Customer Reviews

Fusiliers: The Saga of a British Redcoat Regiment in the American Revolution

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have, over the years, read a lot of stuff on the American Revolution. The vast majority of the scholarship on the subject is from the American point of view. There have been a few exceptions, over the years, but most of the books have had little new to say about the war from the British point of view. This book then is almost unique, and adds a lot to what we know about the American Revolution.

Rather than study the British war effort in general, the author chooses to follow a particular British infantry regiment, the 23rd "Royal Welch Fusiliers". He explains everything in considerable detail, from the fact that the "Welch" part of their name is derived from the Prince of Wales, not from the unit being raised in Wales itself, around to the revelation that the term "Fusiliers", which had originally meant light infantry, was largely an honorific by the time of the American revolution. The Royal Welch Fusiliers actually had a company of grenadiers, which if you know your military parlance is contradictory. Regardless, the RWF fought in almost every major battle and campaign of the war, except Saratoga, starting out in Massachusetts at the march back from Concord, and concluding 8 years later at Yorktown.

The author works very hard to follow the regiment through each of the battles and campaigns that they fought in, and dissects everything from the way the Redcoats were recruited and equipped to how they were trained, and how they fought the war. The result is a detailed, intelligent overview of the British Army during the American Revolution which produces some surprises and a considerable amount of information. It turns out, for instance, that the British Army wasn't as competent as some historians would have you believe when the war started. The author thinks that poor fire discipline among the British soldiers may have touched the war off at Lexington, and gives as his opinion that William Howe's tactical reforms of the British army were much more important than anyone has since acknowledged. While he faults both Howe and later Cornwallis as strategists, he insists that as tacticians they were very skilled, and that their ideas led to the army that defeated Napoleon at Waterloo a little more than 30 years after the end of the Revolution.

I enjoyed this book a great deal. It's very well-written, and it includes a wealth of information that other books on the American Revolution only touch on briefly if at all. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in warfare during the era, and especially to those interested in either the American Revolution or the Wars against Napoleon.

As others have mentioned a look at the American War of Independence written exclusively from the point of view of the British soldiers and line officers seemed to be a unique and welcome addition to the historical record of this conflict. The author cites a number of first-hand accounts from letters and diaries from the men of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers and weaves these quotations into a general narrative of the conflict. Unfortunately a number of obvious factual errors and a stronger than necessary bias within the narrative detracted greatly from what would otherwise have been an interesting work.

My first concern came in the preface of the book in which the author said that even the better U.S. historians "stick to the enemy-image of the redcoat as a brutalized robot, marching on inept orders, " and that American writers only find "inventive leadership, enthusiasm and bravery" in the ranks of Washington's army. These pointed comments which I totally disagree with, were a good indication of what was coming. The book was filled with numerous minor unnecessary slights to Americans. For instance, 315 prisoners from the Battle of Brandywine are called "American deserters". Regarding the American army at Valley Forge in the winter of 1776 the author described their motivation for being there as "booze, food and clothing, as well as affording the prospect of adventure". What?!! These and countless other admittedly minor, but still tough to swallow "opinions" not backed up by any primary source materials made this an irritating and sometimes infuriating book to read.

While my complaint of bias might be argued by some as simply a matter of national perspective the factual errors mentioned above are not. Any history book hoping to be taken seriously cannot claim that the British sailed up the Delaware river in the summer of 1777 to take Philadelphia, when every high-school history student knows that Howe sailed up the Chesapeake Bay and landed his troops at the "Head Of Elk" near Elkton, Maryland. The first mission of a history text should be not to get the obvious things wrong.

Criticisms aside, this book does shed light on the day-to-day combat soldier's life and the unique system of advancement within the British army, but requires extreme detachment on the part of the American reader to get through it. A far, far better alternative of the war through British eyes is "Those Damned Rebels" by Michael Pearson which I would place very highly in the annals of the histories of the American War of Independence.

Mark Urban's Fusiliers is a classic example of the value of first hand accounts in the hands of a master craftsman. Urban is every bit the story teller as Thomas Fleming.

