"The American Civil War - John Keegan" Topic

Hi

Just wondered if anyone had read this book and could recommend it? I appreciate that it hasnt been out long.. so first impressions would help.

Being new to the ACW I want to be able to pick my reference carefully and not take too much cash out of the miniatures fund. I ask because I have a couple of his books and have found them enjoyable, but they have usually focused on English/British armies in Europe, and wonder if his ideas translate.

your help and ideas would be much appreciated

thanks

Read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. It is the best account of the war and its antecedents that you'll find between the covers of a single book.

How the North Won by Archer, Hattaway and Jones focuses solely on the military aspects of the war and is worth the effort.

I will politely disagree with the assessment of How The North Won, unless you wish to read about how Henry Halleck was a military genius in the West as opposed to a paper-pushing bureaucrat/lawyer.

Just my tuppence, and I do agree with McPherson.

Wasn't aware that Keegan had released an ACW book…

Battecry of Freedom is arguably the best one volume treatment of the war, had to use it a lot at uni. I personally get the most gaming inspiration from Shelby Foote's trilogy – you seriously will not regret buying it.

+1 for McPherson.

I am currently 430ish pages into Battecry of Freedom and must agree it is great read.. but as usual my thoughts turn to what is next..

thanks again

How about Battles and leaders. Great set of books.

Thanks,

John

Ah, if you've read that for a general overview, I'm not sure what the Keegan volume will add.

What specifically would you like (in terms of type of content) next?

I would be looking for something a little more campaign/battle specific I think, the more I read of the ACW the more I am surprised by the number of engagements in such a short time over a wide area. Did the smaller engagements have any greater bearing on the conduct/development of the war than the larger battles?
I remember reading face of battle (I think)where battles such as agincourt and waterloo were deconstructed and found it fascinating, so I wondered if Keegan would be adding anything new (if possible) of just reworking the information found in Battecry of Freedom etc

thanks

Define "smaller engagement" in the context of the ACW's timeframe. I believe it was the Overland Campaign that was one long running slugfest between the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia, punctuated by several large battles that seemed to replicate the smaller ones on a larger scale.

You definately need to read 'The Longest Night' by David J Eicher: a military history of the war with lots of detail.

A single volume about a whole campaign with a lot of battles covered? The one that comes to mind the quickest on that front is _To the Gates of Richmond_, by Stephen Sears. He's a good writer. The campaign is very interesting. There are several battles that should make good gaming fodder.

Shelby Foote's trillogy was the inspiration for my ACW project. Now I'm slowly gathering books on infdividual battles and campaigns from the initial period of the war. Recently I've finished 'To The Gates of Richmond', a very pleasant read IMHO.

I'll certainly agree with Sears and "To The Gates Of Richmond", especially if you want scenario material and your illusions about Little Mac dispelled .

Excellent.. when I finish Battlecry of Freedom I will get my hands on a copy of To the Gates of Richmond… will probably wait for a review of the Keegan book before I indulge.

many thanks

To answer the question, I haven't not got a copy, or read the book, BUT, here is the review from this weeks edition of 'The Economist' – as a general point I find their reviewers of military books are actually very fair:

link

Seems a fair review of the book, or at least one I would agree with.

I found it a good single volume history. My son got it for my birthday knowning I like the Civil War and I enjoyed the content even though I'm not new to the period.

I'm reading John Keegan's book at the moment and to me it feels as if it has been poorly edited. I'm only fifty pages in but I have noticed on a number of occasions that the author has repeated the same piece of information. On p14 he tells us that slaves were whipped by "master, overseer, or even mistress", then on the very next page he states that the whip was used "by the overseer or driver, sometimes by the master himself or, in the house, the mistress". On page 38 he tells us that West Point classes were tiny, then on page 47 he informs us that "(West Point) classes were fewer than a hundred strong, often many fewer".

I find this makes the book a frustrating read (even before having to deal with the author's peculiar turn of phrase. I don't know whether "many fewer" is good English but it sounds odd to my ears)

For a 1-volume history of the ACW you still can't beat Fletcher Pratt's Ordeal By Fire, still available in paperback as A Short History of the Civil War. (Pratt was a wargamer, btw -- practically invented naval wargaming.)

For one campaign with many small but interesting battles, there are several good 1-volume accounts of Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign (1862).

If you should want to get into Grant's Overland Campaign of 1864, a somewhat neglected jewel, let me plug my own volume: No Turning Back.

For a great one-volume book on a campaign that is much overlooked, I'd strongly recommend John Hennessey's "Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas."

The other book I really like from a wargaming perspective is John Priest's "Antietam: The Soldier's Battle"

Have started on Keegan – am bothered by little errors – the West Point one mentioned already – his statement that Anderson was the student of Beauregard for example – when the opposite was true -

My .02

Have now finished Keegan – keep noticing a sense of deja vu – he would talk about a topic – wrap it up – and then return to it in a slightly different way several pages later.

However – the picture of the ex Confederate sea going ironclad Stonewall sitting moored in the Potomac postwar sums the book up – the caption points out that this is a typical "riverene" craft of the ACW.Intersting book – but not quite right

Well decided against the Keegan book for the moment and found me a copy of the Don Lowry 'No Turning Back' and Sears book about Antietam for the same cost… so will give them a look and see.

many thanks again

I was very interested in picking up Keegan's book on the American Civil War. But then I read James McPherson's own review of the book.

"The analytical value of Keegan's geostrategic framework is marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed. I note this with regret, for I have learned a great deal from Keegan's writings. But he is not at top form in this book."

link

It looks like Keegan was very, very sloppy. I can forgive some (some!) of his geography gaffs, but he makes mistakes in fact and analysis that I just can't overlook. I'm giving Keegan's book a pass.

An extract of the book was in a recent issue of Military History Quarterly. I paid particular attention to the artillery section of the article and it was very poorly done.

I haven't cared for any of Keegan's work starting with the Face of Battle. The section on Waterloo was again very poor because of Keegan's choice of sources, which were mostly British.

He is a deeply respected historian but I don't think his Civil War book is up to par.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

The Face of Battle is not known for the sources on Waterloo or for those of either of the other two battles featured (Agincourt and The Somme) for that matter.

It made Keegan's name because it questioned the manner in which history was written about until that time (1976) and his reputation as an historian is grounded in that fact.

The three battles were used to illustrate this by comparing the experience of British soldiers in 1415, 1815 and 1916 and how things altered over that time, as tactics and weapons changed. It also has sections on battlefield psychology and historiography

Keegan's point being that historians of any nationality had not addressed the technical details of how battles were experienced by those who fought them and a rousing narrative description of Agincourt, did not tell the reader any more about what really went on at the sharp end, than a similar one on the Somme.

I would suggest that your comment misses the point of The Face of Battle by concentrating on the detail of the period you know best.

Keegan did not write this book to be a definative history of any of the actions, it was a history book that examined history.

I'll second Trajanus' comments on the Face of Battle. I think it changed how I view military history, especially the section on Waterloo, but also Agincourt.

Also, buy The Price of Admiralty. The chapter on Trafalgar is unbelievable.

On your recommendation I have just bought The Price of Admiralty on Amazon for three pence!!!!!(threpence even)

That's a steal. The chapter on Jutland was real good too.

Check out this, it's the offical records of the civil war, I haven't gone through most of it, but it is a massive collection, the volumes of 2nd Manassas are well over 2,000 pages.

link

Am 3/4's of the way through and I must say I'm dissapointed. I didn't want to be. Keegan remains one of my favorites. It could have been much better edited as mentioned and some of the facts are simply wrong.

At one point he refers to Admiral Porter as Fitzjohn Porter, an infantry Corp commander and I belive the Admiral's brother. At another point he describes Gen'l Sherman as 5 and half feet tall and 150 lbs. He may have been trying to describe Grant because by all accounts Sherman was at least 6 feet tall.

I still appreciate his broader observations on the war but the detailed descriptions are suspect.