1. Introduction The most curious thing about Bunker Hill is that, despite its iconic status in American history, it was in some respects quite a minor affair. Anywhere between 1,500 and 3,500 American militiamen--­their strength varied over the course of the day, as men left and reinforcements arrived--­fought roughly 2,400 to 3,000 British soldiers over the course of a few hours one pleasant afternoon on June 17, 1775, on a small peninsula across from Boston. By way of contrast, a more typical conflict of the era was the War of the Bavarian Succession between Austria and Prussia. In 1778--­contemporaneous with the struggle in the American colonies--­Prussia, the least populous and the poorest of the European powers, fielded no fewer than 160,000 troops.1 Yet these dry statistics belie Bunker Hill''s consequence. As the Annual Register would briskly conclude near the end of the Revolution, "Most of these actions would in other wars be considered but as skirmishes of little account [though] it is by such skirmishes that the fate of America must be necessarily decided. They are therefore as important as battles in which an hundred thousand men are drawn up on each side.

"2 To its participants the battle certainly did not feel like a "skirmish": Bunker Hill holds the wretched distinction of being the bloodiest clash of the War of Independence. "I can only say from the oldest soldiers here," wrote the newly arrived Lieutenant William Feilding, "that it was the hottest fire they ever saw."3 By day''s end, almost half the British troops engaged would be dead or wounded. "Tho'' Masters of the Field of Battle," one contemporary grimly judged, "the King''s Troops are much the greatest Sufferers."4 Another determined that the British army could now be divided into three: "The first company is under ground; the second is above ground; the third is in the hospital."5 American losses were relatively small. Before Bunker Hill, few believed that part-­time militiamen could stand, face, and fight a professional army. Yet they did, and by acquitting themselves so magnificently demonstrated that the American cause was a viable and worthy enterprise.

Which means we must ask: Who were they? How did they do it? And what was it like to fight at Bunker Hill? 2. The Battle First, a summary of what happened. Late at night on June 16, 1775, a detachment of American militiamen commanded by General Israel Putnam sneakily took possession of Bunker Hill, a modest rise on the Charlestown peninsula. This triangular piece of land was attached to the Massachusetts mainland by a narrow strip called Charlestown Neck, and it jutted out between the Mystic and Charles Rivers to face Boston, where the British were holed up. Early the next morning, the British realized that these Americans were so close to Boston that they could bombard the city with cannon, but far worse, that Colonel William Prescott''s men were now building an earthen "Redoubt" (a type of small fort) atop Breed''s Hill, which was nearer even than Bunker. Once their work was done, the Americans would be so securely ensconced that it would be exceedingly difficult to dislodge them. Accordingly, British troops under General Sir William Howe were transported across the bay to the peninsula, where they prepared to assault the enemy before time ran out. Additionally, after the Americans had been put to the sword, Howe intended to advance on Cambridge, where the main American forces under General Artemas Ward were stationed.

If all went well, the rebellion would be over by close of play, either that day or the next. Meanwhile, fresh American militia units under Colonel John Stark had arrived to support Prescott, now grievously exposed at Breed''s Hill. Instead of reinforcing him directly, however, they marched to Bunker Hill, which guarded the vulnerable Neck against a British attack from the rear. At the foot of Bunker Hill they hurriedly assembled a long defensive structure termed the "Rail Fence," which faced the spot where the British were assembling in preparation for the imminent clash. On the "Beach" directly below and perpendicular to his position, Stark built a low stone wall to prevent a surprise flank attack. Despite these precautions, Prescott had by this time realized the danger he was in and ordered his men to dig a trench, or breastwork, extending from the redoubt''s walls to cover a weak spot between his position and that of Stark. The British were now confronted by firmly entrenched defenders, making nonsense of their original plan. Even so, come what may, the Americans had to be destroyed.

Howe divided his force into two divisions, the right under him, the left under Robert Pigot. Howe would attack the rail fence and the beach while Pigot assaulted Prescott''s redoubt at Breed''s Hill. Following a series of bloody attacks Howe''s wing stalled but Pigot''s managed to break through Prescott''s defenses. A vicious bout of hand-­ to-­hand combat sent the militiamen fleeing for the safety of Bunker Hill. Their positions lost, the Americans retreated across the Neck and set up defensive positions on the mainland. Some of the British gamely tried to pursue the enemy, but physical exhaustion and the sheer scale of Howe''s losses convinced him to halt for the night. The battle of Bunker Hill was over, but the War of Independence had only just begun. 3.

The Redoubt, Part One The militiamen came garbed for battle as they did for work--­as farmers and artisans.1 Some even had on the same leather aprons they wore in their shops.2 For the most part, the New England militia units reflected their respectable rural environments. In Captain Hutchins''s company, two-­thirds listed their occupations as "husbandmen"--­that is, farmers--­with most of the rest making a decent living as carpenters, cobblers, tailors, millers, and the like.3 Many outfits also had within their ranks former slaves, maybe a couple of itinerants, the odd Native American perhaps, but the militiamen who fought at Bunker Hill for the most part owned property of some sort--­an average-­sized farm, say--­and most of those who did not were the sons of men who did. Many wore homespun shirts, sometimes made of canvas but of linen or flax in the summer, that were "a kind of loose frock, reaching half way down the thighs, with large sleeves, open before, and so wide as to lap over a foot or more when belted."4 Their gaiters or stockings were tanned a dead-­leaf color in vats, and their feet were clad in "cowhide shoes ornamented by large buckles, while not a pair of boots graced the company," as one octogenarian recollected it decades later. Many had on weather-­beaten broad-­brimmed hats often turned up on three sides to form a sloppy tricorne, sometimes complemented by a sprig of green or a homemade cockade; around their necks they tied an off-­colored neckerchief or stock.

5 It was hard, perhaps impossible, to distinguish the men sartorially from their officers--­a profound difference to European military custom. Of the ten richest men in Lexington, for example, no fewer than eight were content to sign on as privates, and they dressed accordingly; rare indeed was the officer who took pains to get "above himself" and stand out from the crowd. Typical was Experience Storrs of Mansfield, Connecticut, a prosperous farmer "portly in figure" who, when not tending his sick wife ("troubled with Histeruk Colluk Pains"), hewed wood, attended church, cleaned drains, worried about his colds, and mended stone walls--­all while serving as his regiment''s lieutenant colonel (an almost regal rank far beyond a man of Storrs''s socioeconomic background in Europe). In March 1775 he agreed, with his friends Colonel Jedediah Elderkin and Major Thomas Brown, "to dress in a plain manner."6 Similarly, at the redoubt Colonel Prescott wore a simple linen coat: British soldiers were later convinced that their foe was commanded by a "farmer dressed in his frock."7 Even starchy Colonel John Stark, a man "always mindful of his rank," as his biographer had it, was "never a stickler for dress," restricting the peacockery to a waistcoat and some kind of "insignia."8 If the militiamen''s outfits added up to a drab uniformity, their assortment of weapons was motley, to say the least. One veteran of the battle remembered, "Here an old soldier carried a heavy Queen''s arm, with which he had done service at the conquest of Canada twenty years previous, while by his side walked a stripling boy, with a Spanish fuzee not half its weight or calibre, which his grandfather may have taken at the Havana [1762], while not a few had old French pieces, that dated back to the reduction of Louisburg [1758].

"9 Ezekiel Worthen of Kensington, New Hampshire, shouldered a French musket, made in 1752, that had been taken from the enemy, taken again by Indians, and retaken by Worthen during a skirmish. He also brought along a newer accessory: a cartridge box engraved with "Liberty or Death."10 (Some weapons were newer acquisitions: Nathaniel Rice of East Sudbury proudly carried "a musket I took from the British at Concord.")11 The antiquity of most of the militiamen''s pieces should not obscure their lethality. These were working, effective firearms. In an era when guns were expensive and manufacturing them was a painstaking business, it was common for even regular soldiers to use hand-­me-­downs. The British, for instance, were using Brown Bess muskets--­still perfectly serviceable--purchased as far back as 1730.12 By that standard, the Americans'' arms, most of which dated from the French and Indian War, were relatively new and almost certainly better maintained.

Virtually every man at Bunker Hill brought his own firearm. Ascertaining exact figures for gun own.