|
|
|
|
|
|
Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864 (Modern War Studies)
written by Albert E. Castel
Studio : University Press of Kansas
by University Press of Kansas
Publisher : University Press of Kansas
Released : 1995-10
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780700607488
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 19 reviews)
List Price : $19.95
Our Price : $11.70
|
|
| |
|
Product Description |
|
"Stunningly original. Sets a daunting standard for future operational studies on the Civil War". -- New York Times Book Review. |
| |
|
| |
|
Denouement in the Peach State |
Decision in the West is well researched, and the narrative is well constructed from the various primary sources. In his own analysis, Castel drops the bombshell that Sherman was not a very good general. If only old Slow Trot, George Thomas, could have had his way, then things would have ended much sooner. Fortunately for the Union, the principles of industrial war were already kicking in, and good generals were no longer needed to win wars.
Castel avoids the annoying habit of Civil War historians who name their chapters after a quote from primary sources. Unfortunately, though, he names them after the month during which the chapter's events occur. Is it asking too much to be able to look at the table of contents in one of these campaign books and actually have chapter names describe what the chapter is about?
|
| |
|
Excellent book on the subject |
Rich detail you can't find in the usual sources, and plenty of background, not just who went where when. I am a GA native so I really appreciate that.
Very enjoyable read. |
| |
|
Excellent Title on a Critical Civil War Campaign |
In my humble opinion, Castel has written what I believe to be the best study of the Atlanta Campaign. While some reviewers seem to think that Castel spends much time criticizing Sherman's generalship, he also spends time criticizing Southern leaders - Hood, Davis, Bragg, Hardee, etc. Personally, I thought he was fair to both sides.
Another criticism other reveiwers have is the present tense Castel writes. This was the first time I have read a Civil War study in the present tense and quite frankly, I enjoyed it! Personally, I believe Castel's writing in the present tense helps the reader to better understand the situation the various leaders faced and makes the reader feel like he/she is actually there analyzing what would be the best course of action to take in a particular situation. Castel's writing style is free-flowing - you get a sense of what is taking place in the campaign without becoming bogged down into unnecessary details.
The battle descriptions lack the gore of other Civil War titles yet includes anecdotes of the various leaders and also common soldiers.
The only reason I did not give the book 4 stars is the same 'ole tired reason I rarely give 5 stars for other Civil War studies I have read - the maps. While the maps were okay, they lacked sufficient detail (battlefield terrain features, showing units at the brigade level instead of a more detailed regimental level, etc.) and were not enough. Since the Atlanta Campaign lasted about 5 months, I believe could have been many more maps and with more detail.
Comment aside, I heartily recommend Castel's book as the definitive study of the Atlanta Campaign. Read and enjoy! |
| |
|
Sherman's "ineptitude" wins the war |
This book has many strengths and several glaring weaknesses. As a chronical of the campaign, it is thorough and well-written (though the present tense gimmigk gets in the way a little). Particularly strong is the author's tying the military action to the political maneuvering during this election year of 1864. The author shows that the behind-the-scenes action can be just as important as the actual fighting. For these reasons it is worth reading.
However, Castel demonstrated a singular lack of insight in some of his conclusions - an obvious previously-held dislike of Sherman perhaps clouding his judgement - it certainly gets in the way of the narrative. For example, after Resaca, Castel states that "one can only conclude" that if Thomas had been in charge instead of Sherman the entire campaign would have been over in a week. This is a singularly silly statement for a respected historian. If Sherman did something correctly, Castel states that it "was the only thing he could do"; if Sherman makes a correct decision it is "for the wrong reasons". Castel even resorts to gratuitous and unneccessary sarcasm in his treatment of Sherman.
In actuality, Shermans "ineptitude" moved an ungainly Army Group from Cattanooga to Atlanta in four months while constantly in close contact with an enemy army that, until Hood took command, was effectively lead. He captured the city of Atlanta and ended the campaign with a force that was still strong enough to split in two and fight the battles of Franklin and Nashville on the one hand, and, march to the sea and immortality on the other.
|
| |
|
Very Meticulous and Well Done |
Castel's study is extremely meticulous, and he never hesitates to interject his own opinions, which is a must for histories of these kinds to keep them from being dry rehashes.
Castel is critical of a number of decisions by just about every commander. While this could be referred to as "revision," I think it's simply bringing these characters back down to the realm of humanity. It is clear throughout the campaign that Sherman's strength was grand strategy and his weakness tactics. Too often in the romanticizing of the Civil War, the difference between the two is obscured. Instead of trying to drag Sherman's name through the mud, it's more an attempt at remembering that these generals were humans who made mistakes.
The only issue I had with the book was lack of maps and a few editing mistakes. The editing mistakes were mostly trivial, although at one point Castel says "The Army of the Tennessee did not have the offensive capability to inflict damage on the Union forces." Of course, the Army of the Tennessee was a Union force; Castel meant the Army of Tennessee.
The lack of maps was more frustrating. First, the maps of the theater were too spread out. The maps did not include corps or army positions, which was extremely frustrating when the armies got nearer to Atlanta and began to divide and hunker down around the city. Moreover, places discussed during battles did not always show up on any of the maps.
Regardless, this book is well written and does a very good job of recounting 1864 as a whole. |
| |
|
|
|
