Fusiliers How the British
Army Lost America but Learned to Fight
By Mark Urban
First of all, let me
apologize for the lateness of the review, things came up but we
should be back on track this week (knock on wood).
Fusiliers as I will refer
to the book from here out, is a history book focused on the Royal
Welch Fusiliers. The Fusiliers were one of the British infantry
regiments who served the entire conflict of the American Revolution
from Bunker Hill to Yorktown. During that war they engaged in
battles from New England to Georgia being present in a number of
major battles. More importantly they underwent a series of tactical
evolutions as the officers and non coms of the regiment came to
grapple with the necessity of fighting on the American battlefield.
The book is by Mark Urban, a British journalist,
writer, broadcaster and current Diplomatic Editor of BBC's Two News
night. A graduate of the London School of Economics and having
served as an officer in the British Territorial Army (which makes him
another reservist to appear on this review series). He joined the
BBC in 1983 and left to join the Independent in 1986. He would
rejoin the BBC in the 1990s, serving at time as a general reporter,
an embedded reporter (being on the front lines for the first Gulf
War) and a number of other crisis's ranging from Moscow to
Afghanistan. Somehow during all of this Mr. Urban has written a
number of military history books mostly focusing on the Napoleonic
wars.
First,
let me address the politics real fast, book does cover the American
Revolution from the English as an American and a Patriot, I am on the
side of the fence that the American Revolution was a good thing.
That said I was interested to see what the English view would be, Mr
Urban doesn't share his opinion in the book but he does show us the
opinion of the troops and officers serving in theater as well as
touching on the deeply divided public opinion in the United Kingdom
at the time. That said, the opinion of the troops wasn't very
divided (well, expect for a number of men who deserted for American
land, and American girls) and honestly that didn't surprise me very
much. For those of you wondering why, let me reveal a deep secret of
military life. The people shooting at you are never very popular in
the ranks, we tend to resent that in a deep but not at all secret
level of our souls. Us enlisted troops are simple honest types that
way. I also found very familiar the gripes of the army as they left
America though, complaining about the lack of support from society
and lack of leadership from their government. Hell, I've made those
gripes before in the past after I got back from Iraq. So at the end
of the book I actually feel some common ground with these men,
despite having little else in common with them (well... There is Sgt
Lamb). There's also the fact in both cases those gripes are true...
Speaking
of universal constants, I was very surprised at one thing that the
book very briefly touched on and that was the utter lack of a plan or
overall idea of what victory would look like. In this book it seems
like the British government was just kinda flailing around trying to
make the revolution stop somehow. Due to how small the British Army
was, there was simply no way for the British to achieve victory
through simply military means. While Mr. Urban doesn't really go
into detail on the strengths of the Continental Army of the rebelling
colonies, it does show through in the quoted writings and over all
analysis of the war. While the British Army won the vast majorities
of battles, especially the major ones. Rebel armies were simply able
to absorb loses and reform, this can be summed up in a quote from
General Green of the Continental Army when asked what he intended to,
“Rise, Fight, Get Beat, Rise Again.” While the British Army
would often pummel rebel forces senseless, the survivors would simply
regather and try again later. Meanwhile the British were dependent
on their reinforcements coming across an ocean in days where the trip
could take months. There were attempts to raise loyalist militia to
support the regular army but frankly those forces never amounted to
any import in the war. In such a situation, it becomes vital for
there to be a political effort to woo away rebel commanders and
troops and to create a post rebellion order that will ensure that
this doesn't happen again and addresses the root causes of the
rebellion in the first place. With a lack of direction from above
what you are left with is every commanding officer dictating his own
policy and trying to direct the course of the war, often find
themselves in conflict with their own fellow officers and troops
instead of actually fighting the bloody enemy! As you might guess I
felt a distinct feeling that I've seen a later adaption of this story
all to close and personal. I guess the moral here is learn History
or you'll not just repeat it, it'll stomp you repeatedly.
