I think you’ve got a point there! Depending on where the recruits came from, their fighting styles would vary. It’s interesting to think that though the militia of Massachusetts fought in a sort of woodsy/hunting style, men from the Frontiers who formed the nucleus of the famed rifle units would consider them hopeless in the bush. On the whole therefore American colonists seem to have had a general instinct for non linear combat, in varying levels from expert woodsmen in hunting shirts, Indian leggings and long rifles, to the town dressed militia of the more agricultural areas. The battle of Oriskany comes to mind where militia held off an ambush of Iroqouis and Loyalists, or Kings mountain where loyalist militia were shot to pieces by an army pricipally composed of woodsmen. Both could be very adept in many situations, except they weren’t prepared for, set piece field battles for which they had no formal training until 1776 and 1778.
Now on the flip side early experience of American “Bush tactics” Burgoyne said they all fought like Indians I think. Immediately sent the British into a concerted drive to counter them, with Loyalist militias of their own, Indians and Rangers, and their own light infantry. The bonus of having professional soldiers is that you can make them adapt to any type of warfare so long as you have the time to train them. The British army already had light infantry companies so all General’s like Howe had to do was to expand the establishment and instruct them to fight in an even more loose formation.
Very interesting.
Josh.