Customer Reviews

Battle of Brooklyn 1776

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

John Gallagher's narrative in this short book is very comprehensive while still being easy to read. It is interspersed with great little historical tidbits and teasers as well, and provides some great detail to the old 18th century villages that make up the City of Brooklyn today.

The reader gets the impression that Gallagher fully enjoyed writing on The Battle of Brooklyn and conveys this sense of historical importance very well.

In addition to the great narrative, there are many facts revealed about both the Revolutionary War and different parts of Brooklyn that both professional historians and casual history readers may not have known.

A highly recommended, quick and insightful read.

In most history books, it is usually called The Battle of Long Island. But since it took place in Brooklyn, it is more recently referred to as The Battle of Brooklyn...It took place in August of 1776. General Howe, the winner, versus General Washington, the loser (he won later)...The book relates that American counter attacks in the vicinity of Old Stone House created time for Washington to save the remainder of his army...The men involved here were primarily "The Maryland 400." and they are well remembered. Old Stone House was rebuilt and stands near 5th Ave. and 3rd St. An American Legion Post at 9th St. honors the area where most of them are believed to have been buried. They are also honored by a monument in Prospect Park.

In spite of one or two glaring mistakes in John Gallagher's book, BATTLE OF BROOKLYN, 1776, the author has provided us with a glimpse into a little known confrontation that had an enormous impact on our nation. When most people think of the significant battles of the Revolutionary War, they think of Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Yorktown, or Trenton. But New York City, and Brooklyn specifically was the scene for the first great battle.

Unfortunately, as Mr. Gallagher sympathetically conveys, the battle was a disaster from beginning to end. Over a thousand of Washington's troops were injured, captured, or killed. It was only with the brave and selfless assistance of the Marylanders, that the American troops were able to evacuate. Mr. Gallagher, with the skill of suspense novelist as well as historian, describes Washington's daring escape from Brooklyn, at night, in an intense fog.

I'm just scratching the surface here. This is a fascinating account of an undeservedly overlooked event of the American Revolution, and Mr. Gallagher deserves utmost credit for preserving its memory.

If you live in Brooklyn and are interested in the Revolutionary War, this book is a must.

Who knew that such an important encounter took place in Brooklyn. The largest expeditionary force the world had ever witnessed in 1776, the largest battle of the war in terms of participants and casualties, an incredible encounter in Park Slope between a group of Maryland Militiamen and the British Army (they charged the British numerous times, in the face of overwhelming odds, in order to permit what was left of the American troops to retreat to Brooklyn Heights) and an evacuation/ retreat, "Dunkirk" style across the East River from Brooklyn to Manhattan by General Washington which saved the army and was widely admired by the British as an incredible feat done right under the British noses.

John J. Gallagher's "The Battle of Brooklyn 1776" is well researched and written. It provides considerable insight into one of the Revolutionary War's seminal but long forgotten battles.

Gallagher provides considerable background on the British and Colonial armies (Continenal Army and milita), their leaders and the sympathies of the people of New York in 1776. He places the Battle of Brooklyn in its proper strategic perspective and, where possible, lets the participants tell the story. It is well that he does, for the author's style is a bit dry.

Nonetheless, "The Battle of Brooklyn 1776" allows the reader to better appreciate how close the British came to ending the Revolutionary War once and for all. More importantly, it illustrates the shortcomings and talents of George washington and his commanders as military leaders. At the tactical level, the battle was a disaster for the Continental Army. But Washington's withdrawal from Long Island with the bulk of his forces and equipment intact - an event which won the American army a great deal of grudging admiration from British generals - portended a long war for King George III and his army.

Those unfamiliar with America's struggle for independence between 1775 and 1783 will find this a useful read.

Having read this book as well as Barnet Schacter's on New York during the Revolution, both works I find are flawed in different ways. The likeable thing about Gallagher is that he manages to convey the story in less than half the time. The hard thing to realize about the battle of Brooklyn is that it really wasn't much of a battle. The author here makes some grandoise statements about a new age of citizen warfare being ushered in with the advent of this battle. If that is so then the complete defeat of Washy's army bodes ill for that development!

Gallagher is on better ground when he provides a nice overall of tactics and warfare in the 18th century. He gives a good account of training and recruitment in both armies. One of the more interesting things he mentions is that due to the two-rank line used by both sides in the Revolutionary War, casualties from musketry and artillery tended to be light. This is an interesting point, and one not brought out by many historians of the period. In europe stronger lines of 3 and sometimes 4 ranks were employed, which provided greater strength, but also more density. Hence increased loss from fire. A point well worth considering when looking at the battles of the Revolution. Most historians miss this completely, or are not interested in it.

Gallagher provides more of a military history in general on this subject, but he does waste a lot of time with preleminaries. More than half of the book is spent providing the standard background for the causes of the Revolution, etc. While certainly required for the general reader; when a book is as short as this one is it seems almost pointless. When we get down to the battle itself Gallagher gives us not much more than Schacter does. The British flank march completely compromises Washy's position, the outlying forces are swept away clear and simple. The confusion of command between Putnam and Sullivan no doubt made a bad situation worse. Washy's complete lack of strategic perspective shows up totally here. The defense of Brooklyn, much less Manhatten itself was a foregoon conclusion. Washy was mad to consider defending Brooklyn, much less manhatten in the first place. He committed his ill-trained army to an impossible task. That he did not lose completely was due more to how the British under Howe chose to wage their campaign.

Most American authors try to put a bright light on what is essnetially a dark canvas. At Brooklyn the Americans ran. Period. A few units stood their ground, in particular the Marylanders, but no one else really did. The reason why American losses were not greater was because they did run. Some authors try to say that British losses in killed and wounded were greater than Americans at this battle. This is true partly because the British had to attack some strong positions that held for a time until pireced by the assault. British losses were often greater in this regard because Americans usually ran once the British bayonet began to strike home. Still, of the 1,000+ casualities sustained by the Americans here, more than most US historians care to admit fell to British musketry and bayonets. The British loss was still well below 400. As the great Maurice de Saxe said in his memoirs of warfare in this period, more of the enemy can usually be despatched when he runs as opposed to when he stands. To reserve fire until the enemy line breaks was considered the most effective tactic of this period. In that respect many dozens of rebels must have been shot down as they ran before British bayonets.

Gallagher provides some understanding why the British did not storm the heights right away. This has often been one of the major criticisms of Howe's victory. Why didn't he follow up? After marching all night to outflank the Americans, the British were disorganized, and tired. They had also foght a running battle with a fleeing enemy. Howe did not believe his army was in any condition to storm Brooklyn heights, memory of Bunker Hill or no. Of course this does not explain why it was not done the following day. If we look more closely at Howe's position we can perhaps explain his rationale. His commission was both a general and peacemaker. He wanted to convince the rebels to come back into the royal fold. He could best do this by showing how futile their resistence to the crown was. To have destroyed Washy's army in Brooklyn would have been gratuitous, excessive. Such loss of blood would have defeated the purpose in mind. In restrospect it is easy to find fault with this strategy, and it would prove to be the only chance the British really had to crush the Revolution in its infancy.

The battle of Brooklyn needs to be looked at from several perspectives. Gallagher gives us a good start, but I think a more comprehensive work still needs to address all the issues here.

When I lived in Brooklyn I was interested in its part of the Revolutionary War; one of the first major skirmishes took place blocks from my home. John Gallagher does a good job of introducing me to the political and social climate of the summer of 1776 as America rebelled against King George III in a fight for our independence. He relates the history in an easy to digest format, dropping in interesting tidbits of trivia along the way to keep it interesting. What I enjoyed most about the book was in allowing the reader to follow the progression of the battle by giving the reader geographic locations and street crossings of current Brooklyn, with lots of maps and pictures. This gives me a history to hold in my head as I walk around my borough, and have already visited some of the locations noted in the text, including the Old Stone House, which I used as a location for my own short story about that battle.

I've read a grat deal of books about the American Revolution and its battles. John Gallagher's "biography" of The (properly named) Battle of Brooklyn is an excellent, yet concise history of America's first battle (Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill were individual engagements). What I particularly enjoyed was Gallagher's modern references to places and streets that anchor the reader's understanding of place and strategy of both sides ("On Blockje's Hills, between 18th and8 20th Streets...). The author provides a fair and balanced appraisal of both sides' planning, execution and successes/failures while describing the individual decison-making, fighting and moment to moment action in a highly readable and compelling narrative. I liken his work to Richard Ketchum's superb books on the Battle of Bunker Hill and Saratoga. To any teacher in a Brooklyn school, use this book as a means of exciting your students to study this battle because the places will be familiar and it can serve as an ideal springboard for contemporary aspects of US history, such as the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, bedrock documents that help define who and why we are a unique people.