PLEASE HELP EMERGENCY PLEASE!! What do you notice is different about the way the colonists fought at Concord compared to their first battle at Lexington? What do they do better?

They were more organized and well supplied at Concord.

Explanation:

Hi there,

In the battle at Lexington, the colonists were very unprepared for the well-trained British army and outnumbered. However, the colonists were ready to fight at Concord since they were better supplied and knew the British were approaching. Their preparedness was clearly shown because the colonists were able to have 400 militiamen and forced the 100 British troops into retreat.

Hope this answer gives you an idea of the differences in the two battles.  Cheers.

They were more coordinated and all around provided at Concord.

In the fight at Lexington, the settlers were caught off guard for the very much prepared British armed force and dwarfed. Nonetheless, the settlers were prepared to battle at Concord since they were better provided and realized the British were drawing nearer. Their readiness was unmistakably shown on the grounds that the homesteaders had the option to have 400 minute men and constrained the 100 British soldiers into retreat.

Explanation:

one way archaeology us understand the past is through the material objects it finds, allowing us to know what was being used, and when. for example a dig recently found a flute, believed to be the oldest musical instrument found to date.

i hope this