I honestly think this is one of the best books regarding a military campaign/battle that Ive ever read. Is it perfect? Nope, but no book is. But you can tell its incredibly researched, and the section of the book describing the actual battle totally brings you into it, like you're there. One thing that becomes plainly evident very quickly is the lack of respect the British had for the Indians. Of course this goes beyond Braddock, up and down British command the same mindset pretty much held true. This was very much a major historical event, but I'm sure if you were to go out and ask the average person on the street re this battle, they'd say "who"? "What"? and have no idea what youre talking about. This was briefly mentioned in school when I was growing up (many yrs ago) - so we were definitely aware of it. Now? Yeah, good luck with that. Also it never fails to amaze me, considering the very high casualty rate among the British, that Washington wasnt killed or wounded. How different American history wouldve been, cant even imagine it. Thanks Mr Preston, for a great book.
I wasn't aware of the ramifications of this battle, but was aware of it slightly from my studies of Washington and how amazing it was considered that he survived let alone have another command every again(but it turned out this experience Gave him the experience lol). The British arrogance and bull headed stubbornness was almost always their down fall
Very humiliating defeat. Glory for us but ultimately with no real consequences. Sad. 🇫🇷😥 Didn't know this battle was "so" important to the american although. 🤔
Seems like the British get hung up on the One Road concept. This concept repeated itself in the Battle of Arnhem of which it was called Market Garden during WW II. One road, take the bridges and establish a launch point. Boy was that ever a screw up Monty (The British general who developed the plan).
they don't seem to give agency to the enemy, who will quickly determine the direction of the attack and mass all reserves there. The enemy has the easier job since they don't have to do the dificult act of moving large forces in proper march order. All the enemy needs to do is move forces to a place on the map, dig in, prepare the terrain, and await the attack
At 25:54 that guy is mistaken or outright lying. Braddock had quite a few Natives that set out with him. One month after Braddocks defeat Andrew Montour, an influential Native American translator said: "We Six Nations must let you know that it was the pride and ignorance of that great General who came from England [that caused the defeat]. He is now dead but he was bad when he was alive; he looked down upon us as dogs and would never hear anything that was said to him. We often endeavored to advise him and to tell him of the danger he was in with his soldiers; but he never appeared pleased with us, and that was the reason that a great many of our warriors left him and would not be under his command." While the Natives knew it was a suicide mission and left. Andrew Montour stayed throughout. A month after Montour spoke at Philadelphia Council slamming Braddock, George Washington wrote Montour begging him to come to Fort Cumberland. He also asked Montour to bring more Indians stating "they shall be better used than they have been and have all the kindness from us." A month later in October, Washington wrote again. He begged for Montour to join him and acknowledged Braddocks prejudice and ignorance by stating: "...... I have the chief Command I am invested with Power to treat them as Brethren & Allies, which I am sorry to say they have not been of late-" So yes there were Indians who worked with the British colonists, and Montour, my distant grandfather, helped to take the Ohio Valley by both force and diplomacy by convincing many of the tribes to turn against the French. By the time the colonial army showef up the French already evacuated the Fort there. My grandaddy also stomped out Pontiac's Rebellion after the war. So sick of the "white washing" of the French and Indian War. Fuckin weak.
Let's see, who is more likely to be correct. Someone with a PhD in the field who specializes in this specific conflict and has won awards for this book, or the random youtube commenter?
Mistaken, I'd say. I mean, it seems kinda weird, ya know. However, these are not narratively incompatible stories. 1: Seems like GEN Braddock's "level best" was not good enough. Story of my life, at least. I presume that his experience with exotic ethnicities in Gibraltar did not readily translate to a more kinetic context in the New World. 2: That unfavorable state of relations on the strategic level is perhaps backed up by Mr. Montour's accounts. British colonials' expansion westward had irked everyone else out there, as stated by our presenter. The advice rejected by Braddock seems to be interpretable as, "Don't go into the Ohio [like those schmuck settlers], stay and defend the east [where you belong]." As it was entirely counter to Braddock's mission, he would have had to flatly reject that 'advice'. 3: 1:20:00 -- Braddock wasn't even apprised by London as to the pertinent sociopolitical circumstances in the Anglophonic sphere of the Americas. It seems the ignorance was at the top, as they hadn't consolidated available reports into overall characterizations for briefing purposes. This is kind of basic stuff in our time: see www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html#field-anchor-introduction-background .
@@texasvet2729 The guy is right but there were only like seven Indians. Over the course of the War the Indians sided with the British. The French however treated the Indians better generally speaking, which is why most sided with them to begin with.
1:00:00 the speakers in substance says of the French and Indian War "there has been enough scholarship of the of the political aspects, but not enough on the tactical details of the battles". I don't think this is important, other than just creating "make work" for scholars. Simply put this is just feeding at the trouigh of undergrad student loans, for guys. Unit histories of battles from the age of Muskets is not relevant today unless one narrows the scope to merely feeding the gods of "publish or perish" and padding a CV. Writing about ancient battles where this or that regiment went is really, of little consequence. Causes of war and the political dimension of alliances, etc is what's most important about wars.
_"Writing about ancient battles where this or that regiment went is really, of little consequence."_ It is a story about human performance under stress that echoes down through the ages from the pages of history to today's battlefields. It may not be of interest to YOU, but it is of interest to OTHERS.
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
I honestly think this is one of the best books regarding a military campaign/battle that Ive ever read. Is it perfect? Nope, but no book is. But you can tell its incredibly researched, and the section of the book describing the actual battle totally brings you into it, like you're there. One thing that becomes plainly evident very quickly is the lack of respect the British had for the Indians. Of course this goes beyond Braddock, up and down British command the same mindset pretty much held true. This was very much a major historical event, but I'm sure if you were to go out and ask the average person on the street re this battle, they'd say "who"? "What"? and have no idea what youre talking about. This was briefly mentioned in school when I was growing up (many yrs ago) - so we were definitely aware of it. Now? Yeah, good luck with that. Also it never fails to amaze me, considering the very high casualty rate among the British, that Washington wasnt killed or wounded. How different American history wouldve been, cant even imagine it. Thanks Mr Preston, for a great book.
I wasn't aware of the ramifications of this battle, but was aware of it slightly from my studies of Washington and how amazing it was considered that he survived let alone have another command every again(but it turned out this experience Gave him the experience lol). The British arrogance and bull headed stubbornness was almost always their down fall
Personally, I think this defeat just shows the power of guerrilla tactics, and just how superior squad base tactics can be when used effectively.
Thanks
This was a great segment. I'm not even one of your students. Please keep them coming!
I read that the Indians raided the whiskey supply wagon and got drunk, otherwise it would of been worse.
Very humiliating defeat. Glory for us but ultimately with no real consequences.
Sad. 🇫🇷😥
Didn't know this battle was "so" important to the american although. 🤔
The eight Indians accompanying Braddock were members of the Mingo tribe
Mandingo? black guys?
That's interesting, because by the time J.F. Cooper wrote "Last of the Mohicans," the Mingos were the "bad guys."
Seems like the British get hung up on the One Road concept. This concept repeated itself in the Battle of Arnhem of which it was called Market Garden during WW II. One road, take the bridges and establish a launch point. Boy was that ever a screw up Monty (The British general who developed the plan).
they don't seem to give agency to the enemy, who will quickly determine the direction of the attack and mass all reserves there. The enemy has the easier job since they don't have to do the dificult act of moving large forces in proper march order. All the enemy needs to do is move forces to a place on the map, dig in, prepare the terrain, and await the attack
It’s introduction, not innerduction.
At 25:54 that guy is mistaken or outright lying. Braddock had quite a few Natives that set out with him. One month after Braddocks defeat Andrew Montour, an influential Native American translator said: "We Six Nations must let you know that it was the pride and ignorance of that great General who came from England [that caused the defeat]. He is now dead but he was bad when he was alive; he looked down upon us as dogs and would never hear anything that was said to him. We often endeavored to advise him and to tell him of the danger he was in with his soldiers; but he never appeared pleased with us, and that was the reason that a great many of our warriors left him and would not be under his command."
While the Natives knew it was a suicide mission and left. Andrew Montour stayed throughout. A month after Montour spoke at Philadelphia Council slamming Braddock, George Washington wrote Montour begging him to come to Fort Cumberland. He also asked Montour to bring more Indians stating "they shall be better used than they have been and have all the kindness from us."
A month later in October, Washington wrote again. He begged for Montour to join him and acknowledged Braddocks prejudice and ignorance by stating: "...... I have the chief Command I am invested with Power to treat them as Brethren & Allies, which I am sorry to say they have not been of late-"
So yes there were Indians who worked with the British colonists, and Montour, my distant grandfather, helped to take the Ohio Valley by both force and diplomacy by convincing many of the tribes to turn against the French. By the time the colonial army showef up the French already evacuated the Fort there. My grandaddy also stomped out Pontiac's Rebellion after the war. So sick of the "white washing" of the French and Indian War. Fuckin weak.
Let's see, who is more likely to be correct. Someone with a PhD in the field who specializes in this specific conflict and has won awards for this book, or the random youtube commenter?
Mistaken, I'd say. I mean, it seems kinda weird, ya know. However, these are not narratively incompatible stories.
1: Seems like GEN Braddock's "level best" was not good enough. Story of my life, at least. I presume that his experience with exotic ethnicities in Gibraltar did not readily translate to a more kinetic context in the New World.
2: That unfavorable state of relations on the strategic level is perhaps backed up by Mr. Montour's accounts. British colonials' expansion westward had irked everyone else out there, as stated by our presenter. The advice rejected by Braddock seems to be interpretable as, "Don't go into the Ohio [like those schmuck settlers], stay and defend the east [where you belong]." As it was entirely counter to Braddock's mission, he would have had to flatly reject that 'advice'.
3: 1:20:00 -- Braddock wasn't even apprised by London as to the pertinent sociopolitical circumstances in the Anglophonic sphere of the Americas. It seems the ignorance was at the top, as they hadn't consolidated available reports into overall characterizations for briefing purposes. This is kind of basic stuff in our time: see www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html#field-anchor-introduction-background .
Texas Vet regardless it is history
@@texasvet2729 The guy is right but there were only like seven Indians.
Over the course of the War the Indians sided with the British. The French however treated the Indians better generally speaking, which is why most sided with them to begin with.
@@texasvet2729 I’m going with the RUclips commentator who backed up his opinion.
1:00:00 the speakers in substance says of the French and Indian War "there has been enough scholarship of the of the political aspects, but not enough on the tactical details of the battles". I don't think this is important, other than just creating "make work" for scholars. Simply put this is just feeding at the trouigh of undergrad student loans, for guys. Unit histories of battles from the age of Muskets is not relevant today unless one narrows the scope to merely feeding the gods of "publish or perish" and padding a CV. Writing about ancient battles where this or that regiment went is really, of little consequence. Causes of war and the political dimension of alliances, etc is what's most important about wars.
_"Writing about ancient battles where this or that regiment went is really, of little consequence."_
It is a story about human performance under stress that echoes down through the ages from the pages of history to today's battlefields.
It may not be of interest to YOU, but it is of interest to OTHERS.
I think Flownet was trying to be funny on the other hand Virginiacreeper I think you went off the deep end.
Very poor lecturer. Failed entirely in trying to explain this incident.