<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A detailed, human depiction of the American Revolution
Review: (By Edward Trimnell, author of "Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One," ISBN: 1591133343)The British author of this book gives a needed portrayal of one of the most significant events in the history of Western civilization. Some of the unique perspectives included in "Redcoats and Rebels" are: -The perceived ingratitude of the American colonists, who lived under the protection of British troops in a hostile land. Many of the taxes placed on the colonists (such as the Stamp Act) were arguably necessary in order to pay for the thousands of troops who were protecting the colonies from Native American and French incursions. - Contrary to the popularized versions of the American Revolution, the movement was not necessarily a spontaneous, grass-roots uprising. A relatively small group of zealots succeeded in bringing the colonists and the British to armed conflict. -There were bloody, fratricidal conflicts between the American colonists who supported the revolution, and those who supported the British. The atrocities detailed in this book rival those of the former Yugoslavia. - The British soldiers were not necessarily the trigger-happy ruffians of popular legend. The book mentions numerous documented cases of British restraint in the face of extreme provocation. - There are fascinating parallels between the British fatigue in the American war, and later American fatigue in Vietnam. In both cases, a superior army was defeated through a guerilla war of attrition. Moreover, the war in America quickly became unpopular in Britain, just as the war in Vietnam became unpopular among the general citizenry of the United States. -The book also provides some fascinating insights into the personalities of Washington, North, Clinton, and others. "Redcoats and Rebels" does not diminish the legitimate aims of the American Revolution, and it does not explore the wider philosophical transition which was gripping the Western world at that time. The democratic ideals of the Enlightenment, which inspired the revolutionaries, are given only a passing notice in this book. However, Hibbert probably determined that the more idealistic aspects of the American Revolution have already been given an adequate voice by other authors. Hibbert's aim seems to have been to make us realize that there were two sides to this political conflict of more than two centuries ago. He has succeeded admirably in this regard.
Rating:
Summary: A detailed, human depiction of the American Revolution
Review: (By Edward Trimnell, author of "Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One," ISBN: 1591133343) The British author of this book gives a needed portrayal of one of the most significant events in the history of Western civilization. Some of the unique perspectives included in "Redcoats and Rebels" are: -The perceived ingratitude of the American colonists, who lived under the protection of British troops in a hostile land. Many of the taxes placed on the colonists (such as the Stamp Act) were arguably necessary in order to pay for the thousands of troops who were protecting the colonies from Native American and French incursions. - Contrary to the popularized versions of the American Revolution, the movement was not necessarily a spontaneous, grass-roots uprising. A relatively small group of zealots succeeded in bringing the colonists and the British to armed conflict. -There were bloody, fratricidal conflicts between the American colonists who supported the revolution, and those who supported the British. The atrocities detailed in this book rival those of the former Yugoslavia. - The British soldiers were not necessarily the trigger-happy ruffians of popular legend. The book mentions numerous documented cases of British restraint in the face of extreme provocation. - There are fascinating parallels between the British fatigue in the American war, and later American fatigue in Vietnam. In both cases, a superior army was defeated through a guerilla war of attrition. Moreover, the war in America quickly became unpopular in Britain, just as the war in Vietnam became unpopular among the general citizenry of the United States. -The book also provides some fascinating insights into the personalities of Washington, North, Clinton, and others. "Redcoats and Rebels" does not diminish the legitimate aims of the American Revolution, and it does not explore the wider philosophical transition which was gripping the Western world at that time. The democratic ideals of the Enlightenment, which inspired the revolutionaries, are given only a passing notice in this book. However, Hibbert probably determined that the more idealistic aspects of the American Revolution have already been given an adequate voice by other authors. Hibbert's aim seems to have been to make us realize that there were two sides to this political conflict of more than two centuries ago. He has succeeded admirably in this regard.
Rating: 
Summary: Awesome Perspective on the "American Rebellion"
Review: Christopher Hibbert, in his book Redcoats & Rebels, has given us a perspective not generally seen in American history - the American Revolution through British eyes, and what a picture it is! I found this book to be engrossing and written in a style unlike some history books - it reads more like a novel than a "textbook". The book is written from the British perspective, but I did not find it to display any preference for the British or the Americans. Instead, I found the book to be simply an accounting of the events during the revolutionary period. Hibbert's research is outstanding, and his writing style is, in my opinion, fantastic. I'm looking forward to reading other books by this same author. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn about the American Revolution or anyone who wants to see a perspective not usually seen here in America about the war.
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Primer but Really Does not Answer the Questions
Review: Ever wonder how the Americans mythologise their history. Read the chapter on the Boston "Massacre" and find out what really happened when a bunch of rabble-rousers in Boston confront and antagonise the British Army. Four people died and its a "massacre." If such are the grounds for defining a profound historical moment, then American history could be accused of self-serving mythology on a grand scale. This is a war that is really quite strange and I find quite at a loss to explain. It is American reaction against tyranny, but tyranny is not that against those that would deprive one of one's civil rights --- in America it is a tax that constitutes tyranny. What a lucky country where tyranny existed only in higher taxes and non-representation in parliament. Who was right? Probably no one really. There was bludering on both sides. Those that took any action at all against the British were a singular minority. The rest either did not care or, when the issue was decided, lost all and went North to become Canadians or back to England. Too bad, just think if they had stayed: all of North America might now have the same high living standard as Canada, the US would have no problems with the entire concept of everyone having guns as a symbol of a progressive society. They would also possess a universal health care system (not to mention a real Queen as Head-of-State). The mythology of the American Revolution purports that a good was gained by succession from Britain. I and most other people can only see loss. It is what America lost that Hibbert so admirably chronicles.
Rating:
Summary: Terrific
Review: Granted, this book was well received by me since in many ways it meets my personal feelings of the struggle. Knowing this, i can suggest this book to beginners or novices only.
For the harcore revolutionary war era reader, no matter their leanings, this book would not reveal much that you either did not know or could not already figure out.
However, for those that have only read "whig" histories and do not know or have forgotten that there was another side to the conflict, this would be a good read.
Remember in most conflicts, including this one, there is no good-guy or bad-guy just two sides that were at odds. Both have valid points and both can be viewed as "right" or "wrong".
Rating:
Summary: The Largest Expeditionary Force Sent From England...
Review: I bought this volume on the internet without first looking at it expecting it to be in the same format as the excellent Rebels and Redcoats by Scheer and Rankin. I had never read a book by Christopher Hibbert before, but I figured it was named in the same manner as the Scheer/Rankin volume there was nothing to worry about. When I received it, and found out it wasn't, I was extremely disappointed. However, after starting to thumb through the book, I became very interested, both in content and in Hibbert's excellent writing style. This volume is jam-packed with interesting and useful information and gives great insight to the British side of the war, one which is generally overlooked by American historians and general reading public. It also lets us know two things: how close the British came to winning at various times during the war, and that after the French Alliance in 1777, North American became just another theater in yet another world war between France and England. I highly recommend this book just because it gives an accurate picture of the 'other side', and the level of scholarship and research is high. It is good, solid history and deserves a much wider readership. It isn't Scheer and Rankin, but it's close.
Rating:
Summary: Political and Military History
Review: I suppose Hibbert's book does exactly what Hibbert intended: a political and military history of the American Revolution from the British perspective (the book was initially published in Great Britain). What Hibbert does not accomplish--and clearly did not attempt to acomplish--is any social history of the revolutionary period from the British perspective. At the book's beginning we learn of acts of what we would now call terrorism against royal officers, and at its close there is a brief summary of what happened to many the main characters after the war. But I would have appreciated much more about the impact of the revolution on the inhabitants of British North America, and especially on those whose convictions were loyal to the crown during the war and the years that followed. Is this a flaw in Hibbert's book? No: he did what he intended to do. But a prospective purchaser will want to ascertain that his or her interests in the period are the same as Hibbert's. Those wanting a treatment of non-military matters will be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding!
Review: Redcoats and Rebels by Christopher Hibbert is an outstanding book on the American Revolution. The book is written through the British point of view. One interesting thing about he the book is that Hibbert is not all that glowing in his description of the British generals. Although he is British, Hibbert often speaks of how the men wished they had a leader that would get things done as Washington did. He describes the battles in a clear and interesting way. One part I liked was when he relates the shock that the British had in April of 1775. He tells of how the men were met with fire from the Patriots for the first time."We were fired at from all sides, but mostly from the rear," states one officer. One thing that is often brought up is that all the Patriots were for the longest time was a mob of farmers, and peasants. In a since this is true, yet they were just as skilled in war fair as the British, if not more. The American Revolution has always had a great appeal to me. This book is great for any one who is interested in American history, or one who just enjoys a well written book.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding!
Review: Redcoats and Rebels by Christopher Hibbert is an outstanding book on the American Revolution. The book is written through the British point of view. One interesting thing about he the book is that Hibbert is not all that glowing in his description of the British generals. Although he is British, Hibbert often speaks of how the men wished they had a leader that would get things done as Washington did. He describes the battles in a clear and interesting way. One part I liked was when he relates the shock that the British had in April of 1775. He tells of how the men were met with fire from the Patriots for the first time."We were fired at from all sides, but mostly from the rear," states one officer. One thing that is often brought up is that all the Patriots were for the longest time was a mob of farmers, and peasants. In a since this is true, yet they were just as skilled in war fair as the British, if not more. The American Revolution has always had a great appeal to me. This book is great for any one who is interested in American history, or one who just enjoys a well written book.
