Long, Obstinate, and Bloody: The Battle of Guilford Courthouse

I have read this book twice and find it to be extremely thorough in its presentation of the circumstances around the battle as well as the battle itself. Dr. Babits has obviously, along with Josh Howard done a very extensive amount of research of files, records and information that heretofore had either been ignored or not discussed for whatever reason. They have dispelled numerous myths and given us a much better understanding of the battle itself. I feel this will for years to come be the definitive book on The Battle of Guilford Courthouse and would highly recommend it to both history fan and everyday reader looking for a good book to read.

I have to admit that I have spent quite a bit of time anticipating this book. My anticipation was driven by the knowledge of the authors' previous works as well as a thirst for the definitive Guilford story. Since finishing "Long, Obstinate and Bloody: The Battle of Guilford Courthouse", I can happily say that I was not disappointed! The authors have crafted a very logical story, taking on many of the myths and larger-than-life characters that have populated this important part of the American Revolution's Southern Campaign. Specifically interesting to me was how Babits and Howard correlated pension statements with the various known histories, either proving the stories or debunking them. The maps were outstanding and helped me really understand the flow of the battle. While not perfect (i.e., Rockingham County Militia?), I find this book to be both well-written and well-documented. The bar has been raised in regards to the future exploration of key battles. With "A Devil of A Whipping" and "Long, Obstinate and Bloody" written, I now shall be anticipating the next book in what I like to call their "American Revolution Southern Campaign Series".

I enthusiastically endorse this scholarly work by Dr. Babits and Mr. Howard. Their research methodology, alone, and their efforts to deconstruct accepted but mythical aspects of the battle--the Peter Francisco account and the British artillery firing into melee, just to name two--makes this book a must-read for anyone interested in the period. Babits and Howard base many of their ideas not simply on intellectual conjecture, but on primary source documentation. I especially applaud them for their work with pension records and muster rolls. Wading through a database of nearly 1,000 pensions in order to establish and corroborate details of the battle is not easy work. The revelations that come of such meticulous research are what make this work special. Is the book provocative in places? Of course. That's what happens when new, primary source research is utilized by professional historians. The authors don't appear to claim that they have all the answers; Babits and Howard offer some new ideas, substantiated through solid scholarship, with the hopes that the book will engender discourse and a fuller understanding of the battle. Rather than offering my viewpoints on specific details and espouse how I think Babits and Howard should have written the book, I will judge this work for what it is: the most definitive account of the battle to date. I can work through the levels of detail they provide in order to find an extraordinarily insightful book that challenges my understanding of the battle, the myths it created, and the human experience in war.

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

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.