But
moving on past the sour grapes. I mentioned the tactical evolution
the Royal Welch Fusiliers underwent, as they moved from a standard
British line unit to becoming a light infantry regiment that fought
in a open formation often advancing from cover to cover. The
evolution starts before Bunker Hill on the march to Concord and
Lexington, where British regulars dread ambush and colonial
marksmanship. During Bunker hill trying to attack the colonial
militia in dug in positions, using more conventional tactics the
regiment suffers heavy causalities. Afterwards they swiftly adjusted
to realities. Opening up their rank and file (translation: they
stopped standing so close together while being shot at). I'm going
to speak to this a bit, it's tradition these days to mock the silly
people of the past for adopting such tactics in gun battles, but if
you look into the realities they were working with... It does make a
certain amount of sense. The muskets in use were not very accurate
and mass target practice hadn't been adapted yet (this boggles me to
but for that matter the NYPD didn't adopt shooting practice for
police officer until Teddy Roosevelt made them do it). Add in to
this the problem of controlling all these manics and making sure they
don't waste ammo... It makes sense to keep them together. The
honestly wasn't possible in the terrain of the United States in the
late 1700s. There were simply a lack of wide open spaces to slam it
out in the preferred Euro fashion. That said the British Army did
adapt firing from cover and using open formations with admirable
speed. What I found interesting was the adaption of shock tactics
where troops would march as close as possible to the enemy before
unleashing a single volley at once and charging in to finish it with
the bayonet. Given that most of their enemies were poorly trained
militia who simply could not accept and hold a charge... It was a
very effective tactic and one requiring discipline and courage, given
my own experiences it's a lot harder to hold your fire while heading
at the enemy at a measured pace, while bullets and screams are flying
around you and then to charge head long into them than you could
really imagine.
Sadly
the tactical flexibly and cold competence of the British troops was
not matched by any great organizational ability on behalf of their
commanders. To be blunt the training system outlined in the book
might as well be nonexistent! With troops being trained on site by
their regiment with nearly no basic training before arriving in
theater. Fresh troops would be thrown into the next best thing to a
prison ship (to be fair towards the end of the war a number of the
troops were convicted criminals) and sent off to war. I found myself
rather flabbergasted by this and frankly horrified at the burden this
would have slammed onto the shoulders of the NCOs and Junior
Officers. This also meant there was no unified training system!
NONE! Such a thing is terrifyingly medieval and to consider that
those same NCOs and Junior Officers still managed to hammer out one
of the more professional armed services in the western world at that
time is nothing less then miraculous! The in-depth examination of
how officers in the British Army had to buy their commissions and
promotions was no less horrifying. How this did not result in an
utter shambles of a mockery of an army is beyond me and I am left
with deep respect for the men who pushed this rolling boulder uphill
to create a military that wasn't a mob lead by rich snobs It takes
almost all my shuddering courage to consider what other European
Armies of the time must have been up to. My courage nearly fails
me however when the book presents me with the British logistics
system. If I was that badly and inconsistently supplied by my
superiors, I would frankly lose all interest in shooting anyone but
my commanders and political lords and masters bluntly. That said I'm
not blind to the problems faced by the men who were trying to make
this ramshackle, rickety mockery of a system work. They had men who
were usually illiterate and often not very trustworthy to work with,
a transport system that would give the Romans nightmares and weeping
fits and a political system that... Well it was a political system
that justified armed revolution in a number of nations that were
afflicted with it.
Mr.
Urban's book provides us with a fascinating and sometimes terrifying
look into the inner workings of the British Army during the American
Revolution. I did wish at points he wasn't so mono-focused on a
single regiment but his following of a single regiment and a handful
of it's NCOs and Officers did help give me an idea of the journey and
personal challenges that those individual men faced. Many of them
were facing uphill battles against their own societies and families
on top of fighting a war with next to no support, no real civilian
leadership, far from home and surrounded by enemies. I found myself
sympathetic to men I not only knew would lose the war but I wanted to
lose to the war. The British side of the Revolution is in a lot of
ways under examined for a number of reasons but this book convinced
me that not only should there be more examination for it's own sake
but that such examination would have lessons to teach us that remain
viable in the modern world. Because of that Fusiliers How the
British Army Lost America but Learned to Fight By Mark Urban gets an
A. If you're interested in the other side of the Revolution, the
time period, or military history in general, go ahead and give it a
read.
So
I've been gone awhile folks and I do apologize and thank you for your
patience. To help make for that Tomorrow I will give you a bonus
review of Rat Queens Volume III. See you then!
No comments:
Post a Comment