This is an informative and enjoyable read. Rabble In Arms shows the rebel point of view in the Revolution whereas Oliver Wiswell is written from the Loyalist point of view. The books make good cases for both sides and while it's easy to say today that the rebels were the good guys and the loyalists were the bad guys at the time it was a very different matter altogeter and far from a black and white issue. There has been some criticism of the portrayal of General Arnold and I think the reader has to remember that the Revolution was not the sort of war that for example WWll was...where it was the allies verses the Nazi's which was clearly a war of good verses evil. The pre-Revolution Americans enjoyed a level of freedom and a standard of living greater than anywhere else in the world and taking up arms in rebellion against England and renouncing loyalty to the crown was not an easy decision to make and in fact it split families and friendships and sides were often changed. I think Arnold needs to be viewed in this context.

This too was my first Roberts book, and I never quit reading him since. This happens to be my favorite book of Roberts, probably due in part to the nostalgia aspect. Nonetheless, what stands out the most is the light Roberts sheds on Benedict Arnold ... he was a great American before he committed his act of treason.

To learn more about Kenneth Roberts - the man and his works - check out my site www.kennethlroberts.wordpress.com.

This is a book I read in high school and wanted to read again. It's a great book.

I purchased this work for my son. It is a Kenneth Roberts classic. His writing style is simple, his characters are well developed, his historical research is impeccable. It is a great account of some of the darker days of our revolutionary war. It should be taught in our high schools both in literature and history classes. A wonderful work of gigantic proportions. I highly recommend it to everyone who wants to read about our history in an entertaining, lively style, rather than dry, scholastic tomes. Excellent!

Amazon delivered the book in excellent condition,fast track shipping, safe internet line. Qualities that are important to my family.

Trying to collect Kenneth Roberts three books, Arundel, which we purchased on Amazon a couple yrs. back, now Rabble In Arms and in the future, The Lively Lady. Recommend these books for any history buff and good to add to our family history book collection for future generations.

This novel was my first Roberts, and probably won't be my last. I enjoy him as a unique writer of his time, and this helps me forgive his weaknesses, such as his obvious attempt to exonerate General Benedict Arnold, who was in this novel too good to be true. Maybe Arnold didn't get a fair shake entirely, but neither do I believe he was the angel portrayed in this book.

Nonetheless, this novel is a grand tour of early America and much more accurate and detailed than most accounts in a lot of ways. The protagonist's brief life among the Indians is fascinating, and truly this novel doesn't stint on showing us at least some of the unclean side of war, the dirt, crime, and fleas. For this he deserves some respect, even if he appears to use this novel as a soapbox for his own ideas a little bit. Not all of which were incorrect.

I thoroughly enjoyed "Rabble in Arms" and its sister novel, "Arundel." The characters come alive, there is much to learn about the Revolution, and I for one enjoyed Roberts' occasional meditations on the nature of war and the pros and cons of certain historical figures. I won't detail the contents of the book because others have done that already on this site, but will say that no one can read these books and not come away with an appreciation what the men (and women!) who fought on our behalf in the Revolution did for us.

There is a "however," however... Roberts is terribly pro-Benedict Arnold, to an unreasonable degree. I wonder if that wasn't simply to add interest to his book - by giving us an alternate Arnold as a counterweight to one of history's most notorious traitors, he does add an intriguing element to his novel that draws the reader in. The Arnold he produces is seductive, a "prodigy" of great military skill and selfless honor. Arnold, Roberts would have us believe, only turned traitor to save the colonies from French domination (a viewpoint he pushes heavily in his other Revolutionary War novel, "Oliver Wiswell.") Roberts reports Arnold was despised and ill-treated beyond all reason by mediocre fellow officers and Congress out of jealousy... and yet, high-minded principle was the only reason he defected.

Now, I spent only a few minutes on the Internet reading up on Arnold to learn a few things that do not jibe with Roberts' view of him: for example, one might well wonder if it was true that Arnold was so ill-used. It's probably true that Arnold was deprived of proper credit for the victory at Saratoga by his commanding general, Gates. And its true he had his share of enemies. But the fact remains, Arnold DID receieve the rank of Major General from Congress, and DID receive the prestigious command of Philadelphia after his leg injury at Saratoga made it impossible to continue field command without extensive recuperation. While at Philadelphia, he was court martialed on a number of charges Roberts considers trumped up: but it IS true that Arnold spent beyond his means on lavish parties he was holding to socialize with Philadelphia's largely loyalist elite. The core charges that stuck against him involved misusing government property to further his social life. The upshot was that Arnold was given a symbolic slap on the wrist by Congress, in the form of a letter of reprimand written by Washington that read more like a thank you note for Arnold's brilliant service than a condemnation. So much for "abuse."

Arnold's inappropriate fraternization with Loyalists in Philadelphia led to his second marriage... predictably enough, to a Loyalist. His lavish spending left him deeply in debt. It may be that Roberts is correct that Arnold's decision to sell out West Point to the British for the equivalent of millions of modern dollars was motivated only by high-minded, anti-French principles (Roberts never mentions the Arnold had requested money, by the way)... but I think more objective observors might think of a better word for his actions and motivations: treachery, against one's own country for the sake of money and personal grudges, goaded on by is wife and new friends. Certainly that was the view his British contemporaries held of him, a fact that puzzles Roberts when he mentions it in "Oliver Wiswell." Wasn't there an obvious reason the British didn't fully trust Arnold... because he had sold out his own for money? How could anyone, really, trust Arnold after that?

In "Oliver Wiswell," we meet Arnold as he is planning a raid against the very people he had previously led at Quebec and Lake Champlain. He drinks a toast to his new Loyalist officers, praying that all "rebels be confounded." Readers that come to this scene, after reading "Rabbble in Arms," will quite properly wonder what sort of man would pray for a thing like that to befall the Steven and Phoebe Nasons, the Peter Merrils, the Morgans, and countless others that previously followed him against all odds and at great personal risk and discomfort. What sort of man would now call them "rebels?" What sort of man would not only change sides, perhaps for reasons of principle but more likely also for need of money and personal revenge, but then go on to actually try to kill the very same people that had already risked their lives for him when he still called them "patriots?" The answer, I'm afraid, is... the worst traitor in American history.

Roberts is a great writer, and has an interesting take on Arnold... but even the greatest apologist for Arnold could not succesfully cover up Arnold's true nature. Arnold spent too much money being much to cozy with the wrong people in Philadelphia. His poor judgment entangled him with a Loyalist woman. His fundamental lack of loyalty and scruples, and the company he kept, allowed him to seek a way out of his financial problems by betraying his people and country.