What do you think?
Rate this book
Fusiliers: The Saga of a British Redcoat Regiment in the American Revolution
The American Revolution from a unique perspective--as seen through the eyes of a redcoat regiment. From Lexington Green in 1775 to Yorktown in 1781, one British regiment marched thousands of miles and fought a dozen battles to uphold British rule in the Royal Welch Fusiliers. Their story, and that of all the soldiers England sent across the Atlantic, is one of the few untold sagas of the American Revolution, one that sheds light on the war itself and offers surprising, at times unsettling, insights into the way the war was conducted on both sides. Drawing on a wealth of previously unused primary accounts, and with compelling narrative flair, Mark Urban reveals the inner life of the 23rd Regiment, the Fusiliers―and through it, of the British army as a whole―as it fought one of the pivotal campaigns of world history. Describing how British troops adopted new tactics and promoted new leaders, Urban shows how the foundations were laid for the redcoats' subsequent heroic performance against Napoleon. Fighting the climactic battles of the Revolution in the American south, the Fusiliers became one of the crack regiments of the army, never believing themselves to have been defeated. But the letters from members of the 23rd and other archival accounts reveal much more than battle details. Living the Revolution day-to-day, the Fusiliers witnessed acts of kindness and atrocity on both sides unrecorded in histories of the war. Their observations bring the conflict down to human scale and provide a unique insight into soldiering in the late eighteenth century. Fusiliers will challenge the prevailing stereotypes of the enemy redcoats and offer an invaluable new perspective on a defining period in American history.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published October 4, 2007
18 people are currently reading
399 people want to read
About the author
Mark Urban
29 books75 followersMark Urban is a British journalist, author and broadcaster, and is currently the Diplomatic Editor for BBC Two's Newsnight.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
January 22, 2024
The 23rd Regiment of the British Army found themselves involved from beginning to end of the American Revolution, and Mark Urban follows their actions with a thorough yet sluggish chronicle of their time between continents. Indeed, Urban tends to miss the grit and excitement of battles from first-hand accounts, and instead recounts losses and gains in a straightforward nature. Nonetheless, primary sources are used favorably and Urban delivers on focusing solely on a history of the war from Great Britain's perspective.
The Fusiliers were instrumental from the embers of the war at Lexington and Concord and again at Bunker Hill—to such key battles as Germantown, Monmouth, Camden, and Guilford Courthouse—finally serving to the last by constructing a formidable redoubt in the Siege of Yorktown. Urban relates their lives both at home in Great Britain and abroad in the Colonies, and perhaps the most engaging material covered revolves around desertions and turncoats. Some make genuine escapes behind enemy lines, while others are apprehended—and those adventures, testimonies, trials, and eventual punishments are both fascinating and eye-opening. The 23rd Royal Welsh are not the only regiment featured in Urban's work, with the Howe Brothers, Cornwallis, Charles O'Hara, General Clinton, and many other British officials referenced for their involvement with the Fusiliers:
By contrast the behaviour of Earl Percy as a major general serving in America and colonel of the 5th Regiment was regarded by many as a model of benign aristocratic patronage. As heir to the dukedom of Northumberland, Percy was scion of one of England’s greatest landowning families. In one letter to his father, the duke, Percy summed up his soldierly credo thus: ‘I serve only for credit and not for profit.’ Indeed, it was an article of faith with Percy to spend more on his soldiers’ uniforms than the regulation allowed. He also opened his own purse to buy commissions for men who he believed would make good officers but lacked private wealth. So whereas one nobleman might create a ferme ornée – a gilded farm – or another fill his house with exquisite antiquities gathered on the Grand Tour, Major General Percy regarded the 5th with a passion as his vehicle for ideas about military taste and progress.
Percy would not allow soldiers of the 5th to be flogged, since the punishment disgusted him. After the regiment suffered heavy casualties at Bunker Hill, he chartered a ship at his own expense to take the widows and children of his fallen soldiers home. By this step he shamed the Secretary at War into providing a similar service for hundreds of women in an equally melancholy situation but belonging to other regiments, who found themselves evacuated to Halifax.
Full-handed accounts of the losing side rarely come to fruition, and Urban's Fusiliers proves to be a welcome addition to the history of the Revolutionary War. The "Redcoats" are portrayed as humans—some down on their luck, others with mouths to feed at home—whom have a duty to serve for either themselves, or for king and country. Chronicled by year and major battle alike, this is a slow yet keen perspective of a British regiment's time across the ocean.
The Fusiliers were instrumental from the embers of the war at Lexington and Concord and again at Bunker Hill—to such key battles as Germantown, Monmouth, Camden, and Guilford Courthouse—finally serving to the last by constructing a formidable redoubt in the Siege of Yorktown. Urban relates their lives both at home in Great Britain and abroad in the Colonies, and perhaps the most engaging material covered revolves around desertions and turncoats. Some make genuine escapes behind enemy lines, while others are apprehended—and those adventures, testimonies, trials, and eventual punishments are both fascinating and eye-opening. The 23rd Royal Welsh are not the only regiment featured in Urban's work, with the Howe Brothers, Cornwallis, Charles O'Hara, General Clinton, and many other British officials referenced for their involvement with the Fusiliers:
By contrast the behaviour of Earl Percy as a major general serving in America and colonel of the 5th Regiment was regarded by many as a model of benign aristocratic patronage. As heir to the dukedom of Northumberland, Percy was scion of one of England’s greatest landowning families. In one letter to his father, the duke, Percy summed up his soldierly credo thus: ‘I serve only for credit and not for profit.’ Indeed, it was an article of faith with Percy to spend more on his soldiers’ uniforms than the regulation allowed. He also opened his own purse to buy commissions for men who he believed would make good officers but lacked private wealth. So whereas one nobleman might create a ferme ornée – a gilded farm – or another fill his house with exquisite antiquities gathered on the Grand Tour, Major General Percy regarded the 5th with a passion as his vehicle for ideas about military taste and progress.
Percy would not allow soldiers of the 5th to be flogged, since the punishment disgusted him. After the regiment suffered heavy casualties at Bunker Hill, he chartered a ship at his own expense to take the widows and children of his fallen soldiers home. By this step he shamed the Secretary at War into providing a similar service for hundreds of women in an equally melancholy situation but belonging to other regiments, who found themselves evacuated to Halifax.
Full-handed accounts of the losing side rarely come to fruition, and Urban's Fusiliers proves to be a welcome addition to the history of the Revolutionary War. The "Redcoats" are portrayed as humans—some down on their luck, others with mouths to feed at home—whom have a duty to serve for either themselves, or for king and country. Chronicled by year and major battle alike, this is a slow yet keen perspective of a British regiment's time across the ocean.
November 18, 2024
***1/2.
A solid experience of the American Revolution from Concord to Yorktown, even if the POV of the 23rd is sometimes loosely grafted upon events.
The alternative idea of a purely amphibious war against the two main export harbours, New York and Yorktown, avoiding the hinterland & luring the continental army into litoral battles, is intruiging.
A solid experience of the American Revolution from Concord to Yorktown, even if the POV of the 23rd is sometimes loosely grafted upon events.
The alternative idea of a purely amphibious war against the two main export harbours, New York and Yorktown, avoiding the hinterland & luring the continental army into litoral battles, is intruiging.
December 6, 2012
The story of the 23d Regiment of Foot in the American Revolution which, in some form or fashion, fought in almost every major engagement from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown (obviously missing the Saratoga Campaign while in New Jersey with Howe). I found this a neat complement to the Macksey book (The War for America), in that is a much more detailed and tactical discussion of an Army trying to fight a counterinsurgency given the instructions it received from its government (subject of Macksey's book). The British Army, in spite of its excellent reputation, was relatively inexperienced at the outset of the war, hobbled by some false assumptions and an inadequate organization. It clearly adapted to its circumstances, and seemed to be close to extinguishing the rebellion on at least two occasions -- in 1776 and 1780. In fact, in a military sense, in spite of setbacks at Trenton and Saratoga and the French entry into the war, it appeared to some, in 1780 to be winning the war (Arnold's defection, surrender of Charleston (largest of war) and what appeared to be a decisive victory at Camden. And, of course, Yorktown doesn't really end the war; the fall of the British government does. For the British Army, its experience in America, while not transformational, certainly provided a significant milestone for the Army that will participate in the defeat of Napoleon.
June 9, 2025
I enjoy Mark Urban's writing style, which is lively and vivid, but this book falls somewhere between being a history of the War of Independence, a history of the 23rd Regiment of Foot during the late 18th and early 19th Century, and an analysis of the evolution of British infantry tactics in the same period. In the end, it doesn't do any of those things exhaustively and is therefore slightly disappointing.
That being said, it is still an enjoyable and informative read. One thing I appreciated was seeing how the 23rd changed from a sleepy regiment assigned to garrison duty, with all its boredom and frustration, to a lean, honed and deadly effective light infantry unit. Common to warfare in all ages, this was due to a combination of leadership, tactics and experience.
As the war in America began, many of the officers and some of the men in the 23rd had seen action at Minden during the Seven Years War, but little had happened for them since. In an era when a wealthy and well-connected officer could aspire to a lieutenant-colonelcy by the age of 25, most of the regimental officers of the 23rd were ageing in their rank and deeply dissatisfied with their careers. The men, on the other hand, had a smattering of Minden old-hands but were mostly very young and lacking experience of active service. That would all change when the revolutionary spirit in North America broke out into armed rebellion against the crown with the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord, and the subsequent battles at Bunker Hill and Brandywine Creek. Our view of the red-coated British army is often coloured by its 19th-century incarnation, but it is mistaken to assume that the redcoats fighting in 1775 were any better trained than their Continental Army opponents, and were equally inexperienced.
The high-ranking leadership of the British army in America (except for Earl Cornwallis) was indifferent and ponderous at best. In particular, Howe's strategy was predicated on the misplaced assumption that threatening the rebels' capital, Philadelphia, would produce a decisive battle and that taking it would provide a deadly blow to the prestige of the revolutionary leaders. This proved to be wildly mistaken, and although he captured the city in September 1777, his failure to thereby smash the rebellion led to Howe's offensive petering out through the rest of 1777, and his recall by the end of the year following the debacle of Saratoga. Experience and tactics were also important, as Howe relied heavily on his composite light and grenadier battalions and largely neglected his line regiments, who did not initially adopt the light infantry tactics that were suited to the broken ground on which North American battles were being fought. Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga proved to be a watershed moment, as it created a sense that change was imperative - either a general peace or a new system of war.
Following that, a new generation of younger officers led the regiment from 1778, who were willing to perform their duty with energy and diligence, and to lead their men from the front. Interestingly, several of these younger officers had strong religious convictions, and there were also a few loyalist Americans among them. The result of this was that the 23rd's cadre of officers serving in the field were younger (mostly in their teens and twenties) and were fortified by strong beliefs. They were markedly different from the group of disappointed and disaffected middle-aged men who had been leading the regiment in 1775. In Cornwallis, the southern army had an energetic, aggressive and intelligent general, and the experience borne out of years of campaigning along with more suitable tactics (more comfortable clothing, looser infantry formations that were only 2 deep, and a system of fire and manoeuvre) all contributed to the 23rd, and its sister regiments, being a much more effective instrument of warfare. At Camden, a British army, far inland, defeated a far larger American enemy, a transformation made possible by having experienced troops, new tactics, and superior leadership (at least at the local level).
In the end, of course, Cornwallis had to surrender at Yorktown, and the war was lost. I think it's fair to say that this was due more to the ineffective senior leadership of the British Army in North America and the changing political realities at home, rather than the battlefield tactics employed on the ground. Clinton, headquartered in New York, was unable to grasp that the American desire for independence transcended the ability of the British to win on the battlefield, and that ultimately it was impossible to impose British rule with cannon and bayonet. The distance from Britain, and the escalation of the war into a global conflict with the entry of France, Spain and Holland on the American side, also meant that battlefield defeat was inevitable, whatever the tactics, experience and leadership the British could bring to bear.
Following defeat in North America, most of the lessons learned were lost as the army adopted Prussian-style infantry tactics with their emphasis on elaborate drill and complicated battlefield movements. The ineffectiveness of these on an actual battlefield was demonstrated when the British army was embarrassed in the Low Countries in 1794, and finally when the Prussian army itself was shattered by the French. At that point, the American veterans (particularly Cornwallis and Harry Calvert) were able to exert much more influence and reintroduce the lessons learned on those North American battlefields 15 years before. This was to lay the basis of the army that would eventually defeat Napoleon, perhaps the most effective army that Britain has ever fielded. The epic victories of Wellington's army in the Peninsula have long riveted British readers, but Urban amply demonstrates that an understanding of the carnage of Bunker Hill and the triumph at Camden is a vital prerequisite to understanding why the Redcoat did so well against Napoleon's armies.
It was also interesting to read a book on the War of Independence written from a British perspective. It was certainly a bitter war, fought between neighbours, and was often ruthlessly and mercilessly prosecuted. However, in reality, most atrocities were carried out by the Patriot militias and the Committees of Public Security, while British troops were relatively restrained in how they interacted with the civilian population. Since the war forms the foundation of the American national myth, it is difficult to separate the truth from the propaganda desire to portray the Redcoats as vicious devils and brutalised robots, marching on inept orders, and the patriots as idealistic freedom fighters. American historians also tend to overestimate British military efficiency at the beginning of the war and underestimate it at the end.
It is poignant to reflect on the similarities, from the British perspective, between the War of Independence and the more recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ability and duty placed on British soldiers to fight an unpopular war with dignity and honour are striking in both cases, and that is perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from the American War of Independence for today.
That being said, it is still an enjoyable and informative read. One thing I appreciated was seeing how the 23rd changed from a sleepy regiment assigned to garrison duty, with all its boredom and frustration, to a lean, honed and deadly effective light infantry unit. Common to warfare in all ages, this was due to a combination of leadership, tactics and experience.
As the war in America began, many of the officers and some of the men in the 23rd had seen action at Minden during the Seven Years War, but little had happened for them since. In an era when a wealthy and well-connected officer could aspire to a lieutenant-colonelcy by the age of 25, most of the regimental officers of the 23rd were ageing in their rank and deeply dissatisfied with their careers. The men, on the other hand, had a smattering of Minden old-hands but were mostly very young and lacking experience of active service. That would all change when the revolutionary spirit in North America broke out into armed rebellion against the crown with the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord, and the subsequent battles at Bunker Hill and Brandywine Creek. Our view of the red-coated British army is often coloured by its 19th-century incarnation, but it is mistaken to assume that the redcoats fighting in 1775 were any better trained than their Continental Army opponents, and were equally inexperienced.
The high-ranking leadership of the British army in America (except for Earl Cornwallis) was indifferent and ponderous at best. In particular, Howe's strategy was predicated on the misplaced assumption that threatening the rebels' capital, Philadelphia, would produce a decisive battle and that taking it would provide a deadly blow to the prestige of the revolutionary leaders. This proved to be wildly mistaken, and although he captured the city in September 1777, his failure to thereby smash the rebellion led to Howe's offensive petering out through the rest of 1777, and his recall by the end of the year following the debacle of Saratoga. Experience and tactics were also important, as Howe relied heavily on his composite light and grenadier battalions and largely neglected his line regiments, who did not initially adopt the light infantry tactics that were suited to the broken ground on which North American battles were being fought. Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga proved to be a watershed moment, as it created a sense that change was imperative - either a general peace or a new system of war.
