Thanks to Mr. Ross for opening my eyes up to this very interesting historical figure. War on the Run dashes through life of Robert Rogers. Rogers made his living as a scout for the British during the French and Indian War and laid the blue print for non-typical and close range combat for centuries to come. It is hard not to admire the man and his actions, what they accomplished and ground they paved for the course of history.
Sadly it would see that due to the jealousy of certain individuals he always had the shadow of few certain powerful men over him than in the end led to his downfall. More than popular than Washington it seems, Rogers if groomed instead of held back could have very possibly been the first president instead of Washington. But both men had different ideas. Rogers was more of an expansionist and explorer and Washington simply saw that the Colonies need to, first and foremost, save their rears from the Crown.
War on the Run is a well written and open love letter to a mysteriously captivating figure. It was just not in the cards for him to be anything more than what he was…. More so due to the fact that he was not the one holding the cards. ( )

I keep thinking that I have read this book before, but if so I am glad I read it again. Descriptions of his battles, tactics and personal life read alot like Rogers was a military savant, brilliant at leading small groups of rangers in battles, but hopeless in getting straight answers from his British bosses, or even getting paid by the British. He was pretty successful at making enemies, such as Gage, who worked very hard to screw up his military career and finances. Here was a true American hero in the French & Indian War who was considered a traitor by the Americans in the Revolution and who ended up in debtor's prison, not once but several times. A truly tragic figure. ...and, as usual, crappy maps. ( )

great historical reading about one of early America's true heros ( )

I need to read more into Robert Rogers before I can gage how accurate the book is in telling Rogers's story. Ross's writing style certainly has some flare, making the highlights of Rogers's career sound amazing... or I suppose "epic". The main flaw of the book I fought is the problem most biographies face: the book mainly speaks positively about its protagonist and tends to overlook areas that casts him in a negative light. I would like more focus on Rogers's time in England and service in the American Revolution. Much of Roger's life after the French and Indian is covered too quickly; it felt like it was added on at the last minute to complete the book and get published. ( )

I'll admit that I didn't like this book as much as I thought I would. To a degree this is about lackadaisical editing and a somewhat overwrought writing style. In the first case this was brought out by a run-on paragraph which essentially conflates the battles of Monongahela and Fontenoy, to the point that one wonders how Gen. Braddock managed to get 15,000 men to western Pennsylvania to lose. In the second there are times where I had to wryly think of Mark Twain's famous literary dismantling of James Fenimore Cooper.

A deeper problem is probably that Ross is too in love with his subject as the prototype of the modern special operations leader, and Rogers had to have charisma to convince men to follow him on desperate mission after mission. That said, this is also a man who came within a hair of being branded as a rogue for his counterfeiting activities, a man who really didn't do right by his wife, and on the whole had more than a little of the confidence man about his nature. To the point, Robert Rogers was mostly on his own side and that nature probably had something to do with the hard end the man came to, and which Ross chooses to spend little time dwelling on. ( )