Analysis
The First thing to be analyzed pertaining to the book Sharpe’s regiment is that the basic idea of the beginning incident of the book where the British parliament does not want to send soldiers to the Spain or continue to fund the war. The book portrays this parliament quarrel as a major setback for the British fighting throughout the Spanish conflict. Throughout the beginning of the book Major Sharpe is fighting in Spain, but after the battle of Vitoria he needs reinforcements in order to continue fighting do to the losses in battle (the depiction of the battle of Vitoria will be addressed in depth later on). These reinforcements were not available and were not expected to come anytime soon. Major Sharpe makes the decision that he will personally return to London and attempt to obtain more troops on behalf of himself and the army’s in Spain. When in London the politicians do not want to give him his troops. The politicians featured in Sharpe’s regiment aimed to allocate more funding into the ships and sailors of the British royal Navy instead of fighting in Spain. They deemed the Navy as a significantly more important expenditure than the Royal army fighting the war in Spain, which Sharpe is a part of. The politicians articulate that a sufficient Navy will inhibit the British islands and therefore the country of England and the city of London from which they live and govern from being invaded by a French fleet and that goal is the only concerns appearing in the eyes of many citizens who take part in a ballot for the election of the politicians and the politicians who govern London. These people are not cornered about what is happening in a faraway land they want their homes to be protected.
The real life the British under...
... middle of paper ...
...n such a serous need for troops as Wellington marched in with over 50,000 men. A loss of just 3,700 men would not make the major impact the army the books leads you to believe. This would meant the book did get parts of the battle correct in the way of the description of the British tactics. The British did come in from the flank and make the French forces run. The book was incorrect in the fact the Sharpe would have been so desperate for more troops because the British suffered pretty light casualty’s.
Overall the book Sharpe’s Regiment was a very historically accurate book that was very good description of the war. It was however incorrect in its trying to prove that politicians in parliament would not support the war and that the army’s in Spain really need very much more support. But even with these flaws the rest of the book is very historically accurate book.
“The war correspondent is responsible for most of the ideas of battle which the public possesses … I can’t write that it occurred if I know that it did not, even if by painting it that way I can rouse the blood and make the pulse beat faster – and undoubtedly these men here deserve that people’s pulses shall beat for them. But War Correspondents have so habitually exaggerated the heroism of battles that people don’t realise that real actions are heroic.”
damage to the areas vital to the British war effort and to try to take
...ut Co. Aytch, Watkins repeatedly writes to the reader that he was but a private during the war with limited perspective. Indeed, his description of a private often includes the words, “…we weren’t allowed to know anything”. The account was made easier to read with interspersed humorous memories, such as finding mussels and searching for a way to cook them, only to become very ill the next day, and crossing a wide river with stolen corn. Watkins’ memory seems to have retained these stories as much as some of the battles, though I wonder if he includes these stories intentionally to hold complete gloom at bay. Nonetheless, I think this primary source is effective in the validity of the information despite the biased point of view.
Foote is one of the great authorities on the War, and though he wrote this when pretty young it is still filled with detail and knowledge of the war. It conveys well the chaos of the fighting and how, as so often, small failures of generalship cost the battle
Dan Jones does a great job of summarizing this historical period with enough detail for the reader to thoroughly understand the topic, while, at the same time, keeping it concise. For example, Jones starts the book in 1420, 35 years before the actual battles begin, to allow the reader a chance to grasp the complicated political atmosphere. However, if the reader was looking for specific information on one event that occurred during the Wars of the Roses, such as the Battle of Wakefield, this book may not be the best choice. The author tells the tale of the royal family in a way that is both informative and entertaining, which is great for a reader with no prior knowledge of the Wars of the Roses, but may not be the best option for a reader writing a research paper on a specific
To set the stage for this battle, we must first understand what the British were thinking at the time. The British had not ...
...can and British archives and builds on them without allowing his creativity and narrative skills to blur the main ideas. There might be cases of uncalled for parentheses running through the text of the book but upon deeper assessment, it emerges that the author uses this to make the story roll out slowly and with a high level of detail. The coverage by the book portrays both sides of the war in due fairness even though there are attempts to portray the American side as the weaker side in the war. If the archives indeed show that the American side was weaker then the author should have no reason to project otherwise. The narrative skills of the author are splendid and there is objectivity in every inch of the book, showing the inhuman side of the American forces and showing the might of the British forces- to the point of the British forces almost winning the war.
From a strategic point of view the Canadians were extremely innovative in their offensive tactics and without doubt led to their success in the battle. Should the Canadians followed similar tactics of the French or British of sending their soldiers wave after wave in tightly packed groups and not using their artillery to its best use the attack likely would have befell the same fate, accomplishing little and many dead. Instead the Canadians invented a tactic of using platoons that included specialists in different weapons (bombs, machine guns, etc.). These platoons attacked in a loose formation (unlike in waves tightly packed men) making it a lot more difficult for the Germans (or any other force for that matter)...
In the summer of 1775, The Americans prepared to attack the British in Boston. But Washington was informed that they were shorthanded on gunpowder. The Americans had fewer than 10,000 pounds, roughly nine rounds per man. The situation was not expected to improve soon. During the night of March 4th, 1776 in Boston. Washington pulled the unthinkable and surprised the British by placing his army up the undefended Dorchester Heights. The British had ships anchored in the Boston Harbor, which were within range of American cannons. The British army woke up the next morning and was amazed to see how much hard work took place that night by the American army. Since the British army was surrounded they had no ot...
Millman, Richard. British Foreign Policy and the Coming of the Franco-Prussian War. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965.
Field, Frank. British and French Operations of the First World War. Cambridge (England); New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
The two sides come to an agreement, Britain surrenders to France, and they are lead towards the Atlantic Ocean so that the British can be returned to England, “with pride”. On the route there they are ambushed by a very large band of Indians...
...he British had the upper hand in multiple areas such as manpower, supply, and chain of command, which are all vital for the tactical assault on Bunker Hill. The British were able to take the hill and take control of the region, but were also hit severely by a large amount of casualties. Nevertheless, the Americans lost this battle, but were able to realize that they are capable to take on and defeat the British Empire if given the right leadership and equipment; this gave the American forces an enormous morale boost, which because useful during the duration of the American Revolution.
In this essay I will explain why I think The Battle of Britain was the
Richard Jones-Nerzic, (2005), “Why did the Normans Win the Battle of Hastings?”, International School History (International School of Toulouse), [Accessed on the 29th June, 2010]