"What was the percentage of rifles at King's Mountain?" Topic

The thread on "rifle armed units" does not appear to be ending any time soon.
However, there is a question I asked there that I would like to have its own thread.

In many ways, King's Mountain is an oddball battle in the AWI. For once we actually have the mythical "hiding behind trees" tactic being used and working.
We also seem to have riflemen doing all kind of superhero things.

I don't happen to think there were all that many riflemen at the battle.
Heretical thought, I know.
Perhaps the reason they were successful was that the Loyalists had no troops capable of, and trained to drive them off.

So, I am curious. Are there any records of just how many riflemen the Patriot forces actually had?
What percentage of the Patriots were riflemen?
How were they organized?
Were they protected by musketmen?
Did the musketmen have bayonets?

Perhaps I misunderstand this battle completely, but it has always seemed to me to be a difficult battle to game, particularly with our standard AWI rules. You would need so many special rules, you may as well just right rules specific for the battle.

Let's not forget that rifles were very expensive compared to a musket, and these were men who brought their own weapons to the fray when mustered. Or am I wrong about this too?

"What percentage of the Patriots were riflemen?"

Unknown as each man brought his own weapon and there are no records. Even the number there is kind of fuzzy. Just read the approved NPS book on the battle. Interesting read.

"How were they organized?"

Just as any other militia – by county and by companies.

"Were they protected by musketmen?"

According to the book, they fought like Indians – when the Brits advanced, they fell back, when the Brits fell back they advanced. They got quite close at many times. The British bayonet charges drove them back each time, but the Brits paid a price for closing in casualties.

"Did the musketmen have bayonets?"

Since there aren't any records of weapons, hard to say. The opposition was all Loyalists in different stages of being equipped and trained. It is interesting as this battle also encounters the age old question – is it easier to shoot up hill or down? The Brits tended to shoot high (as they did in many battles).

This is an almost impossible battle to game, at least in my experience. Ferguson chose what he thought was a (conventional) good position. The fact he had crappy troops and was out of supporting range of other Crown troops didn't help. You kind of have to wonder what his orders were or what he was hoping to accomplish, other than rallying the Loyalists to him. That worked out about as well as it did in the North, as the rebels were vicious in promoting their cause and with their treatment of anyone thought to oppose them. True of most revolutions.

The NPS book also implied that there was not a close relationship between Ferguson and Cornwallis either, which likely didn't help.

As specified, no records, but I'd bet on a very heavy percentage of rifles among the patriot forces. The overmountain men would have been doing more game and Indian hunting, and been less concerned with formal warfare than about anyone else in settled North America.

Full disclosure. I have not gamed this one. My interests mostly run toward volley fire, held canister and cavalry charges. But studying it, it looks perfectly feasible. The trick is NOT to use AWI rules, but rules written for woodland Indian wars. I bet you rules which could handle Braddock, Bushy Run, Harmar, St Clair, Fallen Timbers and Tippecanoe would have no trouble with this one. Mind you, I don't like Ferguson's chances. But I don't like Braddock's, either.

It's not the label historians put on the war which is important from a rules standpoint, but the tactical problems and choices.

Historygamer, the AWI was vicious compared with what? Everyone was allowed to join our side who wanted to, and anyone who wanted to leave was allowed to go. Tories taken in arms were treated as POWs if they weren't committing espionage and hadn't committed war crimes. This looks like a MUCH better deal than, say, the French, Russian, or Chinese Revolutions, pretty much any independence movement which involved actual bloodshed or the vast bulk of civil wars. (Hmm. Does Nazi Germany count as a revolution? I think they would have thought so.) Changing the source of lawful authority is always tricky, as Thomas More could tell you. But as such things go, the AWI was remarkably humane.

That worked out about as well as it did in the North, as the rebels were vicious in promoting their cause and with their treatment of anyone thought to oppose them.

BOTH sides in the South committed atrocities against each other. To a lesser extent it was true in the North as well, at least in the back country.

Take Cherry Valley, for instance. Normally billed as the massacre of a Rebel village by Loyalists and Indians. In fact, Cherry Valley was probably mildly Loyalist. But the leading citizens were personal enemies of Sir John Johnson, and personal revenge took precedence over politics.

