Rating: 
Summary: Sears does it again
Review: Sears is proving himself to be one of the best writers of Civil War History. His style flows like a good novel. The book contains information about the events that lead to the battle at Chancellorsville, and how they played a role in its outcome as well as a narrative of the actual battle. Having visited the Battle Field before, the book sent me back there with his descriptions of the landscape.One of the most admirable and helpful sections about the book is "Romances of Chancellorsville," in which Sears discusses the myths and misunderstood parts of the battle. It is rare to see a writer put his research so readily on the line to battle the "common knowledge" history that just doesn't make sense.
Rating:
Summary: Sears does it again
Review: Sears is proving himself to be one of the best writers of Civil War History. His style flows like a good novel. The book contains information about the events that lead to the battle at Chancellorsville, and how they played a role in its outcome as well as a narrative of the actual battle. Having visited the Battle Field before, the book sent me back there with his descriptions of the landscape. One of the most admirable and helpful sections about the book is "Romances of Chancellorsville," in which Sears discusses the myths and misunderstood parts of the battle. It is rare to see a writer put his research so readily on the line to battle the "common knowledge" history that just doesn't make sense.
Rating:
Summary: An outstanding book. Excellent detail.
Review: Sears treats General "Fighting Joe" Hooker with respect and understanding, perhaps more than he deserves. He rightly criticizes the actions of a few of the Union Corps commanders (particularly VI/Sedgwick, XI/Howard, and Cavalry/Stoneman), and points out the great good luck involved in the success of the operations of Generals Lee and Jackson (notwithstanding the calamity of General Jackson's wounding and subsequent death). I don't know what the impact on the battle would have been by a more aggressive Union cavalry ride through General Lee's rear, but Brigadier General George Stoneman's dismal, timid performance was so poor that he should have been publicly shot for sheer incompetence.
I hadn't been as familiar with the details of this battle as I thought I had been. For example, I didn't know that an important factor in General Hooker's defeat was his decentralization of artillery command. Brigadier General Henry J. Hunt, the Army of the Potomac's Chief of Artillery, wanted to expand his tactical command of the artillery. General Hooker thought he wanted to expand it into a Corps under his (Hunt's) command. Hooker instead pushed control down to local commanders. This sounds like something I would have done. It eventuated that this was a mistake. It led to piecemeal employment and failure to seize upon tactical opportunities that could have been capitalized upon if the guns were subject to a higher, more centralized command. (Such decentralization would not be the case today under current Army doctrine.) Another example is General Hooker's excellent intelligence staff (the Bureau of Military Information, under Colonel G. H. Sharpe, 120th New York Infantry), but which was offset by General Hooker's unfortunate reliance on battlefield telegraph systems, which were technologically immature and failed him at critical times. Sears is also admiring of General Hooker's operational plan: fix General Lee's attention in front of Fredericksburg while sending the bulk of his maneuver forces (i.e., his infantry Corps) on a westward flanking movement. The goal was to cross the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers, come into Lee's rear, draw him out of his fixed fortifications, and force him to either withdraw from the area altogether or do battle with Hooker's forces (which at this point would be in a defensive posture) in his rear. Hooker was counting on the latter and the inherent advantage of the defense if General Lee gave battle. Unfortunately for General Hooker, he overlooked the disadvantage of giving up the initiative. This proved to be his undoing. The demonstrated tactical aggressiveness of Generals Lee and Jackson, of which General Hooker should certainly have been aware, used General Hooker's strategy against him. Moreover, this was not just a matter of giving up the initiative early on. General Hooker was also timid during his movement to contact on May 1 and on his plan to resume the offensive on May 7. The fact is, General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia did not win the Battle of Chancellorsville so much as General Hooker and the Army of the Potomac lost it. The moral of Chancellorsville, as it has so often been in military history, is that fortune favors the bold. Aggressiveness and persistence, especially that added measure when things seem to be going badly or when one seems to be at the end of the rope, decide, or would have decided, the day.
Rating: 
Summary: A wonderful revisionist history
Review: Sears' Chancellorsville is THE book to read on the subject. It is ripe with new information and interesting as well. Hooker is my favorite of all the commanding generals of the Army of the Potomac and Sears defense of him got me all excited. My only complaint would be that the book failed to actually draw me in as if I were at the battle itself. He does a wonderful job of describing the battle, but there is a certain human element that seems to be missing from the writing. Nevertheless, Sears delivers the very best book on Chancellorsville ever written.
Rating:
Summary: A real treat for Civil War enthusiasts
Review: Stephen Sears has earned a reputation as one of the top Civil War authors today and with Chancellorsville he once again shows why with what could be his best book so far. First off, Sears is just a great writer. To many Civil War books are written by authors who know the subject and have done all the right research but simply don't have the writing talents to put the information into a form that is both informative and entertaining. That is not the case with Sears. His writing skills are equel to his research and the result is a book that is both informative and a pleasure to read. To say this book is about the Battle of Chancellorsville is almost a misnomer. A better description would be that the book is about the Hooker era in the Army of the Potomac. In the book Sears treats us to more than just the Xs and Os of a battle. We hear about Hooker's rebuilding of the Army's moral after the disasterous tenure of Burnside. We learn about army intelligence, how both armies are supplied and how troops passed the winter months. All before we get anywhere close to Chancellorsville. The book does a wonderful job of covering the situation of both the Army of the Potomac and Army of Northern Virginia in the early days of 1863. As far as the battle goes, the book gives a very complete description. From the opening moves to the death of Jackson, the reader really gets a full and complete picture. This is aided by Sears' inclusion of some very good maps, something that is often missing from Civil War books. I can think of few Civil War books that I have enjoyed as much as this. The book is 600 pages but Sears is such a good writer that you breeze right through it. Sears has done a lot of good books but for me this could be his best.
Rating:
Summary: Best book yet on Chancellorsville
Review: Stephen Sears has earned a reputation as one of the top Civil War authors today and with Chancellorsville he once again shows why. First off, Sears is just a great writer. To many Civil War books are written by authors who know the subject and have done all the right research but simply don't have the writing talents to put the information into a form that is both informative and entertaining. That is not the case with Sears. His writing skills are equel to his research and the result is a book that is both informative and a pleasure to read. In Chancellorsville Sears tackles the battle that many think is Lee's greatest and there is some credence to that. However it was also a costly victory for Lee. He lost many men he could not replace and worst of all he loses one of his top commanders Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. I think one of the important things about this book is Sears's attempt to take a good hard look at Hooker during the battle. Hooker is to often overlooked when it comes to generals of the Civil War but he really is an interesting man. Chancellorsville is the only battle where he got to lead the Army of the Potomac and he had an excellent plan in place. Sears's also explores Hooker's plan for the battle, why it went wrong and takes an especially hard look at General Howard and his 11th Corp which was so surprised by Jackson's flanking march. This book is truly a must read for any Civil War buff.
Rating:
Summary: Sears Defends Fighting Joe.
Review: Stephen Sears is the best writer among current Civil War campaign historians. His books are well researched and detailed enough to appeal to the hardcore buff, but are so extremely readable that they can be recommended to the novice Civil War reader. Sears' books have the sort of "it's so good that I can't put it down" quality more often found in the best historical fiction novels than in campaign studies. Sears is a truly gifted writer. In "Chancellorsville" Sears tackles a subject that has been well-covered by many other authors including Ernest Furguson's very fine 1992 book, "Chancellorsville: Souls of the Brave." In order to justify another book about Chancellorsville, Sears had to approach the subject from a different perspective than previous writers, and Sears does this by reappraising Joseph Hooker's leadership of the Army of the Potomac. Most histories of Chancellorsville have portrayed Hooker as a commander full of boasts and swagger about his upcoming triumph who then lost his nerve (and the battle) when RE Lee didn't act the way Hooker thought he was supposed to. Sears attacks this convential view by portraying Hooker as an effective planner who was more sinned against than sinner. Sears portrays the unbelievable communications breakdowns by the Federals, and the failings of key subordinates, in particular cavalry chief George Stoneman and ill-fated XI Corps commander Oliver Howard, as the major reasons for the defeat. Sears makes some very good points in his defense of Hooker, especially the down-right incompetence of certain subordinates. However, as another reviewer has stated, Sears' "Chancellorsville" is revisionist history, and, in the end, this reader was unconvinced that Hooker's own failings were not the chief cause of his defeat. Aside from some disagreement with Sears' analysis, I do believe "Chancellorsville" to be one of the best campaign studies I have ever read and highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: A stellar telling of a brutal battle.
Review: Stephen Sears once again shows his great skill in recounting civil war battles. Chancellorsville was indeed a very bloody battle. It was a battle that Union General Hooker was blamed for not winning. Sears research clearly shows that the blame rightly belongs on the shoulders of his subordinates-who did not follow his orders. Besides providing a just defense of Hooker Sears also demonstrates the devastating loss to the south. The accidental shoot of General Stonewall Jackson by his own men. This was the most important event of the battle-the loss of Jackson was described by General Lee as similar to losing an arm. The book reads like a fictional novel and was difficult to put down. If you want a good, fast and factual read of this battle then grab this book.
Rating:
Summary: Clear, concise, very readable
Review: The author has put together a very comprehensive account of the battle. It is extremely well researched, using sources which have added many new facets of information unknown to me. The book does not favor either the north or the south in laying out the facts; and most of all, the book to me was easy reading. The story just flows along, and before you know it you have reached the last page
Rating:
Summary: Lee's best battle
Review: This battle is usually considered as Lee's masterpiece. It certainly is. This is Lee at his best. With his best generals. This is the pinacle of the Confederacy. Times were at their worst in the North, and at their best in the South. After Lincoln's emancipation proclomation, the soldiers were in gloomy spirits. Furthermore, because of the battle of Federicksburg as well as the muddy march, the Army of the Potomac was getting about 200 deserters a day, by the time Hooker took over the army. Sears shows how great and brilliant Hooker actually was. Sears shows the reader how it was Hooker who revived the Yankee army. Hooker did everything right. He had a well equiped, well fed, large army just a few months after he took over. Only a McClellan could have done better. Hooker even made a perfect plan for the campaign. But, God had mercy on Lee and the South. Lee took such a daring move that it was totally unanticipated. Sears will show you how the little details added up to make such a catastrophy out of the perfect plan and army. One will find new respect for Hooker after reading this. But, one will find even greater respect for Lee! Read it! You won't know otherwise. This is one of the most interesting battles of the Civil War. And, it wasn't so bloody. One wonders why, though, God decided to kill Jackson in such a way. It seemed so unnecessary.... Well, my opinion is READ THE BOOK IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY! It is the best on the subject.
| 
