What do you think?
Rate this book
Shots Heard Round the World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War
Bloomsbury presents Shots Heard Round the World by John Ferling, read by Jason Keller.
From acclaimed historian John Ferling, a major, global reappraisal of the Revolutionary War on its 250th Anniversary.
In April 1775, British troops marched to Lexington, where an armed group of Yankees awaited them. Despite an order to disperse, shots rang out. Militiamen were killed. The British continued marching, only to find even greater trouble in Concord and all the way down the road back to Boston. The Revolutionary War had begun.
Shots Heard Round the World is a bold, comprehensive rendering of the world war that erupted out of America’s battle for independence. Ferling highlights underestimated pivotal moments to reveal why the British should have put down the rebellion within a couple years of fighting. As European rivals France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic entered the fray, Britain’s problems grew, but after seven long years, the war’s outcome remained very much in doubt. Ferling assesses military and civilian leaders, the choices they faced, and the political, tactical, and strategic decisions they made as the war raged in North America, the Caribbean, Central America, Europe, Asia, and on the high seas, affecting peoples and countries miles from American soil.
Long after the soldiers laid down their arms, future generations have reckoned with the Revolution and its far-reaching consequences. Shots Heard Round the World is the definitive account of the war and its monumental legacy.
From acclaimed historian John Ferling, a major, global reappraisal of the Revolutionary War on its 250th Anniversary.
In April 1775, British troops marched to Lexington, where an armed group of Yankees awaited them. Despite an order to disperse, shots rang out. Militiamen were killed. The British continued marching, only to find even greater trouble in Concord and all the way down the road back to Boston. The Revolutionary War had begun.
Shots Heard Round the World is a bold, comprehensive rendering of the world war that erupted out of America’s battle for independence. Ferling highlights underestimated pivotal moments to reveal why the British should have put down the rebellion within a couple years of fighting. As European rivals France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic entered the fray, Britain’s problems grew, but after seven long years, the war’s outcome remained very much in doubt. Ferling assesses military and civilian leaders, the choices they faced, and the political, tactical, and strategic decisions they made as the war raged in North America, the Caribbean, Central America, Europe, Asia, and on the high seas, affecting peoples and countries miles from American soil.
Long after the soldiers laid down their arms, future generations have reckoned with the Revolution and its far-reaching consequences. Shots Heard Round the World is the definitive account of the war and its monumental legacy.
Audible Audio
First published April 1, 2025
79 people are currently reading
4819 people want to read
About the author
John Ferling
22 books209 followersJohn E. Ferling is a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia. A leading authority on American Revolutionary history, he is the author of several books, including "A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic", "Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence", and his most recent work, "The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon". He has appeared in television documentaries on PBS, the History Channel, C-SPAN Book TV, and the Learning Channel.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
January 19, 2026
A strong, insightful and well-researched work.
Ferling does a great job describing strategy. He also provides some useful background on many of the crucial figures in this story, like Vergennes or Germain, and the immense challenges they faced in such a wide-ranging war. He also underscores the massive scale of France’s critical support, and the difficulties in waging war over such vast distances and such enormous lags in communication.
The narrative is thoughtful and the book is a bit broader than the title suggests, and Ferling devotes more space than expected to topics like the Continental Army, the Continental Navy, life on the American home front, the American economy, taxation, American Loyalists, and slavery. He also describes military campaigns in detail even when they don't feature any French or Spanish forces.
At one point, Ferling writes that George Washington subtly signaled his ambition to lead the Continental Army by wearing his uniform to sessions of the Continental Congress. Washington, however, didn’t exude confidence in himself or the Army, and repeatedly wrote letters where he felt sure the war would ruin his reputation, doubted his own abilities, and told of having tried to avoid the assignment.
There’s a few other minor quibbles, like mentioning the June 1782 revolt in Crimea and intervention by “Prussia,” when he means Russia. Ferling also writes that Joseph Warren came to Bunker Hill as an “observer,” even though he showed up ready to fight. Ferling also mentions John Adams’s estimate of Americans being divided into three different “thirds” (rebels, loyalists, and neutrals), even though Adams wrote this in a letter about the French Revolution. Kings Mountain is called “King’s Mountain” at one point. Occasionally Ferling writes in some annoying slang like “fall guy.” Some readers may also wish for more maps of specific campaigns and battles. The narrative can also be a little dry at times.
A dramatic, engaging and elegant work.
Ferling does a great job describing strategy. He also provides some useful background on many of the crucial figures in this story, like Vergennes or Germain, and the immense challenges they faced in such a wide-ranging war. He also underscores the massive scale of France’s critical support, and the difficulties in waging war over such vast distances and such enormous lags in communication.
The narrative is thoughtful and the book is a bit broader than the title suggests, and Ferling devotes more space than expected to topics like the Continental Army, the Continental Navy, life on the American home front, the American economy, taxation, American Loyalists, and slavery. He also describes military campaigns in detail even when they don't feature any French or Spanish forces.
At one point, Ferling writes that George Washington subtly signaled his ambition to lead the Continental Army by wearing his uniform to sessions of the Continental Congress. Washington, however, didn’t exude confidence in himself or the Army, and repeatedly wrote letters where he felt sure the war would ruin his reputation, doubted his own abilities, and told of having tried to avoid the assignment.
There’s a few other minor quibbles, like mentioning the June 1782 revolt in Crimea and intervention by “Prussia,” when he means Russia. Ferling also writes that Joseph Warren came to Bunker Hill as an “observer,” even though he showed up ready to fight. Ferling also mentions John Adams’s estimate of Americans being divided into three different “thirds” (rebels, loyalists, and neutrals), even though Adams wrote this in a letter about the French Revolution. Kings Mountain is called “King’s Mountain” at one point. Occasionally Ferling writes in some annoying slang like “fall guy.” Some readers may also wish for more maps of specific campaigns and battles. The narrative can also be a little dry at times.
A dramatic, engaging and elegant work.
April 25, 2026
More than once while reading this, I thought: Either I had poor history teachers or else I didn't pay much attention. I assuredly confess to the latter, but the former may also be true. In either case, there was a whole lot in this that was absolutely new to me. Of course I knew about the French helping, and I vaguely remembered the Germans, or Hessians as we called them. But did I know the Spanish were involved with the French (both were Bourbons!)? How about the Dutch who shipped to the Carribean only to have arms and other goods picked up by American ships. Absolutely not. Also the Russians together with the Austrians formed an alliance trying to get a diplomatic solution. In essence, the US War for Independence, the American Revolution, had an affect on most of the western world.
I highlighted several short sections.
Obviously, much of this takes place on US soil, but not all of it. We are privileged to learn some of the conversations in Britain as well as France. As to France, yes, Benjamin Franklin was there, but what we are treated to here is what the French were doing and directing. In the US there were the battles, of course, but they were mostly treated in the lead up and the aftermath. Much in the US were what Washington was thinking or Congress, also how the soldiers were without shoes, without enough food, and without being paid.
