Oruc
Reactionary
Nope!
Who Fired First At Lexington?
- Thread starter Benderino
- Start date
I sort of agree - at first, I thought this was going to be some great article.
Changing title...
The number of wouds on the two side indicate that the militia fired hardly at all, much less first. There were only 2 bullet wounds amonst the Brits.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
Yeah, that's what I said. One got hit in the thigh, another in the hand. I believe it was 9 colonials who were killed (?) and a few more injured (maybe 7?).
jack merchant
Internationalist
Originally posted by XIII
I sort of agree - at first, I thought this was going to be some great article.
Changing title...
I agree that this is pretty much a pointless discussion as there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that either side fired first. However, as the de facto beginning of the American Revolutionary War and American independence, the events at Concord and Lexington certainly had worldwide ramifications. Moreover, the first shot has also been immortalized as 'The Shot heard around the World' in American lore, and the phrase has been around for centuries.
As such, I would say that there was no need to change the thread title (and my apologies if this should have been in a PM, but I think that calling it 'The Shot heard around the World' is really not too much of an exaggeration. And I'm not even American
).
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
I agree, the term is used to describe that one shot, and it was called such by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his poem (which I think has the same name). That said, the thread title is fully appropriate for it was the "shot heard 'round the world" (I am surprised that so few knew that, we learned all about that over here, however, my Junior High was called named after Emerson ).
).
wildWolverine
L'Etat, c'est moi
It was the opening shot of the first true war of independence by any nation in the New World. It truly did shake the capitals of the European nations to their foundations, from Spain to the Netherlands. Since the thread deals with said shot, why shouldn't it be called that?
Secondly, the British soldiers were not that tremendously trained. Many of the soldiers sent to the "unfortunate post" in the colonies were conscripts who were given the choice of going to prison or entering the army. The immense "control" the British regulars had can be seen in the absolute devastation they wreaked on their return march from Concord, destroying every farm along the way, in retaliation for the constant sniping by continental sharpshooters. In my opinion, it is most likely that some arrogant British soldier fired the first shot, offended by teh very presence of the rebels - not comprehending the far reaching effects it would have.
Secondly, the British soldiers were not that tremendously trained. Many of the soldiers sent to the "unfortunate post" in the colonies were conscripts who were given the choice of going to prison or entering the army. The immense "control" the British regulars had can be seen in the absolute devastation they wreaked on their return march from Concord, destroying every farm along the way, in retaliation for the constant sniping by continental sharpshooters. In my opinion, it is most likely that some arrogant British soldier fired the first shot, offended by teh very presence of the rebels - not comprehending the far reaching effects it would have.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
I think that is just as likely as any other option 
However, the British demonstrated their organization and morale during the attack on Bunker Hill (Breeds Hill, actually). They had three waves of attacks, all in the same way as the one before it. The colonials generally aimed for the officers, and many officers died, but the Brits still came. The Americans would have won that day, except they ran out of ammunition and had to retreat. When they did retreat, many of the day's casualties were caused by shots to the back . The Brits lost some 1500, I believe, while the Americans lost half that amount, plus the Americans outnumbered the Brits and thus had more men to die, however, the whole "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" was a brilliant order and kept the "victory" small for the British.
However, the British demonstrated their organization and morale during the attack on Bunker Hill (Breeds Hill, actually
). They had three waves of attacks, all in the same way as the one before it. The colonials generally aimed for the officers, and many officers died, but the Brits still came. The Americans would have won that day, except they ran out of ammunition and had to retreat. When they did retreat, many of the day's casualties were caused by shots to the back . The Brits lost some 1500, I believe, while the Americans lost half that amount, plus the Americans outnumbered the Brits and thus had more men to die, however, the whole "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" was a brilliant order and kept the "victory" small for the British.
Title changed to give a better idea of what the discussion thread is about. Nothing wrong about the title itself. A technical matter.Originally posted by jack merchant
I agree that this is pretty much a pointless discussion as there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that either side fired first. However, as the de facto beginning of the American Revolutionary War and American independence, the events at Concord and Lexington certainly had worldwide ramifications. Moreover, the first shot has also been immortalized as 'The Shot heard around the World' in American lore, and the phrase has been around for centuries.
As such, I would say that there was no need to change the thread title (and my apologies if this should have been in a PM, but I think that calling it 'The Shot heard around the World' is really not too much of an exaggeration. And I'm not even American
Title would have been great for an article written on this subject.
*HINT* *HINT* Discussion threads do not deserve grand-sound titles; only articles do.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying that. I'll do what I can about that *hint*, if you know what I mean .
.Sims2789
Fool me once...
our history books say the Redcoats fired first, but i'm not sure. i think the Redcoats fired first since they wanted the Patriots to pay for disobeying the King. how could the Patriots have fired first if only two shots hit the Redcoats. even if they weren't trained very well, they still hunted to get their food most of the time so they knew how to use a musket.
Ohwell
Deity
I see it as this:
Colonials firing first: Eager to fight, untrained, angry, no command structure to guide them
British firing first: Officer wanting to crush armed revolt orders troops to fire
Colonials/British misfire: unlikely
Third party: There isn't really a third party. Anyone with a gun there was either a Brit or a colonist. So the "third party" would be a colonist with a gun.
I really don't give a hell, the battle was really insignificant in the outcome of the war.
Colonials firing first: Eager to fight, untrained, angry, no command structure to guide them
British firing first: Officer wanting to crush armed revolt orders troops to fire
Colonials/British misfire: unlikely
Third party: There isn't really a third party. Anyone with a gun there was either a Brit or a colonist. So the "third party" would be a colonist with a gun.
I really don't give a hell, the battle was really insignificant in the outcome of the war.
Benderino
Loyal American Democrat
It wasn't an officer (Pitcairn), as mentioned earlier. It would've been a soldier. Pitcairn was trying to stop the shots once they had started.
wilbill
That Old Time Religion
While the British troops at Lexington and Concord may not have been battle hardened veterans, they weren't quite the "dregs" you make them out to be. The troops were from fully trained, regular British army units, some recently arrived from Europe and were certainly representative of what was considered the best army in the world at the time.
As far as the devastation on the return march, it was likely ordered by Lt. Col. Smith, the overall commander of the expedition - Pitcairn was in charge of the Marines and a few other units present. Considering the Brits were under fire most of the way back to Boston, I don't think their reaction was more than you might have expected.
Similar threads
