The Forgotten Revolution

Readers looking for enjoyable and well-researched historical fiction on the American Revolution should seek out the books of Kenneth Roberts, whose writings span the period from the French and Indian War ("Northwest Passage") to the War of 1812 ("The Lively Lady"). An interesting take on Benedict Arnold can be found in "Rabble in Arms" (about the naval battles) and "Arundel" (about Arnold's march on Quebec.)

Roberts had an interesting take on Arnold, a man who saved the American Revolution three times, before his betrayal. He believed that Arnold became concerned that a victory by the colonists would leave the new country vulnerable to being taken over by--the French. Better to remain under British rule until such time as the colonies could fend off the French on their own. While Arnold was mistaken about America's ability to survive, one may wonder whether he was mistaken about France's intention: America's first naval victory took place in the Quasi War of 1798-1800, which was fought against--France.

An interesting article which at the end points to the reason for the controversy over the War of 1812, where New England was not enthused to fight due to their relationship with England.

Mr. Ketchum should revisit Nathaniel Greene's story. His greatest accomplishments came after 1780, when he commanded the southern forces in a brilliant guerilla war that kept a large portion of the British forces tied down and unable to march north against Washington and his army.

An avowed pacifist turned general, Nathaniel Greene is a shining example of the kind of men who fought that war, and his story is all the explanation you need for why the British lost.

Thank you for this excellent article; I have saved it so I can refer to it as I go looking for the six books you mentioned (including the American Heritage anthology).

I am avid about American history, and military history. I've been on six different History Channel programs on military history/technology. But I realize that I can recall reading only one book on America's military revolution ("George Washington's War" by Leckie)--read earlier this year in conjunction with two excellent Washington bios. Yet this year alone, I've read between 10,000 and 20,000 pages of Civil War history and biography, as well as two excellent Founding Fathers bios (Adams and Franklin).

It never hit me that I'd skimped on my study of the military history of the American Revolution. You've awakened me, and motivated me to start at the beginning (the American Heritage anthology), then work through the five battle-linked books.

Thank you for opening my eyes.

Could it be that it was, at the time, mostly independent-minded angry Brits fighting oppressive mercenary Brits? Wasn't it, too, a civil war between the same people? Presenting it as a war between different peoples is a travesty of the facts, which I think most Americans realize.

Great election result by the way!

Thank you for introducing us to another fascinating author to consider. The Revolutionary War is certainly one that deserves our attention and probably has not for the reasons the author has suggested--no embedded reporters or dramatic footage or great amounts of first sources. It also means the reader must use his/her imaginations to flesh out what it must have been like to live and fight in colonial America--perhaps we have become a bit lazy in this age of instant footage to be able to fathom what it must have been like. Many of the most prolific writers who were fortunate enough to have the materials, time and sustenance to write were in the Congress, not on the battlefields. However, on this Veteran's Day, it is appropriate that we look back at our very first soldiers who served during the gestation that resulted in the birth of our nation.

I agree with Geoffrey Norman's assessment that the Revolutionary War is the stepchild of books on the Civil War and World War II. This is an area of history that I have completely skipped-until recently. That's when I found out about two books by David Hackett Fischer: "Paul Revere's Ride" and "Washington's Crossing." These two books are some of the best books I have ever read, and I would highly recommend both to anybody interested in history.

"Paul Revere's Ride," as its name indicates, is about the famous ride of Paul Revere (and many others) that began the revolution with the battles of Lexington and Concord. Fischer neatly cleans up all the fiction surrounding the ride and gives credit where credit is due. His descriptions of the battles of Lexington and Concord are absolutely riveting. I can't remember a book that held my attention as much as the final 75-100 pages of this book.

In his "Washington's Crossing" Fischer gives the reader a very realistic and at times scary vision on how close we actually came to losing the revolution. The events of crossing the Delaware River (as the title indicates) are certainly covered, but really the thrust of the book is the mastery of command that George Washington exhibited after the disasters of the New York campaign. His shear determination and skill won the United States a great victory at Trenton against a highly competent army of Hessians (Fischer clears up many false beliefs of this battle). This is followed up with another victory in the Second Battle of Trenton and the Battle of Princeton shortly thereafter. If you want to learn why the army of today fights the way they do read this book.

I will take Norman's advice and order a copy of Richard Ketchum's book about Yorktown. I will read it right after I finish Martin Gilbert's "The First World War: The Complete History." World War I, now that's a forgotten war!

Military history is not overly flattering to Americans when it surveys our Revolution. This is one reason why we do not emphasize it. It is a bit embarrassing to look at the details.

"George Washington...Until Yorktown, he had never won a major battle." Er, he still did not win a battle. Admiral DeGrasse won it. Yes, those cheese eating French surrender monkeys triumphed at Yorktown. In addition to the French fleet bottling up the British they even provided most of the troops, especially the more effective, better trained troops.

The military history of the American Revolution was not one of history's most stirring epics. Yet many men sacrificed their all for our liberties. We should be humble and appreciate their hardships, and the vital aid from the French monarchy which knew well that its enemy's enemy was its friend.

America could well contemplate its Revolution, a distant, dominant power hamstrung by an insurgency in a divided land where the rebels are sustained by outside forces. Ring any bells?

Indeed, it is very easy to rest on one's laurels and conclude that the Revolutionary War ended the way it did, and the right side one. By taking that approach, the richness of what happened is essentially expunged. For the Yankees took dreadful risks, and somehow all the goings on led to Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown. So, indeed quite the narrative for today, if for no other reason to be acquainted with where the United States came from.

It is not that most Americans are incurious about the Revolutionary War and its military side, it's that they are incurious about history period. Even though titles about WW II and the Civil War recently have been best sellers, what percentage of us actually read them. A miniscule percent I am sure.

I love history and mostly discovered it on my own. But I remember that most history courses throughout public school were considered burdensome by the students. Children need heroes and inspiration and our history is full of them. But of course today that is not PC. All those heroes had flaws such as slave owning or whatever. Can't hold them up to the light. That might damage some subset's self-esteem. More's the pity.