The Hanging Rock Battlefield in Miniature

Recently, I described how I was working on a version of the Hanging Rock battlefield, at a 1:20 scale for 15mm miniatures. That battlefield is now more-or-less complete and is shown below.

I first had to identify the area in which the fighting was likely to have taken place (see here, here, and here). Early on I realized that I couldn't make an exact representation of the area as it likely appeared in 1780. Therefore, I settled on a certain amount of abstraction. I didn't create miniature hills, ravines, and watercourses per se, but rather represented these things using variations in the "vegetation." Also, the trees are spaced somewhat far apart; this is necessary so that I can move the miniatures about on the battlefield. As a consequence of these decisions, the miniature battlefield may not closely resemble the Hanging Rock Creek area in 1780, but it at least captures something of the flavor of the time and place.

Two Maps of the Hanging Rock Battlefield (click to enlarge). The map on the left is from Google Maps. The map on the right is from ACME Mapper. In both cases, today's Flat Rock Road (which follows roughly the same path as the 18th-Century Camden Road) runs from north (at top) to south. Hanging Rock Creek runs from the top of the map to the right. I believe Bryan's North Carolinians were encamped on the hill near the upper right. The lakes in the area were not present in the 18th Century. Several small streams in the area are not represented on the map on the left.

Hanging Rock Battlefield in Miniature (click to enlarge). As per above, the Camden road runs from north to south. The farmland at center left is the site of the center camp (note the brush hut near the cabin). The encampment of Bryan's North Carolina Volunteers is in the woods at the upper right. The encampment of the Prince of Wales' American Regiment is in "Cole's Old Fields" near the lower right.

Further Thoughts on Rocky Mount

I recently finished my research on Hanging Rock. In so doing, I came across some additional information on the battle of Rocky Mount that I missed before. The most important information concerns British losses. Lieutenant-General Charles Cornwallis wrote to Lieutenant-General Henry Clinton on August 6, 1780 that “We had on our part an Officer Killed & one wounded, & about ten or twelve men killed & wounded” [1]. Interestingly, the official return of losses submitted by Cornwallis to George Germain on August 20, 1780 lists 8 killed, 31 wounded [2]. I only have access to a summary, not the return itself, so I cannot shed any light on the cause of the discrepancy (e.g., does one total cover only the Provincial forces involved and the other both Provincials and militia?). Neither statement mentions missing, which might be expected given claims by the Americans that some prisoners were taken. The total of 39 killed and wounded is surprisingly high, suggesting British losses of around 13%, and possibly higher. This seems like an unlikely loss rate if the Americans were inflicting casualties only by shooting into the portholes of the British-occupied log houses. (By comparison, American losses, if reported accurately, did not exceed 4%).

There are two plausible ways that such high losses could have been inflicted.

First, some of the defenders may have been struck down while out in the open. As described in that series, a party of British Legion dragoons was caught out in the open at the beginning of the battle. As also noted, some of the Loyalist militia were stationed in a redoubt, but were soon driven into the works. Here is another pension application that supports the latter claim:

William McGarity claimed, “we marched against Col[onel] Turnbull at Rocky Mount and drove them from their works into a house from whence we could not dislodged them” [3]. None of the accounts I’ve read indicates that the Loyalists lost men while fleeing the redoubt, but it’s certainly plausible, especially if they were not near the gate, or if the abatis was difficult to cross.

Second, American Lieutenant-Colonel William Hill claimed that the British were in a frame house and that he expected that the Americans’ bullets would easily penetrate the wood, striking down the defenders inside. I pooh-poohed this description because Hill is not the most reliable source, and other sources agreed that the British were in log houses [see Note 4 in this post]. However, I recently came across a would-be pensioner that agreed with Hill. James McConnel claimed that, “the force of the British & Tories he does not know, these were in a large frame house stockaded round from which the Americans tried to drive them but without success as they were unprovided with cannon" [4].

So possibly one of the buildings that housed defenders was a frame house, and the defenders inside were quite vulnerable to the Americans’ gunfire. Hill claimed that while the frame house appeared to be vulnerable, the British "had placed small logs about a foot from the inside of the wall and rammed the cavity with clay" [5]. But how could he know? The Americans didn’t have an opportunity to inspect the site until almost 2 weeks later (after the British abandoned the post), and this may reflect an improvement that was made after the battle. The gun shot holes from the battle would have remained in the exterior of the building, leading Hill to a false conclusion.

Notes:

1. Letter from Charles Cornwallis to Henry Clinton, August 6, 1780.

2. Enclosure in a letter dated August 20, 1780 from Charles Cornwallis to George Germain. In K. G. Davies (Ed.), Documents of the American Revolution 1770-1783 (Colonial Office Series), Vol. XVI. Irish University Press.

