Another first rate Civil War campaign study by Stephen W. Sears. Honestly, I couldn't imagine another single volume book containing this much quality information on a battle as this volume does.
The battle of Chancellorsville in April-May 1863 is often told as General Lee's greatest victory, however, as Sears notes, it wasn't destined to be so from the get go. General Hooker had revitalized the Army of the Potomac after the debacle that was Burnside and Fredericksburg. Hookers campaign plan was well thought out and may well have succeeded if not for three factors: The breakdown of Yankee communications via telegraph and signal corp, the failure of General Stoneman to complete his objective of destroying Lee's lines of supply and communication, and the general ineptness of several of the Corps commanders in the army including Gens Howard of the 11th, Sickles of 3rd, and Sedgwick of the 6th. Indeed it was the 11th corps under Howard that was torn to pieces by Jackson's flank march.
Still, Sears gives Robert E. Lee ample credit, particularly in his bold choice to divide his army into essentially 3 parts. Lee's army was already missing most of it's first corps, with Longstreet and his divisions under Hood and Pickett deployed far to the south on a forage mission. Of course, the sheer audacity of Jackson's flank march is noted as one of the great moments in the war. Unfortunately, this great victory came at a great cost, most notably a large amount of Lee's infantry and the death of Stonewall Jackson, who would be sorely missed in the next encounter at Gettysburg.
The most interesting part of the book for me was Sears rather intense defense of General Hooker. Almost everything else I had ever read about this battle puts the defeat square on Hooker's shoulders, yet Sears does a great job of dissecting what went wrong and what Hooker could have controlled, and what he couldn't. All in all a stunning book that should be in any Civil War library.
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Friday, June 4, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Book Thoughts: "Gettysburg" by Stephen Sears
Last year I picked up a number of books on the Civil War in general and the battle of Gettysburg in particular. I've been interested in the Civil War since I was one of only people to pick the Confederate side in a little game we played in Jr High school. Everyone knew the Union won, but I wanted a challenge!
Anyway, I'd never really done a ton of serious reading on the war, so I decided to rectify that.
The Sears campaign study was one of the books I picked up on Gettysburg, but I've read the rest of them, so I was saving this one, potentially saving the best for last.
I wasn't disappointed. I knew what to expect after reading Sears book about Antietam, and I was also eager to compare it to the Trudeau book I read on Gettysburg last year.
It compared very favorably. Both books carry much of the same content, but the Sears book seems to be a little less of a blow by blow account of the action and more of an overview, particularly with the first day's fighting. Sears takes more of an analytical approach going in depth into the mind and character of Lee and Meade. In particular, he gives Meade more credit than some narratives do, contrasting him with previous Commanders of the Army of the Potomac. He also lays much of the reason for the Confederate defeat squarely at the feet of Lee, and makesa good case for doing so. Sure, Jeb Stuart was off galavanting around the Union army instead of gathering intelligence, but Lee had sanctioned the mission to an extent. Sure Ewell failed to grasp the importance of following up the confederates day one gains by taking Culp's Hill , but Lee's orders gave Ewell considerable discretion on the matter. Lee's hands off approach to his generals and refusal to alter his battle plans on day 2 and 3 reflected a certain disdain for the Army of the Potomac and overestimation of his own capacity. Sears also makes the case that Lee's strained relationship with Longstreet in particular (refusing to listen to Longstreet's alternatives) largely contributed to the dreadful fate of Pickett's charge on Day Three. He also deflects some blame from Longstreet, noting that although he disagreed with attacks planned on days 2 and 3, he committed his forces as ordered and still nearly won the day, particular on day 2.
All in all, this a great work of Civil War History and should be on an buff's book shelf. If you've never read much about the battle, read Shaara's semi-fictional account "The Killer Angels" first then supplement it with reading Sears' study to get the whole picture.
Anyway, I'd never really done a ton of serious reading on the war, so I decided to rectify that.
The Sears campaign study was one of the books I picked up on Gettysburg, but I've read the rest of them, so I was saving this one, potentially saving the best for last.
I wasn't disappointed. I knew what to expect after reading Sears book about Antietam, and I was also eager to compare it to the Trudeau book I read on Gettysburg last year.
