Everything's Bigger in Texas, Including Confederatardation

[Malthus]

In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?

Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).

They should have read his diary!

Then they could understand him the way Malthus understands him - a profoundly sensitive, kind man, deeply troubled by his need to kill men while sleeping on the orders of his commander...so much so that he didn't even bother mentioning it because it was too painful to recount. He was a simple, peaceful man, thrown into turmoil and angst over his competing loyalty to his king, and his commitment to peace and justice for all Loyalists his men accidently stab to death.

Any more straw, and you could construct an entire revolutionary-era army out of it. 

I see you are done actually debating the facts, and prefer to retreat behind a cloud of sarcasm, sort of like a squid.

[Malthus]

Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.

Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. 

He could have reasonably expected 400 militiamen or so to be in the city.
He could not have reasonably expected 400 militiamen or so to be in the house.  It was a judge's house, not Versailles

From reading the account, they expected the house to be only one location in which solders were located, among a hamlet of buildings and store-houses.

But then, I seem to be the only person actually interested in looking at the sources on either side.

[Malthus]

Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.

Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. 

Indeed, both accounts agree that when it came time to actually fight, the Brits had a *known* 10-1 advantage, and a dominating military posture - what with have 300 men surrounding a single house with no more than 2-3 dozen men maximum inside. Asleep.

So, no commentary on the historical reliability of the orders you posted, presumably for their truth?

Not a surprise.

[Malthus]

In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?

Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).

Yes, but then, the same could be said for the overall portrayal of the Brits in "The Patriot". "Attilas" conducting "fiendish plots".

[Malthus]

That print run is interesting as the 19th century edition Malthus posted says in the preface that the diary 'was privately printed in 1787, for distribution among a few of his personal friends.' It does make the audience a bit more questionable and with it, I think, his motivation.

That was the 1840s era editor's gloss, explaining why a new edition was necessary.

I would also look at the author's own introduction. It is clear from that, that Simcoe fully intended his book to be read by his fellow-officers, his patrons, and his men's patrons; in short, that he expected the readership to go beyond his immediate friends, and to be read by people who knew the events in question (he states in the introduction that his intent was basically to 'correct the record' which had, he claims, falsely attributed certain deeds). 

[Berkut]

In any event, hard though it is to read (presumably it has been scanned using some sort of printing recognition program from the original), I leave it to the audience to judge whether this account is credible, indeed more credible than Simcoe's war diary I previously found. One may well ask: how did a Yankee newspaper writer get ahold of a copy of Colonel Marwood's orders? Is this account of the "Attila" conducting his "Fiendish Plot" really reliable?

Credible or not, it suggests that the show's portrayal of Simcoe is not all that far off how he was seen by Patriot partisans (whether fairly or unfairly).

They should have read his diary!

Then they could understand him the way Malthus understands him - a profoundly sensitive, kind man, deeply troubled by his need to kill men while sleeping on the orders of his commander...so much so that he didn't even bother mentioning it because it was too painful to recount. He was a simple, peaceful man, thrown into turmoil and angst over his competing loyalty to his king, and his commitment to peace and justice for all Loyalists his men accidently stab to death.

Any more straw, and you could construct an entire revolutionary-era army out of it. 

I see you are done actually debating the facts, and prefer to retreat behind a cloud of sarcasm, sort of like a squid.

Come on now, I laid it on pretty damn thick there Malthus!

It isn't a strawman when I am clearly just being a smartass!

[Berkut]

Note as well that both accounts *agree* on one thing: that Simcoe reasonably expected a much larger force (the Yank newspaper claims "400 men"), that had recently departed.

Despite Berkut's hilarious-to-Otto aside about 'thousands in one house'. 

Indeed, both accounts agree that when it came time to actually fight, the Brits had a *known* 10-1 advantage, and a dominating military posture - what with have 300 men surrounding a single house with no more than 2-3 dozen men maximum inside. Asleep.

So, no commentary on the historical reliability of the orders you posted, presumably for their truth?

Not a surprise.

Are you disputing their accuracy?

[Malthus]

Are you disputing their accuracy?

So far, the source for these orders being given appears to be a contemporary American newspaper article, written as anti-British propaganda (the same article describes the Colonel as an "Atilla" and claims that Simcoe was carrying out a "... fiendish plot, in which the most notorious of the local Tories participated"; the American patriots, by contrast, are depicted as acting with "Spartan-like courage").

Until I see a better source, in my opinion it looks unlikely that these orders were actually given, because it appears more likely that the orders were the invention of the newspaper article's writer and no more to be taken literally than the depiction of the Brits as "Attilas" and "fiends" or the patriots as "Spartan-like".

