"Differences between American militia in North and South?" Topic

Or were they much of a muchness?

Any innovators in the North, like Morgan at Cowpens in the South?

Thanks

Morgan was at Saratoga too.

Militia in the Southern theater were more likely to be mounted, although they still generally fought on foot.

LT

Yankees in the North, Crackers in the South. The big difference was the Crackers won their battles.

Perhaps Southern militia might be more likely to have long rifles, and thus snipers/sharpshooters? Morgan's company were Virginia riflemen.

As I understand it, General Morgan was responsible for the three line defence that proved so successful in draining the effectiveness of the British attacks. That was Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse.

Anything/anyone similar in the North?

In wargame rules are both militias regarded as exactly the same standing or type?

The Yankee militia were better trained than the Southern militia. The northern colonies had a much more formal militia program than in the South. The military record of the battles indicates that in general, the Yankee militia were more effective than the Southern militia. A matter of interest for the tabletop is that in the North there were no notable militia-militia battles, while in the South such battles were the rules rather than the exception.

Companies armed with long rifles were more numerous in the 1779-82 Southern campaign than in any Northern campaign, but for some reason, except for the over-mountain men that performed their single intervention at King's Mountain, almost all came from Virginia. "Ordinary" or typical Southern militiamen were no more likely than their Northern counterparts to be armed with long rifles.

In general terms southern militia would have been more likely to have horses (mostly for transport), more likely to be rifle armed and more likely to wear hunting shirts or lighter clothing, especially when compared to New England militia.

One other difference might be the number of blacks serving. In southern militias at the start of the war, blacks either didn't serve or were limited to certain roles.

In both the north and south though you are going to have big differences in the TYPES of militia. You have the local militia from settled regions called up en masse to handle some local emergency, the frontier militia and then you have militia units called up for longer periods that might be serving farther from home. Based on the frequency of service you are also going to see significant differences in the quality of each type of militia.

hope Mr Perry is reading this, sounds like we need some more militia packs !

Accent.

"The big difference was the Crackers won their battles."

I'm pretty sure Lexington and Concord were huge wins for the Yankees. Also pretty sure Bunker Hill ranked up there as well – even if they lost the position.

IIRC, Morgan'a Rifle Corps was often made up of troops from PA, MD, and VA. One northern, one border, one southern state.

The value of the northern militia was not so much on the battlefield, but in their constant harrassment and surrounding the British army. It was death by a thousand cuts of small skirmishes, and cutting off supplies and any support from Loyalists. My take anyway (along with a lot of authors too).

I have to say using the word "crackers" is pretty offendsive. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of that word.

I see a heritage not hate post coming…

Check out King's Mountain for some fine militia.

"What cracker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath?"

Shakespeare – King John.