Thanks for this Gilbert, well done. I have a copy of SPI's Battle of Monmouth from their S&T Issue #90. I am going through the rules now, having never played a game set in the musket era. I can see that the scale of the map and detail differ from the GMT game, however unit size looks similar. I have recently joined a Rev War reenactment group on the Crown Forces side and looking for insights to the tactics of the day.
My elementary school teachers got it wrong. They said Charles Lee was the ancestor of General Robert E. Lee. Actually, Lee was the son of Light Horse Harry Lee.
I thank you for uploading this. The battle is often overlooked by professional and amateur historians. I live in Monmouth County and was able to visit the battleground on the anniversary of the battle. The re-enactors did a hell of a job. It was around 90 degrees and I felt sorry for those in uniform. I could only imagine how terribly exhausting the heat must of been for soldiers on both sides. I really appreciate the in depth analyses of the battle.
I had visited the battlefield back in 1975 and once again in the 90s. As I recall there was no formal Visitor Centre but there was a display are on top of a hill and with half decent maps you could still figure out the ground. The day I went is was very hot also, so the 'atmosphere' was definitely there.
I think the only other video in this series that I did was on 'Savannah' and I did do a reply of 'Saratoga'. I do want to do more of them in the future.
I played one game in this system a few years back and have yet to return to it. I love the components in this series, the maps and pieces are well designed and evocative of the time period. The game system is very good too, I had nothing to complain about when I tried it out. Thx for the vid.
I thought that both Washington and Lee are to blame, to an extent. But having read the Osprey Campaign book on Monmouth, I recall Washington giving Lee the option not to take the lead in the attack. Washington's other choice was Lafayette. I also agree about Washington's plans sometimes being a bit overly complicated. Have you ever tried the Battles from the Age of Reason?
I was reading John Marshall's writing about the whole set of battles of Washington. Clearly, Washington could have pursued Clinton after breaking their lines. Marshall mentions it after this battle that over a 1,000 men deserted as they marched through the Jerseys to New York. I agree with Marshall, this was a Washington win. Even if it might seem to be indecisive. Nahhh.
I like Lee. He disobeyed the Commander-in-chief, but stuck to his roots and had given every reason possible during his court martial as to why he felt he had to retire the first attack.
Well done Gilbert! I appreciate the knowledge shared from your research on the topic. Found the discussion far more engaging than one purely on game mechanics.
They have a museum there and in the gift shop they sell a lot of old SPI wargames. Ironically the game designer works there and it's his collection that is for sale.
Great use of the game for teaching history. And I for one have no problem with the reality of Washington’s battlefield performance. He had two good weeks during the entire war: Trenton and Princeton. But yes as you mention, still a great man, and certainty deserving of his political accomplishments.
Washington was like Eisenhower during WWII, in that they could hold disparate elements together for a long time, and make them function. Great generals win battles, but they can't hold the pieces together in the following 8 months when no fighting is happening. His military acumen didn't win many battles, but his force of will and magnetism held the army together thru the entire conflict, so that it could eventually win. The best "field" general we had was Arnold, and he was the man you'd want to lead an attack, but if he held Washingtons job... I shudder to think. Between his indiscretions and bad judgement displayed in "down times" the army would have abandoned him and we would have lost. Washington wasn't the best general, what he was however is the only man that could have won. As King George himself said... "He was the greatest man of his age...."
Washington knew he couldn't win many battles straight up. Nothing like WWII. It wasn't just about winning the battle at hand. His strategy was smart. He had a good week when he had to have one. Most critical, he needed to hang on a very long time to sap the British political will back in England. Hanging on for a long time and wearing them down was his gambit. This time stretch made it possible for France (Navy and troops) and Holland (arms and money) to assist. Without that strategy, the Revolution fails.
David Corbett this. Love Mr Madison’s War. I’d love a great modern American Independence game, particularly a CDG. I like Washington’s War as a game, but I’d love to see a political system with a bit less abstraction. I also like Liberty or Death, which is again a great game but necessarily abstracts the victory conditions away from reality. I’ve been thinking lately of a Pericles-type game, with a Continental Congress that gives direction to the War effort, but who knows.
Does anybody know why it's so hard to find in-depth information on Monmouth such as this? This is only really the 2nd vid on YT that describes the battle. Is it because the summary/conclusion of the battle are perhaps too optimistic so we've hidden the details? It's just so weird.
I've visited the Monmouth Battlefield and even the State of New Jersey doesn't give it much attention. They don't really have a Visitor Centre as such. When I went, there was only an open are panel exhibit station. There wasn't really a tour route and you had to do your own research to find stuff. I enjoyed it though. I don't have a single book on the battle itself and yet I have lots of books on the American Revolution.
my definitive reference for the AWI is Christopher Ward's "war of the revolution" from 1952 in 2 volumes. It was on my parents bookshelf from before I was born from some book club they once belonged to. I finally found my own copy from Half Price Books a decade ago. I did a college paper on the 1st volume for a American Revolution course way back when and the professor acknowledged Ward was a good author. Except for a brief intro on the causes of the War the book concentrates on the military aspects of the conflict. You really should hunt this one out. It should provide you with a solid account of each battle. Get an old version in two volumes. Not a reprint in one huge volume with condensed fonts.
Thanks for the tip Robert. I'm in the final stages of completing my own "War for America" game so it may be a little late for Ward's book to influence me but I always like different points of view. The greatest influence for me was Piers Mackesay's book of the same name.
A book I have: Washington and Lee at Monmouth. c1976 . The Making of a Scapegoat. by Theodore Thayer. This authors view is less tainted against Charles Lee and has lots of proof. Lee fell back for very good reasons. Just like Washington did in other battles because Washington gave Lee written orders to not take crazy chances at Monmouth. Dr. Thayer's scholarship shows that historians are only repeating each other in bashing Lee and demonstrate pejorative judgement. His points are made that General Lee actually saved Washington from ruinous defeat and likely saved the Revolution from a swift termination. This is great for serious readers of Revolutionary War literature because one needs to consider all the valid research and viewpoints. For any book to leave out this battle is just awful. This is also where "Molly Pitcher" assisted the Artillery. She was 24 years old. She was a German woman (parents born in Germany) real maiden name Mary Ludwig.
Yes, I'm not a great 'Charles Lee' fan, but he has been dealt with very hard by historians in general. I think a lot of it comes from the 'old school' and 'simplified' way of looking at history. That is: you need heroes and villains. People are way more complex than that. There are 'shades of grey'.
@@XLEGION1 This book is so good the author explains previous to 1860 the historians were more favorable to Lee. After 1860, they turned very sour. He even has a chapter called In The Eyes Of Historians. This is a comprehensive study of the battle, political and military tactics included. Without considering the political side, you lose a lot of understanding of the day.
Nice take on a video which uses a game to describe and study a battle, but doesn't actually extend to a "playthrough". I do this a lot with the games that interest me, although a more introspective playthrough is the ultimate objective. I'm more familiar with the SPI version of this battle, which is based on a modified Wellington's Victory system. Came about **this close** to actually playing it, while upgrading a Vassal module for it. Maybe one day, we'll drag it out... but, in addition to the GMT rendition I know there's also a highly regarded Battles of the American Revolution (BAR) system that studies this battle as well. It may well be the definitive game on the subject....
Yes, I'm familiar with the old SPI version as I had owned it at one time. I never played it though. I thought the "Wellington's Victory" system was too complicated for its own good. It just wasn't playable enough. I know the Clash of Arms version is a very detailed 'study' of the battle also. I don't own that one and although it is very very detailed I'm avoiding it too. I think the GMT version is the right balance of 'historicity' and 'playability'.
