Rating: 
Summary: Great Read!
Review: Albert Castel does a great job keeping up with a long campaign. There are so many battles and battle lines that this is not a work of great detail, but it is very colorful and exciting despite the large subject that it takes on. I highly recommend it!
Rating:
Summary: Great Read!
Review: Albert Castel does a great job keeping up with a long campaign. There are so many battles and battle lines that this is not a work of great detail, but it is very colorful and exciting despite the large subject that it takes on. I highly recommend it!
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding!
Review: As a person who has read just about every book concerning the Atlanta Campaign that I can get my hands on, I can say without hesitation that this is the best of the lot. Indeed, of all the books on the history of the Civil War, this is my favorite. The research is exhaustive and the detail incredible. Castel sees the war through the eyes of the highest ranking generals and the lowest privates. Quite balanced, with none of the regional basis so often encountered in Civil War history. Brilliant.
Rating: 
Summary: The west revealed
Review: At first this book was difficult to read, not because of the subject or depth of the book but because it is written in the present tense. After about ten pages of so of trying to convert it in my head to the past tense I got used to reading it and progressed smoothly.
The opening section of the book successfully relates the dire need of Confederacy to survive the year. A hope that a change in strategic picture to win the war out right to drawing it out until the Presidential election and a hopefully victory of the peace Democrats in the north to assure victory and an independent Confederacy.
The preparation for the campaign and the politics of the army commanders are discussed and provide a good picture of the working relationship of all the parties concerned. The change in Commands as the campaign progressed through loss and competence are easy to follow and add a dynamic to the book as apposed to reading a long list of troop movements and locations. This book also goes to great lengths to demystify Sherman to the greater glory of Thomas. Some of the comments are a little harsh but for the most part present valid arguments.
I would recommend this book as fairly concise and informative on the Atlanta Campaign and made great strides in my further understanding of the western theater. As well as show the importance of this campaign in the strategic and political atmosphere of 1864. Also a greater understanding of the war weariness of this period of the war is achieved that was taking place in the armies of both blue and gray. My only suggestion is that you have a decent Civil War atlas on hand. The maps were adequate but a better reading of the book could have been achieved with a theater map on hand so as to not keep flipping through the book as well as battle maps which go into greater detail of brigade placement to keep the order of battle better ordered in your mind while reading.
Rating:
Summary: One of the two books you should have on this campaign
Review: Castel writes a well researched and thorough campaign review.
I have been told, however, that Castel wrote this book without touring the battlefield sites. How anyone can write such an extensive account and not have the passion to see the actual battlefields, where they still exist, is beyond my comprehension.
The other book that I found a perfect compliment, especially a result of its EXCELLENT maps of regimental detail, is William Scaife's "Atlanta Campaign". These two books together will satisfy any student of the campaign.
Rating:
Summary: Fine History
Review: Castel's history of the Atlanta Campaign is well written and a fine study of the events. What is most interesting about the book is the study of the personalties involved. He makes no bones about the fact that he believes that Sherman has been overrated as a general, and at times it seemed that his criticism of Sherman was based on the advantage of hindsight. While Sherman may not have been the military genius that some have portrayed him as, Castel seems to lose sight of the fact that he did lead the force that captured Atlanta with casualties that were low enough to allow the division of his army into forces that would march to the sea and also crush what was left of the Confederate Army of Tennessee at the battles of Franklin and Nashville. But that aside, Castel's treatment of the politics of the campaign, both on the Confederate and Union side, was the books strength. He does a fine job of putting the campaign into the political context of the 1864 Presidential election. Although he may have exaggerated its importance, Castel correctly points out that the capture of Atlanta removed any doubt that Lincoln would be reelected. The treatment of Confederate politics is also well handed. Concentrating on the pressure put on General Johnson to defend Atalanta and his conflict with Jefferson Davis, Castel explains one of the general failings of the Confederacy. Other than Lee, Davis trust in the wrong generals. This led to Castel's harshest criticism and the command of General Hood. Decision in the West does a fine job is explaining the whats, hows and whys of the Atlanta Campaign. It was a worthwhile read.
Rating:
Summary: Fine History
Review: Castel's history of the Atlanta Campaign is well written and a fine study of the events. What is most interesting about the book is the study of the personalties involved. He makes no bones about the fact that he believes that Sherman has been overrated as a general, and at times it seemed that his criticism of Sherman was based on the advantage of hindsight. While Sherman may not have been the military genius that some have portrayed him as, Castel seems to lose sight of the fact that he did lead the force that captured Atlanta with casualties that were low enough to allow the division of his army into forces that would march to the sea and also crush what was left of the Confederate Army of Tennessee at the battles of Franklin and Nashville. But that aside, Castel's treatment of the politics of the campaign, both on the Confederate and Union side, was the books strength. He does a fine job of putting the campaign into the political context of the 1864 Presidential election. Although he may have exaggerated its importance, Castel correctly points out that the capture of Atlanta removed any doubt that Lincoln would be reelected. The treatment of Confederate politics is also well handed. Concentrating on the pressure put on General Johnson to defend Atalanta and his conflict with Jefferson Davis, Castel explains one of the general failings of the Confederacy. Other than Lee, Davis trust in the wrong generals. This led to Castel's harshest criticism and the command of General Hood. Decision in the West does a fine job is explaining the whats, hows and whys of the Atlanta Campaign. It was a worthwhile read.