John Ferling writes somewhere between what I call textbook nonfiction (though there are plenty of footnotes) and creative nonfiction which is more novel-like. His writing style does the job and, with few lapses, kept me interested. I'm glad to have other by him on a list. It appears he focuses entirely on the American Revolution as opposed to other historians who write more generally. I felt I could rely on what he has to say.
This is turning into a longer review than I myself am usually up for reading. I constantly remarked to myself how much I was learning and for that reason alone this is 5 stars. I look forward to more in my American Revolution reading adventure.
I highlighted several short sections.
Unlike World War II, the outcome could not be foreseen until the final great battle in America in 1781. A British victory seemed likely in the early years of the war. Thirty months into hostilities a British defeat seemed probable. By 1779 the war had become a stalemate. From that point onward the civil and military leaders of every belligerent country knew that victory was possible, but defeat was not out of the question.I hightlighted this latter because I think many think PTSD began as a phenomenon of the Vietnam War. Due to my other reading, I was aware of WWI and references to "shell shock" which is the same thing. Honestly, it isn't a subject I'd given more thought to, but this quote showed me that PTSD, as we call it now, has affected soldiers in probably every war that has ever been fought.
America’s Revolutionary War might have been avoided, but it wasn’t, and the American insurgency might have been crushed within a year or so of fighting, but it wasn’t. What began as a civil war within the British Empire continued until it became a wider conflict involving nations in Europe and affecting peoples and countries far from Great Britain and North America.
Many survivors suffered lasting nightmares contoured by their experiences. ... The destiny of many was to repeatedly relive the legion of evils that are part of war, including iniquities they saw or inflicted, and, above all, the haunting, crippling realization of what they themselves became, if only momentarily, in their transformation from a humane soul into an unblinking monster.
Obviously, much of this takes place on US soil, but not all of it. We are privileged to learn some of the conversations in Britain as well as France. As to France, yes, Benjamin Franklin was there, but what we are treated to here is what the French were doing and directing. In the US there were the battles, of course, but they were mostly treated in the lead up and the aftermath. Much in the US were what Washington was thinking or Congress, also how the soldiers were without shoes, without enough food, and without being paid.
John Ferling writes somewhere between what I call textbook nonfiction (though there are plenty of footnotes) and creative nonfiction which is more novel-like. His writing style does the job and, with few lapses, kept me interested. I'm glad to have other by him on a list. It appears he focuses entirely on the American Revolution as opposed to other historians who write more generally. I felt I could rely on what he has to say.
This is turning into a longer review than I myself am usually up for reading. I constantly remarked to myself how much I was learning and for that reason alone this is 5 stars. I look forward to more in my American Revolution reading adventure.
September 19, 2025
The education I received growing up just outside of New York City would seem to be a pretty good one. Yet, as an adult, I am finding out that there are many subjects we just skimmed the surface of. This is why when people talk about things that they learned in high school, they don’t have that deeper understanding that comes with adding context and maybe a number of other facts that are ignored or glossed over.
In the case of Shots Heard Round the World, author John Ferling takes a deeper look at the outside influences on the War for Independence in the United States. He is a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia and is considered a leading authority on American Revolutionary history. This is the first book of his that I have read, but it won’t be the last.
The book primarily examines the relationship between the fight for Independence in what would become the United States and France and Spain. Ferling writes about what the international atmosphere was like in Europe at the time. The British dominated the seas with a powerful navy. Both France and Spain felt that if they could cut the British off from the supplies they received from their colonies in North America, it would impact the British Navy and allow these countries to have a chance at expanding their own influence.
From the side of the Revolutionaries in the United States, for the bulk of the time before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, there was a focus on a reconciliation with England, which would allow the colonies to self-govern for the most part, but also maintain the trade that the British depended on for their worldly influence. The push for Independence only came as the Continental Congress realized the help they so desperately wanted from France would only come if France saw an opportunity to directly trade with them. This would not have been the case if the colonies had remained part of Great Britain.
I found it very interesting to take this deep dive into why the United States declared independence from Great Britain. The colonists did not have a problem with the King when fighting began. Most of the argument had to do with Parliament and the laws that were being passed regulating the colonies. This is pretty much the opposite of what I had learned back in the day. It was nearly always presented that the colonists didn’t want to bow down to the King any longer. If there was talk of Parliament, it was in the context of them doing what the King asked, which was also not the complete picture.
To read my complete review please go to Shots Heard Round the World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War by John Ferling – The Complex Path to American Independence Explored
In the case of Shots Heard Round the World, author John Ferling takes a deeper look at the outside influences on the War for Independence in the United States. He is a professor emeritus of history at the University of West Georgia and is considered a leading authority on American Revolutionary history. This is the first book of his that I have read, but it won’t be the last.
The book primarily examines the relationship between the fight for Independence in what would become the United States and France and Spain. Ferling writes about what the international atmosphere was like in Europe at the time. The British dominated the seas with a powerful navy. Both France and Spain felt that if they could cut the British off from the supplies they received from their colonies in North America, it would impact the British Navy and allow these countries to have a chance at expanding their own influence.
From the side of the Revolutionaries in the United States, for the bulk of the time before the writing of the Declaration of Independence, there was a focus on a reconciliation with England, which would allow the colonies to self-govern for the most part, but also maintain the trade that the British depended on for their worldly influence. The push for Independence only came as the Continental Congress realized the help they so desperately wanted from France would only come if France saw an opportunity to directly trade with them. This would not have been the case if the colonies had remained part of Great Britain.
I found it very interesting to take this deep dive into why the United States declared independence from Great Britain. The colonists did not have a problem with the King when fighting began. Most of the argument had to do with Parliament and the laws that were being passed regulating the colonies. This is pretty much the opposite of what I had learned back in the day. It was nearly always presented that the colonists didn’t want to bow down to the King any longer. If there was talk of Parliament, it was in the context of them doing what the King asked, which was also not the complete picture.
To read my complete review please go to Shots Heard Round the World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War by John Ferling – The Complex Path to American Independence Explored
March 29, 2025
An interesting perspective on the Revolutionary War, as it includes extensive details on America’s relationship with Spain and France.
This was an ARC.
This was an ARC.
September 28, 2025
With the semiquincentennial of the American Revolution upon us, we the American non-fiction readership will face a spate of new history books in coming years, just as American and Western readership did a decade ago with the centennial of World War I, and as Americans did 10-15 years ago with the sesquicentennial of the US Civil War.
Some of these books will be great, some good, some meh and some crap.
Per the subtitle, in this diplomatic-history focused book, Ferling has presented us something that will be among the great ones.
This is not primarily, nor even secondarily, other than the need for warfare to obtain independence, a military history.
Rather, it is above all a diplomatic history, and per the subtitle, that includes Spain as well as France, and of course, the US and Britain. This had incredible amounts of material that was new to me.
It is military in that we get the basic information on the larger battles, and of course, how they influence the diplomatic scene. It is more about strategy and especially grand strategy, especially after Saratoga, the Philadelphia-area battles and Howe’s recall. We also get decent bits of social history, including, contra popular US legend, the reality that the war led to a social “unleveling” in some ways and redistribution upward.
It’s the diplomatic history that’s the key, though.
Some of the best material is details of Spain playing France (trying to drag Spain in) versus Britain (trying to keep Spain neutral) against the middle, then Spain’s stupidity in Europe once it entered. It was Spain, against Vergennes’ best thoughts, who pushed for an invasion of the British Isles that came to naught, in part due to ship wreckage. Had Count Floridablanca begone this, and instead sent more of the Spanish Navy, and any and all Spanish troops that could be mustered, with any French assistance, posthaste to Gibraltar, it might have fallen just as Minorca ultimately did. (Lafayette had returned to France in 1779 to be part of this would-be invasion.)
From there, he moves on to Conrad Alexandre Gérard, France’s first minister plenipotentiary to the Continental Congress. I’d never heard his name before, nor read any of this. He pushes Congress to officially state war aims, and to do so before Spain enters the war, and to in general not deter Spain from entering.
Also new to me? Russia as leader of the League of Armed Neutrality, followed by Austria, who had lost much trade with the Caribbean via the Austrian Netherlands due to the war, proposing official mediation.
Picking up a thread above, Jay directly approaches Lord Shelburne’s lead negotiator Richard Oswald and says that a full, complete and explicit recognition of US independence is needed before negotiations can really hit the fan. He then confronts Vergennes over this and suspends talks.
And with that, the United States then signed a separate treaty and presented it to Vergennes as a fait accompli, Franklin being the one to do that.
As for the Europeans, it took until December that Vergennes’ beating Spain over the head got through to it to drop demands for Gibraltar. Even then, that was only because Spanish negotiator the Conde de Aranda ignored Floridablanca’s still-ongoing demand. Per Ferling, maybe, had the US not already gotten its treaty, Spain could have held out. Even before then, Shelburne had said either Gibraltar or Minorca, but if the choice was Gibraltar, West Florida was off the table.
==
More on non-diplomatic items Ferling covers:
On confederation, Ferling notes that in 1776, after voting independence, Congress discussed sterner medicine than the eventual Articles of Confederation, but then recognized the colonies would never approve such a thing. (It took enough heavy lifting 13 years later!)
Americans had revolted as much for no new taxes as no taxation without representation. To fund dues to Congress, expanded state militias, payments to induce enlistment into state quotas of the Continental Army, etc., the colonies levied all sorts of new taxes themselves.
On France laying up economic troubles for its future, on top of those it already had, and Turgot’s dismissal as finance minister after a failed attempt to implement a Georgian like land tax?
Ferling spins a line with:
“The heedless ruling class, on its somnolent stroll toward suicide, wanted no rectifications that would impinge on its privileges.”
Turgot’s successor, Necker, was worried enough to reportedly be putting out private peace feelers by 1780.
Second-best? Washington’s attempts to maintain an army. He wanted conscription, but Congress refused. As in the Civil War, colonies allowed a local-level conscript to buy a substitute. Desertion was high — perhaps one-quarter of total war troops. Congress DID use conscription to fill out the Continental Navy, in part because, unlike with soldiers, it did not offer land grants.
Contra John Adams’ formula of 1/3 Patriots, 1/3 Loyalists, 1/3 neutral among colonials, Ferling says probably 80 percent of active colonials were Patriots. So adjusting the neutral number slightly, that gives us 55 percent Patriot, 30 percent neutral, 15 percent Loyalist overall. Seems a bit high to me. I would, on the spiritual equivalent of Bayesian probabilities, riff off my old Adams idea to say 50 percent Patriot 30 percent neutral 20 percent Loyalist.
Sympathetic portrait of Clinton. Says that if Howe had listened to him, the war might have been over in 1776.
Ferling summarizes that on page 380:
“A year into the conflict the Continental army lacked sufficient manpower and its supply system remained dreadfully inefficient. The army was led by an amateur commander who made grievous mistakes and by callow officers at the field grade level and below. Its troops were unseasoned. Britain could have, and should have, closed out the war in 1776. but General Howe, in the New York campaign, threw away several chances to crush the Continental army.”
Part of that should stand out, not just the Howe part. On military history, while not rubbishing Washington, Ferling grades him more sternly than your typical pop-level US history of the Revolution, while noting his continual improvement during the war. He also upgrades General Clinton, including noting that the Yorktown denouement was much more the fault of Germain, and to some degree of George III himself, for pushing to keep an army in Virginia.
After that, he offers a laundry list of British errors, not just during the war but before the start of major hostilities. Believing Loyalist claims to the letter was one. Not being prepared for the size of the military theater or for southern US weather were others.
He then throws in some counterfactuals, including:
I will expand on all of this even more than the spoilers being revealed, at my main blog site.
Not just for Americans, but for British and Canadian history-lovers, this is recommended reading. It gets my "worth buying" tag as a "keeper."
Some of these books will be great, some good, some meh and some crap.
Per the subtitle, in this diplomatic-history focused book, Ferling has presented us something that will be among the great ones.
This is not primarily, nor even secondarily, other than the need for warfare to obtain independence, a military history.
Rather, it is above all a diplomatic history, and per the subtitle, that includes Spain as well as France, and of course, the US and Britain. This had incredible amounts of material that was new to me.
It is military in that we get the basic information on the larger battles, and of course, how they influence the diplomatic scene. It is more about strategy and especially grand strategy, especially after Saratoga, the Philadelphia-area battles and Howe’s recall. We also get decent bits of social history, including, contra popular US legend, the reality that the war led to a social “unleveling” in some ways and redistribution upward.
It’s the diplomatic history that’s the key, though.
Some of the best material is details of Spain playing France (trying to drag Spain in) versus Britain (trying to keep Spain neutral) against the middle, then Spain’s stupidity in Europe once it entered. It was Spain, against Vergennes’ best thoughts, who pushed for an invasion of the British Isles that came to naught, in part due to ship wreckage. Had Count Floridablanca begone this, and instead sent more of the Spanish Navy, and any and all Spanish troops that could be mustered, with any French assistance, posthaste to Gibraltar, it might have fallen just as Minorca ultimately did. (Lafayette had returned to France in 1779 to be part of this would-be invasion.)
From there, he moves on to Conrad Alexandre Gérard, France’s first minister plenipotentiary to the Continental Congress. I’d never heard his name before, nor read any of this. He pushes Congress to officially state war aims, and to do so before Spain enters the war, and to in general not deter Spain from entering.
