"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message news:

I was somewhat startled to read in "Rebels & Redcoats", Hugh Bicheno,
Harper Collins, 2003;-

Which generally has not received very good reviews (mostly its the
same ol' stuff repackaged). I've only leafed through it, and was
unimpressed.

(Page 22);- Gage ... received a reply ... (Page 23)ordered him to arest
the members of the illegal Provincial Congress, which he knew from
several _well placed informers_ (emphasis mine) was meeting in Concord
... Gage's spies had also told him aconsiderable supply of arms and
military stores was cahed at Concord including three 24 pounder cannon
whose significance has gone strangely unremarked by historians.

Er, this is because there were no 24 pounder cannon. The intel was
wrong.

These were 5,600 pound monsters requiring eight to ten men to
serve themand a team of six horses to pull them ... they were seige guns ...
how they came to be uried in the courtyard of Concord jail is a mystery.
...
The cannon fitted the jigsaw in another way. The conspirators were
desperate to provoke some bloody event to plarize opinion, and the
French would have regarded a brace and a half of 24-ponders as seedcorn.
Pages 24-25 are maps
(Page 26) ... The existance of such powerful weapons at such a place
and time is one of those ugly facts so harmful to beautiful theories,
in this case the myth of peace-loving farmers spontaneously rising up
against unprovoked aggression.

Wow! Mr Bicheno seems to be really out of touch with American
historiagraphy.

They also provide an explanation why
the cautious Gage was suddenly inspired to undertake a high-risk
operation deep into territory where he had many informers and
_must have known_ (my emphasis) the local Militia had been drilling
for just such an eventuality.

Of course he did. No news in that. Concord *was* a provincial
magazine, and there *was* ordnance there, but only amounted to a
couple of three pounders, a couple of casks of powder and ball, and
the odd provisions stores (flour etc).

I'm sorry for the length of this extract from the book, but _I_ had
never been aware of this ordnance before;
I could never really understand
the march route particularly when one considers the practise of line
infantry in those days, these guys could march up escarpments,
through swamps across dunes etc ... in step all the way. The forestation
that apparently presented no problem to their harassers should have
been as easy for them to traverse. Was there an overarching reason
to stay on the road/track?

Smith wasn't one of the brightest cookies on the block, and was not
really given another important field command, but mainly served in
garrison duty for the remainder of his stay in America.

Elsewhere, I'm sure the author says that 'the British' had _not_ shipped
this size of ordnance to the American landmass ... I might be wrong here ...
where did they originate?

Britain, perhaps captured from the French, forged in America. . . 24
pounders (presumably iron) did exist in some of the fortifications
that existed and were taken over by the provinicial governments.
None, however, were at Concord. New Hampshire, e.g., did offer some
24 and 32 pounders to the New England Army besieging Boston in June.

Curiously the four-part accompanying documentary WGBH / BBC
presented by Richard Holmes elided over this ordnance, Richard Holmes
seemed to prefer riding on contemporary buses ...

The 24 pounders appear to only exist in Mr Bicheno's fervid
imagination. AFAIK, no where does Gage mention this as a reason for
going to Concord. In fact, his first intention was to destroy the
magazine at Worcester (fifty miles away), but this was ruled out as
too far to safely march. In his view, Concord was a much safer
objective in that it was much closer. Of course, the "Americans" all
knew it was his objective as well.

I highly recommend the book, although it 'accompanies the TV series its
'slant' seems different.

Meanwhile, the French will deny the provenance of this ordnance, along
with the supply of commissioning expertise to the Fuerzas Argentinas
and any missiles that the Polish Army finds in Iraq ... plus ca change?

Unless it was captured ordance from the French and Indian War, any
artillery ordnance was not otherwise French. The French government
did not make the decision to assist the "rebels" until the spring of
1776, and the first French ship to make port with artillery
(AMPHITRITE) did not arrive until the spring of 1777, some two years
after Lexington and Concord, and the French only supplied us with
light field guns beside. I.e. 4-pounders. I am not aware of a single
French siege gun arriving in America that was not part of the French
Army. American siege guns, including a couple of "light" 24 pounders
captured at Saratoga, were either captured from the British or
manufactured locally. There is no conspiricy here, sorry.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed