Thread by @KKriegeBlog

A 🧵on redcoats, reenactors, and revisionist history. Representations of the past are powerful. How did the British army fight, and how can we know? Many people will never read a scholarly book, but they will attend a film, watch a reenactment, or play a game. 1/25

As a result, representations of the past, whether professional historians like it or not, are often more powerful than scholarly books. This thread examines the work of one revisionist historian, now almost 15 years old, and its impact on the memory the AWI. 2/25

Since 1980, a number of brilliant scholars have redefined how historians understand the British Army in the eighteenth century. However, today, we are going to specifically focus on the work of one historian: Matthew H. Spring. 3/25

Over a decade ago, Spring authored his first book, With Zeal and With Bayonets Only. Like many revisionist histories, Spring's work has generated controversy. However, it is possible to sum up 10 of Spring's contributions to understandings of the British Army in the AWI. 4/25

Spring sought to show that the British Army wasn't a incompetent, slow, and ineffective organization tactically outmoded by American backwoodsmen with long rifles. After all, especially in the first half of the war, the British won the majority of battlefield engagements. 5/25

So: 10 take-aways from this book.
1) In North America during the American War of Independence, British commanders often sought to maintain the operation and tactical offensive, frequently targeting rebel forces in flank attacks. 6/25

2) In the course of their offensive actions, quickly-moving British troops often fought individual combats between regiments, in "fluid and ragged" battles, rather than deploying slowly with geometric precision. 7/25

3) British soldiers were highly motivated by unit pride, a sense of their superior military abilities, and a distaste for rebellion. 8/25

4) The British Army fought deployed in open order, in two ranks, rather than close order and three ranks. 9/25

5) The British "made their initial advances into action at about a quick step, accelerated to a trot or a jog within small-arms range of the enemy, and then broke into a run for the bayonet charge." The British frequently cheered when close to the enemy. 10/25

6) British junior officers directed the battle at the regimental level (see point 1) and exercised a large degree of initiative in North America that would have been impossible in Europe. 11/25

7) The British Army relied on shock tactics, rather than only firepower, to cause enemy retreat. As a result, the effectiveness of British firepower suffered. Technical problems, such as the low quality of flints, also decreased British fire effectiveness. 12/25

8) Early in the war, the British reliance on bayonet charges proved useful, but by the later stages of the conflict, continental troops had become adept at standing firm in the face of British steel. 13/25

9) British light infantry troops, though adept at seizing defensive positions and making use of individual cover, often employed the same bayonet tactics as the rest of the army. In open and light terrain, this was effective, but often more costly in heavily wooded areas. 14/25

10) Despite winning the majority of battlefield engagements during the American War of Independence, British policymakers overestimated the politic results of battlefield victory and were eventually incapable of fully destroying the rebel field armies. 15/25

Published in 2008, Spring's book has certainly made a stir in certain circles of the historically-conscious community. The main battleground over Spring's ideas hasn't been in scholarly journals, but among those who try to represent the past: reenactors and wargamers. 16/25

Many "progressive" reenactors who portray the British Army, attempt to demonstrate Spring's ideas to the public. Progressive reenactors attempt to reenact in a more immersive way, often engaging in long road-marches in addition to public-facing battle reenactments. 17/25

However, the majority of British American War of Independence reenactors continue to portray an army which looks more like the eighteenth-century British army in Europe, or perhaps in The Patriot, than the historical reality of the British Army. 18/25

Why? Revisionism often meets with pushback, and many individuals resist thinking about the past in new ways. "Established wisdom," or "tradition," often views revisionist thinking with extreme skepticism. 19/25

Spring has killed the notion that the British army fought in rigid lines during the American Revolution. Despite this fact, few reenactors, or even other historians have updated their information to reflect this incredible work of scholarship. 20/25

This is why reading historiography, or what historians have written, is important. Many members of the public I interact with say, "I hate reading historians' books, but I love reading primary sources!" If you just read primary sources, you are getting half the picture. 21/25

When professional historians call someone a revisionist, we are talking about people like Matt Spring. Revisionists have done the backbreaking archival work to change how their field views the past. Politically, I am aware it has another meaning. 22/25

We need revisionist historians, in this sense of the word, to provide a clearer, more accurate (I know, I'm a dinosaur) picture of the past. In many ways, the past is a moving target- and historians always write with the lens of their own time. 23/25

That doesn't mean they shouldn't strive to be as objective and accurate as possible. Objectivity is a journey, not a destination. Just throwing up your hands and saying, "objectivity is impossible" doesn't serve the public. Instead: be a revisionist, and do the work... 24/25

...necessary to claim that hard-earned title. Work in the archives. Write an accessible book. Once you've done that, go to * your * public. Talk to reenactors. Go on podcasts. Tweet. Revisionism going viral is the lifeblood of more accurate representation. 25/25