Following that, a new generation of younger officers led the regiment from 1778, who were willing to perform their duty with energy and diligence, and to lead their men from the front. Interestingly, several of these younger officers had strong religious convictions, and there were also a few loyalist Americans among them. The result of this was that the 23rd's cadre of officers serving in the field were younger (mostly in their teens and twenties) and were fortified by strong beliefs. They were markedly different from the group of disappointed and disaffected middle-aged men who had been leading the regiment in 1775. In Cornwallis, the southern army had an energetic, aggressive and intelligent general, and the experience borne out of years of campaigning along with more suitable tactics (more comfortable clothing, looser infantry formations that were only 2 deep, and a system of fire and manoeuvre) all contributed to the 23rd, and its sister regiments, being a much more effective instrument of warfare. At Camden, a British army, far inland, defeated a far larger American enemy, a transformation made possible by having experienced troops, new tactics, and superior leadership (at least at the local level).
In the end, of course, Cornwallis had to surrender at Yorktown, and the war was lost. I think it's fair to say that this was due more to the ineffective senior leadership of the British Army in North America and the changing political realities at home, rather than the battlefield tactics employed on the ground. Clinton, headquartered in New York, was unable to grasp that the American desire for independence transcended the ability of the British to win on the battlefield, and that ultimately it was impossible to impose British rule with cannon and bayonet. The distance from Britain, and the escalation of the war into a global conflict with the entry of France, Spain and Holland on the American side, also meant that battlefield defeat was inevitable, whatever the tactics, experience and leadership the British could bring to bear.
Following defeat in North America, most of the lessons learned were lost as the army adopted Prussian-style infantry tactics with their emphasis on elaborate drill and complicated battlefield movements. The ineffectiveness of these on an actual battlefield was demonstrated when the British army was embarrassed in the Low Countries in 1794, and finally when the Prussian army itself was shattered by the French. At that point, the American veterans (particularly Cornwallis and Harry Calvert) were able to exert much more influence and reintroduce the lessons learned on those North American battlefields 15 years before. This was to lay the basis of the army that would eventually defeat Napoleon, perhaps the most effective army that Britain has ever fielded. The epic victories of Wellington's army in the Peninsula have long riveted British readers, but Urban amply demonstrates that an understanding of the carnage of Bunker Hill and the triumph at Camden is a vital prerequisite to understanding why the Redcoat did so well against Napoleon's armies.
It was also interesting to read a book on the War of Independence written from a British perspective. It was certainly a bitter war, fought between neighbours, and was often ruthlessly and mercilessly prosecuted. However, in reality, most atrocities were carried out by the Patriot militias and the Committees of Public Security, while British troops were relatively restrained in how they interacted with the civilian population. Since the war forms the foundation of the American national myth, it is difficult to separate the truth from the propaganda desire to portray the Redcoats as vicious devils and brutalised robots, marching on inept orders, and the patriots as idealistic freedom fighters. American historians also tend to overestimate British military efficiency at the beginning of the war and underestimate it at the end.
It is poignant to reflect on the similarities, from the British perspective, between the War of Independence and the more recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ability and duty placed on British soldiers to fight an unpopular war with dignity and honour are striking in both cases, and that is perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from the American War of Independence for today.
November 24, 2014
Mark Urban’s “Fusiliers” was a really interesting perspective on the American Revolution. It followed the Royal Welch Fusiliers through the war, from Lexington to Yorktown (the Regiment fought at both battles and lots in between) and I have to say it destroyed a lot of myths and misperceptions I had. First, the British actually fought pretty successfully, and applied some pretty sound counter-insurgency doctrine – they just never had the force density to hold onto what had been gained. But the lessons learned fighting in America led on to Britain’s success in the Napoleonic Wars. Some fairly literate soldiers too, which was slightly unexpected – lots of diaries and letters from the common soldiery. And the American rebels were by far the more brutal side, regularly hanging deserters (unlike the British – even with the many deserters who ended up fighting on the rebel side) and committing atrocities against the Loyalists. Actually, on desertion, it seems American women did more to win the war for the rebels than anything else – far more British soldiers deserted to marry American women than were ever lost in battle against American men. The proportions were ridiculous; off the top of my head, a battalion of about 100 (small by modern standards) would lose about 10-20 soldiers to desertion every time it moved off after being stationed somewhere – all soldiers who had fallen in love with local women. This was compared to surprisingly few battle casualties – in the order of 4 or 5 killed in a battle. All in all, very readable and very interesting, with some thoroughly enthralling accounts from the time.
September 17, 2025
I really enjoyed this book. I teach history and have read A LOT of books on the American Revolution. However, this book is different. Thats because it is written from the British point of view. The author admits that right up front. The book follows the British unit 23rd, or Royal Welch Fusiliers, throughout the conflict (with some context before and after that really rounds things up).
Because the book tells things from a British point of view, with sources from the unit itself as well as other British sources (and some American), the reader really gets a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the British way of war during this time. Written in an engaging as well as informative manner, an American Revolutionary war buff can get some good insight into the war from a different perspective.
I highly recommend it.
Because the book tells things from a British point of view, with sources from the unit itself as well as other British sources (and some American), the reader really gets a good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the British way of war during this time. Written in an engaging as well as informative manner, an American Revolutionary war buff can get some good insight into the war from a different perspective.
I highly recommend it.
June 29, 2018
Though ostensibly about the Royal Welch Fusiliers, Urban takes their narrative and spins a fantastic story about the entire military history of the American Revolution. The 23rd was everywhere, from Lexington to Yorktown.
Much of the book expounds on the inner feelings of the British soldiers and it reveals a very conflicted group. It humanizes the Redcoat and helps soften the image he receives in film and television.
Much of the book expounds on the inner feelings of the British soldiers and it reveals a very conflicted group. It humanizes the Redcoat and helps soften the image he receives in film and television.
November 25, 2008
It's a great book. Simply put, it follows the Royal Welch Fusiliers from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown. It follows their engagements, their enlistment system, the purchasing of ranks, uniforms, etc. I think this is what military history really needs to do more of. Take a look at all the gaps that have yet to be filled in history. We don't have much on the British side of the American Revolution. It's a sliver in proportion to American literature on the conflict. But, Mark Urban plowed through letters and diaries hidden in attics in England to construct the saga of the Welch Fusiliers. And, it's told using primary sources and at the level of the common soldier. I can't recommend this book enough for students of counterinsurgency, history buffs, and military reenactors.
December 28, 2010
I wanted this to be a book in which I heard the voices of British soldiers during the American Revolution, but the author spent a great deal of time discussing battle mechanics and telling anecdotes about how people were promoted. I suspect he's quite good at that but it's not my interest. Baby induced sleep deprivation won, and I gave up a few chapters in.
September 12, 2021
This book follows the path of the 23rd Royal Regiment of Fusiliers during their eight years at war in America during the American Revolution. It illustrates well how officers had to either pay large sums of money to advance in grade to purchase commissions or find a patron who would help them meet the requirement. Officers of limited means often languished in low grades for decades.
