Sorry, I didn't See This Until Tonight
hese are all very balanced in their history and viewpoints
Christopher Ward's two volume "The War of the Revolution"; Macmillan, 1952. (Pretty damn good and outstanding!)
American Heritage, "History of the American Revolution." Narrative by Bruce Lancaster.
"Rebels and Redcoats" by George F. Scheer
"A Battlefield Atlas of the American Revolution", by Craig L. Symonds.
"The Spirit of Seventy Six The story of the American Revolution as told by participants" Edited by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris (Outstanding)
Here's a few books written from the Brit perspective.
"Scottish Highlanders and the American Revolution" by G. Murray Logan. It's offers a good account of the story of the 84th Regiment of Foote, the only British Regular Army Regiment raised here in the colonies during the Revolution.
"Sir John Johnson, Loyalist Baronette" by Earle Thomas. It tells the story of Johnson's life and his role in raising the Kings Royal Regiment of New York. It also gives a good, battlefield history of all the battles that they participated in.
"The King's Men: the Soldier Founders of Ontario", by Mary Beacock Fryer tells the story of all the Loyalist Regiments raised in the North during the Revolutionary War and tells of their battle history.
"The British Army of the Eighteenth Century" by Col. H.C.B Rogers OBE gives a great comprehensive, interpretation of the British Army, its tactics, make-up, the battles fought.
"Redcoat and Brown Bess" by Anthony D. Darling tells the tale of the immortal Brown Bess Musket and its 100 year reign as the primary shoulder weapon of the British Army.
"A King's Colonel At Niagra 1774-76: Lt. Col. John Caldwell And the beginnings of the American Revolution on the New York Frontier" by Paul L. Stevens is exactly that and a good read for any historian.
"At the Crossroads: (Fort) Michilimackinac During the American Revolution" by David A. Armour and Keith R. Widder is exactly that and tells of the war at the furthest reaches of the British Empire.
All are quite good! The hard thing is it's almost impossible to tell the entire history of the Brit side of the war. While Americans view the war as the greatest ever, to Brits it was merely a semi minor war tucked into the context of the big world war they were fighting with France. The Brits had no vested interst in beating the shit out of the colonies because it would have been counterproductive to their needs, those needs being trade. Even if they lose the colonies they can still trade with them. If they destroy the colonies they have the added expense of rebuilding them prior to them being a usefull means of making money. If anyone honestly thinks we won the war because we were "tougher" or militarily greater then guess again. Britain had to view things in a larger context, and couldn't focus on us, simply because if they did they'd have lost bigger on a global scale. I do believe we probably would have won anyways, but it would have been far bloodier, took longer and in the end we would have been far weaker.
Tron
