The Saratoga Campaign Of The American Revolution – Part Five: Second Battle Of Freeman’s Farm
October 19, 2017 by oriskany
Here we are at last, Beasts of War, at the end of our 240th anniversary commemorative series on the Saratoga Campaign. Fought between the forces of the British Crown and American Patriot rebels, the Saratoga campaign was fought in July-October 1777 and changed the course of the American Revolution.
If you’re just joining us, please take a moment to check out and comment on some of our previous instalments, which outline how we’ve come to this momentous and climactic juncture:
- Part One: Invasion Plan & Opening Battles
- Part Two: Battle of Oriskany
- Part Three: Battle of Bennington
- Part Four: First Battle of Freeman’s Farm
Now it’s time to bring down the curtain on this saga, and look at how America’s fortunes turned once and for all in their war for independence.
Burgoyne Takes Stock
Where Did It All Go Wrong?
For the British commander here in upstate New York, General “Gentleman Johnny” Burgoyne, things haven’t exactly worked out as he planned. His 1777 invasion of New York, pushing down from Canada through Lake Champlain and on to the Hudson River, has been let down by failed supporting drives from the west and New York City to the south.
Left on his own, he’s marched down the Hudson River anyway, intent on reaching Albany, the capital of New York. From here he hoped to split the most rebellious colonies of New England off from the rest of country, and thus divide and conquer this troublesome American rebellion.
But through the Battles of Hubbardton (July 7th), Oriskany (August 6th), and Bennington (August 16th), things steadily got worse for Gentleman Johnny.
His American loyalists and Iroquois have largely deserted, while Patriot militias have swarmed to the rebel cause after threats of Indian raids.
Let down by his fellow British generals, his American Loyalists, his Iroquois allies, Burgoyne nevertheless tried to shove his weakened army around and past the fortified American position at Bemis Heights, triggering the First Battle of Freeman’s Farm on September 19, 1777.
While Burgoyne technically held the field, he lost twice as many troops as the Americans, and he’s no closer to actually getting past the main American position and marching on Albany.
Meanwhile, his army continues to weaken through disease and desertion, while the Americans grow stronger with more militias joining every day.
A final ray of hope is snuffed out when General Henry Clinton, commanding British troops in New York City, finally sends a small force to invade up the Hudson. There’s a little fighting near Fort Montgomery, but never enough to help Burgoyne at Saratoga. Gentleman Johnny is truly on his own.
Trouble In The American Camp
Never Enough Drama ...
After the First Battle of Freeman’s Farm, you’d think all would be peachy in the American camp. They’re well-fortified on high ground, blocking Burgoyne’s only possible route of advance, they outnumber the British and Germans over two-to-one, and the Americans are growing stronger every day.
But these are Americans, and so are legally required to argue about something. Here the bone of contention lies between the two American commanders, Horatio Gates and Benedict Arnold. Gates is technically in command, but is furious with Arnold for winning the First Battle of Freeman’s Farm … without Gates’ permission.
Now Arnold wants to hit Burgoyne again. This is only natural, Arnold is an aggressive tactician and born battlefield commander. Things are also going very badly for the Americans elsewhere in the war. Hundreds of miles away, Washington has just lost the Battles of Brandywine (Sept 11th), Paoli (Sept 20th), and Germantown (Oct 4th).
Even worse, the American capital, Philadelphia, has fallen to the British. By all rights, the war is already over … with a solid British victory. So if the Americans ever needed a redeeming victory, it’s now. But Gates won’t let Arnold attack, convinced Burgoyne will attack first.
Gates and Burgoyne know each other, remember, old friends from the Seven Years War. “Perhaps his despair will dictate him to risk all upon one throw,” Gates writes. “He [Burgoyne] is an old gamester, and in his time has known many chances.”
I’m not going to lie, I despise “Granny” Gates, but on this occasion he is absolutely right. Perhaps out of desperation, delusion, or simply to put himself out of his own misery, Burgoyne gathers everything he has left and strikes on October 7th, 1777. The Second Battle of Freeman’s Farm has begun.
