Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.1 AVERAGE
4.1 AVERAGE
I read portions of this in high school and always wanted to come back to it. I had a hard time keeping track of who was narrating and I think that's because this is the second book in a series. That being said, this is such an emotional look at the civil war. This book chronicles the events leading up to the battle of Little Big Horn and the end of the civil war. We spend a lot of time with the Southern Generals and the narrative really portrays the nuance of the South's love for General Lee, and the pain of their loss. So much so I'm surprised this book hasn't been cancelled in recent trends to vilify all of the south and its history. I very much plan to go back and read the first installment about Lee's choice to fight for his home in the South.
Pretty good in terms of providing a picture of a chaotic battle and commanders trying to make sense of it, and does an admirable job of describing the psychology and motivations of the men who led the armies that fought.
I'm going to ding it a little bit for some bad history and flirting with Lost Cause BS- for example, the book opens by mentioning that General Lee "didn't own slaves and abhorred slavery but was fighting for his home" (not a direct quote, but you get the idea - fairly standard Lost Cause messaging) - despite the fact that the Lee/Custus family were vicious slavers, who caused a scandal in Virginia by breaking up enslaved families and beating his slaves regularly. Other Confederate characters trot out the "muh states right" crap regularly, which, nope.
Overall though, well written and an admirable attempt to bring to life a battle that's usually seen as just arrows and lines on a map.
I'm going to ding it a little bit for some bad history and flirting with Lost Cause BS- for example, the book opens by mentioning that General Lee "didn't own slaves and abhorred slavery but was fighting for his home" (not a direct quote, but you get the idea - fairly standard Lost Cause messaging) - despite the fact that the Lee/Custus family were vicious slavers, who caused a scandal in Virginia by breaking up enslaved families and beating his slaves regularly. Other Confederate characters trot out the "muh states right" crap regularly, which, nope.
Overall though, well written and an admirable attempt to bring to life a battle that's usually seen as just arrows and lines on a map.
adventurous
dark
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Who should read it: people interested in Civil War History, who also know to take it with at least a grain of salt, as it is a work of fiction (albeit a well researched one.)
View my full review of the triology overall here https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3646898637?
For this specific book: what I liked best was the detailed examination of the pivotal battle that turned the tide. It's been argued that a Confederate (traitor) victory at Gettysburg could well have led to an end to the war. Terms were supposed to have been ready to be placed on Lincoln's desk, and with political pressures to end the war, its at least a remote possibility that Lincoln might have accepted some terms if there was sufficient ongoing threat to Northern cities.
This book digs into the timelines, the maps and the tactics in a deeper way than does Gods and Generals or the Last Full Measure. It passes around much credit and blame to the various commanders. It covers Buford seeing the good ground first, Reynolds marching to his aid fast, Hancock holding the center and Chamberlain holding the flank. It covers the blame: Lee for being too set on the attack, Ewell for failing to press an advantage up cemetery hill, Longstreet for failing to object strenuously enough to the operation, to the tactics, to the central charge.
I found Michael Shaara's Longstreet more sympathetic than that depicted by his son Jeff, and Lee the inverse. There is likely a relationship here. Thinking more highly of Longstreet means taking more of his side against Lee especially at Gettysburg. The quote about betraying ones oath was particularly poignant and makes me wonder about the historical research behind it. Certainly Longstreet adapted to re-Union better than most traitorous confederate officers.
This book feels quite different from the other two, it focuses more narrowly, it more reasonably shares blame and credit and it seems a lot less lost-causey especially about Lee.
3 Star reviews mean this was a solid book. I probably won’t read it again but I could. I do recommend it to people interested in this sort of topic. No argument from me if you love this book.
View my full review of the triology overall here https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3646898637?
For this specific book: what I liked best was the detailed examination of the pivotal battle that turned the tide. It's been argued that a Confederate (traitor) victory at Gettysburg could well have led to an end to the war. Terms were supposed to have been ready to be placed on Lincoln's desk, and with political pressures to end the war, its at least a remote possibility that Lincoln might have accepted some terms if there was sufficient ongoing threat to Northern cities.
This book digs into the timelines, the maps and the tactics in a deeper way than does Gods and Generals or the Last Full Measure. It passes around much credit and blame to the various commanders. It covers Buford seeing the good ground first, Reynolds marching to his aid fast, Hancock holding the center and Chamberlain holding the flank. It covers the blame: Lee for being too set on the attack, Ewell for failing to press an advantage up cemetery hill, Longstreet for failing to object strenuously enough to the operation, to the tactics, to the central charge.
I found Michael Shaara's Longstreet more sympathetic than that depicted by his son Jeff, and Lee the inverse. There is likely a relationship here. Thinking more highly of Longstreet means taking more of his side against Lee especially at Gettysburg. The quote about betraying ones oath was particularly poignant and makes me wonder about the historical research behind it. Certainly Longstreet adapted to re-Union better than most traitorous confederate officers.
This book feels quite different from the other two, it focuses more narrowly, it more reasonably shares blame and credit and it seems a lot less lost-causey especially about Lee.
3 Star reviews mean this was a solid book. I probably won’t read it again but I could. I do recommend it to people interested in this sort of topic. No argument from me if you love this book.
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Brisk pacing and rich characterization bring the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg to life in this moving historical novel. On the whole, The Killer Angels is written with enough focus to bring each moment to life, but with enough distance to prevent being bogged down in the weight of its own import. Names bearing huge weight and impact in American history are brought down to Earth, humanized and made into flesh and emotion and thought. Some weak points in prose styling are forgiven by the powerful execution of such a large-scale story. By focusing so tightly on specific individuals, the whole of the American Civil War is given a refined clarity. Excellent overall.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
challenging
emotional
inspiring
reflective
sad
The best war book I've ever read. I've always shied away from Civil War books, mainly cause I absolutely hated the Red Badge of Courage. But this book was well worth the time and effort. Examining the psyche and motivations behind the leaders and men in the battle of Gettysburg, Shaara has written a beautiful portrait of this singular moment in history. It's fictionalized history and reads like another novel, but Shaara's research and attention to detail give the book real authenticity.
I always found the Civil War an odd time for military history; stuck between the perceived dignity/chivalry of war and the beginnings of modern slaughter that the World Wars will have. War was always hell, but there is a distinct shift starting here, and the characters are caught between that shift. With 50,000 American casualties (casualty figures include dead, injured or missing), the battle of Gettysburg killed, injured or lost more soldiers in a single three day engagement than the entire Vietnam war. Taking place over this 3-4 day period, the book's historical scope is narrow, but its themes are expansive.
The characterizations are amazing and heartbreaking. Questions of why the soldiers fight (whether over slavery or "rats"/rights) are constantly raised. The only tiresome parts were reading about and keeping track of the constant troop movements and positions, but Shaara always manages to swing the narrative away from the cold facts of the battle and back to the themes of humanity and tragedy.
This book managed to rekindle my interest in American History, something which has atrophied over a long time.
I always found the Civil War an odd time for military history; stuck between the perceived dignity/chivalry of war and the beginnings of modern slaughter that the World Wars will have. War was always hell, but there is a distinct shift starting here, and the characters are caught between that shift. With 50,000 American casualties (casualty figures include dead, injured or missing), the battle of Gettysburg killed, injured or lost more soldiers in a single three day engagement than the entire Vietnam war. Taking place over this 3-4 day period, the book's historical scope is narrow, but its themes are expansive.
The characterizations are amazing and heartbreaking. Questions of why the soldiers fight (whether over slavery or "rats"/rights) are constantly raised. The only tiresome parts were reading about and keeping track of the constant troop movements and positions, but Shaara always manages to swing the narrative away from the cold facts of the battle and back to the themes of humanity and tragedy.
This book managed to rekindle my interest in American History, something which has atrophied over a long time.
I know this book is supposed to be AWESOME, but it bored me to tears. At least it did when I was in 9th grade.