| Title | : | Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0393322939 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780393322934 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 375 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1990 |
Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes Reviews
-
I always thought that history depended on who was telling the story at the end of the day. Turns out I was right on. Imagine yourself as a citizen of London, anxious to hear the latest news from The Colonies. It won't be immediate, you know that. The swiftest passage of the Atlantic is four or five weeks, and a more usual time is two months. By the time you receive your news, it is already at least six weeks out of date. So imagine the frustration of His Majesty's Government, trying to make policies for the administration of a country isolated not just by an ocean, but by Time. Then imagine yourself as a Colonial Governor or a Commander-in-Chief of British Colonial Army, trying to carry out policies, enforce laws and keep order, when your orders are a response to stale news, uninformed by intelligence on the ground and arrogantly optimistic. Isn't that just ducky?
Christopher Hibbert tells us the story of the American Revolutionary War from the viewpoint of the British. The governors, the generals, the admirals, the politicians and the Loyalists. To one such as myself. raised to think of the British Empire as a monolithic Juggernaut, menacing all with the weight of its power, this is a startling and thought provoking read.
Hibbert shows us an Empire as a shambling, sleepy giant, slow to react, confused as to its aims and bewildered as to how to carry out its own decisions. It appears that the monolith had some cracks in the foundations. The British did not invent bureaucracy, but they embraced it with enthusiasm. For example, commissions in the army and navy were purchased. Thus officers from moneyed families able to purchase promotions, would be promoted over the heads of those with only experience in their portfolios. Positions in the government likewise often went to those with influence and the ambition to line their own pockets. The results were predictable. An example Hibbert points out will be instructive. Faced with difficulties in recruiting Englishmen to enlist for miserable pay, brutal conditions and the chance to go shoot other Englishmen, the government decided to fill their ranks with the king's OTHER subjects, from Hanover, in Germany. (Actually, many of these German troops were from Hesse, which is why the colonists called them all Hessians.) Sounds brilliant, right? Well, except that naturally nobody sends their best troops and equipment off to work for someone else, so when the trips arrived, they were shabby, and barefoot. Yup, I said barefoot. So, the bureaucrat in charge of boot emergencies sent off for footwear, which in time was delivered and found to be five thousand cases of dancing slippers. This delayed the sailing of the troop ships well into the stormy season, insuring that most of these troops arrived in the Americas on sick call.
Folly did not reside on only one side of the Atlantic. The British Commanders, Lord Howe, Sir William Clinton and General Burgoyne, detested and mistrusted each other. Howe was unimaginative and cranky, Clinton was a first class drama queen and quarrelsome. Then there was Burgoyne, who insisted on dragging thirty wagons of his personal possessions from Canada down to Lake Champlain and supposedly on down the Hudson. In what was then a howling wilderness, (literally, wolves followed the armies to eat the corpses) Burgoyne sat down nightly to a table set with fine porcelain, crystal and silver. Take that you rebellious peasants! When Howe finally prevailed upon his London associates to be recalled home, Clinton was elevated to Commander-in-Chief and Lord Cornwallis was sent to command in the South. Cornwallis thought he could do a better job than Clinton, and Clinton knew it. He thus refused every suggestion Cornwallis made. It was a lovely little war.
Hibbert tells his tale with gusto. His books are always well written and he did not disappoint me this time. This is history told vividly and from an unusal perspective. I give this one an A+. -
.
The seasoned bard of the Ancien Régime follows the American revolution through British eyes. Not every edition's title states this plainly, a publisher's strategy that was later repeated for
A Few Bloody Noses: The American War of Independence. Luckily, there is no inherent revisionism here. Contrary to Harvey, Hibbert takes us to the other side of Bunker Hill to provide the novice with a solid framework for further reading. This book cannot equally accommodate within 350 pages the more familiar American story, but it will profit in combined reading from the pattern of the British war plan. For sheer pleasure, it is also elegently written.
The development of the War of Independence can be explained through a relationship of cause and effect. The authorities in London or the local commanders more often than not provided an action to which the American opposition would feel obliged to react. This pattern is well-known in regards to the origins of the conflict. Increased control over the colonies in the form of new taxation (which was customary for British colonies but to which the lightly taxed Americans were wholly unaccustomed) giving shape to long-term economic grievances over the non-expansion policy of the crown towards the rich interior of the continent.
The outbreak of hostilities occured between troops present in Massachusetts. The American resistance had to preoccupy itself with establishing an armed force out of a population that possessed heterogeneous military experience and few resources, in the hope of raising an army that could take the field against Redcoat regulars and not disintegrate due to short-term enlistment. Meanwhile, the transatlantic command formulated a strategy based on the relatively meager manpower available for service overseas, since it had a global empire to defend against the hostile attentions of Spain and France. Thinning out garrisons in the West Indies or the Channel Fleet risked the loss of colonies or even an invasion of the home islands. Not to be neglected were the post-war relationships with the thirteen colonies; even if they proved successful in securing independence to build an American nation, good relations were in Great Britain’s commercial interest. In short, bloody repression or large-scale land offensives were out of the question. Based upon these reflections, possession or short-distance blockade of Atlantic ports promised the best outcome. Either way, the size of reinforcements was constrained by the limitations of transatlantic logistics in the age of sail.
The British war plan thus evolved into a focus on the constrained garrison of New York. In a first phase, a union with British forces in Canada was the idea; in a second phase, the action shifted to the southern theater of the Carolinas and the American breadbasket of Virginia. Most of the maneuverings on both sides fit into this pattern, down to the siege of Yorktown, where Cornwallis hoped for a time-out after the defeat of his last New York-bound invasion. To this must be added the strain of the incessant quarrels within the British high command, of the simultaneous defensive war against the French navy and the non-manifestation of massed Loyalist support.
The narrative ends all too abruptly on the Field of Surrender, with no mention of the Treaty of Paris. Unfortunately, this applies to almost every morcel of diplomatic activity outside of 1778, with a few pages on the peace-feelers extended by the rebuffed Carlisle Peace Commission and the Treaty of Alliance with France. The battles narratives are to the point; there is little discussion of weapons and tactics except for a standard chat about the limitations of the smoothbore musket and the deficiencies of the purchased commission. A look back at the impact of the Seven Years' War would've been interesting, since the disdain among seasoned commanders in the American theatre for colleagues of the 'German school' clearly refers to the split evolution of warfare on two continents.
The absence of a conclusion doesn’t matter regarding the causes of the British defeat; the infeasibility of a ‘hard’ victory over enormous distances was clear from the beginning. It was an accomplishment that a war which one side had to fight with one first tied behind its back continued to the point where bòth sides neared desperate exhaustion. -
Themes: war, American Revolution, liberty, politics, biography, geography
Setting: the new United States of America, 1770s-1780s, Canada, and England
So we've all heard the story about how the patriots wanted freedom from the oppression of that evil King George and how they rose up, demanded their rights, and made the world safe for democracy, right? Not surprisingly, the story is not quite that simple, and this book presents the whole war from the British point of view. We get a good look at what was going on back in Britain, the political maneuvering behind the scenes, the personalities of the British officers involved, and how Britain finally lost the colonies.
Washington is still a central figure here, but we also get to learn about Burgoyne, Lord Cornwallis, the Howe brothers, admiral and general, and most of all, Clinton, who was so prickly and hard to get along with that he alienated every single man assigned to work with him. It wouldn't be a huge exaggeration to say that the feuding that went on among the English generals, the politicians back home, and the lack of communication is what really allowed America to win the war. There were other factors, to be sure, but I had no idea what a mess the British were really in.
There are very few saints in this book. Loyalist and rebels alike committed horrible crimes against civilians and the enemy captives. But it was great to read a new perspective on the war for American Independence.
I have to say that I found some interesting parallels as I read this book. As the English troops talked about the difficult terrain, how impossible it was to fight an enemy that they couldn't see through the forests and that fought an unconventional style of warfare they hadn't seen before, it reminded me of the descriptions of the Vietnam War. Like that one, the American war became more and more unpopular back in England, especially among the wealthier aristocratic class. It was the poor and desperate, the foreign mercenaries who were the ones sent to fight this war a continent away.
The other interesting thing that struck me was the repeated refrain that the British politicians back home gave, that American loyalists would be happy to rise up and support the British troops fight to overthrow the rebels. It's a little different, but it did sound like what our government said during the second Gulf War, that the Iraqis would all be happy to get rid of Saddam Hussein, that all we had to do was show up and they would rush to join America get rid of the dictator. Didn't quite work that way the US, and didn't work that way for the British. Let's face it, most people will be happy to join a successful cause after it's obvious who is going to win. But to risk your own life when the issue is still very uncertain - most people will sit it out and let the soldiers do the fighting.
I started this one on tape, but I don't have as much time to listen in the car as I used to, so I switched over to physical book format to finish. Both versions were very enjoyable, although I admit I liked seeing the pictures. I will warn thought that the audio version started out with a 15-20 minute acknowledgment before the story ever got started, so if you listen, you can definitely skip all that and not miss a thing. But the narration was very good. Highly recommended for Americans and British alike. -
The late bestselling historian and biographer Christopher Hibbert has masterfully chronicled his subjects throughout the ages of history, leaving his audience with captivating full-scale works, and enriching their bookshelves with sound material. Redcoats and Rebels is a rich history of the Revolutionary War seen through the vantage point of the British Empire and its army, as well as those loyalists whom would find themselves eventually on the losing side. Hibbert has mastered numerous titles pertaining to European history throughout the ages, and clearly has a technique that works as he moves across the pond to the New World and portrays an interesting view of the Colonies struggle for independence.
Setting a chronological course with each chapter headlining the title of a main battle or event, we begin with the embarkation and British deployment of men gathering before the ultimate upset at Bunker Hill. We see the frustrations and fallout of such Generals as Burgoyne, the Howe brothers, Clinton, and Cornwallis, as well as King George III and such Parliamentary figures as Lord North and Sandwich. Hibbert is more sympathetic to Cornwallis, the Hessians, and those lower in command such as John Graves Simcoe of the Queen’s Rangers—as each are given due credit for their abilities and judgments in command. This is especially noticeable when considering the behind-the-curtain and almost backstabbing machinations that others used in order to recede some of the blame for their own failures:
…relations between Clinton and Cornwallis became more strained than ever. Cornwallis told Clinton that he did not want to be consulted any longer and asked for a separate command. Clinton was furious, and summoned Cornwallis to a meeting at which old grievances were brought up once more and new ones aired, in particular Cornwallis’s friendly relations with that ‘hypocrite’ Arbuthnot. ‘Whenever [Cornwallis] is with me,’ Clinton concluded, ‘there are symptoms I do not like.’
With the final siege and triumph of Yorktown, Hibbert concludes with a fascinating look into the discussions of defeat and peace in the House of Commons. Hibbert has a clear understanding of each of his studies, and the book flows perfectly throughout, never missing a key detail and properly pushing for further study on the lesser-discussed British and Loyalist side of the Revolution. A generous amount of wealthy material is left to the reader, including nine full scale maps, many illustrations, a helpful “Table of Principle Events” in the beginning, and a fascinating look at the final years of each character mentioned (over 50) in the text at the very end.
Read the Full Review and More -
In some ways I am being too kind. Hibbert makes some errors in his mastery of facts. The Americans barely make an appearance in the narrative although when they do it is oddly detailed. His powers of analysis are limited and his conjecture at the book's end is interesting but not developed. Yet he does a good job of showing the command paralysis and errors that led to Britain's defeat. His judgement of character is shrewd, for he sees the good and bad in each man. I think he is too kind to Cornwallis and Sandwich but that is all I can say in his disfavor in this regard.
-
A readable general history of the war from the British perspective, although it ultimately ends up covering both sides more or less equally.
