You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
NoRefunds2 on scored.co
1 month ago0 points(+0/-0)1 child
you are fucking stupid bro. What military tactics did our soldiers apply during that war? oh wait, NONE. They didn't march in boxes like retards learned in the military, so go fuck yourself again you stupid asshole.
If you mean colonial militia during the American Revolutionary War, they were extremely important, but they didn't fight the war in the same way as the Continental Army.
Roughly how much did they contribute?
Manpower: Militia probably supplied the majority of Americans who served at some point during the war. Estimates vary, but roughly 100,000–200,000+ militia served at some point, compared with about 230,000 enlistments in the Continental Army over the entire war. These numbers overlap somewhat because men could serve in both.
Local defense: Militia protected towns, forts, supply depots, roads, and ports, freeing Continental troops for major campaigns.
Intelligence: They were particularly valuable at detecting British movements and communicating information to Continental commanders.
Guerrilla/irregular warfare: In places such as the Carolinas, Georgia, and Virginia, militia fought numerous small engagements against British troops and Loyalists.
British occupation: Militia made it much harder for Britain to actually control territory after capturing cities. The British could occupy places such as Charleston or New York, but controlling the surrounding countryside was much more difficult.
Major battles: Militia participated in many important battles, including Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Cowpens, Kings Mountain, and Yorktown.
But there's an important distinction
The militia wasn't the main force that defeated the British Army in conventional warfare.
The Continental Army under Washington became increasingly important because it could:
> stay together, train, maneuver, and fight large professional armies.
Militia generally served for much shorter periods—sometimes days or weeks—and their effectiveness varied enormously. Some units fought very well; others were unreliable or simply went home when their local obligation expired.
A useful way to think about it is:
Continental Army = the force capable of winning major conventional campaigns
Militia = the force that made British occupation and control extraordinarily difficult
And then there was a third component: privateers and state naval forces, which contributed substantially to disrupting British commerce.
So if you're asking "Could the American Revolution have been won without the militia?", the answer is probably no. The Continental Army needed the militia to protect its rear, provide manpower and intelligence, contest the countryside, and prevent the British from turning battlefield victories into lasting political control.
Do you know what a line is?
I feel bad for you.
The revolutionary war was not won with militia groups. Davey Crocket and his hatchet did not force the British to surrender.
Within the militia groups were veterans of the French Indian wars.
Within the regular regiments were veterans.
Both groups had war time veterans with experience.
If you mean colonial militia during the American Revolutionary War, they were extremely important, but they didn't fight the war in the same way as the Continental Army.
Roughly how much did they contribute?
Manpower: Militia probably supplied the majority of Americans who served at some point during the war. Estimates vary, but roughly 100,000–200,000+ militia served at some point, compared with about 230,000 enlistments in the Continental Army over the entire war. These numbers overlap somewhat because men could serve in both.
Local defense: Militia protected towns, forts, supply depots, roads, and ports, freeing Continental troops for major campaigns.
Intelligence: They were particularly valuable at detecting British movements and communicating information to Continental commanders.
Guerrilla/irregular warfare: In places such as the Carolinas, Georgia, and Virginia, militia fought numerous small engagements against British troops and Loyalists.
British occupation: Militia made it much harder for Britain to actually control territory after capturing cities. The British could occupy places such as Charleston or New York, but controlling the surrounding countryside was much more difficult.
Major battles: Militia participated in many important battles, including Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Cowpens, Kings Mountain, and Yorktown.
But there's an important distinction
The militia wasn't the main force that defeated the British Army in conventional warfare.
The Continental Army under Washington became increasingly important because it could:
> stay together, train, maneuver, and fight large professional armies.
Militia generally served for much shorter periods—sometimes days or weeks—and their effectiveness varied enormously. Some units fought very well; others were unreliable or simply went home when their local obligation expired.
A useful way to think about it is:
Continental Army = the force capable of winning major conventional campaigns
Militia = the force that made British occupation and control extraordinarily difficult
And then there was a third component: privateers and state naval forces, which contributed substantially to disrupting British commerce.
So if you're asking "Could the American Revolution have been won without the militia?", the answer is probably no. The Continental Army needed the militia to protect its rear, provide manpower and intelligence, contest the countryside, and prevent the British from turning battlefield victories into lasting political control.