Customer Reviews

New Orleans 1815: Andrew Jackson Crushes the British (Campaign)

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

 

 

There were only a couple major prroblems that I had with this book.

1. The author(Pickles is a Brit) didn't seem to be too happy about having to write about one of the greatest victories ever fought by the Army of the US. I could pick up on some disdain and contempt in his writings about Jackson's victory.

2. The author kinda forgot to put casualty figures in the book.

Other than those two big problems, I was happy with the book. As always, the Osprey company puts out a good product that is readable and to the point, with good solid info.

Just because one transplants to New Orleans and carries an English accent does not make one a qualified historian nor an expert on antiquities. This is one of the poorest Osprey volumes I have encountered. Even the cover selection, featuring a US Light Dragoon, should warn off potential buyers. Neither of the two US Light Dragoon regiments were present for the Battle of New Orleans! The only "dragoons" present were the Feliciana and Mississippi Dragoons. Uniforms for these units would require original research. This work is, at best, a biased use of existing secondary sources equivalent in quality to a secondary school term paper.

First the account is well-written. The structure of the book is first rate. Should you be looking for a good account of the Battle of New Orleans this is it. My criticism of the work is that Englishman Tim continued to belittle America and Americans through the work. In his opinion the British invasion force was first a first rate, tried and true army of professionals. The Americans are an ad hoc rabble of pirates, militia and bumblers. The fact that the British "eceheloned" their way up to a prepared position and got the @#$% shot out of their attack twice might have been mentioned. TIM, YOU lost...get over it.

As other reviewers have mentioned, the author repeatedly shows his anti-American bias; why this is so is a mystery to me (it happened a very long time ago, chap, let it go). His description of the actual battle is too brief, and focuses almost solely on the operations of the British Army. For example, at one point he claims one of their units almost broke through, their opponents rapidly retiring. OK, which American unit(s)? What did Jackson do about it? Did they rally? If so, by whom?

This is not to say the book is of no value; the detailed order of battle for the two sides is very nice, as are the maps, and his nuts-and-bolts description of how to navigate the battlefield today is very useful. The text itself, though, is a real disappointment. Osprey is usually very careful about the quality of their publications. How this snuck through is also a mystery to me.

I too liked this book, it was very well written, first class on Osprey's part...some of the other reviewers here make a good point..if the author didn't want to write about this particular battle he shouldn't have, he should have been more impartial. Perhaps exploring previous battles of The War of 1812 prior to New Orleans, where the US had their grey knickers beaten back over the border. This is not the US armies fault though, I can understand why a person would hang onto a single battle soo tightly when its one of the very few success stories for the US during the War. I have read that the outcome of this battle was a result of hiding behind earthworks,taking cheap shots, playing dead etc. .....the US army had been burdend with poor leaders, poor training, many were farmers, hunters, shoe makers, milkmen etc, most didn't want to fight, many were homeless and wanted to take land rather than work for it, many were afraid of the water and therefore refused to cross the Niagara River... Of course there were some US soldiers towards the end of the war that were very brave and somewhat well trained but many of them sadly fell on the battle fields with little or no gain. Good thing they were superior in numbers.... Next time you drive along the Niagara River on the New York side of course..have a look towards Canada and Queenston Heights and you will see a large statue of Sir Issac Brock with his finger pointed towards you..this is a reminder and a warning....to stay out and learn from your mistakes!!!

Nearly all Osprey series battle and campaign books start out with a few pages providing some perspective on the battle being covered. This is normally a few pages long but provides perspective as to how a particular battle fits into the larger context of a war, what both side's strategic and tactical goals, etc. This book provides no such discussion.

Osprey books then provide a few pages comparing and contrasting both side's forces in terms of material, manpower and its quality, leadership. With the exception of officer quality, little is provided here either. Material and manpower (quality and quantity) is not even discussed. Along with this Opsrey books also provide some illustrations showing, in some detail, what a typical infantry man and standard weapons (from both sides) looked like. This is missing.

The book does discuss how the battle progressed (hence two stars instead of zero) but has little analysis as to why the outcome took the shape it took.

In short, a very weak history of this battle.

Pickles has given readers an unique perspective of one of the most misunderstood battles of the pre-Civil War South, that being the Defence of New Orleans in 1815. Hollywood has left us with image of sharpshooting, hard drinking backwoodsmen (along with a handful of singing pirates no less) mowing down the British, who are silly enough to march right into a hail of fire. But as the author so clearly points out, New Orleans was anything BUT that. Quoting from eyewitnesses from BOTH sides, Pickles provides background into the causes and dispellls the myth that the War of 1812 was the "Second American Revolution". If anything, the United States was trying to pick a fight and almost managed to get a sound thrashing in return.(Some would say deservedly so) The author shows how politically corrupt both parties were and that jackson was only a hero for a short time. Even more refreshing is how Pickles brushes aside all the folklore surrounding Jean Lafitte, who is curiously absent from first hand accounts. An added fdeature is a short chapter on how to war-game this battle, complete with special effects and sound.
Far from revisionist history, Pickles has given readers a generous dose of truth, whether we like it or not.