"Modern Historians Confront the American Revolution" Topic

"…The most important and dramatic change in interpreting the history of the American Revolutionary War has come about very recently: the realization that the Americans won because, and insofar as, they were conducting a massive guerrilla war. They fought a "people's war" against the superior firepower and orthodox military strategy and tactics of the British imperial power. With modern guerrilla war coming into focus since the late 1960s, recent historians have begun to apply its lessons to the American Revolution, not only to the tactics of individual battles but also in basic strategic insights. For example, they realize that guerrilla war can only succeed if the great majority of the populace back the guerrillas. This was the condition during the American Revolution. The valuable military histories of the Revolution, therefore, can be grouped into two categories: those which antedated and those which have incorporated modern insights into the nature and potential of guerrilla warfare.

Thus, the best detailed history of the military conflict, devoting keen analysis to each battle, is Christopher Ward's The War of the Revolution. Willard M. Wallace has prepared a useful and relatively brief one-volume military history: Appeal to Arms: A Military History of the American Revolution. More specifically for the standard military history of the first year of the war, see Allen French, The First Year of the American Revolution. And Arthur B. Tourtellot describes the initial battle of Lexington and Concord in William Diamond's Drum.

None of these books, however, was written recently enough to incorporate modern insights on the importance of guerrilla as opposed to conventional war. But an important one-volume military history does so: Don Higginbotham, The War of American Independence: Military Attitudes, Policies, and Practices, 1763–1789. Two books edited by George Athan Billias are particularly important, both for guerrilla insights and for penetrating "revisionist" studies of particular generals and their strategies and tactics: George Washington's Generals and George Washington's Opponents: British Generals and Admirals in the American Revolution…."
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting. Is the case being overstated? It seems to me the term 'guerilla warfare', as seen from a post-1945 perspective, is anachronistic.

'La petite guerre' a term used in the C18th, from which the Spanish term 'guerilla' derives, is better understood in the sense terms of skirmishing warfare on the fringes of organised forces.

There was, of course, 'partisan' warfare in certain areas of the American colonies, both between opposed groups of rebel Patriots and Loyalists, and against Crown forces occupied major strongholds like New York and Charleston, where irregular American units harassed Crown forces and challenged their control of surrounding areas, in a manner which to some extent might equate with C20th 'guerilla warfare.'

Were Washington and Greene waging guerilla warfare with their precariously balanced use of Continentals and milita units?

Were there aspects of the fighting that led to Burgoyne's capitulation which could be described as guerilla warfare?

Certainly, that could not be said of the siege of Yorktown, which was as conventional as one might ask for, with regular French forces playing a major role.

I think this is a bit simplistic. There are tons of modern works that address the AWI, militarily, politically, and socially, that are far newer (and better) than Ward and Wallace's works. Wallace's book was written in the early 1950's!

Is this even a relevant post? The "new" history by Don Higganbotham, was published in 1971.

Looks to me like somebody is really searching hard to try to equate the AWI environment with modern "guerilla warfare". I'm not convinced.

Other recent attempts include "Washingtons' Wars" by retired British general, Sir Michael Rose – so it's not just Americans jumping on this particular bandwagon.

I have Higginbotham's work and it is a puzzle – that someone could go so far in the world of academe whilst knowing so little about his subject.

Yup. Just one more attempt by modern academics to force history into their (mostly crypto-Marxist) worldview. The fact that their worldview cannot even explain current events (e.g. jihadism) well doesn't faze them, they just reject all criticism form outside the ivory tower as biased and ill-informed.

The article is mostly just a historiographical review of the literature on the AWI. If there is any political agenda behind the article look at where it came from. The Mises Institute has been described as ranging from hard-right libertarian to anarcho-capitalist.

The majority of Colonials did not support the revolution, only about a third supported it. There goes one of the guerilla war requirements.

Modern historians tend to be tainted by various revisionist attitudes. Most are interested in promoting their revisionist slant rather than simply citing basic historical facts.

Academics can't get tenure by rehashing conventional wisdom, they have to come up with a bold and daring new idea or, barring that, promote an off-the-wall and goofy idea that gets a lot of attention and establishes their cred as a new visionary.

Then, their peers will all agree that the emperor's new clothes are splendid indeed!

I think that the author of the article neither understands what "partisan warfare" meant in the XVIIIth Century and how it differs from modern insurgencies, nor does know too much about the historical research being done on the American War of Independence in the last 30 years.

I have Higginbotham's work and it is a puzzle – that someone could go so far in the world of academe whilst knowing so little about his subject.

You have no idea.

I had him as an instructor for a semester course on the War of the American Revolution. He was a terrible instructor and, of course, we had to buy his book on the Revolution for the class. The book is poor, to be kind.

The majority of Colonials did not support the revolution, only about a third supported it. There goes one of the guerilla war requirements.

Talk about hoary old myths. This is based on misquote of a John Adams letter about Americans' support (or lack thereof) of the FRENCH Revolution.

rmaker – I don't care about the French Revolution, let the Nappy folks fight about that. I was giving the rebels all the best of it. I think the support for the revolution was less than 30%. I'm also sure a lot of folks wanted to be out from under the Brits. However, a quick look at the numbers flocking to the Continental colors and the numbers of desertions reveal an indifferent populace regarding actually fighting for independence. Too many sunshine patriots.

Too many sunshine patriots.

Just enough to win, however.

All it ever takes is just enough. A few of my ancestors fought for the Colonies. One died in the fighting on Long Island, another was hanged as a spy. Most lived, I'm even a double descendant of one. My newest ancestor, and the only one to arrive after the Revolution got here about 1832 from Baden, all others predate the revolution. I'm glad the AWI is finally getting its due in print.

Nope, not buying it. I think Ben Franklin and the French and Spanish had a lot more to do with it….😒