# Did the British Army really not have a clue about guerilla warfare?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-british-army-really-not-have-a-clue-about-guerilla-warfare/24546>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [July 4, 2000, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-british-army-really-not-have-a-clue-about-guerilla-warfare/24546 "2000-07-04T11:54:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2000, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-british-army-really-not-have-a-clue-about-guerilla-warfare/24546/21 "2000-07-07T09:58:55Z")

</div>

In the French & Indian War, the French and their Indian allies (mostly the Indians) did use guerilla tactics. To counter them, the British had their own Indian allies (Iroquois, mostly).

There was one campaign early in that war where the British General did not understand this fact and did about everything he could to antagonize the Iroquois. They stayed home and he lost his campaign.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![curwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@curwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curwin)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2000, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-british-army-really-not-have-a-clue-about-guerilla-warfare/24546/22 "2000-07-07T11:07:02Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fillet \*  
> \*\* An interesting question is what would have happened had King George decided to repeal the taxes he had imposed. Would the colonists have then settled down and been satisfied to remain in the empire?  
> \*\*

I’m certainly no expert on American history (and from the posts here I can see that there are people here who are), but what I remember from school is that the British actually did lower the taxes. This really annoyed the smugglers, who for that reason had the Boston Tea Party.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![barton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@barton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barton)\
**Post date:** [July 7, 2000, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-british-army-really-not-have-a-clue-about-guerilla-warfare/24546/23 "2000-07-07T16:27:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jayron 32 \*  
> \*\*  
> In the Civil War, much later, such tactics were the reasons for the South’s early wins. It wasn’t until the north took up an agressive “Kill’em all” approach (such as Sherman’s March to the Sea) that the tide really began to turn. \*\*

I was going to disagree slightly with the first part of this but now I’m thinking better of it. Still, I would rate the incompetence of Northern generals as being of higher importance than any good Southern tactics.

Time and again one of Lincoln’s disasterous picks - Hooker, Burnside, McCellan, etc - would completely blow a clean chance to destroy Lee, and Lee himself wasted the gains of the South’s successful defensive strategy at Sharpsburg and Gettysburg, two huge set-piece battles.

Lee was no guerilla commander, to be sure. Forrest and John Mosby - the latter who pretty much considered the entire Shenadoah to be his private backyard, with some cause - were the go-getters.

If Lee had fought always with the intention to draw them into home-ground deathtraps like he and Jackson arranged at Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville, perhaps the South would have lasted longer.

The one early example that does match what’s being described are the Seven Day’s Battles. On paper, a bloody Southern loss, but it forced McCellan to abandon his planned attack on Richmond and made Lee shine for his resolve - thus the South actually ‘won’ decisively.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-british-army-really-not-have-a-clue-about-guerilla-warfare/24546.md?page=1)