Second Freeman’s Farm
If At First You Don’t Succeed…Fail, Fail Again
Again, Burgoyne throws his weight to the west, hoping to hedge around the American left wing. His plan is half-hearted at best, basically a “reconnaissance in force.” But if the situation gets too thick, the British will fall back and maybe start a limited withdrawal up the Hudson.
Such a plan hardly inspires confidence in the officers or men. Yet the regiments form up in a heavy autumn mist and march out at around 10:00. Major Acland, with a heavy force of British grenadiers, leads on the left. Von Riedesel commands Germans in the centre and Fraser leads light infantry and the 24th Regiment of Foot on the British right.
Together this force totals about 1700, and heads toward the western end of the American position. The mood is hardly a good one, everyone knows this force is too small to fight a pitched battle, and too big to hide from enemy pickets. When they run into the Americans, there’s going to be hell to pay.
In the American camp, General Gates and his officers are enjoying a lunch of ox heart when the first snaps of musketry start echoing through the woods. Brusquely Arnold demands that permission to attack. Gates refuses. Arnold presses. Finally Gates loses his patience, fires Arnold, and sends him to sulk in his sent.
Instead, General Benjamin Lincoln is sent forward with General Poor’s brigade, along with Morgan’s riflemen and Henry Dearborn’s supporting light infantry. General Learned’s brigade is sent up as a reserve.
Confined to his tent like a five-year old, Arnold fumes and by some accounts, starts drinking heavily. As the sounds of the battle draw closer, Arnold finally loses what remains of his temper. Storming out of his tent and draining a final tankard of New England rum, he “borrows” someone’s horse and rides out to the fight.
Completely without military authority or any kind of lawful command, Arnold rides out behind a line of Connecticut militia (he’s from Connecticut himself) and basically steals command of Learned’s brigade (which is still in reserve). Learned goes with it, he’s an easy-going guy his men positively love Arnold, the hard-charging hero.
Arnold and his stolen brigade hits the advancing British columns at Barber’s Wheatfield, and that’s the end of Burgoyne’s “reconnaissance in force.” British and German casualties are horrific, and what’s left of their regiments start to withdraw.
So intense is the fire, in fact, that Burgoyne’s waistcoat is shot through, his horse is shot from under him, and his hat is shot away. Say what you will about the “playboy general,” but Burgoyne is no coward. Yet Gentleman Johnny’s gambler’s luck holds out, and he’s never hit himself. Other generals, however, aren’t so lucky.
Brigadier-General Simon Fraser’s force is covering the British retreat. The Scotsman Fraser is among Burgoyne’s best commanders, having placed the guns that took Fort Ticonderoga, won the Battle of Hubbardton, and commanded the advanced corps through the course of this whole campaign.
But Timothy Murphy, one of Morgan’s riflemen, has Fraser in his sights. After two near-misses, his men beg him to fall back, but Fraser refuses. Murphy’s third bullet hits Fraser through the bowels. He will die in agony early the next morning.
The British line comes apart, Arnold leading the Americans in a wheeling motion around Burgoyne’s west wing. Here the ground is held by more Germans, including a redoubt anchoring the Crown’s far right wing commanded by Lt. Colonel Heinrich Breymann. If this “Breymann Redoubt” falls, so does Burgoyne’s whole line.
Arnold sees this, and immediately leads a climactic charge. Morgan and Dearborn’s troops hit the redoubt from the right, Learned’s men hit the redoubt’s front and left, and Arnold himself leads troops straight into the rear of this key position. The redoubt is in chaos, and Breymann will wind up dead, shot in the back by one of his own men.
Yet it is also at this moment of supreme triumph that Arnold himself is hideously wounded. A bullet smashes through his thigh and kills his borrowed horse. As the horse falls, it further shatters Arnold’s wounded leg. It will be three months before he can sit up in bed, and nine months before he re-joins the army.
Still, the battle is over. With his wing gone, Burgoyne must fall back to a small pocket by the Hudson River. That night, be begins his retreat. Yet even this is soon denied him as yet over 5000 of his men are forced to surrender.
Saratoga - Conclusions
What Did This All Mean?
