Calling all OT Historians/Military junkies - The Penobscot Expedition

Historical fiction? Kind of like loosely based on what may/may not have happened?

I am not up too much on that engagement, but our forces weren't up to par with British in terms of strength, etc.

This is a question for Darth...

Yes. It's historical fiction but I've done a bit of reading up on the expedition and it's pretty accurate. To the extent that we can know actual details about something that happened in the 18th century.

Generally Cornwell stays pretty close to the facts when dealing with the later stuff like the revolution/civil war, etc. The Saxon stuff is another matter 'cause there's not a whole lot of stuff known in detail.

Plus, I'm more interested on what people think about the actual expedition. The book is just what got my attention.

So, whataya think?

quote:

---

Historical fiction?

---

Lets not denigrate - 3 of the best books I've ever read:

Gates of Fire

The Ten Thousand

Killer Angels

All historical fiction - it can be done very well - and usually much better than comparable films do with the historical accuracy.


As for the OP's question, I haven't read the book. The whole plan seemed a little crazy, to try to go toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy seems to be something you want to do defensively. Revere was ultimately cleared of charges. I blame Saltonstall because he forgot a lot of basic military principles.

A poor plan, violently executed, will often overcome a meticulous plan that is executed tepidly. Well, this was a poor plan, poorly thought out AND timidly executed. Against a lesser foe, it might not have been a complete disaster, as they may have had the opportunity to withdraw. As it was, going up against the Royal Navy, back then, those boys didn't play. Make a mistake, they send you to Davey Jones' Locker.

quote:

---

A poor plan, violently executed, will often overcome a meticulous plan that is executed tepidly. Well, this was a poor plan, poorly thought out AND timidly executed. Against a lesser foe, it might not have been a complete disaster, as they may have had the opportunity to withdraw. As it was, going up against the Royal Navy, back then, those boys didn't play. Make a mistake, they send you to Davey Jones' Locker.

---

Very well said, sir. Ashamedly, even though military history is one of my favorite topics, I do not know enough about this engagement to talk.

I get that historical fiction can be accurate up to a certain extent, though. I may have to pick it up.

i've never understood why the continentals tried to do this. should have learned their lesson trying to take Canada earlier in the war

quote:

---

I just got finished reading he book The Fort by Cornwell. It's a historical fiction piece about the Penobscot Expedition in the Revolutionary war and how it was a pretty huge disaster for Massachusetts, and the rest of the rebels/patriots.

So, those of you familiar with this expedition, what's your take on it? Was it all Saltonstall's fault as they painted it back then? Does Lovell share a big part of the blame? Was Revere really such a lazy a-hole as he's portrayed? Were state Militias just an inherently weak way to fight a war against a major power like Britain?

Oh, I'd recommend the book. It was a pretty good read.

---

The expedition never had a prayer as the British forces were overwhelming superior to the American forces in almost ever facet other than numbers.

Both Saltonstall and Lovell where in over their heads. Saltonstall was unqualified to try to command a fleet of ships while Lovell and his militia force were in no way shape of form ready to face a force of well trained British Regulars holding substantial fortifications. The only troops the Americans possessed that had a hope of standing toe to toe with the Brits were the Continental Marines and there were not enough of them to tip the scale.

But having said that, the fact Saltonstall diddled instead of attacking with his fleet of ships at the onset of the campaign took whatever slim forlorn hope the expedition ever had and threw it away. Had he moved in to give fire support to the forces on the ground while they assaulted the British forces, there's a slim chance they might have been able to storm the fort. But instead he stayed back and gave the British time to dispatch 10 very real and very powerful Royal Navy ships that totally outclassed anything the American's had. So by the time he finally decided to attack, it was far too late.

So, the bottom line is the expedition probably would have failed even had Saltonstall not hesitated outside the range of the guns of the British fort. But any hope, however slim, of success was thrown away by his inaction.

quote:

---

i've never understood why the continentals tried to do this. should have learned their lesson trying to take Canada earlier in the war

---

Whatever advantage we had of manpower, native soil, defending our homes, etc., evaporated on the open seas against the RN (recognizing that Penobscot was a coastal and river engagement). I mean we were lucky at the outset - the Royal Navy was not what it had been in the mid 18th Century - strength was down, they had been drained by the 7 Years War. France didn't join us until 1778 so it was touch and go.

We had frigates, raiders and privateers - ZERO ships of the line. That kind of made actual naval engagements dicey for the continental navy, particularly if poorly led. The 32-gun Warren was the big loss, although the Continental navy could scarcely afford to lose 44 ships - it remained the worst loss in USN history until December 7, 1941 - and is probably still up there with Pearl Harbor and Savo Island.

quote:

---

Plus, I'm more interested on what people think about the actual expedition.

---

IMHO, the expedition was an audacious idea that had merit. The "ways" and "means" were lacking in that the plans and resources weren't good enough.

The main failure seems to have been that the American overall commander wasn't very talented.

Great thread! We need more Revolutionary War threads. It's great to occasionally break away from the American Civil War and WW2 paradigm by launching Revo War and World War One threads.

I won't even mention Napoleonic War threads because I know that there's no chance of that topic generating interest here.

quote:

---

I won't even mention Napoleonic War threads because I know that there's no chance of that topic generating interest here.

---

I'd be quite interested in such a thread.

quote:

---

I won't even mention Napoleonic War threads because I know that there's no chance of that topic generating interest here.

---

If we had a history board, we could talk about Napoleon.

(Or that on this day in 241 BC, the Roman fleet sank the Carthaginian fleet at the Battle of Aegates Islands, ending the First Punic War.)