"Did Cornwallis "Arrogantly Underestimate" Lafayette..." Topic

… in the 1781 Virginia Campaign?.

"He invaded Virginia but arrogantly underestimated the 23-year old Marquis de Lafayette, wasting valuable time by attempting to engage Lafayette's forces in pitched battle. Failing to do so, he retreated to Yorktown…"

This quotation describes the 1781 Virginia campaign which ended in the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. Obviously, the authors are not impressed with Cornwallis' record in Virginia. He is alternately accused of not regarding Lafayette's army as a threat (underestimating), and then overestimating its effectiveness (wasting valuable time to rid himself of it) in a single sentence! These two charges are contradictory, but a this scathing critique of George III's best fighting general justified?

In June of 1781, Lord Cornwallis had arrived in Virginia from South Carolina. Cornwallis had about 7,000 British and Hessian soldiers in his army. (1) Many of Cornwallis' British soldiers were the elite of the British army in North America. The 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers, the 33rd Regiment, the 1st and 2nd Battalions of Light Infantry, and Banastre Tarleton's British Legion were all fearsome troops. Each of these units had gained battlefield victories, despite being outnumbered by the rebels. These were true veterans. But the rest of Cornwallis' army in Virginia was not comprised of second-rate troops. The 76th and 80th Regiments, though not as experienced in battle, would gain a victory at the Battle of Green Spring…"
Full text here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Curiously, the author of the blog does not identify the authors of the 'quote' which he takes as his starting point.

Spoiler alert. He disagrees

"Did Cornwallis "Arrogantly Underestimate" Lafayette…"

Sorry, I don't understand. What has Lafayette to do with all this.

Yorktown surrendered thanks to the French (the Americans were an auxiliary force) under Rochambeau's high command. Lafayette was a volunteer enthusiast, his forces were part of the Americans. He was at Yorktown, ok, but.. so what? The French army under Rochambeau was a professional army, and it was they (together with de Grasse's naval force) who forced the British surrender…

Well, those pesky Americans may have had something to do with it. I'm quite sure that the French were important and vital too. One without the other would not have worked.

Americans wouldn't have been able to beat the Brits without French professionals. That's the simple facts. You can deny it as long as you want…

What French units were at the Battles of Saratoga? Cowpens?

The Race to the Dan….Cornwallis chased Morgan into Virginia. He burned his baggage train in an effort to catch him. Won a victory at Guilford Courthouse…though it severely damaged his army. Cornwallis gambled on destroying his supplies for a quick victory. Sort of got one, but damaged his army. So low on supplies and gathering US and French Armies.

I doubt that Cornwallis underestimated the Americans. He sought an engagement with them. He understood the need to destroy this American force. Before the rest of the Americans and French arrived. He failed to do. He did move to Yorktown to escape the combine French and American Armies.

The French Navy stopped him.

The French and American Forces stormed redoubts.

Lack of supplies helped end the siege.

Please provide evidence that Rochambeau was in command of both Armies. Never heard of that claim before. Seems the US Park Historical section hasn't either.

Never seen or read where the US has downplayed French involvement and our gratitude for it. As well as the Spanish and Dutch. Oh and Irish troops in Spanish/French Service. Let us not forget the Irish!

Yep, at the rate the British were winning and losing great numbers of men….and not really replacing them..

I believe the original post By Tango was discussing the cause and effect of Cornwallis command that lead up to the British going to Yorktown. Not what happened at Yorktown.

With out Frances assistance in money, supplies and troops I doubt America would have won as they did. But to claim France won it for America just indicates you need to do a lot more reading on the war.

Please provide evidence that Rochambeau was in command of both Armies. Never heard of that claim before. Seems the US Park Historical section hasn't either.

Sorry, I didn't mean to claim that Rochambeau was in command of the Americans as well. I was talking about the regular French troops present at Yorktown only. So shouldn' t have said "high command" but just "command". And of course, the French were at Washington's disposal. To call the Americans "auxiliaries" (I was talking about their role at Yorktown only) probably was too sweeping a statement, I admit it, but still I can't see how the Americans could have won there without the French, especially without the heavy artillery the French brought in and without the French navy.

Ironwolf,

It's not me who said that France won the war for America but as the Americans would not have been able to beat the British without the French, in the end, it was the French indeed who won the war for the Americans. Can't see how this could be denied,

the authors are not impressed with Cornwallis' record in Virginia. He is alternately accused of not regarding Lafayette's army as a threat (underestimating), and then overestimating its effectiveness (wasting valuable time to rid himself of it) in a single sentence! These two charges are contradictory, but a this scathing critique of George III's best fighting general justified?

I think Cornholio underestimated everyone…