Thanks very much for your articles which I find most interesting and informative.
If I might venture a comment; to suggest that the British in 1776 had ‘the world’s most powerful military’, is slightly less than accurate.
The French army at the time, for example, numbered around 400,000 men vs 50,000 for the British, reflective of France’s far larger population. The Royal Navy, while a powerful force, had not yet reached the level of overwhelming superiority that it achieved 25 years later (after Trafalgar), and was no match for the combined fleets of Britain’s European adversaries.
Thanks for your insightful comment and for being a reader of The Military Reading Room!
You make a great point about the relative size of European militaries in 1776, especially France’s. While the British Army was smaller, its discipline, combat experience, and global reach made it one of the most formidable forces of its time. The Royal Navy, though not yet at its Trafalgar-era peak, was still a dominant maritime power.
Your perspective is a great reminder that military strength is subjective, depending on how it’s measured—whether by sheer numbers, training, leadership, strategic positioning, or the economic depth of its nation. Based on your input, we’ve adjusted our wording to say the Continental Army was “facing one of the world’s most powerful militaries” to reflect a broader historical view.
We appreciate discussions like this that sharpen our understanding of military history. Thanks again for your input!
I highly recommend Atkinson’s three volume history. I read it at the same time as I read Jeff Shaara’s trilogy of novels covering the same period and at times it was hard to be sure which author I was reading! I’ve got the first volume of Atkinson’s history of the American Revolution and am waiting impatiently for volumes 2 and 3!
The Harding Project just released a post on the CSA's articles to read for February: https://www.hardingproject.com/p/your-weekend-reading-assignment-csa
Thanks very much for your articles which I find most interesting and informative.
If I might venture a comment; to suggest that the British in 1776 had ‘the world’s most powerful military’, is slightly less than accurate.
The French army at the time, for example, numbered around 400,000 men vs 50,000 for the British, reflective of France’s far larger population. The Royal Navy, while a powerful force, had not yet reached the level of overwhelming superiority that it achieved 25 years later (after Trafalgar), and was no match for the combined fleets of Britain’s European adversaries.
Thank you once again.
Thanks for your insightful comment and for being a reader of The Military Reading Room!
You make a great point about the relative size of European militaries in 1776, especially France’s. While the British Army was smaller, its discipline, combat experience, and global reach made it one of the most formidable forces of its time. The Royal Navy, though not yet at its Trafalgar-era peak, was still a dominant maritime power.
Your perspective is a great reminder that military strength is subjective, depending on how it’s measured—whether by sheer numbers, training, leadership, strategic positioning, or the economic depth of its nation. Based on your input, we’ve adjusted our wording to say the Continental Army was “facing one of the world’s most powerful militaries” to reflect a broader historical view.
We appreciate discussions like this that sharpen our understanding of military history. Thanks again for your input!
I highly recommend Atkinson’s three volume history. I read it at the same time as I read Jeff Shaara’s trilogy of novels covering the same period and at times it was hard to be sure which author I was reading! I’ve got the first volume of Atkinson’s history of the American Revolution and am waiting impatiently for volumes 2 and 3!
Thanks for the feedback, Robert. We will have to do an Author Spotlight on Atkinson.