 |
|
Title: The American Civil War: A Military History (Random House Large Print)
ISBN: 0739327445
Author:
John Keegan
Publicate Date: 2009-10-20
Publish: 2009-10-20
List Price: $35.00
Average Customer Rating: 3.0
Format: Paperback
 |
|
|
|
|
Amazon Lowest New Price: $21.44
Amazon Lowest Used Price: $15.99
Amazon Merchant Price: $26.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: Great on strategy...but disappointing overall
Mr. Keegan is one of the foremost military historians now writing, so it is painful to write a less than glowing review of his latest work. Here he offers a one-volume survey of our Civil War, with an emphasis on military strategy, aimed at general readers. Military technology is given some coverage while politics and home front issues are downplayed. Strategy is king here and he does make many comparisons between the Civil War and World War I that are both interesting and insightful. It is based on mostly respected secondary sources. Reading this, you do see the mind of a practiced military historian. Sadly, the work is undermined by three major problems. In his conclusion, he notes the centrality of military geography in the persecution of the war; landscape and terrain being so important. Yet, throughout the text, there are nagging and mulitple errors that undermine the reader's faith in the content. What he labels the Upper Mississippi River, is known in the U.S. as the middle Mississippi (p.107, 128, 134). This is the second book by him where he identifies Cairo, Illinois as being BELOW the mouth of the Ohio. There is no large arid area in the South (p.120). and Tennessee does NOT abut the Ohio River (p.154). Had this reader known more about the eastern geography, I believe that I would have found many more; as it is, I stopped noting the errors that I was sure of. I think a reader would really need to have a Civil War atlas on hand while reading this book to get a full story. The second major problem is repetitiveness. Throughout the text, he repeats some stories, like the Winfield Scott and the Anaconda plan at three and four places. Naturally some repetition is unavoidable in a Civil War narrative which mixes some chronological and subject approaches yet careful editing should mitigate that issue. This brings us to the third and most major failing. This book needs a good editing. One would not expect to say this of Mr. Keegan nor the Alfred H. Knopf Company, long regarded as one of, if not, the premier American publisher, yet it is clearly so. There are paragraphs that are a third of the page in length with 7-9 sub-clauses where the reader must go over them multiple times to get the drift. In other places, puncuation is lacking so that the meaning is equally unclear. In his acknowledgements, Mr. Keegan thanks many editors for their assistance but surely this is a courtesy on Mr. Keegan's part because the painful geographic errors should be obvious to anyone who has looked at a map... or who doesn't view the U.S. from New York City only. Could the editors just have assumed that Mr. Keegan is always right on everything he puts on the page or have such respect for him that they believed he doesn't need editing? The awkward sentence structure and repetitiveness does a disservice to the strategic analysis and is a disservice to the reader. This book will sell a lot of copies on the well-earned strength of Mr. Keegan's reputaion but this work will actually hurt his reputation. James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom or Peter J. Parish's the American Civil War, are better one volume works. This is really too bad since, if the editors had done their job, this could be real contribution to the literature.
|
2: A Well Written History Covering Familiar Ground
There is nothing very new or very revealing in John Keegan's "The American Civil War: A Military History". Much of the ground (as it were) has already been covered in numerous volumes by very competent historians.
Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed this volume Professor Keegan writes in a very engaging style and in clear declarative sentences. Both the style of book and its relatively modest length make it enjoyable and accessible to those of us who do not subscribe to "Civil War Monthly".
Professor Keegan emphasizes the role of topography in shaping the strategies and tactics of the Civil War - and just as importantly - how topography contributed to the bloody almost hand to hand style of fighting that characterized a number of particularly memorable battles. This is not a new observation but one Professor Keegan made one of his cen tral points in a very effective way.
Also interesting to me was reading a book about the American Civil War by an outsider - an Englishman. As we know, the Confederate States sought (but did not garner) the support of the European powers, particulary England. We know, of course, that such support never was offered but Professor Keegan is more blunt than most in asserting that there was never any real prospect of the South receiving recognition. It interested me to learn that England's political classes were ultimately more repulsed by the slave ownership in the South than they were enticed by the access to the South's cotton (at least when alternative supplies were developed).
I very much liked Professor Keegan's candid assessments of the virtues and short-comings of the many American generals on both sides. He makes a very compelling case for the superiority of General U.S. Grant as a soldier who understood the multifacted nature of the war and the importance not only of strategy and tactics on the battlefield but also of logistics, leadership choices in the ranks of his subordinates and politics away from the battlefield.
I recommend this work with enthusiasm.
|
3: Too Many Simple Errors
I am generally a big fan of Mr. Keegan, but the errors in this book come fast and furious. While many other reviewers have pointed out the issues with various battles I would like to point out three that I have not seen mentioned:
1) Mr. Keegan states that Lincoln would be "prosecuted today under federal law" for making some of the statements he said campaigning for the presidency. When in actuality he may not be elected, but we would certainly not be prosecuted.
2) The author states that you cannot find a confederate tombstone at Arlington, when in reality there is an entire section (small as it is) filled with such stones - it borders Fort Myer.
3) The map for the First Battle of Bull Run shows a creek as the Potomac River.
|
4: Weak entry from an excellent historian
Generally speaking I have enjoyed John Keegan's work, mostly because he is able to meld complex socio-economic mindsets into his works. I think that is what he tried to do here but all in all he just comes up flat and doesn't introduce anything new to the discussion of the American Civil War. Without a doubt the best single volume history of the Civil War lately is "Battle Cry of Freedom," and I was struck by how often Keegan sources that work when trying to explain his own concepts and theories.
Keegan is a great writer and his gifts for writing are on display within the book. I must mark him down because of very server factual errors like Winfield Scott's age, Vicksburg's location and his mysterious tactic of leaving some battles to the readers imagination without finishing his point or thought. I was curious as to what he was trying to accomplish and he basically left a mess behind.
This isn't the worst book ever written on the Civil War but coming from someone as preeminent in his field as John Keegan it is certainly disappointing.
|
5: A Less Than Par Work For Keegan
I usually consider the works by John Keegan top notch military history. His latest is good, but it is not John Keegan good. This book does not meet his usual standard for great military analysis. "The American Civil War" does not bring anything new to the study of the Civil War. He brings up the usual advantages and disadvantages the north and south had, and the well known popular interpretations of the key leaders. I would argue that there are newer evaluations of the key leaders that should have been brought to light in this work, rather than rely on the long established beliefs. A fair Civil War book, not a great one.
|
|
|
|
|
