Benedict Arnold’s Army: The 1775 American Invasion of Canada During the Revolutionary War (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Benedict Arnold’s Army: The 1775 American Invasion of Canada During the Revolutionary War Holly A. Mayer Benedict Arnold’s Army: The 1775 American Invasion of Canada During the Revolutionary War. By Arthur S. Lefkowitz. New York: Savas Beattie, 2008. ISBN 978-1-932714-03-6. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. xx, 380. $32.95. Arthur Lefkowitz says that his account is not about Benedict Arnold, but he admits that his story of the force Arnold led into Canada cannot be told without him front and center. As Lefkowitz presents him, the B in Benedict Arnold’s name stands for bold and the A for audacious. Such traits were why George Washington chose Arnold to lead the expedition, and, according to Lefkowitz, they defined the Continental Army’s commander in chief as well. Such characterization is part of the sometimes elusive argument in this lively narrative of the challenges that beset the soldiers who trekked through the northern wilderness in late 1775 and then formed the core of Richard Montgomery’s force at Quebec in December. Lefkowitz argues that Washington and Arnold epitomized initiative as they applied their imaginations, ideas from books on military science, and in Arnold’s case Montgomery’s directives at Quebec, to the mission. In the process these leaders learned about the risks and expenses of war while their men learned the reality of self-sacrifice. Lefkowitz introduces his work as “the true story of a bold plan” (p. xv). That word bold appears often, as do dedication and discipline. Lefkowitz shows how the first two were displayed and the third learned and concludes that the trials and ultimate defeat of the Arnold Expedition trained leaders and men who went on to make major contributions to winning the War for Independence. Although the author does well to point out that the lessons of failure served later success, that is a problematic conclusion to a book that is not about later success but about what happened when plans and theories met reality. Lefkowitz’s scholarship is based on a mixture of archival and published primary sources and both academic and “popular” secondary sources. He makes particular use of Kenneth Roberts’s March to Quebec: Journals of the Members of Arnold’s Expedition (New York, 1940). Such sources and his writing style indicate that the author had the admirable goal of erecting this history for general audiences upon solid foundations. Lefkowitz does engage in historical debate on occasion. While some people have blamed the bateaux for the expedition’s problems, he puts more of the blame on inexperienced crews (pp. 105–7). He also disputes Daniel Morgan’s version, and the historians who have taken Morgan’s account to be accurate, of the attack on the second barricade at Quebec (fn 125, pp. 342–3). The focus on action, however, may have led to a few slight contradictions, such as when Lefkowitz says that “Arnold’s vocabulary did not include words like caution or retreat,” but then notes how Arnold decided not to risk assaulting Quebec on 13–14 November even though he should have because it was weakly defended, though not so weakly as it was on 4 November (pp. 202–214). Lefkowitz maintains a conversational tone in Benedict Arnold’s Army as he describes and defines terrain and terms. He includes useful illustrations and maps, though three of the latter were apparently draft sketches that the publisher was supposed to digitize before the book went to press. Lefkowitz helps his readers use their imagination as well as intellect as they review the past. [End Page 1287] Holly A. Mayer Duquesne University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Copyright © 2008 Society for Military History
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».