General de Brigade

[mikeb]

I read the Osprey; "Monmouth" by Brendan Morrisy (sp sorry). I was very surprised to see that what I had hoped would be a good try at following the ebb and flow of the battle was nothing more than a book-long exercise in vindicating Lee as a victim of George Washington's propganda and vendetta.

Everything I have read about Monmouth and Lee have always been in agreement concerning Lee, inept at best, traitorous at worst. Mr. Morrisy seems to be quite the Lee advocate even going so far as to suggest that Washington's jealousy of Lee was based on the fact the Lee was more intelligent than Washington. Trying to keep an open mind I re-read several of my other sources about Lee and Monmouth. All (including my favorite "The War of the Revolution" by Ward) paint an entirly differnent picture of Lee. In fact our own BG! scenario books tend to agree with the mainstream portrayal of Lee. So what is behind Mr. Morrisy's infatuation with Lee? I have some of his other books and find them, for the most part, well done. What was he thinking going off on this sort of thesus paper in an Osprey?

In addition he was less than enthusiastic about the success of the Americans that day. While no source I have even suggests a British defeat, a close look at the battle shows many hard fought draws between Continental and British regiments, hardly the "... British won every combat with the Americans" statement he generalizes about the battle.

Thanks for any input. While I don't agree with Mr. Morrissy about Lee or his take on the battle, I am curious what, if others, have read.

Mike B

[TimW42]

I tend to disagree that Morrisey goes that far--Lee, while certainly not easy to get along with, was a competent officer. The same can be said for Gates, who has come in for some reconsideration in Luzader's latest book on Saratoga.

That Washington may have been jealous of Lee is not beyond conjecture--the haphazard and disorganized nature of the wing handed to Lee makes me wonder, at any rate, what the object of the engagement was--badly planned and poorly executed, at best.

And Morrisey is right to question the popular view of success at Monmouth, given the British (apart from the morning attack on Lee's vanguard) did not seriously try to dislodge the heavily defended position behind the West Morass, and with good reason.

That said, the battle is ripe for what-ifs--what if the British had been more aggressive? What if Morgan had not received garbled orders, etc.

[mikeb]

Thanks for your feedback on "Monmouth."

Speaking of books ... I just finished "Fusiliers" by Mark Urban. I think the book has been well recieved here and I have to say I found it very good! I have also been reading "With Zeal and With Bayonets Only" by Matthew Spring. I had read a review of "With Zeal ..." on another forum and wasn't too sure I would like it. I have to say it has been very informative and well done. I recommend either (or both) books.

Reading the two books has only confirmed (IMHO) how well done the BG! rules are and how well they model combat duing the AWI. I even finished another 8 Grenadiers today.

Mike B

[Cornet]

While I don't begrudge anyone an opinion, peddling a pet theory in an overview aimed the uninitiated does the reader a serious disservice. There is a place for unorthodox histories and perspectives that swim against the norm, and the Osprey series is not it. I'm not sure I blame the writer so much as I blame the series editors for not shepherding their brand more effectively.

The appropriate place for a pet theory is a master's thesis, or in a book the length of which offers adequate room to fully lay out the unconventional case.

Regarding Monmouth specifically, from what I have gathered the traditional account is also the accurate account. One may speculate that Washington was jealous, but there is no proof of it. History is assembled from artifacts and documents, none of which (that I have seen) absolve Lee's conduct.

[Axebreaker]

[Allan Wright]

For more information you might read "Making of a Scapegoat: Washington and Lee at Monmouth" by Theodore Thayer. It's a good read and supports the Osprey title's suppositions quite well. It made me a believer. I read the Osprey without disagreement.

[RMD]

While I don't know enough about the subject to comment, I utterly disagree with the suggestion that Osprey authors should automatically follow the 'traditional' line on a battle. What would be the point of a book that merely regurgitates cherished beliefs? There is already FAR too much of that kind of book out there.

In fact, there are already many other Osprey Campaign titles that have broken away from the 'traditional' view of their topics and have been criticised (rightly or wrongly) as a result - Monmouth is no different in this regard.

On a similar note, I was just re-reading a book in the 'After The Battle' series that completely overturned the 'traditional' view of the battle of Villers-Bocage in 1944. Thank goodness that the ATB editors didn't demand that the author restrict his writing to the 'traditional' view of the battle, or we would have been denied the most ground-breaking book on the subject to date. Maybe the same is also true of the Monmouth book (even though you disagree)?

[mikeb]

I am very leery of 'revisionist' history. It seems to be so popular these days.

Mike B

[RMD]

That depends what you mean by 'revisionist'.

History, and indeed all academia, is a constant discussion process, with both sides of the argument piching in with their theories, backed up by evidence to support their argument.

Coming back to my above WW2 example, the 'traditional' viewpoint of Villers-Bocage was that a single Tiger 'destroyed a British armoured regiment' and the Tiger commander made two separate attacks into the town. This was repeated in all books on Normandy ad nauseam, without any fresh research into the matter. Then came this book, which totally overturned this popular view and supported it with solid, irrefutable evidence.

Similarly, there was a controversial series of books on Waterloo that did not depict Wellington in a flattering light, but was excellent history and was backed up with solid evidence. These books challenged the popular view of Waterloo and the author even received death-threats, but should he not have published his research because people didn't like it?!

At the other end of the spectrum was another revisionist book on Waterloo, which made a lot of claims, but then backed up those claims with falsified 'evidence'. This was quickly demolished with evidence that countered the theories of this author.

The official history of the War in Burma contains a whole series of unjustified slurs on the reputations of individuals, units and formations (most notably Orde Wingate, 50th Indian Para Brigade and 81st (West African) Division) that reflected the prejudices and petty grudges of the author and his contributors. These injustices are being overturned thanks to 'revisionist' historians, who have actually examined the primary evidence.

So the challenge is for those who disagree with Mr Morrissey to examine his evidence and publish the rebuttal.

[mikeb]

[Gassendi]

There is a somewhat disturbing phenomenon occurring in the presentation and writing of military history. That is the 'quest' for 'new' information that either makes a mark in history, or more correctly the writing of it, or establishes a new standard in the study of the discipline. I found this out myself when getting my master's degree in military history. The emphasis when writing the thesis paper for the course was the emphasis in presenting something 'new.' This would be either new information or presenting the topic from a new 'angle.'

What the historian must do, however, is research and present facts that will lead to a valid conclusion. That conclusion may or may not agree with what other authors and historians have presented, but the bottom line is that it has to be based on solid research. That isn't always the case.

Since the bicentennial of the Revolution in the 1970s there has been much 'revisionism' on how the war is viewed. Some noted scholars and academics have made a serious attempt to rehabilitate the militia and their contribution to the victory to the detriment of the Continental Army. I had one of these academics as an instructor in 1975-1976 in a course on the War of the Revolution. Needless to say, it was an interesting semester.

I don't see why an author cannot advance a new theory or idea in an Osprey, especially in one of the Campaign Series. It is the author's option to present the campaign from any viewpoint he chooses as long as the theory is based on solid research and facts are presented from which a valid conclusion is drawn. That being said, the almost manic search for 'new' information has resulted in such presentations as the militia fiasco and the attempted rehabilitation of such histsoical figures as Arnold, Gates, Lee, and others. What happens is that the errors they did or the wrongs they committed are either rationalized or overlooked and the conclusions reached by the presenting author are not necessarily supportable.

Sincerely,
G

[RMD]

Mike,

I disagree and as mentioned above, there have already been a number of Ospreys that diverge with the popular view of their subject-matter.

There have been FAR too many books that regurgitate the tired old myths of Waterloo, Normandy, Arnhem, Jena-Auerstaedt, Burma, the AWI, etc, etc, without any real effort at research on the part of the authors. Thankfully, in more recent times we have seen books published on these subjects that are now considered to be the accurate accounts of what took place (yet at the time were derided as 'revisionist').

For example, the 'traditional' view of the battle of Arnhem is that portrayed in 'A Bridge Too Far' - almost all of which has since been demonstrated, by far more scholarly research by Kershaw, Middlebrook, Saunders, Magry, Zwarts and others to be utter ordure. So why, therefore, should an Osprey Campaign book on that subject have to be confined to the 'traditional' account, when that account is demonstrably bullshit?

If Mr Morrissey has the evidence to back up his view of Lee and Washington's relationship and can demonstrate that it isn't merely a pet theory with no evidence to back it up, then why not publish it?

My views on frivolous 'theoretical' revisionism are undoubtedly the same as yours and I despise conspiracy theorists with a passion, but as G says above, there is nothing wrong with a bit of historical revision, provided it's backed up with good, solid evidence (e.g. the truly excellent revisionist book on WW1, 'Mud, Blood & Poppycock').

[Gassendi]

One of the problems, I think, is that the terms 'revisionist' and 'revisionism' is that they are considered as pejorative as well as not being accurate. To further the problems, it can also be viewed as politically correct. There is validity to these views, unfortunately, and that tends to taint any valid historical work that corrects the historical record.

Sincerely,
G

[Allan Wright]

I repeat my suggestion that those who disagree with the Osprey read 'Making of a Scapegoat'. The Osprey book, while diverging from the popular viewpoint, is far from ground breaking in its views.