Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War

Rating:
Summary: A warning is needed!
Review: "Gettysburg" is very well written, but what bothers me somewhat is that the authors do not make it clear in the book that the story they tell of the Battle of Gettysburg is fabricated after the first day. This is clearly stated on the flaps of the book jacket but in many instances, particularly in libraries, the jacket will be worn, torn, and tossed while the book remains on the library shelf. The title page inside the book uses the words "A Novel of the Civil War," but so does Michael Schaara's historically accurate "The Killer Angels" account describe itself as a novel. Yet one is based on a fabrication of what might have happened and the other is based on what did happen. My fear is that the "Gettysburg" version, without any real disclaimer within the book itself, in the hands of persons not very familiar with this extremely important turning-point battle of the civil war, will contribute to the furtherance of revisionist history that seems to be in vogue these days.

Do Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen offer any reasons for not including somewhere in the beginning of the book an acknowledgement that theirs is a "what if" fabricated story after day one of the battle?

Bill Dolan
Drexel Hill, PA

Rating:
Summary: The brilliant Bill Forstchen
Review: ...
Like most science fiction fen, I'm a libertarian - and therefore neither a partisan of Newt Gingrich nor a supporter of the milk-and-water socialists who call themselves "Liberals" nowadays. With the understanding that Gingrich is an experienced and well-read professor of history, I put the reader on notice that the storytelling expertise in this novel (and almost certainly the bulk of the explicit, verisimilitudinous historical knowledge needed to make vivid the characters and the circumstances in which they move) is *NOT* the contribution of Dr. Gingrich, but rather that of experienced and accomplished science fiction author William Forstchen.

In science fiction fandom (and fandom very much appreciates skilled journeymen writers like Bill Forstchen), we have a name for the "mainstream" reader who is essentially illiterate in our genre. We call such a person "mundane" (from which, no doubt, J.K. Rowling to some considerable extent devised her wizarding-world term "muggles" for non-magical outsiders).

Anyone who thinks that a history professor turned career politician (no matter how skilled he might be in either professional sphere) without any real fiction-writing credit in his vitae can do the kind of work seen in this excellent "alternative history" novel - while William Forstchen is riding in the shotgun seat - has no notion in hell about the writing racket, and is so utterly brain-dead about science fiction that he might as well tattoo "MUNDANE" across his forehead as a warning to oncoming traffic.

I give Newt Gingrich credit for not taking himself too seriously (a major flaw on both sides of the nave in the House of Representatives), and for his willingness to put his name and a respectable (though beyond doubt minor) portion of the effort seen here toward the creation of good, thought-provoking entertainment for those who still support his politics in a post-Bubba, Shrub-malaise'd era. But credit Willam Forstchen many times more for the intelligence, originality, well-reasoned thoughtfulness, and nigh-addictive "brain candy" that you'll find in this book - an example of alternative history SF at its best.
...

Rating:
Summary: I'm giving it 5 stars, despite...
Review: ...my usual aversion to the fictionalization of history. I am generally afraid that sources of information are forgotten, but that the information may be retained and taken for fact.
Now, assuming you're not going to fall into that trap, this is a piece of great historical fiction. Whether it was Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Forstchen who actually put pen to paper I do not know, but the writing is wonderful and flows beautifully.
The history is basically accurate through day 1 at Gettysburg, when Confederate forces made the error of attacking fixed and fortified Union positions on the high ground around the town.
This was almost the mirror image of the error Burnside had made previously at Fredericksburg. No doubt the rules of how to wage war were fast changing. What these professionally trained leaders on both sides (almost all West Pointers) had learned from their texts and from the Mexican War 20 years earlier needed to be updated by the recent changes introduced by the rifle and by the trench, not to mention by the improvements in artillery. (the same lessons were still taught for decades after the Civil War and explain in part the horrific losses in WWI caused by the storming of trenches whose occupants were now armed with machine guns)
It is on the fateful second day the book largely departs from the history. It has Longstreet convincing Lee of the wisdom of not attacking uphill again, but instead of making a great flanking march behind the Union left and into their base of supplies, inserting themselves in the process between the Army of the Potomac and Washington. The outcome, while fictional, seems in fact quite plausible. Would newly appointed commander Meade have reacted quickly enough to counter such a move, especially in the presence of a feint from Confederate cavalry General Stuart coming from the opposite quarter of the battlefield? The answer is unknown, but it is certainly an intriguing proposition.
I am absolutely certain that anyone who enjoys the study of our second national immersion into a great crucible of fire will find this bit of fiction irresistible. For those who need to reassure themselves of the actual occurrences at Gettysburg, a good timeline is available at: http://www.historyinfilm.com/gettysbg/timeline.htm

Rating:
Summary: Great battle scenes-compelling narrative
Review: Add me to the list of those who were at first reluctant to dive into a book which, at first glance, seemed designed solely for the Southern apologist crowd. However, this novel is just too good to pass up for any Civil War buff. There is real tension in this book. While we know from the beginning the South will somehow prevail in this alternative history, the authors do a masterful job of leading the reader on to the climactic battle scene- this time with the Union forced into a reverse Pickett's charge against an entrenched Confederate army. The battlefield scenes are some of the best I have read. It is almost too bad that the authors could not have avoided the 'what if?' premise and just wrote a historical novel based on the true events of Gettysburg- it is that good. However, "The Killer Angels" has apparently preempted the field for future historical novels concerning the Gettysburg battle. What the authors give us in this novel is great character development, with actions taken by the various participants- Lee, Longstreet, Meade, Sickles, etc- which are remarkably true to their character. Historical novels do not get much better than this.

Rating:
Summary: Totally Implausible based upon all the facts
Review: Although this book is a good read, it is not plausible. Not by any sense is this story beliveable. For this reason, I can't recommend this book. And, this book has a strong bias towards the south and Lee, making him look like some sort of god.
But first, let me highlight why the book is not plausible.
First, Newt has us believe that Lee's army can march 35 miles in enemy territory without a warning from the populous that this is happening, all while the Union army could march less than half that disance to get to Union Mills first. And, he writes this off, saying that Meade was getting many statements that the Rebels were here and there and everywhere. I can see this happening in Virginia, but I'm sorry not in Pennsylvania. Incredulous!
Second, when Meade is brought news from Buford's courier that Longstreet's corps is in Taneytown and going for Union Mills (where the good defensible ground was at Pipe Creek) and all the Union supplies in Westminster, what does Meade do? He vacillates. And, when Hancock argues with him, he decides to call a council of his corps commanders, waisting six valuable hours of road time. Just think, now really, what would have happened? Hancock would have asked to take his corps to Westminster. Meade, being a new commander, would have relented. After all Hancock had done this before at Fredericksburg (see the movie Gods and Generals which is better than this book), and given the danger of (1) losing his supply center (2) having the Confederate army between him and Washington, DC, and (3) having the Confederate army capture the highly defensible ground at Pipe Creek (where he was planning to defend), and especially how Meade acted afterwards, why wouldn't he have relented? Does Newt think that Meade was that stupid?
However, if Meade had acted on this news from his best scouting General, Buford, by the way, who just saved the day prior to this, Hancock would have been in both Westminster, and Union Mills before Longstreet, and that would have ruined Newt's implausible story. Hence - his bias.
Third, when Meade finally relents and moves the Army of Potomac to Union Mills, he decides to attack, when more than half the Confederate army is on the hill and dug in, knowing full well that his chances of success are minimal. Also, can't he read the maps like Lee? Doesn't he see that Lee is poised at his flank in Taneytown to take Littletown and close the door trapping the Army of the Potomac in a Cannae battle. But, to the keep the implausibility going, Newt has them attack at Pipe Creek, the ground that the Union generals looked at and noticed that no one would be able to crack. Again, does Newt think that Meade was that stupid?
Now for the bias - Newt's love of Lee bias. Buford gets killed (yes he does) from a cannonade of a couple of batteries. All of the generals of the Army of the Potomac but Sickles and Hunt are either killed or captured. But... Lee and Longstreet are in the open, while a cannonade of 230 cannons from the Union army explodes around them, wounding and killing people around them. Do they get killed or hurt? No.
And then there is the Longstreet and Lee story - the enduring story about Gettysburg brought out so well in a great book, not a poor book like this one on Gettysburg - but a great book, The Killer Angels.
Hey, Newt, Lee did not come up with the idea to do a turning movement and then find defensible ground to get the Union army to attack, be accurate and read some history. Get your facts, right! Longstreet suggested this - see all the credible history books on this. No, Newt, Longstreet did not suggest a turning attack on the flank, but a great move around 35 miles. However, of course, Newt rewrites the facts so that he can make Lee look like a god.
But, then again, the flanking wouldn't have worked, because Hancock would have been in Westminster first and the Confederate army would have been destroyed in detail, when Sickles attacked their retreating troops like he suggested.
Which, I suppose is why Lee was right in attacking at Gettysburg, and the only redeeming quality of this book. The book's story is so implausible that you recognize the Lee in fact did what he had to do - to attack and dislodge the Union army. He thought this out, recognized that the Union army had the center line of axis due to the roads, didn't have stupid generals, and would be warned by the populace.
So, Lee attacked. Why? Because if he did what Longstreet suggested, his army would have been destroyed.
When you get all the facts straight, the battle of Gettysburg was set on the first day when Buford forced the Confederates to attack them, held them until Reynolds came up and then the Union held the high ground.
Sorry, Newt, although an interesting read, your alternative is implausible.

