Kindle Price: $9.99

Save $8.00 (44%)

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

You've subscribed to ! We will preorder your items within 24 hours of when they become available. When new books are released, we'll charge your default payment method for the lowest price available during the pre-order period.
Update your device or payment method, cancel individual pre-orders or your subscription at
Your Memberships & Subscriptions

Buy for others

Give as a gift or purchase for a team or group.
Learn more

Buying and sending eBooks to others

  1. Select quantity
  2. Buy and send eBooks
  3. Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

"A Few Bloody Noses": The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution Kindle Edition

4.2 4.2 out of 5 stars 58 ratings

The noted British historian and author of Liberators offers a colorful, enlightening and myth-busting history of the American Revolution.

According to King George III, Britain merely wanted to give America “a few bloody noses” and return to mutual cooperation. Yet the ensuing uprising led to the creation of the United States, the most powerful country in the modern world. In “
A Few Bloody Noses”, Robert Harvey challenges conventional views of the American Revolution in almost every aspect—why it happened; who was winning and when; the characters of the principal protagonists; and the role of Native Americans and enslaved people.

Harvey takes a penetrating look at a war that was both vicious and confused, bloody and protracted, and marred on both sides by incompetence and bad faith. He underscores the effect of the Revolution on the settlers in America, and those at home in Britain—the country that the settlers had left behind, and to which many returned. The result is an extraordinarily fascinating and thoroughly readable account.
Read more Read less

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

The American Revolution, writes English scholar Robert Harvey, was a defining event in modern world history, creating "the mightiest nation in human experience." Yet, he adds, in his country the revolution is ignored, while on the American side of the Atlantic it's "clouded by a fog of myth" that prevents understanding. Harvey seeks to illuminate the realities of the conflict. One, as he writes, is the war's strange similarity to Vietnam, not just in the role of guerrilla and militia versus conventional forces, but also in the antiwar strife it produced at home. Another of Harvey's myth-bursting themes is his insistence, contrary to many American textbooks, that the British commanders were not uniformly incompetent, American commanders not uniformly heroic; he cites many examples to show that neither side had a monopoly on either bravery or incompetence. Still another is his argument that the constitutional outcome of the revolution was in many ways a betrayal of the very principles for which the revolution was fought--a charge sure to excite controversy. Harvey's approach is balanced, his writing engaging, and students of the period will learn much from him. --Gregory McNamee

From Publishers Weekly

Journalist and former Minister of Parliament Harvey (Liberators: Latin America's Struggle for Independence) projects a British bias but strives for balance while arguing that the Revolutionary War was more complicated than is typically understood. Specifically, Harvey aims to dispel what he terms myths, both large and small, that have persisted about the Revolution, from the idea that the war was motivated mainly by America's "love of liberty" to the notion that Washington's crossing of the Delaware had military significance. Looking at the debates that raged on all fronts between England and the colonies, within the colonies and within England itself Harvey details the complicated web of interests that determined the war's course. Many in Britain thought the colonies were "of little importance and certainly not worth the waste of young men's lives or large amounts of money," and the British army fought a devastating enemy that could wage "a continual guerilla war of attrition." He examines various important battles, as well as blunders and unconscionable acts on both sides. Ultimately, Harvey proposes that the Americans were more concerned about the British blocking their westward expansion than about taxation without representation. Attributions that accompany lengthy quotes will satisfy the general public as to sources, but scholars will find the omission of footnotes frustrating. Still, his thoughtful arguments explore the complexities of both American and British points of view, and offer American readers a new perspective on the crucial conflict. 37 illustrations and 9 maps.
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

Product details

  • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07QNV8FBW
  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ ABRAMS Press; 1st edition (May 22, 2002)
  • Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 22, 2002
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • File size ‏ : ‎ 6880 KB
  • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
  • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
  • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
  • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
  • Print length ‏ : ‎ 499 pages
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.2 4.2 out of 5 stars 58 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Robert Harvey
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

4.2 out of 5 stars
4.2 out of 5
58 global ratings

Top reviews from the United States

Reviewed in the United States on December 13, 2008
How can I defend 5 stars with my title? Well, there is much to learn here as to how foreigners look at us, treat us as stupid little children, claim that everything we know about our own history is false, and from the author's perspective, how the British really do know everything and why we should let them rule the world. Nearly everything is false, slanted, spun, or otherwise fabricated -- but it is important to know because many people believe this nonsense. When you read this book, keep other references handy like Phillips' "The Cousin's Wars", Flood's "Rise And Fight Again", Burrows' "Forgotten Patriots", Middlekauff's "The Glorious Cause", Ferling's "A Leap in the Dark", Marshall's "Washington", Miller's "Origins of the American Revolution" and whatever other references you have.