Hibbert emphasizes the difficulties faced by the British, and how they dealt with infighting among military commanders, the challenge of raising troops for an unpopular war in a distant colony, communications problems, and the difficulties in rallying loyalists to the cause. Hibbert has little sympathy for his subjects, except maybe Cornwallis. He also does a fine job describing the strategy debates in London and the British campaigns against the French, Spanish and Dutch once these nations entered the war (Hibbert rightly credits the French intervention with having an impact Americans don’t always acknowledge)
An insightful and accessible history, although there is little on the motivations of the British or their strategic dilemmas. -
I feel this book is both good and pleasant to read. I know something of the subject, but I'm certainly no authority, so I was occasionally surprised by turns of events. This account views the American War from the British perspective, which is what the title on goodreads says, but oddly my copy does not. Anyway, the book gives a picture of British divisions, lack of governmental focus (hampered by the distance, the multitude of concerns facing it and chronic shortage of resources and troops) and American conviction. It also manages to give a balanced view of both sides, the focus of course on the British. Recommended.
-
The most annoying thing i can say about the author is that he tends to describe everything the Americans did militarily as being foreseen by the British Generals. He also wades over a number of American victories with barely a mention. Granted some of these "victories" can be overall viewed as insignificant or militarily unimportant. An example i can give is early in the war with the siege of Boston. While in the grand scheme of the war it was a small victory for the Americans, the author skims over it in a page. He also give all the credit to the The British foreseeing the Americans taking the hill over Boston, while numerous accounts from both sides give credit to the Americans for pulling off such a strategic move. I find that the authors insistence on this being considered as a civil war over a revolution are fairly correct. The author does a very good job of highlighting the hypocrisies in American actions/thought while blunting the Nationalistic fervor that plagues some Americans recounting of the war. The author also does a good job of describing the disunity among the British generals and also the disconnect between said generals and The officials in England who themselves were plagued by infighting. As many reviewers seemed to be unaware of the Whitewashed version of the war, I have to say that this could be useful and in all probability eye opening for those people. For someone that is fairly knowledgable on the war, they will mostly be concerned with the description of English disunity, which i have to say was direct and fairly informing.
-
This is a great book for fans of history and especially those who are intrigued by different points of view on historical events. Some aspects of the war are only treated differently in subtle ways, but there are several events recorded by the British that I had never heard about before. This was the first time I learned that Paul Revere was apparently captured by the British during his famous run only to escape when a small band of Americans attacked, for example. The experiences of loyalists are covered in more depth than in many American books too.
If you haven't read many books about the American Revolutionary War but you think you might find the subject interesting, this is certainly a good way to go. It corrects some misconceptions many of us learned in school (which American historical books would also do) so it's a solid historical book on its own whether you find the British viewpoint on the war interesting or not.
The book is written in British English and there are "Britishisms" in it that will be slightly - but unintentionally - funny to American audiences. Which is kind of a bonus. -
not being the life-long scholar of the revolution that some of the reviewers are, i really enjoyed the book. I found it to be rather informative on the "tory" side of the war. I am a product of the 50's and we were given a whitewashed account of this period(which i still prefer to the "hang your head in shame" teachings in todays super liberal education system). I would never have thought there was as widespread support of the Crown as there apparantly was, or that our Military was as inept as it was. It always amazes me when reading about wars, the level of bickering and the disasters created due to egos and incompetence.
One more thing,one of the best parts about reading this book, as is the case with any Folio Society edition that i pick up, is the pleasure of the quality book you hold in your hands, from the print to the page stock, the binding and just the feel, is an experience to be savored....i almost hate to finish. -
Great reading and a different perspective on the Revolution War!!! At times you kind of felt for the soldiers who were fighting the war; at times you became angry and agitated at the conduct of the soldiers-some of them seem no better than the "gang bangers" we have in the hood!!! With all the mistake-the English and The Americans-it was a miracle that it took seven years to complete; an even more of a miracle that the Americans won!!!! Thank god for the short sight and the overconfidence the English had over the Americans!!!
-
A decent book on the history of the American Revolution from the perspective of the British. Only one problem, the author talks more about the American perspective than the British! I think he forgot what the title of his book was. It is still an ok book. If you want something on the American Revolution, there is better stuff out there.
-
a fav subject of mine, as i would have fought for the Tories...
-
I finally finished this book. It was a close call, but we won when George Washington hit Alexander Hamilton with a Hail Mary on the final play at Yorktown. Final score: Patriots 45, Red Coats 42.
-
It is good to see a British perspective, and by good I mean funny.
-
It bills itself as "The American Revolution Through British Eyes", so I suppose the best way to review it would be to compare it to what we'd expect to find in a standard, American-written history of the Revolutionary War.
