Hardly 'full scale' -- only about 1000 men on each side.
Don't misunderstand me. Cowpens was an very important battle. In winning, the Americans not only hurt Cornwallis by killing or capturing the majority of his light calvary (Tarrelton's Dragoons) as well as some of his best and most seasoned infantry troops, but it was also a sorely needed psychological boost to the American side. For the first time, they showed they could stand toe-to-toe with the British in the South which brought more volunteers to the American side and discouraged Loyalists from joining the British side.
But no, it was not a 'full-scale' battle of armies. A few months later, the Battle of Gilford Courthouse had 5 times as many men involved (4000 Americans vs 2000 Brits) and then Yorktown with well over 20,000 American and French troops facing 9000 Brits. Those are 'full scale' battles.
That sounds an awful lot like the excuse I heard back in the 1970s, to wit: “We never lost a battle in Vietnam. We only lost because Congress (i.e. the American people) pulled the plug on it.”
Well, I have never said that because it would be inaccurate. Congress (a post-Watergate leftie congress) pulled the plug on the South Vietnamese in 1975, two years after the last US combat troops left. No, we did not win the war. But when we left, the commie side was significantly weakened and the ARVN was doing pretty damn good until the political hacks in DC cut them off at the knees and ended up getting a couple million SE Asians butchered as a result.
I have had a burning hatred for that lefties ever since.
“I have had a burning hatred for that lefties ever since.”
Just wait until they do the same with Iraq and Afghanistan.
—ARVN was doing pretty damn good until the political hacks in DC cut them off at the knees—
ARVN got skunked every time it went up against PAVN regulars*
*unless, as at An Loc, it had a buttload of American air support.