounty mutineers by the captain of HMS Pandora to see that.

As to privateer crews, well not being Continental (or French, Dutch, Spanish) naval personnel they are only one step removed from piracy and the penalties that that could bring. The distinguishing character being operating under letters of marque, this document saved a privateer from the gallows, but it also distingushed him from a Crown or Continental sailor (who was subject to military discipline under the Articles of War). If Congress were unwilling to sustain Continantal POWs as per contemporary custom it is hardly surprising that they would agree to support privateers whether their own or those of their allies? Equally the other option open, namely that of parole until exchanged seems to have been largely ignored except in the case of officers and even then it was far from universal. The belief was, that any sensible man would volunteer for service rather than face continued captivity. Often guarantees would be given that enemy volunteers would not be required to face their former comrades but this was not always possible or practised (eg the number of ex-Continental prisoners in the ranks of the British Legion infantry at Cowpens).

There are higher estimates of POW deaths in New York in the AWI. Burrows in 'Forgotten Patriots' estimates nearly 18000 deaths (this must be for 1776 – 1783?). As you can see much higher than the USMM monument BUT I do not know on what this is based, indeed whether it is based on anything more than upper bracket estimates (ask me when I have read his book which I have just ordered!). But given that the Continental Army in 1776 had an estimated strength of c 46,000 (Henry Knox post war 'estimate') and something over 27,000 in 1780 (a letter from George Washington) the Burrows estimate of POW deaths (even allowing for inclusion of naval personel) seem to be somewhat over inflated. The sad fact is that we may never know the actual number.

Seem to have drifted way off topic on this one but an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Thomas-
Thank you. I was somewhat aware of soem of your informastion, but not all, and not in one coherent place. Fact is, I'm guilty of overreaction to Supercillius' initial comment about good treatment, and then his dfenese to my overreaction.
The topic seems to be treated briefly in every overview of the AWI, or the NY campaign, but I'm not aware of a decent treatment of the topic on its own.
Clearly, I need to do some reading.

More of this interesting diversion please!

This sort of stuff is why I enjoy historical wargaming. You get to learn such interesting stuff.

Pan Marek,

No problem here (and I, for my part, was concerned my response might have appeared abrupt, which was not intended).

My initial point was simply intended to compare the British treatment of the American rebels, with that dished out by government forces to rebellious folk in other parts of the world. Such uprisings were often crushed with considerable cruelty, as a lesson to the defeated for the future (though the lesson learned was often not the one intended!). The British could have treated their opponents much worse and still remained within the accepted codes of behaviour at that time, but – for various reasons, not merely compassion or philanthropy – chose not to do so (eg three signatories of the DoI were captured, two whilst bearing arms, yet none were executed – in itself probably without precedent – and one was returned home on compassionate grounds when it was found he was dying of cancer).

Super-
In context, I now see your point. One can only imagine how, say, the Czar, would have dealt with an uprising in the 18th century. If I recall correctly, with the British, there were concerns about making things worse, and of trying to "bring then back into the fold". I guess it also helped that the Americans were largely Protestant and white.

"Clearly, I need to do some reading."

Pan Marek,

You are not the only one! It is a fascinating although perhaps distressing aspect of the story!

TM

Pan Marek

Well some evidence of contemporary prison conditions in England is available here:

link

Burrows book turned up this morning as well so more grist for the mill!

<<I guess it also helped that the Americans were largely Protestant and white.>>

And had lots of political support in England – at one point, the "loyal opposition" stood up and cheered when it was announced in Parliament that a Continental agent had set fire to Chatham Dockyard.

>Clearly, I need to do some reading."

>Pan Marek,

>You are not the only one! It is a fascinating although >perhaps distressing aspect of the story!

TM

Thats why I like TMP. Usually good debates on subjects that then make reference to new sources of information I was not aware of.