The impact that this campaign has on the course of the American Revolution, and by extension, world history, is difficult to overstate. Although it takes months for the news to cross the Atlantic, once American and French ambassadors learn of this victory, they are finally able to sign an alliance between America and King Louis XVI.
With France in the war on America’s side, victory in the Revolution becomes possible. Britain’s focus in the war abruptly changes, and they withdraw from Philadelphia (the American capital) the next spring.
The war shifts largely to the Caribbean and the American south, there the Battle of Yorktown will win the war for America in late 1781.
Burgoyne will eventually return to Great Britain, where he will be forgiven (to an extent) for this turn of events. History is less kind to Horatio Gates, who unfairly gets the credit for Saratoga. He is defeated and humiliated at the Battle of Camden, South Carolina in 1780, personally fleeing the field in terrified disgrace. He is never forgiven.
Worst of all, however, is Benedict Arnold. After an agonizing recovery, he not only lives but miraculously keeps his leg. Gates has stolen the glory for Saratoga, however, and yet again Arnold is slighted, overlooked for promotion, and actually brought to trial by political enemies in Congress.
It’s all too much. Hurt and angered by a country and a government he sees as supremely ungrateful, one of America’s greatest heroes makes the tragic mistake of turning to the other side. He never accomplishes much as a British general, and dies in obscurity in London in 1801.
We hope you’ve enjoyed this series on the Saratoga Campaign. I’d like to thank Justin and Az for the great interview, Lance and Ben and Tom Guthrie for the help with publication and web layout, and Warren and the team for letting me publish on the Beasts of War site.
As always, my greatest thanks goes to all of you who take the time to read and leave a comment on these article threads. With your help, we can keep working to ensure a strong historical wargaming presence here in the community. Thanks so much, and I hope to see you next time.
If you would like to write an article for Beasts of War then please contact us at [email protected] for more information!
"As the sounds of the battle draw closer, Arnold finally loses what remains of his temper..."
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
"History is less kind to Horatio Gates, who unfairly gets the credit for Saratoga..."
Supported by (Turn Off)
Another good read. Benedict Arnold really does beg the question ‘hero or villain?’, was it ego or genuine grievance with the revolutionary cause that drove his betrayal? Definitely worth some more reading.
@oriskany, this has been a great series, clearly a work of personal passion, thank you for the effort you put in to it.
That’s a very deep and controversial story. Basically Arnold never got the respect he believed he deserved, others were constantly slighting him, The Governor of Pennsylvanian started attacking him for no reason. Basically the Crux is, Arnold is accused of war profiteering by the Governor of Pennsylvanian who threatened to pull his states financial and material support for the War if Arnold wasn’t punished. Congress holds an inquiry and finds him innocent of all charges but he still faces a Military Trial/Court Martial which Washington (under pressure) defers indefinitely meaning Arnold is essentially being punished without trial. He demands a… Read more »
Thanks very much, @damon – @elessar2590 gives the details of the eventual betrayal quite well. Honestly I feel the motivation goes back to as early as Ticonderoga (May 1775) when he really commanded the seizure of the fort (admittedly with Ethan Allen’s men) but Ethan Allen got most of the credit for political purposes – they were still trying to get Vermont into the war on the colonial side. So a lot of it was grievance. A lot of it was definitely ego. Arnold was something of a drama queen. 😀 Easily insulted, quick to anger, and saw almost everything… Read more »
Thanks @elessar2590 – I think you got events around Arnold from 1778-80 damned near perfect. I would add that what we would call “War Profiteering” today was a widely accepted process, especially since the Continental Congress couldn’t actually pay any of the soldiers or officers. It was assumed that officers were gentlemen that would show restraint in doing what was required to get by. Even my other favorite AWI General Nathaniel Greene, the Quaker, was deep, DEEP into this kind of activity. Arnold might have gone a little overboard when he purchased that enormous estate in Philadelphia when Washington made… Read more »
Absolutely the practice was universal, close the stores, take stock of everything then make a few buck by letting the right people see the books before anyone else. Oops I accidentally left out the ego bit. Basically if you were an ambitious officer, like Arnold, you were a image obsessed and acted like a teenage girl craving your superiors attention so you’d get promoted into a cushy job and could sell you commission for more money. Shippen was also half his age so Arnold must have had some game. She was also a very good businesswoman and very well connected… Read more »
Yes, Arnold was 38 at the time, Shippen was 18 or 19. Definitely a sharp woman, intelligent and savvy, and by all accounts drop-dead beautiful. Of course there were no cameras at the time, but this is how she’s described by just about everyone who met her, up to and including George Washington himself.
Yes, she had Washington wrapped around her finger as well – as evidenced by how she was able to talk her way out of being arrested after being left behind by Arnold when his plot was exposed.
Wow what a conclusion! Bravo @oriskany.
Thanks very much, sir. 😀 Coming from a fellow “student and expert of the period,” that means a lot. 😀
Wow BA really spat his dummy out of the pram, “no one man” and all that.
Awesome series, Lloyd would be proud of your use of skewers!
What’s next then Jim?
Yes, @bonesbs – something like 300 toothpicks were used in the making of all those redoubt fences. 😀
Not sure what will be coming up next, to be honest. 😀
Great wrap up, I almost wish real life had mirrored your game. I would be curious what actual history that might have changed. I have to admit I am ALMOST sad to see the article series end. I liked seeing figures I worked on, on the site, and learning a little about history. However, I will not be sad to get my dining room table back and I will not miss having to sweep up dirt from those admittedly cool looking redoubts.
Hey, I sweep up my own “redoubt dirt” @gladesrunner ! 😀 To be honest, I think we’re ending it at just the right time. If you’re not a LITTLE sorry to see it end, you may not have enjoyed what you were working on the first place. If you’re not a LITTLE glad to see it end, you may not have given it your all. Some of those British and German troops need a bit of a touch up, though. With the articles finished maybe I’ll be able to get some actual hobby time to finish those up. 😀
Truly great series @oriskany. I don’t seem able to resist a fight in the forest. I find it interesting the the second battle of Freeman’s Farm was forced as the campaigning season should have been over by Autumn. The British food stocks must have been scraping the bottom of the barrels and would be adding to the desertions, surely. The age difference between Benedict Arnold and Shippen are about right for the marriage customs of the day in high society. Perhaps one more thing should be considered about Benedict Arnold is the length of intense pain he went through with… Read more »
Absolutely agree, @jamesevans140 – on the complexity of Arnold and what he was going through and what may have motivated the decisions he eventually made. He probably did prolong his recovery from the wound by insisting that he keep his leg (can’t really blame him on that one) and by pushing his recovery faster than was prudent. Watching his mortal enemy Gates waltz away with the glory and credit for the victory he had won and was living in agony for couldn’t have helped. Gates was (at the time) something of a political darling with the Continental Congress … to… Read more »
a doomed desperate advance needing a miracle to accomplish to any degree of success.
Thanks @zorg – I think we’ve all been there on the wargaming table. You find yourself in a position with NO “right” answers, and you just have to pick one and hope for the best.
on the table and in life we can have the win/win or the lose/lose in some situation’s flung at you from a bad dice or life just being a pain in the ass, Lol
Can’t argue with that. 😀
Great read – If Johnny had pulled out in time, and let Washington loose the war down south … We might have been like Canada. ..
Not outside the realm of possibility, @rasmus . Burgoyne accepts a draw and pulls back to Fort Edward or even Fort Ticonderoga (probably before Bennington). Washington loses all those big battles in the south and Philadelphia. With no Saratoga victory, Ben Franklin STILL can’t get a deal with the French, so they never enter the war, the British never have to pull out of Philadelphia, etc etc etc …
@rasmus By “might have been like Canada,” do you mean “filled with Syrians”?
He may have meant “more polite than Americans” and “with a much better president.” 🙂
The Crown snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Thanks, @rasmus . With early victories in this campaign like Ticonderoga and Hubbardton, it kind of looks like Burgoyne was running away with a campaign victory in the summer of 1777, only to lose it through bad luck and decisions later. Then again, his overall plan really depended on Howe or Clinton coming up from New York City to help, which we know in hindsight was never going to happen. So we almost come to the conclusion that Burgoyne’s invasion was doomed from the start? At least from certain perspectives? 🙂
Great series of articles. I love the historical retrospectives you have put together.
Thanks very much, @cbrenner. 🙂 Glad you liked them!
Interesting summary on the BA story, thank you chaps. Looks like an interesting study into the motives for treason, several layers to dig through there. Is the motivation idealistic or egotistical?
‘This cause is no longer deserving of support’ or ‘screw you guys, I’m in this for me’, or a combination?
For years I always heard ‘Benedict Arnold’ and ‘bastard’ mentioned in the same sentence, but didn’t much about the circumstances surrounding his turncoat decision. Makes sense now… a bit extreme of course, a decision seemingly driven by ego.
Great battle report @oriskany .
Indeed, @cpauls1 – there’s a little bit of logic to it. Actually a lot. And if Arnold has simply quit (as so many other American officers did when they got tired on how they were being treated), I firmly believe Arnold’s place in our history would be secure (if not stellar). Examples we can cite, again, include guys like Stark, Putnam, Morgan … Or hell, even guys like General John Glover, who quit along with his whole brigade of “Marbleheaders” from Massachusetts, to become privateers instead of soldiers (at least privateers make money). But when you get your panties wound… Read more »
Yeah, there’s a fine line between figuring out a man’s motivation, background, context, and trying understand why he did something … And empathizing with him to the point where you “forgive” him. Almost like Confederate ACW generals or German generals in WW2. Try to understand – and not condone.
I still have a lot of issues about any judgement of Benedict Arnold due to the the times themselves. This is a crucible time to live in and it where the American identity will be cast. Yet here the crucible is still being filled. I would through the glasses of the times would call this a civil war. Both sides consider themselves British caught on the question of government without representation or the idea of self government as a dominion. Like all political questions it will eventually polarize to two factions. In this view the notion of treason becomes somewhat… Read more »
You bring up some great points, @jamesevans140 . I even agree with some of them. 😀 Please forgive my snarky sense of humor. I’m just back from work and a lot of travel this week. Did get to meet some members from the Beasts of War community who were visiting the US, though. 😀 Okay: I still have a lot of issues about any judgement of Benedict Arnold due to the the times themselves. I would agree with that up to about 95% … the way he was treated by the other generals, treated by the press, treated by his… Read more »
“I personally have no trouble with my moral compass on this issue. Arnold was one of the best we had and was treated terribly by just about everyone. If he had quit, gone privateer, or simply rode out the rest of the war on “cushy” assignments like Philadelphia or West Point, I (and American history in general) would have no problem” OK, could BA have come to regard the hierarchy of the revolution as his enemies, certainly seems he was ostracised to the point of being a pariah to elements of the Continental government, even his ‘friends’ (Washington) wouldn’t publicly… Read more »
Honestly, @damon – I think Benedict Arnold also had a big streak of good ole’ selfishness in him. A lot of the successes he scored for the Patriot cause early in the war were, at least in part, to win glory and respect (and yes, money) for himself. And when he didn’t get it in the proportions he thought due to him, he went shopping somewhere else. Not to get too analytical about it (I’m certainly no psychiatrist) but some of this might have come from his childhood, where his father (a respected merchant in New London, CT) wound up… Read more »
All interesting stuff, a subject definitely worth more reading about.
Wouldn’t historians love to find a lost journal or letter; “Why I Did It”. Although it doesn’t seem he was given to self reflection or introspection beyond ‘what’s in it for me?’
Oh, I’ve read plenty (Benedict Arnold: Patriot and Traitor – Willard Sterne Randall) but I don’t think people will ever really know the full story. A lot of this happened by the fireside of that Philadelphia mansion and in the bedroom with Peggy Shippen (***sigh***). Sadly, no one was writing any of it down. Obviously he left American after the war, and even back in England he was never really accepted and no one wanted to hear what he had to say. So I’m afraid this will largely be one of those things …
Silly thought probably but here goes. Can you because traitor if the country who you allegedly committed acts of treason against doesn’t exist?
Actually, it did exist, as established by the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776. 😀
To say nothing of betraying the Continental Army, established November 1775.
Told you it was silly
No question or opinion is silly. Well, not in the historical forums. 😀
I’m sure if the war had turned out different the Treaty of Paris (if there even would have been a treaty with “crushed rebels” would have invalidated Declaration of the Independence, except the signatures could have been used as a checklist for the hangman.
“Okay, let’s see. John Hancock …”
Thud-snap of the gallows.
“One down, 55 to go …”
Interesting comments @oriskany. My points I make I try to filter back to the time and place without the modern baggage we bring along with us. That is why I call the fort, Fort Arnold as it has for now none of the significance of the latter West Point other than its defensive value. Australia is a socialist democratic dominion of England. Twice in my life I have witnessed a referendum for it to be a republic. These were argumentative violent times when a tiny amount of people died for their views. I don’t believe anything is straight forward and… Read more »
Great post again, @jamesevans140 – I would argue that West Point (or Fort Arnold, if you prefer) was at the time the most important single military point in North America. It was part of a complex that included Fort Independence right across the Hudson River, and absolutely bottlenecked the Hudson River (most important river in America at the time). The Hudson has something of a dog-leg in its course there, where ships of the time cannot simply sail past, but put out longboats and have to paddle around it. This, plus the chain, plus the massed artillery, meant that the… Read more »
There is not such thing as a silly question, just silly answers. 😉
So you’re saying my answers are silly, now? Just kidding of course. 😀 😀 😀 I would actually agree with that statement. No harm can come from asking a question, it’s if the answer is not carefully considered that things can go pear-shaped.
That’s not stopped 95% of the opinions on the internet!!!
Dammit, why won’t my smileys work?!
“That’s not stopped 95% of the opinions on the internet!!!”
That’s why I tend to stuck with Beasts of War – it’s a pretty polite and respectful community most of the time – unlike most others. 😀
Here are some extra smiles:
🙂 🙂 🙂
@Damon remember empty vessels make the most noise.
They become the background noise you learn to ignore.
@oriskany what other campaigns of the AWI would you suggest as interesting for wargaming purposes?
That’s a great question, @jamesevans140 . For years now I’ve wondered why the American Revolution doesn’t get more focus here in the US among wargamers (black powder fans in the US seem obsessed with the Civil War). After two article series I think I’m starting to figure out why this is. Most battles in the American Revolution are so uneven, and you have to be so careful with asymmetric victory conditions, that they’re actually pretty hard to do many times. Nathanael Greene and Daniel Morgan vs. Cornwallis and Banastre Tarleton would be my best guess for another campaign where the… Read more »
Thanks for your reply @oriskany. I think the ACW gets more interest simple because it is closer time wise. Most Americans I have met have family stories of what they did in the civil war. While very few from the AWI where these stories have fallen into myth and legend which for family stories is the waste paper basket of history. The other thing is that the ACW is normally divided into east and west. From forested mountains to the knee high shrub lands of Texas. As long as you don’t nameplate each regiment you get a lot of bang… Read more »
Thank you so kindly for your great reply @elessar2590. As I mentioned before I am on shaky ground when it comes to the AWI and my history tests were a number of decades ago, so some things are bound to get cross wired along the way. It is not often that I play 20mm to 28mm skirmish games. I prefer to come up a level or two where it is the actions of teams rather than individuals. If you like I wish to know that the house had been taken rather than how it was taken. Having said this if… Read more »
For me answer to that is that for almost every game I play I collect at least two sides. This goes back to the long haul build i mentioned earlier. Now I’m not saying it’s a requirement but it makes finding a game infinitely easier and if your group switches rules chances are you won’t have to rebase since everything’s the same. Building an army with a friend is also a great way to keep everyone excited in the project and on the right track. Communities like this one are perfect for doing that. Playing with your finished minis is… Read more »
@elessar I am totally with what you say about. I wargaming now for the better part of 4 decades now and have gamed with the same group for over two decades. Only 3 of us remain from when we started but our group normally is around 8 to 15 people all bringing their favorite games with them so most of us have quite a few armies, range from fantasy to sci-fi to historic (mostly 20th century). When we start something new we choose our favorite army and once it is built up to play a small game we start painting… Read more »
Hey, @jamesevans140 – if ACW is your thing, have you seen @elessar2590 ‘s new article series on Sharpe’s Practice (first part on an ACW engagement)?
@oriskany even in my family those that fought from WW1 until today are remembered and at least the key points of their story. Including those serving in East Timor today. Yet the family history goes get and fuzzy for the Boer War and then it goes blank if you go back any further. I know that a branch of my family moved to the U.S. in the early 1800’s but I have no idea to where our if they served in the civil war. By no means do I think we should not nameplate our regiments and battalions, just not… Read more »
By no means do I think we should not nameplate our regiments and battalions, just not in the traditional way of permanently placing them on the bases of the figurines and models.
Gotcha. I’ve never seen that. People actually do that? Man, that’s dedication. 😀
One of the things you need to understand about the American Revolution was the relationship between Congress, Washington and the various states in regards to the army. One thing Congress kept doing, to the annoyance of Washington, was to hand out Generals commissions to the woefully unqualified. Sometimes it was political, sometimes Congress was just duped by flashy salesmanship.
This made truly accomplished generals, like Arnold, extremely unhappy. Washington was also pretty unhappy about it to but mostly kept it to himself.
Great post, @blipvertus – this was definitely the case with Horatio Gates – a darling of Congress. Of course, Gates hated and disrespected Washington, perhaps even more than Charles Lee did. So Washington had to deal with Congress filling many of the Army’s most important positions with die-hard personal enemies. Of course, not that Gates’ predecessor Schuyler was that much better, but still … And of course, Gates would “get his” at Camden. So with Gates “disqualified” by his later defeats and Arnold “disqualified” by his later treason, a lot of the “populist” credit for Saratoga goes back to Schuyler,… Read more »
The type of nameplating I am talking about dates back as far as the first 25mm Napoleonic wargames and on the other side of the pond the hardcore Civil War gamers followed suit. To the descendants of these groups even what I suggest here is outright heresy as they nameplated down to regiment level but typical gamed the one battle, like Waterloo, Gettysburg and the like. An alternate developed of nameplating the command group of the regiment. For me I will be wargaming the Civil War in the same fashion as we game WW2. This style of gaming has been… Read more »
I must admit I’ve never seen it done either even for command groups. Yes people use real life commanders in their games and their perceived attributes when it comes to C&C etc but I personally wouldn’t go as far as starting to name Lieutenants,Majors etc
I must admit, @jamesevans140 – I’ve nver seen “permanent” name plating of units (if I understand you right) outside of a museum, and then of course it’s a diorama rather than a gaming table. That would indeed be seriously hard core. Gettysburg at the regimental level is (very roughly) 10 corps (both sides) x 3 divisions x 3 brigades x 5 regiments = 450 units, plus artillery batteries, command, and support units (let’s call it 800 to be safe). 800 units times I would guess at least 4 of 5 figures per unit / base = 4000 figures you could… Read more »
@torros – I’ll agree I don’t nameplate> commanders as the scale at which I enjoy playing is usually too large to accommodate them. We identify them sometimes for rules purposes, but there aren’t usually enough of them to require printed nameplates. At least in my case, the exception would be these AWI games, where a general can command as few as 1000 men (brigade, depending on the battlefield conditions – and we’re playing at a 1-10 , 1-20, or 1-80 men per stand “command tactical” ratio). This is only because Battlesystem his rules for command diameter, how many units a… Read more »
Sorry guys a few non days there. It looks like we have different exposure to this @torros and @oriskany. From what I have seen the stand of the regimental leaders has the rear half painted white with the regiments name written on it. As many civil war regiments tend to have long names what is written on the base tends to be highly abbreviated. This is a waste of time as far as I am concerned. If you only wargame one or two battles from the Civil War this is fine. I on the other hand wish to explore the… Read more »
Thanks very much, @jamesevans140 – glad to see you’re feeling better.