What do you think?
Rate this book
A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1789
A fully revised and updated third edition of the most established and innovative historical analysis of the Continental Army and its role in the formation of the new republic.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
15 people are currently reading
162 people want to read
About the author
James Kirby Martin
47 books9 followersJames Kirby Martin is the author of several highly-regarded books, many of them focused on Revolutionary America. He has taught U. S. history at Rutgers University, the University of Houston, The Citadel, and the United States Mlitary Academy at West Point. Martin has served as an advisory editor on book series sponsored by New York University Press, Oxford Universisty Press, and Westholme Publishesrs. He writes occasional book reviews for the on line New York Journal of Books. He has appeared in television programs on the History Channel, the Fox News Network, the Amerian Heroes Network, and Fox Nation. His latest book, co-authored with Robert Burris, is titled Surviving Dresden: A Novel about Life, Death, and Redemption in World War II. Among his professional activities, he is on the Board of Trustees of the Fort Ticonderoga Association and serves as a historian consultant to the Oneida Indian Nation of New York.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 27, 2013
I enjoyed the book, but deleted one star because I think the book fell short of proving the argument that was set out in the beginning of the book. On one hand, the book did successfully "separate popular mythology... from the new historical reality that keeps coming to light about the era of the American Revolution." On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain that the authors successfully showed how "the actual experience of the war... with all its hope, idealism, conflict, and dissension, was central to the process of constructing a specific form of well-ordered republicanism." In fact, the new historical reality seemed to inhibit the authors' ability to show the link between the Continental Army and well-ordered republicanism. Americans were suspicious of a standing military before the war and in some cases were given reason to be more wary by the end of the war. And while there might be some truth to the claim that the army helped to break down localism and help lead to a stronger national identity, I think that the Civil War helps to illustrate the limits of that national identity. Still a very informative volume that will inform my teaching about the American Revolution.
November 7, 2019
In their book, A Respectable Army: The Military Origins of the Republic, 1763-1989, James Kirby Martin and Mark Edward Lender seek to become part of the growing “new” military history movement, which pursues insight into less traditional aspects of military studies (x). Throughout this work, there is a ubiquitous behind the scenes feel of looking into a world of Revolution, war, and decision-making at the highest levels; the reader is treated to the labor of George Washington and his great work to create a respectable army. Martin and Lender believe that "the experience of the war, however, with all its hopes, idealism, conflict, and dissension, was central to the process of constructing a specific form of well-ordered republicanism, as ultimately expressed in the Constitution of 1787" (4). Cutting through the battle scenes of major military campaigns to get to the crux of how the Continentals dealt with building a winning army, Martin and Lender deliver a cogent and insightful volume that is well-written and spectacularly researched.
Written in a thematic and chronological style, A Respectable Army opens by reflecting on how the Whig writers of the era regarded standing armies. Throughout history, standing armies became a threat to the polity to which they belonged, and perceived with distrust by the local populace, disdain from the government, and as destroyers by Whig intellectuals. Militias were a much better way to defend the interests of society, but once war broke out between the Colonies and England, the militia would not do. Martin and Lender rush from the beginning stages of the war in Boston to the initial victories of the American militias. The authors then begin the lengthy discussion of how the Continental Congress and General George Washington were to raise an army and defeat the Redcoats. The book flows smoothly from one chapter to the next, the transitions are subtle, and this helps make it a fast read. Each chapter covers a significant amount of time, usually one to two-year periods in which authors have written entire books. The point of A Respectable Army is not to get bogged down with details of specific battles, but to peek behind the curtain at what happened in the minds of Washington and his Generals, Continental Congress, and other influencers of the era. The authors sought to investigate how the war affected the establishment of republican values in colonial America during the Revolution; the scope of the book adequately addresses the topics it set out to discuss and does deviate from its stated purpose (4).
In the immediate wake of the Boston Massacre, Lexington, and Concord it was easy to recruit militia soldiers to fight against the Redcoats, but the sustained effort of creating an army capable of defeating the British was a persistent problem for George Washington and the Continental Congress. A Respectable Army does a fantastic job of detailing the struggles faced by the Continentals as it cuts through the myths that have persisted about the type of men who fought for freedom and what their true intentions were. Balancing republican ideals while also attempting to win a war was a balancing act that only George Washington could pull off, but he “struggled to maintain minimal numbers of troops in the field during 1777 and beyond” (97). In Chapter three Toward an American Standing Army, 1776-1777, Martin and Lender describe a desperate scene of Washington scrounging up as many motley men as he could find for fighting. He was desperate for warfighters but simultaneously understood that he needed discipline within the ranks as well. Chapter three covers much ground, but it is an excellent microcosm for the rest of the book, it describes highs and lows, victories and defeats, and ends with a cautionary warning that the new Continental army could pose a severe threat to the republican ideals it was sworn to defend (99).
