What do you think?
Rate this book
A Few Bloody Noses: The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution
1st John Murray hardcover 2001 1st print edition fine condition book in fine condition dw In stock shipped from our UK warehouse
456 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
18 people are currently reading
166 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
April 7, 2021
Well worth reading by anyone with an interest in the American Revolution. Author Robert Harvey takes on the American Revolution from the British point of view, and as may be expected it looks rather different from the other side of the pond. He shreds some of the comfortable myths Americans have grown up with, such as just how oppressive British rule really was. He contends that the Americans didn't really win the war as much as the British lost it. I think he makes some valid points, though sometimes he leans a bit too far to paint the British as good and the Americans as bad. American treatment of the native Americans was inarguably atrocious and driven by greed to take over Indian land. This was one of the major, if usually unmentioned, causes of the Revolution. The British government's attempts to stop white settlement West of the Appalachians infuriated American settlers and American land speculators, including George Washington. The British were motivated less by concern about the Indians than preventing an expensive war and preserving the fur trade. He takes the Americans to task for launching devastating campaigns against the Indians during the war that today would be considered ethnic cleansing, but some how fails to make much mention of the the British role in promoting attacks on the frontier by British allied Indians. Similarly, he criticizes the Americans for ostensibly fighting for freedom while maintaining a large population of negro slaves. Slavery was abolished in Britain. But while he mentions that the British West Indian islands were economically more valuable than the American colonies, he overlooks that the reason they were so valuable was because of the use of negro slaves on the plantations there.
Just some small quibbles. A particularly interesting part of his narrative is what happened after the Revolution. The constitutional convention that framed the US. constitution Mr. Harvey portrays as in fact being a counterrevolution. A recurring theme of his account is the role of the the relatively small number of radicals, like cousins John and Sam Adams, in driving the Revolution. They were determined on independence from the start, and decentralized populist government. Once the Revolution was won, and the country was struggling along, not very successfully, under the Articles of Confederation more conservative, largely propertied men on their own initiative convened a constitutional convention and drafted, in secret, a constitution which established a strong central government which exerted more control over the individual states than the rejected royal government ever had. In effect, they put a brake on the Revolution prevented more extreme developments such as took over the French Revolution a few years later.
Just some small quibbles. A particularly interesting part of his narrative is what happened after the Revolution. The constitutional convention that framed the US. constitution Mr. Harvey portrays as in fact being a counterrevolution. A recurring theme of his account is the role of the the relatively small number of radicals, like cousins John and Sam Adams, in driving the Revolution. They were determined on independence from the start, and decentralized populist government. Once the Revolution was won, and the country was struggling along, not very successfully, under the Articles of Confederation more conservative, largely propertied men on their own initiative convened a constitutional convention and drafted, in secret, a constitution which established a strong central government which exerted more control over the individual states than the rejected royal government ever had. In effect, they put a brake on the Revolution prevented more extreme developments such as took over the French Revolution a few years later.
October 11, 2012
To say that the American Revolution was a complex affair, would be an understatement of the highest order. And yet, succesive generations have allowed this complex era of history to be reduced to black and white definitions of 'good' Americans and 'bad' Brits.
Thankfully,Robert Harvey takes a shotgun to this viewpoint and brings a welcome balance to the debate.
As Harvey points out, London was to far away to rule with an iron fist. For all the talk of British repression, we learn that the colonies were the least taxed region of the Empire. In every instance, British actions to govern the colonies (including the not unreasonable stance of Americans paying for their own defence) was met with American resistance. And yet, before the revolution, American silence to the pressing questions of defence, taxation and governance, spoke volumes.
Harvey shows us that a British Parliament with a high number of American supporters, could have pushed a bill for home rule, if one had been forthcoming from the colonies. When you consider the intelluctual prowess that the founding fathers had, it is amazing that the colonies didn't present a unified front and draft a proposal up. Instead, both London and the colonies were content to muddle along with fatal consequnces.
Nor were Americans appreciative to limits placed on them by the proclamation of 1763,a British attempt to preserve the Indian nations was met with outright hostility by land greedy colonists, and the colonial elites who profited hugely from it.
Time and again, we hear Jefferson arguing for liberty and freedom, and yet, the British Army freed thousands of slaves and were keen to preserve the Indian nations as future trading partners. The Americans in contrast, practiced a scorched earth policy regarding the native tribes, and unlike the British, were reluctant to allow African Americans to fight for them.
On the military side, we see the genius of Washington snatching victory from the jaws of defeat (despite his defeats at the hands of Howe) and the disaster that was the Saratoga campaign that drove a stake into Britian's military effort.
Harvey argues that Britian didn't fuly press the war as much as it could have. Robert Clive, arguably Britian's most able general, refused to fight the colonists. Nor was the loss of the colonies a great deal - the west indies being much more lucrative.
Harvey argues that the revolution was Britian's 'Vietnam.' Much like the Americans two centuries later, Britian won most of the battles, but the lack of an end game, the rebels habit of ruling the vast hinterlands, made victory less likely for Britian. Therefore, one could argue it was British reluctance to fight (they still controlled most of the port towns at the war's end) rather than American victories, that won the war.
To be fair, the book does contain inaccuracies, but in my view, it is a welcome addition to the canon of work concerning the revolution.(less)
updated 5 minutes ago · delete
Thankfully,Robert Harvey takes a shotgun to this viewpoint and brings a welcome balance to the debate.
As Harvey points out, London was to far away to rule with an iron fist. For all the talk of British repression, we learn that the colonies were the least taxed region of the Empire. In every instance, British actions to govern the colonies (including the not unreasonable stance of Americans paying for their own defence) was met with American resistance. And yet, before the revolution, American silence to the pressing questions of defence, taxation and governance, spoke volumes.
Harvey shows us that a British Parliament with a high number of American supporters, could have pushed a bill for home rule, if one had been forthcoming from the colonies. When you consider the intelluctual prowess that the founding fathers had, it is amazing that the colonies didn't present a unified front and draft a proposal up. Instead, both London and the colonies were content to muddle along with fatal consequnces.
Nor were Americans appreciative to limits placed on them by the proclamation of 1763,a British attempt to preserve the Indian nations was met with outright hostility by land greedy colonists, and the colonial elites who profited hugely from it.
Time and again, we hear Jefferson arguing for liberty and freedom, and yet, the British Army freed thousands of slaves and were keen to preserve the Indian nations as future trading partners. The Americans in contrast, practiced a scorched earth policy regarding the native tribes, and unlike the British, were reluctant to allow African Americans to fight for them.
On the military side, we see the genius of Washington snatching victory from the jaws of defeat (despite his defeats at the hands of Howe) and the disaster that was the Saratoga campaign that drove a stake into Britian's military effort.
Harvey argues that Britian didn't fuly press the war as much as it could have. Robert Clive, arguably Britian's most able general, refused to fight the colonists. Nor was the loss of the colonies a great deal - the west indies being much more lucrative.
Harvey argues that the revolution was Britian's 'Vietnam.' Much like the Americans two centuries later, Britian won most of the battles, but the lack of an end game, the rebels habit of ruling the vast hinterlands, made victory less likely for Britian. Therefore, one could argue it was British reluctance to fight (they still controlled most of the port towns at the war's end) rather than American victories, that won the war.
To be fair, the book does contain inaccuracies, but in my view, it is a welcome addition to the canon of work concerning the revolution.(less)
updated 5 minutes ago · delete
May 4, 2020
Enjoyed this. A tale of military operations undertaken under extreme difficulties on both sides. Supplies, command & control & personal rivalries all prevent either side deploying full force. Very strong on the political aspect as he makes clear that if Britain had been so minded, she could possibly have fought a Vietnam-type war for years but public opinion was already disquieted. Especially fascinating last section in which the Revolution almost appears betrayed as the Radicals lose the peace when the rights of the states are centralised.
January 6, 2022
A pretty well-done book on the American Revolution, all from a British perspective. The book makes some very good points, and I’d recommend it to anyone interested in the subject. It’s strongest suit is in debunking the pious platitudes generally offered up about the conflict on the American side.
The author does get one important point wrong, however. He argues that the Revolution had failed by 1787, and that counter-revolutionaries imposed a highly centralized government just like the one that had been shaken off barely ten years before. That simply isn’t the case.
Harvey assumes the new Federal government exercised authority similar to that of the British Crown, revealing a fundamental lack of understanding of American constitutional history from 1787 to 1860. The dominance of the Federal government over the states wasn’t established until the conclusion of the American Civil War—the so-called ‘rebirth of the United States’.
So, yes, the American Confederation had failed by 1787, but it wasn’t replaced by a counter-revolution. Instead, it evolved to the next iteration of federation—an iteration that would last until 1861, and the true emergence of a strong national government.
The author does get one important point wrong, however. He argues that the Revolution had failed by 1787, and that counter-revolutionaries imposed a highly centralized government just like the one that had been shaken off barely ten years before. That simply isn’t the case.
Harvey assumes the new Federal government exercised authority similar to that of the British Crown, revealing a fundamental lack of understanding of American constitutional history from 1787 to 1860. The dominance of the Federal government over the states wasn’t established until the conclusion of the American Civil War—the so-called ‘rebirth of the United States’.
So, yes, the American Confederation had failed by 1787, but it wasn’t replaced by a counter-revolution. Instead, it evolved to the next iteration of federation—an iteration that would last until 1861, and the true emergence of a strong national government.
September 28, 2024
One of the best books on the American Revolution I have read in many years. Although it is billed as being told through the British lens, Harvey goes into great detail with regard to what was transpiring on the American side. The spotlight on Washington I think was refreshing as he was revealed to be a far less than perfect commander and that his run-ins with the British led to narrow escapes and long, harrowing retreats, and that aside from his defeat of Hessians at Trenton, his only other battlefield win was the famous and final battle of the war, at Yorktown. Although Washington's actions drew almost universal praise, it would not have occurred without the French navy and troops, Cornwallis' refusal to retreat when he could, and the timidity of British general Clinton and naval commander Graves.
Sorry to dwell on Washington, but I am trying to compliment Harvey for providing a panoramic view of the American Revolution. Everything from the intentions of actions taken by Britain and the reactions and consequences of those actions taken by Americans/colonists are examined. There is also a light shed on how American settlers ran murderous roughshod over Native Americans in their insatiable appetite for land, (which was really just the starting point for this behavior) and how differently the British and Americans saw the black, mainly slave population (spoiler: the British helped resettle between 30,000 and 60,000 over the course of the war once they served/assisted the armed forces).
Last few words, I promise. Harvey gets out the microscope in his study of the British too - all of the errors due to hubris on the battlefield and political miscalculations/blunders are laid bare. Given, in my opinion, the fair treatment of both sides in the conflict, I feel strongly in recommending this book
Sorry to dwell on Washington, but I am trying to compliment Harvey for providing a panoramic view of the American Revolution. Everything from the intentions of actions taken by Britain and the reactions and consequences of those actions taken by Americans/colonists are examined. There is also a light shed on how American settlers ran murderous roughshod over Native Americans in their insatiable appetite for land, (which was really just the starting point for this behavior) and how differently the British and Americans saw the black, mainly slave population (spoiler: the British helped resettle between 30,000 and 60,000 over the course of the war once they served/assisted the armed forces).
Last few words, I promise. Harvey gets out the microscope in his study of the British too - all of the errors due to hubris on the battlefield and political miscalculations/blunders are laid bare. Given, in my opinion, the fair treatment of both sides in the conflict, I feel strongly in recommending this book
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 20, 2024
An interesting history of the American Revolution. British author gives a different perspective than the one I grew up with. He shows a number of parallels with the 20th Century Vietnam War. There was no will to win on the British side, and the British military leaders were often overly cautious.
The Americans didn’t win many battles, and would have lost without the French. But the French were more interested in the West Indies for much of the time.
There were many American colonists who did not support the revolutionaries, especially once you were out of New England. There were battles between Whigs (patriots) and Tories (loyalists) during the war, e.g. Oriskany, NY. The support for the British went down during the war, but 80,000 - 100,000 loyalists left the United States after the Revolution was over.
The Counter-revolution (the Constitution) was an interesting chapter, where democracy was replaced by centralized government, using a document written by non-elected wealthy autocrats. Replacing the Articles of Confederation helped prevent a bloodbath similar to the French Revolution, but the typical American was not any better off than they had been under the tyranny of Britain during the colonial days.
The Americans didn’t win many battles, and would have lost without the French. But the French were more interested in the West Indies for much of the time.
There were many American colonists who did not support the revolutionaries, especially once you were out of New England. There were battles between Whigs (patriots) and Tories (loyalists) during the war, e.g. Oriskany, NY. The support for the British went down during the war, but 80,000 - 100,000 loyalists left the United States after the Revolution was over.
The Counter-revolution (the Constitution) was an interesting chapter, where democracy was replaced by centralized government, using a document written by non-elected wealthy autocrats. Replacing the Articles of Confederation helped prevent a bloodbath similar to the French Revolution, but the typical American was not any better off than they had been under the tyranny of Britain during the colonial days.
June 29, 2020
Most books on the subject come from an American perspective, where it's more difficult to be objective when the "just cause" of your nation's independence is at stake. Harvey does a wonderful job showing that American colonists prior to the revolution were perhaps the richest and most free people in the world. Britain's reluctance to engage the full resources of the Empire on them was partly for economic reasons, and partly due to not viewing Americans with the hatred that they often viewed the French or Spanish with at the time. There was a hope that it would all fissile out, but without a strategic long term plan on the strategy and cost involved to see it through to the end. Harvey carefully illustrates how the original war goals regarding "freedom" and taxation are ultimately lost to a central American federal government, which supplants the British one. Highly recommended, if for no other reason than to see another perspective on the subject, as it's rare to find.
October 1, 2022
Anyone who studies the American Revolution needs to read this. This is an excellent example of the British academic perspective of the war. It isn’t one sided and shows the many tactical and political faults of the British side but it also points out that the Rebels weren’t quite as saintly as we make them out to be. It’s well written and easy to read. My only criticism of the book is that the author openly makes unsupported conclusions in the later chapters that he admits are without evidence. I would have preferred a little more evidence for some of that. Worth the read.
September 5, 2018
Well worth a read. Good book
November 18, 2008
Robert Harvey's "A Few Bloody Noses" offers a British take on the American Revolution.
Of course, everything he wrote is wrong.
Seriously, Harvey turned out a very readable, and very skeptical, reconstruction of how Britain lost the war. He does not believe that America won it. He points out that Britain tried to fight the war on the cheap, never devoting the resources,nor crafting the correct strategy, to really subdue the colonies. This aimless approach did not become fatal until the local war became a world war with the entry of Spain and France, for differing reasons of self-interest.
British losses at Saratoga and Yorktown were more due to British timidity and stupidity than American genius. The French had something to do with Yorktown, though Harvey does credit Washington with having enough brains to seize an opportunity when it is seen.
Harvey's parting shot comes at the end as the US founders under the Articles of Confederation. Revolution comes around full circle as another small cabal of self-appointed individuals re-establish central government in the name of liberty for the masses through the Constitutional Convention.
Overall, the book does slam many myths we hold self-evident. Rebellion by the masses was clearly co-opted by a new ruling class eager to replace the old ruling class, with the saving grace of taxation with representation. Britain could have offered something like self-governing commonwealth loyal to a king in London, or pursued a strategy of controlling the seaports and throttling the rebellion through economic blockade. Doing neither, it tried to win every battle, only to lose the war.
Of course, everything he wrote is wrong.
Seriously, Harvey turned out a very readable, and very skeptical, reconstruction of how Britain lost the war. He does not believe that America won it. He points out that Britain tried to fight the war on the cheap, never devoting the resources,nor crafting the correct strategy, to really subdue the colonies. This aimless approach did not become fatal until the local war became a world war with the entry of Spain and France, for differing reasons of self-interest.
British losses at Saratoga and Yorktown were more due to British timidity and stupidity than American genius. The French had something to do with Yorktown, though Harvey does credit Washington with having enough brains to seize an opportunity when it is seen.
Harvey's parting shot comes at the end as the US founders under the Articles of Confederation. Revolution comes around full circle as another small cabal of self-appointed individuals re-establish central government in the name of liberty for the masses through the Constitutional Convention.
Overall, the book does slam many myths we hold self-evident. Rebellion by the masses was clearly co-opted by a new ruling class eager to replace the old ruling class, with the saving grace of taxation with representation. Britain could have offered something like self-governing commonwealth loyal to a king in London, or pursued a strategy of controlling the seaports and throttling the rebellion through economic blockade. Doing neither, it tried to win every battle, only to lose the war.
February 3, 2016
As a British reader, I thought this was excellent. I became so engaged in the history of this 'Revolutionary War' that I utilised a World Atlas to follow the action. But then when I couldn't locate certain places on my map, I used Google Earth, which lengthened the reading time of this book, but certainly increased my fascination. Although there are maps provided, G.E. had me following the campaigns and observing the sites in pictures, perhaps a factor in the five star rating.
Without these indulgencies, Robert Harvey's 'A Few Bloody Noses' (2001) is a most readable and fully comprehensive account of this period. He explodes many myths of the popular history that has been adopted as factual and takes a broad brush to provide a world view of events, not just involving Britain and the American colonies, but also France, Spain, Canada, American Indians and black slaves, and not just the conflicts on land, but also includes the manoeuvers of naval forces.
There have been reviews of this book that denigrate it's factual content on account of the author being British and therefore it being somehow biased against the 'no taxation without representation' impetus of this revolution. I see no evidence for this slant. Observation of Harvey's Bibliography shows some one hundred and fifty references to publications of which around one hundred and twenty are American.
The author does make comparison to the Vietnam war which I thought was unnecessary but all in all a most solid and even handed historical account.
Without these indulgencies, Robert Harvey's 'A Few Bloody Noses' (2001) is a most readable and fully comprehensive account of this period. He explodes many myths of the popular history that has been adopted as factual and takes a broad brush to provide a world view of events, not just involving Britain and the American colonies, but also France, Spain, Canada, American Indians and black slaves, and not just the conflicts on land, but also includes the manoeuvers of naval forces.
There have been reviews of this book that denigrate it's factual content on account of the author being British and therefore it being somehow biased against the 'no taxation without representation' impetus of this revolution. I see no evidence for this slant. Observation of Harvey's Bibliography shows some one hundred and fifty references to publications of which around one hundred and twenty are American.
The author does make comparison to the Vietnam war which I thought was unnecessary but all in all a most solid and even handed historical account.
April 28, 2013
An interesting history of the American revolution from an openly British perspective. It's a little hard to rate the book: on some points it seems to go out of its way to deny credit to American forces (for example, Yorktown is described as a classic French victory). On the other hand, it makes the interesting argument that the peace between Britain and America was more a reflection of Britain's 'long game' of seeking a potentially friendly, English speaking, Protestant nation on the far side of the Atlantic.
On balance, best read as a companion and corrective to a classic pro-American account.
On balance, best read as a companion and corrective to a classic pro-American account.
September 17, 2013
A fascinating discussion of the War from the British perspective. While the tendency is to become a bit defensive at times when the American effort is denigrated this seems an even-handed version. Both sides are praised and criticized when warranted. There seems to be a feeling among some in this country that "patriotism" should be taught in our schools. Personally I prefer to gather as much information as I can and make my own decisions. The fact that America, however much we were helped by the French and by British bungling, managed to win independence should fill our hearts with pride.
March 2, 2018
I thought this was an interesting read and a great counter to most of what you learn about the American Revolution. If you're not interested in revolution-time economic details and detailed explanation of troop conditions or do not want to hear about the war and traditional American heroes from a modern, British perspective, don't read this book. Otherwise, I found it extremely interesting, if a little dry in sections.
February 22, 2016
Essential reading for all citizens of the USA to give them a better balance of what is more accurately called The Anglo-American Civil War.
So many myths in what is put out in America about this war and so little substance.
So many myths in what is put out in America about this war and so little substance.
January 1, 2012
A book about the American revolution told from the british perspective. Too long and detailed to interest me.
May 19, 2014
Harvey's book gives an excellent background to American War of Independence. His style is at once authoritative and entertaining.
February 29, 2016
In retrospect it's a decent British POV. However, it requires a certain familiarity with the period; as a result, I never finished what was to be my introduction to the American Revolution...
April 15, 2009
Good perspective on the war from a British viewpoint. Pity it was so inaccurate.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews