Long, Obstinate, and Bloody: The Battle of Guilford Courthouse [Hardcover]

The Battle of Guilford Courthouse (GC), like pretty much all of the southern campaign, has typically gotten short shrift when discussing the history of the American Revolution (AR). The recent spike in interest in the AR has led to a better appreciation of what happened in the south and long-ignored chapters are finally being told.

That it took so long for GC to receive a full-length treatment is frankly shocking, as it is one of the most important battles of the AR -- important enough to have been butchered in The Patriot (starring Academy Award winner Heath Ledger). But what's past is past, and we finally have a book (not to slight Another Such Victory, but it was more pamphlet than book). So how did Babits and Howard do?

The Good:
--Details, details, details! As best as can be ascertained by the authors, we know where everybody was in the battlefield, and often know where they moved as the battle progressed. This results in a few surprises (see The Interesting below), but more importantly makes sure the reader always has a sense of order through the chaos of battle.

--Academic rigor. Bibliography, notes, and maps are solid. Index is actually useful.

--Readability. You can easily follow the action, and the authors' style doesn't detract from the book (as frequently happens in history books).

--Did I mention that GC deserved this treatment a long time ago?

The Bad:
--The details may bog the reader down, especially when the authors go through the order of battle. Since the maps do a good job of listing troop positions, I would recommend that during the chapters on the troop makeup, pay more attention to the who of the companies rather than the where.

--For a book that's only about 220 pages in narrative, there's a substantial amount of padding, including about 23 pages of what happened afterwards to pretty much everybody that survived the battle. I'm guessing the authors had little choice, but it's a little disheartening. That said, it was an interesting chapter so I don't begrudge its inclusion.

The Interesting:
--If the militia performed better than Greene later relates, does that mean George Washington's postwar analysis is way off?

--I'm curious if we'll ever find out exactly why "Light Horse" Harry Lee disengaged from the side battle. I know one of the reviewers disagreed with what the authors stated, but their evidence looked solid to me.

--Mythbusting! I was shocked to discover that the oft-retold story that Cornwallis fired into the 2nd Guards-1st Maryland melee may be wrong. I wonder if the National Park is going to need to re-edit its films. It's also interesting because that action was included in the aforementioned Patriot, thus accomplishing what I thought was impossible: making that movie even more historically inaccurate.

The Conclusion:
Glad to have this book on my shelf, as there had been a gap there for far too long. Like the authors I believe that this book should be the start of even more research on this important battle. I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the American Revolution, and heck I even recommend it for those who don't have an interest ... yet.

Lawrence Babits and Joshua Howard have delivered the most thorough and readable account of the monumentally important Battle of Guilford Courthouse. While I do not agree with every conclusion, Long, Obstinate, and Bloody has set the baseline for all future Revolutionary War battle histories - 5 ENTHUSIASTIC STARS!

Another quite knowledgeable reviewer has noted that "for some reason" Babits and Howard think that Washington "deserted" his position along the northern flank, and says that he has never seen any evidence to support that. First, I cannot fine a single statement to support this claim. Instead they postulate that due to the lack of a road along the northern flank heading towards the courthouse, and the heavy brush, it is possible that Washington's dragoons themselves were unable to operate in the terrain and were therefore positioned at the courthouse. On the southern flank there was a road running roughly east-west, which the authors demonstrate Lee probably used to extricate his dragoons. The authors simply point out that it is unknown if such a road existed to the north, but the presumed lack thereof may suggest that Washington's dragoons were actually not deployed on the flank. As the authors suggest (this is not a definite statement, but a suggestion) "A more likely interpretation. . ." (62, 122-123). And here is a strength of their work. Rather than blindly following the traditional analysis or boldly and carelessly bucking the trend in every instance, the authors offer tangible alternatives when concrete proof is lacking. I think that they are simply offering this as a possible explanation of how Washington ended up along the third line. Perhaps the other reviewer overlooked page 217. A closer reading shows a pension account offered by a North Carolina militiaman that specifically states he saw them at the courthouse at the beginning of the engagement. To me this represents a valuable piece of evidence to support the authors claim.

On another note, the previous commenter made note of the fact that Greene had indeed at one point in the campaign stated that three detachments were with his army. He did not directly state, to my knowledge at least, that the detachments were actually at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. The authors explicitly state that Buford's men were amalgamated into Green's regiment of Virginia regulars (73). Furthermore, his name wasn't Colonel John Buford as the other reviewer states, it was Abraham.

The other reviewer states that the maps seem to indicate the third line fighting took place at the Francisco monument. I disagree. The monument itself is marked on the map about an inch southwest along the tour road (also on the map) from where the map shows the 1st MD/2nd Guards melee. The current tour road is marked on their map, showing the pull-offs, etc. I would also strongly disagree with the previous reviewer concerning the quality of the maps. Quite the opposite of "amateurish," I found them to be highly informative and useful.

Finally, the authors also never state that Stevens' brigade "routed." Their discussion of that brigades fighting withdrawal is quite complimentary to Stevens, and they explain that the Virginians were responsible for the delay in the 71st Foot arriving on the third line (128). In their discussion of Stevens' wounding, they do quote Lee as having said Stevens "received a ball in his thigh, which accelerated not a little the retreat of his brigade," and they do state that his men began "streaming to the rear," but that's not stating that they routed. In fact, Babits and Howard are quite clear in their discussion that Stevens' men fought ferociously (124-128). They don't suggest that Stevens continued fighting against the 71st in the fields south of the courthouse, presumably because their evidence simply doesn't support such a claim.

Disagreements such as these, however, are the life-blood of the southern campaigns of the revolution. In many cases, because the evidence is scant and oftentimes contradictory, numerous plausible answers exist. Babits and Howard have done yeoman's work in offering solid, evidence-based suggestions for this crucial battle. Their work simply must be consulted when studying this critical period in American history.

The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Battle narratives are very difficult to write well, but Larry Babits and Joshua Howard have written an excellent account of the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. Plowing through countless original documents and thoroughly documenting their account the authors have given me a much clearer account than any other I have read of this crucial battle. As Wellington said, battles are impossible to get right, there are always too many things going on and most accounts are written or assembled long after the event, what the authors have done is to pull together a cohesive and readable narrative from all the available sources and I was impressed by the level of detail they achieved. Are their still points that can be debated? Certainly, I suspect Mr. Babits and Mr. Howard would be the first to say so, but I know of no better account of this hard fought battle and I found it a joy to read. The Southern Campaign was a long and bloody affair and it is often overlooked as an important part of the American Revolution, hopefully this book will help draw attention to this critical phase of America's march to independence.