Tango01 | 07 Apr 2020 10:45 p.m. PST |
" From a recent discussion on the Fife and Drum miniatures forum. The question was asked how prepared were the British for the raid on Concord on April 19, 1775? I though that this item has a really good insight into British intelligence. While the actual orders General Thomas Gage gave to Lieutenant Francis Smith have been repeated and republished numerous times the actual draft of the orders have not. They are much more detailed about the items they were sent to destroy, where they were hidden and how to dispose of them. I thought some of the readers here may be interested in reading this document so I transcribed it From the original in the Gage Papers at the University of Michigan…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
Virginia Tory | 08 Apr 2020 7:25 a.m. PST |
Um. Not very? They didn't expect the opposition they ran into. And they were not combat experienced. Nobody was, despite the odd F&I veteran, few of whom were serving in the ranks (v. officers). |
Extrabio1947 | 08 Apr 2020 7:29 a.m. PST |
Again, wonderful information and a very good blog. Added to my favorites. |
GamesPoet | 08 Apr 2020 7:59 a.m. PST |
Interesting that Gen. Gage had such detailed information when sending out Smith and the men under his command. |
robert piepenbrink | 08 Apr 2020 9:11 a.m. PST |
There is a serious difference between having good intelligence and being well-prepared. (Hard to be prepared without good intel, but it's not sufficient.) The fact of those stockpiled supplies by itself should have told Gage that any effort to destroy them might create the war he was hoping to prevent, and it's not as though the minute men were any secret. At the very least, preparation would have involved training more men in light infantry tactics. But Gage's overall plan only made sense if the Americans could be counted on not to defend their supplies--which was ludicrous--or if a war was inevitable and this was the best time (from Britain's point of view) for it to start. I doubt whether he or any of his superiors believed that. I don't know what on earth the man was thinking. |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 9:42 a.m. PST |
There had been several near-misses on starting the war before Lexington. So the opposition should npt have surprised the Brits. If they weren't ready it was more likely to have been arrogance. |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 9:42 a.m. PST |
And wasn't Gage ORDERED to arrest the Adamses and Hancock? and send them to London? He had no choice. |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 9:43 a.m. PST |
And war WAS inevitable as soon as the Intolerable Acts were passed. |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 9:44 a.m. PST |
link The war almost started in Salem in February. |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 9:46 a.m. PST |
link The "Powder Alarm" was another near-miss. |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 9:48 a.m. PST |
Early in the morning of September 1, a force of roughly 260 British regulars from the 4th Regiment, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel George Maddison, were rowed in secrecy up the Mystic River from Boston to a landing point near Winter Hill in modern-day Somerville. From there they marched about a mile to the Powder House, a gunpowder magazine that held the largest supply of gunpowder in Massachusetts. Phips gave the King's Troops the keys to the building, and after sunrise they removed all of the gunpowder. Most of the regulars then returned to Boston the way they had come, but a small contingent marched to Cambridge, removed two field pieces, and took them to Boston by foot over the Great Bridge and up Boston Neck.[6] The field pieces and powder were then taken from Boston to the British stronghold on Castle Island, then known as Castle William (renamed Fort Independence in 1779).[10] |
Brechtel198 | 08 Apr 2020 9:48 a.m. PST |
There is an excellent book on Lexington and Concord by Arthur Turtellot which is the best treatment of the actions that I have read. Highly recommended. link One of the aspects of the British retreat from Concord is that they did deploy their light infantry companies on their flanks, and these troops swept their areas for American militia and caught them from behind at times. At the visitor center for Lexington and Concord there is an excellent painting depicting this tactic. |
Brechtel198 | 08 Apr 2020 9:52 a.m. PST |
This might be helpful for Salem: link link |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 9:52 a.m. PST |
