General de Brigade

[Cornet]

For a while now (years), I've been curious about how Britons view Benedict Arnold -- admiration, respect, indifference, pity, contempt?

Anyone, Briton or not, what's your opinion and from which country do you hail?

[Eclaireur]

Honestly ? Very few Britons would have heard of him. A poll done some years ago by one of our national newspapers revealed that over half the people in this country were unaware that the US had even been a British colony. So when it comes to Arnold specifically, I would say that even among those who are knowledgeable about history in general, very few would have heard of him.
Naturally if you go back to army letters and journals of the period, there was quite a bit of admiration expressed for him by British officers. They respected him as an enemy and felt that his performance in British pay, for example in Virginia in 1781, showed up other British officers. His ideas about buying up the Continental Army, luring away its recruits, also seem to me to have been rather shrewd.
EC

[Ronan the Librarian]

Despite being a charismatic leader, he is grossly over-rated as a general in my opinion, largely through the persistent mis-representation of the effects of his actions on Lake Champlain in October 1776, and exaggeration of the impact he had at Bemis Heights a year later. He was the type of "seat-of-the-pants" fire-brand commander who can just as easily lose battles as win them - it may have been lucky for us that he was never really tested in command of Crown forces. Whilst other officers on both sides were equally venal and jealous of the success/promotion of others, these character flaws in combination with his fiery nature, made him the archetypal loose cannon. IMO, if he'd started off as a Loyalist, he would probably still have found a reason to change sides at some point.

He throws away the Continental fleet at Valcour - this battle did NOT cause a fatal delay to the British advance; it was the mere existence of the fleet that had forced the British to waste three months earlier that summer, building more and bigger vessels of their own. Had he kept the fleet in being until the 1777 campaign season, and used it to harass Burgoyne's advance instead of rushing bull-headed into a battle he was never going to win, he could have delayed the capture of Ticonderoga for at least another 12 months, possibly permanently.

Whilst he can be credited with bringing out troops to oppose Burgoyne's advance at Freeman's Farm, it was the doggedness of the individual regiments that actually halted the British. Equally, the action of 7 October was already won before he reached the field. His ill-considered attacks on the Balcarres Redoubt were bloodily repulsed, and it was only the death of a Canadian officer (and the subsequent collapse of his unit holding the cabins protecting the southern end of the Breymann Redoubt) that gave him a second chance. Even then, his only real claim to fame in the storming of the Breymann Redoubt was getting his leg broken.
_________________
You can lead a horse to water, but a toy soldier can no longer be lead (due to Health & Safety Regulations).

[mikeb]

From an Colonial point of view:

I'm not sure I total agree with Ronan that Arnold was grossly overrated as a general. At least in battle; he seems to me to be a man of action, at his best in a crisis but flawed in personality and ability at other tasks.

My best guess is that others percieved these personality flaws in him and that is why he never quite acheived the recognition or command he felt he deserved. In American today, we rarely hold individuals accountable for their actions. Sadly, it is always someone else's fault. Seems to me that Arnold is of this modern-mold. But he was a traitor to his friends and country. No one forced his betrayal. No matter his value as a commander in the heat of action ... he disgraced himself.

Mike B

[Ronan the Librarian]

Well he changed sides, which of course from our perspective means that he stopped being a traitor! He was by no means alone; several prominent officers changed sides early on in the war, especially after the Declaration of Independence - Colonel Rudolph Ritzema of the New York line was one, and another was John Peters (of Peters' Corps fame) who was a member of the Provincial Congress before becoming disillusioned.

I think Arnold's exploits have been over-represented because they came at a time when Congress needed a hero (although Gates did get most of the credit for Saratoga). Stark had similar character flaws, but was a far better battlefield commander.
_________________
You can lead a horse to water, but a toy soldier can no longer be lead (due to Health & Safety Regulations).

[Cornet]

The reason I have been curious about Arnold's reputation among the British is that I've heard it both ways: 1) that Arnold was welcomed and admired; and 2) that he was never accepted as an equal and served under a cloud of suspicion because the British officer corps didn't like traitors no matter which side they ended up on. For what it's worth, Benedict Arnold's name is still synonymous with "traitor" in the United States. To call someone "a Benedict Arnold" is a stinging insult ... rather in the same league as calling someone "a Judas."

[Cornet]

[Ronan the Librarian]

Arnold was definitely a "heart on the sleeve" type of character, no question. I just think that his effectiveness on the battlefield has been overplayed and that a lot of what he did was ill-judged - sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Had the Rebels not stormed the Breymann Redoubt, their failures against the Balcarres Redoubt would have been recorded more widely (not least by the British as their failure would have been less substantial) and Arnold's leadership may perhaps have been questioned more closely at the time. IMO, the Valcour Island action is the Continental forces' "Charge of the Light Brigade".

As for the AWI not being considered a "colonial war" a lot of people - in many parts of the world - see the British Empire as a purely 19th Century construct. In fact, there were really two Empires - the first comprising the North American colonies, the Caribbean and (eventually) New France/Quebec/Upper Canada, effectively ended in 1783. The second starts almost immediately afterwards, with the establishment of British colonies in Africa and Australia, and eventual supremacy in India - which occurs as a direct result of Franco-British fighting right across the Indian Ocean, not in 1757 after Clive's victory at Plassey, as is often stated.

In fact, the political lessons of the AWI, or rather the schisms that lead up to it, were very well learned and the governance of the second Empire (India, Africa and S E Asia/Australasia - plus Canada and the West Indies from the first incarnation) was far more effective as a result.
_________________
You can lead a horse to water, but a toy soldier can no longer be lead (due to Health & Safety Regulations).

[Axebreaker]

First off,I'll state for the record that I'm american,but my judgement is fair and I believe history got it right.

I would think the British officier would feel no different now then they did then.They were aware Arnold joined them because he felt slighted and wasn't given what he believed to be his deserved recognition and promotion and not out of any morale change of heart.Even if he was able to bring in additional followers and perhaps some tactical awareness on land and troop conditions and dispositions,I believe they could only view him as history has........with contempt and distaste.While they may have respected his tactical abilities and anything else useful they could squeeze out of him,I strongly believe the viewed him little better then a useful slimy slug.

No,in this case history was right.He was a self serving traitor,and that overshadows anything he did both on and off the battlefield.

I am biased,but in this case correctly so I believe.

[going a-viking]

There is a plaque on the wall of the house in 62 Gloucester Place, London where Arnold lived.
The inscription (if I remember it correctly) reads: -
Major General
Benedict Arnold
American Patriot
Lived Here From [date]
Until His Death June 14th, 1801

[Cornet]

American Patriot? Heh. Good one.

Thanks for the info though. Interesting.
_________________
Then let us fill a bumper, and drink a health to those
Who carry caps and pouches, and wear the loup'ed clothes.

[Axebreaker]

[Ronan the Librarian]

There is a blank space on one of the four sides of the Saratoga Monument that supposedly represents Arnold.

Of course, to us he WAS an American patriot........
_________________
You can lead a horse to water, but a toy soldier can no longer be lead (due to Health & Safety Regulations).

[Axebreaker]

[mikeb]

He did it for his wife ... She must have been a babe!

You know the problem with Arnold is not that he was a traitor to the American cause or a rebel or whatever. It is his lack of character. Other American Generals had been ill treated (so to speak) without running off to the other side. Be betrayed his friendship with Washington and his responsibilities to his men.

Like I said, Ms. Arnold must have been very-very good looking.

Oh what we men do for our women.

Mike B