Also new to me? Russia as leader of the League of Armed Neutrality, followed by Austria, who had lost much trade with the Caribbean via the Austrian Netherlands due to the war, proposing official mediation.
Picking up a thread above, Jay directly approaches Lord Shelburne’s lead negotiator Richard Oswald and says that a full, complete and explicit recognition of US independence is needed before negotiations can really hit the fan. He then confronts Vergennes over this and suspends talks.
And with that, the United States then signed a separate treaty and presented it to Vergennes as a fait accompli, Franklin being the one to do that.
As for the Europeans, it took until December that Vergennes’ beating Spain over the head got through to it to drop demands for Gibraltar. Even then, that was only because Spanish negotiator the Conde de Aranda ignored Floridablanca’s still-ongoing demand. Per Ferling, maybe, had the US not already gotten its treaty, Spain could have held out. Even before then, Shelburne had said either Gibraltar or Minorca, but if the choice was Gibraltar, West Florida was off the table.
==
More on non-diplomatic items Ferling covers:
On confederation, Ferling notes that in 1776, after voting independence, Congress discussed sterner medicine than the eventual Articles of Confederation, but then recognized the colonies would never approve such a thing. (It took enough heavy lifting 13 years later!)
Americans had revolted as much for no new taxes as no taxation without representation. To fund dues to Congress, expanded state militias, payments to induce enlistment into state quotas of the Continental Army, etc., the colonies levied all sorts of new taxes themselves.
On France laying up economic troubles for its future, on top of those it already had, and Turgot’s dismissal as finance minister after a failed attempt to implement a Georgian like land tax?
Ferling spins a line with:
“The heedless ruling class, on its somnolent stroll toward suicide, wanted no rectifications that would impinge on its privileges.”
Turgot’s successor, Necker, was worried enough to reportedly be putting out private peace feelers by 1780.
Second-best? Washington’s attempts to maintain an army. He wanted conscription, but Congress refused. As in the Civil War, colonies allowed a local-level conscript to buy a substitute. Desertion was high — perhaps one-quarter of total war troops. Congress DID use conscription to fill out the Continental Navy, in part because, unlike with soldiers, it did not offer land grants.
Contra John Adams’ formula of 1/3 Patriots, 1/3 Loyalists, 1/3 neutral among colonials, Ferling says probably 80 percent of active colonials were Patriots. So adjusting the neutral number slightly, that gives us 55 percent Patriot, 30 percent neutral, 15 percent Loyalist overall. Seems a bit high to me. I would, on the spiritual equivalent of Bayesian probabilities, riff off my old Adams idea to say 50 percent Patriot 30 percent neutral 20 percent Loyalist.
Sympathetic portrait of Clinton. Says that if Howe had listened to him, the war might have been over in 1776.
Ferling summarizes that on page 380:
“A year into the conflict the Continental army lacked sufficient manpower and its supply system remained dreadfully inefficient. The army was led by an amateur commander who made grievous mistakes and by callow officers at the field grade level and below. Its troops were unseasoned. Britain could have, and should have, closed out the war in 1776. but General Howe, in the New York campaign, threw away several chances to crush the Continental army.”
Part of that should stand out, not just the Howe part. On military history, while not rubbishing Washington, Ferling grades him more sternly than your typical pop-level US history of the Revolution, while noting his continual improvement during the war. He also upgrades General Clinton, including noting that the Yorktown denouement was much more the fault of Germain, and to some degree of George III himself, for pushing to keep an army in Virginia.
After that, he offers a laundry list of British errors, not just during the war but before the start of major hostilities. Believing Loyalist claims to the letter was one. Not being prepared for the size of the military theater or for southern US weather were others.
He then throws in some counterfactuals, including:
I will expand on all of this even more than the spoilers being revealed, at my main blog site.
Not just for Americans, but for British and Canadian history-lovers, this is recommended reading. It gets my "worth buying" tag as a "keeper."
July 29, 2025
The best book ever on the Revolutionary War?
Is this the best single book ever on America’s Revolutionary War? Of the many, many books I’ve read on that war, it just might be! Ferling, author of at least fifteen earlier books on the Revolutionary War, fills this one with a wealth of fascinating facts, insights, assessments, images, and maps. His style may not be as beautifully lyrical as Rick Atkinson's in his Revolutionary War trilogy, but, in making up for it, Ferling covers an amazing amount of ground for just one book.
Check out the “Read sample” to see how Ferling organizes his coverage. Notice that the middle portion of the book (Chapter 9, Armies and Navies, Soldiers and Sailors) serves as a break from the battles and deals with any number of valuable statistics. Perhaps the greatest contribution Ferling makes in this book is his enlightening and exhaustive explanation of the strategies involved in the war, laying out in depth the various pros and cons of numerous options both chosen and discarded by the various primary opponents and their often numerous subgroups. Amazing!
I do, however, have a couple of very minor issues with statements Ferling makes in his otherwise outstanding book:
P 5, 68, 320, 382: The distance between America and England is 3,000 miles? Ferling appears to prefer the commonly cited figure of 3,000 miles as the distance between England and its American colonies. However, this number more accurately represents nautical miles rather than statute miles, which are the units most people typically think in. Since one nautical mile equals approximately 1.151 statute miles, the actual straight-line distance becomes closer to 4,000 statute miles when rounded up. One can verify this using Google Earth by measuring distances between various locations in England and America (and obviously, Savannah is further from England than Boston). Additionally, these measurements are usually "as the crow flies"—a straight line—not reflective of actual sailing routes. In practice, ships often had to tack—zigzagging to catch the wind—particularly when heading into it. This maneuvering generally increased the distance traveled by 1.3 to 1.5 times the straight-line distance. So even under favorable sailing conditions, it's more realistic to consider the distance as roughly 4,000 miles. In terms of travel time, the journey from America to England, aided by the clockwise Gulf Stream, typically took about one month (or four weeks). The return trip, from England to America against the current, usually took around six weeks, potentially doubling if weather was poor. A modern-day comparison would be how drivers don’t travel in a straight line “as the crow flies,” but instead follow roads and adjust for traffic—just as ships had to adapt to wind and current.
P 21: Joseph Warren came as an observer to the Battle of Bunker Hill? He primarily came to volunteer to fight as a private and was killed doing so.
