Essential Reading/Viewing

[Titanwarrior89]

Finally got around to reading the first volume now. Owned copies for years. So much to do, so little time.[:)]

ORIGINAL: captskillet

For an excellent account of the Army of Northern Virginia during the War you got to read "Lee's Lieutenants : A Study in Command" by Douglas Freeman..........it was written in the 30's but is still considered a standard on the ANV's exploits from Bull Run and Joe Johnston (or what became the ANV) thru Appomattox. It even includes a good account of Stonewalls Valley Campaign. Another good read would be "First With the Most" by Robert Selph Henry about my man Nathan Bedford Forrest (who else [;)])!

[Drex]

I think I've got a good basis to start my CW library. Thanks to all.

[Conhugeco]

Have to add Edwin Coddington's Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command if you are interested in Gettysburg.

DickH

[Crimguy]

ORIGINAL: Hertston


All three movies are very good, albeit in different ways. Quite how Glory is 'flat', I'm not sure. Gods and Generals is the weakest IMHO, despite a strong performance from Robert Duvall and a superb one from Stephen Lang as Jackson (he was just as good in Gettysburg, as Pickett). It just tries to cover too much ground, while managing to make some of the battle scenes rather longer than was really necessary.

Re: Glory. I thought the writing for most of the officers was pretty dry (seems to be a pattern for civil war era movies except Dances with Wolves, which is a bit off-topic). I found Matthew Broderick's accent to be a bit annoying too. Thought Cary Elwes did a good job overall. The acting of Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman really carried it, IMHO.

I saw Red Badge of Courage about 10-15 years ago on TV. Audey Murphy was one helluva actor - I was trying to remember who was in it.

BTW, I think a vote should go in for the HBO movie Andersonville. Pretty good account.

[Adam Parker]

The first book my wife ever bought me was:

"The American Heritage New History of the Civil War" by Bruce Catton and James McPherson. I think it is an update of the 1960's book that Firaxis Games refered to in its Gettysburg as being the inspiration for the look of its graphics.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Heritage ... F8&s=books

It seems that there's a 2005 MP3 version too. Something for the iPod... hmmm.

[dude]

ORIGINAL: Director

"The Official Military Atlas of the Civil War", Major George B Davis, Leslie J Perry and Joseph W Kirkley.

Includes ordinance survey maps of everything south of the Mason Dixon and west through Texas as well as detailed maps of battlefields and campaigns. interestingly, numerous maps of the same site from different sources are often put side-by-side, allowing you to see what was there and what the commanders thought was there, which is not the same thing.

It is a gargantuan book, easily two feet tall and hundreds of pages thick. It's occasionally on sale for as little as $30 (STEAL!) and is absolutely invaluable.

I found it on the discount table at Borders a few years ago for $19. [:)] It's been real handy when reading texts on the battles to refer to it for looking up the actual maps.

[Slick91]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

I am into Vol. 1 of Foote's Civil War.  He is a great story-teller, and I'm forced to wonder where he got all of his material from - there are no footnotes in my copy.

Here is a transcript of an interview with Shelby Foote about this: http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1216

LAMB: There are no footnotes and no bibliography.
FOOTE: The subject, after 100 years, is well enough known not to need footnotes, the Civil War. Footnotes are extremely useful to other historians, and I was writing for historians' enjoyment and, I hope, instruction, but mainly I did not want to interrupt this narrative with this bunch of footnotes down at the bottom of the page where your eye leaves the story every now and then to glance down at the footnote. I thought that the footnotes would cost me more artistically than they would gain me in academic respect.

LAMB: The reason I bring it up is that you also mention in one of your books in your comments at the end that he came out with a bibliography that meant you didn't have to do it.
FOOTE: Right. He and his friend Pete Long published a separate bibliography that covers everything, and I said if you want to know where I got my books, go to Newman's bibliography. That's where I got them.
LAMB: Three hundred and fifty books on the Civil War?
FOOTE: About that number was the working library I had near my desk at all times. I worked from printed sources entirely. I did not get into the archives and dig around among manuscripts.
LAMB: Have you read all those books?
FOOTE: Yes, I had. I read them and read them with pleasure, most of them.

Please, go and read the whole interview, it is well worth your time!

By the way, he wrote all of his books with a dip pen, and then typed them out on a typewritter for the publisher.

[Crimguy]

That is a great find, thanks. He does make the assumption that all of it is known, or well known. I never have taken issue with the details of battle, etc. It's more of the personal anecdotes of Davis et. al. that leave me curious.

ORIGINAL: Slick91

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

I am into Vol. 1 of Foote's Civil War. He is a great story-teller, and I'm forced to wonder where he got all of his material from - there are no footnotes in my copy.

Here is a transcript of an interview with Shelby Foote about this: http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1216

LAMB: There are no footnotes and no bibliography.
FOOTE: The subject, after 100 years, is well enough known not to need footnotes, the Civil War. Footnotes are extremely useful to other historians, and I was writing for historians' enjoyment and, I hope, instruction, but mainly I did not want to interrupt this narrative with this bunch of footnotes down at the bottom of the page where your eye leaves the story every now and then to glance down at the footnote. I thought that the footnotes would cost me more artistically than they would gain me in academic respect.

LAMB: The reason I bring it up is that you also mention in one of your books in your comments at the end that he came out with a bibliography that meant you didn't have to do it.
FOOTE: Right. He and his friend Pete Long published a separate bibliography that covers everything, and I said if you want to know where I got my books, go to Newman's bibliography. That's where I got them.
LAMB: Three hundred and fifty books on the Civil War?
FOOTE: About that number was the working library I had near my desk at all times. I worked from printed sources entirely. I did not get into the archives and dig around among manuscripts.
LAMB: Have you read all those books?
FOOTE: Yes, I had. I read them and read them with pleasure, most of them.

Please, go and read the whole interview, it is well worth your time!

By the way, he wrote all of his books with a dip pen, and then typed them out on a typewritter for the publisher.

[Slick91]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

That is a great find, thanks. He does make the assumption that all of it is known, or well known. I never have taken issue with the details of battle, etc. It's more of the personal anecdotes of Davis et. al. that leave me curious.

I would assume that since he used all printed sources that the anecdotes are mentioned in those books. Most were probably memoirs of various Civil War leaders, politicians, and veterans. Many veterans wrote their memoirs during the later part of the 19th century and early 20th, but most of these books are now very hard to find with the exception of a few still in print.

[Sarkus]

ORIGINAL: captskillet

For an excellent account of the Army of Northern Virginia during the War you got to read "Lee's Lieutenants : A Study in Command" by Douglas Freeman..........it was written in the 30's but is still considered a standard on the ANV's exploits from Bull Run and Joe Johnston (or what became the ANV) thru Appomattox. It even includes a good account of Stonewalls Valley Campaign.

"Lee's Lieutenants" is a must-read, for sure. I've read a lot of Civil War history over the years but only recently read an abridged one-volume version (if you want to call 900+ pages abridged) of this book and learned a ton of things I didn't know. It made me really wish there were equivalent books on each major army of the war.

[captskillet]

you need to do the three volume full monty sometimes Sarkus .............[;)]

[Sarkus]

ORIGINAL: captskillet

you need to do the three volume full monty sometimes Sarkus .............[;)]

I've thought about it but they are pretty expensive as a set and it took me quite a while just to get through the abridged version. (Which I got for $15 at a B&N discount bin). Someday, though. [:)]

[Ironclad]

Don't forget the 4 volume series of "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War" as an important collection of original source documents and post war accounts. A good opportunity to read conflicting accounts - often from the same side! Who says feuds never die?

[Johnus]

Lee's Lieutenant's is wonderful. If you enjoy military strategy and you like reading, the full three-volume study is a must. It's both military history and a critique of the generals and the campaign's. I find it unique and, yes, wonderful.

[Alan_Bernardo]

ORIGINAL: Johnnie

Lee's Lieutenant's is wonderful. If you enjoy military strategy and you like reading, the full three-volume study is a must. It's both military history and a critique of the generals and the campaign's. I find it unique and, yes, wonderful.

I'm now on Volume 3 of Freeman's three-volume set. To read any kind of abridgement would be considered, to me, apostasy. After finishing this last volume, I might consider Freeman's four-volume set of the biography of Lee, written nearly twenty years before Lee's Lieutenants.

Foote's narrative and McPherson's one-volume account of the Civil War I didn't really care for. I read McPherson's book and found its style suffocating: Foote's narrative lasted thirty pages before I became disgusted and returned the thing to the library. I don't particularly care for straight narrative accounts of historical events. Freeman's work, partially narrative, runs rings around Foote's, IMHO.

As for fiction, in two days I finished Michael Shaara's The Killer Angles. The novel is apparently pretty historical as far as the events go, though Shaara does what he wants with the individual historical characters, depending on how he thought they reacted to the situation at Gettysburg. I enjoyed the book. I believe the novel was rejected by 13 publishers before someone finally took it up. Shockingly to some it won the Pulitzer Prize in, I believe, 1975.

Gods and Generals, written by Shaara's son, is next on my list. I do think that novels, if a goodly part of them are historically accurate, are excellent introductions to understanding a particular event. My problem with Foote is that I might have continued reading the Trilogy if it had been considered, outright, fiction. Maybe sometime later I'll be able to read it without feeling the need to... er... upchuck.

As for movies, I know nothing of them. The last one that I saw, at the theater, was JFK.


Alanb

[Drex]

I'm sorry you have such a poor opinion of Foote, I enjoyed it as an introduction to the Civil War. the trilogy was what got me interested in the subject. But we all know there is much much more. ther are many personal memoirs of the war: Longstreet's "From Manassas to Appomattox", Chamberlain's "passing of the Armies",etc. I think these accounts are very valuable, although they present one man's veiwpoint.

[Alan_Bernardo]

ORIGINAL: Drex

I'm sorry you have such a poor opinion of Foote, I enjoyed it as an introduction to the Civil War. the trilogy was what got me interested in the subject. But we all know there is much much more. ther are many personal memoirs of the war: Longstreet's "From Manassas to Appomattox", Chamberlain's "passing of the Armies",etc. I think these accounts are very valuable, although they present one man's veiwpoint.

Maybe at some point Foote's narrative will intrigue me. I've always disliked pure narrative history, which seems a veritible contradiction. Though Foote's account may be accurate, it disturbs me, as it does others, that he includes no references in his telling.

Of memoirs, I enjoyed Grant's and Sherman's. At times, Sherman gets too polemical; Grant's memoirs are better written, from an overall literary standpoint. Maybe after I finish volume three of Freeman's work, I'll turn to Longstreet's memoirs.

Having read Killer Angles and enjoyed it, I'll probably move to Gods and Generals. I'd rather read fiction that professes to be nothing else, than pure narrative history that might actually be fiction.

Alanb

[General Quarters]

I don't recall if I posted on this thread or not, but let me recommend Kenneth T. Williams multivolume, Lincoln Finds a General. It is narrative, of course, but analytical in nature. And he includes a lot of documentation -- for example, the text of many of the orders and other communications between commanders, subordinates, War Dept, and President. McClellan looks a lot better if you do not quote his actual communications (ala Foote) instead of doing so (ala Williams). Some other generals, even the much-condemned Burnside and Pope, look a bit better. Williams is also very careful to try to ascertain the facts. Fremont reports being delaying in his approach to the Valley by "egg-sized hailstones." Williams looks to see if the Confederates or civilians reported such a phenomenon. He must have been in the military at some point, but he looks at command structure, logistics, etc., with a professional eye.

[hotdog433]

the compact history of the civi war is fairly detailed written by ernest dupuy

[Ian R]

Anyone else here read the book by Archer Jones and ? Hathaway where they keep talking about "intrenchments" - fascinating, but harder to read than McPherson's Bttle Cry of Feedom.