Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a Revolution

As a big history fan, I picked this book up on sale as I wanted to learn more about both the American Revolution and Bunker Hill. This book detailed alot of information around, during, and the aftermath of Bunker Hill. Very well written. I recommend this book to any history fan.

Bunker Hill is a colorful and exacting history of the Battle for Boston and the events leading to it. Philbrick's strength is in his presentation of a driving, detailed narrative. It focuses on the questions of who, what and when albeit with a bit less emphasis on why.The Battle of Bunker Hill makes little sense without an understanding of how Boston came to be a city under siege in 1776. The author does a good job in the first half of the book, however, in adding fresh insights to his summary of the events preceding the conflict. In doing so, he gives full credit to the role of Joseph Warren, who perished at Bunker Hill, avoiding the usual historical emphasis on Adams and Hancock. In the weeks ahead of Lexington and Concord, Warren "not only continued his leadership role in the Congress and the Committee of Safety: he would be present in the ranks at virtually every encounter between colonial and British forces." In the two critical months prior to the battles at Lexington Green and Bunker Hill, Warren "became the most influential leader in the province of Massachusetts."Philbrick is at his best in rendering these encounters in a journalistic style that succeeds in bringing to life scenes that sometimes can seem colorless through the process of so many retellings. Witness his description of the first British volley at Concord Bridge: "Action private Abner Hosmer was shot through the face and killed instantly. Captain Isaac Davis, marching in the front row beside Major Buttrick and Lieutenant Colonel Robinson, was hit in the chest, and the musket ball, which may have driven a shirt button through an artery and out his back, opened up a gush of blood that extended at least ten feet behind him drenching David Forbush and Thomas Thorp and covering the stones in front of the North Bridge with a slick of gore." Bunker Hill shows real people acting with overwhelming sacrifice.On the other hand, the author does not work as hard to analyze the deep-seated, and sometimes conflicting, motivations behind the colonial rebellion. He mentions ambition as a possible source of Joseph Warren's patriotism and the commercial interests that effected Hancock. He also suggests that "a love of democratic ideals" is not the "reality of the revolutionary movement" at least for the "country people" who made up the militias. Philbrick submits that "the Revolution, if it was to succeed, would do so not because the patriots had right on their side but because they - rather than Gage and the loyalists - had the power to intimidate those around them into doing what they wanted" by pronouncing resistors as Enemies of Liberty.Bunker Hill, unlike many books about the early days of the revolution, credits surrounding towns as the true hotbed of resistance. Even before Lexington and Concord, says Philbrick, "the country people outside the city were the ones now leading the resistance movement." And while Joseph Ellis points out in Revolutionary Summer the advantage accruing to British troops due to their 7 years average service in the field, Philbrick notes that the army had not fought in 12 years and that many British troops in New England had never fought before. He contrasts this to colonial troops, two inches taller than their English counterparts on average, who used their guns as part of their daily lives on the frontier.Publication of this book is well-timed given recent events because, as Philbrick states in his Preface, "the city of Boston is the true hero of this story." Bunker Hill tells the powerful story a revolution in thought and action that transformed the Massachusetts colony in 18 months. It also suggests how that transformation influenced what would become the United States.

I know you think you know about Bunker Hill. After all, there is a monument to the battle overlooking Boston harbor; the name itself seems to suggest something about the beginning of the American Revolution; the main actors in this great drama are a bit fuzzy but we knew they were ardent patriots; we knew that the British inflicted grave damage to the ragtag Colonial army. All of that is true but there is so much more to what is really the opening chapter to the Revolution. Nathaniel Philbrick, a great historian who has told us the story of the Mayflower voyage in 1620 and several stories of the wild sea, now turns his lens on that modest hill just outside Boston.First, it should be noted that this is very well written history. It moves well, leading the reader along into an exciting story of emerging patriotism, bravery and determination, all of which would ultimately defeat the British. The problems in dealing with the colonies steadily mounted during the early-1770's and were capped by the bloody battles of Lexington and Concord when the colonials battled the British troops to a draw. But now, in June 1775, the colonials
 found themselves facing more than 1600 British soldiers determined to break out of their surrounded base in Boston and expand their perimeter to the north and west, first by taking possession of the large hill - Bunker Hill -- just northwest of Boston harbor.The British possessed huge advantages. The army was drawn from some of the finest men in England, supplemented by skilled mercenaries from Germany. The navy was by far the most impressive and powerful in the world and enabled the British to prevent the colonials from shuttling men and arms from one arena to another along the Eastern seaboard. The industrial might of England reached levels no country in the world had ever attained.In spite of this, the Americans had a degree of determination to govern themselves, habits ingrained in them by the the British themselves in their Glorious Revolution that swept an unpopular king from his throne almost one hundred years before the start of the American Revolution. Also, the Americans had the good luck to have several remarkable men emerge, almost magically, to play pivotal roles in the revolt: Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, and others. Perhaps none was as important in the early days leading up to Bunker Hill as a relatively unknown physician, Joseph Warren. It was Warren who organized the defense north of Boston, led the American colonists in resisting the British advances up the hill, and engaged in continual correspondence with the nascent colonial government sitting in Philadelphia. Warren was tragically killed during the end stages of the battle; it is Philbrick's opinion that had he lived he, not Washington, would have led the colonial army.Bunker Hill was the beginning of the war for independence. As we know, it took another six years and eventually swept British and American forces north towards the Canadian border and then south, ending in Yorktown, where the British forces surrendered and the Revolution was over. But it was at Bunker Hill where the Americans proved that they could fight even a power as great as England.

Philbrick focuses on the first year of the Revolution and on Boston. It is a fine dramatic read, filled with characters to match. He shows how events moved from restoration [of fair relations with Britain] to revolution.The animus against London initially sought a return to the autonomy enjoyed before the Treaty of Paris had inspired imperial ambition in the British. Boston was, relative to today’s metropolis, tiny. People on opposing sides knew each other personally, even as they traded words and later cannon balls . Members of the militia levelled muskets at men they had fought alongside in the 1750s, rebel generals and British had shared commands in the French and Indian wars. At least to begin with they had more in common than set them apart. Killing changed all that. Today we consider the weaponry crude and ineffective. In one sense it was, but it mandated close combat, personal butchery, hate and fear. The author brings life and death to the page.The arrival of Washington was a crucial development. In his person he united New England with the Southern regions and he created from a provincial force a Continental Army. He secured the first key strategic victory, when Howe was compelled to abandon the port. Not just Massachusetts now, the colonies embarked on an armed unity, professional enough to cast the British army out of Boston. By March 1776 a struggle for Independence was as inevitable as its ultimate success, a fact appreciated by the leaders of British forces, if not the ministry back home.Philbrick does not diminish what this meant, even as few were as prescient as Thomas Paine: “the birthday of a new world is at hand”. However, the author also stresses that those fighting for Liberty did not intend everyone to benefit equally and some were to have no share at all in the bounty.Historians generally stress that independence sooner or later was inevitable, and that events from 1763 onwards pushed uniformly in that direction. Philbrick suggests that as late as 1775 the die was definitely not cast. July 1776 was determined by a confusion and conflict of a multitude of actors, none of whom had any direction of the process. Not until the arrival of George Washington.

An excellent eBay experience! Great price, super fast delivery!

Nathaniel Philbrick`s book covers the opening years of the War of Independence, concentrating on the Battle of Bunker Hill and ending with the siege and evacuation of Boston in 1776.This is a generally decent account of the social, political and - ultimately - military situations faced by both sides in the ensuing conflict. A little American bias creeps in - understandable, perhaps, as it is widely believed by most Americans that the right guys won(!) but this doesn't detract anything from the content of the book for the UK reader. Philbrick also puts Dr. Joseph Warren at centre-stage for large parts of his study, referencing him both in his opening pages and in his epilogue; Warren died at Bunker Hill – an early revolutionary martyr – history may well have played out very differently had he survived.There are copious reference notes for each chapter at the back of the book which indicate that the author has certainly done a great deal of research for this and he provides good background and contextual detail for the events he covers. He presents his narrative in a fairly open and non-judgemental style, though at times the conclusions and interpretations he perhaps intends the viewer to arrive at were not necessarily the ones I did.I'll come clean at this stage and admit that having read a number of books on this subject, I have grown tired of earlier American historians regurgitating the old myths that muddied the waters and inevitably made one side saints and the other the very devils; Philbrick is, thank goodness, a more revisionist writer than that and he is, for the most part, pretty fair.All the same, I would have liked an answer to a question that has long troubled me; when the British mounted the raid on Concord in order to seize military supplies hidden there, it was known that a number of cannon had been spirited away from Boston to that location - Philbrick lists them on p.88 as” 4 brass field pieces, 2 mortars”. There were in fact 3, 24-pounder guns among them; these were not field guns but siege guns, heavy weapons requiring much man-power and large horse-teams to move and operate them and with only one purpose. Information of this may well explain the apparent haste with which the British expedition was put together. Why and how did these guns come to be in Boston? Who supplied/paid for them and when? As Philbrick is fond of saying at various points in the book, we'll never know... He is not alone in skipping over this though, I`ve yet to read a proper analysis of this in any account of the battles of Lexington/Concord.I also feel that his telling of the evacuation of Boston isn't quite accurate; the British had known for a long time that they would have to abandon the city and make the taking of New York City their main strategic goal; although the Patriots forced their hand, the evacuation wasn't a completely panic-stricken event, but was a more orderly withdrawal, albeit with some compromise and hampered by a severe and damaging storm. A better and more balanced account, in my opinion, is offered by David McCullough in his Book  1776: America and Britain at War .This is, however, an enjoyable and thoroughly detailed read, well worth your time and useful as a study of this early period in the revolution. 1776: America and Britain at War

As with all of his works: well researched and very readable

Wonderful narrative of what led to the armed start of the american Revolution with very good drafted portraits of the players involved. A great bonus is that the book gives a thorough account of Joseph Warren's contribution to the fight for independence. In the books I have read so far he has mostly been given just a few lines. Here he gets his proper place!Philbrick account of the events is engaging with details of places, persons and events to an extent that you feel as you were there. It's one of those book you wished would never end.