The book covers the causes of the Revolution and the course of the war in North America from 1775 to 1781, but with the focus shifted from the Patriot experience to the British. On the military sides, the generals and armies on both sides get extensive coverage (George Washington is still a central figure), but when it comes to politics, it's the debates, arguments and dealings of Parliament and the British government that the reader learns about, rather than the Continental Congress. So Patrick Henry, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson get only brief mentions, in favour of Lord North, Lord George Germain, Charles James Fox or the Earl of Sandwich, all of whom are major figures.
I think the typical student of the Revolutionary War will definitely pick up some things they didn't know. I didn't know, for instance, that the reason Sir William Howe never received orders stressing how important it was for him to march north up the Hudson to cooperate with Burgoyne's army coming down from Canada was that Lord George Germain was unwilling to delay his weekend and wait around at the ministry on a Friday night while such orders were written. Nor did I know that the only reason Lord Cornwallis ended up having no option but to hole himself up at Yorktown and try to defend the town was because of the endless barrage of ill-judged, contradictory orders he'd been receiving from Sir Henry Clinton about where his army should be heading and what it should be doing.
Hibbert also lacks the reverence most Americans have for the people and events on the American side, so he's able to point out, for instance, that the words of the Declaration of Independence's inspiring second paragraph were "not capable of bearing too close an examination as to their exact meaning" when coming from the pen of a major slaveholder, or to describe Casimir Pulaski as the most "tiresome" of the various Continental Europeans who held senior commissions in the Continental Army.
Which is not to say he's biased against Americans; his criticism of the British leadership is plentiful. Sir Henry Clinton and, to a lesser extent, Sir William Howe emerge as the leading reasons, via their indecisiveness, incompetence and (in Clinton's case) abrasiveness, emerge as the two major reasons for the British defeat. Hibbert is as condemnatory of Banastre Tarleton's savagery as any American historian. And I found his description of Marriot Arbuthnot, who succeeded Lord Howe as commander-in-chief of the Royal Navy's North American Station, particularly delightful: "an unreliable, self-satisfied and unprepossessing officer, by turns absurdly self-confident and fussily hesitant, of whom even his Victorian biographer found far more to say in listing his faults than in describing his talents: 'Ignorant of the discipline of his profession ... destitute of even a rudimentary knowledge of naval tactics ... for the rest he appears in contemporary stories as a coarse, blustering, foul-mouthed bully, and in history as a sample of extremity to which the maladministration of Lord Sandwich had reduced the Navy.'"
What the book unfortunately does not do is challenge any conventional wisdom about the war, nor cover any of the extensive fighting in the war's other theatres around the world, fighting that didn't involve the Patriots but definitely did involve the British. Hibbert uncritically repeats, for instance, the myth that Proclamation Line of 1763 was intended to prevent the colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains, and he makes no mention of the Great Siege of Gibraltar or the Battle of the Saintes. -
Enjoyable. No addenda. Would like a little more meat at the end to enlighten me on the British thoughts with the Treaty of Paris. This would be more of a fun read. It should probably be read by all the “1776” bumper sticker toteing Liberty yelling Republicans. Pretty sure they would be surprised at some of the “liberties” withheld during the American Revolution. And the rather shocking ways the “Patriots” demonstrated their rights is an eye opener! The right to not be tarred and feathered or have your house burned for disagreeing with the rebels. I had read about these things before but this book gave a bit more graphic detail. Horrible, but appreciable also. It is easier to think God justifies A war when it is glossy and right vs wrong. A little harder when there are details of flesh melting with hot tar. I enjoy grappling with where God was in historic events. My worldliness obviously LOves 1776 and our break from Britain! Of course we had to! Of course we deserved freedom and Liberty of course God foreordained us to be a nation on a hill. The real gritty facts make that a little less crystal clear. It’s be hard to read about the rape the starvation the carnage and feathers and still say… oh yea God was for the Americans, for sure!
I Watched Cold Mountain and I think now one of my favorite quotes comes from that movie about the Civil War: “I’d imagine God is weary of being called down on both sides of the argument.”