3. Pension application of William McGarity, transcribed by Will Graves.

4. Pension application of James McConnel, transcribed by Will Graves.

5. William Hill's memoir, transcribed by Will Graves.

British Legion Redux

When I first decided, last summer, to spend a lot of time with the battle of Hanging Rock, I thought that I would be able to use many of the same miniatures I had painted for my Cowpens project. Gradually, however, I’ve been moving away from that decision and I’ve painted up a number of minis that will be of specific value to this battle. The latest batch I’ve been working on are British Legion Infantry. The first 15mm-high British infantry I painted (some years ago) was a group representing the 64th Foot; I used these for the Legion infantry at Cowpens for reasons briefly articulated here.

In researching Hanging Rock, it's become clear to me that the Legion infantry were dressed in green jackets similar to those worn by the Legion dragoons. A party of mounted Legion infantry arrived at Hanging Rock near the close of the battle (Lieutenant-Colonel Banastre Tarleton described them as “Captains Stewart and M'Donald, of the British legion… with forty mounted infantry.” However, American sources mistook them for the dragoons (e.g., William Davie claimed that “some of the legion cavalry appeared”).

To create green-jacketed Legion infantry, I selected some Minifigs British light infantry figures that I had primed some time ago but not painted. The figures were painted using Vallejo Game Colors. I don't have a large selection, so I routinely mix my paints. The jackets, for example, are the result of mixing Sick Green, Beastly Brown, and Stonewall Gray. The figures were primed with white, but I first painted all the metal parts black. Faces were painted with Pale Flesh and then given a brown wash. I drybrushed the caps and feathers with white.

The mostly-completed figures appear below. I still have to varnish the figures and flock the bases.

The Hanging Rock Battlefield - Part 5

Final Thoughts

The site I proposed for the British camps at Hanging Rock is a good match with participant accounts and military exigency -- more so, I believe, than other locales linked to the battle (cf. here and here). However, a caveat is in order. I have not hunted down every scrap of information on the battle of Hanging Rock. There are at least two important omissions of which I'm aware. One is that I have not read the so-called Sumter Papers [see Note 1], with the exception of an account by Joseph McJunkin that has been reproduced elsewhere. From what I know of the Sumter Papers, the accounts are primarily a good place to learn of memorable incidents involving particular individuals. (This has also been my experience reading transcribed pension applications). It would be good to know whether such accounts support the views I've adopted, but because the accounts I have read and will be using are especially likely to be trustworthy, I'm not sure that I would allow statements in the Sumter papers to "overrule" them if they offer a contradictory recollection.

The other concerns the activities of relic hunters in the area. I'm aware that artifacts that seem to date to the 18th Century (see here) have been found on or near the Battlefield Property. Do such findings prove that my description of the battlefield is incorrect? I don't believe so.

First, the area was not only the site of a military encampment in the summer of 1780, it was also used on a number of other occasions (including as recently as the Civil War) as a military encampment. The defensive alignment necessary in the summer of 1780 was not required on the other instances. Thus, some of the those other encampments could well have been nearer the Hanging Rock.

Second, the Hanging Rock was a well-known curiosity, and soldiers in the area would have visited it even when they were encamped elsewhere [see Note 2]. Likewise, civilians passing through the area (like Benjamin Lossing) were drawn to this spot. Because the rock formation lies on the far side of a ravine, it's not difficult to imagine that various persons would have left small items behind as they negotiated the difficult terrain.

Third, natural processes and human activity have removed from the environment most of the debris from Revolutionary War battles. While there are still relics to be found, what is left may not provide a clear picture of past events. This problem is well illustrated by a recent survey of the Eutaw Springs battlefield [see Note 3].

Notes:

1. These are not Thomas Sumter's papers, but rather interviews with some of Sumter's men and other historians' notes gathered many years later.

2. Benjamin Lossing heard that some Provincials slept under the Hanging Rock the night before the battle; in my account, the closest troops were those of the Prince of Wales' American Regiment. Particularly striking is the account North Carolina militiaman Guilford Dudley gave of his retreat from the battle of Camden. As he rode north, along the Camden Road, he "at last gained the spot which I deemed to be in the immediate vicinity of the Hanging Rock." Although fleeing Tarleton's dragoons, he began "casting my eye on the right and left and in front, to see if I could discover the noted mass, called the 'Hanging Rock,' of which I had heard so much." (Unfortunately for Dudley, the rock formation could not be seen from the Camden Road).