It compared very favorably. Both books carry much of the same content, but the Sears book seems to be a little less of a blow by blow account of the action and more of an overview, particularly with the first day's fighting. Sears takes more of an analytical approach going in depth into the mind and character of Lee and Meade. In particular, he gives Meade more credit than some narratives do, contrasting him with previous Commanders of the Army of the Potomac. He also lays much of the reason for the Confederate defeat squarely at the feet of Lee, and makesa good case for doing so. Sure, Jeb Stuart was off galavanting around the Union army instead of gathering intelligence, but Lee had sanctioned the mission to an extent. Sure Ewell failed to grasp the importance of following up the confederates day one gains by taking Culp's Hill , but Lee's orders gave Ewell considerable discretion on the matter. Lee's hands off approach to his generals and refusal to alter his battle plans on day 2 and 3 reflected a certain disdain for the Army of the Potomac and overestimation of his own capacity. Sears also makes the case that Lee's strained relationship with Longstreet in particular (refusing to listen to Longstreet's alternatives) largely contributed to the dreadful fate of Pickett's charge on Day Three. He also deflects some blame from Longstreet, noting that although he disagreed with attacks planned on days 2 and 3, he committed his forces as ordered and still nearly won the day, particular on day 2.
All in all, this a great work of Civil War History and should be on an buff's book shelf. If you've never read much about the battle, read Shaara's semi-fictional account "The Killer Angels" first then supplement it with reading Sears' study to get the whole picture.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Book Thoughts: "Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam" by Stephen W. Sears
As I've delved more seriously into Civil War Histories, I found that Stephen Sears' writing is pretty much beyond equal. In particular, I found this book first rate both as a work of military history and as a historical narrative.
As with most reputable Civil War histories, in this book Sears doesn't just cover the battle that occurred along Antietam Creek, but the entire campaign that led up to the the bloodiest single day in American History. In particular, I found the discussion of the Battle for South Mountain to be particularly riveting.
As for the section on Antietam itself, Sears gives the reader an excellent sense of what it might have been like to witness what many soldiers described as some of the most savage and violent fighting of the war. The sections on the battle for the cornfield and the sunken road are page turners in the tradition of a great novel. He also describes in extreme detail the aftermath of the battle including the human toll and the devastation of the land around Sharpsburg.
What's also interesting about the book is the rather in depth character study of General McClellan. The "Young Napoleon" wrote frequent letters to his wife and his political friends during the Maryland campaign and Sears uses these to give us a valuable insight into the mind of the Union commanding general, a general who would be relieved of his command for the final time not long after the battle.
A great historical book. A definite must read for Civil War buffs.
As with most reputable Civil War histories, in this book Sears doesn't just cover the battle that occurred along Antietam Creek, but the entire campaign that led up to the the bloodiest single day in American History. In particular, I found the discussion of the Battle for South Mountain to be particularly riveting.
As for the section on Antietam itself, Sears gives the reader an excellent sense of what it might have been like to witness what many soldiers described as some of the most savage and violent fighting of the war. The sections on the battle for the cornfield and the sunken road are page turners in the tradition of a great novel. He also describes in extreme detail the aftermath of the battle including the human toll and the devastation of the land around Sharpsburg.
What's also interesting about the book is the rather in depth character study of General McClellan. The "Young Napoleon" wrote frequent letters to his wife and his political friends during the Maryland campaign and Sears uses these to give us a valuable insight into the mind of the Union commanding general, a general who would be relieved of his command for the final time not long after the battle.
A great historical book. A definite must read for Civil War buffs.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Book Thoughts: "Gods and Generals" by Jeff Shaara.
I really enjoyed Jeff Shaara's novel of the early Civil War "Gods and Generals." It is wonderfully written and contains the same depth and character insight that his father's novel "The Killer Angels" employed so well.
In this novel, Shaara primarily follows the lives of four men through the turbulent years preceding the Civil War to the aftermath of the battle of Chancellorsville in 1863, setting up the Battle of Gettysburg. These four men are Generals Lee and Jackson for the Confederates and General Hancock and Colonel Chamberlain for the union, though a good portion of the novel is told from Lee or Jackson's POV.
Like his father, Shaara's descriptions of the actual battles are first rate, and easy to read and comprehend even for someone who isn't up on Civil War Military tactics. The latter half of the book dealing with Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville is particularly engrossing. I've also already mentioned that for me anyway, his insight into the depth of these historical figures as characters in a novel is utterly brilliant.
