I vote fiction.
There are many elements that are probably true. In many Washington biographies it is mentioned about the four shots & two horses being shot out from underneath him...example here at the White House website. He was an aide to General Braddock who was killed at the battle of Monongahela River. He may have ridden back & forth rallying troops, although this is disputed. The Brits/colonists got creamed as much by their own incompetence as by the whithering fire from the French & Indians.
However, many details in the post are less than correct. Brit casualties are closer to 800, but this is a minor nit to pick. Perhaps more significant is that the Brits did, indeed, break ranks. And darn quickly, apparently. According to account, Braddock's advanced 'guard' (I use the term loosely) was fired on and retreated in great disorder into the van causing no small disorder and lots of confusion. The author also contends that a significant number of the Brits were shot by their own men, persumably by accident in the confusion.
I question the image of an un-named Native American Chief having that much visibility or control of his "sharpshooters". First off, the French & Indian side was commanded by a French Captain (who was killed early on and replaced by another French Captain). More to the point, which Indian chief would this be? My searches have found only two named Indian big shots that might have been there, Pontiac (dubious) and Shingas, neither seem like good candidates to track down Washington later on and give their council.
The OP implies Washington was the only officer left on horseback. Unlikely. Many officers of higher rank were there & survived. Indeed, the list of officers who were there is a suprising "Who's Who" of the American Revolutionary war to include Gates, Gage, Charles Lee & Mercer. Since they were all Captains or above in rank, seems they
The book I found online that this seems to come from is and it is obviously a spiritual guide as much as anything and while I am loathe to prejudge before reading, I am admittadly skeptical that this is a work of well-defined scholarship. The author's bio claims a few awards & inclusion "in many Who's Who" but all the tracts he write seem to be concerned with the theme of religion...his titles include "America's Godly Heritage", "The Role of Pastors and Christians in Civil Government" and "Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution and Religion." Without questioning the sincerity or intent of the gentleman, I suspect that an apocraphyl tale supporting his view of religious intervention might be accepted at face value without the rigors of historical evaluation I normally expect in reliable research.
More scholarly works I've read excerpts from online don't mention the incident. When I get some time I'll crack a few books on the F&I war (not my favorite period, I confess) and see if I can dig anything up...but for now, I think the bit of the Indian meeting up with Washington is fabrication. If I get a chance to read "The Bullet Proof GW" I'd be interested to see his cites, since I don't find much in what I have.
There are many elements that are probably true. In many Washington biographies it is mentioned about the four shots & two horses being shot out from underneath him...example here at the White House website. He was an aide to General Braddock who was killed at the battle of Monongahela River. He may have ridden back & forth rallying troops, although this is disputed. The Brits/colonists got creamed as much by their own incompetence as by the whithering fire from the French & Indians.
However, many details in the post are less than correct. Brit casualties are closer to 800, but this is a minor nit to pick. Perhaps more significant is that the Brits did, indeed, break ranks. And darn quickly, apparently. According to account, Braddock's advanced 'guard' (I use the term loosely) was fired on and retreated in great disorder into the van causing no small disorder and lots of confusion. The author also contends that a significant number of the Brits were shot by their own men, persumably by accident in the confusion.
I question the image of an un-named Native American Chief having that much visibility or control of his "sharpshooters". First off, the French & Indian side was commanded by a French Captain (who was killed early on and replaced by another French Captain). More to the point, which Indian chief would this be? My searches have found only two named Indian big shots that might have been there, Pontiac (dubious) and Shingas, neither seem like good candidates to track down Washington later on and give their council.
The OP implies Washington was the only officer left on horseback. Unlikely. Many officers of higher rank were there & survived. Indeed, the list of officers who were there is a suprising "Who's Who" of the American Revolutionary war to include Gates, Gage, Charles Lee & Mercer. Since they were all Captains or above in rank, seems they
The book I found online that this seems to come from is and it is obviously a spiritual guide as much as anything and while I am loathe to prejudge before reading, I am admittadly skeptical that this is a work of well-defined scholarship. The author's bio claims a few awards & inclusion "in many Who's Who" but all the tracts he write seem to be concerned with the theme of religion...his titles include "America's Godly Heritage", "The Role of Pastors and Christians in Civil Government" and "Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution and Religion." Without questioning the sincerity or intent of the gentleman, I suspect that an apocraphyl tale supporting his view of religious intervention might be accepted at face value without the rigors of historical evaluation I normally expect in reliable research.
More scholarly works I've read excerpts from online don't mention the incident. When I get some time I'll crack a few books on the F&I war (not my favorite period, I confess) and see if I can dig anything up...but for now, I think the bit of the Indian meeting up with Washington is fabrication. If I get a chance to read "The Bullet Proof GW" I'd be interested to see his cites, since I don't find much in what I have.
No comments:
Post a Comment