Sounds great, please do let me know about the Sullivan Expedition post.
Great thoughts on the sharpshooter perspective. I always found it odd to believe fully that British traditionalism (fighting in tight, well-organized lines) would surpass human-life common sense in battle (to not stay in tight, well-organized lines while being shot at from a dispersed and enemy 🙂 ). That seems to be one of a few sensationalized characterizations of the American woodsman and fighting styles.
I’ve also never really thought much about the assumptions each side made about the other. As I consider it now, in the colonies, early victories were important to help convince the Continental Congress to take on more debts and provide for a larger army. And further into the war, to convince France (and via France, Spain) to openly support the cause (thanks in part as well to Ben Franklin’s diplomatic savoir faire). The losses, at times, tripped them up. I sometimes wonder how things might have turned out differently had the Americans lost more battles early on and George Washington been replaced. There was talk of Horatio Gates being the new General and political maneuvering to sell the idea. Washington was able to maintain his position though and go on to be legendary.
The european influence was so key – Marquis de Lafayette, Baron von Steuben. I am always impressed by the deep interest others had in contributing to the cause, coming from far away and risking their financial and physical lives to fight with some seemingly outnumbered and outclassed “rebels”. Equally impressive is how significant the contributions of just a few had such a big impact. In hindsight the war seems like such a well-scripted tale, yet at the time I could only imaging how tenuous things likely seemed to be.
Getting some good ideas flowing, thanks for the inspiration!
-Dan