As the earlier very fair review noted, the author retells the battles of the American Revolutionary War from the point of view of the officers and enlisted men of a single British Regiment - the oddly named Royal Welch Fusiliers. Anyone interested in a more rounded picture of the Revolutionary War would not go wrong by fighting their way from Boston to Long Island to Brandywine to Charleston to Camden to Guildford Courthouse and ultimately to defeat at Yorktown with the indefatigible Sergeant Lamb, the maturing Lieutenant Calvert and the capable Col Balfour. The recounting of the initial combat at Lexington and Concord is truly masterful in combining the details of the fight with the drama of sitting on a powder keg. The Battle of Breeds Hill/Bunker Hill is told with equal attention to both detail and drama. It is also a much more accurate view of the war in the Carolina's than Mel Gibson's energetic but extremely inaccurate Patriot.

The author interweaves the battles with the mini-tragedies of the lives and deaths of the officers and soldiers, with the emergence of new infantry tactics and with both British Army politics and British politics in general. What emerged for me besides how tough soldiers of this period had to be was the both the tactical skill of Cornwallis and the strategic incompetence of almost the entire general staff of the British Army - but perhaps there was no winning strategy.

This is a well produced book with informative and clear maps of the geography and individual battlefields. The color illustrations are well chosen though military portraits of American leaders such as Washington, Gates, Greene and Marion would have rounded things out. Altogether it is a great read.

"Many of the Marylanders were now running back into the trees, trying to escape the completion of the British encirclement. Cornwallis unleashed Tarleton's cavalry to seal their fate. Some of the Marylanders continued to fight on in groups in the woods, including one that formed around their general, Baron de Kalb. The redcoats put the bayonet to those who would not surrender, and the cornered general received several such thrusts, crumpling to the ground bleeding profusely. He was captured but would die shortly after the battle. In little more than an hour Gate's army, around twice the size of Cornwallis's had been completely defeated, with its remnants dispersed." The battle of Camden would prove to be the Royal Welsh Fusiliers Regiment's finest hour.

Mark Urban's "Fusiliers: The Saga of a British Regiment in the American Revolution" is a unique history of one British Regiment's heavy involvement throughout the American Revolution based on fresh material from never before published sources. "Fusiliers" covers the 23rd Regiment's participation in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, the Carolinas, and Virginia colonies.

Mr. Urban elected to chronicle the Royal Welsh Fusiliers (23rd) Regiment because they were one of the few units engaged from the beginning at Lexington in 1775 through the battle of Yorktown in 1781. By laborious research, Mr. Urban uncovered personal writings that add color to the otherwise monochrome picture of life in the British Light Infantry.

Through personal letters penned by Royal Fusiliers, we share in the everyday activities of 23rd Regiment soldiers. Mr. Urban introduces us to officers such as Thomas Mecan and Frederick Mackenzie. Like most of the older officers in the regiment, they have not been promoted beyond Captain in many years -- they had neither enough money or the proper connections. The author follows the career of Nisbet Balfour sharing his writings as he advances from Captain to Major General, becoming a man of great influence. Gleaned from a recently discovered journal and autobiography, Mr. Urban reveals to us the written thoughts of Fusilier Harry Calvert as he advances from subaltern of the 23rd Regiment all the way to Adjutant General of the Army.

In describing his work, Mr. Urban, author of Wellington's Rifles: Six Years to Waterloo with England's Legendary Sharpshooters says, "The result of this research is an account that I hope readers will find quite different from any published before, providing depth in getting under the skin of one regiment as well as breadth in consulting a great range of testimony."

Mr. Urban continues his story of the Fusiliers beyond the formal surrender at Yorktown to include harrowing stories of how the prisoners traveled through hostile lands to New York where they patiently awaited passage out. Surprisingly, many chose to remain in America. Most accepted land grants in Canada. Others began new careers outside the military.

Later, as England becomes involved in European wars once more, Mr. Urban relates how tactics began to evolve away from the costly lessons learned in fighting the Americans. In Europe, British officers had been impressed by precision of Prussian tactics but the army was not prepared to fight the French.

Mr. Urban points out, "The tragic irony for Cornwallis and his comrades who had campaigned on the other side of the Atlantic was that the system of swift, open movement that had overwhelmed American light troops at Brandywine or Camden might just as easily be used against the French." It took years for the reforms to be implemented that would bring the English up to pare with the tactics of French.

Perhaps Mr. Urban's most important goal was overcoming the stereotypes that historians promoted about the "brutalized robot" British soldiers versus the "inventive leadership, enthusiasm and bravery" of the rebels.

Bolstered by new material, and presented from the British point of view, students of the Revolutionary War will enjoy reading this well written, informative book.


Mr. Urban's "Fusiliers" contains a section of 17 illustrations and 10 handy, uncluttered, maps.

Mark Urban's "Fusiliers" is a valuable contribution to the litany of regimental histories which dot the landscape of military history. Whereas the vast majority of Revolutionary War books available in the United States are written from an unabashedly American perspective, "Fusiliers" makes for a refreshing change in tempo as the author states from the beginning his intention to break from the American point of view. With this in mind, the narrative follows the day-to-day existence of the 23rd Royal Welch Fusiliers immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1775 through the years immediately following the end of the American Revolution. Urban draws in no small part from the existing memoirs and writings of members of the regiment, and paints a vivid picture of life within the regiment during the war. While the constant shifts in leadership and composition are covered, the author does not neglect to explain the background details of the Fusiliers' movements and even manages to provide an insightful window into the development of light infantry warfare during the war and its impact upon post-war British infantry doctrine. Readers do not have to fret about reading a constant stream of derisive remarks for the rebel side: Urban is equally critical of both the Americans and the British. There are minor errors sprinkled throughout the book, mostly publisher's mistakes rather than discrepancies in accuracy, but it does not detract from the overall quality of the book. As it is written in very readable prose, it is recommended to anyone looking for a view of British military affairs at the regimental level during the Revolution, and for the advanced enthusiast of the time period.

I'm a sucker for "new looks" at history, and to the author's point, history is written by the victors.

Unfortunately, I got a bad feeling right away he was looking to settle some kind of score, and as I read on, that seemed to be his strategy. I've read that this guy is a Pro-British writer, which didn't surprise me and I guess is fine, because as an American I have a natural, if not unconscious tendency to like things that are pro-American and reject things that are the opposite.

It's OK for readers to have a slant, but I'm not sure authors are well-served by exercising their biases. Maybe I'm wrong for thinking it was meant to be objective in the first place.

Time after time I kept getting the feeling he was trying to put the majority of Americans down as simple, cowardly punks who cried foul all the time and somehow unwittingly stumbled into victory, while the British essentially lost because they had better manners and had to fight two countries (nevermind all the Germans fighting for the Crown from the get-go). When the British killed wounded men or those who tried to surrender, it was brushed off as "boys will be boys", but when that favor was returned, it was unimaginable, deviant thuggery.

He never really got past that stereotypical view, which was disappointing.

Obviously, the British had a much-needed lesson coming in how war was evolving, not unlike how America was taught a lesson in Vietnam. I liked how he tied that in to the change in tactics that altered the British approach in subsequent - and more successful - wars.

I particularly enjoyed reading about the daily lives of the 23rd, and some of the more "peculiar" aspects of the British army (payment for ranks) that are generally foreign to American military sagas, but I think he dragged on, and could have probably cut 50 pages and made it a better read.

Great idea; just too narrow a focus for something this size. He wandered a bit, left too many holes in the story for this to be considered a five-star must read, in my humble opinion. It's tough to tie a large work together following one unit, and it showed.

Nevertheless, fairly enjoyable reading for a history buff, though nothing to compare with some of my favorite writers like John Keegan or James McPherson, who I think tell a much more complete, and more interesting story.

Like the Yankee sharpshooters he disparages, this seems to just miss the mark.

Fusiliers: The Saga of a British Redcoat Regiment in the American Revolution. Author: Mark Urban. 400 pages. 2008.