Rating:
Summary: Awesome Alternate History
Review: Being a Civil War buff, I was initially reluctant about reading this book.

However, as I read the book - I could not put it down. I had to remind myself, sadly, that what I was reading was just fiction.



Rating:
Summary: Who said "Damn Yankees?"
Review: Charlie Daniels always sings "the Souths' going to do it again." According to Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen in their novel Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War, the south did it the first time. And what an imagination those two boys have. R. E. Lee fighting a defensive battle and General Meade fighting on the offensive. This must be another universe I'm in.

There's nothing wrong with alternative history. In fact, I loved Gettysburg the novel. Who hasn't contemplated what might have happened if things had gone differently on July 1, 2, and 3, 1863. Longstreet wanted to flank Meade on the morning of July 3 and avoid the fateful attack that has become known, incorrectly, as Pickett's Charge. Longstreet urged Lee to circle around the right of the Round Tops and get between Meade's position and Washington D.C. This would have forced Meade to go on the offensive and batter his regiments on fortified southern positions. Well, as many of you know this didn't happen. Pickett charged and on the afternoon of July 3 and morning of July 4, Lee and his army left the field and crossed back into friendlier territory.

While Gettysburg the novel is fanciful, well written, and portrays the major characters correctly, it is still just that; fanciful day dreams. I recommend the book highly. At the end you'll still have that bitter sweet feeling.....and you'll contemplate...What if Lee had flanked Meade.....?

Get the book and read it. You won't be disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: Great idea, average result
Review: Counterfactual history is always great fun to read, and the idea of re-writing the history of the pivotal battle in American (and in some sense, World) history is obviosly attractive to Civil War buffs - praise to Mr. Gingrich on that account. However, the execution af that great idea leaves a little to be desired.
The best counterfactual histories usually make the smallest possible alterations to the actual historical circumstances and events, yet this book is counterfactual regarding allmost every aspect of the Gettysburg campaign. To credibly describe an alternative outcome of the battle, the book obviously needs to "improve" on the generalship of Robert E. Lee as exercised on the first day of the battle - but Mr. Gingrich does not leave it at that, he also makes substantial changes to the factual quality of the leadership on the Union side of the battle. Portraying poor old general Meade as incompetent really isn't necessary, Lee might have won the battle on his own, had he brought some of his earlier brilliance to Pennsylvania that summer. However, the worst and least credible change to the factual circumstances is the portraying of that complete lunatic general Daniel Sickles as not only competent, but indeed a visionary. Perhaps Mr. Gingrich just cannot bring himself to join the many critics of this "political general"....
Still, the book is well-written and provides good entertainment. I will look for the sequel.

Rating:
Summary: When history is compelling...
Review: Everyone knows the basics of the history of the battle of Gettysburg. This book puts you there. The point of view moves from the Union to the Confederacy to give both perspectives. The action is graphic and personal. The information you remember from the single page of the survey American History class we all took in school comes to life in vivid detail. This is a must read for any history buff, and even more compelling when you consider that this was a pivotal event in the history of our country. The only reason you will put it down is to catch your breath.

Rating:
Summary: A plausible alternative history of the Battle of Gettysburg
Review: For the first three days of July each year I watch the film "Gettysburg," based on Michael Shaara's "The Killer Angels," so of course I would be interested in reading "Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War" written by fellow Amazon reviewer Newt Gingrich and military historian William R. Forstchen. The book sat on my shelf for a couple of months before I decided to read it, at which point I took over the cover with ever bothering to look at it. Since I had missed all of the publicity for the novel, I actually started this book without knowing that it would turn into a "what if?" revision of the pivotal Civil War battle and finished it without being aware that it was the first in a trilogy, the second volume of which, "Grant Comes East," is due out next month.

Consequently, when on the night of July 1, 1863 General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, agrees with the suggestion of his senior corps commander, James Longstreet, that the Confederates pull away from Gettysburg and seek better ground on which to destroy the Union Army of the Potomac, I knew immediately that the authors were diverging from the path of history. My immediate reaction was that this would be interesting. Once of the problems with telling the story of the Battle of Gettysburg as a novel is that Shaara already won the Pulitzer Prize for doing so, and it is impossible to read the events of the first day of the battle without being aware of how Gingrich and Forstchen are stepping around Shaara's story of how John Buford's Federal cavalry delayed the Confederate advance long enough to preserve the lovely high ground at Gettysburg for the Union army and Henry Hunt's artillery.

Up to the night of July 1 this novel sticks very close to what really happened. The only significant point of divergence that I really picked up on was that General Henry Hunt, Chief of Artillery for the Army of the Potomac, showed up on the battlefield on the first day and artillery to effectively stop the Confederate advance up Culp's Hill. Historically Hunt did not arrive on the battlefield until late that first night, having been ordered earlier that evening by General George Meade, the newly appointed commander of the Army of the Potomac, to move the artillery reserve to Gettysburg.

Hunt's presence is crucial to changing the calculus for Lee, because adding all that artillery to the equation at the beginning of the battle makes it clear to the Confederate commander that Gettysburg would be another Malvern Hill for his army. Lee mission in taking his troops into the North was not just to get supplies but also to destroy the Army of the Potomac in a last concerted effort to voice President Abraham Lincoln to the peace table. Vicksburg is on the verge of falling to Ulysses S. Grant in the West and unless Lee can win a decisive victory in July 1863 the industrial might and flood of immigrants in the North will make a Union victory inevitable.

I like how Gingrich and Forstchen play out their alternative battle. The ground for the decisive battle is obviously not as well known as the famous terrain of Gettysburg, but a string of roughly drawn maps are provided to give us a sense of the geographical situation. But basically what the authors appear to be doing is to provide a scenario that produces Pickett's Charge in reverse. However, you can never be absolutely sure that is what is going on here and you have to be open to the possibilities.

As with any alternative history Gingrich and Forstchen are often tempted to include bits and pieces of what really happened into their narrative. For example, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (called Joshua in an apparent attempt to carve a figure somewhat different from the one glorified in "The Killer Angels") still wants his brother Tom to be stay away during the battle because if they both get hit by a shell "It will be a hard day for Mother." Those familiar with Chamberlain's distinguished career after the defense of Little Round Top on the second day at Gettysburg will notice that a key moment from later in the war is transposed to this point in time.

Ultimately the battle being played out here is more important than the characters. The Lee of this novel is a mixture of piety and anger that I have not come across before, and there is clearly a sense in which it is the heroism of the troops rather than the quality of their commanders that matters in the battles. Now that I know that this story extends for two more books I have to reconsider the military figures that Gingrich and Forstchen are removing from the board (a number of generals who survived Gettysburg are killed) as well as those being tapped for future prominence. Hunt is clearly one of those and so is the politician turned Union general Dan Sickles, a choice that you cannot help but look at with an eye askance given Gingrich's political career.

I thought the ending of the novel allows it to stand on its own. By now means is it determined who is going to win the war at that point, making "Gettysburg" an inkblot in which anybody who wants to see the Confederacy winning the war can draw that conclusion and those who want to continue believing in the inevitability of a Union victory can see evidence to support that position as well. It is too early to be able to determine what ultimate point Gingrich and Forstchen intend to try and make with their alternative history, but I am sure there will be one, just as there was with Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South." Therefore, judgment needs to be reserved on that score until the trilogy is completed.