"Historian debunks myths about American colonial... " Topic

… troops'.warfare tactics.

Old… but still interesting article.

"As Texas students return to the classrooms this month, many will study George Washington in history class. They will probably learn how George Washington rejected the traditional British warfare method of marching in formation to engage an opponent. Instead, he trained members of Virginia's militia to fight as the Native Americans did, ducking behind trees and bushes to fire at the enemy and thus surprising them.

Many children continue believing this as adults, as evidenced in movies such as 2000's "The Patriot."

Contrary to popular belief, however, Washington didn't train the provincial troops to fight Indian style, so the colonists didn't use guerilla war tactics during the Seven Years' War, or French and Indian War -- the last of the conflicts between Britain and France for control of North America. Nor was guerilla warfare used during the American War of Independence a decade later.

In fact, the American settlers had performed so badly during earlier conflicts against France that, in the War of Independence, Washington drilled them in professional tactics -- the time-tested tactics that the British used, says Dr. Guy Chet, assistant professor of history at the University of North Texas…"
Full text here
link

Amicalement
Armand

I am coming to believe the whole "…myth that Americans won independence by fighting like Indians…" thing is in and of itself a myth.

I was NEVER taught this in school. In fact it was emphasized that only by employing European tactics were we able to defeat the British.

I was, but it was stressed that it was only marginally effective and that Baron Von Steuben was responsible for turning our army into an effective battlefield force, and this by my 3rd Grade.

BTW, did you know that Iceland is really Greenland and Greenland is really…

It was a Viking realtor's trick (back before there were "Truth in Advertising" laws.

"Historian debunks myths"- remarkable!

And it Was France that won the Revolution I'm led to believe, so the French did win one of them wars against the nasty Brits but on behalf of another belligerent, oh sad days mates!
Even I far and away knew at an early age that the Americans were training and trained to do traditional European warfare as that was what bolstered their morale. Ah! Those plastic toy sets of Continentals and British AWI on the back of 10c comics, I still dream of them.

"Instead, he trained members of Virginia's militia to fight as the Native Americans did"

I must have been absent that day. If I was there though I would probably have asked why Washington would want his troops to fight like Indians when in just about every western the hero from John Wayne to Fess Parker had no trouble defeating Indians in battle with inferior forces.

Let's stop this "the British this" and "the British that" the rebels were British.

"Nor was guerilla warfare used during the American War of Independence a decade later."

Really? Perhaps look into the Battle of Kings Mountain. Or for that matter, any one of hundreds of engagements, in South Carolina.

Based on that statement alone, I would dismiss anything this, ahem, "Historian" has to offer.

Let's stop this "the British this" and "the British that" the rebels were British.

"The colonist this" and "Crown forces that"?

Sounds about right.

A case can be made that America has swallowed the "myth" of the superiority of militia over regulars for years.
How many US regular units were in the Civil War? War of 1812? Mexican War?
And in the Spanish American War and the Great War, the regulars were practically elbowed aside by politically appointed National Guard regiments.
Luckily, the "Pentagon" took care to take charge from the beginning in WW2.

Winston-I don't believe there every was a myth that militia was superior to regulars. What I think you saw was a belief that militia would be adequate for the purposes needed, and therefore it wasn't necessary to expend the funds and take the political risks of having a large standing army.

This wasn't that unreasonable a position to take at the beginning, considering the history of professional armies and the limited resources available in the North American colonies/U.S. to support standing armies. It should also be remembered that militia quite often proved adequate to meet the threats of the times, and during the AWI continentals quite often were not where they were needed to meet threats. It becomes a less tenable position once the model of the professional national army develops, as armies become more sophisticated and it becomes more apparent that fighting will require troops to be deployed too far away for the part time citizen-soldier model to work.

The mistaken notion that the Militia won the Revolution coupled with a distrust of a large standing army resulted in the United States being unprepared for almost every war prior to Desert Storm.

I still run into people that believe the militia won the war. Standing behind trees and fences, sniping at the British in their stupid formations.

Trying to explain the role of the Continentals in the war is like explaining to a Martian how a parking meter works. I wish congress had just called them regulars, but I guess that was too European for them and therefore dangerous.

I think the myth persist and has had an impact on issues such as the size of the defense budget, mistrust of government and gun laws.

"I was NEVER taught this in school. In fact it was emphasized that only by employing European tactics were we able to defeat the British."

We were. I greatly annoyed my 5th and 6th grade teachers by challenging the supposition and pointing out how it was wrong. It was the beginning of a long career for me… :)

Rallynow--that pretty much nails it. The fixation on the "militia tradition" was a way to keep the regular army small--usually too small to be of much use if a war started.