What do you think?
Rate this book
Revolutionary: George Washington at War
In a bold reappraisal of Washington as a young soldier destined be a legendary general, an acclaimed military historian brings to life the man who took on the British and with his leadership came to define the American character.
How did George Washington become an American icon? Robert O'Connell, bestselling author of Fierce Patriot: The Tangled Lives of William Tecumseh Sherman, introduces us to Washington before he was Washington: a young soldier, champing at the bit for a commission in the British army, frustrated by his position as a minor Virginia aristocrat. Fueled by ego, he led a disastrous expedition in the Seven Years War, but then the commander grew up. We witness George Washington take up politics and join Virginia's colonial governing body, the House of Burgesses, where he became ever more attuned to the injustices of life under the British Empire and the paranoid, revolutionary atmosphere of the colonies. When war seemed inevitable, he was the right man--the only man--to lead the nascent American army.
We would not be here without George Washington, and O'Connell proves that General Washington was at least as significant to the founding of the United States as Washington the president. He emerges here as cunning and manipulative, a subtle puppeteer among intimates and a master cajoler--but all in the cause of rectitude and moderation. Washington became the embodiment of the Revolution itself. He draped himself over the Revolutionary process and tamped down its fires. As O'Connell writes, the war was decisive because Washington managed to stop a cycle of violence with the force of personality and personal restraint.
In his trademark conversational, witty style, Robert O'Connell has written a compelling reexamination of General Washington and his revolutionary world. He cuts through enigma surrounding Washington to show how the general made all the difference and became a new archetype of revolutionary leader in the process.
How did George Washington become an American icon? Robert O'Connell, bestselling author of Fierce Patriot: The Tangled Lives of William Tecumseh Sherman, introduces us to Washington before he was Washington: a young soldier, champing at the bit for a commission in the British army, frustrated by his position as a minor Virginia aristocrat. Fueled by ego, he led a disastrous expedition in the Seven Years War, but then the commander grew up. We witness George Washington take up politics and join Virginia's colonial governing body, the House of Burgesses, where he became ever more attuned to the injustices of life under the British Empire and the paranoid, revolutionary atmosphere of the colonies. When war seemed inevitable, he was the right man--the only man--to lead the nascent American army.
We would not be here without George Washington, and O'Connell proves that General Washington was at least as significant to the founding of the United States as Washington the president. He emerges here as cunning and manipulative, a subtle puppeteer among intimates and a master cajoler--but all in the cause of rectitude and moderation. Washington became the embodiment of the Revolution itself. He draped himself over the Revolutionary process and tamped down its fires. As O'Connell writes, the war was decisive because Washington managed to stop a cycle of violence with the force of personality and personal restraint.
In his trademark conversational, witty style, Robert O'Connell has written a compelling reexamination of General Washington and his revolutionary world. He cuts through enigma surrounding Washington to show how the general made all the difference and became a new archetype of revolutionary leader in the process.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published April 2, 2019
32 people are currently reading
204 people want to read
About the author
Robert L. O'Connell
16 books67 followersRobert L. O'Connell is an American historian, intelligence analyst, and author known for his thought-provoking works on war, weaponry, and human aggression. With a career spanning both public service and academia, he spent three decades as an intelligence analyst at the National Ground Intelligence Center and later served as a visiting professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School.
O'Connell's books blend historical insight with philosophical inquiry. His acclaimed works include Of Arms and Men, Sacred Vessels, and Ride of the Second Horseman, each exploring the evolution of warfare and its roots in human behavior. He also authored the illustrated volume Soul of the Sword and ventured into fiction with Fast Eddie: A Novel in Many Voices.
Driven by a lifelong passion for storytelling, O'Connell has described his writing process as a trance-like state where ideas seem to flow from an external source. Whether writing history or fiction, his work reflects a deep engagement with the human condition through the lens of conflict and creativity.
O'Connell's books blend historical insight with philosophical inquiry. His acclaimed works include Of Arms and Men, Sacred Vessels, and Ride of the Second Horseman, each exploring the evolution of warfare and its roots in human behavior. He also authored the illustrated volume Soul of the Sword and ventured into fiction with Fast Eddie: A Novel in Many Voices.
Driven by a lifelong passion for storytelling, O'Connell has described his writing process as a trance-like state where ideas seem to flow from an external source. Whether writing history or fiction, his work reflects a deep engagement with the human condition through the lens of conflict and creativity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
January 11, 2025
An insightful and lively if problematic work. If you’re familiar with the subject, you probably won’t learn anything new. And if you’re familiar with O’Connell, you know what to expect in terms of prose.
O’Connell describes Washington as a revolutionary, and compares him favorably to other revolutionaries in history who proved far more ruthless, bloodthirsty, or tyrannical. He argues that the course of the war was heavily influenced by Washington’s moderate and humane approach to the war. He also emphasizes Washington’s aristocratic bearing, his conduct of war on European lines, and his desire for a regular army waging a war of maneuver.