God wasn’t on a side. And this was an interesting book to read for that reason. The British were people too. The British were just as created in Gods image as the Patriot. Hearing about their humanness helps tamper down the Nationalistic side that can be fervent in America. What if God loved The King as much as He loved The President. John Andre as much as He loved Ben Tallmadge.
What if Ben prayed God you have to help us beat the Bristish and God said
I love you, feed my sheep.
And John Andre prayed God you have to do away with these ridiculous rebels and God said
I love you, feed my sheep
And Ben prayed show us we are right show those Tory’s what tyrants they are! Show them you are on the side of Liberty!! And God said
I love you, feed my sheep.
And John prayed these rebels cause chaos and don’t listen they need to be put in their place show them they should obey and come back under the kings rule! And God said
I love you, feed my sheep
Ben was a believer, I don’t honestly know that John prayed a day in his life. I am just randomly choosing them, but this is kind of what I am starting to think of when I wonder where God was during these moments. He isn’t taking sides as I imagined him doing once. He is still whispering to us that He loves us and for us to feed his sheep. What we actually hear probably depends more on IF we really want to hear him.
We get caught up in ‘the thing’ He calls us back to ‘Him’ as the subject. -
From one of Britains's most popular historians of the 20th century, a single volume study of one the bloodiest, and somewhat senseless wars in British history, when a version of civil war - most of the combatants on both sides were related by blood, customs & language...not to mention laws, philosophy & that spirit of enquiry into human affairs - a sad business in all...over a new system of taxation! Why didn't the more even-minded colonists - who were themselves bitterly divided on the main issue - seek a less radical solution to soluble financial problems than an all-out war of such savagery?
So much for life, liberty...& the pursuit of happiness...whatever that was supposed to mean!
The book pulls no subjective, academic wool over the eyes, dealing with the unending military chaos, the endless, insane massacres & the terrible atrocities committed by colonial recruits, loyalists, soldiers of the Crown - many of German origins - & the First Nation participants...not to mention the deep military, naval & financial involvement of imperial, despotic France (a country ruled by an tiny elite, governed by fools & dandies, and about to half-bankrupt itself in its attempts to avenge its defeat in the Seven Years War 1756-1763...the result of which was to lead in a few short years to a real revolution & the execution of Louis XVI...what goes around comes around!)
Early chapters relate the facts of the sorry decline into a war that was a turning point in Atlantic history, where the first salvoes of the potential North American super-power were fired on Lexington Green & Bunker Hill, and the first acknowledgement that Great Britain had, perhaps, over-stretched itself in trying to fight wars simultaneously on three continents...an island nation of barely 10,000,000 people! Their bark was worse than their bite! (Our rotten dental health!)
It is a fine 330-page account of a subject that I studied intensely at London University...perfectly-timed for me to make my one trip to America...in the bi-centennial year of 1976...& even see the Royal Yacht 'Britannia' moored in Boston Harbor(sic)...& enjoy a lively discussion with 'colonials' in the South Meeting House...where I gave my five-shillings worth of Loyalist/Tory views on the War of Independence to my long-lost cousins...revolutionaries all!
We lost! -
History is written by the victors... except in this case.
This is the history of the American Revolution told from the perspective of the British, which was never a way I considered looking at it before. It is fascinating to get a different take on it. Where Americans are taught in history class that the Boston Tea Party was a legitimate act of rebellion against unfair taxes, in Britain they were viewed as terrorists, who destroyed English property over a tax that every other territory in the British Empire accepted without protest. I'm not saying one way is right and one is wrong. I find it an interesting reminder that one's perspective can significantly change how we view things.
There were other eye-opening moments like this for me throughout the book. One of the things that struck me was how it seemed like the British kind of kicked our butts in a lot of battles during the war. The Americans were fortunate on a few fronts: France and Spain declaring war on England back in Europe; the French navy coming to our aid; and for these and other reasons the British not being able to send enough reinforcements and growing tired of fighting a war across the ocean. In many ways Hibbert seems to attribute the United States' victory as less about brilliant battlefield strategy in America and more about political infighting back in England.
If you're looking to get a different perspective on the war than you got in school (or from the musical Hamilton) you will find this interesting. -
It is said that history is written by the victor. In this case the story is told from the view of the losing side.
