This is an eye-opening study of the relations between colonial Americans and British regular troops and Royal Navy seamen in the century preceding the flashpoint of the American Revolution. Relying heavily on diary entries, court records, newspaper accounts, and other primary source material, Leach describes a tumultuous relationship between provincials and redcoats that started badly and continued to grow worse throughout the eighteenth century. Even in war time, the relationship often broke down. Colonists viewed a standing army as a potentially repressive threat to liberty, even when such troops were sent ostensibly to protect them. Redcoats usually made unfavorable first impressions among the populace, demanding privileges the colonists were unwilling to grant, while the impressment of provincial residents caused great consternation up and down the American seaboard. Colonial resistance was met with hostile words, outright threats, and arrogant behavior by many British regulars. Forced to pay inflated prices for supplies or to confiscate what they needed, the British saw the colonists as greedy, lazy, and unpatriotic. For their part, colonists saw the British soldiers as arrogant, demanding, and unconcerned with colonial interests and prosperity altogether. When the two sides did join forces in battle, such as at the siege of Louisburg, the entire campaign revolved around recriminatory charges on both sides. The redcoats in particular looked down on their American allies as sloppy, unprofessional, and noncooperative, while the colonists seethed over the fact that British rank superceded their own. All of this was complicated by the fact that controversies between royal governors and general assemblies, as well as intercolonial rivalries, also led to problems which the British troops failed to understand. The king and Parliament in Britain did little to help matters, and their failure to specify jurisdiction and chains of command in the American setting led to further confusion and controversy.

By 1763, it is easy to see a deeply ingrained resentment between redcoats and colonists. While this certainly contributed to the eventual declaration of independence and the British response, this would still seem to be a secondary influence compared to matters of natural rights, taxation fairness, and larger political/economic factors. The disdain expressed by professional British soldiers and sailors for their disorganized, unpolished, amateur American counterparts may well have led them to underestimate the fighting prowess of the Americans; militiamen, for their part, had to be encouraged by the fact that their wilderness fighting skills gave them a distinct advantage over the redcoats' European formation style of fighting. More importantly, a shared and pervasive resentment of British regulars was an important unifying factor among all of the colonies by the eve of the revolution. Given the history of joint cooperation and continual conflict between the British and Americans, it is a wonder that British colonial control lasted as long as it did and that English control of the colonies was never lost to the French. While Leach may overestimate the importance of this matter of military relations in explaining the origins of the Revolutionary War, the relatively unknown history revealed in these pages is both fascinating and disturbing.

*Roots of Conflict* examines the relationship between British armed forces and colonial Americans from 1677 through 1763. This cut off date, 1763, is deliberate. The events after 1763 that culminated in revolution are not the whole story. The author contends that the roots of Anglo-American conflict stretched back a full century and set the stage for the eventual decision to declare independence. He finds these roots in various negative experiences that shaped Britains' and Americans' perceptions of one another. The very presence of troops in the colonies, for example, caused resentment among Americans, who perceived the British army as a symbol of imperial power and a tool to crush colonial insurgency. The British, on their part, resented their role as defenders of backwoods settlements of ungrateful, militarily inept, undisciplined yahoos. Various joint military expeditions, furthermore, ended disastrously, Americans chafed under harsh military treatment, and the impressment of Americans into military service, volunteers being scarce, was common. These experiences and others fostered mutual ill-will between British and Americans and hardened perceptions of each group's being different from the other. A good book for readers interested in the American colonial experience or the causes of the American Revolution.

This is the best and most unbiased history of King Philip's war. Leach wrote the book; Morrison only wrote the two-page introduction. Leach tends to be a little "politically correct" but in generally he gives us an unbiased history. This is an interesting book and I've just finished rereading after a 10-year gap. It is still interesting.

This was an amazing war between Puritans, who were would poorly equipped in nearly every way, against Indians who would were born and raised in warfare. For many months the Whites lost virtually all the battles. King Philips' war was one of desperate sieges of tiny garrisons and ambushes of those Whites trying to rescue those besieged.

Just when you think the Whites are about to get the upper hand, the Indians attack new targets and the Whites are losing again. The most amazing thing is that the colonists had not one English soldier or ship to help them. They raised and equipped their own little militia companies. Unlike some other Indian wars that only had a few battles, this little war had dozens if not hundreds of little battles.

The Indian was as well armed with flintlocks, as was the White. In this war, the Indian was far superior in tactics and he was never beaten when he could fight his guerrilla style warfare. This was the Indians' last chance to push the White man into the sea. Providence (Rhode Island) was nearly destroyed and the Indian raided the towns adjacent to Boston. Town after town was destroyed.

I think this book is a little superior to Schultz's "King Philip's War," which is a little bit too PC. But both are well worth reading.

Of all the accounts of KPW, this is by far the best. Though not as detailed as others, I found this gave an excellent birds-eye view of the war.

I part with the other reviewers in the analysis of Leach's objectivity. Most of the KPW authors of the last forty years appear to hate the Puritans as much as the KPW authors of the 1920s and earlier hated the First Nations.

Leach's work, I think, holds a good balance. He clearly acknowledges English arrogance, stupidity, all-out barbarism, and total failure in the area of evangelism, without making ridiculous leaps about English psychology.

It's an outstanding work.

If there is solid criticism of Leach and Morison, let it be founded on fact, not based on bias. In these days of political correctness, anything that shows settlers as good and Native Americans as less than perfect is derided as inaccurate. In fact, there were wonderful cases of heroism and despicable acts of barbaric cruelty on both sides of this fight, and this book presents them better than any book I've ever seen. I'm puzzled by those who feel it's pro-English; some of the most disgusting portrayals are of English leaders. I believe King Philip's War set the tone for European-Indian relationships for centuries. This book does a superb job of documenting the cultural chasms that brought about this tragedy. The truth can be uncomfortable for supporters of either side, but we should seek the truth, even when it upsets us, and apply the lessons of history to our day.