Rating: 
Summary: Excellent historical novel of the American Revolution.
Review: Kenneth Roberts is not widely read today, although in the 30's and 40's he was a bestseller. It is unfortunate that he did not write straight history because the strongest part of his books is usually the narrative of what the soldiers actually went through -- the amount of marching and getting by on short rations greatly exceeds the time in combat. The one historical weakness of both this book and Arundel is that Benedict Arnold comes across as too heroic. As much time as Roberts spends on Arnold's frustrations and mistreatment by the Continental Congress, his portrayal of Arnold is of someone too good to betray his character. I also agree with the reviewer who tired of Cap's comic adventures. Still, Roberts has a strong narrative gift, and it is good to see his books back into print again. The N.C. Wyeth cover is also nice.
Rating: 
Summary: Following the master
Review: Kenneth Roberts was the master historical novelist. With its unforgettable characters (especially Benedict Arnold) and its dynamic action scenes (especially the Battle of Valcour Island), Rabble in Arms greatly influenced me as I wrote my own historical novel, Horse Dreamer. The novel is, in my opinion, the best of its kind.
Rating:
Summary: Following the master
Review: Kenneth Roberts was the master historical novelist. With its unforgettable characters (especially Benedict Arnold) and its dynamic action scenes (especially the Battle of Valcour Island), Rabble in Arms greatly influenced me as I wrote my own historical novel, Horse Dreamer. The novel is, in my opinion, the best of its kind.
Rating:
Summary: Sadly forgotten writer
Review: RABBLE IN ARMS focuses on the Northern army during the Revolutionary War, and describes a lot of incidents -- the retreat from Canada most prominent among them -- that are not often taught to today's schoolchildren. It also has a flattering portrait of Benedict Arnold, showing him as a man of action nearly destroyed by the sniping of his inferiors in Congress.I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this era of history; I'll leave that aspect of the novel to the judgement of people who are. As a novel it's very fine. The structure of the book allows us to gain snapshots of the war, which also enables us to access the war -- another way to say it is that Roberts never drowns us in detail. The protagonist is not the hero of the book -- Arnold is -- but by showing him always second-handedly Roberts manages to avoid the "hero pulp" trap. The style is sturdy and workmanlike, and because Roberts doesn't seem to be stretching for poetry it remains readable, while a lot of books from this period have dated badly. It's faults are few. A sidetrip to the Sac nation could probably have been cut with little damage to the main narrative -- it feels like padding. The final climax seems like it could have been played out on a much bigger scale, but this may just be attributed to changes in taste. (A lot of classic "swashbucklers" are not action-packed in the sense that a modern reader would understand the term.) And in some ways the distancing that works so well for Roberts also hurts him, in that nothing in the book is ultimately engaging the way the best of Dumas, say, is. Still, a very interesting, readable book.
Rating:
Summary: Perhaps even better than its prequel "Arundel."
Review: Rabble in Arms is loaded with courage, humor, adventure and history. The characters rate as the greatest in the annals of historical fiction: Cap Huff, Doc Means and Marie de Sabrevois have the stuff of reality. This book helped make me into a history teacher. Early editions included glossy artistic portraits of the characters . . . may the reader be fortunate enough to discover them someday!
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful!
Review: Rabble in Arms is wonderful, and Kenneth Roberts, in only his second novel, demonstrates an amazing command of the medium. The author's keen appreciation of the historical context is critical to the novel's content, but it is his skill at developing characters, fictional and historical, that gives the book its great vitality. Comparing Rabble in Arms to Arundel misses the point. They are, for all their shared themes and characters, different books. Simply put, Peter Merrill's voice and perspective in this novel differ in many respects from those of Steven Nason in Arundel. Cap Huff, who returns as the errant knight, is integral: he is to Roberts as Falstaff is to Shakepeare. I do recommend reading Arundel first, since you will derive extra benefit from the character development that has already taken place in the first installment of this series. Rabble in Arms is another great work by a very talented and prolific author. Perhaps Roberts' sympathetic treatment of Benedict Arnold and his ambivalence concerning patriotism and loyalty have kept his work out of the classroom. Whatever the reasons, it is tragic that Roberts and his novels are not better known. They deserve to be widely read.
