paul revere's ride book

[redman1]

i just purchased the book by david hackett fischer is this the book that appleseed is drawing most of there history from?i just wanna make sure im going in the right direction..

thanks red

[ItsanSKS]

Yes, this book covers the events of April 18th and 19th very well.  As you go through this book the first time around, have a highlighter handy.  Making tabs to quick-reference particular places, events, and people will also come be useful as you start to prepare for the three strikes presentations.

There are also many other books that you might read, such as 1776, and John Adams, by David McCullough.  Use these to flesh out your presentation, as they both provide back story to the events leading up to, and through the Revolutionary War.

[oldgrunt]

YES AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR HISTORY FILES IN THE SECTIONS WE COVERED ALOT OF THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE A MARKER TOO AS YOU READ//tHE BACK OF THE BOOK BREAKS IT DOWN AS TO WHO WAS WHERE AND WHAT WENT ON IN OTHER PLACES.BUT YES YOUR IN THE RIGHT PLACE WITH THAT BOOK ...TRY TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE EVENT RELATE TO MODERN TIME AND YOU'LL BE A HEAD OF THE GAME..>ENJOY SIR ..MAKE SURE TO GO LOOK FOR OUR BREAK DOWN HERE ON THE SITE I WOULD GO FIND IT FOR YOU BUT I MIGHT SCREW IT UP WHILE POSTING BUT WE GO IT ALL RIGHT HERE

PR'S RIDE IS THE THREAD THEY SPENT ALOT OF TIME HELPING ME WHEN I STARTED OUT WITH THE BOOK AND STILL TO THIS DAY I NEED HELP GETTING THE OUTLINNE RIGHT IN MY HEAD I KEEP WANTING TO LOOK FOR THE SOLO JOES AND WHAT THEY DID ONE THE DAY THE POWDER WENTA FLYING..BUT THE BEST PART IS THE TIME WHEN THE OFFICERS ABOUT FREAKED OUT WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS GOING SOUTH ON THEM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT..LOL

[bigiceman]

Just finished this book. It was excellent and I know I will enjoy reading it again and again. I have to say our heritagemay need a little re-defining. By my estimate, a very rough estimate, our coloinial bretheran must have fired several times each. That means that all-together the 2,000 British Regulars had somewhere between 5-15 bullets a piece shot at them. How is it our marksman ancestors missed so many times. I was a little crest-fallen. Even if they were 50% effective there should have been no single unwounded Regular by the time they reached Cambridge. What is up with that?

By the way, this is a little tounge-in-cheek and a little serious, so bring on the responses.

[metalbot]

Humans are programmed to have an aversion to human on human violence.  It takes a LOT to get beyond that.  Read Dave Grossman's book called "On Killing".  I disagree with some of his conclusions, but he does present a lot of evidence that without special conditioning, only a small portion of soldiers actively try to kill the enemy, even when being fired upon.  The US Army took this problem very seriously, and by the time of the Vietnam war, had figured out how to "program" soldiers to kill.

It's probably a safe assumption that when a company of colonial musketmen engaged the enemy, only a small portion of them were actively trying to kill the enemy.  The others were likely idle or just going through the motions.  The British troops were probably better trained to actually fight, but were much worse shots.

[V]

I know Rudyard Kipling was a hero of the British Army men but I think this poem goes to the heart of what metalbot suggests about the mind of the colonials... and interestingly the enlisted men in the Redcoats as well.

The Married Man
     
     (Reservist of the Line)

The bachelor 'e fights for one
As joyful as can be;
But the married man don't call it fun,
Because 'e fights for three --
For 'Im an' 'Er an' It
(An' Two an' One make Three)
'E wants to finish 'is little bit,
An' e' wants to go 'ome to is tea!

The bachelor pokes up 'is 'ead
To see if you are gone;
But the married man lies down instead,
An' waits till the sights come on,
For 'im an' 'Er an' a hit
(Direct or recochee)
'E wants to finish 'is little bit,
An' 'e wants to go 'ome to 'is tea.

The bachelor will miss you clear
To fight another day;
But the married man, 'e says "No fear!"
'E wants you out of the way
Of 'Im an' 'Er an' It
(An' 'is road to 'is farm or the sea),
'E wants to finish 'is little bit,
An' 'e wants to go 'ome to 'is tea.

The bachelor 'e fights 'is fight
An' streches out an' snores;
But the married man sits up all night --
For 'e don't like out-o'-doors.
'E'll strain an' listen an' peer
An' give the first alarm--
For the sake o' the breathin' 'e's used to 'ear,
An' the 'ead on the thick of 'is arm.

The bachelor may risk 'is 'ide
To 'elp you when you're downed;
But the married man will wait beside
Till the ambulance comes round.
'E'll take your 'ome address
An' all you've time to say,
Or if 'e sees there's 'ope, 'e'll press
Your art'ry 'alf the day --

For 'Im an' 'Er an' It
(An' One from Three leaves Two),
For 'e knows you wanted to finish your bit,
An' 'e knows 'oo's wantin' you.
Yes, 'Im an' 'Er an' It
(Our 'only One in Three),
We're all of us anxious to finish our bit,
An' we want to get 'ome to our tea!

Yes, It an' 'Er an' 'Im,
Which often makes me think
The married man must sink or swim
An' -- 'e can't afford to sink!
Oh, 'Im an' It an' 'Er
Since Adam an' Eve began!
So I'd rather fight with the bacheler
An' be nursed by the married man!

[Fred]

    My own suspicion is that our guys hung back beyond effective range - say beyond 100 yards, and did most of their firing where the issue of British bayonets did not come into play.

    Get within 65 yards for a sure hit, and those bayonets became a big issue.

    There's a simple question they faced and answered that so few of us ever face that we never think to answer: Is it worth your life to be able to fire one sure shot for a sure hit, when you can hang back further, in near perfect safety, and get that hit with two shots - or ten?

    How would you answer that question?

    It's a sliding "risk vs. effectiveness" scale. If I get in their face, I will get a sure one-round hit - but am likely to be killed. If I hang back where it takes 2 rounds to get a hit, I reduce my risk by 50%; if I hang even further, to where my risk is reduced to 5%, it may take me six or ten rounds to get a hit - but will I be complaining?

    The main object back then was not to make the most hits with the fewest rounds, but to be maximally effective at lowest risk to one's self (not all the colonists followed this, to be sure, as several examples from that day - like Sam Whittemore, and others - show).

     Just like it would not be, today, for any rifleman.

     You always weigh the risks against the mission - and if you can be as effective - or nearly so - by firing ten shots to get one hit - and following such a strategy reduces your risk 300%, I dare say most of us would take that option.

     Percy himself claimed Americans would spring out ten yards away to fire, even tho they were certain to be killed - so no question that our ardor was up that day - even if, in view of our low casualties, I doubt many "sprang out" in such a fashion.

     I'd say this is more nearly the answer than current studies that show the modern urban male has issues with killing - men back then were used to killing - they all hunted, and a fair number were vets...

[bigiceman]

There is a favorite anciet quote I came accross several years ago. I think it really sums up the argument.

On Being A Warrior

    Out of every 100 men, ten shouldn't even be there,
    Eighty are just targets,
    Nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle.
    Ah, but the one,
    One is a warrior,
    And he will bring the others back.

    -- Heraclitus 500 BC

This ratio probably held true even among our esteemed founding generation. Of course falling in battle is not a mark against a man and doesn't make him a target or unworthy to be there, war is hell and there is no accounting for luck. Sometimes to fall in battle is the mark of the warrior that allows others to survive. I was just thinking that this ratio would more account for the casualties among the British. The fighters and warriors struck their marks, or lead their troops instead of fighting and the rest contacted only through luck, but contributed their numbers to the endeavor.