Picture of author.

Lawrence E. Babits

Autor(a) de A Devil of a Whipping

10 Works 347 Membros 9 Críticas

About the Author

Disambiguation Notice:

(eng) Full name: Lawrence Edward Babits

Image credit: East Carolina University

Obras por Lawrence E. Babits

Etiquetado

Conhecimento Comum

Nome canónico
Babits, Lawrence E.
Nome legal
Babits, Lawrence Edward
Sexo
male
Educação
Brown University (PhD)
Ocupações
historian (military)
Organizações
East Carolina University, Program in Maritime Studies
Nota de desambiguação
Full name: Lawrence Edward Babits

Membros

Críticas

This book explains the events that preceeded the Battle of Guilford Courthouse and then gives an excellent battle report. General Greene led General Lord Cornwallis on a "race to the Dan" but ultimately chose to meet the British army on ground that he chose. His setup was similar to that used by Daniel Morgan at Cowpens.
The author is very detailed. Key details are explained and where there may be questions, the author explains how he arrived at his conclusion. Many first-hand accounts were used: diaries, pension statements, letters, etc.
For the reader interested in the American Revolution, the Southern theater played a huge role and The Battle of Guilford Courthouse is essentially the crescendo that arguably lead to the British surrender at Yorktown and the ultimate goal of Independance.
… (mais)
 
Assinalado
trueblueglue | 3 outras críticas | Nov 23, 2023 |
Detailed look at Morgan’s defeat of Tarryton in SC
 
Assinalado
IlliniDave | 4 outras críticas | Oct 31, 2022 |
Excellent Anna analysis of the historical record, assembled and presented in a very readable manner. Recommend reading this book before visiting the battle site.
 
Assinalado
4bonasa | 4 outras críticas | Jul 8, 2021 |
Long, Obstinate, and Bloody, by Lawrence E. Babits and Joshua B. Howard, describes the battle of Guilford Courthouse – sort of the southern equivalent of Saratoga. Although the Royal Army under Cornwallis “won” the battle, in the sense that they held the field after the fighting was done, they lost more heavily then the Continentals and Nathanael Greene retreated his army intact. This persuaded Cornwallis to stop pursuing Greene and instead head for a supply base – first Wilmington, then Yorktown.

The authors point out that Guilford Courthouse has received less attention than many less important Revolutionary War battles. My own image of the battle came mostly from the movie Patriot and turns out to be pretty incorrect. I had envisioned the fighting taking place in rolling, open farmland; in fact the battle site was heavily wooded. This makes Greene’s tactics a little dubious, but all’s well that ends well. Although Continental Army regulars were just as good as Royal Army troops, a good chunk of the American army was made up of various state militias. Militia had an annoying tendency to break and run when faced with the bayonet – not surprisingly; a bullet is rather impersonal but there’s nothing like troops steadily advancing with the intent to rearrange your internal organs with a 13 inch pointy thing to give people the heebie-jeebies. Thus, inserting militia in the line had caused a number of American disasters. Finally, Daniel Morgan figured out a reasonable use for them – at Cowpens, he put the militia in front of everybody else, and told them to fire two volleys then run for the rear. Greene tried the same thing at Guilford Courthouse – however, the dense terrain meant that Greene couldn’t properly oversee the battle. Some of the militia did get off a volley, a few two, but most just broke.

However, things went better for the second line. If Greene couldn’t control his troops, neither could Cornwallis once they got into the woods. The second line didn’t have to face a dressed advance but rather disorganized single units working their way through the trees. Eventually the second line fell back to the third, which put up more stiff resistance before an organized retreat.

The authors have done impressive research, pulling together all sorts of obscure records. A number of survivors of the battle were eligible to received pensions in the early 19th century; in order to do so they had to prove they were present, and often this was done by describing the battle as well as they could remember it. Thus there are numerous “first person” account available – many contradictory due to failing memories, but still fascinating to read. The maps of various stages are excellent. The only minor flaw I find is the tendency to use “Whig” and “Tory” for the American and British sides. I assume the authors do this because there were many loyalist Americans fighting in Cornwallis’ army, but I think this overdoes it.

One of the most fascinating parts of the book was the epilogue, when the authors traced the further careers of battle participants and their descendants. Given that the US of the time was not considered a militaristic nation, a surprising number of descendants ended up in the military. Brigade commander Isaac Huger was Civil War general Benjamin Huger’s granduncle. Richard Anderson was Army of Northern Virginia corps commander Richard Anderson’s grandfather. Lieutenant Matthew Rhea’s grandson, Colonel Matthew Rhea II, was killed at Belmont. Lieutenant Peter Johnston was Joseph Eggleston Johnston’s father. Samuel McDowell’s grandson was Irwin McDowell; Alexander Stuart’s was James Ewell Brown Stuart. Samuel Houston’s cousin was that Samuel Houston; Jorge Farragut’s son was David Dixon Farragut.
… (mais)
½
 
Assinalado
setnahkt | 3 outras críticas | Jan 1, 2018 |

Listas

Prémios

You May Also Like

Estatísticas

Obras
10
Membros
347
Popularidade
#68,853
Avaliação
3.9
Críticas
9
ISBN
17

Tabelas & Gráficos