On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:57 pm, Trei, Peter wrote:
> > Kevin Elliott[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we
> > succeeded in the revolutionary war by "inventing a new form of
> > warfare". The reality is that the british were marching in
> > formation for very, very good reasons. Their tactics were an early
> > form of Napoleanic tactics (the techniques perfected by Bonaparte
> > and used to SMASH most of the rest of Europe). They evolved from
> > several factors notably: [snip]
>
> Actually, they were marching for quite another reason - they were
> in retreat back to Boston, via Lexington. The redcoats had very light
> casualties up to the point when Gage decided to pull back.
If I might ask, if they had suffered light casualties, why were they in
retreat?
> Untrained at small-unit tactics (and tired - they had been on
> the move all the previous night marching from Boston),
> they marched along a road flanked by ridges, stone walls,
> and farmhouses - great cover for the well-rested militia
> who had no particular place to get to, friendly civilians,
> and great local knowledge. The British set out flankers
> to guard the line where they could, but topography
> sometimes made them useless.
This is how I remember reading about it. Home court advantage.
> On the retreat, the Gage's men suffered 20% casualties.
--
Mike Diehl
PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred.
Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc
