Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
|
 |
McClellan, Sherman and Grant |
List Price: $7.95
Your Price: $7.95 |
 |
|
|
|
| Product Info |
Reviews |
<< 1 >>
Rating:  Summary: Great insight on three significant generals Review: This short book is really three separate essays about three of the North's most controversial generals. They seem to be arranged in the author's estimation of them, with McClellan being the poorest general and Grant the best. The essays are insightful, and Williams argues some interesting points that differ from what most historians believe, especially in the case of Sherman and McClellan. Throughout it all, he seems to remain, for the most part, fair, neither condemning nor fully praising any of the three. I don't personally agree with his argument that the primary objective in war should be destroying the enemy's army, and thus would rank Sherman higher than Grant, but I do think he makes an interesting point. If this book was documented (that is, if Williams showed where he got his information), it would be a lot better, and a lot more scholarly, but as it stands it is nevertheless an interesting argument on three of the North's most important generals.
Rating:  Summary: Great insight on three significant generals Review: This short book is really three separate essays about three of the North's most controversial generals. They seem to be arranged in the author's estimation of them, with McClellan being the poorest general and Grant the best. The essays are insightful, and Williams argues some interesting points that differ from what most historians believe, especially in the case of Sherman and McClellan. Throughout it all, he seems to remain, for the most part, fair, neither condemning nor fully praising any of the three. I don't personally agree with his argument that the primary objective in war should be destroying the enemy's army, and thus would rank Sherman higher than Grant, but I do think he makes an interesting point. If this book was documented (that is, if Williams showed where he got his information), it would be a lot better, and a lot more scholarly, but as it stands it is nevertheless an interesting argument on three of the North's most important generals.
<< 1 >>
|
|
|
|