Customer Reviews

The First American Army: The Untold Story of George Washington and the Men Behind America's First Fight for Freedom

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

 

 

Are these reviewers for real? Undeserving nobodies and too many african-americans? Please. A book long overdue and an enjoyable read. A tribute to the 243,000 ordinary nobodies,(black and white) who fought at some period in the Revolution,risked it all and paid high prices.

This is a generally well-written and enjoyable to read book, but it doesn't quit live up to its sub-title: The Untold Story of George Washington and the Men Behind America's First Fight for Freedom. The book is foremost a retelling of the Battles of the Revolution. It does present viewpoints from the soldiers and others who fought, but I didn't really find a great deal that hasn't been written before, although the portion devoted to Blacks in the Revolution was interesting. Interesting also is how many soldiers died from poor conditions and disease. But I didn't come away feeling that I really got to know the "Men Behind America's First Fight for Freedom." As I said before, the book is mainly a retelling of the story of the battles of the War and secondly, a telling of the battles from the perspective of the common soldier.
For those who haven't read a great deal on the Revolutionary War, this would be a good book to start with. It is enjoyable, easy to read, presents an overview of the history of the War, and gives a perspective on the War from both the commanders and the common soldier. However, if the reader is one who has read a great deal on the Revolutionary War, there isn't really a great deal that is new here. It is a good book, but not one I would put on my top-ten list of Revolutionary War books.
The one thing I found irritating about the book is that several times it left some loose ends dangling. For example, one point in the book tells of George Washington's sometimes leniency toward those who were being disciplined. The author goes on to tell of a group of men sentenced to death for desertion and re-enlisting in order to collect another sign-on bonus. Washington, however decides the punishment is too harsh and so asks "...their officers if there was some mitigating circumstance that he could use...to spare them." Then the author states that Washington pardons them all. Okay, but what did the officers present to Washington to enable him to pardon them? I don't know and apparently neither did the author because we are never told in the book. This same lack of relevant information appears several times in the book.
If it were me and I really wanted to look at the war from a soldiers viewpoint, I would read a book such as "Private Yankee Doodle" by J.P. Martin. Martin's story has been described as "One of the best first-hand accounts of war as seen by a private soldier ever written." In my opinion, the Martin book is much better at describing the life of the soldier in the Revolutionary War. "The First American Army" does, in fact, use the Martin book as source of information.
All in all, "The First American Army" is an enjoyable to read book that presents a decent view of the War from the viewpoint or the soldier. It isn't a great book however. And it doesn't present a great deal of new information. This book would probably be more enjoyed by those with only a general knowledge of the War, not by those who already have read a great deal on the subject. To sum up, this is a good, enjoyable to read book that gives an overview of the battles of the Revolution while at the same time giving us some insight into the lives of the common soldier.

Having spent my time in the Army as a low level grunt I was fascinated to see this story of the view from the bottom of Washington's Army. The eight men whose diaries and letters Dr. Chadwick used as the main basis of the story were not exceptional men, they were just ordinary men in extraordinary times. And they happened to be on the winning side so that their story gets told.

Surprisingly the book makes the life of the grunt surprisingly like that of our own: talking with friends, drinking, playing cards -- bored most of the, time scared the rest -- and it's always too hot, or too cold; too wet or too dusty. It takes some effort to remember things like the quality of medical care, where things like germs, drugs, anesthesia hadn't been discovered/invented yet.

Dr. Chadwick has done a supurb job of research in an area previously ignored. There are many books talking about Washington, the various battles, and so on. This book covers new ground and is great reading.

I certainly enjoyed this "bottom-up" look at the revolution. I've read "1776," "His Excellency," and others on the Revolution (and don't get me wrong, those are good books) but this has been the most interesting book I've read on the subject, so far. Because, it follows the ordinary guys. The grunts that I've always figured I would be had I lived in that period. Just what did those guys have to go through? This book gives you a good look. I didn't give it a 5 star rating because at some points in the book, I found it to be repetitive and some of the paragraphs would jump from one subject to another with no real flow. It's knit-picky, I know, but the book could have used a better editor. Other than that, if you like the subject, you'll like this book.

Bruce Chadwick's First American Army is captivating and interesting, but at the same time, a bit frustrating to read. His concept is relatively simple: Tell the story of the American War of Independence from the perspectives of the "ordinary" men involved rather than from the perspectives of the extraordinary visionaries and leaders of the conflict. The simplicity of the concept, however, does not translate into an easy task for Chadwick. The author correctly understands that his readers will demand, first and foremost, a cohesive account of the war itself. His challenge is in figuring out how to provide that basic chronological narrative through the disjointed and varied experiences of his subjects, the "grunts" on the ground.

The author chose eight individuals (low level enlisted men and officers) who happened to record their experiences, and who had a broad range of involvement and experience in the war. The author almost certainly put an enormous amount of research work into identifying his eight subjects. He successfully identified individuals who's recorded experiences in the war could be woven together to provide the basis for a narrative of the war itself. This, by itself, was a significant achievement for the author--no small task.

However, there was only so far the author could ever go with the experiences of his eight subjects. In order to provide a cohesive overview of the war itself, the author had to infuse these "ground level" accounts of the war with a parallel high level narrative of the war to provide the reader with continuity. The author jumps back and forth between the detailed accounts of his subjects and the general overviews of the progression of the war. This is where it gets frustrating at times, for there were major developments and engagements in the war where none of his eight subjects had any involvement, including most of the major engagements in the South with the exception of Yorktown. The reader, then, is left with very detailed and fascinating accounts of some engagements in the war, such as the failed invasion of Canada, the Battle of Trenton and the final major engagement at Yorktown. But, other important engagements of the war are only briefly mentioned, thrown in, it seems, in places that make the most sense to the larger narrative of the war.

This unevenness was probably unavoidable given the author's concept, and I think he did about as well as he could have. However, I think it may have worked out better if he had chosen one subject who's experience ranged from the beginning to the end of the war (and there was one of the eight who fit this bill), and then found one subject for each of the major engagements of the war, limiting the narrative on those secondary subjects to their respective chapters. That would have allowed the author to use as many subjects as would be necessary to cover the war consistently without having to worry about the reader's ability to follow too many characters, as there would only be one primary character and one secondary character for each chapter.

Overall, it was a good read. It was interesting and engaging, and it succeeded in increasing my interest and level of appreciation for this period of American History. It kept my attention, and I learned a number of fascinating new things about the war. For that, I give it four out of five stars.

This was the first book I've read on the revolution in a long, long time.
It is a heart rendering tale of the Continental Army told through some historical data and through several letters from those involved.

The book was a good read but left me wanting more. Why were there so many supply problems? Why wouldn't Congress react? But it also left me with a very good taste for the ferver behind the movement. You realize the struggles went beyond Valley Forge and find yourself caught up with the soldiers who struggled with their 2 duties: one for their newly forming country and one for their families.

The book is easy to read, follow and understand. I would recommend it for anyone who is starting to look at the war again. But, plan on buying more books, it leaves you with some thirst.

First American Army: The Untold Story of George Washington and the Men Behind America's First Fight for Freedom. Author: Chadwick. 416 pages. 2005.

This book had been sitting in a, "To Read" stack for about eight months before I decided to pick it up and read through it.

Primarily this book follows the travails and experiences of enlisted men during the American Revolution. It is not the first book to address the service and conditions of the common soldier. But unlike specialized histories this remains a general history of the conflict through the experiences of the rank and file. This experience is highlighted through the interweaving with a basic narrative of events and the stories of a few soldiers who wrote their memories for posterity. This notion of posterity was a reoccurring theme in commanders exhortations, chaplains sermons and soldiers diaries.

The primary soldiers featured in this text enter and leave the story as their lives and services dictated. Their experience is enhanced by observations from others who were there or who went through similar experiences. When put together these lives give the reader a very good sense of the basics in regard to what it was like to live in those times and be a part of those events from the inside. The narrative elements framing the recollections are important for the reader to understand the context of the remarks. Too often when dealing with combat narratives of a single individual you are reading only that persons experience which has a very narrow field of vision.

