Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've always said that dakka is an untapped oil well of knowledge. What people on this site know about guns, knives, vehicles and plastic soldiers scares the hell out of me! Heaven help the world if dakka gets organised.

Anyway, In my pursuit of knowledge, I'm always on the lookout for good history books and historical documentaries. Having had an enjoyable holiday in the colonies, er states, last summer, I'm keen to fill in the gaps. Recently, I watched Ken Burns' Civil War and was impressed by what was an excellent documentary IMO

Then disaster struck. Flicking through youtube I came across America: a story of us. All I can say is sweet jesus!!

It had a presidential intro from Obama, that Newt republican guy popping up to comment, NBA stars, talk show hosts, and Reagan's former chef!!! Rock music played at every scene, and every patriot was an honest farmer who could walk on water, heal the sick etc etc Naturally, the red coats were well...you know what. It was like Mr Burns' a burns for all seasons.

Obviously, you guys are proud of your heritage, which I respect, but I'm looking for balance and insight.

So, bearing in mind that I'll be buying stuff from Amazon and ebay, I'd be grateful for recommendations on civil war, revolutionary war, spanish -american war, General Pershing and the AEF, etc etc
Pretty much most stuff. Even the Salem witch trials stuff is fascinating.

Finally, slightly OT. Whenever you see patriots fighting redcoats, the redcoats are marching along a road in typical military fashion, whilst the patriots are lurking in the bushes. Bearing in mind that the British fought the French and their native allies in woody terrain, surely the British would have adapted to this, and fought in skirmish formation. Can anybody shine a light on this?
Thanks.

The American Experience is a good start for the documentary part of the request.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/

It has quite an extensive collection on American history and culture in various eras and locations.

A book I highly recommend and also warn you about is called "The Cousins War" cant remember the author, it is very long, dry, and relatively scholarly but has intriguing insights into the British and British-Americans in the American Revolution and I believe the War of 1812. It's been awhile since I read it.
The movie "Gods and Generals" is a must see. It's not very mainstream and its a little cheesy at points but its historically accurate and I think it was Stephen Lang's crowning performance.
Another interesting book is called "the South was Right" it explores the legal grounds of the Civil War and is obviously presenting an opinion...
American History isn't exactly my specialty, nor does it rank high on my preferences but if I take a trip to storage I'll check my library for some other books I remember but not clearly enough to give titles.

Finally, slightly OT. Whenever you see patriots fighting redcoats, the redcoats are marching along a road in typical military fashion, whilst the patriots are lurking in the bushes. Bearing in mind that the British fought the French and their native allies in woody terrain, surely the British would have adapted to this, and fought in skirmish formation. Can anybody shine a light on this?
Thanks.

The Royal Army was notoriously hidebound and resistant to change during this period, and to be honest the American component of the 7 years war was fairly minor. A majority of those men who did fight in the 7 years war were the colonial militia. It makes sense that the British-Americans learned the lessons of the war and applied them and that the larger Royal Army failed to absorb these lessons. The British resistance to change lasted at least into the Battle of Balaclava, only because I can't name a better debacle that is more recent. There are numerous other factors at work, the assumed superiority of the Crown, the fact that for a foreign land they spoke English and lived in English style homes in a clime not unlike England herself not doubt put the officers at ease and fell into routine.
TLDR, The Royal army was focused on fighting on the Continent more than America and no changes were made.

I thought the American Indian Wars was a rather good read. Covers the military history of Indian involvement in the French Indian Wars, and is a rather interesting read. There’s a couple of others that I’ve read but the names aren’t coming to mind, if I think of them I’ll post.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Finally, slightly OT. Whenever you see patriots fighting redcoats, the redcoats are marching along a road in typical military fashion, whilst the patriots are lurking in the bushes. Bearing in mind that the British fought the French and their native allies in woody terrain, surely the British would have adapted to this, and fought in skirmish formation. Can anybody shine a light on this?
Thanks.

The thing to understand is that hiding behind the bushes and sniping looks like the smart thing to our modern eyes because now we have accurate firearms with high rates of fire. But if you've ever seen a musket fired, or fired one yourself, you'd see that one guy plinking off lone shots is really not that scary a thing. You need a volume of fire to do anything meaningful.

The scattered, light fire of skirmishers can’t inflict enough casualties to really matter, and deploying loose formation made them highly vulnerable to cavalry. Their main value was in sniping officers and frustrating the enemy into moving off the line and exposing them to your own line troops.

