
"small battles for huge stakes" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the General Historical Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article Scissors are useful, inexpensive and portable.
Featured Profile Article Could mirror tiles improve your wargaming tabletop?
|
| doc mcb | 01 May 2026 7:39 p.m. PST |
Does this seem a valid generalization? San Jacinto is an obvious further example. Can anyone suggest other examples? Contrary examples would of course include the Plains of Abraham! An enormous and sparsely settled land naturally attracted foreign adventurers, called "filibusters," who from time to time tried to seize parts of it for themselves. It is worth pointing out that throughout the first several centuries of European activity in North America, vast (but mostly empty) territories might change hands as a result of battles involving mere hundreds of men. Pontiac's very dangerous uprising was finally defeated at Bushy Run (August 1763), and the siege of Detroit raised, by 500 highlanders of the Black Watch. During the Revolution George Rogers Clark's Illinois Regiment secured the Ohio valley, which became five states, with no more than 400 men. William Henry Harrison's decisive victory at Tippecanoe in 1811 was won with barely a thousand men, against an Indian force of about 700. Battles between such small forces, especially when one or both sides were not professional soldiers, were unpredictable enough that ambitious men might risk a deadly defeat to gain land of unimaginable worth. |
| doc mcb | 01 May 2026 7:47 p.m. PST |
I should add that the context of the above is a discussion of filibusters invading Texas with simi-regularity. The Spanish (and then Mexican) army was often effective (and ruthless) against them, but there were some close calls. And the filibusters are one reason why the Spanish could not deal effectively with the Comanche and other nomadic raiders. (Plus not being able to catch them, which was a much bigger factor.) |
ochoin  | 01 May 2026 11:56 p.m. PST |
"North America, vast (but mostly empty) " Really? See William Denevan's seminal work, 'The Native Population of the Americas in 1492.' If you can't find a library copy, well worth purchasing: link |
John the OFM  | 02 May 2026 1:07 a.m. PST |
The Plains of Abraham would barely merit a paragraph in a history of the SYW in Europe. But in going with the general theme, Cowpens and Kings Mountain. |
Eumelus  | 02 May 2026 3:10 a.m. PST |
|
79thPA  | 02 May 2026 5:54 a.m. PST |
Bonhomme Richard v HMS Serapis. |
| cavcrazy | 02 May 2026 6:02 a.m. PST |
Bunker Hill, Tripoli, and Rorke's Drift all come to mind. |
Grattan54  | 02 May 2026 9:57 a.m. PST |
Trenton. Washington's back is to the wall, the army is about to dissolve and he needs a victory to keep the revolution alive. |
| doc mcb | 02 May 2026 10:06 a.m. PST |
Ochoin, Deneven's estimate for North America north of Mexico is under 4 million. I'd say that is a vast and pretty sparsely inhabited land. The Spanish southwest, Texas to California, had a population density of about 1 person per three square miles. |
| doc mcb | 02 May 2026 10:09 a.m. PST |
I dunno, John. The Plains of Abraham did transfer a vast area from France to Britain. I excluded it because the armies were both professional and a bit larger, though of course minuscule in European terms, as you note. |
|