Any good books?

[AlessandroD]

Hello all,

given that I'm not an ACW expert, do you have any suggestion for a good reading?
All aspects: military, political, specify battle and so on.

At the moment I'm reading "The Civil War" by Shelby Foote Vol.1.

Thanks in advance

[Erik Rutins]

Shelby Foote is a superb place to start. I can also recommend the following:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedo ... 19516895X/

http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Lincolns-Army- ... 385043104/

The game manual includes an extensive bibliography which should also help guide you.

Regards,

- Erik

[Gil R.]

If you want to read about one or more of the battles in BAB#1 I can make suggestions. These are all in the manual, but I can point to the ones that would be best to start with.

[AlessandroD]

Thanks Erik, added to wishlist.

Sure Gil, let me know your suggestions [:)]

I'm reading your battle booklets and they are very helpful to understand the battle for profane like me, moreover checking with the very detailed maps you can have a good grasp of the battles back and forth.

[Gil R.]

Okay, here goes.

First, before individual battles, here is an excellent and very readable book about what battle was like, which we drew upon heavily:
*Brent Nosworthy, The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War (2003)
And then there's this famous, multi-volume set comprised of essays written by the combatants themselves years later:
*Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (1884-88)

For 1st Manassas there are numerous books, but I liked this one, since it gives background as well as tactics:
*John Hennessy, The First Battle of Manassas: An End to Innocence, July 18-21, 1861 (1989)

For Wilson's Creek these are the two I've read an recommend, the first as a pure battle account and the second as an excellent historical work that devotes something like 30-40% to the events leading up to the battle:
*Edwin C. Bearss, The Battle of Wilson’s Creek (1992)
*Earl J. Hess, Richard W. Hatcher III, William Garrett Piston & William L. Shea, Wilson's Creek, Pea Ridge, and Prairie Grove: A Battlefield Guide, with a Section on Wire Road (2006)

For Mill Springs this was my bible, an excellent book that is absurdly fat for such a small battle. (But, of course, when designing a game that's what one wants, since the more information the better.)
*Kenneth A. Hafendorfer, Mill_Springs: Campaign and Battle of Mill Springs, Kentucky (2001)

For Williamsburg there are two books devoted to the battle, though as part of the Peninsula Campaign it usually ends up getting a chapter or two in broader works. Of the two devoted to the battle, the first is something like 40-50% background and social history, while the second is mainly about the battle (and is shorter):
*Carol Kettenburg Dubbs, Defend This Old Town: Williamsburg during the Civil War (2002)
*Earl C. Hastings, jr. & David S. Hastings, A Pitiless Rain: The Battle of Williamsburg, 1862 (1997)
Of the campaign-level books, the one I read was the following, though that is not to disparage the others, since I didn't need to read every single book on the Peninsula Campaign:
*Stephen W. Sears, To the Gates of Richmond: The Peninsula Campaign (1992)
Also, I really liked this multi-volume history of the Army of the Potomac, which in vol. 3 has Williamsburg:
*Russell Beatie, Army of the Potomac 3: McClellan's First Campaign, March 1862-May 1862 (2007)

That should keep you busy for a while!

[AlessandroD]

I would say perfect, lot of books! [:)]

Campaign and Battle of Mill Springs is very expensive! [X(]

Many thanks!

[Gil R.]

Yikes! $234?!? I guess it's because, from what I remember, it is a vanity press sort of publication rather than one through a real publisher -- even though it is certainly good enough to have deserved proper treatment. So Amazon thinks it's rare because it's not widely available. My copy, purchased during a visit to Mill Springs five or so years ago, was something like $40, which is not unreasonable for that thick a hardcover. My advice would be to contact the gift shop at the battlefield, which probably still has copies, and certainly wouldn't be charging some crazy price for it: http://www.millsprings.net/index.php/at ... ter-museum

[AlessandroD]

Thank you very much for the support, I just sent an email to them [:)]

[Gil R.]

Great. Please let us know if the shop does still stock that book. I doubt you'll be the last one who wants a copy.

[zakblood]

Extraordinary Circumstances, The Seven Days Battles

The Richmond Campaign of 1862: The Peninsula and the Seven Days

Echoes of Thunder: A Guide to the Seven Days Battles

Counter-Thrust, From the Peninsula to the Antietam

Standard Catalog of Civil War Firearms

Civil War Curiosities: Strange Stories, Oddities, Events, and Coincidences

To The Gates of Richmond, The Peninsula Campaign

The Official Virginia, Civil War Battlefield Guide

Bad Blood: The Border War That Triggered the Civil War

Blue Vs. Gray - Killing Fields

Civil War Combat: America's Bloodiest Battles

Jefferson Davis, An American President

The Blue and the Gray, The Complete Miniseries

Battle of Stones River, The Fight for Murfreesboro

[AlessandroD]

Gil: sure, I will do.

Zakblood: thanks again, I'm full for a year at least. [:)]

[AlessandroD]

I bought my copy for 50$, the gift shop cannot run out of this book because it has more then 1400 copies!
Btw, excellent service.

Gil you have a glass of wine paid [:)]

[Crimso]

While not covered in this release, one of my all-time favorites (been reading and researching extensively for about 20 years) is "Taken at the Flood" by Joseph Harsh. An almost hour-by-hour breakdown of Lee's activities and decisions during the Maryland campaign. The great majority of the literature is narrative (such-and-such happened, followed by this-and-that, which led to...), and it is important in that you first need to know what happened. The really good stuff offers critical analysis (like Harsh's book). The accounts written by contemporaries (from the oft-cited Sam Watkins' recollections of the fighting in the Western Theater to the finally available manuscript on Antietam by Carman, the memoirs, the Official Records, etc.) are certainly valuable, but must be read with a grain of salt. The author often had an ax to grind, or didn't really know much other than what was happening with his regiment or brigade. Even those who had excellent comprehension of specific battles and campaigns in which they participated (usually corps or army commanders) can't really help but make their accounts self-serving to at least some extent. So reading books written by people 150 years after the fact can in some ways be more informative than those written by participants. As an example (used because I'm currently reading the first volume of his planned trilogy on the battle), I'll bet Dave Powell knows more about Chickamauga (as a whole) than anyone who was actually there (and I've read multiple times and enjoy Cozzens' work on it). He has the enormous advantage of reading every official account, every memoir, every letter, every newspaper article, etc.