Why foreigners believe they know everything that is wrong with the United States and find a ready market for their tomes here is beyond me. But they do. First of all, we are not ignorant of the "warts" on the Founding Fathers and do not believe Washington was a military genius. In fact, I know of no American historian who would say that. I vividly remember my first book on the Revolutionary War, Coffin's "The Boys of '76" that I read when I was eight years old. At the time I was thunderstruck at the many defeats suffered by the patriots, actually a majority of the battles, and have never been under illusions concerning the Revolutionary War since. Harvey's "illusions" are rather what he EXPECTS the Americans to believe if they were British and one were talking about British history. A note to Mr. Harvey -- please do not ascribe your shortcomings to us.

It is difficult to know where to begin with this review. One can almost pick out any page at random and argue over the content. George III was not some benign democratic monarch only wishing to inflict "a few bloody noses" on colonial troublemakers and bring the rest into line in the world's best government (see "Forgotten Patriots"). And yes, self-interest played a role in the patriot uprising, but the basic tenent of the idea of freedon is to be able to pursue one's self-interest without interference from government. Somehow the author doesn't understand that. The author brings forth Lee, Conway and Gates as "...all fell from stars to ignominious discredit...". Gee, Lee and Conway made only negative contributions in the war, and Gates was fortunate to have others (most notably Arnold) fight his only victory (Saratoga) for him. They were "stars"? And Knox was an uneven general (see Germantown) rather than the consistent hero the author makes him out to be.

The author's equating of the Revolutionary War with Vietnam betrays his total bankruptcy in understanding either conflict. Vietnam was not an American colony peopled by American colonists, Vietnam did not possess the approximately 2/3rds of its population unwilling to fight (in the Revolutionary War the idea that 1/3 were patriots, 1/3 loyalists and 1/3 neutral is roughly accurate and although many historians argue over the exact percentages, these were the major divisions), and after Tet, the Vietnam War was fought largely against North Vietnamese regulars, not domestic rebels. Nor did the Vietnamese and Americans come from the same racial stock, possess a common language, enjoy the same general Protestant religious base, or even share a common heritage in law. But no matter -- at least not for the author.

The author states that (based on his work) "Virtually every common assumption has to be substantially modified, if not rejected." Unbelievable hubris! The author writes one book on a subject and every common assumption on that war has to be modified or rejected? I wonder what he would say about an American author writing a book on the English Civil War in the 1600s if the American author made such a preposterous statement.

Maybe that means every one of his common assumptions, but let's start with the first and most important: that the United States won its independence from England. There are American historians who would argue that the French intervention was decisive. That probably is true, but it would not have happened had the patriots not defeated Burgoyne and captured his army. Or another that many American historians recognize -- that support in England itself, especially in London, was critical to maintaining the revolution on life support. But in fact, without the patriots' insensitivity to losses and ability to endure adversity, we'd still be in the Commonwealth today -- apparently where the author wants us. Up to one patriot in five was killed, died of wounds, died in captivity or soon after release, or from sickness during the war -- an almost unheard of level of fatalities in war; and surprise, apparently the author knows that. But hang in there, Harvey will tell us that it was England who won the Battle of Bunker Hill (Howe's comments to the contrary), that Lexington and Concord were well organized and efficient ambushes (although there were no British casualties at Lexington), and that the constitutional convention was the ultimate defeat to the patriot cause (now I'm really speechless.)

I would argue with almost every polemical point the author makes, with the added comment that he declined to give sources or refer the reader to where he obtained his inaccurate information. No doubt the author has good reasons for this upon which I do not wish to speculate. He does present a half-way reasonable bibliography, but I doubt that he read any of them. A Google search would do as well.

So read this book and then put it on the shelf with a product warning label that it is a prime example of the revisionist tripe being propounded about the US and its history by foreigners today -- or better yet, simply "Reading This is Hazardous to Your Health."
11 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on December 13, 2010
If you want a pro-British, almost anti-American view of the Revolutionary War, this book by a British Author fills the bill. He views Saratoga as not the "Turning Point" but a British defeat solely caused by the arrogance of Genl Burgoyne. For the author, Yorktown is not the final victory, but merely the "Turning Point". The Continental Congress is described as "that motley group".

A very intersting read. Given his style, I would expect the author to describe Dunkirk in 1940 as "an advance in an alternative direction."
One person found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on April 24, 2022
Reading all these crazy reviews from self-appointed historians has me cracking up. This is not revisionist history. Yes, the author does interject some opinions once in awhile, but he backs it up with facts. All these people get bent out of shape when you present Washington and the other founders as anything less than divine angels sent down from heaven to liberate the oppressed colonists. The truth is Washington was a subpar general at best, and in my opinion, more of an opportunist than a revolutionary. The Continental Congress severely mismanaged the war and treated their army horribly. There were a lot of harmful dynamics on both sides and this book focuses on those. Nothing here is really new. The founding of this country barely happened. The Constitution we live under was passed by narrow margins and was controversial and divided the country. Remember the Federalists and Anti-federalists? Get over yourselves people. Read it, you'll enjoy it.
One person found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on June 22, 2003
History is written by the winners, and this is British journalist Robert Harvey's attempt to rewrite it from the losers' perspective. Highly readable (often compellingly so), Harvey's account of the American Revolution has much to recommend it, and his narrative offers a nice refresher course in military history. The volume also includes extensive excerpts (with modernized spelling) from contemporary chronicles, lending the book a "you are there" touch.
Throughout, Harvey inveighs against Americans' "heroic view of the Revolution" and "the remarkably enduring nature of the myths." But many of his versions of episodes in American history seem to have been culled from textbooks written fifty years ago. (Of the more than 160 works listed in the bibliography, only 14 were written after 1980.) Not once does Harvey identify the writers with whom he is arguing: his summary of the "prevailing myths" are always prefaced by "It is asserted," "It is claimed," "It is widely believed." For example, he claims that "one of the darkest and least researched corners of the American Revolution was the treatment of the loyalists," but he seems entirely oblivious of the scholarly studies by Christopher New or William Nelson or even of the standard popular account by Christopher Moore. Although Harvey seems to regard his revisionism as startlingly original, there is little that is new here. Instead, he seems to be debating the ghosts of such long-dead historians as Carl Becker and George Trevelyan.
At times, too, he is so intent on offering a contrary view that he traps himself in a corner. For example, he argues that historians "have traditionally ascribed" Burgoynes's disastrous expedition to Albany and surrender at Saratoga "to massive incompetence on the part of the British." Instead, Harvey contends, the British loss "can be more readily explained by the professional jealousy of two rival commanders." Let's set aside the hair-splitting question of whether military leaders who favor spite over victory can still be considered "competent." I defy anyone to read the subsequent fifty pages and still conclude that Burgoyne, Clinton, and Howe were anything other than stupendously inept. Even Harvey seems to abandon his initial claim, finally admitting that defeat was "due to Burgoyne's suicidal impulse to advance and attack."
The bulk of Harvey's book focuses on military strategy and the specifics of various battles. He gives relatively short shrift to the ideological, social, economic, or political underpinnings of the conflict. When he does offer such analysis, though, his reliance on work published in the United States undercuts his thesis that Americans have an uncritical view of their own origins. His section on the frontier war is little more than an abstract of Colin Calloway's "The American Revolution in Indian Country," and the chapter on the hypocrisy of slave-owners fighting for liberty summarizes Benjamin Quarles's 1961 study, "The Negro in the American Revolution." (The author seems unaware of the dozens of studies published since Quayle's that recount in far more critical terms the treatment of blacks by American rebels.)
Harvey characterizes American complaints against British rule as whining hypocrisy, and he (correctly) points out that British colonial rule was so minimal as to be hardly "oppressive"--in large part because London was unable to rule the colonies effectively from across the Atlantic Ocean. He also claims that the rebels barely won the war and, if it weren't for the French, probably would have lost it. Yet, even if the British had prevailed in the 1780s, it is certain America would have won independence in some future decade--as did Canada, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, India, Iraq, and every major colonial possession ever governed by the United Kingdom. Harvey never pauses to step back and look at the bigger picture: that while British rule may not have been so bad, it was untenable, unwanted, unnecessary, and ultimately doomed to failure.
Overall, then, Harvey's stirring prose and strident arguments can't overcome the fact that his book is both fifty years behind the time and ill-considered in its implicit defense of colonialism.
39 people found this helpful
Report

Top reviews from other countries

R.M.F.Brown (Author)
5.0 out of 5 stars Will change the way you view The American revolution
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on June 6, 2015
To say that the American Revolution was a complex affair, would be an understatement of the highest order. And yet, succesive generations have allowed this complex era of history to be reduced to black and white definitions of 'good' Americans and 'bad' Brits.

Thankfully,Robert Harvey takes a shotgun to this viewpoint and brings a welcome balance to the debate.