For one, how would an American patriot newspaper reporter get ahold of orders allegedly given by British officers? Is it not more likely that, having witnessed an event that they claim was a fiendish massacre, the writer simply conflated rumors that alleged that the soldiers shouted "no quarter" as they attacked, into positive orders not to give quarter?

The phrase "spare no one - put all to death - give no quarter" certainly sounds more like something shouted by soldiers in battle, than something formally ordered by an 18th century officer.

Now, this opinion is based purely on the sources as discovered by me, and I'm no professional historian, and my opinion is subject to change. Perhaps somewhere in the records there is an actual written order from the Colonel, or a contemporary account of a verbal order, maybe worded differently, to the effect that no prisoners were to be taken (though again, if there was such an order given it was disobeyed: even the patriot account claimed prisoners were, in fact, taken: "A few escaped or were taken prisoners by the enemy.").

[Berkut]

Ahhh, so if our source is the personal account of the leader of the expedition in question, we should accept his word for what happened, despite the obvious agenda in a personal recounting.

But if the source is a American newspaper article, we should dismiss it out of hand because that is obviously "anti-British" propaganda.

For one, how would an American patriot newspaper reporter get ahold of orders allegedly given by British officers?

Word of mouth? These kinds of orders are more effective when they are communicated around after all, the intent is to make it clear that resistance and treachery will be punished harshly.

I am surprised you find it so difficult to believe that such orders could possibly be leaked.

The phrase "spare no one - put all to death - give no quarter" certainly sounds more like something shouted by soldiers in battle, than something formally ordered by an 18th century officer.

Well, if it "sounds like" that, then I think we have to assume that it is inconceivable that such an order could be given?

I am not drawing conclusions based on what I think some words "sound like". There is evidence that such an order was given. There are reports from people who were there that no quarter was given, and in fact the soldiers went into the ambush stating such, and bragged about it afterwards. These kinds of things are sadly routine in this kind of fighting, so it doesn't take much extraordianry evidence for me to find them credible. I would, in fact, find similar stories of American soldiers actions just as credible.

Perhaps somewhere in the records there is an actual written order from the Colonel, or a contemporary account of a verbal order,

You just dismissed a contemporary account as "anti-British Propaganda", so clearly no, you will NOT change your mind based on such information.

[Berkut]

This is going nowhere Malthus.

What is bizarre about the entire thing though is your sensitivity to the idea that some British soldiers might have acted in a fashion that is completely typical of soldiers in these kinds of situations, basically in almost every way throughout history, and especially those involving divided loyalties and insurrection.

I don't really get your emotional investment in this, and for myself, whether some of Simcoes men did this or not says nothing about the man himself. Even if his CO gave that order, and Simcoe himself then relayed it and insisted on it, such that this all happened in the worst possible light (within reason), I still don't think it says much of anything terrible about him.

If in fact they came on that house, knew that there were 20-30 traitors in it, and decided they were going to attack and "take no prisoners" (which, btw, doesn't mean what you think it means*), and then attacked and killed the vast majority of them while they were sleeping, or as they awoke and refused to allow any of them to surrender...so what? Nasty shit happens during nasty wars. In fact, absent any direct evidence at all, I am happy to say that we know that shit like this happened plenty that was NEVER reported. We know this because we know how these kinds of wars are fought.

We also know that the accounts of these things will be exaggerated or minimized based on which side you are on. The "accusation" here is not extraordinary, and doesn't require extraordinary evidence IMO.  It is, in fact, almost boringly typical.




*The "take no prisoners" call, btw, doesn't generally mean that we will literally take no prisoners necessarily. It means that the nature of the fight anticipated is such that offers of surrender during the fight should not be accepted, as there won't be time to do so, and it could jeopardize the mission. On its face, that doesn't mean that you should not take prisoners once the fight is actually over, and it is in fact usually just an emotive tool to get people jacked up and aggressive.

[Malthus]

Ahhh, so if our source is the personal account of the leader of the expedition in question, we should accept his word for what happened, despite the obvious agenda in a personal recounting.

But if the source is a American newspaper article, we should dismiss it out of hand because that is obviously "anti-British" propaganda.

I'm not "dismissing it out of hand". I'm giving my opinion as to its relative validity as a truthful account of the orders actually provided.

The fact that the account is filled with hyperbole (to put it mildly) I think ought to be taken into consideration concerning the possible motives of the author. This is clearly a piece intended to arouse anti-British sentiment, they say as much. 

This isn't rocket surgery.   

As I said, I'm open to revising this opinion based on, you know, evidence. Need I point out that so far I'm doing all the work in finding sources? 

Word of mouth? These kinds of orders are more effective when they are communicated around after all, the intent is to make it clear that resistance and treachery will be punished harshly.

Huh? This was supposed to be a SECRET night attack.

Clearly, it isn't much of a secret if the orders are "communicated around" to the enemy now, is it?

Now, it is possible the orders were "leaked" after the attack. More probable, though, is that they were simply invented post hoc.

I am surprised you find it so difficult to believe that such orders could possibly be leaked.

I simply think, in the context of a patriot newspaper account, it is more probable that they were invented.

Well, if it "sounds like" that, then I think we have to assume that it is inconceivable that such an order could be given?

Inconceivable? No. Less likely? Yes.

I am not drawing conclusions based on what I think some words "sound like". There is evidence that such an order was given. There are reports from people who were there that no quarter was given, and in fact the soldiers went into the ambush stating such, and bragged about it afterwards. These kinds of things are sadly routine in this kind of fighting, so it doesn't take much extraordianry evidence for me to find them credible. I would, in fact, find similar stories of American soldiers actions just as credible.

But this isn't correct. The patriot account itself claims quarter *was* given: prisoners *were* taken.

So far, the only evidence such an order was given is a patriot newspaper, and I think it is not out of line to doubt that source as to the accuracy of details they typically would not have.

You just dismissed a contemporary account as "anti-British Propaganda", so clearly no, you will NOT change your mind based on such information.

Well, I'm glad you know what I'll do better than I do. Saves me the trouble of replying. 

[Berkut]

It isn't hard when you are provided evidence, you dismiss it immediately, and then piously announce how you would totally change your mind if only you had some evidence...

[Malthus]

This is going nowhere Malthus.

What is bizarre about the entire thing though is your sensitivity to the idea that some British soldiers might have acted in a fashion that is completely typical of soldiers in these kinds of situations, basically in almost every way throughout history, and especially those involving divided loyalties and insurrection.

I don't really get your emotional investment in this, and for myself, whether some of Simcoes men did this or not says nothing about the man himself. Even if his CO gave that order, and Simcoe himself then relayed it and insisted on it, such that this all happened in the worst possible light (within reason), I still don't think it says much of anything terrible about him.

If in fact they came on that house, knew that there were 20-30 traitors in it, and decided they were going to attack and "take no prisoners" (which, btw, doesn't mean what you think it means*), and then attacked and killed the vast majority of them while they were sleeping, or as they awoke and refused to allow any of them to surrender...so what? Nasty shit happens during nasty wars. In fact, absent any direct evidence at all, I am happy to say that we know that shit like this happened plenty that was NEVER reported. We know this because we know how these kinds of wars are fought.

We also know that the accounts of these things will be exaggerated or minimized based on which side you are on. The "accusation" here is not extraordinary, and doesn't require extraordinary evidence IMO.  It is, in fact, almost boringly typical.




*The "take no prisoners" call, btw, doesn't generally mean that we will literally take no prisoners necessarily. It means that the nature of the fight anticipated is such that offers of surrender during the fight should not be accepted, as there won't be time to do so, and it could jeopardize the mission. On its face, that doesn't mean that you should not take prisoners once the fight is actually over, and it is in fact usually just an emotive tool to get people jacked up and aggressive.

My only motive is to look at an interesting historical problem using original sources. Not sure why you are insisting I'm not open minded, emotionally invested, etc. or why sarcasm is so necessary on your part.

[Malthus]

It isn't hard when you are provided evidence, you dismiss it immediately, and then piously announce how you would totally change your mind if only you had some evidence...

Dude. I provided the evidence. 

[Berkut]

But this isn't correct. The patriot account itself claims quarter *was* given: prisoners *were* taken.

I don't know why you keep saying this.

So what?

The fact that prisoners were taken is evidence that an order was NOT given to NOT take prisoners?

In your vast military experience, is it the case that you find that every order given is 100% followed, such that failure to execute the order perfectly is reasonable evidence that the order was never given to begin with?

You are just grasping at straws here - there is no possible evidence that one can reasonably expect to exist that will change your mind.

We have contemporaneous newspaper accounts that you simply dismiss out of hand.

There isn't any CNN here to provide some kind of clearly objective story. It doesn't exist. Absent that, you can cling to your faith in the perfect holiness of the British and Loyalist troopers if that is that valuable to you.