This book explains the events that preceeded the Battle of Guilford Courthouse and then gives an excellent battle report. General Greene led General Lord Cornwallis on a "race to the Dan" but ultimately chose to meet the British army on ground that he chose. His setup was similar to that used by Daniel Morgan at Cowpens.
The author is very detailed. Key details are explained and where there may be questions, the author explains how he arrived at his conclusion. Many first-hand accounts were used: diaries, pension statements, letters, etc.
For the reader interested in the American Revolution, the Southern theater played a huge role and The Battle of Guilford Courthouse is essentially the crescendo that arguably lead to the British surrender at Yorktown and the ultimate goal of Independance. ( )

Long, Obstinate, and Bloody, by Lawrence E. Babits and Joshua B. Howard, describes the battle of Guilford Courthouse – sort of the southern equivalent of Saratoga. Although the Royal Army under Cornwallis “won” the battle, in the sense that they held the field after the fighting was done, they lost more heavily then the Continentals and Nathanael Greene retreated his army intact. This persuaded Cornwallis to stop pursuing Greene and instead head for a supply base – first Wilmington, then Yorktown.

The authors point out that Guilford Courthouse has received less attention than many less important Revolutionary War battles. My own image of the battle came mostly from the movie Patriot and turns out to be pretty incorrect. I had envisioned the fighting taking place in rolling, open farmland; in fact the battle site was heavily wooded. This makes Greene’s tactics a little dubious, but all’s well that ends well. Although Continental Army regulars were just as good as Royal Army troops, a good chunk of the American army was made up of various state militias. Militia had an annoying tendency to break and run when faced with the bayonet – not surprisingly; a bullet is rather impersonal but there’s nothing like troops steadily advancing with the intent to rearrange your internal organs with a 13 inch pointy thing to give people the heebie-jeebies. Thus, inserting militia in the line had caused a number of American disasters. Finally, Daniel Morgan figured out a reasonable use for them – at Cowpens, he put the militia in front of everybody else, and told them to fire two volleys then run for the rear. Greene tried the same thing at Guilford Courthouse – however, the dense terrain meant that Greene couldn’t properly oversee the battle. Some of the militia did get off a volley, a few two, but most just broke.

However, things went better for the second line. If Greene couldn’t control his troops, neither could Cornwallis once they got into the woods. The second line didn’t have to face a dressed advance but rather disorganized single units working their way through the trees. Eventually the second line fell back to the third, which put up more stiff resistance before an organized retreat.

The authors have done impressive research, pulling together all sorts of obscure records. A number of survivors of the battle were eligible to received pensions in the early 19th century; in order to do so they had to prove they were present, and often this was done by describing the battle as well as they could remember it. Thus there are numerous “first person” account available – many contradictory due to failing memories, but still fascinating to read. The maps of various stages are excellent. The only minor flaw I find is the tendency to use “Whig” and “Tory” for the American and British sides. I assume the authors do this because there were many loyalist Americans fighting in Cornwallis’ army, but I think this overdoes it.

One of the most fascinating parts of the book was the epilogue, when the authors traced the further careers of battle participants and their descendants. Given that the US of the time was not considered a militaristic nation, a surprising number of descendants ended up in the military. Brigade commander Isaac Huger was Civil War general Benjamin Huger’s granduncle. Richard Anderson was Army of Northern Virginia corps commander Richard Anderson’s grandfather. Lieutenant Matthew Rhea’s grandson, Colonel Matthew Rhea II, was killed at Belmont. Lieutenant Peter Johnston was Joseph Eggleston Johnston’s father. Samuel McDowell’s grandson was Irwin McDowell; Alexander Stuart’s was James Ewell Brown Stuart. Samuel Houston’s cousin was that Samuel Houston; Jorge Farragut’s son was David Dixon Farragut. ( )

I first learned about the battle of Guilford Courthouse in a second hand copy of Donald F. Featherstone's Battle Notes for Wargamers wherein he noted that "the contrast between the rigidity of the British Regular forces and the loose and unorthodox tactics of the American Militia makes for unusual but fascinating table-top battling". A defense in depth whittles down the superior attacker's strength. And the British kept a-coming ...

"Long, obstinate, and bloody" is the sequel to a book-length study of the battle of Cowpens (which I haven't yet read). Compared to that battalion-sized engagement, one can see a certain merit in the adjectives chosen for the otherwise overblown title. I may have overlooked it, but the title seems to be a composite of multiple quotes. Babits and Howard have written a fine, descriptive study of the battle with a special focus on the pension records. They include a set of fine, detailed maps vastly superior to the crude sketch by Featherstone. The only flaw of the maps is the use of gray fake-3D underlay which diminishes the contrast. Aping Google Maps does readers a disservice, Shaded contour maps would have been a better choice.

While the descriptions are exhaustive, the tactical and strategic analysis is missing. A tactical discussion might have highlighted the Russian use of redoutes at the battle of Poltava to slow down the Swedish juggernaut or the use of fortifications at the battle of Bunker Hill or New Orleans. Greene's three brigade line formation had two major faults. He should have created a flanking kill zone with his artillery and he should not have placed the green 2nd Maryland (stripped of its known officers) on the open flank. These were two predictable weak points the British could and did exploit. The biggest blunder of Greene, however, was to fight with his third line at all.

If he had kept his Continentals out of the battle, he might have achieved a Saratoga situation by breaking the British logistics. With his Continentals of nearly equal size to the British force he might have harassed them on their retreat to their base. Instead, the final battle wrecked both armies. The battle, fought in the middle of nowhere, was not decisive but bloody - for the British, the Americans mostly ran away. This book offers all the information one could wish for about the battle. ( )

Long, Obstinate and Bloody is Lawrence Babits study of the Battle of Guilford Courthouse. Coming after his magnificent study of Cowpens, Devil of a Whipping, this work leaves me slightly disappointed.

Babits sets the stage for the battle in much the same way he did in Devil of a Whipping. We are introduced to the two armies and the two commanders as we create a context for understanding the campaign in the Carolinas as well as the unique circumstances of the battle.

We are then treated to an explanation of the battle in each of its three phases-contact with the first line of North Carolina militia, the second line of Virginia militia and finally the third line of American continental infantry. In addition, Babits explains the "battle within a battle" in the southern part of the battlefield. Following the "Devil" formula he consults a variety of primary sources, British, American and German to make clear a very confusing series of actions in difficult terrain, most of the battlefield obscured from Greene and Cornwallis, the two commanders.

The narrative is ill served by the series of maps that illustrate the progress through the battle's stages. I found the shades of gray difficult to make out, and seeming to cause the the object labels move as I was reading them. Simple blackline maps would have worked much better.

One other minor disappointment is that "Obstinate" lacks the discussion of tactical dotrine Babits included in "Devil." It's something I found quite useful, and fails to answer my question-did British doctrine change after the disaster at Cowpens? Instead, Babits simply refers us to Matthew Springs' fine book With Zeal and With Bayonets only to figure it out for ourselves. Disappointing.

Don't let these nit-picky complaints dissuade you. Long, Obstinate and Bloody is still a great book and a worthwhile read. ( )