Scan barcode
doug_whatzup's review against another edition
3.0
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.
srm's review
4.0
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.
More...