Why line up? and americans were terrorists

[Romanman]

This has been annoying me for a very long time since i'd like to call my self not only a history buff but a man of common sense. My history teacher, a typical standardized test teacher, when discussing the american revolutionary war calls the Brittish army stupid. This is the main theme he tries to pass off , the British army was stupid because they lined up in a straight line and shot at the enemy and allowed the enemy to do the same. (simplified version). Now Lets think before we call perhaps one of the most powerful army at the time stupid, my common sense tells me they must have done it for a reason.

His solution to the line problem is to i guess sort of skirmish formation (no line hidding behind obstacles) much like the american revo forces did

Here is a list of points i've compiled off the top of my head of why armies adopted line formation and mass fire.

1. Logistically speaking it would be nearly immpossible to coordinate attacks or an army in "skirmish formation" using only flags, drums, horns , etc. not to mention trying to march with that army they would have to redeploy in column to do any serious moving. think of supplies etc.

2. In Battles skimish formations would be to long, thin, and spread out. A massed infantry or cavalry charge would break through the line and you could get at their supplies. Muskets were also so inaccurate shooting in "skirmish formation" would be almost entirely useless.

3. In comparison of strategies why would the british whose goal was to wipe out as many rebel americans as they could adopt a "skirmish formation"

4. Again muskets were very inaccurate unexperienced troops (like the americans) would sometimes miss with entire volleys when they aimed the muskets to high and shot perhaps 1-2 times per minute, while experienced soldiers like the brits could shoot sometimes 3-4 per minute.

5. to me this "skirmish formation/guerilla warfare idea" all comes down to post vietnam military panzyness, to make an omlet you have to break a few eggs and to win a battle your going to have to kill a few soldiers. in fact you'd probably lose less in line formation.

(i don't know if this matters but im an american)
Another thing my history teacher said was that early americans were basically terrorists. Now its obvious this guy has no idea what the word means. My father an ex-marine said a british officer lectured him once about ira terrorists and this is the definition he used (i think its an accurate description of terrorism): the use of acts of violence on civilians to create mistrust between people and their government. Keep in mind Guerrilla warfare is often employed by terrorists but is not the same thing because its not killing civilians its killing soldiers. So.... were revolutionary americans terrorists?

is their any incidents of them killing civilians, not that i know of, Ben franklin said 1/3 were rebles, 1/3 were loyal to england, and 1/3 were neutral. it doesn't seem like it would make sense for them to try and win those who are neutral by killing them

honestly if your gonna be test teache teach stuff on the test but don't pretend to know history.

[Watchman]

Pretty sure the loyalists got the proverbial short end of the stick though...

Anyway, that teacher obviously understands crap all about musket-and-bayonet era linear tactics and the reasons behind them. Might also want to ask him how come the American rebels then up and drilled their forces to use the same methods, and more or less considered it vital for their effort...

[antaeus]

yep.. washington hired a prussian officer to train up the regular continental army to fight the british.. they also stood in lines the same as the british... in the important battles such as yorktown, it was continental regulars fighting in european order alongside french allied troops that won... not skirmishing riflemen farmers... the american line infantry late in the army were as good as any in the world.

i dont know any skirmish line which could hold against line infantry massed volley fire at least until the 1850s when guns improved rate of fire and accuracy a skirmish line simply cant provide enough concentrated power to break a line... and cavalry can run through them like nobodies business. after that point in time rate of fire and accuracy and ease of loading (breach loading guns) allowed soldiers to concentrate fire from concealed positions and skirmish war became a logical alternative.

your post vietnam era army can put down 50 times more fire from cover and not sustain casualties. while it might be pansy post vietnam era attitude to save lives.. its also winning...

[Romanman]

yep.. washington hired a prussian officer to train up the regular continental army to fight the british.. they also stood in lines the same as the british... in the important battles such as yorktown, it was continental regulars fighting in european order alongside french allied troops that won... not skirmishing riflemen farmers... the american line infantry late in the army were as good as any in the world.

Great point, i forgot to mention that he had to teach us this a little later so its alittle hypocritical of him to be praising american guerrilla tactics when they began to prefer conventional tactics

I think his exact words were something like this..... "Now the british when they fought they would march out and form a line and shoot at the enemy and let them shoot at them, its just stupid they were using tactics from the last century" ~Keep in mind he is talking about 1776 the last century would be 1600's so pike and musket tactics?

Its ridiculous some of the stuff he says, when i think of him i think of the quote - History is a set of lies agreed upon

you guys seem to know alot more about the subject than me and im glad you seem to be agreeing with me so i know im not crazy.

[conon394]

I guess I would say some of the pre-war actions of the 'son of liberty' types cross the line into what today would be called terrorism. However the problem is of course when one side had a overwhelming conventional military advantage what choice does the opposition have but to engage in irregular war and what not until it manges to crate a situation where it can fight regual war?

[Visna]

Technically speaking I suppose they were traitors, not terrorists.

On the subject of fighting style, didn't the British favour only a few volleys at best, and then get up close and personal with the bayonet?

[Nikos]

Technically speaking I suppose they were traitors, not terrorists.

On the subject of fighting style, didn't the British favour only a few volleys at best, and then get up close and personal with the bayonet?

Usually. The bayonet was a crucial advantage for the British throughout the entire war. Early in the war before Von Steuben properly trained the army, the threat of bayonets was usually enough to make the Americans flee.

[Farnan]

Technically speaking I suppose they were traitors, not terrorists.

On the subject of fighting style, didn't the British favour only a few volleys at best, and then get up close and personal with the bayonet?

Actually a good deal of the time they ignored the shooting part and went straight for the bayonet. The early militia would retreat as soon as the British charged with the bayonet.

[Watchman]

It occurs to me that would seem to be a very effective approach to use against opponents you know are a bit short in the training and discipline departement... the impact of bayonet charge was after all primarily psychological (actual bayonet fights seem to have been rather unusual in general).

[Farnan]

It occurs to me that would seem to be a very effective approach to use against opponents you know are a bit short in the training and discipline departement... the impact of bayonet charge was after all primarily psychological (actual bayonet fights seem to have been rather unusual in general).

Yep.

And also the Americans were good at shooting and if they did the traditional method of trading volley till one was about to break and then charge the British would suffer more losses, so many times they just charged.

[Ramashan]

You know, to say that the British were stupid for fighting in lines is by extension to say that the Americans continued to be stupid by fighting in line formations up till the 20th century. I mean, the Civil War was a line formation war. So, either the US decided that they should just stick with tradition and remain stupid or that line formation had benefits in the style and level of weapon tech of the era. I tend to go for the latter.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

well America would have lost to Briton if it had not been for France who had in effect blocked British ships fro getting to America also one thing i find weird is why is it not rembered as a British civil war?

[Nikos]

well America would have lost to Briton if it had not been for France who had in effect blocked British ships fro getting to America also one thing i find weird is why is it not rembered as a British civil war?

Because not all of the inhabitants of the Colonies were British, nor were the majority British citizens.(IIRC)

[Visna]

Because not all of the inhabitants of the Colonies were British, nor were the majority British citizens.(IIRC)

Or because the Americans won?

I mean, if the British had won, I think it would be called a British civil war. And Washington and all those other traitors would be lined up and hung.

[Nikos]

Or because the Americans won?

I mean, if the British had won, I think it would be called a British civil war. And Washington and all those other traitors would be lined up and hung.

I don't think so, it would still be known as a revolution, a failed one, but a revolution all the same.

[Lysimachos11]

I don't think so, it would still be known as a revolution, a failed one, but a revolution all the same.

This may be a stupid question, but why was it even a "Revolution"? Actually it looks like it was simply a war of independence. They traded a monarchy for a republic but sec what's revolutionary about that? All new countries set up a new government. In the case of the French Revolution, there was a clear and sudden change within one state with a lot of social upheaval. In the American case, it's simply a small peripheral region breaking from an enormous empire, and setting up a government to their better liking. None of the African countries becoming independent in the 20th century have their own "Revolution"...

[Watchman]

...and more to the point, by that point no longer regarded themselves as particularly "British" (and a lot of the colonies had originally been anything but, having been wrestled from other European states over the centuries) but rather more "colonial" if not outright "American".

[Farnan]

Why is wasn't called a civil war was the Declaration of Independence.

[Publius Clodius Pulcher]

God, high school History teachers can be so moronic it isn't funny. Also, the difference between the unconventional warfare in the Revolution and now (in my mind) is that the Americans used those tactics until they could build a conventional army, whereas that objective is no longer aimed for.

[Bond]

That why I said the U.S would have to had supported the killing of civilians, Which it did not. Civilians die in every war, its only terrorism when they are killed on purpose.

I don't think the word terrorism/terrorist can apply to just killing civilians, and furthermore i think it is a very subjective term.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

when we drop a bomb on a building and civilians get killed we call it collateral damage, but if a suicide bomber detonates his bomb near an outpost and kills civilians it's a terrorist attack..maybe in the terrorists eyes the civilians killed in the suicide bombing are collateral and the bomb dropped from a plane killing civilians is a terrorist attack

God, high school History teachers can be so moronic it isn't funny. Also, the difference between the unconventional warfare in the Revolution and now (in my mind) is that the Americans used those tactics until they could build a conventional army, whereas that objective is no longer aimed for.

i think it's no longer aimed for because it's unrealistic to think that a militant group can become professional enough to pose a challenge to the US military