I've never gamed this with miniatures. You'd need rules that allowed evasion and treated over-mountain men as a cut above ordinary militia.

I have played this using the board game Hold the Line. King's Mountain is a turkey shoot, with the Tories deployed on the open mountain top and the Whigs in a circle around them, all in cover. Ferguson attracts a lot of fire. I've never seen him survive and have played this a bit.

Ferguson had a 100 man detachment of well trained provincials (25 men each from various NJ and NY loyalist regiments). The remainder were militia in the process of being trained and it made little sense to try and use them as light infantry.

Thus, they picked a really bad position (bald hill) and they would charge the Rebels, who would wisely fall back and fire at them, then retake the ground when Ferguson's men fell back up the hill.

Losses are hard to figure--Buchanan gives Loyalist losses at 290 killed and 163 wounded, which makes no sense--loss rates were usually 3 wounded for each death so there were either a lot more casualties or perhaps the Rebels killed some of those surrendering.

Rebel losses of 29 killed and 58 wounded make more sense--but also shows that even with a lot of firing going on, there are many rounds missing.

I don't think HG was trying to single out the Rebels. Sometimes it gets lost in the background noise that the Rebels had no problem being ruthless or vicious-something that is often attributed to the Crown Forces alone in more "popular" history.

There is no denying that their treatment of the captured Loyalists was basically a violation of the laws of war, particularly what amounted to the "legal" lynching of 9 POWs.

The fundamental cause of Ferguson's crushing defeat was his bombastic proclamation in which he threatened the over-mountain communities. These were the true frontier people. They led a hardscrabble life in which one either overcame heavy adversities, or perished. On the whole they only wanted to be left alone, and by the way, they were no more interested in being told what to do by the Patriots than by the Redcoats. They leaned toward the rebel cause because even the over-mountain folk had learned that the official policy of the British government was: no further westward settlement. In their own element they were going to whip any comers. Ferguson threatened their communities with fire and sword, and paid the price. The presence of over-mountain men at Cowpens was also key to that decisive victory, and was caused by some of Tarleton's, shall we say, colorful public statements.

The hard core of Ferguson's command was a roughly battalion-sized group called Fergusons's Volunteers, or the American Volunteers. These were well-trained veteran troops with fire in their bellies (they volunteered in order to seek action), but they lacked true unit cohesion: they had volunteered from half a dozen loyalist regiments in the "main" British army in the mid-Atlantic.

The rest of the command was decently-equipped but little-trained loyalist militia. The greatest downfall was leadership. Ferguson was the only professional officer in the entire force, and although the following statement is probably technically untrue, the oft-repeated saying that Ferguson was the only actual Englishman at the battle is close enough to true, to make a valid point.

Regarding the weapons, it stands to reason that many, if not most, of the rebels were rifle-armed as this was the weapon of choice on the true frontier. However, no doubt some proportion of the force had muskets or fowling pieces.

While it also stands to reason that the entire American force probably couldn't muster a dozen bayonets amongst them, many frontiersmen were equipped with long knives that are somewhat similar to the modern machete and would likely have resorted to these for close-in fighting.

Once Ferguson was shot, the Loyalist force rapidly became a rabble, presenting in modern parlance a "target-rich environment". Even so, for me the most interesting paradox of this battle is: what if a significant portion of the Loyalists had actually been equipped with Ferguson's rifle??

I concur that this battle is impossible to wargame with any realistic hope of a different outcome. Although this is due partly to hindsight, by the commencement of the actual fighting, Ferguson's cumulative blunders had put him and his force into a position from which surrender would have been the only better outcome. However, one possibility is for all the players to be rebels, with victory being the rebel group with the highest point count – positive points for causing British casualties and negative points for casualties suffered.

Read Philbrick's book on the early Patriots in Boston and their actions for how nasty the Sons of Liberty could be.

The South was indeed a bloody civil war, predating the Rev War's start.

"Tories taken in arms were treated as POWs if they weren't committing espionage and hadn't committed war crimes."

The treatment of prisoners by both sides was brutal – prison hulks by the Brits, and a whole host of things by the Patriots. Several of those captured at King's Mountain were hung and some where killed outright after they surrendered.

I agree, war is brutal, and civil wars are often the worst.