3. Described in this issue (.pdf) of Southern Campaigns of the American Revolution (see page 35).

Images of the Hanging Rock Battlefield

Previously, I made the case that the battle of Hanging Rock was fought on a height south of where present-day Flat Rock Road crosses Hanging Rock Creek, and on a neighboring hill. A map that I presented in that post appears below. The red circles show the locations of the three British camps. The circle nearest the upper right represents the encampment of Samuel Bryan's North Carolina Volunteers, the circle below and to the left of this point represents the encampment of the British Legion infantry and the Royal North Carolina Regiment (this is also known as the center camp), and the circle nearest the bottom represents the encampment of the Prince of Wales' American Regiment (PoWAR). These British forces guarded the Camden Road (the brown line; this followed approximately the same path as today's Flat Rock Road).

Topographic maps provide an imperfect sense of place; it helps that one can take a virtual tour of Revolutionary War battlefields using Google Earth. Below are several screen shots I made of the approximate site of the center camp and the PoWAR camp, as seen from Flat Rock Road.

The Flat Rock Road, near the site of the center camp. The view is northwest; the crest of the elevation is to the right. Near the trees in the middle ground, the road slopes steeply downwards and turns towards the north. The British post at Hanging Rock was designed to prevent the Americans from coming down this road (i.e., towards the viewer).

The same location, but looking in the opposite direction (i.e., southeast). The area near Hanging Rock is hilly and cut by numerous ravines. This relatively flat plateau was attractive to early settlers.

The same location, looking northeast. The crest of the height is at the right edge of the image, a short distance behind the trees. The profile of the slope can be made out in the distance. William Davie claimed that "the regular troops [actually, Provincials] could not be approached without an entire exposure of the assailants." The slope is gentle enough that this land may well have been cleared by settlers prior to the battle. A nearby stream would have helped make this site attractive. If this interpretation is correct, one can understand Davie's apprehension: The direct approach to Hanging Rock would have led the American troops to advance up this slope from the left towards the British infantry and two 3-pounder guns on the right. To circumvent this danger, the Americans chose to attack the center camp on its flank.

Much of the area around Hanging Rock is woodland today, just as it was in 1780. Today the area is covered by second-growth forest, but the mix of deciduous and coniferous trees one finds in the area today is probably not unlike the original forest.

This image (looking east) was taken near the site of the PoWAR's camp (the lower red circle). The Flat Rock Road is in the foreground; the road heading into the background passes near the Hanging Rock. The distant trees are on the Hanging Rock Battlefield Property. The historical marker at right is for the James Ingram house. To read the marker, click here; the site of the John Ingram house can be seen on Mills' 1825 map of Kershaw District; note the proximity to the marked site of the battle of Hanging Rock.

The Hanging Rock Battlefield - Part 4

An Alternative Proposal

In the previous two posts, I considered two different points of view about the location of British forces at the battle of Hanging Rock in South Carolina (see here and here). To evaluate these accounts, I developed an "objective" rating system that compared how well the landscape identified by these accounts matches that appearing in descriptions of the battlefield. Noteworthy, is that neither account rated better than a 75% under this system, suggesting that there is room for improvement. I therefore set about examining the terrain features in this area carefully, in order to determine whether there is some constellation of terrain features that would match participants at a higher rate.

A scheme that is a good match for participant accounts is shown in the map below. A description follows.

The center camp is located on top of a hill overlooking Hanging Rock Creek, at the approximate spot identified as the Hanging Rock battlefield on Mills' 1825 map of Kershaw District, South Carolina. (#3 on the map).

The right camp is located on top of a nearby high that is bounded by Hanging Rock Creek on two sides, a short distance upstream from the eponymous rock formation (the rock formation is #1 on the map).

The left camp is located on the Camden Road, at the approximate site of Cole's Old Fields. (#4 on the map).

Objective Assessment

1) The three camps were on elevations. 2 points.

2) Colonel Samuel Bryan and his North Carolina volunteers were encamped on the right of the British position. 2 points.

3) Bryan's men were encamped on a steeply-sloped hill bordering a creek. 2 points.

4) Bryan's men were encamped south and west of Hanging Rock Creek, near the "Hanging Rock." 2 points.

5) The hill on which Bryan was encamped curved in one place at nearly a 90-degree angle. 2 points. Remarkably, the hill has exactly this feature, as shown in the topographic map below. To highlight the hill shape, I've marked two of the contour lines in bold. Also important that this bend in the hill is pointed towards a defile (on which a blue arrow is placed) through which I believe the Americans advanced (see section below concerning William Davie's account of the American advance).

The red circles on this map are the three camps. The green box is described below.

6) To the left of Bryan's position there was a swampy patch of ground. 1 point. There is a flat patch of ground in the appropriate area in which several streams converge, but there is no "swamp" icon on this spot. This area is marked by the green box in the map above. The absence of a swamp icon may only be because the area is not large in extent.

7) Bryan's camp was about 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the center camp. 2 points. The distance is about .37 miles.

8) The Provincials were encamped, in part, on or near "Cole's Old Field." 2 points.

9) The Provincials were encamped on or near the Camden Road. 2 points. This is the brown line on the map above.

10) More than 1/4 mile separated the center camp from the left camp. 2 points.

Total Score: 19 points (95%).

Subjective Assessment

Aside from agreement with the 10-item list, there are several good reasons to adopt this interpretation of the placement of the British camps at Hanging Rock. These include 1) agreement with William Davie's description of the American route of attack, 2) agreement with participant descriptions of a British flank attack during the battle, and 3) the relative military soundness of this alignment.

1) William Davie on the American Advance. William Davie described the difficulties the Americans faced in attacking the British post as follows:

"the situation of the regular troops could not be approached without an entire exposure of the assailants, and a deep ravine and creek covered the whole point of the Tory camp."

In the account that I've described, this makes perfect sense. The center camp included two 3-pounders and a force of infantry. The cannon probably could not stop movement over the creek (both because of the distance and because of tall trees obscuring the view of the creek). However, south of the creek, an American force advancing along the Camden Road, would come to a high hill that was cleared of trees (participant accounts indicate that the center camp was on farmland). At that point, the cannon would have been a very significant obstacle to advancing infantry.

Both according to Davie's account and the maps above, an American force that crossed the creek further downstream would have had to cross a ravine and creek directly in front of the Loyalist militia. Note that in Davie's account, and that of other American participants, the Loyalists are called "Tories," and the Provincials are called "regulars."

Davie's description does not fit well with the Battlefield Property site. The creek covers the front of both camps, and attacking one hilltop camp would not seem to have entailed more exposure than attacking the other.

Davie also described the route the Americans took to the battlefield: "They [Sumter's force] turned to the left of the road to avoid the enemy's piquet and patrol, with an intention to return to it under cover of a defile near the camp, but the guides, either from ignorance or timidity, led them so far to the left that the right, centre, and left divisions, all fell on the Tory encampment."

As shown on the maps above, advancing parallel to the road, but on its east side (i.e., left, when one is heading south), would lead the Americans in the direction of the "Tory" camp. The defile that Davie referred to is readily identifiable in the account I've proposed: it runs parallel to the Camden Road, beginning in modern-day Heath Springs, and then joins the ravine through which Hanging Rock Creek runs. In the map below, the grey arrow shows the extent of the defile; the hilltop on which I've proposed that Bryan's Loyalist militia were encamped is at the bottom.

As will be seen when I describe the battle, the guides did not know that the Loyalist militia were on a hilltop across from this juncture, and thus this path lead Davie's men into Bryan's North Carolina Volunteers.

Davie's description of the route taken by the Americans, however, is not a good fit for the Battlefield Property site. They didn't leave the road "to avoid the enemy's piquet and patrol," but evidently swung far off to the east with the purpose of reaching the well-known Hanging Rock. Once at this point, they were directly across the creek from the Loyalist militia and Provincials. There would not have been a defile to follow from this position to reach the British encampments -- the only avenue of attack was to cross the creek.

2) The British Flank Attack. Thomas Sumter, writing 3 days after the battle, noted that "They [i.e., the Provincials] had Detached a Colum[n] to support Bryant [i.e., Samuel Bryan, commander of the Loyalist militia], who, through a swamp, found means to turn my Right flank." This "column" consisted of the Prince of Wales' American Regiment.

Richard Winn's force at that time was assaulting the center camp, but upon "hearing a Severe firing to my Right," from this column, he moved his men towards the regiment "as quick as possible." They then arrived "on the back [i.e., rear] of the British," who were engaged with another party of Americans. Once Winn's men opened up, the British detachment was caught "between two fires [and] gave way." Davie claimed that this attack occurred "between the Tory and centre encampments."

A comparison with the terrain I've identified as the battle site shows that there is a flat patch of ground fed by several streams between the center and right camps. A British force advancing into this area from the direction of the Camden Road would have run into the Americans that had seized the Loyalists' camp. A force of Americans attacking the center camp (i.e., Winn's men)could have turned around and fallen on the rear of this force. In short, the pieces appear to fit. (Some additional explanation is required concerning the movements of all of the units involved; that will appear in the description of the battle).

A comparison of these statements by Sumter, Winn, and Davie with the Hanging Rock Battleground Property is not a good fit. Yes, there is a swampy patch of ground on the right flank of the Americans' initial position east of Hanging Rock Creek, but not on their right flank once they seized Bryan's camp and turned south. The only way for a British force to get between the two camps would be to enter a wooded ravine dividing the hills on which the Loyalist militia and Provincials were allegedly camped. Such an attack would not have been a turning maneuver.

3) Strength of the Position. The British post was in place to defend the Camden Road at the point it crossed Hanging Rock Creek. The camps, one might expect, would be laid out in a way to provide for a strong defense of the crossing. The scheme I've described seems to have this feature. The British are deployed in three camps so as to prevent a coup de main, yet the three camps are within close supporting distance of each other, forming a kind of defensive "triangle." Each camp is also in a strong location. One camp (the center camp) is on high hill south of the creek, on the Camden Road. A second camp covers the right flank of this position, on a high hill next to the creek. The third camp is also on the Camden Road, in position to either cover the left flank of the position or to act as a reserve. Befitting the fighting style of the different forces on hand, the Provincials were on cleared land along the road, while the Loyalist militia were encamped in a wooded area.

The Hanging Rock Battlefield - Part 3

The "Fish Hatchery" Hypothesis

As noted previously, there is some uncertainty about the site of the August 6, 1780, battle of Hanging Rock, South Carolina, and the Hanging Rock Battlefield Property may not be the site of the actual fighting. Mills' 1825 Atlas of the State of South Carolina places the fighting near a present-day fish hatchery on Hanging Rock Creek, and John A. Robertson et al.'s Global Gazetteer of the American Revolution places Samuel Bryan's camp in this vicinity as well. The map below shows the approximate positions indicated for the British camps. (See this post for the meaning of the numbers). The pink square with the number 2 shows the approximate site of the fighting per Mills' atlas; presumably this specifically indicates Bryan's camp. The pink square below it shows the site of Bryan's camp according to the Global Gazetteer. The two red squares correspond (if I'm interpreting the Gazetteer website correctly) with the other two camps.

Objective Assessment

Below I indicate how well this placement of the battlefield does on the scoring system I developed.

1) The three camps were on elevations. 2 points.

2) Colonel Samuel Bryan and his North Carolina volunteers were encamped on the right of the British position. 0 points. This account has the British camps facing roughly northeast, with Bryan on the left of the line.

3) Bryan's men were encamped on a steeply-sloped hill bordering a creek. 2 points.

4) Bryan's men were encamped south and west of Hanging Rock Creek, near the "Hanging Rock." 2 points. In this case, Bryan's camp was between 1.3 and 1.5 miles away from Hanging Rock. That may seem to be stretching the definition of near, but then again, the Cowpens battlefield was named after a locale 2 miles distant.

5) The hill on which Bryan was encamped curved in one place at nearly a 90-degree angle. 1 point. Neither of the possible hills obviously have this property; but who can tell what the terrain looked like at ground level in 1780?

6) To the left of Bryan's position there was a swampy patch of ground. 0 points. This is clearly not true for the uppermost hill, where Hanging Rock Creek runs through a steeply-sided ravine. Not impossible is that a stream running across the lower hill had this property in 1780, but the ground seems to have a fairly steep slope in this area also.

7) Bryan's camp was about 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the center camp. 0 points. For the uppermost hill, the distance is about 1 mile; for the lowermost hill, the distance is about .7 miles.

8) The Provincials were encamped, in part, on or near "Cole's Old Field." 2 points.

9) The Provincials were encamped on or near the Camden Road. 2 points.

10) More than 1/4 mile separated the center camp from the left camp. 2 points.

Total Score: 13 points (65%).

Notably, this placement of the British camps would score just as well as the Battlefield Property interpretation if only the center camp were moved a bit further north along the Camden Road (cf. Item #7 in the 10-item list).

Subjective Assessment

This view of the position of the British camps does not score particularly well on the rating scale I developed, but it does have some strong features worthy of consideration. The Battlefield Property interpretation places the British in a relatively weak position. The British post was designed to defend the point where Camden Road crossed Hanging Rock Creek, but none of the camps are well positioned to do so, and the alleged orientation of the camps (facing eastward) leaves the point closest to the enemy, the northern flank of the line, vulnerable to attack. Worse, the least trained troops (the Loyalist militia) were placed on that exposed flank.

The "Fish Hatchery" hypothesis, entails a militarily stronger position. The British camps do not exactly face northward, but the Provincials are at least in a better position to defend the creek crossing, and the Loyalist militia are in a less vulnerable position.