Take a photo of a barcode or cover
richardiporter 's review for:
The Killer Angels
by Michael Shaara
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.