If you are a civil war buff you will enjoy this book. It is well written and very interesting. Highly recommended.
Thomas F. (hardtack) -
Stackpole's book is well written, but is somewhat dated due to new research since the late 1950s. However, it is an interesting book to read, especially if you think Robert E. Lee was the best general in American history. This is probably the greatest fault of the book, Stackpole constantly reminds us how great Lee was. What he doesn't point out is how not-so-great some of the Union generals he fought against were. When Lee opposed generals who were better, Meade and Grant, Lee didn't do as well.
Only towards the end of the book does Stackpole begin to tell us that the Union Army of the Potomac and its generals and soldiers were not really beaten at Chancellorsville. Rather it was their commander, Joseph Hooker, who lost the battle. Stackpole points out Hooker had several opportunities to severely injure, or even destroy, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. In fact, after suffering almost constant defeats or reversals up to this point in the war, one of the great results of the Battle of Chancellorsville was that the rank and file of the Army of the Potomac, as well as most of its generals, realized they could beat the Army of Northern Virginia, which they did a few months later at Gettysburg.
Readers should also pay attention to the Appendix at the end of the book. Confederate losses at Chancellorsville were 22 percent, compared to Union losses of 13 percent. Since the Union army was much bigger, this meant more Federals were killed, wounded, captured or missing than Confederates. But the Confederacy couldn't afford losses like this, while the Union could. There is no denying Lee was a great general, but he usually achieved his victories at a great cost in manpower to his army.
To have an idea of the problems this caused, read "General Lee's Army."
Only towards the end of the book does Stackpole begin to tell us that the Union Army of the Potomac and its generals and soldiers were not really beaten at Chancellorsville. Rather it was their commander, Joseph Hooker, who lost the battle. Stackpole points out Hooker had several opportunities to severely injure, or even destroy, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. In fact, after suffering almost constant defeats or reversals up to this point in the war, one of the great results of the Battle of Chancellorsville was that the rank and file of the Army of the Potomac, as well as most of its generals, realized they could beat the Army of Northern Virginia, which they did a few months later at Gettysburg.
Readers should also pay attention to the Appendix at the end of the book. Confederate losses at Chancellorsville were 22 percent, compared to Union losses of 13 percent. Since the Union army was much bigger, this meant more Federals were killed, wounded, captured or missing than Confederates. But the Confederacy couldn't afford losses like this, while the Union could. There is no denying Lee was a great general, but he usually achieved his victories at a great cost in manpower to his army.
To have an idea of the problems this caused, read "General Lee's Army."