Rating:
Summary: A classic example of the courage we have lost as a nation
Review: Roberts, like in all his works, is detailed and accurate, I beleive he is the foremost American author when it comes to his subject. He was the Tom Clancy of the day..
Rating:
Summary: Kenneth Roberts is in a class by himself; this is a favorite
Review: There are three kinds of historical fiction: the bad, the good, and Kenneth Roberts. No one else's novels in this genre are as readable or as real. In fact, few novelists in any genre do such a good of engaging the reader. It's not flashy, it's not gimmicky, it's just good writing. It's you-are-there and you want to gobble it up. And in the process you feed your mind. What a deal. I recommend all Roberts' novels. This one concerns the Battle of Valcour and related events during the revolutionary war -- told from a completely personal perspective. By the time you're done this book you'll not only understand the military maneuvers, you'll empathize with the cold toes and fatigue (and more) of the people maneuvering. A highlight of Rabble in Arms is its presentation of more about Benedict Arnold than most people know. He's not just a caricature, he's a real guy, and here is what's behind his scenes. Buy it, read it! Excellent book.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but not as good as Arundel
Review: This book is an interesting and fun adventure back to the revolutionary world Roberts crated in Arundel and other books. Unfortunately, its just not as good as Arundel, probably because the narrator's character is not as interesting or endearing as Steven Nason was in Arundel. It's definitely worth reading, but if you are choosing between the two, read Arundel first.
Rating: 
Summary: A biased view of history
Review: This is nominally an historical novel set in 1776-1777 during the American retreat from Canada, and up to the Battle of Saratoga. However, the author has used the novel to defend Benedict Arnold and attack almost everyone else. The novel digresses into discussions that become a diatribe of the author's opinions. As a result, this is neither a good novel nor a good history (good objective historical accounts will be found in Ward's "The War of the Revolution" and other sources). It is true that Arnold had some successes leading troops when he actually took to the field, but he was also a vain individual who was concerned with his own self interests and comforts, a quality which eventually caused him to become a traitor. He maintained himself in comfort in Montreal while other officers and their troops were out in the mud exposed to the weather and diseases (General Thomas died from smallpox, and Colonel Bedel was also suffering from smallpox which forced him to relinquish his command at the Cedars). There is no indication that Benedict Arnold ever missed a meal while the troops out in the field were starving. There were both good and bad officers in the American Army. The officers were handicapped by a new government that had no experience in maintaining armies and fighting a war, by disorganized logistics which left them chronically short of supplies, by poorly trained troops, by feuds between the various colonies, and by diseases common to armies of that time period (smallpox, dysentery, typhus, etc.). Many of the officers became ill and died along with their troops. Campaigns were poorly planned, e.g., the Americans tried to advance down the St. Lawrence without controlling the river (the Royal Navy had control). It is true that the Americans used militia serving for fixed periods of time, often for 90 days. That problem plagued the Army up through the American Civil War. Various accounts of my own ancestors include statements indicating short periods of service at Ticonderoga, Fort Edward, and Bennington. The author indicates that militia scattered with no plan for regrouping. That is incorrect. Colonel Warner's regiment of Vermont Rangers (the Green Mountain Boys) fought a delaying action and were ordered to disperse and regroup at Bennington which they did. This regrouped regiment joined the battle at a critical moment ensuring the American victory at Bennington. It was the militia regiments raised by Stark and Warner that defeated the British at the decisive Battle of Bennington, the turning point of the war. The author largely ignores Bennington. He seems to ignore successes and concentrates on failures without providing any balance in his narrative. It is not possible to write objectively about that part of the war without including the key Battle of Bennington. The novel becomes somewhat long winded, and I found myself skimming through some parts of it. The author does cover the naval action on Lake Champlain, including the battle at Valcour Island. It is interesting to contrast the withdrawal from Ticonderoga with the later stand by the Texans at the Alamo, where the defenders stood fast until they were overwhelmed. Hindsight is always better than foresight, and people will always have diverse opinions about the conduct of the campaigns.
| 
