"American Revolutionaries Stripped of Myth" Topic

"Americans have frequently displayed a fascination toward the Founding Fathers that borders on ancestor worship. More than two centuries after the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written, citizens pore over the Federalist Papers as if they were holy writ. This is as it should be. But Americans won independence not just with lofty ideas and stirring words but also with force of arms.

Three new books remind us, from different angles of vision, that the American War of Independence was, first and foremost, an exceedingly complex conflict. In North America alone, it stretched from Canada to Georgia and the Atlantic seaboard to the Mississippi River. Contending over this vast expanse of territory were Americans, both Patriots battling for independence and Loyalists still true to the crown; British regular troops, assisted by hired German mercenaries; French forces sent to aid the embattled Americans; and assorted Indian allies on both sides. Great Britain ultimately found itself embroiled in a world war, as several European nations in addition to France supported the infant United States. The fighting spread to the West Indies, the Indian subcontinent and other spots around the globe…."
Read more here

link

Amicalement
Armand

"[A]n exceedingly complex conflict. In North America alone, it stretched from Canada to Georgia…"

"British regular troops, assisted by hired German mercenaries.."

"Not until the late summer of 1781 was Washington able to indulge his penchant for offensive action."

An article from 2006

Who is Robert Cate?

"…from Canada yo Georgia. )
Florida doesn't count? I

Not until it gets Disney World.

Anyone one anything bout the site history net?

Historynet is good stuff, and useful.

Is this the myths of all myths? What was the myth? It seems that TMP is becoming The Myth Project. Sorry, I'm just tired of all the myths that are not myths if you know history.

+1 John snelling
"Exploding myths" is nothing but lazy click bait on the part of the compiler.
It's nothing but "Ooh! Shiny" on the part of he who collects them and dumps them here.
It's nothing but a waste of time for those bored enough to go there.

The only "myths" that are actually exploded are those believed by those who have no interest in the subject anyway.

Yes, but the piece is a good review of several related books, written for non-specialists.

From 15 years ago.

"mercenaries." Sigh.

First, Yorktown was not a battle but a siege. There is a little more than a 'slight' difference.

Second, the statement in the article, 'Not until the late summer of 1781 was Washington able to indulge his penchant for offensive action.' is just a little misleading. Perhaps the author of the article forget about Trenton, Princeton, and Monmouth as well as the Hollow Way.

"mercenaries." Sigh.

What else would you call them? They were hired to fight someone else's war.

No. They were drafted, conscripted, press-ganged etc, so their lord and master could rent them out.

Rented or hired, the Germans were still mercenaries fighting a war not of their making. And the British had done this before…

It is only in more recent times that the term 'mercenary' has become a pejorative. In the 17th and 18th centuries it was common for officers to serve with foreign armies to gain military experience; as long as they did not commit treason by fighting against their own sovereign, other officers did not think badly of them.

When it was clear that there was likely to be war with the Marathas in the early 1800s, several British officers serving with Scindhia contacted Wellesley to ask what they should do; his reply was that they should serve out the remainder of their contract, only then should they leave to join the British/HEIC forces.

IIRC, it was after only the ACW that Britain passed the Foreign Enlistment Act making it a crime to join another country's armed forces, BUT none of the British citizens who served in the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War were prosecuted, nor – to the best of my knowledge – has anyone been who has since enlisted in the French Foreign Legion.

When I joined an amateur drama group and had to fill in a form stating my profession [schoolmaster], I put 'Educational Mercenary'. When they queried it, my reply was, "I'll teach anyone who'll pay me; if they won't pay, I won't teach them. Simples!"

In the context of the AWI, 'mercenary' was simply one of the terms used by the self-styled 'Patriots' to disparage their opponents and stir up hostility to the UK government.

I suppose, Brechtel198, you don't approve of the Gurkhas, either?

When you think about it, all professional soldiers fight for their pay in wars 'not of their own making.' And most people would not do their day jobs if they weren't paid, and will change employers to improve their remuneration. Professional sportsmen regularly play for foreign teams; they are not criticised for being 'mercenary', yet money – and large amounts of it – is clearly the motive for transferring their allegiance to another club.

Using mercenaries to control your own subjects had a negative connotation that using mercenaries to fight your wartime opponents did not. The American colonists were not the first rebels against an English king to experience it, and the American colonists were not the first to speak ill of the practice.

But whilst the Parliamentarians made this complaint against Charles I, they also employed foreigners with military experience, such as Carlo Fantom and John Dalbier, so they were being somewhat hypocritical.

And what about von Steuben and Pulaski? Hardly British citizens protesting against their king!

And what about von Steuben and Pulaski? Hardly British citizens protesting against their king!

They were foreign volunteers recruited in Europe by American representatives. There is a difference. And the foreigners that came to help the US were all officers who had a choice in the matter, and were not hired out by their sovereign.

Von Steuben, de Kalb, and Duportail served willingly and gallantly and greatly added to the growing professionalism of the Continental Army. They weren't paid to come and serve. There is a difference. De Kalb was killed in action as a division commander of the Maryland Division, von Steuben trained the Continental Army and wrote the first drill regulations, and Duportail formed and organized the American engineer arm where none had existed before.

Duportail went home after the war, but von Steuben stayed in the US.

For all we can tell, many of the 'Hessians' may have served 'willingly' in America, in the way that any professional soldier is willing to serve wherever he is ordered to go

So your point comes down to 'Foreign officer who volunteers to serve for the 'Patriots', good; foreign other rank who fulfils his contract of service and obeys orders to fight against them, bad'.

No, the point is who was hired to fight and who was not. Seems to me that playing a semantics game doesn't help or clarify the situation.

King George's government recruits British soldiers to serve for pay to restore the rule of law in his colonies; it also enters into a contract with some German princes to loan it troops to assist, under which it will give them their orders and pay them. The individual soldiers – British or foreign – having enlisted, have no choice as to where they serve, what orders to obey &c. In that respect, those soldiers were unlike modern mercenaries who can choose their employers. Is that a fair summary of the situation?

My point is simply that making out that employing such foreign troops was, effectively, no different from deploying British forces. It makes little difference to me whether the soldier who shoots or bayonets me shares my country of birth or not.

The hostility towards the 'Hessians' and complaints that they were mercenaries was either simply xenophobia, political propaganda or a combination of both.