The book chooses to focus on the main army under Washington except for two exceptions. The first is the Battle of Saratoga for reasons of historical importance. The second was the invasion and retreat from Canada in 1775-1776. This later tale is one which is largely unfamiliar to the casual reader and to many students of the American Revolution. It is a tale of great daring, courage, and suffering. Much of the focus is on the trek through the wilderness with Arnold and on the horrid conditions during the retreat back to Fort Ticonderoga. The descriptions of the work done by the doctors, the chaplains and the suffering of the common soldier are very sobering indeed. The misery and fortitude to stick it out will surprise many. I also think that it does a very good job of highlighting the state and practice of medicine in that time. Of more interest though is the role of the chaplains in all of this. Their short terms of service can be understood when you read about what they did and ho wit was received by the troops. The sections which feature the chaplains are a very good pastoral primer even today.

Not all of the story is told from the point of view of the enlisted soldier there are diversions into the role and experiences of Chaplains, Doctors, and militia leaders. These seem warranted as ways to carry the story forward and in reflection on the observations made by these men about the soldiers they were treating and leading.

There are near the end of the book several chapters touching on the plight of prisoners of war, women, home life, blacks, and the war at sea. Some of these are masterfully integrated into the narrative and others seem like stories stuck into to meet an obligation. I do applaud the inclusion though as this is one of the few general histories to include those aspects of the story. Most general histories focus on Washington and his troops ignoring other operations and people.

This is a very good general history for the average reader and an example to the scholar of how to incorporate both social history and the big picture of history in to a readable and approachable text. The use of social history is an excellent way to personalize or create relational ties between subject and reader. The inclusion of the big picture narrative provides the context for the experiences and prevents a narrow myopic view by a subject matter expert which to often renders social history unreadable to the average reader.

I really enjoyed this book. It brought to life in vivid detail the deprivations and tribulations faced by the ordinary soldier in the Revolutionary Army. There have been so many books written about the leaders of the Revolution (some good, some pretty boring), but so few volumes about the ordinary men who made up the colonial troops. These people were the foundation of the new country and they deserve to be documented. The author chooses to give us their stories in an interesting way and paints word pictures that let the reader see exactly what conditions were like for the common soldiers. I was fascinated and could hardly put the book down. If all history was presented in this easy to understand and interesting way, more students would love it as much as I do.

I am always a bit saddened and dismayed when an author states his goals for writing, and then gets panned by readers who resent the author because his/her book was not written to meet their expectations and goals. It is no fault of Dr. Chadwick's that he decided to take a look at the Continental Army from the grassroots. It is also no fault that some readers desired to read a book about battles and leaders, and see lots of pictures and graphics. But it is the fault of those readers who selected the wrong book and decided to blame the author instead!

Dr. Chadwick's book plays a vital role in filling a long neglected aspect of the first American Army. I read a cautionary warning in one of the other reviews here that states we should be wary about reading about the common man and citizen soldier of the 18th century because he was vastly different from the citizen soldier of the 20th and 21st century. I'm very pleased that the critic stated that--because THAT is precisely the point in having this valuable book. How can we possibly comprehend the struggle of the Founding Fathers in their entirety if we refuse to consider their world, their daily dilemmas, monumental crises, and petty annoyances. Dr. Chadwick has taken the Revolutionary generation and restored its humanity. I hope everyone, mildly interested in the Revolutionary War or thoroughly enamored of the the iconic Founders, will step back and put the people and the era in a broader context to find deeper meaning and understanding. If that does not fit your notion of history, for God's sake, please don't blame the author for fulfilling his goals instead of yours! I think this is a superb book because the author fulfilled his declared objectives--and he did it in a superlative fashion and with a graceful pen.

From the book name I would expect it to be more about the organization and tactics of the first United States Army. My objective in reading the book was to understand more of the experiences of my ancestors who lived during the era and participated in the Revolution. I was disappointed from a genealogist point of view in that facts were pretty scarce. The life and tribulation of the common soldier held my interest and I finished the book. I found myself wondering as I read the book if the author's primary objective was to promote his particular political views or to get one more item to list on his "publish or perish" list.