In the first years of the Revolution, the British Army was not well disciplined or suited for warfare in America. They were used to close order marching formation that was not practical in the heavily woods areas they fought as well as the habit of the American militia of firing behind trees or walls instead of facing the British in the open. General Howe focused the army’s training on light infantry tactics with more of a loose order formation with soldiers spaced out with a yard or more between them. They also developed a tactic of holding their fire until within 60 yards of the enemy. Then, firing a volley and immediately charging at a run with the bayonet. Normally, the militia would break and run soon after the volley. In the battle of Bunker Hill (really up Breed’s Hill), the Redcoats were unable to carry out this tactic due to poor discipline with some firing at will well beyond the 60 yard range. This led to heavy officer casualties as the officers tried to urge the men forward in vain. Ultimately, the American militia largely abandoned their fortifications, except for the most dedicated patriots, who ended up being bayoneted to a man when the British finally were able to mount a successful assault.
The British also had trouble with soldiers deserting and even joining the American army. This was especially true of the Irish soldiers. Many soldiers also fell in love with American girls and did not want to leave them behind when the army moved to a new location. Although court-martials of captured deserters were held, few British soldiers were executed. Most of the commanders such as Howe, Gage, and Clinton were reluctant to impose harsh, consistent discipline on their men. Only Cornwallis, who emerged by far as the most capable British commander imposed such discipline on his forces.
One problem the British created with indiscipline in their ranks was that soldiers would not differentiate between loyalists and patriots when it came to living off the land. Thus, poor treatment of the civilian population led to more Americans joining the Patriot cause. Also, the patriots formed committees of public safety that were willing to hang suspected loyalists. Such repression of loyalists doomed the British southern strategy which aimed at raising large units of loyalist troops.
Concerning Burgoyne’s defeat at Saratoga, Urban tends to blame Howe for pursuing an assault on Philadelphia when he might have more profitably conducted a supporting drive into New York to help out Burgoyne. The seizure of Philadelphia did not seriously harm the patriot cause, as the Americans could absorb defeat after defeat and just reform and continue fighting. The British, on the other hand, had the Whig party in opposition to the war, which made it increasingly difficult to carry out the war after Saratoga. That was made doubly difficult as the entry of France, Holland, and Spain into the war alongside the Americans stretched British power in a worldwide struggle. More British forces were absolutely not available to support the existing troops there.
Cornwallis’s southern campaigns were carried out with aggressiveness and a high level of motivation, despite misgivings of the likelihood of ever winning in America. In particular, Cornwallis carried out a daring march into North Carolina and Virginia from his base in South Carolina, even though he was in extremely hostile country. Clinton’s orders for him to move to Yorktown took away a lot of his initiative which led to the successful French and American siege of the town.
Finally, the book makes an interesting point as to how the veterans of the American war fought to incorporate the lessons about using light infantry into the British training manual. Despite opposition from Prussian worshipers like the Duke of York, King George III’s son, the British Army eventually did adopt a more open order formation, which proved invaluable in standing up to the new revolutionary armies of France. I found it to be an excellent read!
In the first years of the Revolution, the British Army was not well disciplined or suited for warfare in America. They were used to close order marching formation that was not practical in the heavily woods areas they fought as well as the habit of the American militia of firing behind trees or walls instead of facing the British in the open. General Howe focused the army’s training on light infantry tactics with more of a loose order formation with soldiers spaced out with a yard or more between them. They also developed a tactic of holding their fire until within 60 yards of the enemy. Then, firing a volley and immediately charging at a run with the bayonet. Normally, the militia would break and run soon after the volley. In the battle of Bunker Hill (really up Breed’s Hill), the Redcoats were unable to carry out this tactic due to poor discipline with some firing at will well beyond the 60 yard range. This led to heavy officer casualties as the officers tried to urge the men forward in vain. Ultimately, the American militia largely abandoned their fortifications, except for the most dedicated patriots, who ended up being bayoneted to a man when the British finally were able to mount a successful assault.
The British also had trouble with soldiers deserting and even joining the American army. This was especially true of the Irish soldiers. Many soldiers also fell in love with American girls and did not want to leave them behind when the army moved to a new location. Although court-martials of captured deserters were held, few British soldiers were executed. Most of the commanders such as Howe, Gage, and Clinton were reluctant to impose harsh, consistent discipline on their men. Only Cornwallis, who emerged by far as the most capable British commander imposed such discipline on his forces.
One problem the British created with indiscipline in their ranks was that soldiers would not differentiate between loyalists and patriots when it came to living off the land. Thus, poor treatment of the civilian population led to more Americans joining the Patriot cause. Also, the patriots formed committees of public safety that were willing to hang suspected loyalists. Such repression of loyalists doomed the British southern strategy which aimed at raising large units of loyalist troops.
Concerning Burgoyne’s defeat at Saratoga, Urban tends to blame Howe for pursuing an assault on Philadelphia when he might have more profitably conducted a supporting drive into New York to help out Burgoyne. The seizure of Philadelphia did not seriously harm the patriot cause, as the Americans could absorb defeat after defeat and just reform and continue fighting. The British, on the other hand, had the Whig party in opposition to the war, which made it increasingly difficult to carry out the war after Saratoga. That was made doubly difficult as the entry of France, Holland, and Spain into the war alongside the Americans stretched British power in a worldwide struggle. More British forces were absolutely not available to support the existing troops there.
Cornwallis’s southern campaigns were carried out with aggressiveness and a high level of motivation, despite misgivings of the likelihood of ever winning in America. In particular, Cornwallis carried out a daring march into North Carolina and Virginia from his base in South Carolina, even though he was in extremely hostile country. Clinton’s orders for him to move to Yorktown took away a lot of his initiative which led to the successful French and American siege of the town.
Finally, the book makes an interesting point as to how the veterans of the American war fought to incorporate the lessons about using light infantry into the British training manual. Despite opposition from Prussian worshipers like the Duke of York, King George III’s son, the British Army eventually did adopt a more open order formation, which proved invaluable in standing up to the new revolutionary armies of France. I found it to be an excellent read!
December 16, 2019
This book was a deeply interesting one. I'm not going to say that I necessarily approve of the author's perspective or share it, but the author does provide at least a good reason why a partisan of the British side during the American Revolution would wish to cheer on a regiment of redcoats that had a generally successful record during the entire war despite the ultimate lack of success of the British efforts overall. The author manages to impressively figure out from a fragmented but interesting body of documentary writing, including some unpublished letters and memoirs, the general actions that the regiment took and how it was that they fared in various battles. And someone who is less of an American patriot than I happen to be may even find a reason to cheer on the successful role of the 23rd Welsh Fusiliers regiment of the British army in the Battle of Camden, or mourn their losses due to illness in South Carolina as well as battles from Lexington to Yorktown. I personally am not among the mourners or celebrators of this regiment, but I can at least respect the author's solid historiography in bringing the record of this regiment to light in an interesting way.
This particular book is a bit more than 300 pages long and is divided into 24 fairly short chapters, some of which focus on individuals in the course of the war based on the author's research. And so after a list of illustrations and a preface we have a discussion of the March from Boston on April 19, 1775 (1), the regiment at the beginning of the war (2), the fight at Lexington and Concord (3), Bunker Hill (4), and the siege (5) and evacuation (6) of Boston. The narrative picks up in the fight for New York (7) in the summer of 1776 as well as the campaign of that year's conclusion (8) and the opening of the next year's campaign (9) and the march on Philadelphia (10) and the surprise at Germantown (11) and the wintering in Philadelphia (12). The author explores British grenadiers (13) and the specter of the world at war (14) and the divisions within England (15) as well as the move of the war South (16). The rest of the book focuses on the southern theater of the war with a look at the Battle of Camden (17), the move into North Carolina (18), the Battle of Guilford Court House (19), the move into Virginia (20), Yorktown (21), going home (22), home service (23), and the army reborn (24) against Revolutionary France, after which the book closes with notes on sources, a bibliography, and an index.
The author makes the oft-repeated claim that history is written by the victors, but then contradicts it through an effort at making the 23rd Fusiliers appear to be victors in a war that the British lost. This victory may not be the crushing of the American Revolution, but the author certainly finds other people to be responsible for that loss, and this book is little involved in the grand strategies that led Cornwallis to be trapped in Virginia or led the British army into a war of posts that was one post too far in Trenton and Princeton or that led that same army to attack Philadelphia and leave Burgoyne to his fate at Saratoga. This book is about the bravery and skill and success of the 23rd in various battles and manages to do a good job at recording what that regiment did, and how it influenced the success of British arms in the Napoleonic war through some of lessons learned in fighting against the Americans. As a regimental history it is certainly an accomplished one and one that deserves to be read by those who are interested in an unusual perspective of the American Revolution.
This particular book is a bit more than 300 pages long and is divided into 24 fairly short chapters, some of which focus on individuals in the course of the war based on the author's research. And so after a list of illustrations and a preface we have a discussion of the March from Boston on April 19, 1775 (1), the regiment at the beginning of the war (2), the fight at Lexington and Concord (3), Bunker Hill (4), and the siege (5) and evacuation (6) of Boston. The narrative picks up in the fight for New York (7) in the summer of 1776 as well as the campaign of that year's conclusion (8) and the opening of the next year's campaign (9) and the march on Philadelphia (10) and the surprise at Germantown (11) and the wintering in Philadelphia (12). The author explores British grenadiers (13) and the specter of the world at war (14) and the divisions within England (15) as well as the move of the war South (16). The rest of the book focuses on the southern theater of the war with a look at the Battle of Camden (17), the move into North Carolina (18), the Battle of Guilford Court House (19), the move into Virginia (20), Yorktown (21), going home (22), home service (23), and the army reborn (24) against Revolutionary France, after which the book closes with notes on sources, a bibliography, and an index.
The author makes the oft-repeated claim that history is written by the victors, but then contradicts it through an effort at making the 23rd Fusiliers appear to be victors in a war that the British lost. This victory may not be the crushing of the American Revolution, but the author certainly finds other people to be responsible for that loss, and this book is little involved in the grand strategies that led Cornwallis to be trapped in Virginia or led the British army into a war of posts that was one post too far in Trenton and Princeton or that led that same army to attack Philadelphia and leave Burgoyne to his fate at Saratoga. This book is about the bravery and skill and success of the 23rd in various battles and manages to do a good job at recording what that regiment did, and how it influenced the success of British arms in the Napoleonic war through some of lessons learned in fighting against the Americans. As a regimental history it is certainly an accomplished one and one that deserves to be read by those who are interested in an unusual perspective of the American Revolution.
December 8, 2023
The British Army of the Seven Years War (The French And Indian War in the US) had been victorious all over the Globe. The British Army of the Napoleonic Wars would be one of the most efficient military forces of the period, if smaller than most European Powers' Armies. In between, there was that annoying loss in the American War of Independence that seemed out of character at the time. Mark Urban, a journalist, historian and really incisive writer takes on this War/transitional period, sifting through one particular regiment's experience. The 23rd Royal Welsh Fusiliers is that regiment- and we follow both the main body and the light and grenadier companies that were often detached for separate duty throughout their American war journey. We join the regiment in Boston before the outbreak- and trail along until the war is over. Urban is a good storyteller, as well as an insightful historian, so the pages pass quickly.
Urban's take is that even though the Brits lost the American war- they learned techniques and logistical lessons that they would put to use in the Napoleonic and Colonial wars they would fight in the 1800s. We spend a lot of time with the Light Company, whose patrolling, resource looting/swag seeking, as well as their place in the battle line and as skirmishers were vital to the newfound British way of war. The reliance on Battalions of massed Light companies led to the raising of entire regiments of Light Infantry and their use to dominate the region between opposing armies in a way that most European Armies used light Cavalry. Never able to get full backing at home in Parliement and the streets of London, never able to build enough mass in any one area of the Colonies, and never able to raise enough Loyalist troops(popular sentiment was about a third patriot, a third Loyalist, a third wishing the others would get it over with either way) to bolster their forces enough, the Brits made sure to try to address those areas in the later wars. The areas of their war fighting that did work against the Americans in the AWI- their devastating platoon and volley fire- and their bayonet charges - they kept in the toolbox for the Napoleonic/Colonial wars. I'm not sure I totally go for all Urban's arguments- but they are persuasive, and the book flies along informing and extertaining.
This book is a mature look at the War, and is filled with adult themes, both interpersonal and political, so best for the Junior Reader over 15/16 years with a historical interest. For the Gamer/Modeler/Military Enthusiast, a mixed package. For the Gamer I think this is the book you read to learn about the war- not to help you plan your scenarios/campaigns as it is better at the largr view than in describing any one action in detail. For the Modeler, also- some diorama ideas- but more about the background of the war and the army . The Military Enthusiast gets a great Miitary lense to view the whole war through- and from the British POV. A strong rec from this reviewer- I think regular audiences will get value from this book too.
Urban's take is that even though the Brits lost the American war- they learned techniques and logistical lessons that they would put to use in the Napoleonic and Colonial wars they would fight in the 1800s. We spend a lot of time with the Light Company, whose patrolling, resource looting/swag seeking, as well as their place in the battle line and as skirmishers were vital to the newfound British way of war. The reliance on Battalions of massed Light companies led to the raising of entire regiments of Light Infantry and their use to dominate the region between opposing armies in a way that most European Armies used light Cavalry. Never able to get full backing at home in Parliement and the streets of London, never able to build enough mass in any one area of the Colonies, and never able to raise enough Loyalist troops(popular sentiment was about a third patriot, a third Loyalist, a third wishing the others would get it over with either way) to bolster their forces enough, the Brits made sure to try to address those areas in the later wars. The areas of their war fighting that did work against the Americans in the AWI- their devastating platoon and volley fire- and their bayonet charges - they kept in the toolbox for the Napoleonic/Colonial wars. I'm not sure I totally go for all Urban's arguments- but they are persuasive, and the book flies along informing and extertaining.
This book is a mature look at the War, and is filled with adult themes, both interpersonal and political, so best for the Junior Reader over 15/16 years with a historical interest. For the Gamer/Modeler/Military Enthusiast, a mixed package. For the Gamer I think this is the book you read to learn about the war- not to help you plan your scenarios/campaigns as it is better at the largr view than in describing any one action in detail. For the Modeler, also- some diorama ideas- but more about the background of the war and the army . The Military Enthusiast gets a great Miitary lense to view the whole war through- and from the British POV. A strong rec from this reviewer- I think regular audiences will get value from this book too.
February 4, 2018
I enjoyed reading this book.
I know little about the American War for Independence. In any war there are multiple fronts and it us difficult to keep a track of them all, especially for someone reading about the war for the first time. This book however is not about the War. It is about the experience of a single British regiment in that war. Only one front matters at any point of time - that in which the 23rd Royal Welch Fusileers is fighting. This made the war easy to comprehend for someone like me - a noob. The inclusion of maps also helped in comprehending battles as well as campaigns.
The author sometimes uses language that appears to fit in the period in which the story is set. Nice touch.
My favourite bit was the Siege of Yorktown. The description of the travails of the besieged was effective in making me gloomy. It comes close to Anthony Beever's description of what the 6th Army went through in his book Stalingrad. Of course, Stalingrad was far more epic and Beever described the months long siege for the better part of an entire book. Urban only makes it last for a chapter.
The book can sometimes feel thicker than it is by bringing up many names and many personal stories. However, on finishing the book I can see why the author included them.
This book and the Siege of Yorktown can be adapted to the screen.
I know little about the American War for Independence. In any war there are multiple fronts and it us difficult to keep a track of them all, especially for someone reading about the war for the first time. This book however is not about the War. It is about the experience of a single British regiment in that war. Only one front matters at any point of time - that in which the 23rd Royal Welch Fusileers is fighting. This made the war easy to comprehend for someone like me - a noob. The inclusion of maps also helped in comprehending battles as well as campaigns.
The author sometimes uses language that appears to fit in the period in which the story is set. Nice touch.
My favourite bit was the Siege of Yorktown. The description of the travails of the besieged was effective in making me gloomy. It comes close to Anthony Beever's description of what the 6th Army went through in his book Stalingrad. Of course, Stalingrad was far more epic and Beever described the months long siege for the better part of an entire book. Urban only makes it last for a chapter.
The book can sometimes feel thicker than it is by bringing up many names and many personal stories. However, on finishing the book I can see why the author included them.
This book and the Siege of Yorktown can be adapted to the screen.
February 5, 2022
Look, I like the book. I’ve read it few times. I’d recommend it. One curious mistake bothers me and I’m here to air it out. Chapter ten, page 113 of ‘Fusiliers, The saga of a British Redcoat Regiment in the American Revolution’ copyright 2007. The Author confuses the Chesapeake Bay with the Delaware Bay. To be sure, the 1777 invasion of Delaware and the campaign to take Philadelphia began in Maryland. The British sailed up the Chesapeake Bay and anchored in Maryland. They then disembarked in Maryland and from there a march into Delaware began. Though a first hand quote mentioning the Chesapeake is included here the Author continues to conflate the two estuaries. Ships did not sail up the “broad Delaware River.” Captain Richard Fitzpatrick and others did not “gaze at the Delaware shore” because they were at Head of Elk in the colony of Maryland. The Elk River being a major tributary the the Chesapeake. Perhaps this is an editorial mishap or a bit of an over site by someone not familiar with American geography. Either way it needs to be pointed out lest the credibility of all of it comes into question and also because it bugs me.
Read
August 15, 20182009-05 - Fusiliers: The Saga of a British Redcoat Regiment in the American Revolution. Author: Mark Urban. 400 pages. 2008.
I picked this book up at the library while I was actually looking for a different title. The bulk of this book is devoted to chronicling the saga of the 23rd Infantry Regiment, The Royal Welch Fusiliers. The saga of this unit provides a good example of the British Army in the American Revolution. Parts of the unit were there at Lexington and Concord and the unit soldiered on through the main force engagements (Bunker Hill, Siege of Boston, Refit in Nova Scotia, New York City (of Long Island, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem Heights, White Plains, and Fort Washington), Danbury CT, Rhode Island, the Forage Battles in New Jersey, Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Connecticut ports of New Haven, Norfolk, Greenfield, and Fairfield, Charleston SC, Camden SC, Guilford Courthouse, Yorktown.
Parts of the unit is the operative phrase. The bulk of the unit soldiered on in most of the battles listed above without its grenadier and light infantry companies. These elite units were off fighting separate from the main force. I was aware of this concept from previous readings but the constant separation for the majority of the war did surprise me. It is hard to think of the 23rd as a coherent unit given these forces separations. The notion of coherence is further tested when you follow the saga of the unit’s commanders and senior officers who were often detached from the unit preferring the sick bed, staying in England, getting a lucrative staff position, or just playing the system. Command, control, patronage, and promotions in the 18th century British military system are baffling and strange to the modern reader. Notions of meritocracy, education, or ability and the good of the unit come a distant second or worse to issues of class, cash, patronage and personal interest.
The scope of the book is focused almost exclusively on the unit and it people. This may disappoint some readers who are looking for a more rounded picture of the British Army and its toils and tribulations. The author tells the story chronological telling concurrently the tales of the main unit, the detached units, the detached individuals and a very brief contextual positioning. If you lack a more than very basic grasp of the conflict you may read the book as an adventure tale with narrow tunnel vision. If your knowledge is broader regarding the conflict or the 18thcentury modes of warfare you will understand more of what is being related.
The author has been accused of unneeded bias in his opinions or narration which weaves together the primary source and secondary source documents. Understand that when understanding an action or incident second hand from a primary source that you are limited to what that person saw or experienced and this is usually about ten meters left and right and maybe 500 meters to the front. Focusing in on one unit will narrow your vision and hence your statements if you have any affection for your topic. Granted the author is a British patriot but objectivity or balance is not his goal, rather telling the story of those who acted is. The reader will though gain a great appreciation for how this war and its causes affected those who were fighting in it. Many of the 23rd’s leaders were men of Whigish tendencies who had no desire beyond that of doing their duty to persecute the conflict … their political sensibilities being more allied to the Americans. This was balanced out by the strong desire among some to apply the lessons learned in Scotland a few decades earlier. These contradictions, this fighting in a conflict you may not support merely out of a sense of duty, was a very serious issue for the British Army in these campaigns. It does make one think of the importance of loyalty to comrades and unit as opposed to nation or ideal.
In the end you gain a sense that the British Army which left America for the most part in 1783 was an army very much akin to that American Army which left Vietnam in 1973. It felt itself un-beaten, that though the war was lost the battles had been won. That they had done their duty, even when that duty proved politically unpopular. They seemed to have felt that the politicians limited their abilities. They returned home to a public and to a military establishment which held them in no esteem and denigrated their experiences.
This leads to probably the best part of the book, the experience of these men and units upon their return to England until well into the Napoleonic Wars. The British Army relegated the American experience to the dustbin undoing much of what was gained. The hard work and thought of making the uniforms and equipment soldier friendly, the tactics loose and initiative driven was removed from the main force and a tightened form of Fredrick the Greats’ Prussianism was instilled. Eventually thanks to the likes of Cornwallis and others this would change and the hard learned lessons of the American Campaign would be allowed to permeate and affect the British leading them forward to victory.
From 1773 to 1783 about 1,250 men had been enumerated on the rolls of the 23rd serving in North America. In 1783 the number of men on the rolls of the 23rd who were going back to England was 247 soldiers. 193 men had deserted … fully 15% of those who served. The 23rd lost in combat 80 men and about 395 men to disease or other illness during the war. It is said that the single greatest loss of soldiers was caused by the affections and attachments of soldiers and American women. That the daughters of America removed far more men from the rolls of the 23rd then the sons of liberty did is an interesting tale.
This is a good book, well written. It has a narrowed focus and should not be viewed as a standalone text on the life and time of the British forces in the American Revolution but rather serve as a component of a greater whole.
I picked this book up at the library while I was actually looking for a different title. The bulk of this book is devoted to chronicling the saga of the 23rd Infantry Regiment, The Royal Welch Fusiliers. The saga of this unit provides a good example of the British Army in the American Revolution. Parts of the unit were there at Lexington and Concord and the unit soldiered on through the main force engagements (Bunker Hill, Siege of Boston, Refit in Nova Scotia, New York City (of Long Island, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem Heights, White Plains, and Fort Washington), Danbury CT, Rhode Island, the Forage Battles in New Jersey, Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Connecticut ports of New Haven, Norfolk, Greenfield, and Fairfield, Charleston SC, Camden SC, Guilford Courthouse, Yorktown.
Parts of the unit is the operative phrase. The bulk of the unit soldiered on in most of the battles listed above without its grenadier and light infantry companies. These elite units were off fighting separate from the main force. I was aware of this concept from previous readings but the constant separation for the majority of the war did surprise me. It is hard to think of the 23rd as a coherent unit given these forces separations. The notion of coherence is further tested when you follow the saga of the unit’s commanders and senior officers who were often detached from the unit preferring the sick bed, staying in England, getting a lucrative staff position, or just playing the system. Command, control, patronage, and promotions in the 18th century British military system are baffling and strange to the modern reader. Notions of meritocracy, education, or ability and the good of the unit come a distant second or worse to issues of class, cash, patronage and personal interest.
The scope of the book is focused almost exclusively on the unit and it people. This may disappoint some readers who are looking for a more rounded picture of the British Army and its toils and tribulations. The author tells the story chronological telling concurrently the tales of the main unit, the detached units, the detached individuals and a very brief contextual positioning. If you lack a more than very basic grasp of the conflict you may read the book as an adventure tale with narrow tunnel vision. If your knowledge is broader regarding the conflict or the 18thcentury modes of warfare you will understand more of what is being related.
The author has been accused of unneeded bias in his opinions or narration which weaves together the primary source and secondary source documents. Understand that when understanding an action or incident second hand from a primary source that you are limited to what that person saw or experienced and this is usually about ten meters left and right and maybe 500 meters to the front. Focusing in on one unit will narrow your vision and hence your statements if you have any affection for your topic. Granted the author is a British patriot but objectivity or balance is not his goal, rather telling the story of those who acted is. The reader will though gain a great appreciation for how this war and its causes affected those who were fighting in it. Many of the 23rd’s leaders were men of Whigish tendencies who had no desire beyond that of doing their duty to persecute the conflict … their political sensibilities being more allied to the Americans. This was balanced out by the strong desire among some to apply the lessons learned in Scotland a few decades earlier. These contradictions, this fighting in a conflict you may not support merely out of a sense of duty, was a very serious issue for the British Army in these campaigns. It does make one think of the importance of loyalty to comrades and unit as opposed to nation or ideal.
In the end you gain a sense that the British Army which left America for the most part in 1783 was an army very much akin to that American Army which left Vietnam in 1973. It felt itself un-beaten, that though the war was lost the battles had been won. That they had done their duty, even when that duty proved politically unpopular. They seemed to have felt that the politicians limited their abilities. They returned home to a public and to a military establishment which held them in no esteem and denigrated their experiences.
This leads to probably the best part of the book, the experience of these men and units upon their return to England until well into the Napoleonic Wars. The British Army relegated the American experience to the dustbin undoing much of what was gained. The hard work and thought of making the uniforms and equipment soldier friendly, the tactics loose and initiative driven was removed from the main force and a tightened form of Fredrick the Greats’ Prussianism was instilled. Eventually thanks to the likes of Cornwallis and others this would change and the hard learned lessons of the American Campaign would be allowed to permeate and affect the British leading them forward to victory.
From 1773 to 1783 about 1,250 men had been enumerated on the rolls of the 23rd serving in North America. In 1783 the number of men on the rolls of the 23rd who were going back to England was 247 soldiers. 193 men had deserted … fully 15% of those who served. The 23rd lost in combat 80 men and about 395 men to disease or other illness during the war. It is said that the single greatest loss of soldiers was caused by the affections and attachments of soldiers and American women. That the daughters of America removed far more men from the rolls of the 23rd then the sons of liberty did is an interesting tale.
This is a good book, well written. It has a narrowed focus and should not be viewed as a standalone text on the life and time of the British forces in the American Revolution but rather serve as a component of a greater whole.
May 26, 2018
The book is an apparently competent history of the American revolution> Sadly, Urban gets intensely confused between tracking the purported subject of the book (the Fusiliers), the wider British Army the regiment was attached to, the commanders of both sides, the wider progress of the war, and the tactical innovations of the British Army. As such, it fails to satisfactorily tackle any of these topics.
Neither does it present a particularly coherent narrative of the various officers and men of the regiment, or the stories of the battles. Surprisingly readable nonetheless, but not one which I would particularly recommend, particularly in comparison to the other of Urban's books I have read, Generals, which told coherent stories about ten or so significant British general officers.
Neither does it present a particularly coherent narrative of the various officers and men of the regiment, or the stories of the battles. Surprisingly readable nonetheless, but not one which I would particularly recommend, particularly in comparison to the other of Urban's books I have read, Generals, which told coherent stories about ten or so significant British general officers.
March 31, 2023
Every "Revolution" is a Civil War. If the state wins it is a Civil War, if the rebels win it is a Revolution. Mr. Urban reminded me of that small fact that I had forgotten. The Men of the "23rd" where just living in their time and it was very interesting to see it from their side. Their story kind of reminded me of the United States involvement in Vietnam. The research for this book was well done. The path that the "23rd" took in their campaigns during the war was almost a blueprint of where all the action was during the conflict, except for The Saratoga Campaign. I was really happy with the "after the war" chapters. This helped answer the questions I always have as to what happen when they went home. Well Done Mr. Urban! I recommend this book.
July 16, 2018
Strong book. It was nice to read about the war from the British point of view. Excellent use of first person accounts. The poor medical care and the powers of American women leading to desertion were interesting to read about.
My only issue: Urban spent far too much time on internal British army politics, especially promotion trading and purchasing.
My only issue: Urban spent far too much time on internal British army politics, especially promotion trading and purchasing.
November 10, 2025
A well written British-centric romp through the Revolutionary War as viewed by the experience of the 23rd Fusiliers. The entire war plus the period up to 1800 takes only 319 pages, so it’s a quick trip. Reading a history of the war from a British perspective made this a novel read. Definitely different.
November 21, 2017
Just could not get into it, started skimming after about 50 pages, even that didn't work. Unexciting writing, lacked big and middle picture political, economic and social perspective. Way too much about the personnel, and minutiae of battles. A really bad idea for a book, for me at least.
January 19, 2018
I enjoyed this book. The British perspective is different, yet fair, and presents new insights on the Revolution that makes that event more realistic. An interesting last chapter on the effects of the war on later British tactics when fighting Napoleon.
August 23, 2020
Worthy, but less of a “unit” history and more a history of the experience and education of the British army and its men during and beyond the AWI period, which may make it more interesting than a dry telling of marches and battles.
May 15, 2018
This author's not half as arrogant as the other guy, and he's way more honest.
September 3, 2018
One of my favorite books on the Revolutionary War. It's all written from the British perspective and based on letters and diaries. Wonderfully written.
March 27, 2011
Particularly in America, the Revolutionary War is seen, at least in popular and nonacademic circles, as a spirited revolt against a meddling and repressive regime. The stereotype of Britons as pompous killjoys seems to mix with the stereotype of Americans as fun-loving free spirits to create a popular conception of the war as a sort of teenage rebellion writ large. Popular culture has done little to contradict this ("The Patriot", anyone?), so I enjoyed this look at the other side, written by an Englishman.
Mark Urban plays, unfortunately, a little to type. His style is stodgy, his affectation of archaism in the title headings distracting, and his tone is stuffy and academic. But his great accomplishment is humanizing the "redcoats", showing them as rowdy, loyal (or not), and as prone to panic, desertion and yes, heroism, as any soldier would be. He studiously avoids politicizing bygones, and simply presents an army doing its duty under unexpectedly trying circumstances. Given the dearth of material specifically devoted to Britain in the Revolution I have read, I found this illuminating and worthwhile.
Being so specifically devoted to a single regiment, the book has its limitations. The military situations are generally focused largely on the British forces, and so leave the situation sometimes unclear. Little attention is paid to the greater context of the war, so beginning a study of the war here is not recommended. But after one has a good grasp of the conflict on a larger scale, this unique history will cast new and worthwhile light on the subject.