Drawing on a prodigious number of sources from a wide range of locals, the authors of this volume compiled an impressive amount of data that shines through in their work. George Washington is given a grand place in this book, and with good reason, but his achievements, while numerous and impressive, did not win the war alone. Martin and Lender give ample credit to the leaders of both American and British forces in a fair and balanced way; by doing so, they create an unbiased and accurate account of the war and its long-lasting effects on both nations. A Respectable Army hits the mark on almost every point, but it does project a sense of deification towards George Washington. The book portrays him as the hero who wins the war against all odds, which of course, he was, but there is little focus on his flaws, both personal and professional, which would serve to humanize him and make his personality more relatable. There is much to like and little to criticize in this book, which is perfect for secondary and undergraduate reading.
Martin and Lender bring to life a subject that area that is mostly overlooked in American history, the military origins of the republic. The main focus of military history is on the battle, the general, the heroic soldiers, but little if any ink is used writing about how to build an army and the hardships that go into that insurmountably tricky task. A Respectable Army looks at a twenty-six-year span; in historical terms, this is huge, but when looking at the cause and effect of a revolution and a war, it seems that the entire timeline is filled with significant context. The authors say that "one purpose of this volume is to separate popular mythology… from the new historical reality that continues to come to light about the era of the American Revolution," and they do just that (4). A Respectable Army should be mandatory reading for high school and college American history classes; this book is a goldmine of information that is well-researched and smartly presented. This new look at an old topic is a welcome addition to the discussion on the American Revolution.
Written in a thematic and chronological style, A Respectable Army opens by reflecting on how the Whig writers of the era regarded standing armies. Throughout history, standing armies became a threat to the polity to which they belonged, and perceived with distrust by the local populace, disdain from the government, and as destroyers by Whig intellectuals. Militias were a much better way to defend the interests of society, but once war broke out between the Colonies and England, the militia would not do. Martin and Lender rush from the beginning stages of the war in Boston to the initial victories of the American militias. The authors then begin the lengthy discussion of how the Continental Congress and General George Washington were to raise an army and defeat the Redcoats. The book flows smoothly from one chapter to the next, the transitions are subtle, and this helps make it a fast read. Each chapter covers a significant amount of time, usually one to two-year periods in which authors have written entire books. The point of A Respectable Army is not to get bogged down with details of specific battles, but to peek behind the curtain at what happened in the minds of Washington and his Generals, Continental Congress, and other influencers of the era. The authors sought to investigate how the war affected the establishment of republican values in colonial America during the Revolution; the scope of the book adequately addresses the topics it set out to discuss and does deviate from its stated purpose (4).
In the immediate wake of the Boston Massacre, Lexington, and Concord it was easy to recruit militia soldiers to fight against the Redcoats, but the sustained effort of creating an army capable of defeating the British was a persistent problem for George Washington and the Continental Congress. A Respectable Army does a fantastic job of detailing the struggles faced by the Continentals as it cuts through the myths that have persisted about the type of men who fought for freedom and what their true intentions were. Balancing republican ideals while also attempting to win a war was a balancing act that only George Washington could pull off, but he “struggled to maintain minimal numbers of troops in the field during 1777 and beyond” (97). In Chapter three Toward an American Standing Army, 1776-1777, Martin and Lender describe a desperate scene of Washington scrounging up as many motley men as he could find for fighting. He was desperate for warfighters but simultaneously understood that he needed discipline within the ranks as well. Chapter three covers much ground, but it is an excellent microcosm for the rest of the book, it describes highs and lows, victories and defeats, and ends with a cautionary warning that the new Continental army could pose a severe threat to the republican ideals it was sworn to defend (99).
Drawing on a prodigious number of sources from a wide range of locals, the authors of this volume compiled an impressive amount of data that shines through in their work. George Washington is given a grand place in this book, and with good reason, but his achievements, while numerous and impressive, did not win the war alone. Martin and Lender give ample credit to the leaders of both American and British forces in a fair and balanced way; by doing so, they create an unbiased and accurate account of the war and its long-lasting effects on both nations. A Respectable Army hits the mark on almost every point, but it does project a sense of deification towards George Washington. The book portrays him as the hero who wins the war against all odds, which of course, he was, but there is little focus on his flaws, both personal and professional, which would serve to humanize him and make his personality more relatable. There is much to like and little to criticize in this book, which is perfect for secondary and undergraduate reading.
Martin and Lender bring to life a subject that area that is mostly overlooked in American history, the military origins of the republic. The main focus of military history is on the battle, the general, the heroic soldiers, but little if any ink is used writing about how to build an army and the hardships that go into that insurmountably tricky task. A Respectable Army looks at a twenty-six-year span; in historical terms, this is huge, but when looking at the cause and effect of a revolution and a war, it seems that the entire timeline is filled with significant context. The authors say that "one purpose of this volume is to separate popular mythology… from the new historical reality that continues to come to light about the era of the American Revolution," and they do just that (4). A Respectable Army should be mandatory reading for high school and college American history classes; this book is a goldmine of information that is well-researched and smartly presented. This new look at an old topic is a welcome addition to the discussion on the American Revolution.
November 13, 2016
An eye opening book on the myth and reality of the citizen-soldier of the American Revolution. The American colonists had a distaste for standing armies deriving from English tradition and particularly the abuses of Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army. In reaction they developed a theory of the militia being an effective substitute for regular soldiers, and much safer for the growing republican movement. As the authors point out, the colonial militia was primarily formed by propertied, substantial citizens, and it's primary use in fact was to preserve order and, understandably, private property. The lower rungs of society were not expected to serve in the militia. The militia were also not overly inclined to go any great distance from their homes. During the French and Indian War British officers developed a very poor opinion of the American militia, and therefore American soldiers, because the militia drafts that the colonies provided, as well as recruits to fill out the regular British regiments, were generally drawn from the unemployed or itinerant farm laborers, men with little motivation and no training. This resulted in serious underestimation of the capability of the militia when the militia were defending their homes. In the first years of the war the militia worked fairly well at times but proved undisciplined, unreliable, with a tendency to go home when it suited them, and unable to stand up to British regulars. Militia enthusiasm for the war also waned rather quickly. Washington and others officers saw the need to develop a regular army and convinced the Continental Congress of it. Such an army was authorized, but lack of resources hampered it through the war. Not surprisingly, the ranks were often filled with from the lower classes, including criminals, slaves, and deserters, particularly German mercenaries, from the British army. After the end of the war, he mythology of militia composed of citizen-soldiers grew, while the role of the regulars who actually bore the brunt of the fighting (in terms of casualties versus numbers involved, the Revolution was bloodier than the Civil War) was largely denigrated. An interesting read covering a part of American history that's not well know outside the ranks of historians.
February 7, 2022
Thesis: American mythology surrounding the effectiveness and impact of militiaman obscures the central role the Continental Army had in winning the American Revolutionary War and its legacy in shaping the evolution of early republican institutions.
Style: Clear prose, narrative format.
Thoughts: Good undergraduate text for a course on U.S. military history or the American Revolution but would need to be supplemented with other materials. The historiographical essay on the Revolutionary War is useful.
Style: Clear prose, narrative format.
Thoughts: Good undergraduate text for a course on U.S. military history or the American Revolution but would need to be supplemented with other materials. The historiographical essay on the Revolutionary War is useful.
April 14, 2011
I like this book because it was a very real look at what exactly fought the American Revolution. The book really characterizes what exactly America had to overcome just to be able to defy the UK at the time.
March 22, 2015
Well written. Good overview of the Continental Army's organization and combat capabilities. Cogent strategic analysis
February 1, 2022
Pleasantly surprised by this one! A groundbreaking historical narrative that really begs the question - what really does it mean to be an American? How did we / do we define that? What myths can be busted?
June 2, 2016
Martin takes on the citizen-soldier/militia mythology that subsequently dominated post-Revolutionary American memory of the War for Independence by illustrating how Opposition Whig ideology was insufficient as a means to secure military victory and thus independence. Instead, a quasi-European style standing Continental Army filled with long-service "hard-bitten" regular soldiers ironically became absolutely necessary to the survival and success of the hyper-republican project following the waning of rage militaire post-1776. The book is an excellent primer on the basic military contours of the War for Independence while also making many specific historiographical interventions. Chief among these is Martin's assertion that military victory (due almost entirely to the endurance of the Continental regulars) enabled the very possibility of a viable republican Confederation on the continent while simultaneously providing for the genesis of collective national identity and international legitimacy that otherwise had failed to arise. Paradoxically, it took the creation (against the odds) of a European-style military institution to give birth to a republic bent on precluding the establishment of a standing European-style military institution.
April 21, 2016
This is a good book that really focuses on the challenges of building an army during the Revolutionary period and keeping it in the field.
December 31, 2016
An overview of Republicanism during the Colonial Period, as well as how the Republican view shaped the view of the Army, and therefore, the founding of the nation. A well researched book.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews