Rating: 
Summary: somwhat interesting
Review: 'The Longest Night' was interesting, but if you want to read a great narrative on the Civil War, read Shelby Footes three volume set of the war. It's great.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Overall Book on the CW:East, Middle and West
Review: Although I have read many books on the Civil War, this book is perhaps the best single volume (actually big enough for two) book on the Civil War. This book will appeal to someone who has not had the opportunity to appreciate the complex nature of the war that spread completely across the country from not only Virginia in the East but to Fort Craig, New Mexico in the far west, from Robert E. Lee to Kit Carson. While their may not be new ground for the seasoned CW veteran reader, there is no doubt that this book will appeal to an aspiring CW historian that wants the total picture of what occurred during the war. Eicher provides detail on virtually every major battle down to substantial skirmishes including the identification of every major general down to the division level with short biographical sketches on the main participants. The detail is somewhat overwhelming but for seasoned CW readers, there is some useful material as one can actually follow the names of generals that disappeared or were banished from the eastern theater such as Magruder, Slocum, Hooker, Rosecrans, Butler, Pleasonton, Loring, Colquitt, D. H. Hill, Holmes etc. In addition, Eicher clarifies the true rank status of generals, provides historical updates such as the recent discovery of the Hundley and maintains an objective point of view particularly on Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, Forrest and many others. Although descriptions of the major battles are somewhat difficult due to the compressed nature of this single volume, as all CW books would benefit from maps galore to understand troop movements, the best part of this big book are the descriptions of raids, small battles such as Ball's Bluff and interesting actions such as the daring sinking of the ironclad ram the Albemarle by Lt. Cushing with his nighttime mission involving a small sleek boat with a torpedo as a spar. Even includes detail on the Vermont bank raids by Confederates, the attempts to burn NYC and Confederate attempts to spread yellow fever. There may be some small mistakes such as the author sites Booth's death near Port Tobacco which I think he meant Port Royal (or maybe that was the original name) and there may be others, I wasn't aware that Picket had 19,000 men at Five Forks (with a number that large it seems that A. P. Hill should have commanded it). This is a huge book that takes some patience to read and it sometimes is tedious in detail but even for a veteran CW buff it can be rewarding. For the CW veteran it may be like a referee rereading the rules to see if you really do know it all.
Rating: 
Summary: Take a deep breath!
Review: As a "uniformed" docent at a museum in Frederick, Maryland devoted to the story of Civil War Medicine, I'm no slouch as far as the history of the war is concerned. Eicher's book, however, can be a little like slogging through the swamps around Vicksburg. Any reader should be warned that the books subtitle, "A Military History of the the Civil War" is exactly what you'll get; and, at times, you'll get more than you bargained for. Eicher will list every commander of every regiment just before the battle; he spends pages describing every piece of military equipment used by soldiers on both sides. Does anybody need this much information? One my re-enactor friends says, "Hey, it's good for you!" Perhaps, but it sure does slow down the narrative. I'm also a little confused by the weight given to some of the engagements. Antietam (certainly a major landmark in the war) gets a less detailed analysis than does a battle at Stones River which Eicher admits (in the chapter's title) was a "stalemate" and, inevitably much less significant than Lee's Maryland campaign. If you've read James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom or the Shelby Foote history, you've read the best. Eicher's book is for those with a very intense interest in the military details, but much of the war's human side has been lost in the process.
Rating:
Summary: Bias alert!
Review: Boy, I really found this to be a biased account of the military actions of the American Civil War. I think a better subtitle would have been "...:A Northern Perspective"! Andersonville gets pages of text, while Elmira gets a paragraph or two. Confederates generals are often "drunk", while Grant's drinking is "rumored"!@# Additionally, most of the "eyewitness" excerpts are from Federal troops.Aside from that, Eicher's effort brings much to one volume. A myriad of topics serve as digression points within the 850+ page story. Sidebar information on medicine, weaponry, use of rank and grade all add much to the oft times droll accounts of troop movement.
Rating: 
Summary: Filled with Information
Review: David Eicher has brought forth an exhausting work on the Civil War. I say exhausting in that this book covers everything you can imagine and goes to the nth degree in detail. This is not a work for the novice reader, and many a seasoned vetern may just want this work for reference only. All in all a very though work on the Military History of the Civil War, but if you pick it up make sure you have plenty of time to sit and read it. Four stars due to it's longevity and detail. If it was rewritten I'd suggesst writing it more for the average reader.
Rating:
Summary: Filled with Information
Review: David Eicher has brought forth an exhausting work on the Civil War. I say exhausting in that this book covers everything you can imagine and goes to the nth degree in detail. This is not a work for the novice reader, and many a seasoned vetern may just want this work for reference only. All in all a very though work on the Military History of the Civil War, but if you pick it up make sure you have plenty of time to sit and read it. Four stars due to it's longevity and detail. If it was rewritten I'd suggesst writing it more for the average reader.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Waste Your Time
Review: I didn't even get through the first hundred pages without finding two errors. J.E.B. Stuart was certainly not called "Beauty" for his "fine appearance" but for just the opposite reason, which is why he grew his beard. Stonewall did not hold his arm up in the air to "call down the favor of the All Mighty", but to keep his body in balance. If I can find two errors in the first 100 pages of an 855-page book, who knows how many are actually there.
Rating:
Summary: somwhat interesting
Review: I'd never heard of David J. Eicher when I picked up this book. He has written about the Civil War before, notably doing a book-length bibliography (The Civil War in Books) and a book on Civil War battlefields, but his only narrative work of book length prior to the present work is a picture book on Robert E. Lee. Apparently, he's rather young and this is a first effort; who knows what he'll come up with next. The Longest Night is one of the best books I've ever read on the Civil War, and I have read a considerable amount of stuff. Eicher spends little time on the politics of the war, instead devoting most of his attention to the seemingly endless series of battles and campaigns that were once called the "American Iliad." He exhibits an awe-inspiring command of sources and narrative, and must have an encyclopedic knowledge of Civil War combat. In addition to every major battle, more minor fights and even skirmishes are mentioned at least if not covered thoroughly. The maps seem to represent the battles they cover well, though occasionally they fall short of complete. I suppose that's inevitable given the size of the book. I suppose I should comment on the bias allegations and the one fellow complaining about General Blunt being on the train. The bias involved here isn't pro-Northern, it's insufficiently pro-Southern. On two of the more controversial issues of Civil War history, the Dahlgren affair and the Fort Pillow Massacre, the author essentially stays out of the controversy, presenting the evidence briefly, and then leaving it up to the reader to decide. With the Lincoln assassination, he acknowledges the work done by William A. Tidwell, connecting the Davis administration with the plot, then baldly asserts that there's no proof the Confederates were directly involved in the assassination. In all three of these instances, a true pro-Northern author would be much more positive in his assertions; Eicher's just telling you what happened. And the reference to Blunt's wagon train even specifies how many teams of horses and mules were captured. No mention of locomotives is made. I did have a few quibbles with the book, largely with the way the information is presented, though none of this is enough to lower my rating from 5 stars. For one thing, throughout the book there are passages describing various topical aspects of the Civil War: medical procedures and casualties, what the troops were armed with, how prisoners were dealt with, etc. For my money Eicher would have done better to put these in a separate chapter at the beginning of the book, or in an appendix. The chapters carry titles, but they only describe one event that occurs in each, and each is stuffed full of events. I would have liked to see the old style chapter sub-headings, or perhaps page headers describing what's going on on that page, along with the date of the events. When he listed ships, he seemed to be unaware he didn't need to put USS or CSS before every ship's individual name. Given all of that, there's a mountain of information here, and it's well-presented. The author tells you of the passing of every general in either army, and the cause of death. He also makes an effort to correct previous works which credit various soldiers with promotion. Several reviewers seem to think he was bragging in this regard; it looked to me as if he was making sure everyone was on the same page. He singled out no one for special criticism. One last point. In the forward, Eicher gives an overview of previous books on the Civil War, justifying his work. Let me quote his description of Catton's Centennial History of the Civil War: "...relatively light on military history and analysis, rich in the political relations between officers, and superb in it's biographical glimpses of the characters." I'm a fan of Catton, was raised on him, and that seems a fair assessment to me. Eicher's main critique of the Centennial History is that it was written forty years ago, and much scholarship has been done since on the Civil War, so that it's rather dated. Not exactly negative, is it? On Foote, he criticises him for pro-Southern bias, comparing the way the author dealt with Lincoln and Davis, and Grant and Foote, and quotes that author from several points in his work, pointing out passages that prove his point (in his mind anyway). This goes back to the issue of bias, and kind of proves what I was saying earlier. Eicher is determined not to be biased, and works at it. Taking all of that in mind, this is a wonderful book to spend a weekend or an evening with, if you're a Civil War buff. It's not for the faint of heart: the text runs to 850 pages, and covers every military event concievable for the four years plus of the war. Every twenty pages or so he breaks down the organization of the opposing armies again, and after each battle he runs through the casualties, noting which generals got killed or wounded, if any. There is so much information here it's staggering, and the writing, while not quite Shelby Foote, is certainly good. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Civil War.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book
Review: I've only just started the book and so far it's alright. But the reviewer who griped about Blunt and Qunatrill should read the section again. It says "wagon train" which I assume simply means "wagon train"
Rating:
Summary: Comprehensive
Review: The Longest Night is a solid history of the Civil War. It lacks much excitment and description, however, so if your looking for a more entertaining read look to Foote or Catton. I enjoyed the completeness of the story, which tells about virtually every clash of arms that took place during the war, and the orders or battle before each battle would be good for reference purposes. But the book falls short in the narrative category, being a little too dry and choppy for me. If you want a straight history of the Civil War, this is for you, if you are looking for entertainment, look elsewhere.
|
