Command, rank and organisation (pet theory)

[AniThyng]

It does make a certain amount of sense even from a civil war perspective: wasn't it an issue that certain southern states were unwilling to release their militia units to the Confederate Army?

[Ritterin Sophia]

You have a really deluded vision of the America Civil War.

Civil War? I was referring to the American Revolution. War for Independence. 1776-1783. How is my vision deluded?

Why did I type Civil War?

Anyways it's deluded because most of the time the Colonial Militias broke ranks and ran when faced with any sort of real opposition, the only units that were effective were the French trained and supplied Continental Army units.

[Simon_Jester]

Schatten, the thing is, it's more complicated than that. The militia were not effective in stand-up combat against regulars (with a few conspicuous exceptions), and it was definitely the professionally-trained Continental forces that won most of the battles (well, the battles that were won).

But the militias were useful in that they controlled pretty much any ground the British didn't actively garrison, forcing British armies to concentrate or risk having outlying detachments get mobbed. And they were sometimes used effectively in conjunction with or in support of the more competent Continental formations.

They didn't win the war by any stretch of the imagination, and if it had all been up to them they'd have gotten their asses kicked. But they definitely played a role; they were not negligible (not least because they were a major source of practice for the officers who went on to command the Continental Army).

You have a really deluded vision of the America Civil War.

Civil War? I was referring to the American Revolution. War for Independence. 1776-1783. How is my vision deluded?

Well... it's not that bad, as I understand it.

The colonies/states definitely had local militia forces, usually not well trained enough to stand up against British regulars, but numerous enough to harass them and to be a real threat under good leadership. Sometimes the British did try to disarm the militia units (an attempt to do so led to the battles of Lexington and Concord).

But some key points:
-By and large, militia weapons were stored in militia armories, not kept at home by individuals.
-Firearm ownership wasn't all that high, not really; it wasn't quite the "armed populace" scenario the pro-gun movement likes to make of it.
-The militia rarely managed to stand and fight effectively against British regulars, and it was only under exceptional leaders who took the time to drill them properly that they were effective.

[recon20011]

I agree with you both, and I apologize if it sounded like I felt the militia had won the war. They didn't. I know for a fact that the militia... to put it kindly... sucked. I just hadn't wanted to go into that much detail to explain all that. My point was that the militia was kept at home and the Continentals roamed the country. The Rebel Alliance member worlds each have their "militia", and depending on the set-up it may even be a militia (i.e. part-time soldiers or volunteers) with defenses in orbit that have skeleton crews that can be manned quickly in case of emergency. An ideal system? No. Or it may be a professional (i.e. full-time paid force). That detail isn't relevant. What is relevant is that, like Simon-Jester said, they were training grounds for officers (and men) who wanted to move on and join the Continentals/Rebel Fleet. And they would fight for their homes when needed. Even if it would ultimately prove ineffectual: most of the Defense Fleets are going to be light units, escorts and the like, far better suited to chasing down pirates than fighting in the wall of battle. Exactly like the militia of the American Revolution. Far better suited to fight Indians than Regulars.

But some key points:
-By and large, militia weapons were stored in militia armories, not kept at home by individuals.
-Firearm ownership wasn't all that high, not really; it wasn't quite the "armed populace" scenario the pro-gun movement likes to make of it.
-The militia rarely managed to stand and fight effectively against British regulars, and it was only under exceptional leaders who took the time to drill them properly that they were effective.

Just a nitpick, but the Battles of Lexington and Concord happened because the British were attempting to take the communal ammunition stores. Mainly stores of gunpowder. The 13 colonies produced no gunpowder of their own and always had to rely on imports from England. No farmer, no matter how revolutionary-minded he may be (and most of them weren't at all), is going to have the foresight and cash to stockpile enough gunpowder to fight a war, even if its only enough for him to fight with. He still wasn't going to do it. So the local militias stockpiled gunpowder to replenish their fighters when they were running low. Remember, the militias weren't created to fight the British, the colonists actually considered themselves to be British, but they were created to fight the Indians, and even to fight Indians you need large stores of gunpowder. The British forces in Boston were growing concerned when some militias started stockpiling extra gunpowder. So they started making raids, and Lexington and Concord is an example of what men can do when their homes are threatened. Which is all a militia is for, really. And I must say, despite not annihilating the Regulars, they did a pretty good job, and if they didn't win, well, they most certainly did not lose.
Also, gun ownership in the cities was not high. I don't know for sure how common percentage-wise gun ownership was, but my understanding is that every family outside big towns, cities, and coastal villages had a gun. So, a fairly large portion of the population.
I can continue if you wish?