Mark Urban plays, unfortunately, a little to type. His style is stodgy, his affectation of archaism in the title headings distracting, and his tone is stuffy and academic. But his great accomplishment is humanizing the "redcoats", showing them as rowdy, loyal (or not), and as prone to panic, desertion and yes, heroism, as any soldier would be. He studiously avoids politicizing bygones, and simply presents an army doing its duty under unexpectedly trying circumstances. Given the dearth of material specifically devoted to Britain in the Revolution I have read, I found this illuminating and worthwhile.
Being so specifically devoted to a single regiment, the book has its limitations. The military situations are generally focused largely on the British forces, and so leave the situation sometimes unclear. Little attention is paid to the greater context of the war, so beginning a study of the war here is not recommended. But after one has a good grasp of the conflict on a larger scale, this unique history will cast new and worthwhile light on the subject.
June 30, 2008
This is an excellent, detailed description about the Royal Welsh Fusiliers during the Revolutionary War. It follows several of them through their careers, and describes the war from the point of view of the British soldiers of the regiment.
As with all of Urban's books, this is more of a reference work than a narrative -- though the events are told in order, the level of detail is more focused on points of interest to military historians than personal interest in the characters. Urban introduces each person of interest very briefly, and many of them die shortly after their introduction, leaving one unsure which of them will be relevant by the end of the book. But other than that, the book is deeply informative, interesting, and provides a lot of useful information.
One point I took away from the book (among many) was the number of desertions among British troops to America. Urban points out that every time an army pauses, soldiers form attachments to the local women and frequently desert to join them. This was several times more common in the Revolutionary War because people on both sides came from similar cultures, and in fact many still considered them one population. I liked the image of British soldiers deserting in droves to become American farmers.
Anyway, good read, lots of good information, not a light read.
As with all of Urban's books, this is more of a reference work than a narrative -- though the events are told in order, the level of detail is more focused on points of interest to military historians than personal interest in the characters. Urban introduces each person of interest very briefly, and many of them die shortly after their introduction, leaving one unsure which of them will be relevant by the end of the book. But other than that, the book is deeply informative, interesting, and provides a lot of useful information.
One point I took away from the book (among many) was the number of desertions among British troops to America. Urban points out that every time an army pauses, soldiers form attachments to the local women and frequently desert to join them. This was several times more common in the Revolutionary War because people on both sides came from similar cultures, and in fact many still considered them one population. I liked the image of British soldiers deserting in droves to become American farmers.
Anyway, good read, lots of good information, not a light read.
November 8, 2019
The book means well, but it politicizes when it should stick closer to military history, and drags down on minutia when it could provide exciting narration. I dislike military history books that ditch battle description to politicize complexity, as if a NCO should make policy at Westminster, which is what happens by default when you only quote NCOs in the book whose general opinion on rebellious America amounts to WWII Japan's "kill all, burn all, loot all"!
The result: a book that treats the Whigs and Patriots alike with contempt and thus reads like odd imperial propaganda.
I might be able to forgive that if the battles could be read with passion and gusto, but here the author yet again fails. I came out of this book with neither a greater appreciation of the regiment nor the war itself.
I have no animus against focused military history at the unit level. However. This. Just. Isn't. Very. Good. A better example of this type of book would be Dando-Collins' "Caesar's Legion: the 10th" or even more appropriately, Brumwell's "Redcoats: The British Soldier and War in the Americas, 1755-1763", which provides a very intelligent appraisal of the redcoat army, while also focusing on military-history instead of attempting to caricature the complex politics behind 18th CE wars.
The result: a book that treats the Whigs and Patriots alike with contempt and thus reads like odd imperial propaganda.
I might be able to forgive that if the battles could be read with passion and gusto, but here the author yet again fails. I came out of this book with neither a greater appreciation of the regiment nor the war itself.
I have no animus against focused military history at the unit level. However. This. Just. Isn't. Very. Good. A better example of this type of book would be Dando-Collins' "Caesar's Legion: the 10th" or even more appropriately, Brumwell's "Redcoats: The British Soldier and War in the Americas, 1755-1763", which provides a very intelligent appraisal of the redcoat army, while also focusing on military-history instead of attempting to caricature the complex politics behind 18th CE wars.
April 7, 2015
A book about the American Revolution told from the opponents point of view. This book tells the story of the Royal Welsh Fusilliers who fought in the majority of the major battles during the revolution.
The British perespective is a bit jarring at first as a lot of american assumptions and predications about the british army are disabused or at least explained and justified in a wholy different point of view. Everything from the state of the entire british army as an unstoppable juggernaught to the opposing claims of hipocracy and barbourisim are seen from a different angle.
The author obvious bias towards his countrymen would usually be a turn off for me but in this case it provides a counter view that is not normally seen or read by the casual reader and is thus appreciated my one complaint is that the british prejudices and tendency to obsess on social class and social rank is difficult to wrap your head around for an american reader, or at least this american reader. besides this a very good book that is worth the time to read.
The British perespective is a bit jarring at first as a lot of american assumptions and predications about the british army are disabused or at least explained and justified in a wholy different point of view. Everything from the state of the entire british army as an unstoppable juggernaught to the opposing claims of hipocracy and barbourisim are seen from a different angle.
The author obvious bias towards his countrymen would usually be a turn off for me but in this case it provides a counter view that is not normally seen or read by the casual reader and is thus appreciated my one complaint is that the british prejudices and tendency to obsess on social class and social rank is difficult to wrap your head around for an american reader, or at least this american reader. besides this a very good book that is worth the time to read.
December 6, 2010
Just started this. Looks to be an entertaining read.
Okay I have finished it now. The book is a good entertaining read, though it is more the sort of book you can read on the beach rather than as serious history.
The book purports to be the story of a single regiment during the American revolution, but the soldiers of the regiment are not the most literate of characters though it is quite possible that they are the most literate regiment involved. So there are holes in the narrative that he must either gloss over or use others sources in order to push on the story. The book is very good when it is focused on the story of the regiment and those characters and I really wish that there more of these.
Finally the author, Mark Urban does not do footnotes he references everything but in a non threatening idiosyncratic manner that can be quite frustrating if you want dig further.
Okay I have finished it now. The book is a good entertaining read, though it is more the sort of book you can read on the beach rather than as serious history.
The book purports to be the story of a single regiment during the American revolution, but the soldiers of the regiment are not the most literate of characters though it is quite possible that they are the most literate regiment involved. So there are holes in the narrative that he must either gloss over or use others sources in order to push on the story. The book is very good when it is focused on the story of the regiment and those characters and I really wish that there more of these.
Finally the author, Mark Urban does not do footnotes he references everything but in a non threatening idiosyncratic manner that can be quite frustrating if you want dig further.
January 23, 2010
The American revolution is an event surrounded by a lot of myth. Urban takes the story of a regiment that was unbelievably in action from the first shot until the last and weaves a compelling overview of the war. He is helped by the fact tat the 23rd Foot had a higher than average collection of journals and other documents surviving to the present.
For British readers who like me had no real idea of the overall sweep of the War and for American readers wanting to dig below the grade school level summaries this is a great read.
It also begs comparison of the experience of the "regulars" in colonial America to the troops in unpopular wars overseas from any country. Add your own candidates to this list if you please.
For British readers who like me had no real idea of the overall sweep of the War and for American readers wanting to dig below the grade school level summaries this is a great read.
It also begs comparison of the experience of the "regulars" in colonial America to the troops in unpopular wars overseas from any country. Add your own candidates to this list if you please.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews