Iron Tears: Rebellion in America - 1775-1783 [Hardcover]

I'm usually skeptical about reading US interpretations of the Revolutionary War/Battle for Independence since most histories descend into hipocracy and jingoism. So when an American award-winning author decides to tackle British history, I feel even less inclined to part with my hard-earned cash. What made me buy it? I thought the subject was inspired; an interpretation of the conflict from the ordinary Briton up to the politician and soilder hence a view of the war entirely from the British perspective.

The detail regarding the set piece battles and skirmishes is deliberately kept to a high level as the author prefers to use swathes of previously unused primary sources, interspersed with a look at the press cuttings of the period including ballads and caricatures, to paint the picture of how the war was viewed across 'the pond'. Indeed, the big message here is that the war was highly unpopular in Britain and the nation was divided on how best to handle the conflict (i.e. it mirrors debates in Australia, the US and the UK regarding Iraq).

I have a number of criticisms about the book mainly centred around historical facts and sloppy editing. As is usual with US revisions of the war, the significance of the role that the French played in ultimately securing victory for the Americans is underplayed, particularly so at Yorktown. French soilders supplied the cannon and ammunition, the majority of the soildery, the manpower required to dig the trenches etc so that in reality the honours of war go not to the Continentals but to the French. This point was not lost on Cornwallis, whose deputy initially surrendred to Rochambeau. On page 59, the author states that seven felons were sentenced to transportation to Australia in 1776. It was not until 1785 that the Pitt government decided that Australia was to become a convict settlement and a further three years later that the first convicts actually arrived. On page 159 General Gage should be Gates. On page 240, the year of 1880 is used twice instead of 1780. The ovremphasis on the use of caricatures throughout the narrative tends to derail the reader's interest, indeed toward the end of the book I was skipping whole paragraphs so that I could get back to the historical stuff.

Whilst, this period of history was a defining moment for the US (and Britain to a certain extent), the lessons from this conflict appear to be lost on the last few generations of US politicians and military (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq etc). Be that as it may this work is unique, very readable with a lot of new material and some refreshing insights into the main protagonists of a needlessly wasteful war.