![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Contrary to popular belief, Americans did not win the revolution through "bush fighting" or anything similar. Also, the accuracy of the average American with a musket was on the same level as a British soldier.
Despite all that, the Americans waged a successful war of attrition. George Washington, when it came to victories, was a terrible general. Where he succeeded the most was pulling a minor defeat out of the jaws of a crushing defeat. Considering that the British goals were
-Defeat the American Army in the field
-Capture George Washington
-Capture the new American leaders
-Prevent foreign intervention
And American goals were
-Outlast the British until they were tired of fighting
-Get foreign support
-Keep an army in the field
It was a perfect way to wage a war of attrition. While Washington may not have been able to deliver the victories, he had an outstanding aptitude towards raising morale, garnering respect, and keeping his command alive.
Despite the history of British military victories, this type of war was new to them. Being used to capturing capital cities to win wars, confusion among Parliament and other British leaders ran rampant when Philadelphia was captured but no sign of American defeat was showing.
Banastre Tarleton had the right idea when it came to fighting Americans. While brutal, it was necessary to wage a terror campaign to break the spirits of those who supported. Unfortunately for the English, he was kept reigned in by his superiors and was delivered a decisive defeat at the Battle of Cowpens, where Daniel Morgan killed/wounded/captured 86% of Tarleton's command.
Despite all that, the Americans waged a successful war of attrition. George Washington, when it came to victories, was a terrible general. Where he succeeded the most was pulling a minor defeat out of the jaws of a crushing defeat. Considering that the British goals were
-Defeat the American Army in the field
-Capture George Washington
-Capture the new American leaders
-Prevent foreign intervention
And American goals were
-Outlast the British until they were tired of fighting
-Get foreign support
-Keep an army in the field
It was a perfect way to wage a war of attrition. While Washington may not have been able to deliver the victories, he had an outstanding aptitude towards raising morale, garnering respect, and keeping his command alive.
Despite the history of British military victories, this type of war was new to them. Being used to capturing capital cities to win wars, confusion among Parliament and other British leaders ran rampant when Philadelphia was captured but no sign of American defeat was showing.
Banastre Tarleton had the right idea when it came to fighting Americans. While brutal, it was necessary to wage a terror campaign to break the spirits of those who supported. Unfortunately for the English, he was kept reigned in by his superiors and was delivered a decisive defeat at the Battle of Cowpens, where Daniel Morgan killed/wounded/captured 86% of Tarleton's command.
no subject
In it's own way, this contributes its own additional disadvantage- The American's equipment was by and large 'whatever they could get', which makes organization among troops even more challenging than usual.
I've noticed that people really don't understand just how poorly the American army fared before the French stepped in and helped us organize and contributed any degree of actual military experience. Which makes me laugh because of how much most Americans today seem to dislike the French.
no subject
And yeah, the only two generals who actually did fairly decently without the French were Benedict Arnold (before his turning traitor) and Nathaniel Greene. Two of the most underrated people in the American Revolution.