What do you think?
Rate this book
Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence Was Fought
Drawing on hundreds of specialist sources, contemporary and archival, Patriot Battles is the comprehensive one-volume study of the military aspects of the War of Independence. The first part of the book offers a richly detailed examination of the nuts and bolts of eighteenth-century combat: For example, who fought and what motivated them, whether patriot or redcoat, Hessian or Frenchman? How were they enlisted and trained? How were they clothed and fed? What weapons did they use, and how effective were they? When soldiers became casualties or fell ill, how did medical services deal with them? What roles did loyalists, women, blacks, and Indians play?
The second part of the book gives a closer look at the war's greatest battles, with maps provided for each. Which men were involved, and how many? What was the state of their morale and equipment? What parts did terrain and weather play? What were the qualities of the respective commanders, and what tactics did they employ? How many casualties were inflicted? And no less important, how did the soldiers fight?
Throughout, many cherished myths are challenged, reputations are reassessed, and long-held assumptions are tested. For all readers, Patriot Battles becomes not only one of the most satisfying and illuminating works to be added to the literature on the War of Independence in many years but also a refreshing wind blowing through some of its dustier corridors.
The second part of the book gives a closer look at the war's greatest battles, with maps provided for each. Which men were involved, and how many? What was the state of their morale and equipment? What parts did terrain and weather play? What were the qualities of the respective commanders, and what tactics did they employ? How many casualties were inflicted? And no less important, how did the soldiers fight?
Throughout, many cherished myths are challenged, reputations are reassessed, and long-held assumptions are tested. For all readers, Patriot Battles becomes not only one of the most satisfying and illuminating works to be added to the literature on the War of Independence in many years but also a refreshing wind blowing through some of its dustier corridors.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2007
67 people are currently reading
238 people want to read
About the author
Michael Stephenson
33 books7 followers"In addition to his writing, Stephenson spent more than twenty-five years as a professional book editor, for much of that time with a particular focus on military publishing."
"Stephenson is the former editor of the Military Book Club and the editor of National Geographic's Battlegrounds: Geography and the History of Warfare. He is also the author of Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence Was Fought. He lives in New York City."
(source)
(source)
"Stephenson is the former editor of the Military Book Club and the editor of National Geographic's Battlegrounds: Geography and the History of Warfare. He is also the author of Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence Was Fought. He lives in New York City."
(source)
(source)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
November 28, 2010
Heavy readers interested in any topic got there by reading a "gateway book," some volume that opened up their interest to deeper reading. "Patriot Battles" by Michael Stephenson would have qualified.
The book is treatment of the American Revolution that starts out as a "nuts and bolts" examination of how the American and british Armies fought each other, from training through tactics, to logistics and medical services. The book's second part is a quick compendium of battles. Apart, either half of Patriot Battles would have been a decent little standalone book that would have acted as an "appetizer", whetting the reader's interest for more. Together, the two halves are too much of too little.
Stephenson is no stranger to military history. He once worked as an editor for the Military Book Club. At National Geographic, Stepehenson edited "Battlegrounds: Geography and the History of Warfare." His experience shows in his writing. Stephenson knows what he is talking about and writes in a clear, mildly witty style that makes the topic approachable for the reader. OK, he gets in a few cheap shots, comparing the British in the AWI with the Americans in Iraq. But those phrase-sized critiques are few and far between.
Stephenson clearly wants to debunk myths about the Revolution, to strip away much of the patriotic varnish that clouds the grain of the conflict. But there is a hint of the politically correct using these flaws to impeach the outcome for lack of perfectly pure inputs and outputs. War, like any human enterprise, is an imperfect process carried out by flawed people seeking a better outcome. (Perfection is only sought by tyrants, and they have the labor camps and secret police to prove it.)
Clearly, Stephenson wanted his book to be more. That leaves "Patriot Battles" as a history that lacks a story. There is no drama to draw in the reader. The battle chapters are dots with poor connections, each a good summation of a fight, but together insufficient to tell the story of the war. As for the nuts-and-bolts chapters on the American and British armies, each is also interesting, but together come across as a summation of trivia. The binding narrative is missing, and it is a vital necessity to tie these two semi-separate topics together. Maybe this book started as merely a half of itself, only forced to greater length because the "nuts and bolts" chapters only measured 200 pages and the battle chapters another 150. Either length is good for a simple, introductory book. What is unclear is whether this result was the fault of the writer or the editor.
