"The Lives of Continent Army Soldiers" Topic

"In the battle of Eutaw Springs, South Carolina, the last major action of the Revolutionary War before Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, over 500 Americans were killed and wounded. Nathanael Greene had led some 2200 men into the Springs; his casualties thus represented almost one-fourth of his army. More men would die in battles in the next two years, and others would suffer terrible wounds. The statistics, although notoriously unreliable, show that the Revolution killed a higher percentage of those who served on the American side than any war in our history, always excepting the Civil War.

Why did those men—those who survived and those who died—fight? Why did they hold their ground, endure the strain of battle, with men dying about them and danger to themselves so obvious? Undoubtedly the reasons varied from battle to battle, but just as surely there was some experience common to all these battles—and fairly uniform reasons for the actions of the men who fought despite their deepest impulses, which must have been to run from the field in order to escape the danger…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Tango. Can you at the very least link to sites that know what they're talking about?
It's "Continental", not "Continent".
Since it can't even get it right in the title, it makes the rest not worth reading.

You know John… I ought to copy exactly the original tittle… do not kill the messenger… (smile)

And if a mistake in the title of an article defines what you are going to read or not … it is your decision …
(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Armand, I have to agree with John on this one. If the author can't even get the terms of what the troops were called correct it makes one wonder what else he got wrong.

Not a single footnote in that article, and the artwork is horrible. It just looks like someone's blog thoughts to me.

Armand, you are saying that I have an obligation to not only read, but believe, an article that from the very beginning shows me he doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's obvious from the title that it is nonsense.
You link to so many AWI articles that you should know better.
Or is this a case if "If it's on the internet it has to be true"?

What if the article was about French Grenadiers and he called them "Grenades". Would you feel compelled to post it?

I am not trying to start an argument, but is the opposite true? If everything is spellled correctly should we then assume an author does indeed know what he is talking about? This does not mitigate historygamer's point about a lack of footnotes. That is a much bigger fault if you ask me.

Another off-putting, but minor, thing is that his only illustration shows every "Continent" soldier wearing lace.
Amateur city all the way.

Oh. Let's not forget the powdered hair, or wigs.
And as long as I'm picking nits, the collars are wrong.

I think the error in the title is symponmatic of sloppy work. Makes you wonder, just how much posted to the internet has any correct informaton in it. That artwork, while clearly dated, is just horrendous. Symptonmatic too.

Let's be glad it's not about Incontinent Army Soldiers…

Fetch my brown trousers!

Lol

Bah!…. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand