Today we’re exploring the ruinous Battle of the Monongahela, or “Braddock’s Defeat,” which took place in 1755 near modern day Pittsburgh. We know what you’re thinking, the United States wasn’t around in 1755, what does this have to do with American military history and national myths? A lot. Present at the Battle of the Monongahela was the young George Washington, who learned valuable lessons on leadership and tactics as a result of this crushing defeat. What’s more, the Battle of the Monongahela marks the beginning of the Washington mythos. We hope you enjoy the show.
Works Cited
- Armstrong Starkey, European and Native American Warfare: 1675-1815, 1998.
- Battle of Fort Necessity and Braddock’s Defeat, Fort Edwards Online Archive
- David Preston, Braddock’s Defeat: The Battle of the Monongahela and the Road to Revolution, 2015.
- Emanuel Leutze, Washington Crossing the Delaware, 1851.
- George Washington, Letter to John Augustine Washington, 1755.
- George Washington, Letter to Robert Orme, 1755.
- George Washington, Letter to William Fairfax, 1754.
- Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 1991.
- Paul E. Kopperman, Braddock at the Monongahela, 1977.
- Ron Chernow, Washington, A Life, 2010.
SNAFUBAR is hosted by Sara Hart, chair of the Applied Humanities department at Cal Poly Humboldt, and Jeff Crane , an Environmental Historian and Dean of the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Cal Poly Humboldt.
Research and writing for the show is done by Liam Salcuni and Roman Sotomayor.
SNAFUBAR is produced by Abigail Smithson and brought to you by the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Cal Poly Humboldt.
Temporary transcript, will be corrected ASAP:
Jeff: Hello everyone! Welcome to the SNAFUBAR podcast, where we explore strategic and moral military errors and the myths that both led to and justified them. This week on SNAFUBAR we are exploring one of the most pivotal battles, and SNAFU’s, in Colonial American history: The Battle of the Monongahela, or also known as Braddock's Defeat. Edward Braddock was a British General who led the disastrous retaliatory campaign against the French and Native Americans during the French and Indian War. What started this debacle? Washington’s activities in the Ohio River Valley, a history we explored in our earlier podcast series. This is a follow up episode to our previous series on George Washington, the hero of American history deified in our nation’s Capital and the “Father of our Nation.”
Cue the colonial fife tune! Haha. But seriously, google The Apotheosis of George Washington by Constantino Brumidi, painted on the ceiling of the Capitol rotunda. Washington is enthroned as a God, literally. And what does Apotheosis mean? Apotheosis can mean the highest point in someone’s life or career. It also is the process in which someone reaches divine status, becoming a God. Reflected in the ceiling art on the capitol rotunda is this really dizzyingly reverential piece depicting the deification of George Washington. This is some heavy-handed American Civil Religion, a real easy and explicit example of that.
Yes, exactly, and this deification and celebration of George Washington in American art, history, and culture is one of our particular interests in this series. You see, highlighting the career of George Washington not only provides us with examples of military SNAFU’s and the lessons learned from these events, Washington’s career also serves as a point of entry into charting American myths intertwined with our nation’s history and its military traditions. Essentially, myths about our national values and overseas actions get their foundational support from our country's history.
Yes. Myths are everywhere, and they find their tether in historical events, historical figures, historical moments. We point to myth here in the SNAFUBAR, and we jab at it a little bit, but I want to be super clear that we’re not against myth, we’re not saying that myth is a bad thing. We’re not just making fun of the American story. Myths can be good or bad; most often they’re both. These are the stories through which we express meaning, value, and purpose, and we all have them, we all live by them. Myths are tied to history, often born from history, but they’re not answerable to history, they’re not contained by it.
So we’ve got this myth of George Washington as a semi-divine or almost divine figure who basically birthed America like Zeus birthed Athena, straight out of his head. He’s up there in the capitol rotunda (looking pretty stern, really, and wearing like a cross between a military uniform and angel robes) with a heavenly banner floating above his head, that reads E Pluribus Unum…And that’s the myth, loud and proud. Washington’s a stand-in, or a metonym, for a democratic egalitarianism, a humble commitment to duty in the interest of a national cause that is greater than individual power, greater than one man’s ego. We all inherit these myths – different ones, variations on the same ones, and the ones we inherit, we don’t often think about them, we don’t have to. What we’re doing here, in the SNAFUBAR and in our classrooms, is identifying the myth, and drawing it into a more direct relationship with its historical roots, so that we might use the myth more intentionally as a guiding light, moving forward, one that’s enriched by time and true to our present moment, able to see from all the different vantage points that the historical record offers us.
The myths and realities are wrapped around each other like a double helix. One is possible only because of the other. And this is where the topic of our episode comes into play.
I’m Jeff Crane, the Dean of the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences here at Cal Poly Humboldt. I’m a historian and a veteran who was raised in a culture of American exceptionalism, who worked in psyops during the 1980s wind-down of the Cold War, and who’s spent my academic career concentrating on the environmental and social histories of the nation. I’m joined by 2022-23 Distinguished faculty recipient:
I’m Sara Hart. I teach classes on America and its myths here at Cal Poly Humboldt, and I work with the local veteran community on projects and programs in support of veterans’ reintegration to civilian life, and in support of their continued service.
Braddock’s defeat was the first major engagement of the French and Indian War following Washington’s surrender at Fort Necessity on July 4th, 1754. If you recall from our previous series on George Washington, the young Colonel Washington led a weary and unprepared troop of colonial militia in a fight for the Ohio River Valley, a region rich with natural resources and navigable rivers, ideal for empire building and consolidating a larger British presence in North America.
And home to various indigenous societies, who are not only their own agents in this conflict but also formidable military allies for the French and British, but primarily the French. Also, the irony of Washington surrendering on the 4th of July…
Yeah, Washington’s got a chip on his shoulder after this embarrassing, and at least from a hindsight perspective, completely predictable defeat. This is where we can cut him a break. He never should have been allowed to put himself and his troops in that position. And it’s a defeat that the young military officer never forgot. It might come as a surprise for some listeners that a figure such as George Washington actually surrendered and lost a military skirmish. I mean, the acclaim he received during his lifetime as Commander of the Continental Army during the Revolution cements his identity as an American hero, not to mention being the first President of the United States. Who would have thought?!
Right? So, American scholar Joseph Campbell did a lot of work on how active or living mythology works, to help shape how a culture understands its place in the wider universe. History becomes an epic, individuals become the heroes, countries transform the meanings of their history into something powerful, something sacred, in some cases imbued with the divine hand of providence. Mythology helps empires and countries find their place among the cosmos. So of course it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because it’s powerful. Myth can be an instrument of self-aggrandizement as much as it can help to emplace us, give us a sense of purposeful direction in a complicated world. This is certainly true of our country and its heroes and military traditions.
Yeah, it’s not like we ever say out loud, um, yeah, we need to keep going to war in the Middle East because cheap gas is the bedrock of our ancient economy. And as we shall see, there is a great deal of mythology in the aftermath of Braddock's defeat, for Washington, for the ideas about Native Americans, the “frontier wilderness.” But what we are discussing here first is the history, the myths we’ll get to later in the episode.
Before this showdown between French, Native American, and British Forces, Washington’s troops confronted a French envoy at Jumonville Glen, where an important French officer was killed. After the death of this French officer, the French retaliated, and with their Native American allies, overwhelmed Washington and his militia at their crude fortification, Fort Necessity. The aftermath of Jumonville Glen and Fort Necessity meant that the French and Indian War was underway, and this British defeat would not go unanswered.
The Braddock Campaign, and subsequently, “Braddock’s defeat,” is the British response to the colonies “inability” to establish a firm British presence in the Ohio River Valley. No matter the cost, the British were hard set on winning against the French and their Native allies. Disgraced by their colonial subjects' defeat, the British government tapped General Edward Braddock to conduct a military campaign to remove the French presence from the Ohio River Valley and reclaim the dignity of the empire.
Braddock and the Braddock Campaign
So who was Edward Braddock? Braddock was born in Scotland in 1695 into a military family. A career in the military was a means for recognition and status in the British Empire. For many young men, the military was a way to climb the social ladder. That certainly was true in Braddock’s case. At 15, Braddock joined his father’s regiment in what is now the Coldstream Guards, the oldest and one of the most renowned military regiments in the British Empire. He probably had a very different experience compared to other officers and soldiers given that his father was a Major-General…
NEPO BABY! Also, 15 years old… I mean we touched on the youth and inexperience of George Washington, who was just 23 years old when he led his troops against the French at Fort Necessity. The world was different back then.
Absolutely. And nepotism aside, Braddock demonstrated a keen interest in military operations and proved himself as a capable leader throughout his long military career. In 1747, Braddock was leading sieges during the War of Austrian Succession. This was some of the only military combat Braddock saw during his 45 year long career in service to the empire…
When the war was over, he earned himself a promotion to Major-General. Between 1753-54 he served as the Governor of Gibraltar. At this post he gets noticed by Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, third son of King George II. This is important because it’s the Duke of Cumberland that recommends Braddock to the King to lead the attack against the French in North America.
Wait, is the Cumberland Gap named after this guy? The Gateway to the West! And so much good music… Okay, so, we know Braddock is an effective leader and governor, but we can’t ignore the elephant in the room: the privilege he has puts him in positions to get recognized, right? I mean this is why Washington is annoyed with British regulars in the Colonies? Nepotism, privilege, rank?
Yes, and this is a great point to highlight when examining Braddock. Braddock was from a privileged family, and this privilege opened up so many opportunities for him. Being in command of others was his pedigree, or so he likely assumed. The Duke of Cumberland sees this in Braddock. One privileged leader to another. Privilege over experience in British bureaucracy drives colonial officials crazy. I mean you see hints of this everywhere leading up to the revolution. Take for example the Quartering Act of 1765, mandating colonial authorities supply British regulars with food, shelter, clothing, at will…
So true. The British see the colonists purley as subjects, and it’s beyond insulting to the colonists. It’s like, no matter what you do, you’re secondary, even laughable. There’s this book, “White Trash: The 400 Year Untold History of Class in America” by Nancy Isenberg, and in its really expansive survey on class in America, she includes this paternalistic view the British held over the American colonies. As early as the 1600s they referred to people in the colonies as “rubbish.” Rubbish literally means trash. Only the “rubbish” or “trash” went to the American colonies… America… rubbish? No way, we are number 1… right?? How’d we go from being the colonial trash heap to being the king of the mountain? Our rubbishy roots don’t so much make it into the myth.
Yeah, the British commented on the colonials’ language, their lack of fashion, rude manners, etc. But Gordon Wood does write in “The Radicalism of the American Revolution,” [long quote here, but a good one…]
“It is very difficult to find contemporary descriptions of the colonists that were not applicable as well to the English at home. Ture, the colonists were thought to be a particularly unruly lot, crude if not barbarous, and especially defiant of social and political authority. But this reputation did not make them any less subjects of the English king; it only made them more English. Had not Montesquieu written that the English were too busy with their interests to have politeness and refinement? Englishmen everywhere simply made poor subjects for monarchy, and they were proud of it.”(13, Wood)
But the colonies lie on the other side of a wide Atlantic and this unruliness would become harder and harder to rule, esp for elites that did not deign to visit or understand the colonies. For example, Edward Braddock never set foot in North America until he’s appointed to command the expedition against the French…
So, Americans have been rowdy since before we were Americans. Gotcha. But in military terms, was the loss by Washington at Fort Necessity a colonial error? Like, was being there seen as a military error to begin with? Were British elite officers surprised by it?
Great question. Well the British were surprised that this land speculation venture was turning into a larger military conflict. However, they weren't necessarily surprised that the colonists were struggling to maintain influence in the region. To the British, this was sort of natural. Of course the colonial subjects are having issues. They are colonists. What do they know? In the English monarchical system, the colonists are viewed as children needing paternal leadership and guidance.
Enter Braddock. Braddock demonstrated himself a capable political and military leader. It’s these qualities that compelled the Duke of Cumberland to recommend Braddock for this campaign. It didn’t matter that Braddock had no experience in North America, he was held with such high regard given his privileged status and his successful track record… despite really only having minimal combat experience.
Okay, some experience, but not the more relevant kind. Sounds like a go-getter. This is the kind of guy it seems like comes up in the colonial environment. And he had connections. So tell us a little bit more about this campaign, Jeff. How does the Braddock Campaign get us to Braddock’s defeat?
Okay. So, first: A LITTLE SIDEBAR This was supposed to be Braddock’s MOMENT as a military leader. I mean think about it for a second, Braddock gets the opportunity to command forces in North America, a place shrouded in fanciful stories about the rugged “frontier wilds,” teeming with Native Americans, who the British looked down upon.
If successful in defeating the French, he not only gets to be the hero but he also gets the credit for extending the boundaries of the British Empire. He’s a well connected career soldier with 45 years of experience, this was the cherry on top of his long career. He did not hesitate when he received word that he was being transferred to lead two British regiments against the French in the colonies.
And again it's his connections rather than experience that propels Braddock into this position. But he takes it. He goes all in. He’s got a lot of privilege, and a fair amount of bravado.
A little of both. Privilege, yes. And experience he has in spades but not for combat, especially in N. America. Braddock departed across the Atlantic early in 1755. He was given command of the 44th and 48th regiments of foot, nearly 1,400 soldiers. Most of these soldiers had never fought against the French and Native Americans in North America. Probably most of them had never left Europe.
Specifically, although the regiment had seen some military action, they had NEVER fought against the French ambush style of “Le Petite Guerre” or saw Native American fighting tactics, which resembled and probably inspired some of the strategies the French used against Washington and his men at Fort Necessity.
Right! We touched on this in our previous series on Washington. If you recall, dear listeners, Washington reflected on the unconventional fighting tactics at Fort Necessity, noting how the French and Native Americans did not arrange in the traditional pitched battle formation. The French and Native Americans fought, “From every little rising, tree, stump, stone, and bush, kept up a constant galding fire upon us.” The French and their Native allies used the high ground and cover of the forest to levy their assault against Washington and his men.
British officials, including Braddock, ignored these warnings. The British troops prepared by Braddock were effective when they could see the enemy. They believed the sight of highly disciplined British troops in formation would frighten the enemy.
They were wholly unprepared for the type of warfare they would experience. In fact, before the battle of the Monogahela, which would be Braddock's defeat, Washington warned Braddock that he must not engage the French and Native Americans in the traditional European manner: it would effectively be leading the lambs to slaughter…
Geez. Here again, that larger issue of commanders putting their officers and soldiers in dangerous situations…just march em to the slaughter. But Braddock’s thinking they’ll be fine. These are British Regulars, after all, not those scroungy colonials.. And that’s probably what the British higher ups were thinking too, right?
That's exactly what they are thinking. To the British regular military this was supposed to be a decisive victory. The British did not think much of the colonists, the French in North America, nor their Native allies. The British thought two regiments and some colonial soldiers would be enough to drive the French out of the region and frighten the Indians from the battlefield; they were wrong.
Washington had some support from Native Americans. Was it the same for Braddock?
Braddock had little to no support from nearby Native American tribes. Delaware Chief Shingas remained neutral in the conflict. Braddock allegedly ignored the help of Moses the Song, a Mohawk man, who possessed a layout of Fort Duquesne that was drawn by Captain Robert Stobo, who was taken prisoner by the French after the battle of Fort necessity. Only 8 mingo scouts accompanied Braddock, compared to the French’s nearly 700 native American allies, who made up ¾ of the fighting French and Native American forces.
Okay, tell us something about Washington and Braddock’s relationship. What’s going on there?
Washington and Braddock
Braddock arrived in Alexandria, Virginia, in March 1755. His orders were to seize a series of French forts in the Ohio River Valley: Forts Machault (Ma-show) Le Beouf (Luh Buff), Presque Isles (Presk Eel), and Duquesne (Do-Cain). King George II thought that the colonists would rally around Braddock upon his arrival. But this couldn't have been further from what actually happened.
You know that Hall and Oates song, “Out of Touch.” It's coming to mind right now. I’m seeing feathered mullets dancing inside a kick drum.
Certainly accurate haha. The Governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts were appalled by Braddock’s orders: demanding money, supplies, and men for the campaign. Initially, Pennsylvanian officials flat out refused to fund a war effort, given the heavy pacifist Quaker population in the colony.
Galldarn Quakers! Always getting in the way of the Imperial war machine! Just kidding, we love quakers. But seriously, this shows how out of touch the British are with their colonial subjects. And this is decades before the American Revolution.
Yes, out of touch is an understatement. It’s 1755 and the colonists are already tired of being shoved around by these high ranking officials. You know who was hugely influential in getting wagons and supplies for Braddock from Pennsylvania? Benjamin Franklin. Little interesting SIDEBAR.
Several months pass while Braddock is gathering supplies and men from the colonies. In total he is able to pull 700 colonial troops, making him commander of 2,100 souls. And guess who is ogling at the sight of the star studded British General…
George!!
GW. Washington was very eager to join the ranks alongside Braddock. Washington wrote to Braddock’s confidante Robert Orme on March 15th, 1755, expressing his excitement to accompany the general on campaign: “To be plain Sir, I wish for nothing more earnestly than to attain a small degree of knowledge in the Military Art: and believing a more favourable opportunity cannot be wished than serving under a Gentleman of his Excellency's known ability and experience…”
Not surprising, honestly, given what we know about Washington. He’s seeking status and recognition, and here it sounds like he’s really looking to learn. He still thinks this British Regular Army thing is a solid pathway, the best pathway, to success.
It’s also important to note here that Washington didn’t enlist in Braddocks ranks as an officer, he DID NOT want to be taking orders from British regulars, who had no respect for Colonial officers. Colonial officers were considered beneath the British troops, even though they were officers. Rather, he wrote to Robert Orme requesting that the general take Washington as his aide-de-camp on campaign, an unpaid position, which to Washington’s pleasure, Braddock agreed to do.
So he wants to serve under Braddock but he doesn't want to be bossed around and mistreated by the British regular officers? Being an aide-de-camp made him a direct subordinate to Braddock. Well played GW. Sidling up to power or finding a mentor to learn from. Pick your interpretation. Maybe a bit of both? He was always good at identifying patrons.
Washington and Braddock. We’ve tied together our two main figures, calling back to our earlier episodes on Washington. This leads us into today’s SNAFU: Braddock’s Defeat.
The Road to Braddock's Defeat
On May 29th, 1755 Braddock’s forces along with Washington departed Fort Cumberland, Maryland. Only 110 miles of mountain and dense forest stood between Braddock and his victory.
Only 110 miles…
With cannon, wagon, horse, and howitzer, Braddock’s 2100 strong began their journey to Fort Duquesne. Their route? An ancient Native American trail known as Nemacolin's Path.
Remarkably, Braddock ordered 600 of his soldiers to construct a road from Fort Cumberland to Fort Duquesne, substantially widening the pre-existing Native American path. The smell of freshly cut oak and cottonwood trees filled the air, maybe... No longer would the British have to worry about routes for supply lines, Braddock’s road would be their path.
Interestingly, this was one of the first improved roads to cross the Appalachian mountain ridgelines. The British were literally sending the big guns to drive out the French. It didn't matter if the French and Native Americans fought unconventionally, nothing could survive this type of firepower they were packing.
This was no light infantry, it sounds like.
Not at all. Braddock’s forces were well armed with cannons and highly skilled with muskets. His grenadiers possessed the motto Nec Aspera Terret embroidered on their caps: “Fear No Difficulties.”
If only those fancy embroidered caps could make them march faster…
The men slogged through the woods, cutting down brush and tree, widening the path to move the wagons and cannons. Washington knew this was going to be a long trip. He wrote to his mentor, William Fairfax, anticipating the slow trek: I shall this day set out for Wills Creek, where I expect to meet the Genl, and to stay—I fear too long, as our March must be regulated by the slow movements of the [artillery] Train, which I am sorry to say, will be tedious—very tedious indeed—as I have long predicted, tho’ few believ’d." Interestingly, this foreshadows General Burgoyne in the Northern Campaign early in the Rev. War. I wonder if Washington thought back to Braddock as they organized their resistance to Burgoyne’s slow invasion.
Was that all that troubled Washington? A slow march toward Fort Duquesne? Doesn't he get a horse?
Haha. Well no, a few weeks later he contracted dysentery… He wrote to his brother John Augustine Washington, “I was seized with violt Fevers & Pains in my head.” Determined to go on, Washington was confined to the back of a wagon, getting dragged along the rocky road for 10 days…
So here we see some of Washington’s storied resolve and grit, right? I mean they guy doesn’t go back to Fort Cumberland to rest, he chooses to accompany the troops marching toward Fort Duquesne. That’s some crazy discipline.
My earlier sophisticated analysis that Washington is a stone-cold badass, still rings true apparently. This is true about Washington, and certainly why there is this worship of him as a figure of the United States’ military and political history. There are plenty of examples to choose from that highlight his toughness and determination, including the bravery he exhibited during Braddock’s defeat.
Braddocks’s soldiers spent June of 1755 felling trees in the swampy summer heat. The French anticipated the arrival of the British, reinforcing their forts with each passing day. To speed things up, Braddock and 1,400 of his soldiers advanced toward Fort Duquesne, ordering the remaining soldiers to work on the road for the cannons and wagons.
Yeah, so, our researcher Liam found some good info in the Journal of Captain Cholmney’s Batman, (not Bruce Wayne, Batman was like a personal servant), that at this point in their march toward Fort Duquesne, food was running low. The British are eating snakes, bears, and deer to stay in the field on the campaign.
Tasty. On July 8th, Washington’s wagon finally caught up with Braddock. He had to stuff cushions in his saddle when he mounted his horse because the dysentery had caused him excruciating pain. He was just in time for the anticipated assault.
On the morning of July 9th,1755, Braddock and his troops were 10 miles from Fort Duquesne (Do-Cain) Braddock decided to ford the Monongahela at two different points, and probably desired to camp at the base of a large ridgeline before assailing the fort the following day.
Braddock sent Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Gage, and 300 soldiers as an initial scouting party, who made both river crossings easily. Gage and his men spotted some French and Native American activity, but sent messages back to Braddock to continue the advance.
Thomas Gage? The Governor of Massachusetts prior to the American revolution? The Governor who enforced the tea tax and the other intolerable acts?
Yes, that Thomas Gage, the Commander in Chief of the British Army during the initial outbreak of the Revolution. During the Braddock campaign, Washington served with a number of figures who later played important roles in the American revolution.
For example, Charles Lee, who served under Washington as a general. Horatio Gates, whose sharpshooters were instrumental during both battles of Saratoga. (Gates has a bad reputation as he was caught up in the Conway Cabal…) The French and Indian War was a masterclass in military tactics and engagements, all of these men learning valuable lessons from Braddock’s defeat.
So were the French surprised to see a large troop of British soldiers marching toward Fort Duquesne? That must have been alarming, to say the least?
Well early scholarship would say yes, the French and British kinda stumbled into each other and a fight broke out. But this is not what more recent research suggests. Again, we have to shout out David Preston, Professor of History at the Citadel. In his book, Braddock’s Defeat, Preston includes valuable insight from the French perspective. Mainly, the impressive battle plans drawn up by Captain Daniel Hyacinthe Liénard (Leonard) de Beaujeu (Bow-Joe). Captain Beujeu (Bow-joe) was supported by 108 French Marines, 146 Canadian militia, and 700 Native American soldiers, representing over 20 different nations.
The French clearly had a better time negotiating with the Native Americans. Why was this? I mean these are both European empires in a struggle for land and resources…
Great point. Well first, the British are literally destroying and clearing a path from Fort Cumberland to Fort Duquesne for trade and supply lines. They are unapologetically in this fight for their own gain. The Native Americans were aware of this. Also, several tribal representatives including Shingas, a Delaware chieftain, wanted to wait until after Braddock's campaign to formally enter into alliances with the British. The French were seen as more favorable trading and military allies. Fate would decide if tribes would support the British in their struggle for the Ohio Country…
“The Indians are upon us!”
Captain Beujeu sent Native American scouts to patrol the surrounding ridges, running parallel to the Monongahela River. To their dismay, a majority of the British had already forded the river.
Beujeu decided to send his troops on both sides of the ridgeline. The French and Native Americans had the high ground as the British made their way forward. The air was still, and then screams rang out from Gage’s forward detachment, “The Indians are upon us!”
Gunshots cracked through the air and smoke plumed over the forest. Then the Native Americans let out their war cry. Commissary Officer Matthew Leslie recalled, “The yell of the Indians is fresh on my ear, and the terrific sounds will haunt me until the hour of my dissolution.” Songs, horns, and war cries have been a part of war for thousands of years, as intimidating and disheartening gestures.
The Battle of Teutoburg Forest, 9 CE. The Germans let out war cries that terrified the Romans, and wiped out three Roman legions…oh, and of course we’ve got Gideon from the Book of Judges, who has an army of 300 men but defeats the Midianite Army of 135k, coming into their camp with trumpets and all manner of holy hell screaming…
Yeah, and this was certainly spiraling into that type of catastrophic event. The French and Native Americans fired musket round after musket round upon the British. The Native American sharpshooters dotting the surrounding ridgeline were targeting British officers, knowing if they fell it would send further panic throughout the British ranks.
After two hours of fighting, 60 out of the 86 British officers were killed or wounded. The French were much better off. French casualties were very low. However, Captain Beujeu fell to British musket fire during the first hour of combat.
Geez. From a psychological perspective, this has to be absolutely terrifying. War cries, ambush? Did this battle impact perceptions about the west and the frontier? Havoc and chaos.
Yes, it did. There is a reason in the United States this is called the French and Indian War. It was a different kind of war. It was a war against the French AND Native Americans, who wrought havoc on the unsuspecting British detachments with their unique fighting style.
The Native American soldiers remained in their designated units, maintaining a constant stream of fire upon the British. In many ways, this was a Native American victory over the British, which equally terrified and enraged the Governors in the colonies…
Interesting. So in a lot of ways Braddock's defeat provides these soon to be revolutionary generals with incredible military experience, Washington included.
Totally. Meanwhile Braddock was shouting commands and pressing his men to hold fast and return fire. Reports indicate that Braddock had 4 horses shot out from underneath him. He was losing officers, and thus, control of his men, but not before he was shot through the arm and into his lung. He was mortally wounded. British troops were scattering in all directions. Thomas Gage observed, “a visible terror and confusion appeared amongst the men.” The Fog of War…
Washington, near the fallen General, ordered soldiers to bring a wagon to return his body to a safe position. David Preston notes that, “The panic that Washington witnessed was described in one contemporary account as being “like electricity,” for it operated “instantaneously—like sympathy, it is irresistible where it touches.”
And let's remember, he is still recovering from dysentery! Yikes.
While the British were retreating, French and Native forces fired round after round, moving under the cover of their rifle smoke to shoot from different positions. Washington eventually found himself to be one of the highest ranking officers amidst the dead and wounded, bravely commanding the remaining men. He had several horses shot out from underneath him, and four bullet holes through his coat. Washington credited his survival to “The all powerful dispensations of Providence.”
It’s actually remarkable that he survived. One move in the wrong direction on his horse would have been the end.
When all was said and done, 500 British soldiers were killed, and 422 were wounded after only several hours of fighting. The French totaled 30 dead and 20 wounded… Before he died, Braddock gave Washington his officers sash.
Braddock succumbed to his wounds 4 days later, and was buried in an unmarked grave on the road the British used before crossing the Monongahela. This was one of the worst military catastrophes the British experienced in North America, and one that the veterans of Monongahela never forgot.
Conclusion: Mythology & Reality
Wow. There is a lot to unpack here with this Braddock episode. So much happened and could have happened that would have given the British a chance against the French and Native American soldiers. This was a SNAFUBAR of massive proportion. We can identify three key points of failure here:
- Failure to heed the warnings of locals and experienced soldiers like Washington contributed to the failed assault on Fort Duquesne.
- Failure to adopt unconventional fighting tactics, like that of the French and Native Americans, also put the British as a significant disadvantage.
- Failure to acquire sufficient Native American support limited Braddock’s ability to get a proper lay of the land. Who knows, maybe if Braddock was able to compel the tribes to support the British cause he may have been able to win over the support of Native tribes that supported the French?
Excellent points. Indeed, Braddock’s first mistake is actually a part of a much larger issue. The British prioritized privilege and rank over experience, costing Braddock a victory, and his life. Although a seasoned General, Braddock had nowhere near the ability to take on the French and Native Americans. Traditional European tactics would not work, and fighting styles had to adapt to these changing circumstances. Interestingly, Major General Horatio Gates later adopted the sharp shooting tactics he saw performed by the Native Americans at the Battle of the Monongahela. During the battle of Saratoga, Gates ordered his sharpshooters to target British officers, which they did effectively, helping secure an American victory. Lessons were learned from Braddock’s Defeat, and Washington was certainly impacted by this experience.
And there’s another aspect to explore here too. Myth. Let’s turn to the mythos of this battle and ponder for a moment its impact on American history and military traditions.
In American history, this is the redemption of George Washington. He redeems himself after the embarrassing surrender at Fort Necessity. From a military traditions perspective, Washington is an exemplar of military courage in the face of complete chaos and horror, able to keep his composure during what must have been a truly harrowing experience. It’s in this way the shadowy mythos surrounding the man is born.
No doubt. Washington fought bravely. I mean the guy had 4 bullet holes through his coat and was recovering from dysentery, leading the remaining British to safety while escorting the dying Braddock across the Monongahela. That’s freaking brave.
Totally. After the battle, he received the nickname, ‘Hero of the Monongahela.” Word of his bravery spread throughout the empire. So too did word of Braddock's defeat. This loss greatly alarmed the colonists, and not long after this the colonies began to seriously question the Crown’s ability to protect its people from the “dangers of the frontier.” Adding to the long established trope of the “savage” Native Americans.
For American historians, the French and Indian war is an incredibly important precursor to the American revolution and the career of George Washington. When we think about our country's living myths, the name Washington is there.
Living is a key word here. They’re not just stories passed down from generation to generation, vague tales of heroes that live in the back of our minds. They’re alive in our culture, in our history, in the world around us.
And there’s a variety of ways these myths come to life in the public sphere. Architecture, literature, story-telling, and also artwork. One of the most famous art pieces of George Washington, Washington Crossing the Delaware, is by the German-American painter Emmanuel Leutze. Leutze was fascinated by the character of Washington and painted many scenes of Washington’s long career, including his courageous actions at the Battle of the Monongahela, or Braddock’s Defeat.
What is interesting to note about Leutze's series on Washington is that between making these pieces, he also painted scenes about Christopher Columbus, and works that embody the American ideal of manifest destiny.
Both of these subjects too are dripping with undertones of providential design, anticipating the colonization and settlement of the Americas… Are you inferring that Leutze is depicting Washington in a similar fashion?
Yes! Manifest destiny particularly. One such piece, titled Westward the Course of Empire Takes its Way, was mounted in the U.S. Capitol building, where it has hung since 1862. The piece shows a group of settlers hiking over a mountain pass, before their descent into a lush green valley. Atop a rock a settler holds a woman colluding an infant, his arm extending into the horizon showing them the path westward. Is the career of Washington enmeshed in ideals about manifest destiny in our American history? Was Leutze trying to connect the two together? Is Braddock’s defeat a part of a neat teleological organization of American history and myth? Like a natural or necessary story of crushing defeat, which enabled Washington to ascend to the role of hero?
Banter: Ideas about America’s role in the world? Is the ascension of Washington after the battle of fort necessity a part of our ideas of American exceptionalism?
We thank you for joining us on this episode of SNAFUBAR! We’ll see you next time.