Infantry were at their most valuable deployed in close formation, and firing massed fire into the enemy, either breaking them or causing enough chaos that they could close into close quarters and then route them from the field. Despite all the silliness you see about minutemen and the like, this was also how the Americans fought in the war of independence, and continued to be how every army fought right up until the invention of two weapons, the gatling gun and the minie ball, made ranged fire so much more effective that loose formations taking advantage of cover became not only practical, but necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:The Royal Army was notoriously hidebound and resistant to change during this period, and to be honest the American component of the 7 years war was fairly minor. A majority of those men who did fight in the 7 years war were the colonial militia. It makes sense that the British-Americans learned the lessons of the war and applied them and that the larger Royal Army failed to absorb these lessons. The British resistance to change lasted at least into the Battle of Balaclava, only because I can't name a better debacle that is more recent. There are numerous other factors at work, the assumed superiority of the Crown, the fact that for a foreign land they spoke English and lived in English style homes in a clime not unlike England herself not doubt put the officers at ease and fell into routine.
TLDR, The Royal army was focused on fighting on the Continent more than America and no changes were made.

British troops had a solid record of adapting to the conditions. Being a colonial power, that's kind of what you have to do to maintain your empire, and the British troops, being the trained, professional core they were adapted as needed.

But the simple fact remains that the war of independance was a war fight with musket, horse and cannon, and skirmishing troops had only a limited role to play in such combat. They didn't see the American troops doing that and ignored them because of stiff upper lips and jolly ho tut tut, but because they were already doing it with their own skirmishing troops, deployed in limited numbers as the situation demanded, while recognising that ultimately it was line infantry firing volley fire en masse and closing into combat that won the day.

The biggest thing I've ever learned from reading about war is if you see people doing something over ad over again and it seems like suicide for the individual soldier and the nation as a whole, then while it's easy to assume the soldiers and commanders involved are idiots, it's almost certainly wrong, and there's generally a decent reason, albeit one that's hard to intuit given our modern understanding of war.

sebster wrote:
Despite all the silliness you see about minutemen and the like, this was also how the Americans fought in the war of independence, and continued to be how every army fought right up until the invention of two weapons, the gatling gun and the minie ball, made ranged fire so much more effective that loose formations taking advantage of cover became not only practical, but necessary.

Even before the minie ball there existed accurate rifles, the problem was that they were expensive, and had a reduced rate of fire due to problems with loading. They still could have been employed effectively by skirmishers, and were to some extent, but military doctrine has a way of being unchanging.

@AustonT - It's the 'British Army, not the Royal Army'. The British army hasn't had the 'royal' prefix since Cromwell.

@OP


I found this to be a well-written and sober analysis of the the root causes behind the American rebellion. It also represents an thourough, well-researched and balanced account of the military conflict. Well worth a read.

America: The story of us was a little bit too fluffy for me. It wasn't really geared toward the serious nerd.

Reading suggestions? Literally anything at all by David McCullough.

For a good look at pre and post Revolutionary war life I recommend The Shoemaker and The Tea Party.

Want a peek into the politics of early America? The Bedford Series is a great introduction, I especially liked Andrew Jackson vs Henry Clay.

Interested in Native Americans? Charles Eastman's The Soul of the Indian is pretty much required reading and a great starting point. For more modern Native reading anything by Vine Deloria is excellent, though I would recommend Custer Died for Your Sins as a starting off point.

I'm kind of focused but some interesting books I've greatly enjoyed are:

The Tank Killers by Harry Yeide is a very nice (and one of the few) scholarly works dedicated to the history of the U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Force and is a very good read if you want some straight up history.

If you want something maybe more analytical, try Faint Praise by Charles Baily. It's an under appreciated and poorly known book about American tank development in WWII with amazing information that is not well known and has been widely ignored by most historians who continue to blame Leslie McNair for a number of things that were never his fault.

Those don't seem to be per se what you want though. A good book about the founding of the US and the early years of US government would be America Afire: Jefferson, Adams, and the First Contested Election by Bernard Weisberger is a very nice book.

LordofHats wrote:Faint Praise by Charles Baily. It's an under appreciated and poorly known book about American tank development in WWII

Eh, it was decent.

Ahtman wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Faint Praise by Charles Baily. It's an under appreciated and poorly known book about American tank development in WWII

Eh, it was decent.

I'd say it was bland (and maybe a little preachy) but I honestly find most history books to fit that description Mostly its the insights I found interesting. There's research in there that no one really pays much attention to, especially pertaining to the Ordnance Department.

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:The British Army was notoriously hidebound and resistant to change during this period, and to be honest the American component of the 7 years war was fairly minor. A majority of those men who did fight in the 7 years war were the colonial militia. It makes sense that the British-Americans learned the lessons of the war and applied them and that the larger British Army failed to absorb these lessons. The British resistance to change lasted at least into the Battle of Balaclava, only because I can't name a better debacle that is more recent. There are numerous other factors at work, the assumed superiority of the Crown, the fact that for a foreign land they spoke English and lived in English style homes in a clime not unlike England herself not doubt put the officers at ease and fell into routine.
TLDR, The British army was focused on fighting on the Continent more than America and no changes were made.

