nevinsrip | 04 Sep 2018 2:48 a.m. PST |
"I don't consider it on a par with Cowpens by any stretch of the imagination. It was a large bushwhacking tree-to-tree fight with revenge driven murder of prisoners by the victors. The term 'lynching' comes from the aftermath of King's Mountain, named after one of the American commanders." One of our learned members posted this concerning the Battle of Kings Mountain. Do you agree or disagree and why? |
42flanker | 04 Sep 2018 3:56 a.m. PST |
I have just posted a query relating to 'lynching' on the thread. I believe the term is more commonly associated with Judge Charles Lynch of Virginia, although this seems rest in the realms of local 'tradition.' |
Brechtel198 | 04 Sep 2018 4:36 a.m. PST |
From Battle of Cowpens: A Documented Narrative and Troop Movement Maps by Edwin C Bearss, page 1: 'The annihilation of Major Patrick Ferguson's corps at Kings Mountain on October 7, 1780, by the 'backwatermen' had stalled for the time being the British campaign aimed at the subjugation of North Carolina. Spirits that had been dampened by the crushing defeat inflicted on Major General Horatio Gates by the British at Camden in August soared.' So, a 'battle of annihilation' fits the Kings Mountain fight and I was incorrect in my initial assessment. |
Brechtel198 | 04 Sep 2018 4:38 a.m. PST |
Regarding 'lynching' Judge Charles Lynch see the other thread where I have answered your 'query.' |
Virginia Tory | 04 Sep 2018 5:04 a.m. PST |
Perhaps lynching refers to what happened to some Loyalist POWs afterward? link |
Winston Smith | 04 Sep 2018 6:07 a.m. PST |
When the original controversy regarding "bushwhacked" arise in the last few days, I did some extensive research. (Google, Wikipedia…) I was surprised to see that it mentioned the American Revolution and Civil War, and guerilla warfare. The examples given were all ACW, though. The Jayhawkers, Bloody Bill Anderson, etc. But Kings Mountain seems, if only by sheer numbers, to be a bit more than mere bushwhacking. 1000+ men on each side? As for the "ambush" elements of the Wikipedia definition, that seems a stretch. Sure Ferguson and his entire command were taken by surprise, but a professional "should have known". Don't professionals send out scouts, pickets? As for gaming Kings Mountain. That has always puzzled me. How do you "simulate" riflemen charging uphill and routing an equal number of bayonet armed musketmen? |
42flanker | 04 Sep 2018 6:18 a.m. PST |
For my own clarification, how does a query differ from a 'query'? (That, I believe , is just another a plain query) While I am writing, I hope you won't mind my pointing out that in your subsequent post to which you refer, you did not in fact answer my query. Consequently, I felt it necessary to post another query. |
Parzival | 04 Sep 2018 7:50 a.m. PST |
Since when is an ambush not also capable of being a battle? Both sides fought; therefore it was a battle. Next question. |
42flanker | 04 Sep 2018 8:10 a.m. PST |
An interesting question. For a while I have tended to feel, and it is only my opinion here, that a encounter between battalion-sized units or less doesn't really qualify as a battle. A fight, a skirmish, an affair of outposts etc, an action, but not so much a battle. Of course, we can think of countless encounters of that size or thereabouts that have long been known as 'The battle of This or That'- partly because we have never established an alternative, but when I have to decide what word to use, I hesitate when anything less than a healthy brigade is involved. However, that said when a thousand men a-piece are blazing at each other in a fight to the death on a remote Carolina mountain top, that sure as hell would seem like a battle. Maybe it isn't so much a question of numbers as how much is at stake. |
robert piepenbrink | 04 Sep 2018 8:42 a.m. PST |
King's Mountain isn't as much fun to wargame--at least for me--as Cowpens, but it's a very serious blow to the British war effort. I don't know how, objectively, you could determine whether the loss of so many loyalists and the discouragement of further loyalist enlistments was a greater of less problem for Conrwallis than the loss of all Tarleton's infantry--and Tarleton's reputation. Gaming. If I were tasked with it, I'd look for rules designed for "woodland wars." Despite everyone involved being of European descent, it feels like Oriskany, Fallen Timbers and Tippecanoe--or, for that matter, Braddock's, Harmar's and St Clair's disasters. Small as it is, Cowpens is a proper 18th Century battle. Frederick the Great or the Duke of Wellington would have understood it perfectly well. Skirmish vs battle. Prior to the 20th Century, I figure a battle has proper formations and isn't part of a wider action, while a skirmish lacks one of both of those qualifiers. This is what makes "skirmish rules" so slippery a concept, by the way: an action between two advanced guard brigades fights out much like a battle, while foragers fighting over livestock fights out more like armed robbery and we use the same word for both. |
Virginia Tory | 04 Sep 2018 9:14 a.m. PST |
Well, if you play KM in British Grenadier, I'd have most (if not all) of the Rebel units as skirmishers. They'd advance, fire, fall back. Repeat until cohesion/morale of Loyalists collapses. That's what happened historically. And yeah, just not that much fun to game, unless you're trying to do "better than the participants." A lot of AWI battles fall into that category. |
Parzival | 04 Sep 2018 9:14 a.m. PST |
Also, I find no reference anywhere that "lynching" came from the aftermath of this battle, and note that of some 660+ prisoners taken, only 9 were executed after a trial. Yes, a "drumhead" court, and probably motivated as reparations for actions taken by the Tory forces (or assumed to have been caused by said actions, as Indian attacks), put a rather limited thing to call a "mass lynching." Not saying the hangings were justifiable or within the rules of war accepted at the time, but hardly or sadly all that unusual for the forces of the day, particularly partisan ones of either side. Given that Ferguson had bluntly threatened to burn the Patriots' homes and massacre them (and, presumably their families), that tempers would be hot against whoever went along with that proclamation is frankly obvious and understandable. After all, that is what is meant by "fire and sword," which is what Ferguson promised to do. Clearly, the Overthemountain Men took him at his word. If one does read the account of the battle, though relatively short, it did have an ebb and flow of action, with charges and countercharges, and thus is still more a fight than a "bushwhacking." (A "bushwhacking" to me also implies a raid or attack on a relatively weaker or even unarmed/untrained opponent, not an assault on a heavily armed, superior force.) One can argue that the outcome was inevitable, given Ferguson's position and tactical errors, and the Patriots' skill at taking surprise. Still, I don't see what's pejorative about a skillfully planned and executed ambush. Only an idiot (or a wargamer) sets up a fair fight. The rest of the statement strike me as hyperbole trying to incite an argumentative fight on TMP rather than a thoughtful discussion. As for "bushwhacking" I believe that term is indeed derived from the ACW and its lead up conflicts. One can certainly use it to describe similar actions in earlier conflicts, but it carries a pejorative label that in this instance doesn't really apply. |
Virginia Tory | 04 Sep 2018 9:25 a.m. PST |
"Also, I find no reference anywhere that "lynching" came from the aftermath of this battle, and note that of some 660+ prisoners taken, only 9 were executed after a trial. Yes, a "drumhead" court, and probably motivated as reparations for actions taken by the Tory forces (or assumed to have been caused by said actions, as Indian attacks), put a rather limited thing to call a "mass lynching." Fortunately Shelby put a stop to it. It was a joke, judicially speaking--simple revenge on the part of the Rebels. |
42flanker | 04 Sep 2018 9:53 a.m. PST |
I had the impression that 'bushwhacking' meant firing from cover most commonly at an unsuspecting foe with the implication that it was a hit-and-run attack, like the 'dirty tiraillerie' encountered by the British in the Jersies in 1777. |
historygamer | 05 Sep 2018 9:02 a.m. PST |
"And yeah, just not that much fun to game, unless you're trying to do "better than the participants." Agreed. Not interested in doing this game either. What is the point? The "what if" would only work if re-enforcements were part of the game, or if Ferguson was trying to fall back to the main force. Not sure what he was thinking giving up the initiative and just sitting up there with such a mixed/weak force. |
42flanker | 05 Sep 2018 9:07 a.m. PST |
A talented company officer promoted one rank above his natural abilities? |
vicmagpa1 | 05 Sep 2018 1:41 p.m. PST |
must be the confidence of the ferguson musket. |
42flanker | 05 Sep 2018 3:21 p.m. PST |
The rifles were long back in store. |
Bill N | 06 Sep 2018 7:20 a.m. PST |
For a while I have tended to feel, and it is only my opinion here, that a encounter between battalion-sized units or less doesn't really qualify as a battle. A fight, a skirmish, an affair of outposts etc, an action, but not so much a battle. The southern campaign had very few actions involving large numbers of men. An argument could be made that aside from the sieges of Charleston and Savannah, Camden and Guilford Courthouse many of the "battles" were oversized skirmishes. By standards of the southern campaign Kings Mountain involving forces that were multi-battalion sized on both sides, is as much a battle as Cowpens. And yeah, just not that much fun to game, unless you're trying to do "better than the participants." A lot of AWI battles fall into that category. We have had games where the British player commits to breaking out at the beginning of the game and usually succeeds. We have never felt much of his command would have survived the running fight that Ferguson would have to make to reach Charlotte. |
Winston Smith | 06 Sep 2018 8:09 a.m. PST |
I have taken this as a challenge to do a good game of Kings Mountain. It might not be recognizable… |
42flanker | 06 Sep 2018 8:51 a.m. PST |
"The southern campaign had very few actions involving large numbers of men. An argument could be made that aside from the sieges of Charleston and Savannah, Camden and Guilford Courthouse many of the "battles" were oversized skirmishes. By standards of the southern campaign Kings Mountain involving forces that were multi-battalion sized on both sides, is as much a battle as Cowpens." Point taken. By 'multi-battalion sized,' Bill, do you mean a force with several sub-unit, however their composition? When I cited the battalion as a bench mark I was thinking of a fairly structured OB.
Cowpens, with formally composed battalions, albeit diminished by atrition, seems to me a different beast from Kings' Mountain because of the partisan nature of the latter, but I guess it's a matter of degree. The composition of Tarleton's force at the Cowpens reminds one of a German kampfgruppe from WWII. |
historygamer | 06 Sep 2018 9:14 a.m. PST |
42nd – isn't there some thought (Harris?) that the rifles were taken down south? |
Winston Smith | 06 Sep 2018 9:27 a.m. PST |
Every source I have read said there were no Ferguson Rifles with Ferguson at Kings Mountain. "Well, that was a nice experiment. Now, all you lads go back to your regiments. We'll take those." Of course, it could be that all are based on one original source. We've seen that with uniform books that perpetuate previous errors, and just copy with subtle legal changes. |
Bill N | 06 Sep 2018 11:31 a.m. PST |
Sorry 42 I was less than clear. In a campaign where a battalion might be as large as 500 men or smaller than 100, I do not believe counting units is the appropriate way to gauge whether an action is battalion sized. Rather I use a nominal battalion strength of 200-300 men. By this standard you could say the rebel forces were roughly four battalion strength. In fact the rebel force consisted of more units than that both in theory and operation. |
Bill N | 06 Sep 2018 11:44 a.m. PST |
I have never read a reliable source reporting Ferguson rifles being used at KM. Not saying it did not happen. I would not rule out the possibility of Tory militia having some long rifles. Many were recruited from areas where civilians had rifles, plus they could capture rebel rifles. Ferguson did have plug bayonets that could be issued to men who did not have military muskets, and I would assume they worked for rifles as well as fowling pieces. |
42flanker | 06 Sep 2018 5:45 p.m. PST |
It seems unlikely. The 'Ferguson' breechloaders were expensive and fragile bits of kit which required their own QM logistical and armourer support, so given that the Experimental Rifle Corps had been disbanded in 1777 and the trained soldiers returned to their units, we have to consider the circumstances under which the weapons would have found their way south and into the hands of the provincials in Major Ferguson's command. Do we envisage him retrieving the rifles from store in New York, say, two years after the rifle corps was disbanded, find them serviceable, and shipping them with him to South Carolina on spec, but without the support 'tail' to keep the guns working and supplied with ammunition. Would any troops, let alone provincials, have been grateful for to be served with that poisoned chalice? Would there have been time to train those men? If he had permission to form a group of regulars to make us use of the guns would have been more likely but Clinton was not in favour of detaching troops from battalions for special duties. Ferguson may feasibly have brought a brace of rifles for himself, but the same logistical problems applied, if on a lesser scale. |
historygamer | 07 Sep 2018 5:50 a.m. PST |
Not saying that they were used at KM. The reference I am thinking of (using memory here, so bear with me) references how a collector acquired one down south – which begged the question, how did he get it there? I seem to recall it was in the back of the Harris book on Brandywine. I may be mis-remembering where I saw that though. Interesting read: link I am guessing they meant to say Brandywine instead of Saratoga in the opening text. |
42flanker | 07 Sep 2018 8:46 a.m. PST |
|