In the NPS book, surprisingly Ferguson was a bit hard for the Over the Mountain Men to find. Ferguson seems to have become disoriented on what to do and ended up on what he thought was a good defensible position. I doubt he had any tools to fortify the place or dig in, which might have made a huge difference.

Because of the dearth of records, this is just my opinion, but I think the majority of the Patriot force would have been armed with rifles because they were true frontiersmen, and the rifle was a much more efficient hunting weapon than a musket. However, I know from other conflicts involving volunteers from frontier areas that each man was free to choose his own weapon. There were those who preferred a musket either because they were poor shots to begin with, or because they were old enough to have declining eyesight. A musket offered the option of topping off the load with several buck shot, so increasing the chances of hitting something (not necessarily the actual target). I would be very surprised if there were any significant number of bayonets among the Patriots; bayonets just did not fit the frontier mode of warfare, but let us not forget they would have had tomahawks and scalping knives. Anyway, effective use of the bayonet requires training and discipline.

On the civil war aspect of this encounter, I happen to have some relatives who were at Kings Mountain, including one on the Patriot side, who had a brother among the Loyalists. The Patriot brother was out to kill the Loyalist brother because of his earlier part in the death of a Patriot. The Loyalist, however, did escape with his life. The point here is that there were many such blood feuds involved, which helps explain the viciousness that overtook much of the fighting in the South.

Lastly, I cannot resist commenting on the irony of Patrick Ferguson, a famed rifle expert and inventor of one of the first breech-loading rifles, losing his life because he commanded a force which lacked rifles against one predominantly armed with rifles.

As others have said there is no way of knowing what percentage of weapons carried by the OMM and other Patriots at Kings Mountain were rifles, as the men were using personal weapons and no records were kept. I tend to believe the percentage of rifles was fairly high. Here's why.

Campbell's Virginia troops came from a part of Virginia where the militia was specifically directed to be armed with rifles. Campbell's troops were rifle armed at Guilford Courthouse a few months later. Andrew Lewis is also reported to have had a large number of rifles in his command in 1774.

Next, in the aftermath of Moore's Creek, Patriot forces were recorded as having siezed a large number of rifles from suspected Loyalists. There were more muskets and fowling pieces seized, but those Loyalists were from a more settled part of North Carolina far to the east from where the Patriot Kings Mountain Men came from. If you look at the counties in North Carolina where the OMM came from, they were similar to those in Virginia where the militia was supposed to be rifle armed. We are told that a relative of one of the North Carolina commanders at Kings Mountain had a number of riflemen in his unit at Cowpens. There was also a specifically rifle armed unit from the same area that served in the North Carolina militia at Guilford Courthouse.

Then there are large numbers of references to rifles in the south. South Carolina was able to raise two regiments of rifles (5th and 6th) as part of its Continental force. There is even indications that some of Ferguson's Loyalist militia were using rifles with plug bayonets.

Certainly there were other weapons carried by OMM at Kings Mountain. Maybe fowling pieces and the odd military musket amounted to half the total. However I don't believe the percentage of rifles carried at Kings Mountain was nominal.

Where I may differ from others is I don't see Kings Mountain as that unique. It was a larger and better known version of the type of action that took place between Patriot militia and pro-British forces many times throughout the Carolinas.

The Rebel Army:

John Sevier: Washington County 240 men

Isaac Shelby: Sullivan County 240 men

William Campbell: Virginians 400 men

Charles McDowell: Burke and Rutherford County 160 men

Benjamin Cleveland and Joseph Winston: Wilkes and Surry County 400 men

James Williams: South Carolina 400 men

"In the final count, the over-mountain men made up less than half of the total of the patriot forces that finally faced Ferguson at Kings Mountain."

The Battle of Kings Mountain 1780: With Fire and Sword, by Wilma Dykeman, National Park Service, Dept of the Interior (no year, no page numbers)

North and South Carolina reinforcements swelled the ranks of the patriot army to just under 1,400 men.

William Campbell became the commander of the combined forces.

The forces chosen for the battle were 900 of the best mounted men, followed by 85 foot soldiers.

Ferguson's forces, according to the book:

100 Rangers drawn from the King's American Regiment, the Queen's Rangers, and the New Jersey Volunteers, along with 1,000 Loyalists militia. Captain Abraham DePeyster of the King's American Regiment was the second in command.