[AlessandroD]

Thanks Crimso, other books added to wishlist.

Btw, do you know the Civil War Sesquicentennial Series? Are introductive books or more detailed?

[Crimso]

If they are the books I'm thinking of, then I would consider them introductory. I tend to gauge books (in the absence of being able to thumb through them) by their length as compared to the subject. A 200 page book on Gettysburg will necessarily lack details, whereas a 600 page book on the second day of Gettysburg (Harry Pfanz, I've read it at least 4 times) will necessarily be very detailed. It can be way too much to read a very detailed book (detailing events at the regimental level) if you really don't have a good feel for the battle as a whole. For any particular battle or campaign, wade in using the less detailed introductory books, then work your way up. As you get into more detailed books, you can more easily focus on the things of most interest to you and learn about them in great detail. A lot of what's out there is way too "inside baseball" for someone with just a casual interest.

On a related note, Foote would be considered introductory in terms of a particular battle or campaign (even though excerpts from his trilogy have been published as stand-alone books dealing with Gettysburg and Vicksburg), but is almost certainly the most detailed overall history of the war. As such, it is an excellent place to start for someone who isn't afraid to do a lot of reading. He's not perfect, but for the big picture he is the standard (when it comes to detail).

Also, there is a lot of things about the war that everybody knows that really isn't so. That is of course a matter of opinion (and I don't want to start a raging debate that has played out on countless message boards across the internet), but I can tell you that my opinions of certain individuals very much goes against conventional wisdom. The more you read, the more you will begin to find that your own analysis will reveal things that go against what most other people think. If you arrive at that opinion by careful analysis, you then begin to realize how many people simply repeat what others have asserted as fact that may not necessarily be true.

Everybody knows the ACW was so bloody because the technology outpaced the tactics. The rifled musket made the Napoleonic style of warfare murderous. Everybody knows this. Everybody. Except for a few who have provided strong (if not totally convincing) arguments that undermine this nugget of wisdom so ingrained that people who know virtually nothing about the war at least know why it was so bloody. At least they think they do. Paddy Griffith, Earl Hess, and others have done some interesting analyses of this.

Another trap to avoid is the Eastern Theater one. A dismaying number of people present the important events of the war as almost entirely occurring in the Eastern Theater. BaB looks to be avoiding that from the start, we'll see if what they have in mind for future releases continues that. I'm already wondering whether they have a secret list of battles that they intend to cover in subsequent releases, but are waiting until they do those releases to reveal what those battles are.

[Crimso]

Ack! "there is a lot of things"

Forgive me. I'm from the South. We don't talk as good as everbody else.

[AlessandroD]

All these posts are well welcomed, I have enough books for long time!

Foote vol.1, I'm around page 250 and I'm enjoying the reading, few details for the battles (but other books are coming for that) but pretty good overal picture even if I need to check other sources especially for the politic situation (whig, fire-eaters, etc.).

About opinions you are right, it is always necessary to read several sources even if you always are conditioned by other historian works (or mindset, it is almost impossible to write something without personal influence), anyhow I still am in the first learning phase.

Paddy Griffith, Earl Hess, and others have done some interesting analyses of this.

Are you speaking about these titles?
"Battle Tactics of the Civil War" by Paddy Griffith and "Civil War Infantry Tactics: Training, Combat, and Small-Unit Effectiveness" by Earl J. Hess.

[Crimso]

Yes on Griffith (the original British version had a different title, don't recall it), but the Hess book is "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth." I'm in the middle of Hess right now, and it's been years since I read Griffith, but they both make points (with strong supporting evidence) that are worth considering. Griffith thinks that Napoleonic battles were just as bloody as in the ACW, but that the important difference is that Napoleonic battles tended to be decisive whereas few ACW battles were. He concludes that was due at least in part to ACW generals simply not being very good generals. That's heresy of the most vile sort, particularly when it comes to Lee (at least where I live), and people will tend to tune you out immediately if you utter such things. I think there's some merit to his argument. He points out that the number of years the ACW lasted was enough time for Nappy and his marshals to really hit their stride, and that had the ACW lasted longer then more generals would have gotten enough experience that they would have been comparable to the great generals of the Napoleonic era. Of course, I've seen some people argue that Napoleon declined in his generalship in the latter half of his era, so when it's all said and done you can't take anybody's word for it. Fortunately there are many, many people who have words you can take into account when forming your opinion. And while I've offered many words here, don't make the mistake of thinking I know what I'm talking about. This is a hobby for me, not a profession. If I could make a living at it, I would.

[AlessandroD]

Crimso thanks again for the suggestions and for your thoughts, much appreciated.

[Crimso]

I just happened across the Hess title you mentioned, and it is apparently a brand new release. It looks like it covers the same subject, and I'm wondering if it is a re-release of the book I recommended. I've read very little of Hess' work, but you'll note he seems to cover a little bit of everything. I'm not sure how the major scholars view him (assuming he is not considered to be one; perhaps he is). Been meaning to take a look at his Knoxville campaign book. I find the operational level to be the most interesting in the ACW, and put as much time into campaigns as I do individual battles.