42flanker | 13 Sep 2016 4:45 a.m. PST |
"Valerie Paley, a vice president and the chief historian of the New-York Historical Society, said the Battle of Brooklyn may have been the most important battle of the Revolution, because even though the British won, they made a mistake: They did not bother to capture George Washington, who stealthily managed to flee across the East River. "That's something that historians have been speculating about ever since 1776," she said. "In the 18th century, soldiers got all dressed up in uniform and stood in orderly lines and shot at each other in formal rules of engagement. It was very unusual for Washington to pick up on some of the guerrilla warfare tactics that he had learned in the French and Indian War" in the 1750s, when, by the way, he fought for the British… link Chief historian, mind…
link
|
Frederick | 13 Sep 2016 4:51 a.m. PST |
Certainly true that Brooklyn was an incomplete victory The fog that kept the Royal Navy blind saved Washingtons army |
vtsaogames | 13 Sep 2016 5:37 a.m. PST |
I don't consider the withdrawal "guerrilla tactics". Conventional armies might manage stealthy retreats when needed. It wasn't the battle that saved the Revolution, it was the escape. And I say saved the Revolution, rather than won it. Winning was going to take a lot more years. |
JimDuncanUK | 13 Sep 2016 5:56 a.m. PST |
I've always been told that the French intervention lost the war for the British. |
Piquet Rules | 13 Sep 2016 6:26 a.m. PST |
I think I'll pass on using Valery Paley (VP and chief historian of the NY Historical Society) as my source for AWI military matters. Sheesh. |
Winston Smith | 13 Sep 2016 6:35 a.m. PST |
The old "hid behind trees" nonsense, and this time from a "scholar". |
Winston Smith | 13 Sep 2016 6:37 a.m. PST |
Can't these dimwits realize that that was the ONLY way to fight with muskets? How can you impose your will on an enemy by hiding from him? I suppose he considers Trenton a guerilla campaign. |
Dn Jackson | 13 Sep 2016 6:47 a.m. PST |
I'm willing to bet that if given an interview with a paper/blog/magazine/whatever, the director of every battlefield park would have, 'The battle that saved/won the revolution' somewhere in the title if given half a chance. Bunker Hill, the battle that saved the revolution, Trenton, the battle that saved the revolution, Billy Bob's Kumquat Farm, the battle that saved the revolution… :) |
advocate | 13 Sep 2016 7:05 a.m. PST |
Hey, those kumquats were hard! No wonder we ran. |
Pan Marek | 13 Sep 2016 7:13 a.m. PST |
Winston- It would be a good idea if you read the article before going off half tilt. It says nothing of the kind. |
Old Contemptibles | 13 Sep 2016 8:13 a.m. PST |
The British weren't above doing something similar. After the Battle of Monmouth they left during the night. They next morning, they were gone. A little different circumstance. The Revolution didn't hang in the balance as it did in New York. |
42flanker | 13 Sep 2016 8:26 a.m. PST |
"The Revolution didn't hang in the balance as it did in New York." Well, according to the authors of "Fatal Sunday" which I am reading at the moment, a good deal did hang in the balance at Monmouth CH- certainly Washington's reputation and perhaps his future as commander-in-chief, and arguably the fate of the struggle. Fortunately both sides were able to claim the day, not that the British risked destruction as Washington did in the wake of Brooklyn/Long Island. As for the article, for what it's worth, in the interests of (?) balance the author also quotes Kenneth T. Jackson, a professor at Columbia University,"Despite the many myths about the American Revolution, and how we hid behind rocks and trees and were much better soldiers than the redcoats, the truth was the British were the better soldiers…And when they lined up against each other, the Americans mostly ran. The only exception was the Marylanders at the Stone House."
But, politely, he doesn't point up the contradiction. |
skinkmasterreturns | 13 Sep 2016 9:47 a.m. PST |
You could argue under these terms that Any time Washington pulled his biscuits out the fire was the most important battle of the war,because keeping the army intact was more important than any objective. |
M C MonkeyDew | 13 Sep 2016 11:34 a.m. PST |
Surely they all saved the revolution until the last one "won" the revolution? |
historygamer | 13 Sep 2016 12:15 p.m. PST |
You could include GCH in that list as well. |
Tom D1 | 13 Sep 2016 12:45 p.m. PST |
It's a good bet that at least some of what they said was misquoted. Reporters only half listen. I've been interviewed several times and there is always some misquotation in the article. |
42flanker | 13 Sep 2016 4:12 p.m. PST |
I believe MCH was held to be important because the success of the Continentals after the winter of 1777-78 (even if 1778-79 was worse) silenced the cabal working to oust Washington and from then on his role as C-in-C was secure, whereas in the (perhaps not very likely) event that the 'cabal' gained support following a failure in New Jersey, the cause may have faltered without a man of Washington's stature. I think that's the premise of 'Fatal Sunday', anyway. I am only half way through. |
42flanker | 14 Sep 2016 1:15 a.m. PST |
-and then, Dn Jackson, we have this: <1>Brandywine: A Military History of the Battle that Lost Philadelphia but Saved America, September 11, 1777. link |
vtsaogames | 14 Sep 2016 6:19 a.m. PST |
Two decisive battles in the war: Saratoga (leads to French intervention and wider war) and Battle of the Capes (traps Cornwallis). The siege was pro forma once the French navy had control of the Chesapeake. |
historygamer | 14 Sep 2016 8:48 a.m. PST |
Yes, but we are looking at battles lost that blew back on the winners. I'd tend to agree with the Philly campaign as a whole (German town, battle lost, points with the French) – the Brits won an empty city they could not defend or be sustained at for any length of time. It abandoned Burgoyne to his fate as well and helped secure French intervention. |
42flanker | 14 Sep 2016 9:03 a.m. PST |
We are looking at a fairly dim article, by a journalist who knew little of the subject and, as somebody pointed out, wasn't listening carefully, but heard enough to record Ms Paley's comments, which it seems were directed at 9-year olds. |
42flanker | 15 Sep 2016 1:11 a.m. PST |
And another. A short note but the theme remains the same: link |