"Rebels And Redcoats - The American Revolutionary War" Topic

I understand that the late-Richard Holmes (he of War Walks, and numerous military books) was so incensed by Mel Gibson's film The Patriot (hey, join the queue) that he wrote and produced the series and book Rebels And Redcoats – The American Revolutionary War in response.

Was this series ever shown to American audiences and what was the general feeling about them? Did Holmes make any obvious blunder in this work?

link

Thanks as always.

Can't say I ever saw it, and any mention of this I would have been glued to the TV until I did.

Always a chance that some movie guy on here might want to pick it up- seems they tread the same old stuff nowerdays- it's like rowing up hill finding decent product at the cinema etc.

Holmes did the TV series, Hugh Bicheno wrote the book of the series.

hughbicheno.co.uk

There is also a book with virtually the same title by Christopher Hibbert.

The series seems to have been screened in the US, it is available on DVD.

link

No – Holmes adapted Bicheno's book for the TV series. It is not "the book of the series", rather the other way around.

The TV series is…workmanlike, though unfortunately quite pedestrian in places. The book is – unfortunately – agenda-driven and full of opinion and self-contradiction. Given that the author is so proud of his background in intelligence, I would have expected something more than a book constructed around the premise that the success of the Revolution was secured by the luck of the Americans and a lack of commitment to total victory by the British.

Now, Bicheno's premise is not entirely without merit, but he supports this premise with so many opinionated statements (preceded by the words "may have" and "could have") placed next to unfootnoted factual statements, that his book presents more of a philosophy than an explanation. Holmes toned this down for the TV series, rendering it watchable. It was aired on PBS.

In conclusion, there are better books out there. Hibbert's book as mentioned above would be a better place to start.

It wasn't a revolution it was the first American Civil War according to a number of high profile historians…Hugh Bicheno being one of them.

I would second von Ewald's comments. Hibbert or Mackesy (albeit the latter is now slightly dated) would have been a far better starting point for Holmes to produce a history of the AWI from a British perspective. In particular, Mackesy would have been far more useful in enlightening Americans to the fact that, for the British, the war quickly became simply a continuation of the earlier dynastic struggles with France and Spain, and eventually became a global conflict.

The idea that the AWI was the "first American civil war" is correct in so far as it often involved fighting between different groups of Americans (of various hues). However, the issues – at least those in America – were less consistent with those of the 1860s, and far closer to the social and political confrontations found in the "English" civil wars of the mid-17th Century and The Glorious Revolution. Many of the more radical – and conservative – elements in Colonial society drew their ideas from those who emigrated to North America after winding up on the losing side in those various conflicts.

I would second von Ewald's comments. Hibbert or Mackesy (albeit the latter is now slightly dated) would have been a far better starting point for Holmes to produce a history of the AWI from a British perspective.

Histories of the AWI written exclusively from the British or American perspective are no ing good to anybody who is not already familiar with the conflict itself. We do not need more "histories from the British side", or from any other side. We need "more histories".

Bicheno's book is almost nothing more than shrill, agenda-driven hack journalism, which contains nothing new. See Buchanan's "Road to Guilford Courthouse", Harvey's "A Few Bloody Noses" or Ferling's "Almost A Miracle" or "Independence: The Struggle to Set America Free" as examples of how writers attempting to write a history of the conflict (as opposed to a specific campaign, or a specific army) should approach their subject.

By the way, before coming to work this morning, I pulled my copy of Bicheno's book off the shelves. I was looking for a reference to "The Patriot" in the very short introduction by Richard Holmes. There isn't one. The only reference to the film appears in Bicheno's introduction. Bicheno also reports that Holmes had some issue with the film in a piece on his website, but I cannot see anything which is a direct quote from Prof. Holmes.

I'd be obliged if somebody would provide direction to an authoratively sourced and correctly attributed quote.

Von Ewald is quite correct "that histories of the AWI written exclusively from the British or American perspective are no good to anyone." A problem, however, is that the latter outnumber the former by several orders of magnitude.

I don't have my copy in front of me, so might be mistaken, but my recollection is that the objections to the Patriot related to a specific incident of church burning and Bicheno, if I remember correctly, points out that there was, in fact, only one such recorded incident and that was of a Moravian Indian church sacked by rebel forces.

Basically, the book is perhaps not bad as has been indicated as it pulls together some very interesting and unconventional perspectives which may be uncomfortable for some. It should, of course, be read in conjunction with other books around the subject – it certainly shouldn't be a first or only reference.

I second the recomendation of Harvey and would add Thomas McGuire's two-volume history of the Philadelphia Campaign. With Zeal and Bayonets Only is a must read for the conflict and a very interesting perspective for the sources of the war can be found in a book by two American acedemics, actually law professors, the Blumrosens, called Slave Nation. Other recent publications that are worth a read are Tories by Thomas B. Allen and Liberty's Exiles by Maya Jasanoff.

Basically, the book is perhaps not bad as has been indicated as it pulls together some very interesting and unconventional perspectives which may be uncomfortable for some.

No, it doesn't. The "interesting and unconventional persepectives" to which you refer have already been addressed far more comprehensively and with greater nuance and objectivity in British and American works other than Bicheno's. Bicheno does little more than give a poor precis of these perspectives.

Other recent publications that are worth a read are Tories by Thomas B. Allen and Liberty's Exiles by Maya Jasanoff.

I might, at gunpoint, consent to use the first for toilet paper. It would need to be a really big gun, and I would need to really, really …well, you get the idea.

"Liberty's Exiles" is – by any objective standard – more nuanced and balanced. It at least covers the ethnic, religious and other socio-political tensions between those who became 'patriots' and 'loyalists 'before, during and after the American Revolution. The author pulled no punches as she laid out all scenarios related to the demise of British control of the American colonies and its aftermath of sheer terror and bewilderment. While she presents the 'trail of tears' of the uprooted loyalists, she also – thankfully – highlights the fate of the black and Indian loyalists who demonstrated their oath of loyalty to the monarchy through their actions on the battlefield, and shows how the Crown literally sold these people down the river.

Britain lost control of her own destiny in America. London made idle promises which it failed to keep, and failed in its attempt to provide for those whose loyalty was without question. Their desire to free the enslaved blacks to support their cause was paradoxical and ambivalent, knowing that their own empire's economy was slave-based.

Black loyalists throughout the British protectorates were left to fend for themselves at the end of the conflict. They were subjected to brutal attacks and mob violence on British territory; they also struggled to eke out a meager living under extreme racial and biased circumstances. Some were re-enslaved as indentured servants. The Indian loyalists were treated little better.

Ultimately, eighteenth century Britain was more concerned about their "sugar islands" than the fate of a bunch of people who had fought for them up and down the length of North America. London's post-conflict treatment of these people demonstrates that the Crown and London had little or no genuine concerns for them beyond the wartime expediency of finding loyal bodies to carry muskets in theatre.

I'm all for revisionist accounts of the conflict, as long as they're "warts and all" works, and show just what was actually taking place at the time, and the role both sides played in it. The current vogue seems to be to dismiss any good that came from the American War, or to attempt to undermine the American reasons for commencing hostilities. The trend seems to be something like "they fought their war to keep slaves", or "they wouldn't have done it without the French", as opposed to "gee – we could probably have talked them into staying within the Empire with a few concessions – instead, we picked a fight with somebody we thought would be a pushover but it turned out that they were well able to put it up to us for several years, and then the French and Spanish decided to pitch in too, and we got a hiding".

The AWI was a typical failure of British policy as it relates to English-speaking people. The colonists by and large were happy to stay within Britain's sphere of influence, but it was the trademark arrogance and rigidity of London which provided ammunition to radicals such as Sam Adams, who were able to leverage this into an armed revolution.

Britain's blind spot in this respect ultimately cost it the colonies, and it wasn't the only time that would happen. About 150 years later, another English-speaking part of the Empire asked for and was promosed something very similar to what the Americans had been asking for in the 1770s. London did not deliver on that promise, and their myopia cost them that country.

Von Ewald,

I was making some suggestions about books the original poster might like to read to gain a perspective. Your virtiolic rant is hardly helpful.

I was being deliberately diplomatic in my post as, contrary to your apparent position, I believe it best for someone new to the period to read as widely as possible and form his own opinion.

For the original poster's benefit, I would also recommend Three Peoples One King by Jim Piecuch and Negro in the American Revolution by Benjamin Quarles.

I was going to write a nuanced response to your diatribe but, on reflection, have decided that it simply isn't worth it. Clearly you have an axe to grind.

>I might, at gunpoint, consent to use the first for toilet >paper. It would need to be a really big gun, and I would >need to really, really …well, you get the idea.

And it's really bad because? Examples would be nice, for those of us who have not read it but are considering it.

Sorry, Virginia Tory – clearly I have an axe to grind. I guess you're better off asking 22nd Foot.

Von Ewald – have you read what you wrote? Do you consider there may be other points of view? Do you not think intelligent people should not inform themselves and then make up their own minds?

No, wait, this is TMP.

Von Ewald – have you read what you wrote?

Yep.

Do you consider there may be other points of view?

Other points of view about what? Bicheno's book? I think it's two feet from rubbish, and have said as much. "Tories" is very poor too – it's nothing more than a series of anecdotes, not a coherent narrative, and is badly footnoted and sourced. I was hoping for something that might actually provide a benchmark narrative of the Loyalists in the AWI, but unfortunately it doesn't actually come to any sort of conclusion beyond "Oh, the poor Loyalists were shockingly badly treated, isn't it all fierce bad altogether".

As to a rant, I thought that I was writing in support of Jasanoff's thesis. She at least makes quite a good attempt at setting the Loyalist experience within the wider context of the AWI, cataloging the wrongs that were done to them by both sides. "Tories" is simply not up to par in that regard, and even the author has admitted as much in interviews. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm being harsh here, but no matter which way you turn it, Jasanoff has written the better book on this matter.

Do you not think intelligent people should not inform themselves and then make up their own minds?

Absolutely. But then, I think it's always better to point out a better-researched book where possible, don't you? Or am I not allowed to have my own opinion on what's good and what's crap?

Sorry – you've already answered that one for me.

No, wait, this is TMP.

EDIT: I see you've referred to Jim Piecuch. Missed that earlier, or perhaps you updated your post. That's a pretty good book, containing the sort of stuff I was looking for in books about American Loyalism. Main shortcoming is that it deals almost exclusively with the Southern end of things, and pretty much neglects the Northern Loyalists. So – very good if you want a rundown on the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida, not so hot on the rest. I found that he also highlights the abandonment of the Loyalists by the Crown, but I'd have liked a bit more detail on that.

Von Ewald,

I really did not intend this to descend into the usual TMP rant and counter-rant and so in that spirit I will respond and please do not think I am having a go at you. I am not.

One of the problems as I see it, and you may well disagree, is that beggars really can't be choosers. By that I mean that there is not very much good stuff out there even trying to provide any kind of balance. By far the majority of stuff that is written for the mainstream is the usual and contradictory "divinely inspired founding fathers as secular saints" tosh which, frankly, does neither them, as historical figures, nor us, as amateur historians, any justice. Against this backdrop, anything which provides even anecdotes of the Tories or of Brits as anything other than pantomime villains is useful. We all wish there was more, better stuff out there but it is very sparse. Please also note that I recommended both Tories and Liberty's Exiles (as well as Three Peoples One King) – I did not, and do not, disagree with you as to which is the better book.

I did rather take exception to your 10:36 post and concluded that you had an axe to grind – this was provocative on my part and I hope that on this one reasonable minds can agree to differ. I did not feel that your opinions, forcefully expressed, related to the relative merits of the books being discussed but were a somewhat one-eyed description of some the causes and effects of the war – and on British policy in general. I am not going to disagree with you that there were failures of British policy in the eighteenth century or with respect to Ireland – which I think is what you were alluding to. However, none of that removes the possibility that some of the founding fathers may have been acting with rather more self interest than has been generally acknowledged. This fact and perhaps, more particularly, the political way it is now being presented here in the US for modern, and not historical, reasons – there is an egregious example of this in the Museum of American History in DC I noticed last weekend relating to Jefferson – does make this unpleasant reading for some and detracts from the importance of the underlying facts.

You are clearly very well read on this subject and I would hope that, outside the hostile atmosphere of TMP, we could discuss this rather more amicably over a pint. In fact, if you're going to be at Historicon, I'll buy you one.

EDIT: I just saw your addition about Piecuch which was in my original post. Thank you. To be fair to him his book is specifically about the Loyalists in the South and does not set out to describe circumstances further north. That being said, it is very good. We should acknowledge in passing that Great Britain did evacuate a good number of people, admittedly not all of whom got a great reception, to Canada and elsewhere. It is difficult to imagine what else an eighteenth century state which no longer had jurisdiction over the places where these people remained could have done – a much larger modern state with all its attendant advantages is utterly incapable of dealing with much smaller problems. It could not, for example, have prevented the state-sponsored property theft from Loyalists or prolongation of slavery that took place. It does seem a bit churlish to criticise Great Britain for having failed to win the war and to have failed to curb the worst excesses of the new regime once it was over.

Is this the Napoleonics board?

VA Tory needs to be reading the book on the Chesapeake, not this book. :-)

>As to a rant, I thought that I was writing in support of >Jasanoff's thesis. She at least makes quite a good attempt >at setting the Loyalist experience within the wider >context of the AWI,

Agreed, Jasanoff's book is quite good.

>VA Tory needs to be reading the book on the Chesapeake, >not this book. :-)

Cyberbully! :0

Actually, that Chesapeake book is very interesting. Still looking for a reasonably priced copy…

Never heard of the series. Will have to see if I can get it here.

"No – Holmes adapted Bicheno's book for the TV series. It is not "the book of the series", rather the other way around."

Von Ewald,

Beg to differ Holmes' TV series aired on the BBC the summer before the book appeared in the shops in 2003 (in the UK). If you read Holmes' foreword it is apparent the TV series was conceived before the book.

I would agree there are better books to start but that was not the original question

Beg to differ Holmes' TV series aired on the BBC the summer before the book appeared in the shops in 2003 (in the UK).

No, it did not.

Holmes' foreword to the book is dated February 2003, at Ropely, and a hardcover edition was first published in the UK on 7 April 2003. A paperback edition (purchased by myself on the Eastern side of the Atlantic) appeared in 2004, bearing the tagline 'Now a major television series by Richard Holmes'. An internet search for the hardback cover image shows that this tagline also appears on the hardback edition, together with the label "As seen on BBC" in the upper right hand corner.

However, IMDB gives a release date for the series as 2003, and the OP's link (which is directly to the BBC's own website) also lists the broadcast year as 2003.

If you have something from the BBC which shows an earlier broadcast date, I should very much like to see it.

Von Ewald an extract from p.xix Holmes' introduction p.xix dated Ropley, February 2003.

'So, when considering when I was considering my television work for 2002-3 the opportunity to make a four-part documentary on the war for the BBC anf WGBH Boston was too good to miss. I thought I knew the war reasonably well (a supposition which proved over-optimistic) and welcomed the opportunity to visit those battlefields that I had not seen before. The only disadvantage to a project which would take me across the Atlantic for part of the year and involve me in much new work at a time when my writing diary was already full, with Redcoat's successor marching steadily to completion, was that I would not have time to do justice to the book of the series.'

Seems clear series first, then book of the series (in effect the genesis of the series and book were probably conceived as two parts of a single project). The dust jacket on the first (and only) hardback edition carries the 'the now a major TV series' (not seen the paperback edition so will take your word for it).

The series was screened in the summer of 2003 on the BBC, I bought my copy of the book in the autumn (Oct/Nov) of that year not having seen it in the shops (nor Amazon – to be honest wasn't looking). I buy far too many books and back then I had a Waterstones and an Ottakars with staggering distance and I saw no sign of the hardback until after the series aired. Not an extensive database perhaps but mine own.

Publication dates may not be the golden spike that you perceive. For example Franklin's 'British Army Uniforms of the American Revolution' carries a publication date of 19 Jan 2012 on Amazon. I ordered a copy on 8th March, it is still not available (according to Amazon) and does not appear on the publishers website 5 1/2 months later!

If anyone could come up with a more precise (and corroborated) chronology it would settle the matter but most sane folk have departed this discussion 'ere now and probably quite rightly stifled the both of us to boot!