As Harvey points out, London was to far away to rule with an iron fist. For all the talk of British repression, we learn that the colonies were the least taxed region of the Empire. In every instance, British actions to govern the colonies (including the not unreasonable stance of Americans paying for their own defence) was met with American resistance. And yet, before the revolution, American silence to the pressing questions of defence, taxation and governance, spoke volumes.
Harvey shows us that a British Parliament with a high number of American supporters, could have pushed a bill for home rule, if one had been forthcoming from the colonies. When you consider the intelluctual prowess that the founding fathers had, it is amazing that the colonies didn't present a unified front and draft a proposal up. Instead, both London and the colonies were content to muddle along with fatal consequnces.

Nor were Americans appreciative to limits placed on them by the proclamation of 1763,a British attempt to preserve the Indian nations was met with outright hostility by land greedy colonists, and the colonial elites who profited hugely from it.
Time and again, we hear Jefferson arguing for liberty and freedom, and yet, the British Army freed thousands of slaves and were keen to preserve the Indian nations as future trading partners. The Americans in contrast, practiced a scorched earth policy regarding the native tribes, and unlike the British, were reluctant to allow African Americans to fight for them.

On the military side, we see the genius of Washington snatching victory from the jaws of defeat (despite his defeats at the hands of Howe) and the disaster that was the Saratoga campaign that drove a stake into Britian's military effort.
Harvey argues that Britian didn't fuly press the war as much as it could have. Robert Clive, arguably Britian's most able general, refused to fight the colonists. Nor was the loss of the colonies a great deal - the west indies being much more lucrative.

Harvey argues that the revolution was Britian's 'Vietnam.' Much like the Americans two centuries later, Britian won most of the battles, but the lack of an end game, the rebels habit of ruling the vast hinterlands, made victory less likely for Britian. Therefore, one could argue it was British reluctance to fight (they still controlled most of the port towns at the war's end) rather than American victories, that won the war.

To be fair, the book does contain inaccuracies, but in my view, it is a welcome addition to the canon of work concerning the revolution
5 people found this helpful
Report
Mr. P. A. Gower
4.0 out of 5 stars Encourages me to read more about this war
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on July 6, 2012
"A Few Bloody Noses" provides a good overall review of both the military and political aspects of the American War of Independence. Although ironic, the use of America's Vietnam War experience as an analogy I found helpful in explaining the interplay between the military campaign and the politics and why Britain finally lost. I found it amusing that the key drivers of independence in the "Land of the Free" seem to be free from paying taxes, to be free to rob the native Indians of their lands and to be free in the south to keep slavery. Not exactly a ringing endorsement behind the myth of American Independence being a fight for liberty - or is that taking liberties? Although not presented as a strong military leader, George Washington does come across as a strategic genius of fighting political battles, both literally and metaphorically and his timing when he defeated, with French support, Cornwallis at Yorktown. He may have lost battles but he won the war, a lesson that the other British colony who attempted to gain independence unilaterally should have learnt. Eventually he also inspired/conspired the counter-revolution that prevented the radicals who had started the war from gaining power.
3 people found this helpful
Report
Dr Peter Parkes
5.0 out of 5 stars Setting the record straight
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 31, 2016
A great factual account of this little corner of what Winston Churchill referred to as WW1 - a side show in the 7 years war between the British and French empires spanning the globe, which also saw the French kicked out of the 13 American Colonies AND Canada. But it was the Native American Indians who lost out most to the land grabs by the colonialists after losing the protection of the British realm.
One person found this helpful
Report
Steven C
5.0 out of 5 stars Great read
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 16, 2014
A most brilliant account of the american war of independence.
P. Noble
4.0 out of 5 stars An Excellent and Revealing Book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on July 9, 2008
But not for those who want to continue to read the myths and illusions of the past, originally created by an insurgency trying to justify their corrupt and self-centred ambitions of seizing power through inventing one grievance after another to disguise their real reasons, of wanting to seize assets of the elite and to push westwards to steal more and more Indian land.
This exposé has been predictably dismissed as `revisionist history' by those wanting to perpetuate the fantasy of the Revolution being the utmost expression of liberty and nobility.
But those who want a step by step guide through the events that enabled a small minority of smugglers, radicals, misfits and lawless riff-raff to systematically provoke the necessary chaos, that eventually overwhelmed the American establishment and how the British did too little too late to prevent it, this is a good place to start.
So if you are someone that can withstand being confronted with the real facts of the Revolution, then this book is a sound investment
2 people found this helpful
Report
Report an issue

Does this item contain inappropriate content?
Do you believe that this item violates a copyright?
Does this item contain quality or formatting issues?