The narrative moves along with energy and makes the book pretty easy to read. The book, however, is a bit hagiographic, and Washington’s mistakes and the private criticisms of Washington by other American revolutionaries aren’t very prominent in the narrative. Whenever some disaster or crisis hits the Continental Army, O’Connell seems to try his hardest to put the best spin on it. He does, however, mention how lucky Washington could often be. Also, when covering de Grasse’s fleet during the campaign for Yorktown, he makes surprisingly little mention of how the weather affected things. The book is also based mostly on secondary sources.
Some of O’Connell’s assertions are unsupported. He calls Washington’s alleged sexual affair with Sally Fairfax “the least plausible but most probable outcome,” whatever he means by that, then treats it as an established fact later in the book. When covering the aftermath of the Conway Cabal, O’Connell claims that “Washington wanted Conway dead.” He also attributes Washington’s vitriol against the Carlisle Commission (in a letter to Henry Laurens) to his “rage against Albion.” More plausibly, it can be attributed to Washington’s more reasonable fears over divided American opinion and war-weariness, and how Britain might exploit it, even if such British gambits might seem like acts of desperation.
There’s also a couple errors. O’Connell mentions Henry Clinton calling the Battle of Cowpens a catalyst leading to Britain’s loss of the American colonies (the “first link in the chain” quote), even though Clinton said this in regard to Kings Mountain. He also cites a quote from George III about Washington being the “greatest man in the world,”even though this (alleged) quote is usually rendered as “the greatest character of the age.” He also refers to Loyalists as a “minority of under 20 percent,” though the text doesn’t make it clear where he got those numbers. There’s a single reference in the book to “James Fox” when describing dissenting voices in London at the start of the war. Presumably he means Charles James Fox. The Hessians are described as “mercenaries,” “hired guns,” and even “foreign thugs,” even though their governments were paid subsidies by the British to fight in their wars, making those governments, essentially, the mercenaries. He also calls them “Prussians” on multiple occasions. O’Connell quotes Frederick the Great’s supposed praise of Washington’s New Jersey campaign. As far as I know, this quote first appeared, without citation, in an 1859 memoir by George Custis, with the caveat, “It is said.” As far as I know, Federick’s papers nowhere show any personal interest in Washington. O’Connell also writes that Steuben wasn’t a baron. Steuben had, in fact, been granted that title before he came to America, but the title was honorary, not inherited.
O’Connell also suggests that Washington wasn’t serious about attacking New York alongside the French, citing his postwar conversation with Noah Webster, in which he claimed that the New York plans were merely a ruse. He doesn’t consider the possibility that Washington was inventing this version to make himself look better after the fact (that was the impression of Timothy Pickering, for instance)
When describing the Braddock campaign and Braddock’s Indian diplomacy, O’Connell accepts the story of Edward Braddock telling Shingas that "No Savage Should Inherit the Land" and that this cost him Delaware support. The eyewitness accounts, however, do not support this, and Braddock's orders from the king explicitly told him to cultivate good relations with the Indians. The account of this story comes from Shingas, but it was written years later.
The most annoying part of the book (and perhaps the most unsurprising, given the author) is the folksy, breezy and colloquial writing, far more conversational than I like. I’ve encountered it in previous books by O’Connell, I was expecting it here, and I was not disappointed. O’Connell annoyingly refers to Washington as “GW,” and as “Mr. Self-Sufficiency” and “the British Army Wannabe.” According to O’Connell, “George Washington is generally assumed to have been a lusty guy.” He refers to “Washington’s strategy of on-the-job training.” The relationship between Washington and Lafayette is called a “bromance.” He also mentions Washington’s “combat DNA.” Martha Washington is called “a hell of a helpmate.” He helpfully reminds us that “always in revolutions there are contenders for the job of numero uno.” The Carlisle Commission’s agenda is called “Revolutionary War Lite.” He refers to the “winter of Morristown II.” British-occupied New York is called “Redcoat Central” and “the Big Apple.” John Laurens is called “a sort of MIA Founding Father.” The resupply of Cornwallis’s army after Guilford Courthouse is called “the equivalent of slapping a new paint job on a used-up beater of a car.” John André is called a “bunny among wolves” (When we get to his fate, we’re also told that “we shouldn’t feel too sorry for André” because of his role in looting Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia house in 1777)
Other things are simply annoying, and also typical of O’Connell’s books:
“In human welding the heat agent is generally sex.”
“Howe continued to give Washington dancing lessons in operational maneuver.”
“The hills were not alive to the sound of Tories.” (Get it?)
etc.
A witty if often speculative work, written in exactly the style I expected from O’Connell.
O’Connell describes Washington as a revolutionary, and compares him favorably to other revolutionaries in history who proved far more ruthless, bloodthirsty, or tyrannical. He argues that the course of the war was heavily influenced by Washington’s moderate and humane approach to the war. He also emphasizes Washington’s aristocratic bearing, his conduct of war on European lines, and his desire for a regular army waging a war of maneuver.
The narrative moves along with energy and makes the book pretty easy to read. The book, however, is a bit hagiographic, and Washington’s mistakes and the private criticisms of Washington by other American revolutionaries aren’t very prominent in the narrative. Whenever some disaster or crisis hits the Continental Army, O’Connell seems to try his hardest to put the best spin on it. He does, however, mention how lucky Washington could often be. Also, when covering de Grasse’s fleet during the campaign for Yorktown, he makes surprisingly little mention of how the weather affected things. The book is also based mostly on secondary sources.
Some of O’Connell’s assertions are unsupported. He calls Washington’s alleged sexual affair with Sally Fairfax “the least plausible but most probable outcome,” whatever he means by that, then treats it as an established fact later in the book. When covering the aftermath of the Conway Cabal, O’Connell claims that “Washington wanted Conway dead.” He also attributes Washington’s vitriol against the Carlisle Commission (in a letter to Henry Laurens) to his “rage against Albion.” More plausibly, it can be attributed to Washington’s more reasonable fears over divided American opinion and war-weariness, and how Britain might exploit it, even if such British gambits might seem like acts of desperation.
There’s also a couple errors. O’Connell mentions Henry Clinton calling the Battle of Cowpens a catalyst leading to Britain’s loss of the American colonies (the “first link in the chain” quote), even though Clinton said this in regard to Kings Mountain. He also cites a quote from George III about Washington being the “greatest man in the world,”even though this (alleged) quote is usually rendered as “the greatest character of the age.” He also refers to Loyalists as a “minority of under 20 percent,” though the text doesn’t make it clear where he got those numbers. There’s a single reference in the book to “James Fox” when describing dissenting voices in London at the start of the war. Presumably he means Charles James Fox. The Hessians are described as “mercenaries,” “hired guns,” and even “foreign thugs,” even though their governments were paid subsidies by the British to fight in their wars, making those governments, essentially, the mercenaries. He also calls them “Prussians” on multiple occasions. O’Connell quotes Frederick the Great’s supposed praise of Washington’s New Jersey campaign. As far as I know, this quote first appeared, without citation, in an 1859 memoir by George Custis, with the caveat, “It is said.” As far as I know, Federick’s papers nowhere show any personal interest in Washington. O’Connell also writes that Steuben wasn’t a baron. Steuben had, in fact, been granted that title before he came to America, but the title was honorary, not inherited.
O’Connell also suggests that Washington wasn’t serious about attacking New York alongside the French, citing his postwar conversation with Noah Webster, in which he claimed that the New York plans were merely a ruse. He doesn’t consider the possibility that Washington was inventing this version to make himself look better after the fact (that was the impression of Timothy Pickering, for instance)
When describing the Braddock campaign and Braddock’s Indian diplomacy, O’Connell accepts the story of Edward Braddock telling Shingas that "No Savage Should Inherit the Land" and that this cost him Delaware support. The eyewitness accounts, however, do not support this, and Braddock's orders from the king explicitly told him to cultivate good relations with the Indians. The account of this story comes from Shingas, but it was written years later.
The most annoying part of the book (and perhaps the most unsurprising, given the author) is the folksy, breezy and colloquial writing, far more conversational than I like. I’ve encountered it in previous books by O’Connell, I was expecting it here, and I was not disappointed. O’Connell annoyingly refers to Washington as “GW,” and as “Mr. Self-Sufficiency” and “the British Army Wannabe.” According to O’Connell, “George Washington is generally assumed to have been a lusty guy.” He refers to “Washington’s strategy of on-the-job training.” The relationship between Washington and Lafayette is called a “bromance.” He also mentions Washington’s “combat DNA.” Martha Washington is called “a hell of a helpmate.” He helpfully reminds us that “always in revolutions there are contenders for the job of numero uno.” The Carlisle Commission’s agenda is called “Revolutionary War Lite.” He refers to the “winter of Morristown II.” British-occupied New York is called “Redcoat Central” and “the Big Apple.” John Laurens is called “a sort of MIA Founding Father.” The resupply of Cornwallis’s army after Guilford Courthouse is called “the equivalent of slapping a new paint job on a used-up beater of a car.” John André is called a “bunny among wolves” (When we get to his fate, we’re also told that “we shouldn’t feel too sorry for André” because of his role in looting Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia house in 1777)
Other things are simply annoying, and also typical of O’Connell’s books:
“In human welding the heat agent is generally sex.”
“Howe continued to give Washington dancing lessons in operational maneuver.”
“The hills were not alive to the sound of Tories.” (Get it?)
etc.
A witty if often speculative work, written in exactly the style I expected from O’Connell.
October 14, 2019
There are any number of more compelling George Washington biographies, more detailed and thorough Revolutionary War histories and more insightful works on the philosophical roots of the American colonies’ break with Great Britain. If you want to learn about Washington, read Chernow, Brookhiser, Ellis, Flexner, Ferling, Freeman or even Washington Irving (by all means, read Irving). If your interest is the war itself and its most noteworthy battles, read Philbrick (Bunker Hill, Yorktown) or Ketchum (Saratoga) or, presumably Rick Atkinson’s “The British Are Coming” (which I have yet to read). For a more general overview of the break with George III and the British Parliament, I don’t think Middlekauf’s “The Glorious Cause” can be beat, but there are plenty of others – from Ferling and Flexner again and probably David McCullough’s “1776” (which I also have yet to read).
Robert L. O’Connell’s “Revolutionary: George Washington at War” is not the best introduction to Washington, the course of the war or the philosophical roots of the revolution, but he does have something to add, even if only at the edges.
Other historians have presented a much fuller (and sympathetic) picture of Washington the man, and while O’Connell does offer a somewhat unique insights to his transformation from ambitious social climber to military leader to, finally, the father of his country, one does sense that most of these insights are gleaned from his reading of the biographers mentioned above. His main point – that the American revolution and the subsequent establishment of a constitutional republic would have turned out much differently had a lesser man been at the helm – is a point that's been made many times before.
O’Connell’s a military historian, but he tends to gloss over the most pivotal battles, providing students of the war almost nothing that they don’t already know. On the other hand, he describes what he calls “Dangerland,” the sort of no man’s land between Clinton’s forces holed up in New York and Washington’s ragtag troops arrayed around them in the months leading up to Yorktown. If you’ve seen the TV series “Turn: Washington’s Spies,” you’ll recognize some of the key players and action that occurred as Washington waged a more or less guerrilla war against Clinton’s troops while Cornwallis was chasing Greene and Morgan around the Carolina countryside. Because Washington’s intent was to keep the British hemmed in while avoiding major confrontations during this period, it is often given short shrift by other historians. O’Connell, on the other hand, manages to convey just how pivotal and fraught with danger this state of affairs was.
As for the Revolution’s philosophical and political roots, O’Connell touches on influences that I haven’t come across before: Britain’s so-called “Country Party,” which may or may not have influenced Washington himself but certainly affected the political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic, and “rage militaire,” the colonists’ early enthusiasm for violent revolution against their British overlords. He also argues that for Great Britain the American Revolution was essentially unwinnable in much the same way the Vietnam War was for the U.S. nearly two centuries later. The only way Britain could have held onto the colonies was by winning the hearts and minds of the colonists, but the very nature of warfare made that impossible, and as one atrocity piled upon another, Washington could win the war simply by holding his army together (no easy task) and waiting the British out.
For all its insights, I found O’Connell’s frequent use of colloquialisms jarring at times. I’m probably a word Nazi, but I don’t think the term “numero uno” belongs in a book about the American Revolution. At one point, O’Connell describes Washington aide John Laurens as “gonzo,” and he refers to New York as “the Big Apple” (a term that came into being in the 1920s) and later “Gotham” (which is only real in Batman comics). The Paoli Massacre, a surprise bayonet-only raid on an Anthony Wayne encampment, he calls “a puncture fest.” This kind of language probably works well in the classroom, but as a reader I found it distracting and annoying. I mean, where does he get off referring to George Washington as “GW,” which he does throughout “Revolutionary.” Washington was nothing if not dignified; any biographical treatment of him should honor that. That’s how I see it anyway.
Robert L. O’Connell’s “Revolutionary: George Washington at War” is not the best introduction to Washington, the course of the war or the philosophical roots of the revolution, but he does have something to add, even if only at the edges.
Other historians have presented a much fuller (and sympathetic) picture of Washington the man, and while O’Connell does offer a somewhat unique insights to his transformation from ambitious social climber to military leader to, finally, the father of his country, one does sense that most of these insights are gleaned from his reading of the biographers mentioned above. His main point – that the American revolution and the subsequent establishment of a constitutional republic would have turned out much differently had a lesser man been at the helm – is a point that's been made many times before.
O’Connell’s a military historian, but he tends to gloss over the most pivotal battles, providing students of the war almost nothing that they don’t already know. On the other hand, he describes what he calls “Dangerland,” the sort of no man’s land between Clinton’s forces holed up in New York and Washington’s ragtag troops arrayed around them in the months leading up to Yorktown. If you’ve seen the TV series “Turn: Washington’s Spies,” you’ll recognize some of the key players and action that occurred as Washington waged a more or less guerrilla war against Clinton’s troops while Cornwallis was chasing Greene and Morgan around the Carolina countryside. Because Washington’s intent was to keep the British hemmed in while avoiding major confrontations during this period, it is often given short shrift by other historians. O’Connell, on the other hand, manages to convey just how pivotal and fraught with danger this state of affairs was.
As for the Revolution’s philosophical and political roots, O’Connell touches on influences that I haven’t come across before: Britain’s so-called “Country Party,” which may or may not have influenced Washington himself but certainly affected the political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic, and “rage militaire,” the colonists’ early enthusiasm for violent revolution against their British overlords. He also argues that for Great Britain the American Revolution was essentially unwinnable in much the same way the Vietnam War was for the U.S. nearly two centuries later. The only way Britain could have held onto the colonies was by winning the hearts and minds of the colonists, but the very nature of warfare made that impossible, and as one atrocity piled upon another, Washington could win the war simply by holding his army together (no easy task) and waiting the British out.
For all its insights, I found O’Connell’s frequent use of colloquialisms jarring at times. I’m probably a word Nazi, but I don’t think the term “numero uno” belongs in a book about the American Revolution. At one point, O’Connell describes Washington aide John Laurens as “gonzo,” and he refers to New York as “the Big Apple” (a term that came into being in the 1920s) and later “Gotham” (which is only real in Batman comics). The Paoli Massacre, a surprise bayonet-only raid on an Anthony Wayne encampment, he calls “a puncture fest.” This kind of language probably works well in the classroom, but as a reader I found it distracting and annoying. I mean, where does he get off referring to George Washington as “GW,” which he does throughout “Revolutionary.” Washington was nothing if not dignified; any biographical treatment of him should honor that. That’s how I see it anyway.
March 6, 2022
Remarkable revelations about our revered Revolutionary
Author Robert L. O’Connell is a great storyteller. In this book, he introduces a number of concepts new to me about the Revolutionary period. First, that perhaps more than John Locke and Baron Montesquieu, credit for stirring up revolutionary passions should go to the Country Party, radical Whig critics of England’s political system during the time of George II and his prime minister Robert Walpole. The party’s reason for eloquent outrage about it? The perceived undermining of local say in determining tax rates, trial by jury, and the basic rights of Englishmen. As Americans were familiar with slavery, not only the enslaved from Africa but the hard-life predicaments of the indentured from England, earlier rhetoric from the Country Party easily made them fear George III would make them slaves, too!
In his telling the story of George Washington (GW as the author calls him, a shorthand with which I’m comfortable), O’Connell evinces many strong opinions in sometimes almost shock-jock fashion. But, you know, after a little thought, I generally have to agree — he’s right…and not only that, he keeps the reader awake! In addition to his ability to turn a phrase in colorful language, O’Connell also introduces a fair number of fascinating facts (to include statistics) to keep even the most knowledgeable of GW readers wanting to read more. An example for me, an occasional Revolutionary War reenactor, George III’s 4,000-pound lead statue in NYC was melted down to make 42,088 musket balls! Or a ship of the line required using 2000 mature oak trees! And which lover of GW’s character could not love the author frequently calling him “conscientious”? At other times, the author challenges you with foreign phrases “Entre nous” [between us] or with curious clothing “round jackets” [aka round-about jackets] worn by the seamen from Marblehead. Ah, yes, after a bit of web surfing, now I know what they looked like (also worn later in the Civil War). All-in-all, very educational!
This said, I would like to comment on a couple items. First, it’s common (in this book as well) to say that England was 3,000 miles away from America. Well, sort-of. That’s 3,000 nautical miles. A nautical mile is 1.15 statute miles, the miles we’re generally familiar with. Given the actual path of the ships involved, it’s more like 4,000 statute miles rounding up, instead of rounding down, equivalent to a crow flying from Miami, FL to Fairbanks, Alaska. In comparison, 3,000 statute miles only gets your crow from Miami to the top of Vancouver Island, BC, CAN. Another quibble I have is the spurious quote on page 164 referencing Frederick the Great’s supposed praise of GW. As well, the “10 Days that Changed the World” ended on 3 January (not 4 January) with the Battle of Princeton. On page 216, there’s the comment that Lafayette was a big advocate of invading Canada (during the time of the Conway Cabal). From the references I see elsewhere, Lafayette, while feeling honor-bound to accept the command appointment from Congress, was quickly leary of it after conferring with GW and would only take orders coming from GW, who was highly dubious about the whole effort. Another item is Admiral de Grasse’s strategies, movements, and deadlines regarding Yorktown. The author makes little mention of what was driving de Grasse — the weather, especially hurricanes. He was taking time out from hurricanes in the Caribbean and needed to get back to fight for the jewel of British trade, the West Indies. A point of interest not mentioned: Galveston, TX, was named after the Spanish military leader, Count Galvez, who provided crucial help to the Americans and French to make British surrender at Yorktown possible. On page 268, the author credits British General Clinton saying Cowpens was "the first link of a chain" of events leading to the total loss of America. Actually, Clinton was referring to the Battle of Kings Mountain. Finally, on page 298, the author cites a quote frequently ascribed to George III about GW’s being “the greatest man in the world.” Actually, the hearsay quote was the “greatest character of the age.”
All very small issues aside, the book is highly educational. My favorite part was the very last page, which mentioned the Paris Bastille prison's main key, which Lafayette sent to GW. Again, the wordsmithing author has an extraordinary way with words and made his story quite enjoyable, to say the least. Bottom-line: 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, a best-seller at Mount Vernon. “Character is Key for Liberty!” and
Strategy Pure and Simple: Essential Moves for Winning in Competition and Cooperation
Author Robert L. O’Connell is a great storyteller. In this book, he introduces a number of concepts new to me about the Revolutionary period. First, that perhaps more than John Locke and Baron Montesquieu, credit for stirring up revolutionary passions should go to the Country Party, radical Whig critics of England’s political system during the time of George II and his prime minister Robert Walpole. The party’s reason for eloquent outrage about it? The perceived undermining of local say in determining tax rates, trial by jury, and the basic rights of Englishmen. As Americans were familiar with slavery, not only the enslaved from Africa but the hard-life predicaments of the indentured from England, earlier rhetoric from the Country Party easily made them fear George III would make them slaves, too!
In his telling the story of George Washington (GW as the author calls him, a shorthand with which I’m comfortable), O’Connell evinces many strong opinions in sometimes almost shock-jock fashion. But, you know, after a little thought, I generally have to agree — he’s right…and not only that, he keeps the reader awake! In addition to his ability to turn a phrase in colorful language, O’Connell also introduces a fair number of fascinating facts (to include statistics) to keep even the most knowledgeable of GW readers wanting to read more. An example for me, an occasional Revolutionary War reenactor, George III’s 4,000-pound lead statue in NYC was melted down to make 42,088 musket balls! Or a ship of the line required using 2000 mature oak trees! And which lover of GW’s character could not love the author frequently calling him “conscientious”? At other times, the author challenges you with foreign phrases “Entre nous” [between us] or with curious clothing “round jackets” [aka round-about jackets] worn by the seamen from Marblehead. Ah, yes, after a bit of web surfing, now I know what they looked like (also worn later in the Civil War). All-in-all, very educational!
This said, I would like to comment on a couple items. First, it’s common (in this book as well) to say that England was 3,000 miles away from America. Well, sort-of. That’s 3,000 nautical miles. A nautical mile is 1.15 statute miles, the miles we’re generally familiar with. Given the actual path of the ships involved, it’s more like 4,000 statute miles rounding up, instead of rounding down, equivalent to a crow flying from Miami, FL to Fairbanks, Alaska. In comparison, 3,000 statute miles only gets your crow from Miami to the top of Vancouver Island, BC, CAN. Another quibble I have is the spurious quote on page 164 referencing Frederick the Great’s supposed praise of GW. As well, the “10 Days that Changed the World” ended on 3 January (not 4 January) with the Battle of Princeton. On page 216, there’s the comment that Lafayette was a big advocate of invading Canada (during the time of the Conway Cabal). From the references I see elsewhere, Lafayette, while feeling honor-bound to accept the command appointment from Congress, was quickly leary of it after conferring with GW and would only take orders coming from GW, who was highly dubious about the whole effort. Another item is Admiral de Grasse’s strategies, movements, and deadlines regarding Yorktown. The author makes little mention of what was driving de Grasse — the weather, especially hurricanes. He was taking time out from hurricanes in the Caribbean and needed to get back to fight for the jewel of British trade, the West Indies. A point of interest not mentioned: Galveston, TX, was named after the Spanish military leader, Count Galvez, who provided crucial help to the Americans and French to make British surrender at Yorktown possible. On page 268, the author credits British General Clinton saying Cowpens was "the first link of a chain" of events leading to the total loss of America. Actually, Clinton was referring to the Battle of Kings Mountain. Finally, on page 298, the author cites a quote frequently ascribed to George III about GW’s being “the greatest man in the world.” Actually, the hearsay quote was the “greatest character of the age.”
All very small issues aside, the book is highly educational. My favorite part was the very last page, which mentioned the Paris Bastille prison's main key, which Lafayette sent to GW. Again, the wordsmithing author has an extraordinary way with words and made his story quite enjoyable, to say the least. Bottom-line: 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, a best-seller at Mount Vernon. “Character is Key for Liberty!” and
Strategy Pure and Simple: Essential Moves for Winning in Competition and Cooperation
July 25, 2023
I originally did not enjoy this book. I found the first 100 pages not having said anything substantial, but as the book progressed it got better as it delved into the characters of the revolution on the American and British sides. It was fun to pick out favourites (my personal being Knox and Tarleton respectively) as well as surprising tyrants (I knew Alexander Hamilton was a fan of central power but his thoughts on military dictatorship are almost condemning). Also interesting was seeing how Washington kept the revolution under his control, preventing it from devolving into murder and madness. His planning and actions allowed the United States to quickly stabilize after the revolution. Overall, had only the book had a better beginning, it would have received a four star rating.
January 8, 2023
This book was just okay...I found it to be kind of boring until the very end.
May 22, 2025
This is a nice primer on George Washington and the war, but it provides little depth.
April 1, 2019
I received this ARC from Random House and NetGalley in exchange for an impartial review. This is an interesting twist on George Washington and the American Revolution. The author looks at the subjects as revolutionists and compares them to other revolutions and revolutionary figures. Rather that a complete history of General Washington, the author concentrates on his childhood and military career. Washington from a young age dreamed of becoming a soldier. The book deals extensively with his military career in both the French and Indian War and especially during the American Revolution. It took me a while to get into the book and to warm to the authors viewpoint, but I enjoyed his discussion of the Revolution. He discusses the central role of George Washington in both the success of the Revolution and it preventing it from turning into the bloodbath that was the French Revolution and other revolutions throughout history. Washington was always a calming influence in preventing the bloody excesses that define other revolutions.
Especially revealing to me were the author’s view that the British had lost the Revolution from the start and never had a chance of winning. This view was based on his belief that the British were wrong in their belief that the revolutionary spirit in American was only felt among a handful of revolutionary leaders and not the general populous. He does an excellent job of proving this British belief wrong and that in spite of their victories on the battlefield, they were failing miserably in gaining the hearts and mind of the citizens. And without that they never had a chance of success.
One reason for this failure that astounded me, was the extent of the abusive behavior of the British military. I knew about the bitter conflict in the South between the Patriot and Tory factions, but I never knew of the atrocities committed by the British throughout the Colonies. Any chance they had of gaining the support of the populous was lost by this poor behavior. It was surprising to me to learn the extent of looting and rapes committed and the British forces. It was to Washington’s great credit that he strictly forbid this type of vengeful reprisal by American soldiers and this kept the public opinion battle firmly on the side of the Colonists.
Overall this was a fascinating look George Washington and the American Revolution, and especially at Washington’s primary role in the success of the war and the remarkable government that was formed. The America that we know never would have existed without George Washington.
Especially revealing to me were the author’s view that the British had lost the Revolution from the start and never had a chance of winning. This view was based on his belief that the British were wrong in their belief that the revolutionary spirit in American was only felt among a handful of revolutionary leaders and not the general populous. He does an excellent job of proving this British belief wrong and that in spite of their victories on the battlefield, they were failing miserably in gaining the hearts and mind of the citizens. And without that they never had a chance of success.
One reason for this failure that astounded me, was the extent of the abusive behavior of the British military. I knew about the bitter conflict in the South between the Patriot and Tory factions, but I never knew of the atrocities committed by the British throughout the Colonies. Any chance they had of gaining the support of the populous was lost by this poor behavior. It was surprising to me to learn the extent of looting and rapes committed and the British forces. It was to Washington’s great credit that he strictly forbid this type of vengeful reprisal by American soldiers and this kept the public opinion battle firmly on the side of the Colonists.
Overall this was a fascinating look George Washington and the American Revolution, and especially at Washington’s primary role in the success of the war and the remarkable government that was formed. The America that we know never would have existed without George Washington.
May 30, 2023
If there's a point (about GW's legacy) the author would like to make through this book, it would be aptly found in the second last sentence in the "Conclusion" chapter.
Revolution is indeed messy and successful ones probably share many similar characteristics during the tumultuous period when the "glorious struggle" is being waged. The author presents GW's journey as he evolved and matured from an ambitious regional militia leader, to a far sighted "Generalisimo" wannabe and finally becoming the preeminent Stateman that represent a nascent nation built on never ending experimentations!
It's indeed amazing how GW personally identified himself with the cause, and to the extend, his willingness to risk it all with the improvisations, narrow escapes and bungling mistakes along the way. I suppose these are the parts of the book I personally enjoyed the most!
The author uses the term "The Glorious Cause" to suggest a moral high ground the American revolutionaries were perching themselves from throughout the years of struggles. The book has been successful in helping us understand how GW strives to personify this "cause" throughout the war. Despite setbacks and unexpected surprises, but with divine providence and good fortune, he helped put a young nation on the right path and constructed for himself an enduring legacy.
Revolution is indeed messy and successful ones probably share many similar characteristics during the tumultuous period when the "glorious struggle" is being waged. The author presents GW's journey as he evolved and matured from an ambitious regional militia leader, to a far sighted "Generalisimo" wannabe and finally becoming the preeminent Stateman that represent a nascent nation built on never ending experimentations!
It's indeed amazing how GW personally identified himself with the cause, and to the extend, his willingness to risk it all with the improvisations, narrow escapes and bungling mistakes along the way. I suppose these are the parts of the book I personally enjoyed the most!
The author uses the term "The Glorious Cause" to suggest a moral high ground the American revolutionaries were perching themselves from throughout the years of struggles. The book has been successful in helping us understand how GW strives to personify this "cause" throughout the war. Despite setbacks and unexpected surprises, but with divine providence and good fortune, he helped put a young nation on the right path and constructed for himself an enduring legacy.
April 22, 2024
I never once found this book to be compelling or unique, it seemed, in many ways, to be a retelling of the same Washington stories that are found in nearly of his numerous biographies and books on him. What’s worse is that I found the author’s main points to be both contradictory and unmoving. While the author continues to state that the British had no chance of winning the Revolution (which is itself a questionable claim to assert at best), he then goes on to argue that Washington was essential to the Revolution. Well, which is it? Either it was a forgone conclusion the British would lose regardless of American leadership or George Washington played a large role in why the Americans won it. This is not the same as saying he shaped the Revolution, which is also what the author states. I also found it unmoving. There were no real arguments that differ much for other historians on this topic.
On a brighter note, I did enjoy the emphasis on Washington as an ideological leader rather than just a military one. This should have been expanded on, however. There’s very little attention paid to either the Newburgh Letter or Newburgh Conspiracy (the author’s retelling of this seminal American moment was one of the most dull moments of the book). All in all, I would recommend many books on Washington and the Revolution before this one.
On a brighter note, I did enjoy the emphasis on Washington as an ideological leader rather than just a military one. This should have been expanded on, however. There’s very little attention paid to either the Newburgh Letter or Newburgh Conspiracy (the author’s retelling of this seminal American moment was one of the most dull moments of the book). All in all, I would recommend many books on Washington and the Revolution before this one.
August 19, 2019
While I generally prefer historical fiction to straight history, I found this book to be an interesting study of George Washington. The author used contemporary language for his narrative along with quotes from GW in the stilted style of the late 1700’s. This combination gave the text an element of story telling that made the book very interesting and entertaining. This went well beyond the US History Class version of the Revolutionary War. Insights into the British mindset regarding the colonies helped the reader to understand the dynamics at work on both sides of the conflict. GW is seen as truly the right person at the right time to lead the Patriots to victory over the Oppressors. He knew how to project an image of a confident leader and people responded to that image with their total support. If you have ever wondered about GW and his role in the founding of the United States, this book would be well worth your time.
May 3, 2019
This was very good. It's more of a character study of Washington (GW he calls him) than a history or biography. It begins with his early life and tracks him through to the American Revolution but not to his Presidency. It has an excellent analysis of Washington's principles for defeating the World's #1 military power and dovetails that strategy into Washington's character. O'Connell also develops the strengths and weaknesses of Washington's key lieutenants such as Greene, Wayne, Knox and (gulp!) Arnold as well as insights into the British commanders, politicians and the King. I've read several Washington books and this one adds interesting dimensions to the biographies that I've read.
June 20, 2020
Robert L O’Connell’s nook Revolutionary is about George Washington as a soldier and does a good job at taking us through Washington’s early career during the French and Indian War through a battle-by-battle description of his role as General during the Revolutionary War. He focuses on Washington evolution from soldier to general and how experience made him better. O’Connell also tells us about the philosophy of America’s revolutionary zeal and why the British never had a chance of winning the war. He also tells good battle stories. It’s not a definitive book about George Washington but it’s a very entertaining one.
July 19, 2019
This si a very interesting analysis of the role Washington played in the Revolution. Not only does the author give a good but brief history of the war with Washington at the center, he also gives pretty convincing arguments for such ideas as that the British could never have won the war and Washington was the main reason the Revolution ended neither in a bloodbath nor tyranny in a different form.
April 30, 2021
As I am not as well read on the Revolutionary War as a lot of others I found this war time biography of Washington interesting. I have read some on the subject and know of many of the stories told here but I also found new material that I never knew or possibly forgot. I Found the prose easy and fast to read and understand. The twist here of comparing our revolution to others and how Washington managed to overcome the usual pitfalls of such actions is brought up throughout the book.
June 11, 2019
Very different take on the General George Washington story. Readable, not dry. Covers a lot of ground focusing on the military part of the story. Refers to the subject as "GW". Gives an informal feel to the dialogue.
November 12, 2019
Nice to get a sense of the tactician, time, setting and characters. Martha, like her husband, was a bad weather animal. Good reminder that colonists said the british wanted to enslave them, that being the reason they rebelled. Nat Turner, patriot or terrorist?
April 7, 2019
The author's painstaking research and attention to detail is obvious in the writing of this book. There were many facts that I only discovered after reading this!
June 27, 2019
Good content but O'Connell often floats around a bit instead of staying on topic.
Read
July 14, 2019This book had some fascinating insights into the Revolutionary War and George Washington. The author was a bit too in awe of GW. A little more objectivity would be in order
Read
August 20, 2019I could not put this book down. If your looking for the way George Washington ran the war this is the book. If you study our revolution or study Washington do not pass this book up.
January 3, 2020
I have read numerous books about the American Revolutionary War and George Washington. This was clearly the most informative book I have read on it. A lot of interesting facts and theories.
February 19, 2021
Excellent book on the military life of George Washington. Covers all of his involved actions of war.
August 10, 2021
well written and insightful.
September 27, 2022
May be hagiographical, but it is hard to think of an individual who deserves that treatment more. Reads like dream!
December 9, 2022
Compelling history of George Washington, mostly focuses on revolutionary war (the title :) )
January 21, 2023
B: Excellent study of Washington the wartime leader. Character and temperament of the indispensable man.
March 1, 2024
I really enjoyed this author's prose.
November 26, 2025
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. This was a journey through George Washington’s learning of politics and war.
July 9, 2019
A somewhat different look at Washington, this book focuses on him as a military leader. The main thrust of the book is an important one to remember--Washington had the power and charisma to be a very different kind of revolutionary leader, and it was very much to America's benefit that he always put the cause first and refused the greater power others tried to thrust upon him. My one complaint is the book sometimes wanders away from Washington and into the War more generally, when I would have preferred to stick with Washington.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews