Rabble in Arms

The historical characters jump off the page like Arnold, Daniel Morgan, Horatio Gates, Philip Schuyler, John Sullivan, and James Wilkinson. We get some insight into their character and thinking through Roberts' accessible writings style. Roberts builds on his previous novel of Arundel by utilizing many of the characters such as Cap Huff and Steven Nason of that fine book. His narrator is a Maine sea captain Peter Merrill who enlists in Nason's company in early 1776 and follows his travails including a long captvity with western Indians after Valcour Island. We meet up again with Marie de Sabrevois who works her nefarious schemes on the gullible brother of Merrill. How that all turns out is the underbook of the whole novel.
But the real story is the that of the Northern Army who after 2 years of disease, retreat, incompetent leadership, limited food and clothing supplies and military disaster showed amazing resilience in 1777 and defeated the British at the critical phase of the war. Do yourself a favor and read this great book. You'll enjoy every page.


Living history in "Rabble In Arms"   January 29, 2003
 13 out of 13 found this review helpful

I have read "Rabble In Arms" several times and have liked it better each time I (re)-read it. Many years ago as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy I wrote a paper about the naval battle of Valcour Island, fought by the Continental northern army under Benedict Arnold against the British on October 11, 1776. While Arnold's small fleet was defeated and almost totally wiped out, the strategic importance of the battle cannot be overstated. This is because Arnold succeeded in forcing the British to forego until 1777 their plan of moving down Lake Champlain and Lake George to link up with another force moving up the Hudson, cutting New England off from the rest of the Colonies. When the British did move south in 1777, they were defeated and forced to surrender at the Battle of Saratoga, and it was this battle that convinced the French to join with the Revolutionary forces to fight against the British. Kenneth Roberts' history is exact, and in fact his researches made clear some very fundimental but unknown facts about the Battle of Valcour Island. This is an outstanding book!


A biased view of history   September 3, 2002
 13 out of 32 found this review helpful

This is nominally an historical novel set in 1776-1777 during the American retreat from Canada, and up to the Battle of Saratoga. However, the author has used the novel to defend Benedict Arnold and attack almost everyone else. The novel digresses into discussions that become a diatribe of the author's opinions. As a result, this is neither a good novel nor a good history (good objective historical accounts will be found in Ward's "The War of the Revolution" and other sources). It is true that Arnold had some successes leading troops when he actually took to the field, but he was also a vain individual who was concerned with his own self interests and comforts, a quality which eventually caused him to become a traitor. He maintained himself in comfort in Montreal while other officers and their troops were out in the mud exposed to the weather and diseases (General Thomas died from smallpox, and Colonel Bedel was also suffering from smallpox which forced him to relinquish his command at the Cedars). There is no indication that Benedict Arnold ever missed a meal while the troops out in the field were starving.

There were both good and bad officers in the American Army. The officers were handicapped by a new government that had no experience in maintaining armies and fighting a war, by disorganized logistics which left them chronically short of supplies, by poorly trained troops, by feuds between the various colonies, and by diseases common to armies of that time period (smallpox, dysentery, typhus, etc.). Many of the officers became ill and died along with their troops. Campaigns were poorly planned, e.g., the Americans tried to advance down the St. Lawrence without controlling the river (the Royal Navy had control).

It is true that the Americans used militia serving for fixed periods of time, often for 90 days. That problem plagued the Army up through the American Civil War. Various accounts of my own ancestors include statements indicating short periods of service at Ticonderoga, Fort Edward, and Bennington. The author indicates that militia scattered with no plan for regrouping. That is incorrect. Colonel Warner's regiment of Vermont Rangers (the Green Mountain Boys) fought a delaying action and were ordered to disperse and regroup at Bennington which they did. This regrouped regiment joined the battle at a critical moment ensuring the American victory at Bennington.

It was the militia regiments raised by Stark and Warner that defeated the British at the decisive Battle of Bennington, the turning point of the war. The author largely ignores Bennington. He seems to ignore successes and concentrates on failures without providing any balance in his narrative. It is not possible to write objectively about that part of the war without including the key Battle of Bennington.

The novel becomes somewhat long winded, and I found myself skimming through some parts of it. The author does cover the naval action on Lake Champlain, including the battle at Valcour Island. It is interesting to contrast the withdrawal from Ticonderoga with the later stand by the Texans at the Alamo, where the defenders stood fast until they were overwhelmed. Hindsight is always better than foresight, and people will always have diverse opinions about the conduct of the campaigns.


american history that is fun to read   July 21, 2002
 6 out of 7 found this review helpful

Going through the US school system, both public and private, I thought American history was the most boring of subjects. In college I started to read James Michener's books, and was surprised to find that our history was actually pretty interesting. Now I consider myself fortunate to have discovered the works of Kenneth Roberts -- a magnificent writer who brings the Revolution to life and makes me angry at a school system that couldn't spark my interest. Why is it that a novelist can teach me more in one book than what I gleaned from years of tedious instruction? Rant aside, let me say that Roberts' work is as compelling as Michener's but differs in scope. The latter's books sweep across aeons and generations, plucking and delving into personal stories, while Roberts stays within a brief span of years but sweeps broadly, at the same time telling the story believably through one person's experience.

Roberts is a gifted writer relating an account of the Patriots' Northern army through the first-person narration of Peter Merrill, a sea captain from Arundel, Maine, who has joined the army with his brother and finds himself a scout under the command of the brilliant and volatile, pre-treasonous General Benedict Arnold. The narrative of this sequel to Roberts' novel ARUNDEL is immediately interesting. At first I was disappointed that the narrator was not the same as that in the previous book, Steven Nason, but I came to enjoy Merrill's voice as well, and was very happy that characters from the previous novel were also here -- Nason, Cap Huff, Phoebe, Natanis and of course Marie de Sabrevois (aka Mary) -- as well as interesting new characters like Doc Means and Verrieul.

I disagree with other reviewers in some respects. Against all past experience and inclination, I find I actually enjoy the outspoken buffoon Cap Huff who, in his way, captures a rough-and-ready spirit and is resilient in any situation. I also think that Marie is an intriguing character but that her distance from the narrative recreates the mystery and consternation that these characters would feel about her.

This book makes you realize that Congress hasn't changed much in over 200 years. A map helps you place the action, and if you are on the fence about whether or not to read this or any other Kenneth Roberts book, please take the plunge. You won't be sorry.

Highly recommended.