British troops had a solid record of adapting to the conditions. Being a colonial power, that's kind of what you have to do to maintain your empire, and the British troops, being the trained, professional core they were adapted as needed.

Really? Where and when exactly did they develop this solid record, because it certainly wasn't in the 18th century. Academically the British Army under the regimental system is described by its strengths: identity,cohesion, and structure and it's weaknesses: inflexibility and duplication.

hhut the simple fact remains that the war of independance was a war fight with musket, horse and cannon, and skirmishing troops had only a limited role to play in such combat.

The simple fact is that the War of Independence was small time, and didn't even evolve into line fighting until after 1778, 3 years for those of you counting at home. The American has the distinct advantage that many of them were armed with Pennsylvania-made small caliber rifled muskets that were deadly accurate long past the dismal range and accuracy of the larger smooth bore Brown Bess. In a straight up line fight colonial militia carried an advantage in skirmishing and the defense and in general avoided a pitched battle.

They didn't see the American troops doing that and ignored them because of stiff upper lips and jolly ho tut tut, but because they were already doing it with their own skirmishing troops, deployed in limited numbers as the situation demanded, while recognising that ultimately it was line infantry firing volley fire en masse and closing into combat that won the day.

I suppose that's why Gage, a veteran of Braddock's much lauded campaign was so successful in deploying the British Army at Concord,Lexington, Bunker and Breed Hills. And after his victories in America the King called him home for a Triumph and promotion to full General. With a lack of formal education for the officer corps and tactical inflexibility in the employment of their troops continued from the Seven Years war into the revolutionary period.
Jolly ho, tut, tut.

The biggest thing I've ever learned from reading about war is if you see people doing something over ad over again and it seems like suicide for the individual soldier and the nation as a whole, then while it's easy to assume the soldiers and commanders involved are idiots, it's almost ertainly wrong, and there's generally a decent reason, albeit one that's hard to intuit given our modern understanding of war.

Unless it's true, thoroughly researched, and published from various sources for 200 years.

LordofHats wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Faint Praise by Charles Baily. It's an under appreciated and poorly known book about American tank development in WWII

Eh, it was decent.

I'd say it was bland (and maybe a little preachy) but I honestly find most history books to fit that description Mostly its the insights I found interesting. There's research in there that no one really pays much attention to, especially pertaining to the Ordnance Department.

I was giving it...

XD

Good show sir, good show.

Thanks to all who replied. Being a fan of the Sharpe TV series about British riflemen in the peninsular war, I can't believe I didn't make a connection between the skirmishing green jacketed riflemen and the lessons learned from the American revolution. Giant face palm!!

For my own part, I can recommend anything by Richard Holmes: WW1 Walks, The Iron Duke (great documentary about Wellington which is available on youtube), and anythig he wrote about the British Army in India.

I've often wondered how Wellington would have faired if he had commanded the British in the war of 1812.

Finally, most of my American history has been civil rights, early colonies in the Cheasapeake (spelling!) and having to read Upton Sinclair's book. It's good to get back to the smell of musket fire!

I've often wondered how Wellington would have faired if he had commanded the British in the war of 1812.

Well if he was at the battle of New Orleans Napoleon might have gotten a little revenge...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Finally, slightly OT. Whenever you see patriots fighting redcoats, the redcoats are marching along a road in typical military fashion, whilst the patriots are lurking in the bushes. Bearing in mind that the British fought the French and their native allies in woody terrain, surely the British would have adapted to this, and fought in skirmish formation. Can anybody shine a light on this?
Thanks.

I'd recommend doing some reading on Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion, and the southern theater of war. In the north (for the most part) the was was mostly fought with convectional tactics (there were exceptions of course). In the South it was quite different. It was very much guerrilla warfare against the British.

For silly war you might want to check out the ghettysburg movies. I understand you said documentaries, but they give you a good idea and general feeling for the war, as well as talk about the various important battles, like antietam and Ghettysburg.
By the way, id like to commemorate you on researching the history of other coutnries, such as the US. Arent too many people willing to do that anymore.

dogma wrote:Even before the minie ball there existed accurate rifles, the problem was that they were expensive, and had a reduced rate of fire due to problems with loading. They still could have been employed effectively by skirmishers, and were to some extent, but military doctrine has a way of being unchanging.

There were rifles deployed among skirmishing units. The issue was that such troops couldn't inflict enough casualties to actually defeat an enemy force, and as I mentioned before troops deployed in loose formation were highly vulnerable to cavalry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Really? Where and when exactly did they develop this solid record, because it certainly wasn't in the 18th century. Academically the British Army under the regimental system is described by its strengths: identity,cohesion, and structure and it's weaknesses: inflexibility and duplication.

Are you honestly claiming the British just plonked redcoats down in every colony, with the same kit and field drills, and never considered changing? That processes were the same in India and in the 13 colonies?

