This video was made possible entirely by our supporters on Patreon. Special thanks to my top patrons: Fritz,
Jo Crispin, Brandon Huynh and Derek Below.
The following account is from Lieutenant J Waller of the 1st Battalion Royal Marines at Bunker Hill
Two companies of the 1st Battalion of Marines and part of the 47th Regiment were the first that mounted the breastwork
But you would not be displeased when I tell you that I was with those two companies
Who drove their bayonets into all that opposed them
Nothing could be more shocking than the carnage that followed the storming of this work.
We gained a complete victory
The Battle of Bunker Hill was one of the many gruesome battles of the American Revolution, a war that lasted a total of eight years
approximately the same length as the American Civil War, Spanish-American War and
Mexican-American War combined. It's clear then that in many ways
The American Revolution was a war of attrition, but unlike prevailing belief
The war was not one simply because the British would fight in lines and the Americans were just hide in the bushes. All of America's
most decisive victories were won in a conventional manner.
But it was in the way that the Americans engaged the British - fighting on their own terms - that allowed them to outlast their enemy
I'm Griffin Johnson, the Armchair Historian. And today we'll be evaluating the advantages and
disadvantages that both sides faced which ultimately decided the outcome of the war
Before we get to the video, I highly recommend you guys check out the channel Jabzy on YouTube
He's got a lot of videos on all different wars throughout history. Today he released a video on the Haitian Revolution
I'll actually be narrating one of his videos this month. So be sure to subscribe and check it out, links are in the description below
to begin this topic
We'll be comparing three categories in order to evaluate who fielded the better army, starting with leadership.
The most notable American leader is of course George Washington appointed commander and of the Continental Army in
1775 Washington was quick to take action. He successfully forced the British garrison out of Boston in
1776 but was defeated and almost captured that same year in New York City. Still, his tactical innovation and
strategic prowess are proven in the battles of Trenton, Princeton, and Yorktown, to name a few. The next American General is Horatio Gates.
Responsible for the American victories at Saratoga, Gates gained recognition early on. But just as Gates is remembered for Saratoga,
he's also remembered for the major defeat suffered at the Battle of Camden, which was a huge blow to American morale. As a consequence
he was replaced by the much more competent Nathaniel Greene, a favorite of George Washington who eventually defeated the British in the south
Finally, there's Benedict Arnold who captured Fort Ticonderoga, a crucial position in upstate New York.
This action would soon be overshadowed, however, by his betrayal of the American cause in the middle of the war
On the British side, we have three significant commanders
The first is William Howell, the man who led the British to their phyrric [sic] victory at Bunker Hill. After the battle
he replaced Thomas Gage as commander-in-chief of the British forces in America
Howell would go on to successfully capture Philadelphia,
but because of poor communication, this meant that the army of John Burgoyne, another British commander, would be trapped without support and eventually
forced to surrender. Shortly after Howell's blunder,
he was replaced with Sir Henry Clinton in
1778 who would remain in the position of commander-in-chief for the majority of the war. The last British commander
I'd like to mention is Charles Cornwallis
who was mostly active in New England and the middle colonies and the initial stages of the war but was later
reassigned to the southern theater where he made great progress in Georgia and the Carolinas before
overextending and being forced to surrender at Yorktown. From this we can infer that the British generals tended to be more
experienced and better educated, although this was negated by the presence of other factors such as the sheer distance from Great Britain
which delayed the delivery of troops and supplies. In the case of American generals,
most of their experience came from the Seven Years War. This would give them superior knowledge of the terrain. Their main
disadvantage would be the lack of organization.
In terms of pure tactical ability American commanders held a slight advantage as evident in the cunning victories at Trenton and
Cowpens. The next category we'll evaluate is troop discipline and tactics. If you've seen any TV
documentary on the American Revolution
it's usually stated directly that the Americans were superior in their combat abilities in almost every way just because they utilized guerrilla tactics
And while there is some truth to this, it was the
Continental Army that won battles and the irregular troops who retreated from those battles
It's also said that along with the Minutemen, the Riflemen were game changers on the battlefield
But as stated in Battles of the American Revolutionary War of 1775 to 1781
by W. J. Wood, "at full strength
the riflemen could muster, some
960 men - less than 3% of the Army's total numbers."
I can say confidently then that it's simply untrue that American rifles and militia won the war the American militiamen were untrained,
under-equipped, and most importantly, unobligated to fight, oftentimes
they would simply leave and go home if they didn't want to fight anymore. A British Redcoat meanwhile could fire much more regularly and was
more often than not equipped with a bayonet making for devastating charges. Lastly
the British would always have a detachment of elite grenadiers on the right flank which would often break the American line
especially if the American forces were composed of militia as seen at the Battle of Camden
The last category we'll evaluate is equipment and supplies
Infantry equipment was the logistical priority for both the British and American armies
The British were armed with the brown bess,
a .71 caliber flintlock musket. The Americans on the other hand were mainly equipped with the .69 caliber Charleville musket
which was supplied by the French. Both sides did utilize riflemen in the war
but of course the Americans were better known for it, wielding the infamous Kentucky long rifle as seen here. We can see then that the only
significant differences between each side's army was that of supply - the British supply lines during the majority of the war were stretched very thin,
causing them to stay close to ports to receive reinforcements and foodstuffs
This constraint also prevented the British armies from pursuing the American forces inward
Even when the British could use the ports they captured getting resupplied and reinforced took 1 to 4 months
Despite Britain's logistical constraints the Americans were in no better a position. Such can be seen at Washington's Valley Forge encampment
where about 2,000 of his 12,000 soldiers died to malnutrition and disease.
Losses like this were commonplace in the Continental Army, at least early on. For this reason the British held a slight advantage in supply
So with all of this said the British were better disciplined, well-equipped, and led by somewhat competent commanders
whereas the Americans lost more battles were short on supplies, under trained, and only
compensated by a few notable commanders. How, then, did the British lose?
Well, we're forgetting two crucial categories: war support and grand strategy
Let's start with war support: the cause of the Patriots had significant support in the colonies
The idea of political independence was highly appealing, much more than that of loyalty to the Crown,
especially in the north where British financial restrictions hurt American merchants. As the war continued the British were increasingly seen as
foreign invaders and the actions of commanders such as Bannister Tarleton helped support this belief
Despite this, the Patriots were never fully able to control the entirety of the American countryside as there was a strong core of loyalist
supporters of Great Britain
Internationally the American cause was more popular, with the French, Spanish, and Dutch all supporting the Patriot cause
Though it was more out of a desire to oppose British hegemony than out of appreciation for Republican ideals
Some notable figures who really helped America reformed their army where Baron von Steuben and Marquis de Lafayette
Something I find really interesting is that the largest battle of the American Revolution
was actually fought at Gibraltar and though the British came out victorious,
it's just one of many examples of how overextended Britain became as America received more and more international support
Indeed the British saw virtually no foreign support during the revolution
With regards to strategy the Americans had the edge compared to the British
Even if it changed as the war continued. At the outbreak of hostilities the American army fought in a conventional manner,
engaging the British on their own terms, and even launching some attacks into Britain's Canadian territories.
Needless to say most of these attacks failed, severely crippling American military strength.
The British strategy,
initially, was to secure the cities of New England, thinking that once the capital of the revolution
fell, so too would the morale of the Patriots. Although they did capture most of New England, they were poorly coordinated.
This could be seen when William Howell left Burgoyne in upstate New York to face the Continental Army while he captured Philadelphia.
He underestimated the strength of the Americans and what followed was one of the largest British military
disasters of the time as Burgoyne lost his whole army and was captured. Howell also found that even though
Philadelphia was occupied,
the Americans hadn't lost their will to fight. After realizing his strategy was not fit for the Americas,
he resigned and left Henry Clinton in charge.
The second phase of the war took place in the south after Clinton realized that the north was too heavily populated with Patriots.
Washington and Nathaniel Greene had revised their strategy after destroying the British at Saratoga, but unfortunately
Horatio Gates learned nothing.
Gates engaged General Cornwallis in the south in an open pitched battle and lost a huge portion of his men after which he was relieved
by Nathaniel Greene.
Cornwallis and his staff, emboldened by their victory, continued to push through Georgia and North Carolina. Learning from his previous mistakes,
however,
Greene slowly pulled Cornwallis away from his supply lines by continuously drawing him into small skirmishes
until Cornwallis was forced to abandon his campaign and retreat to the port of Yorktown, where he was trapped by the French
Navy with Washington expecting him. By viewing the American Revolution as simply a fight between the British soldier and American soldier, all
evidence would point to a British victory.
But when you factor in that the Americans had help from tens of thousands of foreign soldiers, and supplies, and were employing
brilliant new strategies, you can see that the Americans were able to hold on until the British lost their will to fight.
Even though Cornwallis was captured and lost his whole army,
the British could have sent another one
But they didn't because support for the war was virtually gone, and it is for all of these reasons
combined, that the British suffered such a defeat.
Thanks for watching. Don't forget to check out Jabzy's channel, in the description below. Now
I'd like to thank my general staff on Patreon: Fritz, Joe Crispin, Brandon Huynh, Derek Below, Jake Hart, PJ
Nave, Eric Greenwood, Patrick Riodan, John Graham, James Thompson, Jim Talbott, Dimitry Stillermann, Janak Schwerdtfeger
And everyone else listed on screen
I'd also like to thank our team:David Myanyar, Gert Bos, and Alexander Blake for making this video possible
I'll see you next time with my video on why soldiers fought in line formations
