Gettysburg

Rating:
Summary: Definitive one volume history of the battle
Review: This book, in my humble opinion, is the best overall treatment on the Battle of Gettysburg. Many books on the battle deal with only a day in the battle or perhaps the fighting in one section of the battle (i.e. Little Round Top, Culp's Hill, ect.). Also, Mr. Sears' historical judgements are sound and well researched- he really de-mystifies General Lee's "ominipotence" and shows how many of his actions in Gettysburg (i.e. Pickett's Charge) were irresponsible and in the end, murderous. Sears also explains why Meade's Army of the Potomac was not able to pursue and destroy the fleeing Confederates; as Lincoln and many of the politicians in Washington had wished. In the end, I believe that this book can be enjoyed by anyone beginning to read up on the Civil War or American military history. Experts or major Civil War buffs may know most of this by heart.
Recommendations: Gordon Rhea's books on the 1864 Overland Campaign in Virginia.

Rating:
Summary: Balanced, insightful, and written with exceptional clarity.
Review: This is an unusually readable account of the events shortly before the Battle of Gettysburg, the battle itself, and the immediate aftermath. I have read many accounts of the battle, but none measure up to this book in my opinion. Mr. Sears writes with exceptional clarity. He often injects his own opinions and analysis of events, but he does so in a way that first presents the known objective facts from which his opinions derive, thus allowing the reader to judge for him or her self whether we agree with Mr. Sears' analysis. Mostly I did. Sears' book is unusually thoughtful and insightful, and while his opinions are not entirely conventional, they are persuasive. Even if you don't agree with all of his takes on the battle, it is great fun reading them.

Mr. Sears essentially believes that General Meade thoroughly out-generalled the vaunted Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg. In fact he shows persuasively that Lee was unusually detached during the decisive points in the battle. Lee failed to lead and control his Corps commanders, allowing Ewell and A.P. Hill to dither, and Longstreet to fail in his assault on the Union center line. Sears agrees that Longstreet's proposal to flank the Union Army and maneuver such that the Federals would have had to attack the Confederates, rather than the reverse as actually occurs, was probably the strategy Lee should have followed. Today, this seems to be the opinion of most military historians. What did surprise me is that Sears is fairly sympathetic to Meade's failure to pursue and destroy the Rebels immediately following the battle. His insights and arguments on this issue were one of my favorite parts of the book.

If you are looking for a non-fictional account of the Battle of Gettysburg that is as readable as Michael Shaara's fictional "The Killer Angels" (my favorite Gettysburg novel) this is the book for you.

Rating:
Summary: Best Book Ever Written on Gettysburg
Review: This is the best book ever written on the battle of Gettysburg. The only book that is close is Trudeau's more organized book on the battle. But, what this book lacks in organization, it more than makes up in human interest stories and in just plain generating interest level in the story. Sears is a good writer, a somewhat poetic and passionate writer. Examples are: the best chapter title of: "A Simile of Hell Broke Lose", the numerous positive names for Hancock, emphasizing his great leadership and his presence. (Yes, as one critic mentions, Sears is biased but towards the better Generals and leaders). The human interest stories are there: like the deaths of three brothers named Thomas in a South Carolina regiment in the Wheatfield, the two men from a Pennsylvania regiment who won the medal of honor because they carried their comrade to safety (who later died), and the deaths of Weed and Hazlett who were close prior to the battle and died next to each other. The prose is very powerful, poetic, and leads you to want to continue with the story. Also, the details are covered like Trudeau but in a less organized way (who can beat chapters and maps based upon time of day for organization). The story is down to the regiment level and chronicled based upon the right timing and location but not in as structured a way. Consequently, I found myself drawn into a story. And, what a story it is. Sears tells with feeling and beautiful, poetic prose. When Sears book first showed on the market, I had just finished Trudeau, and thought, this can not be better. But, it is. A well written book for a most important event in our history.

Rating:
Summary: General Meade finally get respect....
Review: This latest book by Stephen Sears proves to be highly readable and interesting account of the Battle of Gettysburg. Sears reaccount the battle very clearly and his perception proves to be fair and on target. Its a thick book and gear toward the hard core readers of the American Civil War. Sears does something that very few Gettysburg books ever tried to do, that is to give credit to George Meade. While many books tries to explained how Lee lost the battle and why, the man who won the battle often get the short end of the stick when it come to this battle. Sears can be credited in correcting that and giving Meade good credit for out-generaling Robert E. Lee. Meade in this book, proves equal to the task and it was nice to read for once, how Meade won the battle. In my view, I thought that this approach was way over due and make the book more interesting - especially for those who have read many books on this battle.

Rating:
Summary: Intimidating Tome
Review: This massive volume is meticulous in its detail and unrelenting in its description...however, it is a tough, plodding read...even for an avid history buff (and Pennsylvania native!) like myself. This is an impressive work for the experienced Civil War historian and often difficult to absorb for a reader with casual or limited interest...getting bogged down in the minutiae of battle strategy. I suspect it's more a matter of left/right side of the brain! As impressive as it is, this book is more for the mathematician than the history lover.

Rating:
Summary: Lots of Heat, but Very Little Light
Review: This reviewer agrees with the reviewer from Washington, D.C. that the book is a great read, but in the end--so what? It is well written, well organized, and an outstanding production job. Lift the book and you know it is a B-O-O-K. Certainly it is not White Mane trash.

I have been purchasing Sears's books since his "Landscape Turned Red" on Antietam (Murfin's book is still better, but Sears's is better written), but have become increasingly turned off by three things.

First, his manuscript and field research can be chartitably described as "light." When I heard he was about to release his Richmond Campaign book in the early 1990s, our Roundtable was doing a tour there and one of the rangers or historians at the site was shocked to learn a book on HIS park was coming out and he had not heard a thing about it. Sears had not visited, walked the ground or, apparently, sat and purused the manuscript sources at the park. A friend of mine who really knows the campaign had folder after folder of readily available manuscript sources from a variety of institutions--only about 20% of which ever saw the light of day in the book. As a serious student, that stuck with me. In the new Gettysburg book, I did not see any sources I have not previously seen in many other books. There may be a couple, but not much original research to turn over other stones seems to have been done. I am sure he has visited the field many times, though.

The second thing that drives me nuts is that he globs his end notes together in bunches, so that it is often difficult, and occasionally impossible, to determine what source goes with what factual tidbit, quote, or observation. This does not bother some of my CW reading friends, and it is fashionable in some circles to do so. Serious historians avoid that cheesy method. But with the high quality of research being conducted today, it is a lazy way to work, period. That, too, might be a charitable description.

Last, I have tried hard to see Sears on the Civil War circuit--to no avail. I can not find a single person who has seen him at a Round Table meeting. Our Round Table, a sizeable organization, invited him a few years ago and he declined. Gallagher, Krick, Rhea, Robertson, Jack Davis, et. al, happily appear, defend their work, and mingle with the little people. Not Sears, apparently. Why not?

Sears's book on "Chancellorsville" is the best single volume on that campaign, but Coddington is still the king of the single volume Gettysburg study. That, together with about six others (Pfanz, Hess, Bowden, and Stewart), together with the "Gettysburg Magazine" from Morningside and "The Bacheldor Papers" is money better spent.

If you want a really good read (with odd gaps in the personal stories department, as noted in another review on this page), buy this book. If you are hoping for something new, you will be disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: Another unnecessary history of the Battle of Gettysburg
Review: When I look at the flood of books published on the Battle of Gettysburg, I always ask, "What does this book add to the existing body of knowledge?" That's my benchmark for measuring the worth of one of these books.

The answer, in this case, is, unfortunately, "absolutely nothing". Mr. Sears writes majestically, which is the saving grace. However, the scope of his research pales by comparison to Noah Andre Trudeau's fine work of 2002.

It's also well-known that Mr. Sears does not walk the ground of the battles he writes about, and that becomes obvious as you read this book. Compare his work with Gordon Rhea's, and this quickly becomes evident. It's very clear that Rhea spends many hours on the ground and has an intimate knowledge of how the terrain played into the battle's development. His detailed descriptions of the terrain and the role of the terrain in the development of battle are some of the best features of Rhea's work. Such intimate knowledge of the ground is clearly lacking in Mr. Sears' work, and it soon becomes painfully obvious here. How an accomplished historian such as Mr. Sears can write about these actions without having an intimate knowledge of the terrain really is a mystery to me.

Mr. Sears always seems to have a theme to his works. His Antietam book and his book on the Richmond Campaign both revolve around the "bash McClellan" theme. His Chancellorsville book is a strident defense of the indefensible, Joe Hooker. This book stanuchly defends the actions of James Longstreet. I happen to be a Longstreet supporter, but my biggest problem with Mr. Sears' approach is that it starts with the presumptions of his themes, and then the entire story is woven to support these themes. Accordingly, objective history is not the result--instead, each book is "spun" to put the slant on the battle that Mr. Sears has selected as the theme for each book. I think that's unfortunate.

In short, if you just want a good, easy read that provides no real insight into the Battle of Gettysburg, read this book. If you want a detailed, exceptionally well-researched critical analysis, spend your money on Noah Andre Trudeau's excellent _Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage_.

Rating:
Summary: Another book on Gettysburg
Review: Wow, it's the 3,000 book on Gettysburg that only sold copies because of its title. Really folks, if you know anything about the Civil War, you'll realize that this book is just another weak attempt to earn a profit over a topic that everyone is familiar with.

Seriously, to call this a definitve study is ludicrous. Try Pfanz's BOOKS on the campaign, or Coddington's "Gettysburg: A Study in Command," and then you'll realize how real historians write.

By the way, this review comes from a historian.

Rating:
Summary: Another book on Gettysburg
Review: Wow, it's the 3,000 book on Gettysburg that only sold copies because of its title. Really folks, if you know anything about the Civil War, you'll realize that this book is just another weak attempt to earn a profit over a topic that everyone is familiar with.

Seriously, to call this a definitve study is ludicrous. Try Pfanz's BOOKS on the campaign, or Coddington's "Gettysburg: A Study in Command," and then you'll realize how real historians write.

By the way, this review comes from a historian.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing new here, except Sears flaws
Review: Writing a book on Gettysburg should, by now, be more than the excercise of putting the facts together in the correct order and sprinkling on commentary. That has been done more times than I can count. Unfortunately that is what Sears gives us. So in the face of superior books, especially Coddington's book, it is difficult to recommend this one. Once again, Sears puts forth a lopsided argument against those generals he's decided to dislike and for those whom he admires. This was the case in his books on the Seven Days and Antietam that are almost shrill in their attacks on McClellan and his book on Chancellorsville which excused Hooker because he may have had a concussion. What keeps Civil War books fresh is the commentary by their authors, but Sears style has always been too unilateral for my taste. He seems to use his arguments to support the battle and not the other way around.