Given that less than half were over the mountain men, it does make you wonder how many had rifles.

The downside to the book I quoted the numbers from is that there are no footnotes and no page numbers, but it is NPS printed/published.

Interesting good for thought.
Maybe I will try to game this with my usual TSATF rules.
Need to paint more militia! Like I don't have enough……

When I looked into producing my line of Over Mountain Men, I queried several different sources, to see what they thought.
I got different responses, with most at about 50-50.

One person was adamant that it was probably 75-25, arguing
that, since only the fittest men were picked to fight in the battle, most of them would have been frontiersmen.
I can see the logic in that, but I wouldn't take it for certain.

John, you need more OMM for that battle. NOT militia.

I have a bag of OMM wearing the "proper" bonnet to do, and a haul of Perry to paint first.
I do have some redcoated KM continentals to finish, mixed in with Eureka Raggeds to finish to serve as generic Loyalist Regulars.

The numbers I've read are somewhat different. They start out about the same as those cited above. At Green River a group of 700 of the best mounted men are sent ahead. Campbell, Seveier and Shelby's commands make up over 400 of that total. At Cowpens they are joined by 210 other mounted men, and some more join before the battle begins. If you assume around 1,000 for the Patriots, that would give 40% being OMM.

A book on Kings Mountain was written by Draper and published in 1881. It was supposedly based on discussions with descendants of the Kings Mountain survivors. It was available for viewing on the internet. There is an account of Col. Cleveland and another Patriot almost killing each other, each thinking the other was a Loyalist. There probably wasn't much difference in appearance between some of the Loyalists and many of the Patriots.

Probably one side had green oak leaves in their hatbands, and the other had green maple leaves.

Thank you. You have just solved my one remaining problem on how to tell them apart. You can't.

Using TSATF I will have 3 or 4 small regular Loyalist "regular" units armed with bayonets. Each Loyalist player will command one of them.
Kings Mountain figures with bonnet will be the Scottish Loyalists. Then fill in with generic militia.

The Patriot units will have an equal number of rifles and muskets. No key card kills. They will always have an equal number, rounding up in favor of rifles.

This was such a bitter battle, wounded MUST be tended to, what with many on both sides being more than willing to commit atrocities.

It may be an uneven fight, but we have plenty of guys in our group who don't mind dying in a bad cause.

If nothing else, I now have an incentive to finish a lot more figures.
And to make some specialized terrain. Or use GeoHex.

Not only Americans killing Americans (which I suspect is what makes the ACW so popular to foreigners… ) but Southerners killing Southerners. Maybe I can play some Neil Young music.

If you are looking to justify a very high percentage of rifles in the Patriot forces. Loyalist captain Chesney who was captured at Kings Mountain states "but we were attacked (Oct 7th) before any support arrived by 1500 picked men from Gilbert town under command of Cols. Cleveland, Shelby, and Campbell, all of whom were armed with rifles, well mounted, and of course could move with the utmost celerity."

Was thinking of playing this one with either SP2 with ratio of 1/6 or 8 or the Perfect capt system.

Was not Fergusson criticised for being over cocky and not building breastworks and lack of pickets?
both could make the game more interesting together with lack of coordination with the patriots. Musing.

You have to have tools to make works.

So bald hill and no hope; very poor game then. No variant?

I have seen the Patriots win the Wyoming Massacre.
I am now convinced that it was leadership that doomed the Loyalists.

"So bald hill and no hope; very poor game then. No variant?"

Would have to be a variant; historically Ferguson's force didn't realize how close the Rebels were.

I think what Ferguson needed was the reverse of what he found, he needed a hill crowned with woods (cover, and no trees on the slopes. Instead he gave the gift of cover to his irregular opponents.

If he could have fortified up somewhere for a few days his opponents would have quickly run out of supplies.

I suspect the "picked men" chosen for the attack force were based on the quality of their mounts more than anything.

No real way to tell how many carried rifles. Not sure given the way it all went down it mattered all that much anyway.

It was downhill after the attacks began…

Sorry, couldn't resist.

My ancestors. Oral tradition has him at King's Mountain. Records are sparse on that, however.

link