Rating: 
Summary: The who, what, where, when, and why of Gettysburg
Review: "The Gettysburg Campaign" was the life work of Edwin B. Coddington. He unfortunately died before its publication, but his and his book's influence stretches well into the modern day. "The Gettysburg Campaign" is a monumental work that leaves very little to be desired. Every aspect of the campaign, which began with the Union defeat at Chancellorsville on May 5, 1863 and ended on July 15, 1863 with Confederate retreat across the Potomac, is covered in this book. While his writing style can be somewhat slow at times, he knows his material very well, and does a good job of relaying the information to the reader. However, for someone who does not know much about the battle, it can be a bit overwhelming. His battle descriptions are crisp and detailed, but lack the excitment of an experienced writer. This is his only fault. This book is not for someone who is new to Civil War studies and to fully grasp what he is saying, I would suggest that you visit the battlefield first and get a tour. This will make a the book much less ambiguous, especially because the maps included are not very clear. I have read this book four times, and each time, I come away amazed at everything that occurred during this epic battle. If you truly want to understand the battle of Gettysburg and its place in Civil War history, Coddington's masterpiece is a must own.
Rating: 
Summary: TO UNDERSTAND GETTYSBURG--
Review: --read Coddington. But not until you have read a few other accounts (Catton, Friedman, & Foote or whoever else strikes your fancy) and visited the site with one of their experienced guides. This is a massive book, written by a scholar and sometimes the writing is dry, but never passionless. It is meticulously researched and foot noted. I use it as a reference constantly; therefore, I'm nearly at the place to buy another copy for show and hide my battered, much thumbed (eye tracks all over it!) much beloved book where only I can find it. I find it very balanced with no hero worship for either side. He does go into detail about Meade that I find invaluable. Meade is the forgotten man at Gettysburg. Ask any average citizen who was the winning general of the battle--I'll save you some time. They don't know. Some very minor quibbles. He refers to Col. Chamberlain as "Josh." Chamberlain vastly preferred to be called "David," and I am sure would never have answered to "Josh." Longstreet is treated somewhat harshly (I am a Longstreet fan), but, as the general himself defended his actions in print until his dying day, he is not in need of rescuing from Coddington. A fine definitive work. I am saddened that Dr. Coddington did not live to see his fine work published and praised.
Rating:
Summary: The "Bible" of Gettysburg
Review: As a Civil War scholar I will keep this review short simply because it is the best book out there on Gettysburg. Not only is it well written but more importantly it is well researched, something that is missing in Civil War scholarship. The only negative feedback I can give is its weak analysis of Culps Hill on the night of July 2. For Gettysburg enthusiasts this is a good place to start to study the Battle of Gettysburg.
Rating:
Summary: The "Bible" of Gettysburg
Review: As a Civil War scholar I will keep this review short simply because it is the best book out there on Gettysburg. Not only is it well written but more importantly it is well researched, something that is missing in Civil War scholarship. The only negative feedback I can give is its weak analysis of Culps Hill on the night of July 2. For Gettysburg enthusiasts this is a good place to start to study the Battle of Gettysburg.
Rating:
Summary: Monumental
Review: Awesome, and does all the heavy lifting on the subject.
Rating: 
Summary: The most comprehensive Yankee history, but heavily biased.
Review: Coddington has become the standard comprehensive work on the battle. There are far, far better accounts, but they focus on specific events or aspects, Pfanz' works come to mind. This is the standard Yankee mythological version, ironically based on the "Lost Cause" proponents' vision of the battle. The most important events of the battle were the second day attacks, and, though disjointed, these attacks broke the Yankee line. Had the successes been followed up, history might be written with a different accent. Coddington dismisses the successes of the 2nd Day and focusses on the myth of "Pickett's Charge" as the decisive event. It was hardly Pickett's, as the minority of the troops were his, and it was foolish and futile, something the Virginia mythologists are loathe to admit. The War was neither lost nor won at Gettysburg, but the Yankees could take comfort in the fact that they, for once, did not run, and that the ANV,for once, was not invincible. Any Southerner whose family was in the path of the Yankee Vandals as they invaded The South is permitted a wry chuckle as Coddington rises to high dudgeon over Confederate depradations. Why, the Confederates even burnt fence rails and tore up railroad tracks. Unfortunately, this is the only comprehensive report of the battle. A serious researcher would use many other sources.
Rating:
Summary: Extremely detailed and well researched
Review: Coddington presents a very detailed description of the Gettysburg campaign from events following Hooker's defeat at Chancellorville to Lee's retreat across the Potomac. I have always been fasinated with this chapter of Civil War and the arguments which have risen among various historians and military strategists. In the course of the book Coddington presents the various sides and analyzes them based upon different source materials, testimonials and logical sequences of events. One of the main points he makes is that the Union victory at Gettysburg was more likely as a result of the Union commanders good strategy, tactics and logistics, and finally the termendous valor in battle and tireless efforts in marches of the Union veterans rather than only as a result of mistakes committed by Lee, Longstreet, Stuart, Ewell.... The latter being the more popular theory among some historians. The maps provided both of the battles and troop movements are quite detailed and helpful. As a whole, Coddington gives relatively fair assessment of commanders of both sides and points out both merit and fault equally. As a result, he does burst some the more romantic myths associated with Battle of Gettysburg by shedding the light of more realistic explanations on them. All in all, I would recommend this book for Civil War buffs but beware, this is not a light read!!!
Rating:
Summary: Reflections on Civil War Military Decision Making
Review: Coddington's book on Gettysburg points to a critical element that surfaced during the Battle, and marks a difference between the professional development of Regimental and Brigade Commanders on both sides. It became evident that Union Commanders at Regimental and Brigade level started to out perform their Confederate compatriots prior to and during this engagement. Although sometimes hampered by a not so illustrious Army Commander, and to some extent some Corps and Divisions Commanders, it is apparent by the research that Coddington has done, that Union leaders below division level, developed the battlefield and combat savvy that formed the basis of the Union victory and sets the stage for the outcome of the war.
Rating:
Summary: Still the Essential Account of the Gettysburg Campaign
Review: Edwin Coddington's (1905-1963) "The Gettysburg Campaign" (1963) remains not only the seminal account of the Battle of Gettysburg but also a model of Civil War and historical writing. The book is an inspiring example of scholarship at its best. Coddington writes in a clear, eloquent, yet non-polemical style as he explores his subject. He does not back away from offering opinions and conclusions, which flow clearly from his narrative account. The reader can understand the basis of the judgments which Coddington offers. The account is detailed and yet selective. Coddington focuses on the broad picture of the Gettysburg story without getting bogged down in the minutae and legends that mar some otherwise excellent treatments of this battle. Coddington focuses on "why" things happened as well as "what" happened. The reader is given a context for the Gettysburg campaign and is seldom at a loss over the reason the author is discussing and devoting time to an issue. The book is thoroughly documented and the footnotes include much essential material. Coddington begins with a lengthy consideration of the factors that led Robert E. Lee to propose an invasion of the North following the Battle of Chancellorsville. He concludes with a discussion of the Confederate retreat from Gettysburg, culminating in the return to Virginia on July 14, 1863. He discusses well the Union pursuit and considers judiciously whether Meade should have been more aggressive in trying to cut off the fleeing foe. I found the factual account comprehensive on the major points of the Battle and careful and circumspect in its conclusions. Coddington allows the reader to see the deficiencies in the Confederate command structure (lack of coordination) and the overconfidence of the Southern forces at virtually every level as contributing factors to the defeat at Gettysburg. He is more critical of General Longstreet's role in the Battle than are many more recent accounts. On the Union side of the line, Coddington is highly critical of Third Corps General Sickles and his salient on July 2, which came close to costing the Union the Battle. The longest critical section of the book consists of an examination of the dispute between Meade and Sickles and his supporters following the battle regarding the wisdom, or lack of it, in Sickles's movement of the Third Corps. Coddington has high, but careful praise for Commanding General Meade, for Hancock, Reynolds, Buford,Howard, and Slocum. He shows how the Army of the Potomac, for all its awkward structure (seven Corps at Gettysburg compared to the Confederate three) and for all the rivalries between its leaders was able to function as a coordinated unit when it needed to do so and hold the Union position at Gettysburg. Coddington has high praise for the valor of the fighting troops on both sides of the line. Sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, Coddington's book comes to grips with many competing accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg. He points to the tendence of many students to view the battle as a series of speculative "ifs" -- if General Early, Longstreet, what have you had done this at the time, the result would have been different. Most such analyses, Coddington argues, are fruitless, Furthermore, they tend to ignore, or downplay, the mistakes that, hindsight suggests, occurred in the Battle of the other side of the line. Coddington shows the reader what happened, marshalls the evidence about why it happened, and allows the reader to think the matter through. This is a detailed, close and thorough account of the Battle of Gettysburg that is probably best approached by a reader who has a basic familiarity with the Civil War and a general understanding of the action at Gettysburg. It is not the only account of this endlessly fascinating battle, but it remains the standard work which needs to be considered in understanding the events of the Gettysburg campaign.
Rating:
Summary: Still the Essential Account of the Gettysburg Campaign
Review: Edwin Coddington's (1905-1963) "The Gettysburg Campaign" (1963) remains not only the seminal account of the Battle of Gettysburg but also a model of Civil War and historical writing. The book is an inspiring example of scholarship at its best. Coddington writes in a clear, eloquent, yet non-polemical style as he explores his subject. He does not back away from offering opinions and conclusions, which flow clearly from his narrative account. The reader can understand the basis of the judgments which Coddington offers. The account is detailed and yet selective. Coddington focuses on the broad picture of the Gettysburg story without getting bogged down in the minutae and legends that mar some otherwise excellent treatments of this battle. Coddington focuses on "why" things happened as well as "what" happened. The reader is given a context for the Gettysburg campaign and is seldom at a loss over the reason the author is discussing and devoting time to an issue. The book is thoroughly documented and the footnotes include much essential material. Coddington begins with a lengthy consideration of the factors that led Robert E. Lee to propose an invasion of the North following the Battle of Chancellorsville. He concludes with a discussion of the Confederate retreat from Gettysburg, culminating in the return to Virginia on July 14, 1863. He discusses well the Union pursuit and considers judiciously whether Meade should have been more aggressive in trying to cut off the fleeing foe. I found the factual account comprehensive on the major points of the Battle and careful and circumspect in its conclusions. Coddington allows the reader to see the deficiencies in the Confederate command structure (lack of coordination) and the overconfidence of the Southern forces at virtually every level as contributing factors to the defeat at Gettysburg. He is more critical of General Longstreet's role in the Battle than are many more recent accounts. On the Union side of the line, Coddington is highly critical of Third Corps General Sickles and his salient on July 2, which came close to costing the Union the Battle. The longest critical section of the book consists of an examination of the dispute between Meade and Sickles and his supporters following the battle regarding the wisdom, or lack of it, in Sickles's movement of the Third Corps. Coddington has high, but careful praise for Commanding General Meade, for Hancock, Reynolds, Buford,Howard, and Slocum. He shows how the Army of the Potomac, for all its awkward structure (seven Corps at Gettysburg compared to the Confederate three) and for all the rivalries between its leaders was able to function as a coordinated unit when it needed to do so and hold the Union position at Gettysburg. Coddington has high praise for the valor of the fighting troops on both sides of the line. Sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, Coddington's book comes to grips with many competing accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg. He points to the tendence of many students to view the battle as a series of speculative "ifs" -- if General Early, Longstreet, what have you had done this at the time, the result would have been different. Most such analyses, Coddington argues, are fruitless, Furthermore, they tend to ignore, or downplay, the mistakes that, hindsight suggests, occurred in the Battle of the other side of the line. Coddington shows the reader what happened, marshalls the evidence about why it happened, and allows the reader to think the matter through. This is a detailed, close and thorough account of the Battle of Gettysburg that is probably best approached by a reader who has a basic familiarity with the Civil War and a general understanding of the action at Gettysburg. It is not the only account of this endlessly fascinating battle, but it remains the standard work which needs to be considered in understanding the events of the Gettysburg campaign.
|
