Revolution War Era Tactics-other options

[Greg]

Aesop, you continue to multiply contradict yourself.

You say we were fighting with restraint due to weakness, and I've already pointed out to you the British were fighting restrained, period. And yet you want the weaker party to say 'hey let's not hold back?'.

They had officers who were more than willing to Shermanize the entire country (without Sherman's remarkable lack of bloodthirstyness) yet they held them back. You want to tell the British, 'no go ahead'.

The Vietnamese had untouchable sanctuaries because we were afraid of pushing the Russians and Chinese too far. We had sanctuaries because the British sat on their asses in some of our cities, 'penned in' by forces far weaker. You want to inspire them to action?

You say the British were badasses, and then suggest that a little terrorism would make them run away? (Their elites were not the pussies that ours were, 2 centuries later. Younger sons were expendable, and they had a tradition of service.)

On another note, you admire the sublime wisdom of the Constitution and the incomparably wise men who created it. And yet, apparently just a few years earlier they were, to a man, pussies or idiots? Maybe they knew something you didn't.

[skb12172]

And at some point, you are forced to acknowledge the fact that you are no better than the people you're fighting. At which point, you might as well change sides, since there's no difference anyway.

I was about to take sides against Aesop, arguing that it was a good point that such Brutality might have allied other Monarchist powers against us, until this. Whether in fact or works of fiction, I've always thought the "Then, we're no better than them" argument was horseshit. Anytime the choice is "us" or "them," I choose my side. In other words, "us." By any means necessary.

[skb12172]

Aesop, you continue to multiply contradict yourself.

You say we were fighting with restraint due to weakness, and I've already pointed out to you the British were fighting restrained, period. And yet you want the weaker party to say 'hey let's not hold back?'.

They had officers who were more than willing to Shermanize the entire country (without Sherman's remarkable lack of bloodthirstyness) yet they held them back. You want to tell the British, 'no go ahead'.

The Vietnamese had untouchable sanctuaries because we were afraid of pushing the Russians and Chinese too far. We had sanctuaries because the British sat on their asses in some of our cities, 'penned in' by forces far weaker. You want to inspire them to action?

You say the British were badasses, and then suggest that a little terrorism would make them run away? (Their elites were not the pussies that ours were, 2 centuries later. Younger sons were expendable, and they had a tradition of service.)

On another note, you admire the sublime wisdom of the Constitution and the incomparably wise men who created it. And yet, apparently just a few years earlier they were, to a man, pussies or idiots? Maybe they knew something you didn't.

To be completely accurate. Part of the British restraint was due to them being spread so thin around the world. We simply weren't the top priority. As a result, the American garrison often got 2nd rate troops and commanders. We also had the advantage of being mostly Anglo stock. Cousins, not people of "inferior" race. Thus, they would generally take a lighter hand with us, unless overly provoked.

[Aesop]

Aesop, you continue to multiply contradict yourself.

You say we were fighting with restraint due to weakness, and I've already pointed out to you the British were fighting restrained, period. And yet you want the weaker party to say 'hey let's not hold back?'.

You confuse weakness and strength, with restraint or its lack.
The British were superior in numbers throughout the conflict, but inferior in strategy.
Yet no time was their aggression "restrained".
Incompetent, certainly. But their was no lack of ardor in their prosecution of the war out of any sense of playing fair.
Any so-called holding back was merely a desire to preserve the value of the thing they regarded as their possession, coupled with an archaic notion of battlefield "rules". And in your haste to confuse the issue, you overlook that it was precisely the same level of imaginary restraint on their part that impelled the revolution in the first place.
Should we have worn brightly colored uniforms and marched in straight lines down public roads to make easier marks for their muskets simply because they did so?
Is a redcoat officer more dead and unable to lead his troops when a cannon ball takes his head off, than when it happens at night?
Is it more restrained to blockade a port and starve a city than to march ashore and stick a bayonet into your gut?
You've confused "different" with "contradictory".
War is war. We're discussing tactics.
If, as Sherman said, "War is all hell", then does it make more sense to have a long drawn out one, with one's pinky properly extended, or a short decisive one that ain't pretty, but gets the job done sooner?

They had officers who were more than willing to Shermanize the entire country (without Sherman's remarkable lack of bloodthirstyness) yet they held them back. You want to tell the British, 'no go ahead'.

You keep arguing that, but mere gainsaying doesn't prove the point. The only holding back of any kind was to preserve the colonies they wanted to keep.
When something gets too hot to hold, you let it go. You don't try and strangle it with both hands.
I would demonstrate to the British vividly that the only "sanctuary" for their troops is called "England", and that the cost of putting so much as a single boot ashore here would be far more than they were willing to pay, and the bill would come due relentlessly until they heeded the warning and decamped.
And it wouldn't have taken 7 years to send that message.

The Vietnamese had untouchable sanctuaries because we were afraid of pushing the Russians and Chinese too far. We had sanctuaries because the British sat on their asses in some of our cities, 'penned in' by forces far weaker. You want to inspire them to action?

The Vietnamese had sanctuaries because LBJ had his head up so far up his ass he couldn't see daylight, pretty much every day of his adult life, by all accounts. The Russians and the Chinese went to war against each other several times during the Cold War, at a cost of thousands of casualties apiece. And there was no great love for Vietnam in Peking either, as their post Vietnam war demonstrated. Both merely saw the Vietnamese as useful idiots in bleeding the US dry, for a pittance in material.

We had sanctuaries during the Revolution, because those at the pointy end were hamstrung by a lack of financial and moral support, particularly from some of the very people responsible for setting off the war in the first place. Spineless politicians were nothing new, even then.
Impelling British troops to action eliminates collateral damage among the populace. It costs them time, energy, effort, and supplies. It confuses them in a time where control of forces is tenuous. It puts them back on the road - which worked out so well for them leaving Concord Bridge. Hell yes I'd inspire them to action, with a lit rag under their backside.
Just the same way Lee inspired McClellan to action, and with similar results.

You say the British were badasses

No, I didn't. You're confusing size with will. Ask Saddam's army how that equation works out in practice.

and then suggest that a little terrorism would make them run away? (Their elites were not the pussies that ours were, 2 centuries later. Younger sons were expendable, and they had a tradition of service.)

No need for them to run away. A little terrorism would have given them pause to not set out on the 8,000 mile journey in the first place.
And by literally decapitating their officer corps and NCO supervision at every opportunity, you turn the mass of conscripts into nothing better than a mindless rabble. Every British officer lost here is a month or two waiting for a replacement in the age of sail, during which his command is combat ineffective. Morale sinks; disease spreads; rumors multiply; troops sit idle and grumble; supplies dwindle; dissent and malcontentedness grows in the ranks and saps any martial spirit from the enemy before you even have to fight him.
All of which is exactly what you want to do to the other side when you're the numerically weaker force on the battlefield. As we were.

On another note, you admire the sublime wisdom of the Constitution and the incomparably wise men who created it. And yet, apparently just a few years earlier they were, to a man, pussies or idiots? Maybe they knew something you didn't.

Way to conflate your words with mine. Really, first rate effort. Especially when I took great pains to point out that they were not anything "to a man".
They were a full spectrum of divided on the basic question of independence, and mostly dragged to the concept kicking and screaming by their betters, the will of the people, and intractable facts. Thus was it ever with any legislature, anywhere, at any time in history. (And the Constitution was hammered out by a different set of folks, 11 years later, after 4 years of peace. Only a handful of men signed both documents, including no president ever.)
Their divisions, half-hearted responses, and self-interested support didn't miraculously go away on July 5, 1776, or any day after, as a careful study of Washington's dispatches to them throughout the war makes plain.
They were, in short, exactly like every other Congress since: a range from brilliant to clot-headed, from honorable to loathsome, and a full assortment of men ranging from those who wanted to do something, down to those who merely wanted to be something.
There is a reason some of those names stand out centuries later, while many others have been consigned to the asterisks and footnotes of history.

And at some point, you are forced to acknowledge the fact that you are no better than the people you're fighting. At which point, you might as well change sides, since there's no difference anyway.

Right, because I want to subjugate the entire British empire under our boots, and consistently deprive them of life, liberty, and property on a whim because...wait, what??
I think you've been listening to too much NPR radio.

[Netpackrat]

This strikes me as being a stupid thing to be arguing about.

[Aesop]

Perhaps.

At least, until you realize that the "long train of abuses and usurpations" pales in comparison to the sorts of anti-liberty BS we undergo every year now.

Then you realize this isn't as abstract and arcane a discussion as it might be considered, on first look...

[g-man]

At least, until you realize that the "long train of abuses and usurpations" pales in comparison to the sorts of anti-liberty BS we undergo every year now.

Then you realize this isn't as abstract and arcane a discussion as it might be considered, on first look...

This. In spades. The tax on tea was three pence per pound, less than I currently pay in sales tax on EVERYTHING, not even considering the income tax. The issue at hand then was that the East India Company no longer had to pay the taxes on tea they were going to ship to America, thereby increasing their profit with no affect to their workload. Sound at all like the taxpayer dollars that were pumped into GM and Chrysler or any of a litany of Wall Street banks because they were 'too big to fail'?

[Netpackrat]

A valid point, but if this topic is actually a stealth vehicle for a hypothetical discussion of future tactics, maybe save the vitriol for the actual enemy? Not speaking to anyone in particular.

[Vonz90]

Contrary the rhetoric, the American Revolution was not the first colony or province to fight a war of separation from the home power. Just in the few hundred years before our revolution we had, a very partial list:

- The Swiss successfully separated themselves from the German (Holy Roman) Empire
- The Burgundians fought several times to extradite themselves from France but were ultimately unsuccessful
- The Dutch successfully gained independence from Spain
- The Austrian Netherlands unsuccessfully fought to gain independence from Austria (this was just after our revolution)
- The Scots fought several revolutions (or supported other claimants to the thrown) most recently in 1745.

For the most part, while the leaders were not in for a good time, most of the population of the loosing side were not executed in mass. We knew this and we acted accordingly. If we lost, the leaders would have had to flee to another country or be imprisoned/killed, but that was not going to happen to Joe Smoe the Minuteman.

The most important thing to do was for us to be recognized and get foreign support. If we acted like jackasses, that was not going to happen.

GW and the Continental Congress knew this.

In the end, they had a plan and it worked, why second guess them.

[Old Grafton]

In the end, they had a plan and it worked, why second guess them.

Unfortunately, We The People are probably going to have to do it again at some point. It's appropriate to give it some thought.