Call me a traditionalist, but I think it is reasonable to assume that a book promising to be about the American Revolution, even one claiming a "fresh approach", should have more than a passing reference to the battle for American independence. Instead, Barbara Tuchman has given us a very scholarly and well-researched discourse on the Dutch and British navies, with an occasional mention of the conflict in the colonies. Ms. Tuchman wants to demonstrate the importance of the Dutch navy, the Dutch's recognition of American vessels, and their willingness to trade with the colonies despite Britain's embargo, on the overall outcome of the war. That is all well and good, but she gets so hopelessly bogged down in detail that the average reader loses focus as she meticulously explores topics such as the history of the "ship of the line" method of naval warfare, complete with irrelevant digressions on earlier British court martials of admirals from the 1740's who deviated from the rigid rules of naval warfare. If you have a unique interest in the conflict between the British and Dutch navies, and the historical context of the American Revolution to that European conflict, than this is the book for you.
A glaring error is her treatment of Burgoyne's surrendered army.
Twice she refers to it as being paroled back to Europe, when it wasn't. Gates terms were too generous for the Continental Congress, and King George III would have adamantly refused to officially recognise the rebellion if it approving the scheme of exchange had ever reached him officially.
Furthermore, the "convention army" was not just never paroled, it stayed in the colonies, marched from Boston to Virginia then Pennsylvania as determined by the Congress, until the end of the war; all the while losing over 40% of the 6224 POW's to desertion, ie they liked what they saw in America to life back home with their families, etc.
This book is a serious page turner. Too bad that Tuchman doesn't stop at her available documentation. When she runs out of direct quotes and well documented facts, she speculates. It is a shame to see someone who is obviously such a meticulous scholar jump to such conclusions when the facts she had at hand were more than adequate. While trying and to a point succeeding to give an adequate picture of the minds of people like Generals Clinton and Cornwallis, and Admiril Rodney, Tuchman uses eighteenth facts combined with twentieth century sensibilities. The chronicals a large part of the revolutionary war, and the queat to bring an end to Britian's naval superiority in American waters. Tuchman does a wonderful job of searching through accounts of events and battles, but doesn't stop there. When she has told the facts as they are documented, she begins to speculate, perpetuating a number of myths about american social and military history that have taken a century to begin to dispel. This is inexcusable as in many cases the plain truth of the Americans fighting from behind rocks and trees from Lexington to Yorktown have been dispelled and are easy to document as she proves herself, when she provides a map of the siege at youktown laying out the lovely linear siege tactics employed by the French and Americans. She implies that Cornwallis at Yorktown was more interested in preserving some mideavil idea of honor by requesting to march out of Yorktown with his colors displayed in full parade. Her condescinding tone criticises the general sharply without bothering to examine that the military standards of the day dictate that if your defenses are breeched to the point that you can march out through them in full parade and regailia, you are essentially indefensible. If you don't march out, basically, your enemy will march in the same way. Cornwallis wished to prove and document for all time that he was indefensible. Tuchman robs this sad historical figure of this consideration and ridicules him for it. One of the problems I find with historians when it comes to the Rev. War is that without making a study of military history, they make a habit of forming conclusions, which First Salute does repeatedly.
The book is diffuse and a bit chaotic - certainly I understand her premise: in telling the history of the Revolutionary War at sea, and its effect on the world itself, it is certainly necessary to detail preceding events - certainly the war of independence was not an isolated event, but one of a web of changing international conditions. But her scope is so ambitious, and her seeming energy and will to accomplish so weak, that I had the feeling of reading a pile of miscellaneous facts, some of them not particularly well researched, rather than a coherent discussion. Admiral Rodney, despite being sidelined during much of the conflict, is given a outsized portion of this book - we have details of his debts and his preoccupations which tell us why he was not there; relevant to an extent that it illustrates the British mishandling of leadership, but not worth page after page - in a book the scope and size of Distant Mirror, this may have been absorbed; in a book this size this admittedly nicely studied character dominates the book, without dominating the story.