Originally Posted by Claymore

Just to be clear, the Colonial army won the Battle of Saratoga fighting in the European style (in lines using mostly smoothbore muskets). While the Riflemen were effective they certainly did not win the battle themselves (The riflemen in this engagement belonged to Morgan's rifles) and did not make up the bulk of the army. The battle was by no means easy! Horatio Gates had very little to do with the actual outcome (he could have competed with Ambrose Burnside for the title of the Worst General in American history as would be seen at Camden in 1780), the real hero was Benedict Arnold. In regards to the British being allowed to keep their weapons, I think you need to check your sources. Some of the officers were eventually exchanged with captured Colonial officers but most of the regular soldiers were prisoners until the end of the war (Gates agreed to allow the British to keep their colors and all of the soldiers return home but the Continental Congress didn't honor the agreement). Many of the guns were transported to West Point in 1778.

Check out these links:
http://www.saratoga.org/battle1777
http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-saratoga.htm
(that second one is for a British perspective)

If you want to read a good series on the American Revolution check out Christopher Ward's 2 volume set "The War of the Revolution" published in 1952.

i had a feeling that someone would post something like this


my over all point is that I think it is weird that they lined up and killed each other in bulk masses. I see they did that so save amunition and all that but I still think it is weird and I'm not trying to argue with any body

Originally Posted by danthepirate

What do you mean by that?

oh and this insn't a question it is a statement.

Originally Posted by danthepirate

i had a feeling that someone would post something like this


my over all point is that I think it is weird that they lined up and killed each other in bulk masses. I see they did that so save amunition and all that but I still think it is weird and I'm not trying to argue with any body

The purpose of these forums is to promote discussion and debate on military history. Statements are fine, but you can't not expect others to post about the subject in hopes of creating a debate or a discussion, with perhaps differing views.

Originally Posted by danthepirate

i had a feeling that someone would post something like this


my over all point is that I think it is weird that they lined up and killed each other in bulk masses. I see they did that so save amunition and all that but I still think it is weird and I'm not trying to argue with any body

Refer to my earlier post. If you say they could have used rifles then I'll counter with saying rifles were expensive, took more skill and a bit more fragile (if you consider the fact that rifles are grooved).

And on the point "I'm not arguing with any body", didn't you say All opinions welcome?

ok ok okokok, srry, ill stop arguing, go ahead yes all opinions welcom but dont critisize me, im not looking at the subject from any perspective, i agree with all of you so there is no need to get of subject

As people have already said the musket was a very innaccurate weapon, so the only way to use it effectively is to use concentrated fire, as although skirmishers can use cover they cant put enough fire down and so wont be able to hold ground against an advancing opponent. I'm not to clued up on the revolutionary war, but I know that during the Napoleonic war the British generally favoured the line rather than the column which over countrys often used when advancing as it allowed every soldier to fire his weapon as well as the possibility of attacking the flanks of a column.
I know that during the napoleonic war most battalions had light companys as skirmishers to harrass advancing troops, anyone know if they were in use during the revolution?

Originally Posted by Urgannagru

As people have already said the musket was a very innaccurate weapon, so the only way to use it effectively is to use concentrated fire, as although skirmishers can use cover they cant put enough fire down and so wont be able to hold ground against an advancing opponent. I'm not to clued up on the revolutionary war, but I know that during the Napoleonic war the British generally favoured the line rather than the column which over countrys often used when advancing as it allowed every soldier to fire his weapon as well as the possibility of attacking the flanks of a column.
I know that during the napoleonic war most battalions had light companys as skirmishers to harrass advancing troops, anyone know if they were in use during the revolution?

im pretty sure that they were. and yes concentrated fire, the best way to use the musket.

Originally Posted by danthepirate

i had a feeling that someone would post something like this


my over all point is that I think it is weird that they lined up and killed each other in bulk masses. I see they did that so save amunition and all that but I still think it is weird and I'm not trying to argue with any body

Ok, I wasn't arguing with you. Based upon your posts, you didn't seem to understand what I was trying to say, and some of the statements you made were simply inaccurate. But enough of all that okay?

Desert Eagle is absolutely correct regarding the rifle. It was not a weapon that was widely used during the war, one of it's greatest drawbacks (in addition to be slow to load) being that you could not use a bayonet with it.

In regards to skimishers they were indeed used. One example of their effective use is the Battle of Cowpens. Daniel Morgan used both his skirmishers and the militia very effectively. I have seen occasion where skirmishers were referred to as the Light Infantry.

true true

I found a website about this topic check it out:
http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/tactics.html