Scan barcode
duparker's review
3.0
Interesting process or reading the first book in a series, last. I started with the second volume, and then hit the third, completing the Revolutionary War, and then started the war. Philbrick has a great command of the war, and its participants and an arresting skill in making them mere mortals. I enjoyed the accessibility of the participants and the locations the events took place.
eljaspero's review
4.0
A Philbrick book, so it's packed full of fascinating characters we thought we knew and incredibly well-researched - but somehow, for whatever reason, "Bunker Hill" didn't grab me the way "Heart of the Sea" and "Last Stand" did. Maybe it's the greater historical distance? Maybe I don't care about New England history enough? Whatever the case, still a great read, but not quite as compelling as other stuff of his I've read and truly loved.
jderv's review
4.0
it's a bit of a struggle to read all the lead-up to the actual battles (beginning with Lexington).. but from there it is quite good.
turtlesreads's review
4.0
Overall, a really good read. I liked how the author showed the progression leading up to the Battle of Bunker Hill and how that battle (and those that fought) shaped America's independence journey.
mcf's review
3.0
Disappointing. I've liked Philbrick before (In the Heart of the Sea), but Bunker Hill felt unfocused, as if either Philbrick or his editors didn't have enough confidence in his central topic to let it carry the book. Instead, tangents are introduced, presumably to add personal color to the story, but their effect is more distracting than anything else. In reality, the tangents (mostly about the personal lives of central characters) are so numerous and hefty that they ultimately make one wonder if there's been some misunderstanding about the actual topic of the book -- are we actually going to learn about the Battle of Bunker Hill, or no? Once Philbrick actually gets to Bunker Hill itself, the book picks up, but that section is strangely minor, feeling almost like an afterthought.
Don't me wrong -- Philbrick's research is excellent and his topic is a worthy one, it's just that the storytelling, in this case has let him down.
Don't me wrong -- Philbrick's research is excellent and his topic is a worthy one, it's just that the storytelling, in this case has let him down.
bupdaddy's review against another edition
5.0
Man, who would think that a book about a single battle could be so engaging?
There's plenty of context-setting, of course - everything that led to the battle, and all the things the battle caused. Philbrick makes a great case for how important this confrontation was. It really shows well how things we learn in school like the Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Lexington and Concord, Ticonderoga and Bunker Hill weren't episodic punctuation marks in the pre-Declaration history of colonial uprising, but a connected series of cause and effects.
I also learned some fun nerd stuff. Bunker Hill was the bloodiest fight in the entire war. Joseph Warren was a mythical figure who'd be remembered on the level of the most famous founding fathers had he lived (although had he survived Bunker Hill he'd have probably died at the next battle, given how much he threw himself into the fore). After Bunker Hill, when Boston was sieged, General John Burgoyne staged a play at Faneuil Hall to satirize those hayseed Americans, which was interrupted just as it began by an announcement the Yankees were attacking.* When George Washington decided the time had come to have a ceremony to symbolize that the army he took over was no longer provincial, but a continental army, the ceremony entailed lowering the red continental flag and raising the Grand Union flag over the fort on Bunker Hill. Understandably, the British in Boston took it as a sign of subordinance. Oops.
The story told herein is also a story of the gradual change in attitude of Americans from believing parliament was their enemy, while their beloved king was still on their side, to understanding that liberty could only be won as they understood liberty by separating from England entirely.
So this is a great book for understanding the thread, the underlying transformation, that was taking place, whose easy-to-identify artifacts are those episodes young Americans are taught almost as vignettes.
*It is not true, however, because I looked it up after I read the book, what the book says, that specifically a caricature of George Washington was the first character on the stage, with a hopalong gait and a rusty sword at his side, who got interrupted by someone the audience mistook as an actor telling him the Americans were attacking.
There's plenty of context-setting, of course - everything that led to the battle, and all the things the battle caused. Philbrick makes a great case for how important this confrontation was. It really shows well how things we learn in school like the Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Lexington and Concord, Ticonderoga and Bunker Hill weren't episodic punctuation marks in the pre-Declaration history of colonial uprising, but a connected series of cause and effects.
I also learned some fun nerd stuff. Bunker Hill was the bloodiest fight in the entire war. Joseph Warren was a mythical figure who'd be remembered on the level of the most famous founding fathers had he lived (although had he survived Bunker Hill he'd have probably died at the next battle, given how much he threw himself into the fore). After Bunker Hill, when Boston was sieged, General John Burgoyne staged a play at Faneuil Hall to satirize those hayseed Americans, which was interrupted just as it began by an announcement the Yankees were attacking.* When George Washington decided the time had come to have a ceremony to symbolize that the army he took over was no longer provincial, but a continental army, the ceremony entailed lowering the red continental flag and raising the Grand Union flag over the fort on Bunker Hill. Understandably, the British in Boston took it as a sign of subordinance. Oops.
.svg){kind=link}
The story told herein is also a story of the gradual change in attitude of Americans from believing parliament was their enemy, while their beloved king was still on their side, to understanding that liberty could only be won as they understood liberty by separating from England entirely.
So this is a great book for understanding the thread, the underlying transformation, that was taking place, whose easy-to-identify artifacts are those episodes young Americans are taught almost as vignettes.
*It is not true, however, because I looked it up after I read the book, what the book says, that specifically a caricature of George Washington was the first character on the stage, with a hopalong gait and a rusty sword at his side, who got interrupted by someone the audience mistook as an actor telling him the Americans were attacking.
wonder_kinder's review
4.0
a pretty comprehensive history of the events in and around Boston leading into the revolutionary war. well researched and told without prejudice.
jdintr's review
3.0
The title is a little misleading: Bunker Hill:takes up three of the fourteen chapters of the book, and doesn't really take shape until 2/3rds of the way through A City is the real focus of the book, as it traces Boston's Revolutionary War history from the Tea Party through the British evacuation of that city in early 1776. a Siege takes up one chapter at the end, and a Revolution is, next to Boston, the other overall theme.
Philbrick is an able historian, more comfortable writing about the sea, but able on land as well (I prefer his sea writings like Mayflower and In the Heart of the Sea. One thing this book did for me was to bring to life a forgotten patriot, Joseph Warren, who took an outsized role in the revolution once Samual Adams and John Hancock had left for the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Warren was a force in his own right: a stirring orator, the first commissioned general over forces in the Boston area, and--at the end--a valiant warrior who laid down his life on Breed's Hill during the battle.
Philbrick also does a good job of showing how the siege was ultimately successful. George Washington's desire for a frontal assault never came to fruition, and the gradual, creeping expansion of positions onto the heights surrounding Boston ultimately encouraged the British to get out of town after an eight-month siege without another conflict.
Philbrick is spot-on with his characterization of Washington. Along with Warren, he brings Isaac Putnam and Henry Knox to life, and his recounting of the confrontations at Lexington and Concord are also worthwhile reading.
Philbrick is an able historian, more comfortable writing about the sea, but able on land as well (I prefer his sea writings like Mayflower and In the Heart of the Sea. One thing this book did for me was to bring to life a forgotten patriot, Joseph Warren, who took an outsized role in the revolution once Samual Adams and John Hancock had left for the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Warren was a force in his own right: a stirring orator, the first commissioned general over forces in the Boston area, and--at the end--a valiant warrior who laid down his life on Breed's Hill during the battle.
Philbrick also does a good job of showing how the siege was ultimately successful. George Washington's desire for a frontal assault never came to fruition, and the gradual, creeping expansion of positions onto the heights surrounding Boston ultimately encouraged the British to get out of town after an eight-month siege without another conflict.
Philbrick is spot-on with his characterization of Washington. Along with Warren, he brings Isaac Putnam and Henry Knox to life, and his recounting of the confrontations at Lexington and Concord are also worthwhile reading.