The simple fact is that the War of Independence was small time, and didn't even evolve into line fighting until after 1778, 3 years for those of you counting at home. The American has the distinct advantage that many of them were armed with Pennsylvania-made small caliber rifled muskets that were deadly accurate long past the dismal range and accuracy of the larger smooth bore Brown Bess. In a straight up line fight colonial militia carried an advantage in skirmishing and the defense and in general avoided a pitched battle.

Uh huh. Because neither Britain nor France realised the immense tactical and financial importance of the colonies, and everyone fighting there understood their relative unimportance and just carried on doing whatever, even though it was getting them killed.

I suppose that's why Gage, a veteran of Braddock's much lauded campaign was so successful in deploying the British Army at Concord,Lexington, Bunker and Breed Hills. And after his victories in America the King called him home for a Triumph and promotion to full General. With a lack of formal education for the officer corps and tactical inflexibility in the employment of their troops continued from the Seven Years war into the revolutionary period.
Jolly ho, tut, tut.

So, an unsuccessful campaign means the officers and troops must have done everything stupidly that you care to claim of them. It's like claiming because the US were unable to military conclude Vietnam in a satisfactory way, then their army must have been tactically poor compared to the Vietnamese, never mind what actually happened in the field. It's a call to ignore any possible strategic, logistical and political advantages one side might have held, in order to just presume any military operation failed because of the one element you happen to be looking at right now. feth me that's lazy thinking.

Ultimately, if you want to know who possessed superior tactical abilities in the field, look at the bodycount. 50,000 US troops died compared to 20,000 British troops. Clearly in the field the British were doing something that worked.

Unless it's true, thoroughly researched, and published from various sources for 200 years.

And if your claim was the product of extensive research from well regarded academics, and not just the kind of thing you hear at the pub from people who like to think they know about things, that'd be a useful point.

Meanwhile, you're claiming the British built an Empire across the globe, that lasted two centuries (or three, depending on whether you think of there being one or two British empires) on the back of troops who couldn't adapt to local conditions, nor to technological changes.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I've always said that dakka is an untapped oil well of knowledge. What people on this site know about guns, knives, vehicles and plastic soldiers scares the hell out of me! Heaven help the world if dakka gets organised.

Anyway, In my pursuit of knowledge, I'm always on the lookout for good history books and historical documentaries. Having had an enjoyable holiday in the colonies, er states, last summer, I'm keen to fill in the gaps. Recently, I watched Ken Burns' Civil War and was impressed by what was an excellent documentary IMO

Then disaster struck. Flicking through youtube I came across America: a story of us. All I can say is sweet jesus!!

It had a presidential intro from Obama, that Newt republican guy popping up to comment, NBA stars, talk show hosts, and Reagan's former chef!!! Rock music played at every scene, and every patriot was an honest farmer who could walk on water, heal the sick etc etc Naturally, the red coats were well...you know what. It was like Mr Burns' a burns for all seasons.

Obviously, you guys are proud of your heritage, which I respect, but I'm looking for balance and insight.

So, bearing in mind that I'll be buying stuff from Amazon and ebay, I'd be grateful for recommendations on civil war, revolutionary war, spanish -american war, General Pershing and the AEF, etc etc
Pretty much most stuff. Even the Salem witch trials stuff is fascinating.

Finally, slightly OT. Whenever you see patriots fighting redcoats, the redcoats are marching along a road in typical military fashion, whilst the patriots are lurking in the bushes. Bearing in mind that the British fought the French and their native allies in woody terrain, surely the British would have adapted to this, and fought in skirmish formation. Can anybody shine a light on this?
Thanks.

The Continental Army also fought in conventional formations.

The image of the wily individualist frontiersmen beating the institutionalised redcoat with guile and marksmanship is a part of the US national myth much like the English myth of the heroic longbowman of the 100 Years War, refreshed in later history as the British rifleman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back on topic, Bruce Catton's books on the Civil War are an excellent history.

Mr. Lincoln's Army, Glory Road and A Stillness at Appomattox deal specifically with the Army of the Potomac.

The Coming Fury, Terrible Swift Sword and Never Call Retreat cover the entirety of the war from initial causes to resolution.

Ken Burn's The Civil War is worth a watch.

American history this year, Chinese history next year is my plan. I agree with earlier posters who say that Britan may have been many things, but stupidity was not one of them. Adaption would have been necessary to build and hold a global empire for so long.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/0060838655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327087666&sr=8-1

Read that. It's well written, very well researched, and very engaging.

One book I would recommend is "Toward the Flame" by Hervey Allen.

WW1 has a great place of intrigue for me, and the crap he goes through during his part in the war is just amazing.


Ken Burns' "Prohibition" documentary is great, and you can't get much more American than his "Baseball" docmentary series (you really ought to watch all 10 innings of this one)