Stephenson still deserves a "Gentleman's C" for writing the book. But this project needed a clearer focus before going to print. There are probably better introductions to the American War of Independence out there. Avoid "Patriot Battles."
The book is treatment of the American Revolution that starts out as a "nuts and bolts" examination of how the American and british Armies fought each other, from training through tactics, to logistics and medical services. The book's second part is a quick compendium of battles. Apart, either half of Patriot Battles would have been a decent little standalone book that would have acted as an "appetizer", whetting the reader's interest for more. Together, the two halves are too much of too little.
Stephenson is no stranger to military history. He once worked as an editor for the Military Book Club. At National Geographic, Stepehenson edited "Battlegrounds: Geography and the History of Warfare." His experience shows in his writing. Stephenson knows what he is talking about and writes in a clear, mildly witty style that makes the topic approachable for the reader. OK, he gets in a few cheap shots, comparing the British in the AWI with the Americans in Iraq. But those phrase-sized critiques are few and far between.
Stephenson clearly wants to debunk myths about the Revolution, to strip away much of the patriotic varnish that clouds the grain of the conflict. But there is a hint of the politically correct using these flaws to impeach the outcome for lack of perfectly pure inputs and outputs. War, like any human enterprise, is an imperfect process carried out by flawed people seeking a better outcome. (Perfection is only sought by tyrants, and they have the labor camps and secret police to prove it.)
Clearly, Stephenson wanted his book to be more. That leaves "Patriot Battles" as a history that lacks a story. There is no drama to draw in the reader. The battle chapters are dots with poor connections, each a good summation of a fight, but together insufficient to tell the story of the war. As for the nuts-and-bolts chapters on the American and British armies, each is also interesting, but together come across as a summation of trivia. The binding narrative is missing, and it is a vital necessity to tie these two semi-separate topics together. Maybe this book started as merely a half of itself, only forced to greater length because the "nuts and bolts" chapters only measured 200 pages and the battle chapters another 150. Either length is good for a simple, introductory book. What is unclear is whether this result was the fault of the writer or the editor.
Stephenson still deserves a "Gentleman's C" for writing the book. But this project needed a clearer focus before going to print. There are probably better introductions to the American War of Independence out there. Avoid "Patriot Battles."
December 10, 2009
I didn't like this nearly as much as I was expecting to. The author starts off with some jarring political points that struck me as silly, needless, and out of place. That didn't help. The author also clearly tries to do his revisionist best, but some of his points aren't backed up very well. For example, when arguing that the American regular army was made up of poor dumb people, he cites the average soldier's meager holdings. But most soldiers were young and didn't own much property, thus making them "poor." He also spent considerable time analyzing the use of the bayonet, and concluded it wasn't used as much as previously thought. But yet, in the second half of the book, at least one battle in every chapter mentions a bayonet charge.
Some of the finer details about weapons, food, and medicine of the period were more interesting and devoid of weak arguments and political nonsense. Though it had just enough to make it a chore to read. But the information was useful.
The second half was kind of pointless, just a rehash of battles most students of the war are already familiar with. I got the sense it was almost filler just to fill up the rest of the book.
Some of the finer details about weapons, food, and medicine of the period were more interesting and devoid of weak arguments and political nonsense. Though it had just enough to make it a chore to read. But the information was useful.
The second half was kind of pointless, just a rehash of battles most students of the war are already familiar with. I got the sense it was almost filler just to fill up the rest of the book.
Read
August 15, 20182009-10 - Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence Was Fought. Author: Michael Stephenson. 448 pages. 2007
A very good, but seriously flawed book. As a basic handbook to understanding the experience and mechanics of the American Revolutionary War in the North American Theater this book is very comprehensive and worthwhile. The author has organized the book in a logical sequence. It starts with the basic components of the armies, builds up to the next levels and then looks at those systems in application i.e. battle.
The book does a very good job of explaining the operational tempo of the British forces when they were commanded by General Howe. This explanation cuts through a lot of the mythology and pandering. It also highlights some of the lesser studied aspects of the war i.e. Blacks, Native-Americans, Germans, and Women. To often these subjects are pushed to the periphery as a study for specialists or ignored
While this book is an excellent beginner’s resource to the conflict it is not without some distractions. There are two main distractions to the text. The first is the lack of adequate attribution. This means that the student of the conflict is unable to follow the author’s sources for further investigation or study. This comes as a surprise considering the 30 pages of notes and a very decent bibliography included in the back of the book. The net effect is that some of the statements can come off as author’s opinion which taints the information.
The second distraction is the author’s apparent need to insert his political viewpoints into the story line. The author makes a continual effort in the initial chapters of denigrating US foreign policy, especially in regards to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan which began post 11SEP2009. The author’s continual attacks on US policy can be off-putting but are at least up front and obvious. A sensitive or highly charged political reader may find his commentary to be a distraction but the average reader should be able to recognize the comments as comments and focus on the very good aspects of the content. The continual theme of the author’s commentary comparing colonial/imperial policy and methods versus liberation/independence fighting though is well worth a thought though his high degree of vitriol may prevent this from happening. It is a case of how something is presented interfering with what is being said. It may be uncomfortable to see US forces and methods compared to the British and the other side as akin to the American Continentals. There are some valid points and nuances however which the author hints at and tries to make though his own agenda gets in the way.
Overall if the reader can ignore the current political commentary and the occasional lack of referencing they will be rewarded with an excellent resource book on the American Revolutionary soldiers experience.
A very good, but seriously flawed book. As a basic handbook to understanding the experience and mechanics of the American Revolutionary War in the North American Theater this book is very comprehensive and worthwhile. The author has organized the book in a logical sequence. It starts with the basic components of the armies, builds up to the next levels and then looks at those systems in application i.e. battle.
The book does a very good job of explaining the operational tempo of the British forces when they were commanded by General Howe. This explanation cuts through a lot of the mythology and pandering. It also highlights some of the lesser studied aspects of the war i.e. Blacks, Native-Americans, Germans, and Women. To often these subjects are pushed to the periphery as a study for specialists or ignored
While this book is an excellent beginner’s resource to the conflict it is not without some distractions. There are two main distractions to the text. The first is the lack of adequate attribution. This means that the student of the conflict is unable to follow the author’s sources for further investigation or study. This comes as a surprise considering the 30 pages of notes and a very decent bibliography included in the back of the book. The net effect is that some of the statements can come off as author’s opinion which taints the information.
The second distraction is the author’s apparent need to insert his political viewpoints into the story line. The author makes a continual effort in the initial chapters of denigrating US foreign policy, especially in regards to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan which began post 11SEP2009. The author’s continual attacks on US policy can be off-putting but are at least up front and obvious. A sensitive or highly charged political reader may find his commentary to be a distraction but the average reader should be able to recognize the comments as comments and focus on the very good aspects of the content. The continual theme of the author’s commentary comparing colonial/imperial policy and methods versus liberation/independence fighting though is well worth a thought though his high degree of vitriol may prevent this from happening. It is a case of how something is presented interfering with what is being said. It may be uncomfortable to see US forces and methods compared to the British and the other side as akin to the American Continentals. There are some valid points and nuances however which the author hints at and tries to make though his own agenda gets in the way.
Overall if the reader can ignore the current political commentary and the occasional lack of referencing they will be rewarded with an excellent resource book on the American Revolutionary soldiers experience.
June 13, 2011
Mr. Stephenson has done a great job condensing large amounts of information into short, crisp, logically structured data on the Revolutionary War. If you enjoy the period and want to get a feel for the realities of this war period (and especially the soldiers who fought the war), this book deserves serious consideration.
Given its brevity, the book naturally has omitted some areas of the war, viz. the stories of war prisoners, many of the naval battles and minor actions, detailed biographical information, etc., but it is no less commendable for its excellent detail in describing the soldiers who fought the wars, including an interesting sidelight on Negro soldiers serving on both sides; the recruiting process; the weapons used; etc., and a substantial account of the major engagements of the war from start to finish.
I will likely be coming back to this book when I write a historical novel on the period.
Given its brevity, the book naturally has omitted some areas of the war, viz. the stories of war prisoners, many of the naval battles and minor actions, detailed biographical information, etc., but it is no less commendable for its excellent detail in describing the soldiers who fought the wars, including an interesting sidelight on Negro soldiers serving on both sides; the recruiting process; the weapons used; etc., and a substantial account of the major engagements of the war from start to finish.
I will likely be coming back to this book when I write a historical novel on the period.
April 2, 2012
A mediocre rehashing of secondary sources ruined by poor writing/editing, almost to the point of dishonesty- quotes repeated within pages of each other, quoting of quotes, etc. The author tries to be controversial, but in an off-hand way that lacks conviction. For example, at the end of his section describing patriot militias he makes a comment comparing them to Communist political officers in their role of violently suppressing Loyalist sentiment. An interesting idea, but one that only gets an unsupported paragraph at the end of the section. No examples, no footnotes, just a feeling that the author included it to try to provoke some sort of reaction so he could play up a role as victim of a conservative media backlash. At this point I put the book down- I hadn't learned anything new about the patriot armies thus far, and was uninterested in whatever modern political windmills the author was tilting at.
Read
December 20, 2010Really enjoyed the perspective of HOW the combatants fought the war, not just the who, when, and where that is usually covered.
November 20, 2012
A great, thought-provoking book that is well-sourced and blows up some of more dearly-held ideas about our Founders and their war with England.
November 22, 2023
A curious and disappointing book, although rewarding and interesting at times.
The first half of the book is an examination of the soldiers, their arms and equipment--"The Nuts and Bolts of War," it is titled. There is some valuable information in this section. The second half of the book consists of brief essays on some of the principal battles and campaigns of the war. There is nothing in this half of the book that isn't better done elsewhere.
Oddly, the author engages with dated secondary sources, responding to them as if they were the most recent scholarship. There are errors; for example he repeatedly refers to Morgan's riflemen as Pennsylvanians although they were originally entirely, and always principally, Virginians. He bizarrely suggests that Pyle's Defeat didn't even occur, and was merely Loyalist propaganda, claiming that only Stedman's history mentions it, when it fact Lee describes it himself in his own history of the war, it is described in many primary sources, numerous veteran's pension applications, and is simply beyond legitimate historical dispute.
I do not care for his writing style--sometimes bombastic, sometimes overly informal, but that is a matter of personal taste. ("Perseverance must have been his middle name" and "The arithmetic has a Micawberesque neatness to it" are sadly representative of the writing.) More objectionable are the very frequent analogies that seem to me to be inapt and strange. If the author didn't have the discipline to do it on his own, his editor should have told him that this book is not the place to present his opinions on the merit of the U.S. president in 2007 and that peevish rants on that subject will quickly become dated and be of no interest to readers.
Four stars because some of the information in the book (particularly in part one) is beneficial and because I'm an easy grader.
The first half of the book is an examination of the soldiers, their arms and equipment--"The Nuts and Bolts of War," it is titled. There is some valuable information in this section. The second half of the book consists of brief essays on some of the principal battles and campaigns of the war. There is nothing in this half of the book that isn't better done elsewhere.
Oddly, the author engages with dated secondary sources, responding to them as if they were the most recent scholarship. There are errors; for example he repeatedly refers to Morgan's riflemen as Pennsylvanians although they were originally entirely, and always principally, Virginians. He bizarrely suggests that Pyle's Defeat didn't even occur, and was merely Loyalist propaganda, claiming that only Stedman's history mentions it, when it fact Lee describes it himself in his own history of the war, it is described in many primary sources, numerous veteran's pension applications, and is simply beyond legitimate historical dispute.
I do not care for his writing style--sometimes bombastic, sometimes overly informal, but that is a matter of personal taste. ("Perseverance must have been his middle name" and "The arithmetic has a Micawberesque neatness to it" are sadly representative of the writing.) More objectionable are the very frequent analogies that seem to me to be inapt and strange. If the author didn't have the discipline to do it on his own, his editor should have told him that this book is not the place to present his opinions on the merit of the U.S. president in 2007 and that peevish rants on that subject will quickly become dated and be of no interest to readers.
Four stars because some of the information in the book (particularly in part one) is beneficial and because I'm an easy grader.
April 18, 2025
Michael Stephenson's 𝙋𝙖𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙩 𝘽𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙨: 𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙒𝙖𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙄𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙒𝙖𝙨 𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩 is a refreshing, if somewhat contrarian take on the war for America's independence. He challenges hashtag#conventional hashtag#narratives and delves into the gritty realities of warfare during this pivotal period in history, dismantling many of the hashtag#romanticized hashtag#myths surrounding the Revolutionary War. Instead, he focuses on the hashtag#harsh and often hashtag#brutal conditions faced by soldiers on both sides, painting a vivid picture of the war as a tough and unforgiving endeavor.
Stephenson provides a fascinating look at the diverse backgrounds of the troops who fought the war, from American backwoodsmen to British redcoats and German mercenaries. He highlights the stark differences between the American militia and the British Army, emphasizing the role of geography, training, and motivation in shaping their effectiveness. He explores the involvement of minorities, including Native Americans, women, and African Americans, and their contributions to the conflict. This perspective adds depth to the narrative, showcasing the Revolutionary War as not just a military struggle but also a complex social and political upheaval.
The tactical analysis is just as good, just as insightful. Stephenson offers detailed analyses of key battles, the effectiveness of weapons, the impact of leadership, and the influence of terrain and weather. It's the kind of reading that captures the imagination, whether you're a historian or a casual reader.
Stephenson provides a fascinating look at the diverse backgrounds of the troops who fought the war, from American backwoodsmen to British redcoats and German mercenaries. He highlights the stark differences between the American militia and the British Army, emphasizing the role of geography, training, and motivation in shaping their effectiveness. He explores the involvement of minorities, including Native Americans, women, and African Americans, and their contributions to the conflict. This perspective adds depth to the narrative, showcasing the Revolutionary War as not just a military struggle but also a complex social and political upheaval.
The tactical analysis is just as good, just as insightful. Stephenson offers detailed analyses of key battles, the effectiveness of weapons, the impact of leadership, and the influence of terrain and weather. It's the kind of reading that captures the imagination, whether you're a historian or a casual reader.
January 26, 2026
Americans can easily conjure soldiers at D-Day, perhaps even in the trenches of the First World War; the Civil War offers haunting images of the dead lain strewn across battlefields; the Revolutionary War, however, evades such imagery. We have the brilliant paintings of Washington crossing the Delaware and formal surrender ceremonies at Saratoga and Yorktown, but the men and women who fought, bled, and died are largely off-screen, seen but faintly from 250 years forward in history. Michael Stephenson does much to bring these ordinary soldiers to life, explaining everything from musket tactics to supply chain logistics to the motivations of British, Americans, and Hessians, all fighting for noble, and not so noble, goals.
The Revolutionary War, upon closer inspection, is maddening in its intensity and bloodiness. More a civil war than a colonial conflict, Americans gunned down brothers, fathers, and friends in fields from Canada to Georgia, with neither side ever able to land a decisive blow. British General Sir Henry Clinton came close to diagnosing the problems by seeking to claim the "hearts and minds" of American colonists; alas, even he was not able to shake the constraints of limited troops, long supply lines, and a broadening war beyond American shores.
The Revolutionary War, especially the people who fought it at the lowest levels, deserve such high praise because of the enormity of those sacrifices, and what they wrought for a country that has enjoyed those fruits for over two centuries.
The Revolutionary War, upon closer inspection, is maddening in its intensity and bloodiness. More a civil war than a colonial conflict, Americans gunned down brothers, fathers, and friends in fields from Canada to Georgia, with neither side ever able to land a decisive blow. British General Sir Henry Clinton came close to diagnosing the problems by seeking to claim the "hearts and minds" of American colonists; alas, even he was not able to shake the constraints of limited troops, long supply lines, and a broadening war beyond American shores.
The Revolutionary War, especially the people who fought it at the lowest levels, deserve such high praise because of the enormity of those sacrifices, and what they wrought for a country that has enjoyed those fruits for over two centuries.
May 28, 2018
Excellent, he uses primary correspondences through out to enhance the gloss of less specific texts, focusing first on a well written primer on methods, weapons, weapon theory vs fact of the period. This includes discussion of modern studies of period weaponry which may confirm, modify or deny common knowledge assumptions.
From there, on to the relation of the war, dealing with the conduct of the battles exclusively, assuming the reader to have a general knowledge of the political maneuvering in between.
There is an amusing comparison of King George III and George W. Bush in a note, and occasional comparisons between this colonial insurgency and another, more recent one in S.E. Asia. Don't let such wry considerations of modern politics stop you from reading this book. It is thorough, fair to both American and English parties. The addition of his in-depth reading of contemporary journals, letters, in comparison with text interpretations of the actions adds great depth to writing of almost journalistic coverage.
From there, on to the relation of the war, dealing with the conduct of the battles exclusively, assuming the reader to have a general knowledge of the political maneuvering in between.
There is an amusing comparison of King George III and George W. Bush in a note, and occasional comparisons between this colonial insurgency and another, more recent one in S.E. Asia. Don't let such wry considerations of modern politics stop you from reading this book. It is thorough, fair to both American and English parties. The addition of his in-depth reading of contemporary journals, letters, in comparison with text interpretations of the actions adds great depth to writing of almost journalistic coverage.
October 19, 2024
This book was very interesting. I wish there had been a bit more on the training of new recruits, but what was presented was informative. The overview of most of the major battles was very nice. Well done I say and I recommend this if you want to learn just a bit more about who and why the War of Independence seemed to take so long.
October 20, 2021
First half was quite good, explaining how the Armies worked…second half dragged a bit as it was a repetitive tour of battle after battle, rather than a deeper examination of 2-3 key battles.
August 14, 2023
Would've staked my life on my call that 2007 was the publishing date of the book - the bush derangement syndrome is kind of insane
October 26, 2024
Phenomenal overview of how the war was fought, and how the people of the time lived.
June 28, 2017
The first part of the book (about half the book) was pretty good, explaining how the American and British armies operated and fought during the war. This section could have been better, since it completely ignores the French army, which (from my understanding of the war) was an important factor in the American victory. The author has a chapter dedicated to artillery but not on artillery or engineers, nor is there any information on the navies.
The second part covers about a dozen battles or campaigns; the author doesn't explain why he does this, unless it is to illustrate the tactics and strategy typically used in battle during the war.
The second part covers about a dozen battles or campaigns; the author doesn't explain why he does this, unless it is to illustrate the tactics and strategy typically used in battle during the war.
March 17, 2008
This book is split into two sections. The first half gives you details about the two sides of the American Revolution: what each soldier wore, what kind of gear they carried, firearms, why they chose to fight, etc. The second half gives quick synopses of the major battles.
I liked both halves but the second half seemed unnecessary. There are dozens of other books that will give you a more detailed look into each battle.
I very much enjoyed the first half.
I liked both halves but the second half seemed unnecessary. There are dozens of other books that will give you a more detailed look into each battle.
I very much enjoyed the first half.
November 23, 2013
One of the top 5 history books I've read and I've read thousands.
The author covers all motivations - from the people to the privates to the generals. Dispels myths with well documented sources.
Very easy and entertaining to read. Highly recommend if you have any interest in this particular period in history.
I was familiarizing myself with it once more after several episodes of listening to Icabod Crane's accounts of his time during the war.
The author covers all motivations - from the people to the privates to the generals. Dispels myths with well documented sources.
Very easy and entertaining to read. Highly recommend if you have any interest in this particular period in history.
I was familiarizing myself with it once more after several episodes of listening to Icabod Crane's accounts of his time during the war.
May 7, 2013
Too much in the way of political commentary ruined what could have been a really good read.
Other mistakes have been mentioned thoroughly in other reviews/sites so I won't go into them here.
I did enjoy the book but found it a little too scattershot in some chapters. That combined with the commentary really dropped its rating from me.
Other mistakes have been mentioned thoroughly in other reviews/sites so I won't go into them here.
I did enjoy the book but found it a little too scattershot in some chapters. That combined with the commentary really dropped its rating from me.
August 12, 2014
A fairly detailed and readable account of the logistics, combatant forces, and military outcomes of the principal battles of the American Revolution with some unnecessary and overdrawn comparisons between the 18th century efforts of Britain to suppress the American Revolution with the 20th century American intervention in the War in Viet Nam.
June 24, 2016
Writing about this war is difficult. Americans love their militia myth of virtuous citizens and the British often deride the war as unimportant, unneeded, not very revolutionary. Being by a Brit this one takes that well trodden path. There are some insights, but like many British historians the conclusions are often a reach and the research is sloppy.
July 7, 2007
This book has a great deal of specific information about how soldiers lived and fought in the Revolution. As a former re-enactor, the accuracy of this is excellent. The discussion of battles is less interesting, and can be found in many other sources.
December 14, 2011
As a novice to military history, I found it a terrific introduction to the nuts and bolts of how the war was fought, and why it was fought that way. It finally makes sense to line everybody up in columns and fire your muskets!
August 24, 2009
Micheal Stephenson used his book as a platform to compare George Bush to King George. To much political posturing for a history book MS.
July 18, 2010
It was an interesting brief read about the nuts and bolts of the american revolution and it helps debunk several myths.
November 13, 2012
Interesting perspective, but poorly written and full of errors. One of the very few books I did not finish and felt no regret in not doing so.
June 17, 2015
First half is background on the politics and social aspects of the armies, second half is good overviews of all the major campaigns and battles.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews