Library's review
John Keegan authored wonderful books. For at least a decade now, the quality of his books has been slipping. The motivation to write the books has been more commercial than getting a message across. This book reads like the publishers pestered the author until he took pen in hand and wrote
A further quirk is Keegan's approach of trying to explain the Civil War with references to the Second World War (who is the Civil War's Patton etc.) with a weird back and forth switch between English and American protagonists (Thus, it would have been more helpful and pertinent to compare Lincoln and FDR instead of Churchill who faced a very different task.). Grant and Jackson are the two who Keegan finds the most inspiring. He does not tend to be particularly fond of Robert E. Lee but rather prone to Virginia (snubbing in particular North Carolina - falsely claiming that it was only invaded in 1864 - poor Burnside! - and not mentioning the contribution of North Carolina to Pickett's charge at Gettysburg).
While the book is not totally bad and is quite readable for Civil War buffs, it is not recommended for beginners. Booksellers who currently promote this book do their customers a disservice. McPherson, Foote or Catton remain better introductions.
Show More
something for the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. While the most egregious errors which plagued the hardback edition have been cleaned up for the paperback, the target audience of the book remains unclear. It reads like a student report, summarizing the readings for a professor who is well aware of the facts. Somebody totally ignorant about the American Civil War will not understand Keegan's approach as the narrative is confined between two parts of analytical summaries.A further quirk is Keegan's approach of trying to explain the Civil War with references to the Second World War (who is the Civil War's Patton etc.) with a weird back and forth switch between English and American protagonists (Thus, it would have been more helpful and pertinent to compare Lincoln and FDR instead of Churchill who faced a very different task.). Grant and Jackson are the two who Keegan finds the most inspiring. He does not tend to be particularly fond of Robert E. Lee but rather prone to Virginia (snubbing in particular North Carolina - falsely claiming that it was only invaded in 1864 - poor Burnside! - and not mentioning the contribution of North Carolina to Pickett's charge at Gettysburg).
While the book is not totally bad and is quite readable for Civil War buffs, it is not recommended for beginners. Booksellers who currently promote this book do their customers a disservice. McPherson, Foote or Catton remain better introductions.
Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member timspalding
I loved this book for the same reasons some others hated it. It's not a narrative history of the war, but a work of analytical history. Events are often described and there's a very rough chronological motion, but most chapters are thematic and Keegan's interests are broader—and, to this
The result lacks the novelistic qualities some seek, but it also answers questions narrative histories may not address, or realize are even important. Why was it so bloody? What was Civil War battle really like? Did the South have a chance? How did the enlistment of black soldiers affect the war effort? Who were the best—and worse—commanders? Etc. Also appreciated was its non-American take on the effort. Although I suspect Americans will buy more copies, Keegan writes with an ostensibly British audience, and takes care to put the Civil War in its global context. It turns out, of course, the war as "exceptional" in various way. But it's demonstrated, not assumed.
If you read one book about the Civil War, don't make it this one. The book practically presumes you've read another. But this would make a nice number two or three.
Show More
reviewer, more interesting—than a straightforward "who did what, when?" The result lacks the novelistic qualities some seek, but it also answers questions narrative histories may not address, or realize are even important. Why was it so bloody? What was Civil War battle really like? Did the South have a chance? How did the enlistment of black soldiers affect the war effort? Who were the best—and worse—commanders? Etc. Also appreciated was its non-American take on the effort. Although I suspect Americans will buy more copies, Keegan writes with an ostensibly British audience, and takes care to put the Civil War in its global context. It turns out, of course, the war as "exceptional" in various way. But it's demonstrated, not assumed.
If you read one book about the Civil War, don't make it this one. The book practically presumes you've read another. But this would make a nice number two or three.
Show Less
LibraryThing member wildbill
The American Civil War: A Military History by John Keegan.
One word, Disappointed!!
This book did not get very good reviews and I should have paid attention to them and passed on it. John Keegan did not live up to his reputation as an excellent military historian with his work here. I felt that with
There were too many mistakes in the book. The mistakes were in the details such as the age of Winfield Scott when the war started, he was 75 not 85. I did not keep a list but errors like this appeared throughout the book. If you have any knowledge of the topic these mistakes are very irritating and damaging to the credibility of the author. The battle narratives were cursory and left out many facts I had read elsewhere that I felt should have been included. The one thing I did like was the author's frequent use of Grant's memoirs as one of his sources. I have always felt this was an excellent book that contained a wealth of unbiased information.
The analysis was very thin. Keegan concludes that the South could not have won the war because of its lack of resources. This is not a new idea. He also concludes that socialism never developed in the United States because of the experiences of the men who fought the war. I don't see this as a significant issue and I would disagree with the author. The author analogizes the effect of the Civil War and WWI on the participants and attributes some characteristics of the Gilded Age to the violence experienced by the soldiers of the Civil War.
These insights are not sufficient to justify the time, trouble of reading the book not to mention the cost. I simply cannot recommend this book. If you want to read a one volume history of the era try Battle Cry of Freedom. It is well written and much more informative.
One word, Disappointed!!
This book did not get very good reviews and I should have paid attention to them and passed on it. John Keegan did not live up to his reputation as an excellent military historian with his work here. I felt that with
Show More
the materials available to me in my modest library and the local university library I could have written as good a book on the topic as this one.There were too many mistakes in the book. The mistakes were in the details such as the age of Winfield Scott when the war started, he was 75 not 85. I did not keep a list but errors like this appeared throughout the book. If you have any knowledge of the topic these mistakes are very irritating and damaging to the credibility of the author. The battle narratives were cursory and left out many facts I had read elsewhere that I felt should have been included. The one thing I did like was the author's frequent use of Grant's memoirs as one of his sources. I have always felt this was an excellent book that contained a wealth of unbiased information.
The analysis was very thin. Keegan concludes that the South could not have won the war because of its lack of resources. This is not a new idea. He also concludes that socialism never developed in the United States because of the experiences of the men who fought the war. I don't see this as a significant issue and I would disagree with the author. The author analogizes the effect of the Civil War and WWI on the participants and attributes some characteristics of the Gilded Age to the violence experienced by the soldiers of the Civil War.
These insights are not sufficient to justify the time, trouble of reading the book not to mention the cost. I simply cannot recommend this book. If you want to read a one volume history of the era try Battle Cry of Freedom. It is well written and much more informative.
Show Less
LibraryThing member GeoKaras
Though interesting, the general reader should not rely on this book for an understanding of the war. There are numerous factual errors, and some downright strange interpretations. For example, I have never read any other author who regards Sickles' deployment of the IIIrd Corps forward of Cemetery
Show More
Ridge as any thing but a tactical blunder. Keegan refers to it as "creative disobedience" which delayed Longstreet's attack on the Union left. This overlooks the fact that the left of the Union line would have been much stronger if Sickles had done as he was told and been on the ridge, rather than being in disorderly retreat as a result of deploying in a salient, where he faced Longstreet unsupported. Similar odd comments abound. Show Less
LibraryThing member cgodsil
I did not find this up to the standard of Keegan's earlier books. The prose tends to awkwardness.
The book reads more like an analysis of the war than a history, there is no sense of movement.
The comments about non-military matters lack conviction, for example, the suggestion
the the Civil War was
on southern women!
It seems very strange for a military historian to castigate Marx for his "grisly fascination"
with war.
The book reads more like an analysis of the war than a history, there is no sense of movement.
The comments about non-military matters lack conviction, for example, the suggestion
the the Civil War was
Show More
was responsible for the weakness of U.S. socialism. Or the effecton southern women!
It seems very strange for a military historian to castigate Marx for his "grisly fascination"
with war.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Illiniguy71
This book has some important insights and sagacious characterizations, but the factual errors make it unreliable. The introduction and first two chapters are especially error-filled. For all his talk of the importance of geography for understanding the war, he makes many geographical errors--at one
Show More
point apparently confusing the Tennessee River with the Ohio. Then there is the repetition, the self-contradiction and the opaque writing. The book reads as if Knopf simply printed the manuscript as received from the author without bothering to edit it for factual accuracy or for readability.The author is an Englishmen. One would expect his factual knowledge of America to be limited. Shame on his publisher for not doing a proper job of editing! Show Less
LibraryThing member port22
A book about the Civil War is rarely the first to introduce its reader into that subject. John Keegan is well know British military historian, research into the nature of battle makes his "The American Civil War" a valuable contribution to the body of work written on that topic.
What I found new and
In the beginning of the war both governments believed that one single great battle will deliver the victory. This perception originated in the Napoleonic wars in Europe. Both sides were aiming at an American Austerlitz. A decisive victory proved to be elusive. Even spectacular victories didn't destroy the enemy. The geography of the South, with no single industrial center, meant no single target could end the war.
The enormous casualties are one supreme mystery of the Civil War. Why were soldiers not unnerved by the massive deaths of their comrades -- a reaction of extreme fear known in other 18 century armies panique-terreur. One explanation is that probably soldiers had no fear to surrender to their English speaking inhabitants of the other side.
The Civil War remains the only large-scale war fought between the citizens of the same democratic state. It was the most important ideological war in history.
What I found new and
Show More
interesting is his analysis of the conditions in the North and the South before the hostilities begin. From a population of 5 million, 48 thousand owned more than 20 slaves, 3000 thousand owned more than 100 and only 11 owned more than 500. Slave ownership was glamorized and an aspiration for the mass of poor farmers, this was their motivation to enlist and fight to protect that institution, a "rich man's war, but poor man's fight". There were areas in the South where slaves outnumbered the white population, slavery was the institution that guaranteed social control. 20% of the white population of the South was illiterate, 95% literate in New England. The South carried through the blockade as an underdeveloped society that survived on the margins. In the war of attrition the South was doomed after 1862.In the beginning of the war both governments believed that one single great battle will deliver the victory. This perception originated in the Napoleonic wars in Europe. Both sides were aiming at an American Austerlitz. A decisive victory proved to be elusive. Even spectacular victories didn't destroy the enemy. The geography of the South, with no single industrial center, meant no single target could end the war.
The enormous casualties are one supreme mystery of the Civil War. Why were soldiers not unnerved by the massive deaths of their comrades -- a reaction of extreme fear known in other 18 century armies panique-terreur. One explanation is that probably soldiers had no fear to surrender to their English speaking inhabitants of the other side.
The Civil War remains the only large-scale war fought between the citizens of the same democratic state. It was the most important ideological war in history.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RGKronschnabel
Very insightful. From the point of view of a European Military Historian. Covers everthing from Sherman's hieght to Whitman's Poetry to how the Civil War prevented American from turning Socialist.
LibraryThing member cyderry
In the past 18 months I have ready numerous books on the Civil War - mainly non-military - so I picked up this book to fill in all those blanks that were still empty. A few facts I hadn't gathered from other books were:
1. recent developments of the time in food preservation, especially canning led
2. Southern strategy was to deny access to union invaders. This was a major difficulty with such a large perimeter to defend.
3. At Antietam, McClellan did not use all the forces at his disposal. He also lacked the killer instinct and refused to augment hatreds by confiscating property, living off the land, or freeing slaves.
4. inadequacy of the southern railroads with their non-strategic routes hampered the Union efforts after their invasion
5. The battle at Gettysburg is believed by many to be the turning point of the war. What is not surprising is that "both sides at Gettysburg were animated by belief in the justice of their cause and fought with greater determination because of that."
6. 10,000 battles took place during the ACW between 1861 and 1865 = 7 per day on average.
7. It is much easier to understand battles with great maps to illustrate - this book had them.
History also seems to conclude that with more talented leaders on the Union side the war would have progressed differently - ending sooner and with fewer casualties. It is also perceived "indecisiveness of battles is one of the great mysteries of the war."
However, the most interesting point made in this book, for me, is the identification of the South's greatest ally and the North's greatest opponent -" the geography of the war". "The obstacles which most hampered the North's armies in their pursuit of victory were terrain and landscape, the enormous distances to be traversed, the multiplicity of waterways to be crossed, the impenetrability of forests, the contour of mountain ranges."
Lastly, I surprised to read that Karl Marx studied the American War and yet as much as he urged and suggested that the ACW would lead to socialism the author concludes that "American socialism was stillborn on the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg."
1. recent developments of the time in food preservation, especially canning led
Show More
to the Union soldiers being best fed military force on record up to that point in time.2. Southern strategy was to deny access to union invaders. This was a major difficulty with such a large perimeter to defend.
3. At Antietam, McClellan did not use all the forces at his disposal. He also lacked the killer instinct and refused to augment hatreds by confiscating property, living off the land, or freeing slaves.
4. inadequacy of the southern railroads with their non-strategic routes hampered the Union efforts after their invasion
5. The battle at Gettysburg is believed by many to be the turning point of the war. What is not surprising is that "both sides at Gettysburg were animated by belief in the justice of their cause and fought with greater determination because of that."
6. 10,000 battles took place during the ACW between 1861 and 1865 = 7 per day on average.
7. It is much easier to understand battles with great maps to illustrate - this book had them.
History also seems to conclude that with more talented leaders on the Union side the war would have progressed differently - ending sooner and with fewer casualties. It is also perceived "indecisiveness of battles is one of the great mysteries of the war."
However, the most interesting point made in this book, for me, is the identification of the South's greatest ally and the North's greatest opponent -" the geography of the war". "The obstacles which most hampered the North's armies in their pursuit of victory were terrain and landscape, the enormous distances to be traversed, the multiplicity of waterways to be crossed, the impenetrability of forests, the contour of mountain ranges."
Lastly, I surprised to read that Karl Marx studied the American War and yet as much as he urged and suggested that the ACW would lead to socialism the author concludes that "American socialism was stillborn on the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg."
Show Less
LibraryThing member rivkat
I love Keegan’s books, but Homer nodded. This book lacks solid organization and numerous times repeats the same facts, sometimes mere pages apart. Keegan does manage to convey the geographic facts of the war—it was so different in part because a lot of the time the combatants had no good idea
Show More
of the territory they were fighting over. He also spends time on the unexpected brutality of the war, how it was a switch from the European practice of decisive battles and a foretaste of WWI in which victory went to the side that could take the most punishment over time, and how soldiers invented and reinvented entrenchment, which protected them in the short term but extended the horror of war in the long term. Sadly, I can’t recommend it. Show Less
LibraryThing member davidpwhelan
This is an excellent one volume look at the American Civil War. Unlike some other histories of this period of upheaval in the United States, Keegan's initial chapters talk mostly about the military aspects - it's a military history, after all - of the conditions prior to the beginning of the war.
Show More
While he deals with cultural history, there is more detail on armaments, availability, and preparedness for war than in most other Civil War books I have read. As always, Keegan is an engaging story teller and this is a quick read. There are occasional moments where his British side comes through - as when he explains that grits are "porridge" - which gives the book its own unique charm. Show Less
LibraryThing member oldman
A very military review of the Civil War, Reviewed the historical backround and the various battles with a synpsis of the generals and the armies involved. All events were clearly dated and the reasons for success or failure well-documented. Great boook to give an overview of the whole event of the
Show More
Civil War. Show Less
LibraryThing member annbury
Keegan takes a bird's eye (Brit's eye?) and militarily-focussed view of our Civil War, which I found illuminating -- looking at an old story from a new angle can often yield new insights, even if the story doesn't change. Having just finished two Civil War classics -- Foote and McPherson -- I
Comment
Show More
wondered if this book would be repetitive. As a long-term Keegan fan, however, I forged ahead, and am glad I did. Keegan's broad military focus provides strategic insights that don't always emerge in more detailed, or more political, accounts. Also, putting the War in the context of previous European wars (and European wars to come) added a dimension. And, as usual, Keegan writes so well that the book is a joy to read.Comment
Show Less
Publication
New York : Vintage Books, 2010.
Description
Analyzes many puzzling aspects of the Civil War, from its mismatched sides to the absence of decisive outcomes for dozens of skirmishes, and offers insight into the war's psychology, ideology, and economics while discussing the pivotal roles of leadership and geography.
Subjects
Original publication date
2009
Physical description
xvi, 396 p.; 21 cm
Pages
xvi; 396
ISBN
0307274934 / 9780307274939
Similar in this library
Awards
Booklist Editor's Choice: Adult Books (History — 2009)