While I don't  disagree with you regarding the Continental Line,  may I  point out that its officers were the ones who wrote the bulk of reports and since many --Light Horse Harry comes to mind-- were known scoffers of the militia, their reports were not always accurate and tended to downplay any militia participation, particularly if it infringed on their own accounts of glory.  Here's one example of many:

The battle in early 1781 near Guilford Courthouse:  Regarding the end of that battle, Odell McGuire, wrote in  his acclaimed  "Many Were Sore Chased And Some Cut Down",

". . . Tarleton's legion, [British troops] reinforced by 200 redcoat infantry,
 were finally met and there was a sharp fight. Graham's North Carolinians 
refused to dismount and take their place with the  other riflemen. Nor could 
Lee's cavalry do much in the thickets, but his Legion infantry and the Botetourts 
[Rowland's 200 militia] quickly formed and returned fire. The losses after fifteen 
minutes were about twenty or thirty on each side. At this point [Colonel]  
Otho Williams, instead of bringing up his much superior reserve, 'order'd a 
gradual retreat which was well enough effected considering the irregularity of our order.'"

Following  Otho William's order,  Lee's Legion retreated, leaving the "back 
woodsmen" militiamen trying to hold off the British alone to cover the retreat.   McGuire continues,

"That the riflemen didn't take part in the ordered retreat and that the Legion 
was pulled out, leaving them behind, could not have been gathered from Williams' report to his commanding General.  But Nathanael Greene, not altogether without guile himself, was too shrewd a commander  to let he equivocal phrase,
 'considering the irregularity of our order', slip past without finding out  exactly 
what was meant. "

In later reports,  Lee omits any mention of his own retreat --successful due to the protection provided by Rowland's riflemen--  and instead  attacks 
the actions of the Botetourt militia during all of the North Carolina Expedition.  In addition, he was the cause of many Virginia militiamen being charged with desertion from which  they were cleared during a court martial in March. . . but that's another story.

By the way, the American force at Bunker/Breed Hill --which lost against a far superior force-- were made up in large part by  farm boys --members of militia groups from all over New England who enlisted following the action at Concord and Lexington.  The outcome at Cowpens  also depended on  militiamen (Gilmore's Rifles Rockbridge Co. VA. ) I'm not so sure the Continentals could have held up without them.  

Joanne




James Brothers <[log in to unmask]> wrote: While there are instances of asymmetrical warfare (king's Mountain  
comes to mind) during the American Revolution, they contributed to  
victory but did not win the war. It was the pitched battles such as  
Bunker's Hill, Saratoga, Cowpens, Yorktown, etc. that determined the  
final outcome. And it was not the militia, but the Continental Line  
that won those battles.

James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]



On Jun 7, 2007, at 9:16, Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe wrote:

> Paul has received some rather unfair criticism about his  
> understanding of the US military in US history.  Paul knows this  
> history in detail but let me "speak" for him for a minute.
>
> The US militia and "professional" military during the Revolution  
> was a rather thrown together force.  They prevailed, but for  
> reasons that seem almost miraculous.  It helped that Americans  
> often fought asymmetrically from Concord on out.  It also helped  
> that the field of battle was so large that the British military,  
> itself without a draft, didn't have enough troops to completely  
> occupy the 13 Colonies/united States.


 
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
 Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.