P 24: Washington commanded Virginia’s army for five years in the Seven Years’ War? No, George Washington did not command Virginia's army for five years during the Seven Years' War. He first joined the Virginia military, with the rank of major, on 1 February 1753 as Adjutant for the western region (later commander) of the colony. In October 1753, he served as special envoy to demand the French leave land that the British claimed. In February 1754, Washington was promoted to lieutenant colonel and second in command of the Virginia Regiment to force the French off said “British land,” bringing on the Battle of Fort Necessity and the Seven Years’ War (aka French and Indian War). He was then promoted to full colonel of the whole regiment, but resigned when a British officer contested his rank. In 1755, Washington volunteered as an aide to British General Braddock, who led the British into the disastrous Battle of Monongahela. In 1755, Virginia Governor Dinwiddie reconstituted the Virginia Regiment and gave Washington its command, again as a full colonel. In 1758, the Virginia Regiment was assigned to British General Forbes’ expedition to attack the French Fort Duquesne. As a result, Washington was assigned to command one of three assault brigades, with the rank of brevet brigadier general. With the French abandoning the fort and frustrated because Forbes’ had not taken his advice, on 27 December 1758, Washington again resigned his commission and returned to Mount Vernon. Overall, then, given the off-and-on timeframes and the issue of partial versus full responsibility, the general assessment is that Washington commanded the whole Virginia Regiment (Virginia’s army) for about three, not five, years.
P 24: Washington was nearly six feet four inches tall? No, six feet two and ¾ inches tall (from my investigation and detailed answer on Quora.com). Granted, a measurement from Washington’s undertaker said he was six feet 3.5 inches tall, which was likely because Washington’s feet were pointed outward, as often happens when one reclines. Washington himself wrote his English tailor that he was 6 feet tall, perhaps explaining why he complained that he thought his clothes were made “too small.”
P 35: Schuyler’s plan was to advance down Lake Champlain and into Canada? Typo: Up Lake Champlain and into Canada?
P 90: Hessian Colonel Johann Rall was among the dead at Trenton (Battle on the morning of 26 January 1776)? Mortally wounded during the battle, Rall died the next day, on 27 December, after much attending.
P 250: Cowboys (preying on rebels) and skinners (ostensibly victimizing loyalists)? Recent research concludes that both bandit parties were loyalists (preying on rebels).
P 251: Adams thought that 1/3 of Americans were rebels, 1/3 loyalists, and 1/3 neutral? Commonly misquoted, Adams’ assertion was not about the Revolutionary War but about the Quasi-War with France of 1798-1800.
P 291: King’s Mountain? No, Kings Mountain, as possessive apostrophes have been ruled not to be appropriate for national historic sites.
Bottom line and all in all, however, this is a truly great book and is highly recommended!
Of possible interest: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key – the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul and Strategic Advantage: How to Win in War, Business, and Life
Is this the best single book ever on America’s Revolutionary War? Of the many, many books I’ve read on that war, it just might be! Ferling, author of at least fifteen earlier books on the Revolutionary War, fills this one with a wealth of fascinating facts, insights, assessments, images, and maps. His style may not be as beautifully lyrical as Rick Atkinson's in his Revolutionary War trilogy, but, in making up for it, Ferling covers an amazing amount of ground for just one book.
Check out the “Read sample” to see how Ferling organizes his coverage. Notice that the middle portion of the book (Chapter 9, Armies and Navies, Soldiers and Sailors) serves as a break from the battles and deals with any number of valuable statistics. Perhaps the greatest contribution Ferling makes in this book is his enlightening and exhaustive explanation of the strategies involved in the war, laying out in depth the various pros and cons of numerous options both chosen and discarded by the various primary opponents and their often numerous subgroups. Amazing!
I do, however, have a couple of very minor issues with statements Ferling makes in his otherwise outstanding book:
P 5, 68, 320, 382: The distance between America and England is 3,000 miles? Ferling appears to prefer the commonly cited figure of 3,000 miles as the distance between England and its American colonies. However, this number more accurately represents nautical miles rather than statute miles, which are the units most people typically think in. Since one nautical mile equals approximately 1.151 statute miles, the actual straight-line distance becomes closer to 4,000 statute miles when rounded up. One can verify this using Google Earth by measuring distances between various locations in England and America (and obviously, Savannah is further from England than Boston). Additionally, these measurements are usually "as the crow flies"—a straight line—not reflective of actual sailing routes. In practice, ships often had to tack—zigzagging to catch the wind—particularly when heading into it. This maneuvering generally increased the distance traveled by 1.3 to 1.5 times the straight-line distance. So even under favorable sailing conditions, it's more realistic to consider the distance as roughly 4,000 miles. In terms of travel time, the journey from America to England, aided by the clockwise Gulf Stream, typically took about one month (or four weeks). The return trip, from England to America against the current, usually took around six weeks, potentially doubling if weather was poor. A modern-day comparison would be how drivers don’t travel in a straight line “as the crow flies,” but instead follow roads and adjust for traffic—just as ships had to adapt to wind and current.
P 21: Joseph Warren came as an observer to the Battle of Bunker Hill? He primarily came to volunteer to fight as a private and was killed doing so.
P 24: Washington commanded Virginia’s army for five years in the Seven Years’ War? No, George Washington did not command Virginia's army for five years during the Seven Years' War. He first joined the Virginia military, with the rank of major, on 1 February 1753 as Adjutant for the western region (later commander) of the colony. In October 1753, he served as special envoy to demand the French leave land that the British claimed. In February 1754, Washington was promoted to lieutenant colonel and second in command of the Virginia Regiment to force the French off said “British land,” bringing on the Battle of Fort Necessity and the Seven Years’ War (aka French and Indian War). He was then promoted to full colonel of the whole regiment, but resigned when a British officer contested his rank. In 1755, Washington volunteered as an aide to British General Braddock, who led the British into the disastrous Battle of Monongahela. In 1755, Virginia Governor Dinwiddie reconstituted the Virginia Regiment and gave Washington its command, again as a full colonel. In 1758, the Virginia Regiment was assigned to British General Forbes’ expedition to attack the French Fort Duquesne. As a result, Washington was assigned to command one of three assault brigades, with the rank of brevet brigadier general. With the French abandoning the fort and frustrated because Forbes’ had not taken his advice, on 27 December 1758, Washington again resigned his commission and returned to Mount Vernon. Overall, then, given the off-and-on timeframes and the issue of partial versus full responsibility, the general assessment is that Washington commanded the whole Virginia Regiment (Virginia’s army) for about three, not five, years.
P 24: Washington was nearly six feet four inches tall? No, six feet two and ¾ inches tall (from my investigation and detailed answer on Quora.com). Granted, a measurement from Washington’s undertaker said he was six feet 3.5 inches tall, which was likely because Washington’s feet were pointed outward, as often happens when one reclines. Washington himself wrote his English tailor that he was 6 feet tall, perhaps explaining why he complained that he thought his clothes were made “too small.”
P 35: Schuyler’s plan was to advance down Lake Champlain and into Canada? Typo: Up Lake Champlain and into Canada?
P 90: Hessian Colonel Johann Rall was among the dead at Trenton (Battle on the morning of 26 January 1776)? Mortally wounded during the battle, Rall died the next day, on 27 December, after much attending.
P 250: Cowboys (preying on rebels) and skinners (ostensibly victimizing loyalists)? Recent research concludes that both bandit parties were loyalists (preying on rebels).
