Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Different perspectives on civil war
Civil war compared to modern day war
Civil War influence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Different perspectives on civil war
Wars are facts of lives for nations. History tells us of wars each nation endures more than telling us how individual lives where. We know the ends and outs of wars as far as missions, objectives, and even conclusions but not much research is done on how the people where that fought in these wars. Fred Anderson, author of A People’s Army compiles an argument with the idea that the New England Provincials where in some way inferior or substandard to their British regular army allies.
Anderson focuses his argument on the livelihood of the soldiers. “I have focused on the mundane aspects of soldiering- daily life, discipline, common attitudes to war, and so on- in order to gauge the effects of the military service on the provincial troops
…show more content…
themselves.” (Anderson, PG viii) Anderson gives us history on the wars in the 1700s and breaks them down into four phases.
The first phase is Governor Shirley’s War, 1754-1755. (Anderson PG. 8). Shirley was a politician and not a soldier. However, he transformed the military that he was in charge of and paved the way for a future military. He made it possible for reimbursement in silver for his soldiers and planned and executed missions. Shirley’s hard work for his career made an enemy because of it. Thomas Pownall was his successor to be governor of Massachusetts. “Shirley, his career in ruins, was recalled to England under the suspicion of malfeasance. His tangled accounts with the Livingstons were audited by the Treasury, a process that was not complete until 1763.” (Anderson PG. 12)
The second phase involved Thomas Pownall and Lord Loudoun. Lord Loudoun was a soldier and understand the art of soldiering. He wanted to change policy and ask for reimbursements. This idea became costly and was not in Thomas Pownall’s overall plan as governor. “What Loudoun required of the governors was politically costly, if not impossible. His policies were especially at odds with Thomas Pownall’s plans.” (Anderson PG.
…show more content…
14). The third phase Anderson discusses is the involvement of William Pitt.
Pitt order Loudoun to go back and leave the area. William Pitt sent letters to the General Court concerning this matter. “The letters informed the members of the assembly that Lord Loudoun was being recalled and went on to ask that they authorize the recruitment of an unprecedented number of soldiers for the coming campaign.” (Anderson PG. 14). The morale character of someone means a lot to other people. Loudoun’s morale character was not parallel with everyone else. Instead of saving money for the military, Loudoun wants more money for his ideas and strategic methods. Pitt could get the people he wanted for the fight by simply getting rid of Loudoun and changing the mindset of the operation and the meaning behind it. “Pitt achieved this remarkable reversal in colonial attitude by jettisoning along with Loudoun, everything Loudoun had stood for. (Anderson PG. 14). Reimbursement for the wars were high, however everyone that was a part of the war were required to pay their share. This was a heavy burden lifted from Great
Britian. The fourth phase entailed the push for more troops to man forts that were made in the previous phases. Pitt got his wish and the forts were manned. The government voted for more people to maintain a garrison command. “The assembly had voted to raise thirty-two hundred men, again for garrison duty.” (Anderson PG. 21). The Seven Year Wars is what is was called 1763-1776, is what it was called during this time period. Anderson notes that these wars were a postwar period. “To people with no inkling of what the future might bring, the years from 1763-1775 were not prerevolutionary, but a postwar period.” (Anderson PG.23) Andersons noted that the government during this time was changing leadership a lot and the New England provincials were trying to create a government that would last for a long time. The New England provincials and to figure out ways to pay the troops which led to the recruitment of more troops. People coming from their local farms to assist in becoming a soldier. However; values and beliefs of the some of the New England Provincials did not go hand in hand with what Great Britain wanted to do. Anderson’s thesis; “I will argue that the New England provincials of the Seven Years’ War subscribed to notions about military service and warfare that were wholly incompatible with the professional ideals and assumptions of their British regular allies” (Anderson PG viii) was the correct thesis for this book. Anderson did provide proof of his thesis in an historian manner, just with a different outlook that is different from other historians. He finished the thesis by providing entries and prayers from the soldiers in the Contractual Principles portion of the book. Anderson’s examples are not just from soldiers but from officers as well. The morale of the soldier appeared to be low within the military. “About two thirds of the soldiers whose diaries survive were content simply to set down the mundane details of camp life; the other third, in varying degrees, commented reflectively.” (Anderson PG 197) Anderson also proves his thesis by displaying tables in the appendix of the book. This is very key to his thesis by not only talking about the strengths of the military as a whole, but he breaks down to the soldier level. He displays tables of the soldiers physical condition (Table 29) and the death rate of the soldiers (Table 30).
I discussed the differences between Captain Thomas Preston’s Account of the Boston Massacre (1770) and Paul Revere, Image of The Bloody Massacre (1770). I then explained both men’s story beginning with Captain Thomas Preston’s vision of the event. I then explained Paul Revere version of the event. I then included my opinion which account I believed was most accurate and explained why.
The mannerisms, attitudes, and background of the American and British soldiers contrasted greatly. The values held by the individual soldiers of the two armies differed. American soldiers had a tendency to think on their own accord and often with liberty in mind (143). In contrast, the British soldiers held the values that their army held (144). American soldiers often fought with the same men from their town or village (142). The British soldiers, however, were pulled from society and isolated from it (144). During the time of the British soldiers’ isolation, they were tightly disciplined and rigorously trained (144). This too shows a contrast between the British and American soldiers. British soldiers underwent a stricter regimen of training while the training Americans had was more informal. The commanding men of the armies, the officers, were different as well. The British officers held themselves aloof from war and quite distant from their men (145). British officers were also much harsher on their men and trained them more effectively (136). The American officer sought to achieve the refinement of the British officers but often failed in achieving it. (145). The training American officers gave to their men was also not as cohesive like the
demonstating his carelessness over casualtiles, Passchendaele proved Currie’s concern for he preservation fo the lives of the men under his command; indeed, Currie’s actons throughout th war stand as strong evidence of his desire, and ability, to win battles only at the least possible cost. A lot of Canadians, veterans and conscripts alike, had little regard for General Currie. Passchendaele convinced many of them that victory was his old consideration.
Overall McPherson’s reasons for the soldiers motivations were clear and concise, easy to follow and understand allowing for easy interpretation of the book. McPherson also includes multiple quotes from various letters and diary entries to support his statements which gives his statements credibility. The reasons for motivation presented in the book were convincing and were supported by numerous quotes.
A Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier is a memoir written by Joseph Plumb Martin, an ordinary soldier who served the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. As the name indicated, the memoir mainly portrays the common men’s experiences and feelings, especially their dangers and sufferings, during the revolutionary period. Based on Martin’s unique perspective, his memoir cannot provide us with the big picture from the top down, such as the military strategy and the charismatic leadership of American revolutionary army. However, it offers exclusive insights and precious details that allow us to closely examine what truly transpired among the thousands of soldiers during that period.
Tina Chen’s critical essay provides information on how returning soldiers aren’t able to connect to society and the theme of alienation and displacement that O’Brien discussed in his stories. To explain, soldiers returning from war feel alienated because they cannot come to terms with what they saw and what they did in battle. Next, Chen discusses how O’Brien talks about soldiers reminiscing about home instead of focusing in the field and how, when something bad happens, it is because they weren’t focused on the field. Finally, when soldiers returned home they felt alienated from the country and
Alfred Young is a historian who takes a harder look at the life of an ordinary Boston man, George Robert twelves Hewes, before and after the revolution changes in America. The book looks at the developments that led up to the American Revolution through the life Hewes, who goes from a shoemaker to a rebel. Not only was Hewes a participant in the Boston Massacre, he was also involved in the event that later would be referred to as the Tea party. His involvements in these events paint a clearer picture of what can motivate someone to take up arms and fight for their freedom.
The Young People of Today, a series of opinion polls conducted among young educated Frenchmen by Henri Massis and Alfred de Tarde find romantic sentiments for war much like von Treitschke. The two authors interviewed a professor who tried to explain that there were in fact unjust wars, however, according to the professor, “the class obviously did not follow me; they rejected that distinction” (Massis and de Tarde 224). Massis and de Tarde go on to write about the many young men who left their high studies to pursue lives as soldiers because for them “it is not enough, for them to learn history: they are making it” (Massis and de Tarde 224).
At the beginning of the war, the preconceptions of each side show exactly why Britain was destined for failure. On the American team,
The Complete Idiot's Guide to World War II, Macmillan Publishing, New York, New York, 1999. Duis, Perry. The War in American Culture, The University of Chicago Press, 1994. Schultz, Stanley K. American History 102 Civil War to the Present. Copyright 1999 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin a href="http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture21.html">http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture21.html/a>.
This contrast in style affirms that the soldiers are human and provides emphasis to the weight these intangible objects have on the soldiers. An emotional burden that the men must carry is the longing for their loved ones. The Vietnam War forced many young men to leave their loved ones and move halfway across the world to fight a questionable war in an unfamiliar land.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Pat Barker's novel Regeneration explores the effects that World War I has on the human condition and more specifically on the condition of the British people. One particular area of exploration is the detrimental presence of class distinctions within the ranks of the British military. This issue of class distinction is addressed specifically on pages 66 and 67 of the novel through a conversation between Billy Prior and Dr. Rivers. The characters' discussion reinforces Barker's theme of the injustices of these class distinctions and the harm they produce on the war front.
There are contested views when one tries to interpret the meaning and reality of what is known as the People’s War. Undeniably, the people of England made it through the Battle of Britain, or the ‘Blitz’, with an air of unrelenting morale. With that being said, the idea of the People’s War as representative of the cohesiveness of the social classes in England, and a strong front all around, is an ideology that some argue to be contestable. To show that the People’s War generates class cohesiveness, this paper will examine both sides of the argument, and determine that the People’s War did not actually unify the whole nation. Throughout the paper, memoirs and testimonies will be used to give a representation of the acceptance of the People’s War. There is a vast amount of information to support this, such as propaganda and speeches made by Prime Minister Winston Churchill. However, the goal of this paper is to determine that the People’s War did not unify everyone in Britain, and it did not hold the theme that ‘everyone was in it together’, as seen majorly through class and gender. There are a few select groups that would disagree with the idea of the People’s War, and claim that they did not fit into this niche that is presented so popularly today.
In Joseph Plumb Martin’s account of his experiences in the Revolutionary War he offers unique insight into the perspective of a regular soldier, which differs from the views of generals and leaders such as popular characters like George Washington. Martin’s narrative is an asset to historical scholarship as a primary source that gives an in-depth look at how life in the army was for many young men during the War for Independence. He described the tremendous suffering he experienced like starvation and privation. He did not shy away from describing his criticism of the government who he believes did not adequately care for the soldiers during and after the war. While he may be biased because of his personal involvement as a soldier, he seems to relate accounts that are plausible without embellishment or self-aggrandizement. Overall, “A Narrative of A Revolutionary Soldier” is a rich source of information providing an overview of military experience during the war.
The Warrior’s Honour by Michael Ignatieff conveys the harsh realities of ethnic war to the reader. It opens a window to pictures and experiences that most cannot, and do not , think of on a daily basis. Michael Igantieff has experienced there realities as he travelled around the world in his work as a journalist, and it is in this book that he shares with us his thoughts and ideas about these war torn countries. In this paper I will review the book and discuss major themes and arguments, as well as the downfall and shortcomings of it.