How could the greatest empire of the world lose this fight against her own colonies? How a bunch of farmboys and hunters stand against an army of trained and well equiped professional soldiers? How could the continantel army for years an the edge of desintegration last over the whole war?
In this book we learn how a political leadership an ocean away wasn't able to mobilize the forces necessary to fight in the vast expanses of the colonies, how it wasn't able to concentrate on this conflict in the light of nearer foes as France and the United Netherlands and with higher prices as the west indies and the shiping routes at stake.
We learn how neither of the leading british genrals ever received the troops promised by London and how they never were able to mobilize the american loyalist supposedly ready to raise against the rebels. Even as the British won the vast majority of battles in this war only two major defeats decided the fate of the new born United States.
And on the horizon of the future we can see, how this defeat paved the road to the British Empire of the 19th century. The loss of the american colonies was also a freedom to concentrate on the domination of the seas and the "special relationship" between the USA and the Empire saved the motherland in two World Wars.
Very readable history of the american revolution from the perspective of those who tried to hold back against the flow of time. -
I was very interested in reading about the American Revolution through the eyes of the British. The book has many pros and cons to how the information is presented though. The first is the book covers 1770-1781 which means eleven years are crammed in 338 pages. It gives an overview of the war with a huge cast of characters which allows the readers to pick a direction they further want to learn. However, it is too much detail. There are mini biographies for the British leaders and mentions the battles that range throughout all of the colonies.
Some points that I really enjoyed and hated at the same time: There were some brief mentions of the was debate in parliament. I was hoping for more detail from London, but a majority of the book is in the Americas. Strangely, growing up in the South, we were not taught really anything in school about the Revolutionary battles set in the South and I enjoyed seeing my hometown mentioned and the nearby areas, but it was still not enough. I did enjoy seeing more background on the British generals, but the overall take was that none of the Generals or Governors wanted to to be in America, they didn't like each other, they traveled heavy, and their orders were late or contradictory. In fact, between the previously mentioned problems, regiments spread throughout the world, and guerrilla style fighting in strange climates and surroundings, it's amazing the war lasted as long as it did. -
Something I learned by read this one is how brutal the war was in the South. So far from all the reading I have done (George Washington: A Life, His Excellency: George Washington, 1776, Revolutionary Summer: the Birth of American Independence, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic, and a few more) nothing I've read touched on these, what I am here calling, little known battles and atrocities going on the "southern provinces". Everyone (authors) seem to always focus on events (key events to be sure) around NYC, Boston, Philadelphia.
I would like to hear more about these brutal southern campaigns and the affects they had on Rebels vs Loyalists and how that influenced southern society which set the stage for the next war, because I know it did. -
It’s not that this book is bad, it’s just too broad an overview. Trying to capture everything from the Boston Tea Party to the signing of the Paris treaty in 300 pages is bound to leave gaps and acquaint a reader with only the broadest of strokes. Additionally, it’s not “the American Revolution as seen through British eyes” as promised in the title. It’s just a British student’s handbook to the American Revolution. You can find more of what the British thought about it in American histories.
If one were in a third world country with no easy access to a library, this would more than suffice to provide a reader with a well-written, if very limited, historical understanding, but In a time when such a rich plethora of books exist on the topic, this dated book, sadly, doesn’t make the cut. -
I like this book quite a bit. In school we Americans are taught about the American Revolution through American sources, so reading about the same situations from the opposite side's sources was interesting. Probably the only book on the Revolution that spends multiple chapters on the debate points in British Parliament at the time, but it is good to be reminded that the British were spread pretty thin across all of their territories around the globe, and they couldn't be everywhere at once. Is is frankly surprising that they didn't have more problems than they did in the late 18th century.
-
Pretty decent overall history of the American War of Independence, what raises it a star for me is the focus (in part) on the British political scene and its role on top of what is happening on the ground in North America, which was an interesting read. Some of the military operations receive minimal coverage, but that level of detail is best served by other, more specific, volumes.
-
Nice to read a history from a perspective from other than the victors. We need more history like this. It gives one balance and helps to be less biased when it comes to the idea of might makes right.
