Truth About British Commanders

[Loyalist Dave]

Hey since we like to dispel myths in our hobby, about people and about what was done, can be done, with muzzleloaders, you might take a gander at: The Men Who Lost America by Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy. It gives you actually documented information about the British commanders during the AWI and what they were like. For example, Cornwallis is most often portrayed as a pompous ass, when in fact he wasn't a bad chap, and was merely ordered by his king to do his duty.

The book won the coveted George Washington Book Prize for 2014.

I mean the guy is an Irishman named after Andrew Jackson, so ya know he's not going to give the Brits any breaks. I met the man, and he's an excellent scholar. IF you want to know how, even with the Brits having competent leadership, how the American colonies were able to pull of such a dramatic victory..., more so since the Brits weren't dullards....

LD

 

[tenngun]

I think the assumption that Brit officers were cruel monster comes out of Marxist writings from about 1900 to the 1940s. Much like Nordolf and Hall painted Bligh as a tyrant. An image that has stuck to Brits since.
We know they cared about the welfare of the men they commanded, we know they were smart cookies that, while it's true they lost America, built a world wide empire. America has done ok, and the common wealth nations are good places to live. One would be hard pressed to argue that the nations from Africa and Asia have prospered since the Brits let them go.

 

[tenngun]

Have been thinking more about that. David Baird wrote an article about comparing the Revolution to a dual. He said America could not claim victory any more the a dualist could claim victory because his opponent shot him self in the foot.
I don't know if that's true. I don't know that it would have been possible for the Britsto have won, no matter how they conducted the war. It took six to twelve weeks to get messages back and forth between the theater and the government, A coast to fight on that was two weeks from north to south, and a front that could take a month to cross.
After the Brits let pass the opertunity to destroy Washington's army in '76 and the French started supplying us I don't think any thing could have saved the British cause.
The earlier wars between the Brits and the French or Spanish, or Dutch the enemy nations were as hobbled by distance as were the brits. For All we lacked we had a definite home court advantage.
With out trains and telegraphs I don't know that Lincoln could have won his war. The Spanish couldn't win over their colonies, that did not have the fighting experience of Americans. Napoleon lost when his conquest got too big, and Victoria could only have her empire when held tight with trains telegraphs and steamships.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I agree, that by around 1777 it was all over..., it just took a while for the Brits to realize it.

The thing was, there was always the chance Congress would think they had lost and give up, since Washington was really fighting a war of attrition at a time when folks did not do that in war...., and I'm not sure the Continental commanders, nor Congress, understood it any better than did the Brits.

The point I think is, that it wasn't "Stupid British commanders plus tactics of stupid soldiers standing in lines in fields and we just sat behind walls and picked them off", but you hear that a lot from folks. The fact that the Brits at the beginning adapted their bayonet charge into a devastating variation, had good commanders, and excellent transportation, YET...., the Continentals WON anyway...makes the victory even more astounding.

Makes for an excellent example of, "Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics". The distances were just too great for an already cash strapped nation to provide men and materials needed to subjugate the colonies. There was even a plan early in the war to reduce the British military holdings to New York city, and the Delmarva Peninsula with the Chesapeake Bay, and use the Delmarva as a base to build up resources, and to slowly retake several key colonies.... it was rejected.

LD

 

[tenngun]

Off hand I don't recall the name of the British officer that complained at the end of the war that Americans hid behind trees. I think that contributed to the myth. Even in the WTBS southerners called body armor shields for faint hearts.
Brits were very good at beating us, all and all the British through out its history was very good at winning battles. From France to India it was a hard army to beat.
Still I recall a north Vietnamese general who was talking to an American at the end of the peace talks. The American with pride said 'you know you never won a battle in the field against our boys" and the Vietnamese answered ' I know, but it never mattered".

 

[Artificer]

There is a very good article on the internet that sounds like it may have been written by that author or one like him. It also talks about Logistical Problems of the British Army in the AWI. Of course I can't seem to find it now when I want to.

Anyone who doubts the quality of British Officers in general should read "Cuthbertson's System for the Complete Interior Management and Oeconomy of a Battalion of Infantry" by Bennett Cuthbertson.

This work became extremely popular when it was published not long after the FIW and was expanded and republished at least twice more. The British Army seems to have taken it to heart and almost became their "Guidebook for Officers."
https://books.google.com/books/about/Cuthbertson_s_System_for_the_Complete_In.html?id=1SxEAAAAYAAJ

Gus

 

[George]

One Hessian officer had a poor opinion of some Hessian officers but praised the American officers.

Hauptman (Captain) Johann Ewald in his "Diary of the American War - A Hessian Journal" p. 108:

"During these two years (1776-1777) the Americans have trained a great many excellent officers who very often shame and excell our experienced officers, who consider it sinful to read a book or think of learning anything during the war. For the love of justice and in praise of this nation, I must admit that when we examined the haversack of the enemy, which contained only two shirts, we also found the most excellent military books translated into their language. For example, Turpin, Jenny, Grandmaison, La Croix, Tielke's "Field Engineer," and the "Instructions" of the great Frederick to his generals I have found more than one hundred times.* Moreover, several among their officers had designed excellent small handbooks and distributed them in the army. Upon finding these books, I have exhorted our gentlemen many times to read and emulate these people, who only two years before were hunters, lawyers, physicians. clergymen, tradesmen, innkeepers, shoemakers, and tailors."

*(Ewald was an officer of Jaegers and had opportunities to take more prisoners via ambuscade and in small unit skirmishes than the average field officer.)

Spence

 

[tenngun]

Neat post. op:
Did you note there was something other then food in the haversacks? Hmmmm :rotf:

 

[George]

Neat post. op:
Did you note there was something other then food in the haversacks? Hmmmm :rotf:

That's why I collected that particular item. I don't do war.

I figured it wasn't a legitimate example of the use of a haversack for non-food items, though, because it has to be a translation from German, and I don't know what the original term would have meant to them...maybe knapsack.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Wow, that is an excellent documentation source and extremely interesting. Since the Patriot Army had no instructions for Officers, besides those who may have served in either the British Army or the Provincials, that demonstrates they tried to learn as best they could and worked to improve themselves.

Thank you,
Gus

 

[tenngun]

Well I have a bag that looks like a haversack, but I call my wallet or my possibles bag. I keep my fire kit, smoke, Arkansas stone and sundry items in.