And the column was relatively protected from militia fire along most stretches of road -- as the stone fences along the road were at least knee to waist high. |
Brechtel198 | 08 Apr 2020 9:57 a.m. PST |
Do you have a source for this? Stone fences of the height posted can be used to fire and protect those firing on a marching column. Knee to waist high for a fence is an excellent firing position. Look what Stark did at Bunker Hill with his makeshift fence along the shoreline of the river… |
Tango01 | 08 Apr 2020 12:37 p.m. PST |
Happy you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 1:32 p.m. PST |
Uh, the Minutemen would have had to be behind the OTHER fence, across the field. Otherwse they'd be shooting at the column from like 5 feet away. |
robert piepenbrink | 08 Apr 2020 3:16 p.m. PST |
I don't deny the light companies were trained and used. But if you were going to start a war in North America, they were grossly inadequate. You notice AFTER Lexington and Concord, they hire rifles, loosen their own formations and raise local auxiliaries. That's the sort of thing you should be thinking of before you touch off a war. |
Brechtel198 | 08 Apr 2020 3:56 p.m. PST |
I doubt that the British were expecting a war in the colonies, at least not one that would develop into a war with three European countries. Howe knew how to train and employ light infantry and the British adapted well as they did in the French and Indian War. |
doc mcb | 08 Apr 2020 7:55 p.m. PST |
Read John Shy's essay on the Revolutionary War. The British figured out the right answer pretty quickly -- half way through the war when other things didn't work -- but after France and Sopain came in they simply lacked the resources to win. |
Brechtel198 | 09 Apr 2020 4:17 a.m. PST |
I've read Shy and I'm not impressed. I've also read Higginbotham, as well as having him as an instructor on the Revolution in college, and I wasn't impressed with him either. |
doc mcb | 09 Apr 2020 4:45 a.m. PST |
Shy's work is brilliant. So, who DOES impress you? |
doc mcb | 09 Apr 2020 4:49 a.m. PST |
You wrote the Lorenz Books' Encyclopedia of Rev War uniforms? |
doc mcb | 09 Apr 2020 4:53 a.m. PST |
My review of that on Amazon Amazon Customer 4.0 out of 5 stars a useful if slightly flawed reference Reviewed in the United States on August 27, 2008 Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase Review of AN ILLUSTRATED ENCYCLOPEDIA OF UNIFORMS FROM 1775-1783, THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR, by Digby Smith and Kevin Kiley. First and foremost: this is a big beautiful book, full of color and useful information. I paid $23 USD for it through Amazon. It is a great value for the money. My credentials as a reviewer are twofold: I'm a Ph.D. in American history, with my focus on the Revolution; and, I've been collecting AWI miniatures since 1961, Jack Scruby 30mms that are still serving alongside my Hinchliffes of the 1970's and my Old Glory and Perry 28s from the present. What I am NOT is an expert of uniforms. I depend on published sources for information I need to paint my miniatures as accurately as I reasonably can, but I do not obsess over small details – particularly ones that do not show in 28mm. I bought Mollo's and Elting's books on AWI uniforms when they were published in the 1970's, and I own all the relevant Ospreys, etc. published since then. I found only a little NEW information in the ENCYCLOPEDIA. Many of the uniforms illustrated are clearly derived from the Mollo or Elting book. Nevertheless, I am glad I bought this new book. The illustrations are large and clear, usually from a different angle, with the soldier in a different pose. It is also useful to have all this information in one volume. There was a significant exception to the "no new information" statement. If one visits the website of the Company of Military Historians, one can see small and not-very-clear reproductions of SOME of the plates from this organization's great collection of plates illustrating "Military Uniforms in America." Elting's book contains many, but not more than half, or less, of these. But a good many of these plates are no longer available from the Company, and one cannot see them unless one goes to a library that has them (which few do). This new ENCYCLOPEDIA contains figures that I am confident are derived from the Company's series, but which I had never been able to see. These include such as the Baltimore Troop of Light Dragoons, Richardson's South Carolina Light horse, the Illinois Troop of Virginia Light Dragoons (two figures), De La Porte's French Company of Virginia State