| Trajanus | 30 Apr 2014 2:33 p.m. PST |
I've just ordered Coddington's book on the campaign having seen positive comments from TMPers over the years. I note that some of the material from the author in the book it is now fifty years old. Are there any areas where people think newer research has overtaken his views? |
| vtsaogames | 30 Apr 2014 2:41 p.m. PST |
Not that I noticed. I've not seen other works that approach the Union command issues from his perspective. |
| Sparker | 30 Apr 2014 2:45 p.m. PST |
I don't know enough about the campaign to comment on more recent research, but I will say that he makes his position as a Union man clear, but bends over backwards to be fair to the Confederates, particularly when it comes to reporting on civil-military issues. Furthermore, what is important to me is that, so far as I can see not having had any military experience himself, he nevertheless manages to understand the unique challenges of operational decision making and makes all necessary allowances for the pressures of stress, politics and 'the other side of the hill' before criticising command decisions. In my view something that more recent historians could learn from… Its well written throughout and, for its age, plenty of useful and clear maps. Be interesting to see if more recent scholarship has rendered his work obsolete, but I doubt it… |
| jowady | 30 Apr 2014 2:54 p.m. PST |
Pay attention to his foot/end notes. They are almost a book unto themselves. Far from obsolete, historians still consider Coddington to be the best one volume study of the battle . |
| svsavory | 30 Apr 2014 2:57 p.m. PST |
I recently re-read it. It's still an excellent study. I agree with jowady, the footnotes are very useful. |
| marcstorch | 30 Apr 2014 3:35 p.m. PST |
To answer your question on if his work has been surpassed by more recent works I would emphatically say "no"!!! While Phanz (especially his day 2 work) does a great job of each day's battle, Sears is a good read, and there are plenty of great books on particular events of the battle Coddinton remains the foundational work on the campaign -and it reads well too! |
Dave Jackson  | 30 Apr 2014 4:21 p.m. PST |
Not much more to say. My favourite book on the battle. |
| Charlie 12 | 30 Apr 2014 5:11 p.m. PST |
Can't add much more. Per the professionals in the field, Coddington is still the standard on the battle. Just recently re-read it myself (about the 4th or 5th time) and am still learning from it. |
| Trajanus | 01 May 2014 3:20 a.m. PST |
Thanks guys,I'm looking forward to comparing it with other accounts. It struck me that apart from "The Official Records" and bits in "Battles and Leaders" which are different animals, it will be the oldest material I've read on the subject, so I was just wondering. |
| Sparker | 01 May 2014 7:50 p.m. PST |
Now listen here young man, nothing wrong with being old! Better that the alternative… |
| donlowry | 02 May 2014 9:34 a.m. PST |
It's been a very very long time since I read Coddington, but I was quite impressed at the time. |
| John Miller | 03 May 2014 5:16 p.m. PST |
Trajanus: In the past 60 years I believe I have read almost everything written about Gettysburg, (I must have missed some, however unintentional), and in my opinion the book was never surpassed. John Miller |
| Trajanus | 04 May 2014 11:21 a.m. PST |
Thanks Sparker, its been a good while since someone called me "young man"! :o) |
prepares to do some regimental-level ACW gaming.