Longacre gives a balanced picture of Stuart; it's hard to see how a historian of ANV cavalry could avoid writing about their commander for most of their existence, and Longacre offers both praise and criticism, as well as a couple of insightful points. He's not at all a Stuart partisan; in fact, one gets the feeling he would probably rank Hampton first in tactics.

This book offers a sensible account of the Confederate cavalry at (and not at) Gettysburg, and represents a modification of Longacre's view in his earlier book on the subject. In the earlier book Longacre seemed to accept the viewpoint that Stuart "should have" been present, whereas now, perhaps influenced by *Saber and Scapegoat* (which appears in his bibliography), he takes a more positive view.

Longacre is more original, and perhaps more questionable, when he analyzes the tactics of mounted charges. He claims that ANV troopers wanted to fight mounted, but with revolvers and other firearms rather than sabers, and I wish he had provided more supporting quotes, because I've read plenty of primary sources (Gilmor) where sabers are used with glee. His assertion that sabers were really more effective than firearms at close quarters is interesting, and he goes on to state that mounted charges really were of little use, being more or less outdated and causing high casualties. But did mounted fighting, which took place until the end of the war, actually result in more casualties than attrition, disease among horses and men, or the kind of dismounted fighting cavalrymen sometimes did in the West, where they were ordered to charge breastworks? (history of the 7th TN Cav). I wanted to see more analysis, more numbers and more quotes.

Certainly a complete and interesting account, as far as I know the only such work, and required reading for anyone interested in the topic.