Forces, the Virginia Frontier Independent Company, Stockbridge Indians, Dabney's Virginia State Legion, and the Virginia State Navy (three figures). For me, these illustrations alone are easily worth the small cost of this book. The section on warships seems very useful, and the Spanish section is new information to me. There ARE problems. I suspect that no single editor read both the text AND the notes to the illustrations. Two examples I noticed are probably representative of others. On p. 135 is an illustration of a drummer of the 4th Foot in blue coat faced red. The text on the same page explains (correctly) that musicians of Royal Regiments with blue facings, such as the 4th, wore red coats faced blue. A less experienced reader will not know which of these conflicting bits of information is correct, and (by my guess) is more likely to assume that the illustration is correct, which it is not. On p.188 is an illustration of an officer of the "Musketier Regiment von Knyphausen" (clearly derived from Mollo and making the same mistake) while the table of Hessian units on the same page correctly lists von Knyphausen as a fusilier regiment. So . . . this is a useful volume, well worth the price, but which seems to have uncritically used a great deal of information from earlier books, repeating mistakes as well as accurate information. I will use it a lot in painting my armies, and I also will enjoy just reading and looking through it. I do recommend it. My only caveat would be for gamers new to the period to be careful about relying on this book only. But the older books often contain the same errors, unfortunately. 25 people found this helpful |
doc mcb | 09 Apr 2020 4:58 a.m. PST |
I'd be fascinated to learn the process by which this book was created. |
Brechtel198 | 09 Apr 2020 5:16 a.m. PST |
You wrote the Lorenz Books' Encyclopedia of Rev War uniforms? I co-wrote it. I wrote the text and researched American, French, Spanish, and naval units and ships. We had one editor, who was excellent. |
Brechtel198 | 09 Apr 2020 5:34 a.m. PST |
The authors who wrote/write on the period that I particularly think highly of are John Elting, Harold Peterson, Charles Royster, John Buchanan, Larry Babits and Joshua Howard among others. In all my years in the Marine Corps and in teaching, I never met anyone who was 'brilliant.' I met some very intelligent people, but 'brilliant' is a superlative that I never use for anyone. It is usually hyperbole. |
Brechtel198 | 09 Apr 2020 5:35 a.m. PST |
I'd be fascinated to learn the process by which this book was created. I was asked to do it by the editor based on a recommendation by a mutual friend who is also an author and historian (the two terms are not necessarily synonymous). If you would like to discuss it at length, my home email is Boulart198@yahoo.com. |
doc mcb | 09 Apr 2020 6:07 a.m. PST |
I think Shy's essay on the war as a revolutionary conflict is, in fact, brilliant, as it provides a model for making sense of the war in several overlapping ways. It is the basis of my standard lecture on the Rev War, and students GET IT. |
Brechtel198 | 09 Apr 2020 6:11 a.m. PST |
You are entitled to your opinion. I just happen to disagree with you on Shy and his writing and opinions. I didn't find his writing 'brilliant' at all, but mediocre with an agenda. |
doc mcb | 09 Apr 2020 4:38 p.m. PST |
Every historian has an agenda. |
Brechtel198 | 09 Apr 2020 5:50 p.m. PST |
Every historian has an agenda. I don't agree with that either. Having an agenda to me means that instead of conducting proper historical inquiry to find factual material and then form a conclusion, the conclusion has already been made and material is found to support that conclusion. It's backwards and it isn't a valid historical methodology. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Apr 2020 5:32 a.m. PST |
Every historian has an agenda. I am in the process of rereading Shy's A People Numerous and Armed and am reading his Toward Lexington. My initial judgment on his books has not changed. I also have Prelude to Revolution by Peter Hoffer to read and study. |
doc mcb | 17 Apr 2020 10:47 a.m. PST |
You are a human studying other humans. Objectivity is an unattainable standard. From the point that one defines the issue, posits the hypothesis, selects the material deemed relevant -- at every stage one's own worldview intrudes. |
doc mcb | 17 Apr 2020 10:50 a.m. PST |
I think Shy's "The Military Conflict Considered as a Revolutionary War" (or whatever the precise title is -- it is in PNAA) is as fine an overview as exists of the evolution of British strategy. And he is exactly right about the role of the militia. |