Rating:
Summary: Truly Outstanding!
Review: Decision in the West has been widely and lavishly praised, and it deserves every bit of it. Albert Castel has not only written the most thoroughly researched and most comprehensive history of the Atlanta Campaign, but has also done it with clear, captivating prose that flows easily across the page, keeping the reader enthralled to the very end. He uses the present tense throughout the book, which lends a fascinating immediacy to the story, even though we know the outcome.
Were I to try to sketch all of the many virtues of this brilliant book here, this review would be prohibitively long, so I will limit myself to two. First, Castel has written what is arguably the best, most objective modern account of the actual battles of the campaign. In the preface he writes that as he was researching this book, he was, "astonished, then exasperated, when, upon delving into the sources, I discovered that all of the existing descriptions of these battles, ...were to a greater or lesser degree filled with mistakes, misconceptions, and myths." His painstaking research reaches beyond the myths and self-serving memoirs of the participants, comparing all the available sources against each other to arrive as close as is objectively possible at the actual facts of these battles. He presents each battle and his analysis of it in a clear fashion, complete with easy to read, truly helpful maps. This alone would qualify Decision in the West as a must-read book.
Secondly, Castel provides a thoughtful reassessment of the commanders involved. His take on the Confederate General Johnston is the closest to received wisdom. He views Johnston as a skilled general when on the defensive, whose fatal flaw was being over-awed when outnumbered, and prone to surrendering to a defeatist attitude that assured his failure. General Hood fares better here than in most histories. Castel believes that Hood's major mistake was in consistently trying to accomplish too much with too little, but doesn't believe that he had much of any alternative, considering the situation that he inherited, and what his government expected of him. Hood emerges from Castel's book as a man who did as much as could possibly be expected of him with his admittedly limited talent.
It is the Union commanders who receive the greatest reevaluation here. General Hooker was hated by Sherman, and is usually greatly underrated by historians. Yet, Castel views him as one of the most effective of Sherman's generals during the Atlanta campaign, and presents evidence to prove it. General McPherson, personal friend of both Sherman and Grant, and greatly respected by both of them, receives the harshest reevaluation. Castel writes of him, "his record throughout the campaign demonstrates that in commanding what in effect was a large corp, he had reached and perhaps exceeded the limits of his military ability: he worried too much about what might be on the other side of the hill." After reading Castel's accounts of McPherson's missed opportunities, it is hard to disagree. Of General Thomas, Castel writes, "had Thomas's personal relationship with Grant permitted him to command in Georgia in 1864, almost surely the Union victory would have been easier, quicker, and more complete." He clearly believes Thomas to be the unutilized genius of the campaign. Finally, General Sherman appears more tarnished than golden in Castel's pages. He writes that Sherman was a general who did not like to fight, preferred raiding over fighting, and was unwilling to engage his full force. Though he acknowledges that Sherman accomplished what was expected of him, he gives ample evidence that he did not do it nearly as efficiently as he could have, and questions his reputation as a military genius, second only to Grant in the Union.
Decision in the West should be required reading for anyone with an interest in the Atlanta campaign. It is well written, fascinating, exhaustively researched, and thought provoking. It cannot be considered anything other than the decisive existing volume on this crucial aspect of the Civil War. It receives my very highest recommendation.
Rating:
Summary: Good work about an important battle....
Review: History of the Civil War has devoted much to the campaigns of General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and those of General Ulysses S. Grant. Indeed, their epic showdown in 1864 seems as close to an American version of The Illiad as anything in history. But the campaigns of the west- Sherman's March to the Sea, Thomas's victory in the battle of Nashville, and the campaign to capture Atlanta are three of the most under-discussed elements of the Civil War. It is of the latter event that author Albert Castel has elected to write about. The Atlanta campaign was filled with some of the most brilliant and interesting minds of the Civil War- General William Tecumseh Sherman (commander of the Union's armies in the west) was one of the most complex generals of the Civil War. General George Thomas (commander of the Army of the Cumberland) was a stoic Virginian whose skill helped his troops escape from traps time and again. General John Logan brilliantly stepped into the breach to rally the Union Army of the Tennessee after its commander was killed. The battle for the city, a tough campaign that took all summer long, featured skillful maneuvering on both sides and a tragic series of mistakes which cost the Southern army control of the city. In the end, the capture of Atlanta was the deathknell of the Confederacy. Castel does a good job writing about the battle and the participants. Civil War buffs won't be disapointed.
Rating:
Summary: Highly Detailed Account of the Campaign
Review: This is a highly detailed account of the campaign for Atlanta that delves into not only the battles, but also the skirmishes. Castel paints portraits of the military actions, the generals, and the enlisted men, as well as diving into the Johnston-Davis feud. He also goes into the political aspects of the campaign, mainly Lincoln's re-election campaign. The books also features encompassing assessments of the strategy that shaped the campaign and,at times, is fairly critical of Sherman, Johnston, Hood, and other generals. This is one of the most well-researched and well-documented books on the subject, but it is so thorough that probably only Civil War or Military History buffs would like it.
|
