2.5 stars

I thought I would enjoy this book as I do like the American Revolution. Do not get me wrong, the basis of it being on Washington’s lieutenants did appeal to me, and I do like the fact the book is categorised into each of the lieutenants, but it just read like a poorly written university essay that inserted random quotes from sources and did not explain anything about it. Plus some bits just felt out of place in some chapters

This book is informative and has a lot of things to say on these lieutenants. Personally I enjoyed the discussion on alcohol and it was interesting to read about the lieutenants and their links to Washington and other leaders. That said, I’m still figuring out what I like when it comes to American history and I just haven’t been inspired to pick this up so I’m stopping.

A disappointing history of selected American generals of the evolution. Branson makes some sweeping statements that the major generals were largely a disappointment and the brigadiers were generally capable and superior. He chooses three of the latter to illustrate his thesis, including one, William Davidson, who didn't do much at all, certainly as a commander. While the major generals do seem a sorry lot, his indictment of Robert Howe feels excessive. In general he cites a lot of secondary sources and doesn't drive home his conclusions. Not a compelling work. Also, he should learn that a baronet isn't a peer and that the title Baronet Lord isn't a real thing.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book; it was highly informative. I will certainly recommend it to others. Thank you to NetGalley and the publishers for the ARC.

An excellent and insightful look into the officers below Washington: good, bad, and those who should never have been offered a command. I hope the author writes similar books looking at the British side, or the lower ranking Continental officers (Ensign, Lieutenant, Captain, etc.).