P 251: Adams thought that 1/3 of Americans were rebels, 1/3 loyalists, and 1/3 neutral? Commonly misquoted, Adams’ assertion was not about the Revolutionary War but about the Quasi-War with France of 1798-1800.
P 291: King’s Mountain? No, Kings Mountain, as possessive apostrophes have been ruled not to be appropriate for national historic sites.
Bottom line and all in all, however, this is a truly great book and is highly recommended!
Of possible interest: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key – the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul and Strategic Advantage: How to Win in War, Business, and Life
February 20, 2025
My thanks to NetGalley and Bloomsbury USA for an advance copy of this book that tells the history of the American Revolution not just from the rebels and the English side, including the other European powers that had much to gain from a long war, and in many ways had much to lose.
The American Revolution has been the subject of many books, many hagiographies, propagandas, reappraisals, and lots based on legends and myths. And some very good books. History is not something we as a people seem to care about anymore. We print the legend, believe the legend, and do our own research to make sure the legend is all that anyone talks about. People remember the Minuteman, the original not the militia group, Washington's teeth, Benedict Arnold and his treachery, and well freedom for select people. Revolutions are hard because there are many reasons why people revolt. Telling a tale of rebellion one has to look from a different viewpoints. The winners, the losers, those caught in the middle and suffered the most. Those who saw in opportunity, and took advantage of a war to weaken a Great power, and maybe gain a new trading partner. I have read many books on the Revolution, but few talk about the expanse of the Revolution, how many countries were involved, maybe the first proxy war, something America will become famous for. Shots Heard Round the World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War by educator and historian John Ferling is a look at the larger ramifications of the war, how it could have been stopped, the goading from outside forces, and how it changed the world.
The book begins with England changing the way that they were dealing with the American colonies. Ways in which suddenly a lot of money would be at stake. Britain tried to cut down on smuggling by enforcing certain trad laws, and also tried to control the growth of the colony. This heavy handedness hurt the pocket books of land speculators, no growth no money, and merchants, trade problems, less smuggling, less money. Ferling discusses how if cooler heads had prevailed, these problems could have been dealt with, and history might have been quite different. We follow the growth of the war, the march on Lexington, the colonies attempts at invading Canada. There are many familiar names, but there are more internation players added too. Spain looking to keep colonies, and power. France giving material, men, money and support in many ways, hoping to keep English off-balance allowing the French to rebuild their power base. Ferling follows the war, a war which was not fought well, where victory could have been seized by either side much earlier than the outcome.
One would think that after 250 years everything would have been written about the Revolution. Ferling does more than that, looking at the war in different ways, showing different key moments where victory was lost by just a few bad decisions, or even by bad luck. Ferling is a very good author able to look at events from different view and never lose the narrative. As I mentioned most of the big names are mentioned, but it is in the people that are lesser known that really make the story. The men who could see that the possibilities, those who tried to slow down what was coming, and those who could profit off it. A book that really puts the Revolution in a new light.
This is the first book I have read by Ferling, and I enjoyed the way he told not only a familiar story, but made it new and different. Though I know the conclusion, I still enjoyed reading this larger take of the Revolution on a grand scale. I look forward to reading more by John Ferling.
The American Revolution has been the subject of many books, many hagiographies, propagandas, reappraisals, and lots based on legends and myths. And some very good books. History is not something we as a people seem to care about anymore. We print the legend, believe the legend, and do our own research to make sure the legend is all that anyone talks about. People remember the Minuteman, the original not the militia group, Washington's teeth, Benedict Arnold and his treachery, and well freedom for select people. Revolutions are hard because there are many reasons why people revolt. Telling a tale of rebellion one has to look from a different viewpoints. The winners, the losers, those caught in the middle and suffered the most. Those who saw in opportunity, and took advantage of a war to weaken a Great power, and maybe gain a new trading partner. I have read many books on the Revolution, but few talk about the expanse of the Revolution, how many countries were involved, maybe the first proxy war, something America will become famous for. Shots Heard Round the World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War by educator and historian John Ferling is a look at the larger ramifications of the war, how it could have been stopped, the goading from outside forces, and how it changed the world.
The book begins with England changing the way that they were dealing with the American colonies. Ways in which suddenly a lot of money would be at stake. Britain tried to cut down on smuggling by enforcing certain trad laws, and also tried to control the growth of the colony. This heavy handedness hurt the pocket books of land speculators, no growth no money, and merchants, trade problems, less smuggling, less money. Ferling discusses how if cooler heads had prevailed, these problems could have been dealt with, and history might have been quite different. We follow the growth of the war, the march on Lexington, the colonies attempts at invading Canada. There are many familiar names, but there are more internation players added too. Spain looking to keep colonies, and power. France giving material, men, money and support in many ways, hoping to keep English off-balance allowing the French to rebuild their power base. Ferling follows the war, a war which was not fought well, where victory could have been seized by either side much earlier than the outcome.
One would think that after 250 years everything would have been written about the Revolution. Ferling does more than that, looking at the war in different ways, showing different key moments where victory was lost by just a few bad decisions, or even by bad luck. Ferling is a very good author able to look at events from different view and never lose the narrative. As I mentioned most of the big names are mentioned, but it is in the people that are lesser known that really make the story. The men who could see that the possibilities, those who tried to slow down what was coming, and those who could profit off it. A book that really puts the Revolution in a new light.
This is the first book I have read by Ferling, and I enjoyed the way he told not only a familiar story, but made it new and different. Though I know the conclusion, I still enjoyed reading this larger take of the Revolution on a grand scale. I look forward to reading more by John Ferling.
February 19, 2026
This was a great history of the revolutionary war for me, as I somehow knew little about the revolution before I read it. Author Joh Ferling puts the revolution in the context of 18th century European power politics: he shows how England was quite isolated during the period that coincides with the American revolution. During other 18th and 19th century wars, England usually won because it had strong allies but in America's revolution, it was facing France, Spain and the American rebels alone. This is an important point that Ferling makes and it goes a long way to explain how a rag tag bunch of untrained and unarmed American rebels won independence.
The beginning and end of the book is fast-paced and very readable. It drags a bit in the middle as the war stalemates. To start things off, Ferling shows how Parliament and the King gradually alienated most Americans. The British thought the problem of rebellion was confined to New England, where hatred of the English seemed to be the most widespread. But this was the first of many mistakes, as, by the time Washington heads for Boston to expel the British from New England, contempt for the British was widespread across all of the colonies. Nonetheless, for the most part, it seemed to me that the British had the upper hand or that they at least won most of the battles. But they never committed enough manpower to subdue all 13 colonies.
Washington learns to bide his time and wait for a battle that he could win. He waited years (was it 6 between Trenton and Yorktown?) for the right moment and when it comes in Yorktown, he proves his worth. Great reading. Ferling shows how Cornwallis made mistakes (abandoning South Carolina for Virginia) that lead to the final showdown in Yorktown. But there is blame to go around. Even Clinton made mistakes and lost opportunities.