I picked this book up at the library while I was actually looking for a different title. The bulk of this book is devoted to chronicling the saga of the 23rd Infantry Regiment, The Royal Welch Fusiliers. The saga of this unit provides a good example of the British Army in the American Revolution. Parts of the unit were there at Lexington and Concord and the unit soldiered on through the main force engagements (Bunker Hill, Siege of Boston, Refit in Nova Scotia, New York City (of Long Island, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem Heights, White Plains, and Fort Washington), Danbury CT, Rhode Island, the Forage Battles in New Jersey, Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Connecticut ports of New Haven, Norfolk, Greenfield, and Fairfield, Charleston SC, Camden SC, Guilford Courthouse, Yorktown.

Parts of the unit is the operative phrase. The bulk of the unit soldiered on in most of the battles listed above without its grenadier and light infantry companies. These elite units were off fighting separate from the main force. I was aware of this concept from previous readings but the constant separation for the majority of the war did surprise me. It is hard to think of the 23rd as a coherent unit given these forces separations. The notion of coherence is further tested when you follow the saga of the unit's commanders and senior officers who were often detached from the unit preferring the sick bed, staying in England, getting a lucrative staff position, or just playing the system. Command, control, patronage, and promotions in the 18th century British military system are baffling and strange to the modern reader. Notions of meritocracy, education, or ability and the good of the unit come a distant second or worse to issues of class, cash, patronage and personal interest.

The scope of the book is focused almost exclusively on the unit and it people. This may disappoint some readers who are looking for a more rounded picture of the British Army and its toils and tribulations. The author tells the story chronological telling concurrently the tales of the main unit, the detached units, the detached individuals and a very brief contextual positioning. If you lack a more than very basic grasp of the conflict you may read the book as an adventure tale with narrow tunnel vision. If your knowledge is broader regarding the conflict or the 18thcentury modes of warfare you will understand more of what is being related.

The author has been accused of unneeded bias in his opinions or narration which weaves together the primary source and secondary source documents. Understand that when understanding an action or incident second hand from a primary source that you are limited to what that person saw or experienced and this is usually about ten meters left and right and maybe 500 meters to the front. Focusing in on one unit will narrow your vision and hence your statements if you have any affection for your topic. Granted the author is a British patriot but objectivity or balance is not his goal, rather telling the story of those who acted is. The reader will though gain a great appreciation for how this war and its causes affected those who were fighting in it. Many of the 23rd's leaders were men of Whigish tendencies who had no desire beyond that of doing their duty to persecute the conflict ... their political sensibilities being more allied to the Americans. This was balanced out by the strong desire among some to apply the lessons learned in Scotland a few decades earlier. These contradictions, this fighting in a conflict you may not support merely out of a sense of duty, was a very serious issue for the British Army in these campaigns. It does make one think of the importance of loyalty to comrades and unit as opposed to nation or ideal.

In the end you gain a sense that the British Army which left America for the most part in 1783 was an army very much akin to that American Army which left Vietnam in 1973. It felt itself un-beaten, that though the war was lost the battles had been won. That they had done their duty, even when that duty proved politically unpopular. They seemed to have felt that the politicians limited their abilities. They returned home to a public and to a military establishment which held them in no esteem and denigrated their experiences.

This leads to probably the best part of the book, the experience of these men and units upon their return to England until well into the Napoleonic Wars. The British Army relegated the American experience to the dustbin undoing much of what was gained. The hard work and thought of making the uniforms and equipment soldier friendly, the tactics loose and initiative driven was removed from the main force and a tightened form of Fredrick the Greats' Prussianism was instilled. Eventually thanks to the likes of Cornwallis and others this would change and the hard learned lessons of the American Campaign would be allowed to permeate and affect the British leading them forward to victory.

From 1773 to 1783 about 1,250 men had been enumerated on the rolls of the 23rd serving in North America. In 1783 the number of men on the rolls of the 23rd who were going back to England was 247 soldiers. 193 men had deserted ... fully 15% of those who served. The 23rd lost in combat 80 men and about 395 men to disease or other illness during the war. It is said that the single greatest loss of soldiers was caused by the affections and attachments of soldiers and American women. That the daughters of America removed far more men from the rolls of the 23rd then the sons of liberty did is an interesting tale.

