Robert Middlekauff, the author of Why Men Fought in the American Revolution, wrote about the differences and similarities between the American side and British side, as well as the story line. The author discusses the soldiers’ motivations to fight, the differences between the British and American soldiers, the differences between the British and American officers, and the strongest reason the men stayed to fight. Staying to fight for one’s land or for freedom maybe be enough to have men stay and fight, but Middlekauff believed in other reasons. On page 136, Robert mentions that the fear of ridicule may have caused troops to stay in place. He mentioned that men who ran away during battle would be fired upon, thus causing troops to be in fear
…show more content…
The similarities include how they both fought with “spirit” and “behaving well” under fire, as Middlekauff mentions on page 141. It shows how they gave each other support and held together. (141) However, there were many differences. It is said that the closer American troops were to their home, the better they were in battle. (143) With that being said, they have more reason to fight for their own home, rather than by someone else’s home. American soldiers enjoyed independence and liberty, but they lacked standards and rules which help regulate themselves in war. They left camp when they felt like it, they shot guns when they wanted to, without order, and they could not be trusted. (144) The British, on the other hand, were disciplined and very well trained. They had their values set for the army and they had the standards of men who were to fight for honor. (144) It is obvious that the British army was much more prepared and well trained for battle, unlike the American troops. Middlekauff mentions that the British officers disciplined their men more than American officers did, as well as training. (136) One might think that British officers would also include themselves in the war like the American officers did. However, British officers did not fight, they sought danger. The officers would insulate themselves from doing anything related to killing or dying. (144) It makes one wonder how these officers
The similarities include how they both fought with “spirit” and “behaving well” under fire, as Middlekauff mentions on page 141. It shows how they gave each other support and held together. (141) However, there were many differences. It is said that the closer American troops were to their home, the better they were in battle. (143) With that being said, they have more reason to fight for their own home, rather than by someone else’s home. American soldiers enjoyed independence and liberty, but they lacked standards and rules which help regulate themselves in war. They left camp when they felt like it, they shot guns when they wanted to, without order, and they could not be trusted. (144) The British, on the other hand, were disciplined and very well trained. They had their values set for the army and they had the standards of men who were to fight for honor. (144) It is obvious that the British army was much more prepared and well trained for battle, unlike the American troops. Middlekauff mentions that the British officers disciplined their men more than American officers did, as well as training. (136) One might think that British officers would also include themselves in the war like the American officers did. However, British officers did not fight, they sought danger. The officers would insulate themselves from doing anything related to killing or dying. (144) It makes one wonder how these officers