There were of course myriad American mistakes and missed opportunities but I guess this is to be expected from people who really had no clue how to fight a war. Ferling credits Washington, of course, but also praised Rochambeau and de Grasse for winning the decisive battle at Yorktown. And French foreign minister, Vergennes, probably deserves more credit than anyone for American independence: he decided early on to aid the American rebels, he let them set up republican government, and he stuck with them through years of setbacks and an exploding French national debt. It makes you wonder if he secretly wanted to see representative democracy after all.
The beginning and end of the book is fast-paced and very readable. It drags a bit in the middle as the war stalemates. To start things off, Ferling shows how Parliament and the King gradually alienated most Americans. The British thought the problem of rebellion was confined to New England, where hatred of the English seemed to be the most widespread. But this was the first of many mistakes, as, by the time Washington heads for Boston to expel the British from New England, contempt for the British was widespread across all of the colonies. Nonetheless, for the most part, it seemed to me that the British had the upper hand or that they at least won most of the battles. But they never committed enough manpower to subdue all 13 colonies.
Washington learns to bide his time and wait for a battle that he could win. He waited years (was it 6 between Trenton and Yorktown?) for the right moment and when it comes in Yorktown, he proves his worth. Great reading. Ferling shows how Cornwallis made mistakes (abandoning South Carolina for Virginia) that lead to the final showdown in Yorktown. But there is blame to go around. Even Clinton made mistakes and lost opportunities.
There were of course myriad American mistakes and missed opportunities but I guess this is to be expected from people who really had no clue how to fight a war. Ferling credits Washington, of course, but also praised Rochambeau and de Grasse for winning the decisive battle at Yorktown. And French foreign minister, Vergennes, probably deserves more credit than anyone for American independence: he decided early on to aid the American rebels, he let them set up republican government, and he stuck with them through years of setbacks and an exploding French national debt. It makes you wonder if he secretly wanted to see representative democracy after all.
October 9, 2024
You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.
Thank you, Bloomsbury, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Shots Heard Round The World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War, by John Ferling.
This book will be released on April 1, 2025.
This book purported to be not only be about the military aspects of the Revolutionary War, but also focus on the political decisions, being being made both here and abroad. The coverage was thorough on the military, but did not go overboard on tactics. For someone who is not really interested in the specifics of battles, I appreciated that part. But, I found this one lacking in terms of the political aspects.
I have already read four of Ferling’s books about the revolutionary era, and early America history, and have given all four of them A’s. But, due to having enough about the political aspects of the war, I did not enjoy this one as much as his others.
So, I give this book a B. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book finished reading this on October 9, 2024.
Thank you, Bloomsbury, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Shots Heard Round The World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War, by John Ferling.
This book will be released on April 1, 2025.
This book purported to be not only be about the military aspects of the Revolutionary War, but also focus on the political decisions, being being made both here and abroad. The coverage was thorough on the military, but did not go overboard on tactics. For someone who is not really interested in the specifics of battles, I appreciated that part. But, I found this one lacking in terms of the political aspects.
I have already read four of Ferling’s books about the revolutionary era, and early America history, and have given all four of them A’s. But, due to having enough about the political aspects of the war, I did not enjoy this one as much as his others.
So, I give this book a B. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B equates to 3 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book finished reading this on October 9, 2024.
March 26, 2026
I liked the perspective of viewing the American Revolution within the global context of what was going on between Spain, France, and Britain. That approach is not the norm with history books on the Revolution. Thus,, I recommend this book to add a unique insight into that area of history.
My one complaint is various descriptions the author used. For example he referred to the American leaders as “oligarchs,” and “aristocracy,” the Americans fighting for independence were “rebels.”
I doubt the word “oligarchs” existed in 1776. If it did, it has no applicability to American leaders. Same with calling them aristocracy. These negative anti-American terms were heaped on me with almost every page. At one point I looked to the back cover to see if this author was English or at least from a foreign country. The jacket didn’t answer this question. Although it did say that the author was a former US professor who lives near Atlanta.
Along that point, when the book entered the phase of discussing French, Spanish, and American war efforts the author took to calling them “the Allies.” That is not a term ever utilized for their relationship. Instead, this is a phrase more appropriate to WWI and WWII.
Also the author used it loosely and inaccurately. He wrote of the “Allies” assault on Gibraltar. However, American forces never participated that. It was purely a combined effort of France and Spain.
All in all these were annoying disruptions and I looked forward to getting to the end of reading them.
My one complaint is various descriptions the author used. For example he referred to the American leaders as “oligarchs,” and “aristocracy,” the Americans fighting for independence were “rebels.”
I doubt the word “oligarchs” existed in 1776. If it did, it has no applicability to American leaders. Same with calling them aristocracy. These negative anti-American terms were heaped on me with almost every page. At one point I looked to the back cover to see if this author was English or at least from a foreign country. The jacket didn’t answer this question. Although it did say that the author was a former US professor who lives near Atlanta.
Along that point, when the book entered the phase of discussing French, Spanish, and American war efforts the author took to calling them “the Allies.” That is not a term ever utilized for their relationship. Instead, this is a phrase more appropriate to WWI and WWII.
Also the author used it loosely and inaccurately. He wrote of the “Allies” assault on Gibraltar. However, American forces never participated that. It was purely a combined effort of France and Spain.
All in all these were annoying disruptions and I looked forward to getting to the end of reading them.
January 4, 2025
In 2025, I enjoyed reading Shots Heard Round the World: America, Britain, and Europe in the Revolutionary War by John Ferling, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2025.. As the descendent of 16 Revolutionary War soldiers, I am always interested in this topic. Ferling balances a history of the events in America with the political wrangling in Europe as France and Spain work to settle a score with Britain. There were several key points that I should have known but learned in these pages. I’d known that the war lasted for eight years, but during the last 18 months the British were finished, but the time was spent writing up the final settlement. On a related note, as a descendant of Yorktown pioneers, I should have known how important Yorktown was to the effort. In retrospect, Washington is that man on Mt. Rushmore, but at the time, his position was somewhat shaky. Washington’s Continental Army was not present at either of America’s overwhelming battlefield triumphs (Saratoga and Yorktown). As 2025 marks the 250th anniversary of the battles of Concord and Lexington, we may expect a generous supply of Revolutionary War titles.
--
--
August 27, 2025
John Ferling is an absolutely spectacular historian. If you want to learn about the US Revolution and will read just one book for it, this is a fine choice to do so, as it covers so many elements - military, politics, foreign relations, etc. Yeah, this is high quality work.
So - wait? Why am I giving it four stars only?
