|
|
|
|
|
|
Battle at Bull Run: A History of the First Major Campaign of the Civil War
written by William C. Davis
Studio : Louisiana State University Press
by Louisiana State University Press
Publisher : Louisiana State University Press
Released : 1981-05
Availability : Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Number of Items : 1
EAN : 9780807108673
Avg. Customer Rating: (based on 11 reviews)
List Price : $19.95
Our Price : $5.98
|
|
| |
|
Americancivilwar.com |
|
From the very first pages of this book, it's clear that historian William C. Davis is ready to deliver a gripping account of the first battle of the Civil War. He describes a female spy traveling with stolen information from Washington, D.C., to Confederate headquarters in Fairfax Court House, Virginia: "The whole scene so reeked of penny romance that it bordered on the ludicrous." Maybe so, but it's also real history, and Davis understands what many academic historians do not: a good history book needs to tell good stories. Davis has written many outstanding books on the Civil War era, and Battle at Bull Run is one of his earliest. It's also one of his best, and is perhaps the finest book available on how the Union's haughty overconfidence crumbled against Southern determination in a single afternoon. Confederate General Thomas Jackson earned his immortal nickname, "Stonewall," on that day, and the soldiers who fought under him showed the North that its cry "On to Richmond!" was a hollow one. Much of the book focuses on events leading up to the actual battle--how the two armies were hastily assembled, how each side found its leaders, and so on. This is a familiar tale, but probably never has been told as well as it is on these pages. --John J. Miller |
| |
|
| |
|
Well written account, hurt badly by inadequate maps |
I'm really surprised at other reviewers setting forth that the maps provided in William C. Davis' "Battle of Bull Run" as "adequate." I didn't find that the case at all. This book unfathomably lacks maps of the theater of operations over which the armies in Virginia operated in the summer of 1861. The book provides eight maps which are of the battlefield only. That is completely insufficient for a book dealing with a campaign.
There are no maps showing the campaign operations ,none of the Harpers Ferry area ,none showing how the rail lines connected to Richmond, Manassas, and the Shenadoah Valley, and none showing how General McDowell advanced his army from its camps around Washington to Manassas. The book describes events involving all of the above, but with no maps it is very difficult to understand them. For instance, it is almost impossible to understand how McDowell hoped to trap Bonham's brigade with three seperate columns because there is no map showing how the operations of those columns threatened Bonham's brigade. Unless you are already knowledgeable of the geography of 1861 Virginia, this book is going to puzzle you in its operational descriptions. Basically, this book requires you to provide your own maps of the campaign.
Overall, "The Battle of Bull Run" is nicely written, but no book on a military campaign should require the reader to BYOOM ("Bring your own operational map.")
|
| |
|
The first great battle of the Civil War gets the once-over |
In July 1861, half-trained Union and Confederate armies met in a corps-sized battle in northern Virginia near a not especially significant stream called Bull Run. On the Confederate side of the stream were the Manassas Gap Railroad, the Manassas-Sudely Road and Manassas Junction. The Yankees, who often thought in terms of rivers, called the battle "Bull Run" (and later First Bull Run, because, alas, there would be a Second Bull Run) and the Rebs called it "First Manassas."
The battle, by whatever name, was unique in the Civil War in that no general on either side had ever exercised high command in combat. July 21, 1861 would amply demonstrate that careers devoted to theoretical studies of warfare and peacetime soldiering provided poor indicators of success in real combat.
The Federal forces were commanded by Irvin McDowell, a 42 year-old Ohioan who was a brigadier general in the regular army. He had once been an instructor in tactics at West Point. (Among his students had been a certain lackluster cadet named Grant, who had excelled only in drawing and horsemanship.)
Opposing McDowell were two generals who had combined their two armies just before the battle, even as McDowell advanced. Joseph E. Johnston was a full general in the Confederate service and (in his own strongly expressed opinion) the highest ranking officer to leave the US Army in order to join the Confederacy. The Confederate man-on-the-spot who actually chose the battlefield was Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard, then still a brigadier general. He would later become one of the eight men to hold the rank of full general in Confederate States Army. Beauregard had been appointed as Commandant of West Point in January 1861. He held the job for a total of five days before Louisiana, his native state, seceded.
McDowell was the loser in this first major battle of the war and he has received a great deal of bad press ever since because of that. Author Davis, however, holds that he performed quite well on the run-up to the battle and on the day itself. I think he makes a pretty convincing case for McDowell, especially when one considers the subsequent spectacular collapses of such Union generals as Pope, Burnside, Hooker and Rosecrans, each of whom had vastly more combat experience than the untried McDowell.
In fact, McDowell came within an ace of winning the day, despite slothful and wooly-headed subordinates and undisciplined citizen-soldiers. He got across the river barrier in short order and assailed the Confederates so strongly that they were forced to improvise on their battle plan and tactics throughout the day. In the end, it was the virtually fortuitous arrival of E. Kirby Smith's fresh Confederate brigade at exactly the right time and place on the unprotected right flank of the Union army, just as it was exhausted and pausing for a final breath before sending Johnston's and Beauregard's hard-pressed men reeling into defeat. The attack by a fresh Rebel force on the Union flank stopped the Federal offensive cold, leading to an orderly retreat that swiftly degenerated into a panicked rout.
"Battle at Bull Run" is, as Civil War books go, a relatively short and concise account of the battle and its antecedents. Author Davis defends the reputation of McDowell and is probably justified in doing so. He launches an all-out assault on Beauregard that is, I think, rather less justified. He joins with the judgment of history in dismissing the Federal general in the Shenandoah Valley charged with the task of keeping Johnston from joining Beauregard, as an over- timid, military dunce. Davis' account of the battle itself is straightforward and seems to me to be perfectly lucid.
Overall, this is a good book about First Bull Run. Its main strength is in setting out the complex battle narrative. The analyses of people and politics that precede the battle are workmanlike but not much more. There is an indefinable but pervasive air about the book that proclaims it to be lightweight in nature. Oh, it's sound enough and well enough written, but somewhere there is a better, weightier book to be found or perhaps to be written.
To my mind, the weakest part of the book deals with the aftermath. It focuses almost entirely on the Union side. General Sherman, who was a colonel in command of a brigade at First Bull Run, wrote about that first battle after the war was concluded. Davis quotes him in a sort of general summing up: "Bull Run Battle was lost by us not from want of combination, strategy or tactics, but because our army was green as grass. Though a source of great disgrace it was no misfortune, for we then realized that organization & discipline were necessary."
This is good enough as far as it goes, but it ignores the Confederates and particularly a strategic and tactical decision they faced immediately after the battle. In 1954, the Australian army published a brief and wholly admirable analysis of Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Campaign of 1861-62 which starts off with an account of First Bull Run. Military analyses often have a noticeably different texture than those of the pure historians. It's after the battle that the soldiers take their different tack. Here's what the Aussies had to say:
"Johnston and Beauregard were trained and experienced soldiers. They must have known that the untrained and thoroughly beaten Federal army would take some time to recover any semblance of cohesion, even if left unmolested. They must have known that an improvised brigade or so, filled with the intoxication of victory, could have chased it into Washington, or at the very least have occupied the heights commanding the Federal capital. But they saw too many difficulties, the disorganization of the army, the inexperience of the troops, the problem of supplies. But, while they took counsel of their fears, Jackson reorganized his brigade, packed three days' rations into it haversacks and impatiently awaited the order to advance--an order which never came."
Imagine it! Mighty Stonewall roaring like a lion before the gates of Washington while the Federal government and army quivered in terror before him. What strange new courses might history have followed after that? |
| |
|
McDowell has certainly been ordered to advance on the 16th read the note delivered by the beautiful Spy Miss Duval to Gen Bonham |
Thus setting up the first major battle of the War. The Battle of Bull Run.
Chaos and men like Jackson, Sherman, Jeb Stuart, Jubal Early, A.P. Hill would rule on this battle field. They would soon learn that this would not be a one battle war. Once Chaos enter the fray it did not want to leave.
"At once they opened on the enemy batteries and some companies of infantry stationed nearby. almost at the same time, considerable bodies of the enemy moved forward against them, overlapping their exposed right and part of the left as well. Then the fire that poured into that thicket truely made it a place of slaughter. 'It was a whirlwind of bullets,' wrote one who survived. 'Our men fell constantly. The deadly missivies rained like hail among the boughs and trees.'" The 8th Georgians were there fifteen minutes. Matthews Hill, 31 July, 1861. |
| |
|
A good work, but lacking in a few areas |
I would like to give this review 3.5 stars. The book is too well written for a 3, but it has some flaws that make me somewhat uncomfortable with the 4 I am giving it. Davis' book about New Market is a 5 star effort.
Davis succeeds in most areas with Battle of Bull Run. He describes the campaign well, and he gives adequate background of most of the key participating officers. The maps are adequate. The battle itself and the aftermath are competently covered. Most importantly, Davis' writing style makes for comfortable reading. His retelling appears objective and balanced for the most part, and it appears that he tries to treat the participants fairly with the information at hand all these years later. Although he does relish in retelling a few romanticized episodes (particularly in the opening), he is quick to point out the theater in these.
So where is the book lacking? Overall, it is a bit shorter and more concise than what I expected of such a momentous battle (this will be a positive for some readers, less so for the more detail oriented.) Unlike his New Market book, there is no Order of Battle, detailed listing of unit strengths, or casualties. The maps could be larger, and zoomed in to particular zones. Davis' writing in this work is not quite as clear as it was in the New Market work (or at least as I remember it.) There are several points where sentences are not adequately phrased to give the reader a full view of the subject, without paging back through the book to find the original event 40 pages earlier. Other problems are some minor but annoying factual discrepancies (usually generalities, that are too general) or things that leave one wondering what the rest of the story was.
One of the frustrating little things is the front cover Brady photo (paperback) that is also found later in the book. The text mentions this photo being used in reporting the Federal dead on Matthews Hill. The caption of the photo does not tell us that this is now known(?) to have been a staged photo of livemen playing dead, it just says that it is "often erroneously" identified.
It is a good book and I will recommend it, but it is not a truly great book, so I feel necessary to express some reservations with my recommendation. |
| |
|
Davis, Like the Other Davis, Bashes Beauregard |
Mr. Davis has over the years provided Civil War enthusiasts with many fine books dealing with most aspects of the war. He has written books on the politics of the era, biographies of some of the era's leading figures and is the case here, he has written battle histories. This book like the author's other offerings is clearly written and concise, easy to understand and read and most importantly, it is not dull. Many authors offer up books that are just full of good information but reading them is like reading the Biblical book of Leviticus. Heaven only knows just how many well intentioned people have attempted to read the whole Bible but have come to a dead halt upon reaching Leviticus. The same applies to history books which go into such mind numbing detail about every movement of every regiment and company that the reader finds themselves completely lost and frustrated. Davis, with his wonderfully chatty writing style avoids this problem while still giving the reader all of the pertinent details.
Davis begins his story with Fort Sumter where the reader meets General P.G.T. Beauregard, the first major player in this story. Beauregard of course becomes the "hero of Sumter" and goes north to Virginia with a high reputation and an even bigger ego. Davis is not kind to the Creole general in this book and in fact may be just a little too harsh. As the story progresses the reader is also introduced to some of the people who will be major players throughout the war. This view of men like Jackson, Ewell, Early, Sherman, Stuart and Burnside will certainly help the reader understand events shaped by these men later in the war and each of these men are destined to play a major role over the next four years. Davis does an excellent job of hinting at the future of these men and also pointing out little habits or quirks that are going to become important as these men rise in rank and stature.
As with any well-written book, Davis builds the suspense as her works his way toward the battle. Actually, more of this book deals with the preparations for the battle than with the battle itself. Beauregard, who had an excellent eye for building defenses chose his ground and fortified it well. If the Yankees had just done what he expected them to do the battle would have been over in a very short time. The much-maligned Irvin McDowell had put together an excellent battle plan and Davis offers a pretty rousing defense of McDowell in this book. Davis clearly shows that had McDowell had a little better support and a little better luck, things might have turned out much differently. Besides being completely new to this type of command, McDowell had to deal with a President who was playing politics with his army and a General in Chief who not only disliked McDowell but was also playing political games. Then there was General Daniel Tyler who almost single-handedly destroyed McDowell's plan in a bid for individual glory and also General Patterson who's sloth and caution allowed Joe Johnston to join Beauregard before Patterson even knew he was gone.
Davis does a marvelous job of setting up this battle and then does an even better job of describing the action once it all begins. He has set the whole thing up so well in fact that the narrative of the battle needed very little explanation for everything made perfect sense because of the set up. This situation allowed for the story of the battle to flow about as smoothly in this book as in any book I have ever read.
The only real fault I found in this book was the maps. The maps were good but they were a little small which required me to put on my specks and there were too few of them. There are also several typos that should have all been weeded out in this revised edition and the publishers need to correct this problem in any future editions. Still, this is an eminently readable and highly enjoyable account of the first major battle of the Civil War. Well researched, well written, and highly informative, what more could anyone ask? |
| |
|
|
|