I only have one complaint really, and that's that it seemed to me that the novel tried to do too much, tried to cover too large of a swath of time. I think Shaara excelled at what he did here, but I could certainly be enveloped by novels about the Battles of Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville in and of themselves. Maybe that's a bit selfish of me, but the writing is top notch and I'd love to see the author treat these other battles more in depth as well. It just seemed to me that the book covered SO MUCH that some things got short changed, that's all.
All in all a great read and a must for anyone who enjoys reading about the Civil War or historical fiction. I look forward to reading "The Last Full Measure."
In this novel, Shaara primarily follows the lives of four men through the turbulent years preceding the Civil War to the aftermath of the battle of Chancellorsville in 1863, setting up the Battle of Gettysburg. These four men are Generals Lee and Jackson for the Confederates and General Hancock and Colonel Chamberlain for the union, though a good portion of the novel is told from Lee or Jackson's POV.
Like his father, Shaara's descriptions of the actual battles are first rate, and easy to read and comprehend even for someone who isn't up on Civil War Military tactics. The latter half of the book dealing with Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville is particularly engrossing. I've also already mentioned that for me anyway, his insight into the depth of these historical figures as characters in a novel is utterly brilliant.
I only have one complaint really, and that's that it seemed to me that the novel tried to do too much, tried to cover too large of a swath of time. I think Shaara excelled at what he did here, but I could certainly be enveloped by novels about the Battles of Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville in and of themselves. Maybe that's a bit selfish of me, but the writing is top notch and I'd love to see the author treat these other battles more in depth as well. It just seemed to me that the book covered SO MUCH that some things got short changed, that's all.
All in all a great read and a must for anyone who enjoys reading about the Civil War or historical fiction. I look forward to reading "The Last Full Measure."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Book Thoughts: "Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage" By Noah Trudeau
One of the best historical books I've ever read. I was a little worried at first because I haven't read a lot of Military History, and I'm not totally up to snuff with with a lot of the terms and tactics. Trudeau addresses this right off the bat with a little primer section on military terms and tactics from the era. It helped me a lot, but the reader would still do well to have something of a working knowledge of this area before reading the book.
Still, the military writing didn't dominate the flow of the work at all. This Gettysburg volume does so much more than just go through the "This regiment was at point A and executed action B." It gives the human stories of the young men who were mowed down in battle and really puts a human face on it.
This book also gives a much more comprehensive picture of the first day's fighting than I had read before. Much of the common knowledge of Gettysburg in this day and age centers around the Little Round Top/Devil's Den area on day 2 and Pickett's charge against Cemetery Ridge on Day 3. To be sure, both of these areas are covered and covered exhaustively, but Trudeau's writing helped me get a much better understanding of the first day's fight than I had before. So for that reason alone this volume is worth it.
Trudeau also gives poignant and relevant analysis of the battle, and I really enjoyed the commentary. The other big plus for me was the inclusion of the rest of Lee's campaign that led up to the battle.
If you want pictures of dead bodies and portraitesque pictures of the landscape today, this isn't your book, it doesn't contain a single picture except for many very good maps, and that's more than ok because Trudeau more than accomplishes the most vivid imagery with his words alone. An excellent volume.
Still, the military writing didn't dominate the flow of the work at all. This Gettysburg volume does so much more than just go through the "This regiment was at point A and executed action B." It gives the human stories of the young men who were mowed down in battle and really puts a human face on it.
This book also gives a much more comprehensive picture of the first day's fighting than I had read before. Much of the common knowledge of Gettysburg in this day and age centers around the Little Round Top/Devil's Den area on day 2 and Pickett's charge against Cemetery Ridge on Day 3. To be sure, both of these areas are covered and covered exhaustively, but Trudeau's writing helped me get a much better understanding of the first day's fight than I had before. So for that reason alone this volume is worth it.
Trudeau also gives poignant and relevant analysis of the battle, and I really enjoyed the commentary. The other big plus for me was the inclusion of the rest of Lee's campaign that led up to the battle.
If you want pictures of dead bodies and portraitesque pictures of the landscape today, this isn't your book, it doesn't contain a single picture except for many very good maps, and that's more than ok because Trudeau more than accomplishes the most vivid imagery with his words alone. An excellent volume.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Book Thoughts: "Eyewitness to the Civil War: Gettysburg."
If one is seriously interested in studying a great event in history, it's always a good idea to read contemporary and first hand accounts when available. This book is primarily that, two first hand accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg. One is written by Col. William Oates, CSA, who later become governor of Alabama. The other is written from the Union perspective by Lt. Frank Haskell. He was later killed at Cold Harbor.
Contemporary pieces can often be a bit sluggish, since a lot of the language is somewhat different and perhaps more formal than we use today. However, I really didn't find that to be the case with these two accounts. Both were pretty easy to read. Of course, I have a great interest in the subject, which always helps.
Oates' account focuses primarily on his regiment's action attacking the Union left on Day 2. However, he also gives a great account of Pickett's charge. At the end, he goes into trying to reason out the Confederate loss. While placing some blame on Lee, he seems to place the heaviest responsibility on Longstreet, who he claims only slowly and half-heartedly carried out Lee's orders. This seems to have been a popular sentiment in the post war society of former Confederate soldiers. Today however, maybe we see Longstreet's view a little more and place a little more responsibility with Lee.
I didn't enjoy Haskell's account as much. He spent more time going through and saying what unit was exactly where than anything else. I believe it would be a great companion for a battlefield visit. However, his account of the fight against Pickett's troops at the angle is wonderful, and the type of account most historians really love to sink their teeth into, even if Haskell may have overplayed his own importance a bit. However, even General Hancock noted his action and bravery, so it wasn't overstated all that much.
In the final analysis, this is a great collection of two very different, yet very coherent views of Gettysburg and I believe it's something every serious student of the battle should read.
Contemporary pieces can often be a bit sluggish, since a lot of the language is somewhat different and perhaps more formal than we use today. However, I really didn't find that to be the case with these two accounts. Both were pretty easy to read. Of course, I have a great interest in the subject, which always helps.
Oates' account focuses primarily on his regiment's action attacking the Union left on Day 2. However, he also gives a great account of Pickett's charge. At the end, he goes into trying to reason out the Confederate loss. While placing some blame on Lee, he seems to place the heaviest responsibility on Longstreet, who he claims only slowly and half-heartedly carried out Lee's orders. This seems to have been a popular sentiment in the post war society of former Confederate soldiers. Today however, maybe we see Longstreet's view a little more and place a little more responsibility with Lee.
I didn't enjoy Haskell's account as much. He spent more time going through and saying what unit was exactly where than anything else. I believe it would be a great companion for a battlefield visit. However, his account of the fight against Pickett's troops at the angle is wonderful, and the type of account most historians really love to sink their teeth into, even if Haskell may have overplayed his own importance a bit. However, even General Hancock noted his action and bravery, so it wasn't overstated all that much.
In the final analysis, this is a great collection of two very different, yet very coherent views of Gettysburg and I believe it's something every serious student of the battle should read.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Book Thoughts: "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara
Honestly, this is one of the best works of historical fiction I've ever read. Shaara writes a pretty good over-arching account of the battle, highlighting a good chunk of the pertinent action. The story is primarily told through the POV of Longstreet and Lee for the CSA and Chamberlain for the USA. However, the passages from the first day are primarily told through Buford for the USA, and the climactic chapter about Pickett's charge is told through the POV of Armistead, who dies on the field.
Once in awhile, particularly in the Chamberlain passages, the book bogs down a little bit, but all in all the action moves steadily forward. I really appreciated the unique life given to all of the characters. It was interesting to read about Lee as such a vunerable character, as Shaara writes of the heart disease that would eventually kill him taking hold even here, on the eve of one of the great battles in American History.
A stunning and unique novel which leaves the reader impressed with the caliber of men who fought under both flags during those bloody days in July, 1863. Check it out.
Once in awhile, particularly in the Chamberlain passages, the book bogs down a little bit, but all in all the action moves steadily forward. I really appreciated the unique life given to all of the characters. It was interesting to read about Lee as such a vunerable character, as Shaara writes of the heart disease that would eventually kill him taking hold even here, on the eve of one of the great battles in American History.
A stunning and unique novel which leaves the reader impressed with the caliber of men who fought under both flags during those bloody days in July, 1863. Check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
