Why did the American Revolution not (generally) sink to bestial levels of brutality?

Question

There were some atrocities committed (by both sides) in the Revolutionary War. But, by comparison with the French Revolution, or certainly with the much later Russian Revolution, atrocities committed by soldiers upon one another or upon civilians appear to have been relatively few in both number and scale. This despite the fact that propagandists such as Paine were spewing out inflammatory tracts that could only be interpreted as incitements to extreme brutality.

So, how was it that conduct between enemies in the Revolutionary War was so comparatively restrained?

Or am I simply wrong in judging it to have been restrained?

Answer 1

You're actually correct, reprisals and brutality were more the exception than the rule, with the exception perhaps of New Jersey, where a civil war of sorts flared up. Most reprisals were much closer to killing livestock and burning barns rather than killing innocents. During that time there are two things to keep in mind. First, it was considered ungentlemanly to ruthless exploit a military advantage (I'm not kidding). The British had several oppurtunities to follow up their successes against Washington's Army but didn't capitalize on them. Also, warfare was made to be more humane. British soldiers were never even told to "aim" before they fired. The idea behind it was that armies utilizing concepts of massed fire (with the flintlock musket and smoothbore cannon) would gain advantages and hold the battlefield at the end of the day through superior discipline and better maneuvering. Battles won would add to a "war score" and eventually the side that was losing the battles would sue for peace. The British thought by capturing major American cities and defeating Washington's army time and time again (while never destroying it) would force the colonists to see that they couldn't win and seek a reconciliation, which is what the British really wanted. They wanted the colonies as a happy, productive part of the Empire, brutality would have been counterproductive, they certainly were looking towards the future and didn't want to keep thousands of troops in North America forever just to clamp down on potential rebellions, so they used a limited war strategy. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for Americans, the colonists didn't quite see it that way and held out until help arrived and the British felt that they should sue for peace.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Why did the American Revolution not (generally) sink to bestial levels of brutality?
There were some atrocities committed (by both sides) in the Revolutionary War. But, by comparison with the French Revolution, or certainly with the much later Russian Revolution, atrocities committed by soldiers upon one another or upon civilians appear to have been relatively few in both number...

Answer 3

Between The Continental Army and The regular British Army
yes it was both Armies were trainde to fight like Gentlemen.
However I can think of dozens and dozens of cases where Hessian Mercenaries Colonial Militias Loyalist Militias and some reuglar British officers,notably Colonel Banastre Tarleton behaved despicably including looting and rape and murder of civilians and slaughter of wounded enemy combatants after they had surrendered.
I believe it was the tarining and societal backgrounds of most of the high level officers on both sides (Washington Greene Layfayette Cornwallis Clinton etc) that kept atrocities to a minumum during The American Revolution

Answer 4

Because America didn't have to 'win' the war. Great Britain wasn't fighting on it's own soil. All America had to do was be a pain in the butt, and exert political pressure by way of France. Britian was unable to commit their full armed forces to our revolution, because it would have meant crossing the Atlantic and leaving it's own borders undefended.

In the other two revolutions that you mentioned, the actual government of a sovriegn nation was toppled. This makes for a very personal, ugly battle, and every troop had to declare loyalty to one side or the other. They were playing for 'all the marbles'.

Answer 5

I totally agree. And the criteria which qualifies them is simply unnattainable - they ahve to have served for 20 years when their own rules say they can only serve for 15. If there was ever a more cynical action by a morally corrupt government I'd like to see it. The minister concerned bangs on about how the public wouldnt like all those people emigrating here. Well actually, we dont mind. What we mind are the money seeking immigrants who are coming here to claim money from our countries coffers into which they have had no input. Pregnant women from african nations who come here and use up funding that should be spent on the indiginous population and then go home again - I know someone who works in the health sector who is tearing their hair out about it. People who come and are immediately given handouts when they have done nothing to deserve it. We let in people who incite hatred against this country and then pay them for the privilege. But gurkhas who have a long history of loyalty to this country? We treat them like dirt and sub species who must be kept out. Shame on the minister. Shame on the government. And shame on us for letting it happen. Rant over.

Answer 6

Hello,

I would only guess that the combatants were fighting their own kind and perhaps their own relatives as well just like a civil war. The French Indian wars fought 20 t0 45 years before were very vicious and brutal by 18th century standards so with two different cultures allied with two indiginous tribes, mortal enemies with each other, there was far less restraint.

Cheers,

Michael

Answer 7

I am not certain, but maybe the thought that these men were actually fighting their own might have something to do with it. The era was that of the true gentlemen, which has most certainly changed over time. There was a true social factor that came into play during the American Revolution. I am sure that it was comparatively restrained compared to the atrocities we see today.

Answer 8

Banastre Tarleton
British Prison Ships
Iroquois Massacres in NY
NY Gov Tryon's invasion of Connecticut.

To name a few from the American perspective. There are equal number and more from a Loyalist perspective.

Answer 9

Because brutality is rarely committed by soldiers or against soldiers; it is usually committed by paramilitary outfits (essentially, either armed civilians or secret police) against unarmed civilians. During the American Revolution, there were virtually no unarmed civilians on the British side. So, once the British army withdrew and the German mercenaries surrendered, there was no one against whom brutality could be committed; even the German mercenaries were eventually granted clemency and allowed to return home or settle in the new nation...

Answer 10

The southern theatre was full of violent reprisals. "The Patriot" is loosley based on some of them.

{edit}
Whoever marked this down, check out the Battle of Waxhaws where clonial troops were murdered after surrednering; according to eyewitnesses British troops searched the battlefield for wounded colonials and bayonetted them without mercy. Only a few English officers managed to save a few of their opponents.

Also read about Banastre Tarleton, the man looted and burned plantations and homes. Stole horses, and was the British leader at Waxahaws.

Another brutal British military leader was surnamed Wemyss, I forget wheter he was a colonel or a major. The man also burned homes and plantations, looted, murdered, raped and even burnt a church (the inspiration of the church burning in the Patriot).

Rebel sympathizers were often whipped, their farms, homes and livestock destroyed. Some of these people took revenge on the English soldiers and English sympathizers. Rebel troops did their own share of burning and killing.

No one likes to remember the war in the south, or the war in Indian country. It reveals the true violence of the conflict. Instead they focus of George Washington and Benedict Arnold who fought European style battles with the British. The deadly game of attack and violent reprisal coupled with guerilla warfare which was the main fighting style in the Southern states is ignored.