Customer Reviews

REDCOAT

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(20)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The author is best known for his Sharpe series. This historical novel, in a slightly earlier time frame, is set in and around Philadelphia after the Battle of Brandywine. It is based on the British occupation of Philadelphia, and the various battles and skirmishes between the British Army and the American Army. It provides a realistic account, using both real and fictional characters, including the army's brutality towards the enemy (killing wounded enemy soldiers), the army's brutality towards its own troops, and the general pillaging of civilian property. There are a number of intertwined plots based on the actions and attitudes of different individuals. The key players other than General Howe, his mistress Lizzie Loring, his brother Admiral Lord Howe, Captain Andre, etc., are the fictional British Army private Sam Gilpin and his commander Captain Vane; the 20-year old Philadelphian Jonathan Becket, his sister Mrs. Crowl, and his uncle Abel Becket; and the young rebel Caroline from across the river. The plot drags a little at some points as the author establishes characters and situations, but overall is a good story. The story deals with the seamier side of life, with conflicting romantic interests, various people out to feather their own nests, and considerable violence. It is definitely not the type of whitewashed history you find in school textbooks.

The first thing that you will notice about Redcoat, and what could turn alot of readers off, is that the novel takes awhile to really get going. After finishing the book it's my opinion that Cornwell went a little overboard with the plot developement in the thinking that Redcoat would be the beginning of a series. Redcoat in many ways reminds me of Cornwell's "Rebel" , which also started off with a ton of plot developement (Which was necessary when you consider the other books in the series have a ton of typical Cornwell action (which is what i find the most appealing about Cornwell's writing)

After the first 150 pages Redcoat really starts to take off. The second half of the novel is definately some of Cornwell's best. While there isn't as much of the typical huge battles the story and the action are top notch despite that. (Most of the story takes place during the British occupation of Philadelphia)

Redcoat is definatly a worthy read as well as being worthy of a sequel.

Don't miss it.

As both an avid reader and a Revolutionary War reenactor, it was with great anticipation that I first sought out, then read Bernard Cornwell's "Redcoat" not that long ago.

Although I had not read any of his "Sharpe's" series - based upon the Napoleonic-era British Army - the fact that Cornwell has been so well-received as a historical novelist gave me hope going into this book that he would capture the period of history with which I am so familliar. Now, having read "Redcoat," it is with slight disappointment that I must report only a moderate success.

Cornwell enfuses his novel with a contemprary style of historical fiction writing seen more recently in the works of Jeff Shaara (who recently wrote his own two-volume Revolutionary War series), which is to say that the reader experiences a "you-are-there" sense of history, meeting legendary characters as if meeting old friends on the street.

Throughout "Redcoat," we meet such famous historical figures on a regular basis - Sir William Howe, commander of His Majesty's Army in North America; Sir Henry Clinton, his successor; Rebel General Charles Lee; and, in a knowing, insider's wink at history, we even see Captain John Andre and Peggy Shippen introduced to each other, igniting a relationship which will later result in ignomy for both of them (but that, of course is another story).

Cornwell's description of battle sequences, too, are unparalleled for their realism and accuracy and include enough historical detail (such as the 40th Foot "going to ground" in the Chew House at the Battle of Germantown) to delight any student of the era.

Where Cornwell's effort falls short, however, is in his portrayal of his fictional characters - not in his peripheral figures, which appear as very real throughout, but his main protagonists, Sam Gilpin, Jonathan Becket, Martha Crowl and Caroline Fisher. Crowl is the best of all of these, as the righteous Patriot sympathiser trapped in British occupied Philadelphia. It is the pulp love triangle that develops between Gilpin, Becket and Fisher which comes across as flat in the otherwise worthy "Redcoat." Occupying much of the latter part of the book, this storyline threatens to sink the novel in a Ben Affleck-Pearl Harbor-like quagmire.

Still, there is much to recommend in "Redcoat," both for the historical enthusiast as well as for the fiction lover. Being more disposed to the former aspect myself, I could only have wished for more history and less pulp fiction, but that is more a matter of personal taste. Perhaps because this was one of Cornwell's earlier efforts - and first non-Sharpe novel - it seems a bit rough around the edges. It would be nice to see him revisit this era in future work.

Redcoat is a fine work of historical fiction on the American Revolution as seen from the British perspective. The ingredients of Cornwall's writing are all here. Characters are standard fair for him, with some clever deviations. Cornwall seems to revel in graphic, bloody descriptions of fighting, whether a battle or a fight to the death between two protagonists. At times I find this penchant for violence threatens to undermine the fine historical research that goes into his works. The main stength of this novel lies in its fine depiction of General Howe's 1777 Philadelphia campaign. The description of the British night attack at Paoli's Tavern and the rebel counter-attack and near success at Germantown are first-rate, and alone worth reading. While some of the characters and plot are standard Cornwall creations, traceable to his ever popular Sharpe series with predictable villins, confused heros, and shattered notions of honor, the reader can still get a very balanced view of what motivated both sides in this conflcit. Rebel and Loyalist outlooks are clearly expressed through the characters. The book delivers a good story, slow at times, but reflective of the nature of the war itself, and those who were pursueing it. There are some clever character developments here, with interesting role reversals which provide for surprise. If the reader does not mind Cornwall's often graphic, bloodletting descriptions, he will find much of merit here. This is a good novel on the American Revolution, with rich historical detail and some interesting plot.

Two of the great trademarks of Bernard Cornwell's 'Sharpe' series are immaculate historical reconstruction and action-pakced plots. With 'Redcoat,' Cornwell re-creates an era as only he can, but the story is far to slow and ultimately uninteresting. Two of modern literature's greatest villians, Obidiah Hakeswill and Pierre Ducos from the 'Sharpe' novels, inspire such hatred and loathing that they make the story's protagonist all the more heroic. In 'Redcoat,' however, the reader is one hundred and fifty pages into it before he knows who the antagonist is. The characters are for the most part unsympathetic and the plot really bogs down at times. That being said it should be noted that where this novel does it's author justice is in the vivid recreation of the American Revolution. The battles, generals, and soldiers on both sides of the conflict are treated with respect. The events of this book seem as real as though they happened yesterday. For those new to Bernard Cornwell I would recommend reading his 'Richard Sharpe' series first as 'Redcoat' is, unfortunatley, one of his weaker novels.

"Redcoat" proves that Bernard Cornwell has a talent for research as well as a gift for spinning a heck of a yarn. "Redcoat" brings to life the city, citizens, and soldiers in British-occupied Philadelphia in the fall-winter of 1777-78.

The main strength of "Redcoat" is that it reminds the reader that the Revolutionary War was not primarily fought on the traditional battlefield, with armies banging away at each other with cannon and musket. Obviously there were battles, but as Lord William Howe, the British general in charge of the war realized, the British had to also try to win the hearts and minds of the colonials . . . something that is hard to do with a bayonet. Cornwell turns Howe into his oracle of fatalism regarding the British efforts, although Howe has a bit of Cassandra in him, as several other British figures believe the rebellion can only be stamped out with the sword -- a belief that gives Cornwell ample opportunities to demonstrate that he is the literary master of any battlefield, regardless of the era.

Cornwell relies on a fairly traditional love triangle to tell most of "Redcoat," but the well-drawn characters justify this tactic. The "Redcoat" of the title is Sam Gilpin, a simple Englishman with a gift for horses but whose loyalties are challenged when his brother Nate is shot before his eyes by a murderous sergeant. Sam also falls in love with Caroline Crowl, a beautiful, spirited American who has no patience for the British but has eyes for Sam. Unfortunately, prior to meeting Sam, Caroline made a promise to Jonathan, a crippled young Philadelphian who nobly risks his mercantile inheritance to join up with the rebel forces. The fortunes of these three do not play out as expected, but their fates make for fascinating reading.

Cornwell gives us several good battle scenes -- fans of his other works will not be disappointed. He also creates several vivid characters who each have their own ideas about the fate of the colonies and how England should treat them, and their various exchanges are fun, sparky debates. And Cornwell takes a few opportunities for humor, as well -- Sam's first experience with a colonial bathtub will have your sides splitting.

For those who first came to Cornwell through his various series (The Warlord Chronicles, the Grail Quest, Sharpe, etc.), it's a little odd to read a stand-alone novel like "Redcoat." The novel, while fun, feels a bit truncated. That's not really a criticism, I suppose, but one does wish that Cornwell had found a storyline to spin into a trilogy.

All in all, a fun read and a reminder that reminds us that you can write about the American Revolution without focusing on the Founding Fathers.

Not a Sharpe or Starbuck found in any page, which is an interesting change of pace for Bernard Cornwell. Nevertheless, "Redcoat" is enjoyable historical fiction and Cornwell serves up his usual excellent effort. The time is 1777 and the America colonists are rebelling against their British masters. General Sir William Howe leads the British contingent in the Americas. His task is to bring the colonies under control but the rebel-colonists have no intention of letting that happen. The General is surrounded by rebel sympathizers and spies. One of the most interesting items about this story is that the book's vantage-point is almost entirely from that of the British (which is rare, especially in the U.S.A.) I found this viewpoint refreshing.

The main character Sam Gilpin is a former stable boy turned British infantry soldier. Sam witnesses his brother's execution by the evil Sargent Scammell, a psychotic killer, and wisely decides that soldiering is not for him. Whereupon, Sam accepts a position as a personal servant to Captain Vane who is a social climbing career army officer. Since the British Army does not allow for soldiers to leave the service easily, Sam must somehow survive in this adverse environment. Probably what makes this book unusual is the intercourse between civilians and the military. In Cornwell's other stories you rarely witness discussions between soldiers and civilians.

Cornwell writes great fiction. He certainly had enough material to write a few stories about the revolutionary war but chose instead to write this one book. The way he ends the story it is clear that he intends no sequels, that is a shame because the Revolutionary War would be a natural landscape for his novels to appear. If you like this story I recommend the Sharpe series, especially "Sharpe's Company", "Sharpe's Regiment", and "Sharpe's Eagle". All are great books.

this is by far cornwell's most undrated book. it is a hidden gem. because the sharpe's series and the starbuck chronicles are so hugely successful,and because it was never made into a series redcoat is often forgotten. redcoat is different from other cornwell. there is still the stories within the story. there are no real enemies like an obadiah hakeswill, but vane and scammell are pretty good ememies nonetheless. sam gilpin is a hero that could rival richard sharpe. what's most refreshing being an american, is to see the british side of the war, which is never told in the american history books. it was so interesting. william howe is a very likeable character. this is a great book, unfortunately there weren't any more.

Considering many of the reviews submitted by readers, I am pleased that Redcoat was my first Cornwell novel. I enjoyed the story well enough, but what really caught my attention is that Cornwell told such a detailed story of the assault at Paoli's Tavern and the Battle of Germantown, that I could practically smell the smoke of the cannon and hear the rattle of musketry. It was also nice to read a story about the American Revolution told from a different perspective.

Cornwell deserves full marks for this effort. If half of what I hear about the "Sharpe's" series is true, I am in for quite a treat.

One of the things that struck me about this book is that, in comparison to other Cornwell novels, it's almost a romance novel. Not that it doesn't have gory battle and corporal punishment scenes -- it certainly does -- but a romance is at the core of the plot. I almost wonder if the author was somehow inspired by his own marriage to an American. I found it interesting that the book focuses on the British army. Cornwell seems comfortable and fluent with his topic, although he doesn't explore some of the characters (Vane, especially) as much as he could. I know rather little about the period in question, and it would be interesting to know if the portrayal of the British army as both brutal and corrupt is accurate. If so, it would certainly help to explain their defeats.