Several weeks ago I read Fusilier, a book about a certain British regiment in the American Revolutionary War. I remarked that I found that I was very unfamiliar with that war or indeed that period of history. And feeling that you, dear reader, might like a break from Cadfael mystery stories, I went to the on-line library catalog to see what they had to offer in ebooks on the American Revolution. I'd have to drive 10 minutes to the library if I wanted a paper book... In any event I found one that covers 1776, which was a pivotal year in those events, with the colonies deciding to declare their independence and King George III deciding to bring them back in line with a large force sent to capture New York and show the colonialist who was King.
My reviewer criteria. I like light, entertaining novels. I like smaller scale stories rather than epics. I like character focused novels featuring pleasant characters, with a minimum number of unpleasant ones. I greatly value clever and witty writing. I like first person, or close third person narratives. I dislike a lot of "head jumping" between POVs and flashbacks. I want a story, not a puzzle. While I am not opposed to violence, I dislike gore for the sake of gore. I find long and elaborate fight, action, and battle sequences tedious. Plot holes and things that happen for the convenience of the author annoy me. And I fear I'm a born critic in that I don't mind pointing out what I don't like in a story. However, I lay no claim to be the final arbitrator of style and taste, you need to decide for yourself what you like or dislike in a book.
Your opinions are always welcome. Comment below.
History is filled with "what ifs", especially at critical moments when vast events turn on a handful of decisions made in the moment. 1776 may have been one such moment. Or maybe not. The central issue in play here is that Washington's Continental Army was very much an amateur affair made up of militia of almost useless value, while the British had both command of the sea, and a professional army several times the size of the Continental Army. They could do what they wanted, but didn't do as much as they could because the Howe brothers hoped that merely inflicting a stunning defeat on that army would have the effect of demonstrating that rebellion was hopeless, and that after hanging the leaders of the rebellion, King George would pardon them, and things would revert to normal.
The case can be made, at least, that if the Howes had felt the need to destroy the Continental Army, they could easily have done so - Washington was defending something - New York City on Manhattan Island that was indefensible, since the British could easily seal the island, surround, and destroy the Continental Army. And then, after doing so, strike up the Hudson River to link up with an army marching down from Canada, and so divide the colonies into two, dealing with each half if necessary to bring about the end of the rebellion. The fact that the Howes moved slowly, not seeking to destroy the Continental Army, but to simply demonstrate the power of the King, so as to settle the rebellion without a great deal of bloodshed, can be viewed, in this light, as a fatal blunder or a commendable folly.
However, in view of the history of unconventional wars since 1776 and indeed, in the view of the leaders of the Continental Congress and the revolution, the destruction of their army would not defeat them. They would simply raise another one. They felt that they not only had a vast land to fight on - when and where they wanted to - but the rapidly growing population to maintain an army long after Great Britain exhausted its resources and its will to fight the war. In short, as history has largely proven, a guerilla war, supported by the population, will always win. So that whatever the Howes did, would not have mattered, in the end, save, perhaps affecting the duration of the war.
I found the book to be easy to read, and interesting. It is a history from the American point of view, which is an interesting contrast to the previous book I read which was written from the British point of view. You see the differences in the details. While this book does mention the Loyalists, the conservative Americans who remained loyal to King George, they, and their fate, play a larger role in the British version of the story. This book mentions that wounded American soldiers were bayoneted by the British, i.e. no quarter given, though in relatively small numbers. While the other book mentions how loyalist were hung by the revolutionaries, and how the Continental Army had to shoot far more of its deserters to prevent mass desertion than the British Army. In short, there was a great deal of unpleasantness in this war, as in all of them, and writers can choose what they care to turn a blind eye to or shine a spotlight on what they care to, in order to tell the story that they choose to tell.