Rating:
Summary: A Fresh Perspective
Review: Redcoats and Rebels is a succinct history of the American Revolution as told primarily from the British perspective. Like the United States, Great Britain has lost only one major war in the last three centuries, and such a singular defeat begs for close examination. Christopher Hibbert, a renowned professional historian, provides the British perspective on the war with his typical pithy style and insights. While there is nothing radically new in this book, Hibbert succeeds in providing a narrative with great insight into the decision-making processes and senior leadership on both sides. Redcoats and Rebels is suitable for either general audiences or specialists who desire background on the British high-level conduct of the war. However, American readers may notice certain sensitivities that have not faded with time and Hibbert fails to ask the hard questions about why Britain lost its American colonies. Redcoats and Rebels consists of 25 short chapters, each covering a specific phase or episode in the war. In addition to illustrations, some simple but decent maps and a detailed bibliography, Hibbert provides an interesting appendix on the post-war careers of the major participants. Overall, the narrative is well written and flows smoothly. These pages are obviously written by a professional historian. Ultimately, Hibbert points to three reasons for the British defeat: poor leadership, the difficulty of the terrain and the tenacity of the American rebels. Hibbert is particularly scathing throughout the book in his criticism of the senior British commanders who fought the war: Howe, Clinton, Burgoyne and Cornwallis, as well as the senior political leadership in London. Although the British won battle after battle, their leaders seemed to lack the killer instinct to finish off the Americans when they had the upper hand. The fact that Howe could sit in Philadelphia and not attack Washington's tattered army only 20 miles away at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-1778 seems almost miraculous. One British officer at the time lamented that, "our generals and admirals don't seem to be in earnest about this business." Although Hibbert only touches on the subject of British motivation, it seems evident that most of the senior British leaders had serious doubts about the war and that a certain fatalism crept into decision-making. Hibbert's criticisms of British generals, who often seem more concerned with lavish dinners and mistresses, is not always fair since Howe and Burgoyne both demonstrated tactical competence. The second factor that determined defeat, according to Hibbert, was the rugged and expansive nature of the American terrain, which always provided the rebels with places to escape British offensives. There is no doubt that the British army in America was too small for the task; Hibbert notes that the British estimated that they needed 50-75,000 troops to subdue the rebels but never had more than 35,000 troops available at any one time. As the Americans found in Vietnam, the British could control any terrain they occupied but their forces were just too small to fight war on such a continental scale. Previous campaigns against rebels in Ireland, Scotland and England had not had to contend with such major terrain obstacles or distances. Finally, Hibbert credits the tenacity of the Americans - particularly Washington and Greene - with protracting the war until British resolve dwindled. One major area that Hibbert only skims around is the issue of strategic objectives in America. Did Britain really have a chance to achieve a military victory and if so, what strategy offered the best chances? Hibbert does hint at the British strategic dilemma when he notes Cornwallis' efforts to raise loyalist troops in the south. With limited troops, Cornwallis could either protect the loyalist areas in a defensive strategy or pursue the rebel army in an offensive strategy. Without sufficient loyalist troops, the British effort in America was probably doomed, but a strategic defense that protected loyalist areas would inevitably yield the initiative to the revels. British commanders were split on the horns of this dilemma; Howe and Clinton were more or less content to hold the loyalist base in New York, whereas the more aggressive Burgoyne and Cornwallis made (fatal) efforts to catch and destroy the rebel armies. Hibbert's narrative also exposes the essentially one-dimensional approach of British strategy in containing the rebellion; the British relied too heavily on their own professional military and under-utilized the enormous political and economic tools at their disposal. Indeed, the main factor inhibiting the rebel war effort was always lack of hard cash yet the British made only modest efforts to go after this weakness. Politically, the British might have made more concessions earlier to encourage loyalist sympathies, but their envoys were never serious about compromise. Finally, the question of war mobilization is also addressed in part by Hibbert. Fundamentally, Britain never committed the army and navy resources to achieve a decisive military victory in America, but that does not mean that these resources were lacking. Hibbert notes an interesting point about the King's dilemma in raising new army formations: enlisted manpower was cheap and readily available but the officers could draw half pay for ten years after their units were demobilized. Instead, the King relied on hiring large numbers of Hessian mercenaries in order to avoid the overhead costs associated with the enlargement of the British Army. Although the British only had to fight the Americans for the first three years of the war, large army and navy forces were retained in Great Britain in order to deter French and Spanish intervention, but this deterrent effort was a failure. Essentially, Britain opted initially to fight the war on the cheap but was forced into a gradual military escalation that kept the war going but could not win it.
<< 1 >>
| 