doc mcb | 17 Apr 2020 10:53 a.m. PST |
The fact that Shy wrote that in the immediate aftermath of VietNam -- and, no doubt, that John McBride reads it in the context of that struggle -- is a good example of how historians are influenced by what is going on around them as they write. |
Bill N | 17 Apr 2020 8:37 p.m. PST |
I agree with your assessment doc. However the phrase "has an agenda" makes it sound like there is some evil intent involved. It might be better to say "All historians are biased". The same can also be said for those who review histories. |
doc mcb | 18 Apr 2020 6:02 a.m. PST |
Yes, "agenda" is probably a loaded term. My definition of history is "what the present finds useful to remember about the past." There are several points of subjectivity there, particularly "useful" and "remember." And of course while the past is fixed and objective, the present changes constantly. |
doc mcb | 18 Apr 2020 6:06 a.m. PST |
And of course it is easy to cite examples of historians who clearly have a political agenda, But more broadly ALL of us write and read within a larger context of the specific time and place in which we are living. During the Great Depression you get economic interpretations of everything. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Apr 2020 6:19 a.m. PST |
And of course it is easy to cite examples of historians who clearly have a political agenda… Examples? |
Brechtel198 | 18 Apr 2020 6:21 a.m. PST |
And he is exactly right about the role of the militia. How? Shy strikes me as pro-militia, and Higginbotham definitely was, the latter to the detriment of the Continental Army. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Apr 2020 7:23 a.m. PST |
"The Military Conflict Considered as a Revolutionary War" (or whatever the precise title is -- it is in PNAA) is as fine an overview as exists of the evolution of British strategy. And he is exactly right about the role of the militia. The Military Conflict Considered as a Revolutionary War is Chapter 10 in A People Numerous and Armed. And perhaps you could your contention that Shy was 'exactly right' on the role of the American militia? |
7th Va Cavalry | 18 Apr 2020 8:55 a.m. PST |
"Kevin. You ask for examples of historians having a bias or agenda, yet in your very next post you say that Shy and Higginbotham are pro-militia. Are they historians or aren't they?" |
Brechtel198 | 18 Apr 2020 10:06 a.m. PST |
I don't know Shy, but I had Higginbotham as an instructor my senior year in college and found him rude, agenda driven, and ignorant. So, in his case, no. By the way, the picture of you dog is great. I'm sorry you lost him/her. We have three (two German Shepherds and a Husky) and the two Shepherds are elderly. I worry about them every day. |
Bill N | 18 Apr 2020 11:24 a.m. PST |
I don't know Shy, but I had Higginbotham as an instructor my senior year in college and found him rude, agenda driven, and ignorant. So, in his case, no That would be a very dangerous standard. |
doc mcb | 19 Apr 2020 5:17 a.m. PST |
Michael Bellesiles' book ARMING AMERICA is perhaps the supreme example of bad agenda driven "history." |
doc mcb | 19 Apr 2020 5:20 a.m. PST |
"Pro-militia"? How about interested in the truth. The militia rarely was effective on the battlefield; that is evident. But their main contribution was in population control and political mobilizaton. The Revolution could not have succeeded without them, as the British recognized by trying belatedly to organize Loyalist militias in the south. |
doc mcb | 19 Apr 2020 5:22 a.m. PST |
The British could control only those locations where their armies were. The militia controlled everywhere else. That mattered politically, economically, and in terms of recruiting men for the Continental army. |
doc mcb | 19 Apr 2020 5:26 a.m. PST |
Many if not most Americans probably preferred to avoid commitment to the revolution and war. But everyone was in the militia, and when the British army was operating in your state, the militia would at some point be called up. Then each INDIVIDUAL has either to go (congratulations, you have just joined the revolution) or refuse to go (You are a coward and a traitor!) Most went. This POLITICAL mobilization was essential. |
doc mcb | 19 Apr 2020 5:29 a.m. PST |
Shy's point is that a revolutionary struggle is three sided: two belligerents each claiming to be the legitimate government of the SAME POPULATION. Who ever can best harness that population gains legitimacy and practical support like supplies and recruits. The militia did precisely that. |