This is a good book, well written. It has a narrowed focus and should not be viewed as a stand alone text on the life and time of the British forces in the American Revolution but rather serve as a component of a greater whole.

Mark Urban has written a thrilling story of a British regiment during the American Revolution. It could well be dedicated "To those who serve honorably in unpopular wars." The war was widely unpopular in England; King George, the prime minister (Lord North) and the American secretary (Lord Germain) stood virtually alone in steadily seeking victory.

The 23rd Royal Welch Fusiliers are the focus of this fine book. (Formed in 1689 to oppose James II and the French, it is one of the oldest regiments in the regular army, hence the archaic spelling of the word "Welch" instead of "Welsh".) The unit fought through the entire six years starting at Lexington and Concord in 1775 and ending at the surrender at Yorktown in 1781. They participated in every major campaign except Burgoyne's. Certain members were chosen by lot as prisoners of war after Yorktown, while the remaining members returned to England.

Urban's book takes samples of original writings -- diaries, letters and books -- written by generals, captains, lieutenants, "pipsqueak" subalterns, and privates. An Original And Authentic Journal Of Occurrences During The Late American War: From Its Commencement To The Year 1783 by Roger Lamb and Diary of Frederick Mackenzie are two of the many sources Urban relied on in creating this view of the Revolution from the British side.

Colonists called the Fusiliers "lobsterbacks" and they were cursed, spat upon and showered with rocks long before the war began. A British brigadier returned the favor; "The people here are a set of sly, artful, hypocritical rascals, cruel, and cowards. I must own I cannot but despise them completely."

Urban puts a human face on these men, including the strong differences about whether the war should be fought at all, "for the schism between Whig and Tory ran deep within the army." Back in England, Whigs were strong opponents of the king's policies. "This debate, about whether the Americans were 'brothers' or not, would continue for years to come."

The Fusiliers were 85 years old in 1775 and had an elite reputation earned in the 1750s and 1760s. By 1775 the Fusiliers no longer used the fusil, a lightweight musket with a flintlock firing mechanism. When the unit arrived in the Colonies, it was full of new, untested recruits.

By the Battle of New York in 1777 it had become one of the best units in the British army. Several companies were trained as "light infantry" units, troops who deploy quickly and "had mastered skirmishing: moving in small groups and exposing only the minimum necessary to shoot at their targets." One light infantryman said: "We have learned from the rebels to cover our bodies if there's a rail or tree near us."

The Americans who fought in the French and Indian War (1756-63) had learned this system from the Indians.The tactical units were so successful that Washington, who had himself fought in the French and Indian conflict, trained his own units to imitate the British.

Urban's book is well researched and is very exciting to read. From time to time I found myself actually empathizing with some of the Fusiliers. From time to time one may see reenactments of the Fusiliers in the United States; events are listed on The Royal Welch Fusiliers in America website, and there are many gorgeous pictures of their uniforms as they appeared in 1775. The reenactments make Urban's book come alive.



Robert C. Ross 2008

This is an interesting side story for readers interested in the American Revolution. It is not by any means the groundbreaking work touted by the publisher's PR department. It's a journalist's book, so has some purple prose, triteness, and lacks academic rigor. Finally, it contains more than a bit of apologia.

Urban is a TV journalist and English Empire buff who has written a number of hooray-for-us books primarily about British military prowess. In "Fusiliers," he has located and assembled a number of first-hand accounts of the American Revolution as experienced by the British troops in the field. The most fruitful source was the Royal Welch Fusiliers, who were present from Lexington all the way to Yorktown.

The book is best when it keeps its focus on the soldiers themselves and their lives in the British military. Urban also wisely provides important information on the power struggles among the higher ranks, not to mention between England's Whigs and Tories, and the impact these constantly shifting priorities had on the troops.

Urban stumbles when he tries to make broader claims based on a few entries in a letter or diary, seeking data to fit the conclusion, already made. When Urban quotes one or two sources, not especially reliable, and says "well that settles that," he simply annoys the more informed reader.

What this slowly reveals, however, is an undercurrent of apologia for Empire, which grows more pronounced as the book proceeds. Urban tries to make the case that British troops got a little over enthusiastic now and them, but the atrocities they are alleged to have committed are largely patriot propaganda. And by the way, the patriots were much, much worse.

This is hardly virgin territory, so I'm surprised Urban attempts this maneuver with such little, sketchy, and unreliable information. Not with the mountains of research easily available which, at the very least, muddies up some of his assertions. Again, nothing new is presented, and more important, much is left out.

Late in the book, Urban tips his hand when speaking of military strategist David Dundas: "He was one representative of a political family that effectively turned Scotland from a rebellious backwater into a bastion of loyalism...."

So, a free people who resist the invasion and subjugation of a brutal, larcenous tyrant are a "rebellious backwater"? Well, that settles that.

This book should be required reading for all aspiring historians on the American Rev War. Many older historians should also take note of this fine book. Mark Urban purports to tell the story of one British regiment, the 23rd, or Royal Welch Fusiliers, but it is really about the whole British expereince in the war that the book concerns itself. While foscusing on this one illustrious corps the author provides us a means to evaluate the whole evolutionary process the British army went through in this conflict.

As the author points out in the introduction so much of the American perspective of the Rev War is riddled with myth and fable that even the better writers on the subject seldom give much effort to show the British side of things. To these writers the redcoat most often is seen as a mindless machine that stumbles about the Thirteen Colonies until finally defeated at Yorktown. Little more credit is given to his generals either. Here at last we get a Brit writing on the subject which is so dear to the American national mythology. Perhaps only a non-American author can approach this topic with anything resembling fairness. For certain many myths cherished by Americans are dispelled here. Yes, the colonists did surprise and outfight the British in the first battles of the war. Like most peace time armies the British were clanky and needed a jolt to get themselves moving again. The result was the rebirth of the Light Infantry which soon was beating the Americans at their own game.

The author spends a lot of time discussing the actions of the combined Light Battalions, of which the 23rd's Light Company formed apart. For it was here that the greatest tactical innovations were taking place. General Howe who is often critiqued by American authors for his slowness in the New York campaigns gets credit here for reinvigorating the army with the Light Infantry spirit as it had developed in the earlier conflicts against the French and Indians. Howe was an indifferent strategist, but he was a good reformer and tactician. The Light Infantry battalions became the cutting edge in the army's reforms to fight in a more open manner. Those clanky redcoat battalions at Lexington, Bunker Hill and Saratoga became the nimble, hard hitting victors at Camden, Guiford Courthouse and Green Springs. Few American authors wish to acknoledge this transformation, and in the process credit the British with overwhleming strength in the beginning of the war, and with total weakness toward the end. While this may seem true because of sheer numbers, in terms of quality and performance the British army of 1780 was much more efficient than that of 1776. Howe and Clinton's indifferent leadership has gone far to reinforce these impressions, but surely the aggressive Cornwallis and Lord Rawdon provided the counter to it.

One very important consideration also needs to be understood. The British could not afford heavy loss. While their army was impressive in size during 1776, Howe was keenly aware that he could not afford costly victories. The Southern Campaigns of 1780-81 amply show that the Americans could afford to lose any number of men and still wear the British down. This important distinction needs to be understood in evaluating the British army's performance in America. Few American sources bother to go to such lengths. Yet it is essential to understand this point which Mark Urban brilliantly makes.

This is not just the story of the Welch Fusiliers, but about the whole army to which that regiment belonged. We see how it changed and adapted to the point where it could beat any American force opposed to it in open battle, even if outnumbered. In the end it was the political divisions at home and the infighting between its generals in America that would undermine the prowess of the British soldier. Mark Urban shows us that the British did not consider themselves defeated in America, but rather undermined and betrayed.

The story goes beyound the Revolution where we see the lessons learned by the American school of generals vindicated in the tactical reforms that would beat Napolean and the French a few decades later.

A well presented and perhaps even brilliant work that ALL AMERICAN WRITERS ON THE SUBJECT should read before writing more books praising Washy, Greene, and the Minutemen. Let's hope a few Hollywood producers bother to look at it also so inaccurate films like Mel Gibson's THE PATRIOT aren't made again.