Well, this reads like something Ferling has already done. In particular, "Whirlwind" by Ferling from 2015 is also a great overview of the Revolution. Having already written that one, I wasn't really sure why Ferling wrote this one. Best I can tell, this gives a more international flavor to the Revolution, but that's frankly a side element to what is a recap of the Revolution. He could've (should've?) just made this a second edition of Whirlwind.
Had I not already read "Whirlwind" this would be the best book I've ever read on the Revolution, and an easy five-star review. But I have read it -- so this book just felt weird.
So - wait? Why am I giving it four stars only?
Well, this reads like something Ferling has already done. In particular, "Whirlwind" by Ferling from 2015 is also a great overview of the Revolution. Having already written that one, I wasn't really sure why Ferling wrote this one. Best I can tell, this gives a more international flavor to the Revolution, but that's frankly a side element to what is a recap of the Revolution. He could've (should've?) just made this a second edition of Whirlwind.
Had I not already read "Whirlwind" this would be the best book I've ever read on the Revolution, and an easy five-star review. But I have read it -- so this book just felt weird.
January 16, 2026
Really enjoyed this book. It moves fairly quickly and yet covers so much detail. It is a great “one stop shopping” book to get an overview of the entirety but also the extensiveness of the Revolutionary war throughout the world.
I am yet reminded again of how complex and costly war is, and how difficult and dangerous even shutting down a war is even after surrender. I appreciated seeing how key players that we know and have learned about were seen in both the great things they accomplished as well as their failures, and how they at times had feet of clay. I was reminded again of how many of the circumstances that occurred still happen today too (cancelling those who disagree with you, spinning stories to the benefit of your cause, even if it is a false narrative, etc.)
I highly recommend it
I am yet reminded again of how complex and costly war is, and how difficult and dangerous even shutting down a war is even after surrender. I appreciated seeing how key players that we know and have learned about were seen in both the great things they accomplished as well as their failures, and how they at times had feet of clay. I was reminded again of how many of the circumstances that occurred still happen today too (cancelling those who disagree with you, spinning stories to the benefit of your cause, even if it is a false narrative, etc.)
I highly recommend it
April 15, 2025
I received an advanced reader copy (ARC) of this book shortly before its release on April 1, 2025, in exchange for an honest review on my Goodreads page. After starting the book, I purchased a printed copy on release day to finish reading it so it could be part of my extensive collection.
In the 250 years since the "shot heard 'round the world" in Lexington during the spring of 1775, countless books have been written about this pivotal time in history. Given the volume of material already available, it’s difficult to present something both concise and original. This book, however, manages to do just that, offering a fresh perspective on the Revolutionary War in a thoroughly enjoyable read.
What sets this book apart is its global scope. The author not only focuses on the American experience but also delves into the political and military impact of the war on Britain, France, Spain, Europe, and even Russia. The central thesis—that the Revolutionary War was indeed "heard around the world"—is powerfully supported throughout the book, in a detailed account of the major political developments and key battles that shaped the outcome of the conflict.
This book is sure to become one of the definitive, modern histories of the Revolutionary era for the foreseeable future. It strikes a perfect balance between accessibility and depth, making it a must-read for anyone interested in this transformative period in world history.
I’m giving this book 4.5 stars—a truly exceptional work that sheds new and concise light on an extensively covered topic.
In the 250 years since the "shot heard 'round the world" in Lexington during the spring of 1775, countless books have been written about this pivotal time in history. Given the volume of material already available, it’s difficult to present something both concise and original. This book, however, manages to do just that, offering a fresh perspective on the Revolutionary War in a thoroughly enjoyable read.
What sets this book apart is its global scope. The author not only focuses on the American experience but also delves into the political and military impact of the war on Britain, France, Spain, Europe, and even Russia. The central thesis—that the Revolutionary War was indeed "heard around the world"—is powerfully supported throughout the book, in a detailed account of the major political developments and key battles that shaped the outcome of the conflict.
This book is sure to become one of the definitive, modern histories of the Revolutionary era for the foreseeable future. It strikes a perfect balance between accessibility and depth, making it a must-read for anyone interested in this transformative period in world history.
I’m giving this book 4.5 stars—a truly exceptional work that sheds new and concise light on an extensively covered topic.
February 1, 2026
I had a read another book looking at the Revolutionary War through the help we received from foreign powers and this book covered similar ground. It looked the most in depth at France and why an absolute monarchy would support rebellious colonists (spoiler revenge against the British), but also covering the Dutch and Spanish. Spain militarily actually performed fairly well and came away best of the belligerents against Britain, though they did not get Gibraltar. Where the book struggled was when it strayed from its interesting focus into trying to cover every minutiae of the war. Otherwise a very interesting read.
June 1, 2025
An extremely and well-done look at all of the factors and intrigue that occurred in America's fight for independence. The author does not sugar-coat the lessons and reasons for the successful war of independence. Failed policies, poor generals and leadership on both sides of the battle, led to the final outcomes. It was a ri9veting look that really opened my, eyes to what happened. A great read, that I highly recommend.
Thank you to #NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for my honest opinion.
Thank you to #NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for my honest opinion.
August 9, 2025
Very good. A thorough and well written treatment of the topic. I especially appreciated the time given to the French, British and Spanish perspective on the war. I walked away thinking we owe our independence to British mistakes and French aid as much, if not more than to our efforts. Hope the upcoming Ken Burns/PBS examination of the war is as good.
February 16, 2026
I just couldn't get into it. I made it 115 pages in, and frankly, I was bored. It spent way more time on the various troop movements than the political ramifications in Europe, which is what I thought the book was about. There were interesting moments, but it's due back at the library. I'm not compelled enough to keep going past its due date.
July 2, 2025
A very concise history of the American Revolution’s global ramifications and a great insider look, placing one in the room with foreign potentates and governors, experiencing the inflow events and the processed response in real time.
May 7, 2025
Very well written and researched. An excellent look at domestic and international developments during the Revolution. Highly recommended.
July 13, 2025
Hard read but really interesting.
May 24, 2025
Here is a great history of the American Revolution for a general readership, on this or any occasion. The author excels in the diplomatic history of the principals together with France and Spain, but with lifetime familiarity, summarizes the literature on all aspects of the conflict well. I had no familarity with the writing of Ferling, the professor Emeritus of history at University of West Georgia, previous to finding an ARC/gallery edition at my local independent bookseller (thank you, #EagleEyeBooks). I like his writing quite a bit, and will look for his previous work, as well as giving this my highest recommendation.
Fereling's judgements on military and social matters is concise, current, and acute. What I am still learning, from sources like Ferling, is the great extent of the Revolution in the South. The whole story, for a general readership, is really well portrayed, here, in context.
Highly recommended.
Fereling's judgements on military and social matters is concise, current, and acute. What I am still learning, from sources like Ferling, is the great extent of the Revolution in the South. The whole story, for a general readership, is really well portrayed, here, in context.
Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews