Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War

Rating:
Summary: Damned silly book
Review: Thank the Lord I found it at the library! Besides all the typical southronisms, the book is full of elemental historical errors and nonsense, though, if you don't really know anymore about the historical period than the alleged authors apparently do, you might find the simplistic mulchy romanticism good enough to keep the pace of reading ahead of the rate you use the pages in the outhouse. It will no doubt be popular though with the cult of worshippers of the founders of the KKK.

Rating:
Summary: Book Review for Gettysburg a Novel of the Civil War
Review: The book Gettysburg by Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen is a good book if you are really into the Civil War. If you have read The Killer Angels by Michel Shaara then you might find this book very much the same. If you've just started to learn about the Civil War then you probably should not start with this book because it is a fictional book and may be confusing. In Gettysburg the confederates win the battle of Gettysburg. Robert E. Lee the general of the Confederate States of America's Army of Northern Virginia listens to James Longstreet's plan to move in between the Union army and Washington to cut them off on July 2,1863. If you have seen the movie Gettysburg that is based on the Killer Angels this book will make more sense to you. The authors have used characters that were real people during the battle but they are people who were not extremely famous in the battle of Gettysburg. One example is Brig. Gen. Henry Hunt who is the Chief of Artillery for the Union army. I would recommend this book who any one who really likes reading about the Civil War.

Rating:
Summary: Not only "what if" but how & why
Review: The new book "Gettysburg" by Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen is a revelation! Written with reverence and piercing characterizations of the soldiers and generals of both sides it puts forth an alternate outcome for this most famous of battles. It is well researched and written so that anyone: the patriot, the curious, Civil War buffs, historical fiction buffs and CW re-enactors can follow the action with mounting excitement. You will feel you are right there like a fly on the wall. The courage, gallantry, stupidity, stubborness, awe, brilliance, stoicism and professionalism of the artillery, infantry and cavalry are all there in spades. You will cheer and cry and your heart will swell with pride no matter which side you identify with. It shows Americans at their best and worst. I could hardly put it down and anxiously await the sequels. I highly recommend it for anyone who is a reenactor of the Civil War.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting alternative history of Gettysburg
Review: There are any number of alternative history books and articles that posit a Confederate victory at one point or another in the Civil War. Of course Gettysburg gets more than its share of this stuff, all the way back to Faulkner's famous assertion that all Southern boys imagine participating in Pickett's Charge, and imagine that they can change history, this time. Given that the authors are Southerners, and that this has been done before, I was, to be frank, somewhat apprehensive as I started this book, and the first 50 pages or so didn't dissuade me from my negative feelings.

The authors, of course, are familiar with the lore of the battle as seen through the lens of the "Lost Cause." One of the hoary old "truths" of Gettysburg is the Confederate claim that if Ewelll hadn't hesitated and ultimately flinched when faced with Cemetary Hill, he could have captured that height, and unhinged the whole Union position. In this book, Lee does that many neo-Rebs fantasize about: instead of issuing a vague discretionary order, he goes himself to Ewell's headquarters, and demands action, immediately. The attack goes in aggressively, as most Southerners think it should have, though things aren't perfect: the divisions are a bit uncoordinated.

This is where things get interesting. I've always been of the opinion that Southerners and what I call the neo-Rebs are essentially overconfident with regards to this supposed "easy" attack. There were troops at the top of that hill, some who had been there for hours, fortifying, and artillery with extra ammunition. In this book, what I believe would have happened does: the Union artillery blows the Confederate attackers right off the hill, and the Union manages to hold the hill.

This results in a council of war that evening in Lee's headquarters, and Longstreet speaks up, advocating his march around the Southern flank of the Union army. Instead of ignoring him (as he did in real life) Lee decides to go along with it, and further goads him by various references to Jackson, and how the fabled dead general would have handled the situation. The result, as you can imagine, isn't the same as the one that followed the actual battle.

There are a few things that I found annoying or unrealistic or bad representations of people in this book. The authors (or their editors) mispell Robert Rodes' name repeatedly, and some of the characters act in ways that are uncharacteristic. I don't, for instance, believe that the manipulation attributed to Lee and recounted above would ever, in actuality, have occurred to the man, let alone seemed honorable enough to actually do. I did enjoy the depiction of the Union army generals, though. Hancock of course is seen as the backbone of the army. Henry Hunt is one of the main characters, a soldier very decisive in the actual Union victory at Gettysburg who is usually ignored. And old Daniel Sickles is better treated than he usually is, and frankly I don't think it's unreasonable. He's shown in the book as vain, arrogant, and disdainful of West Pointers, but aggressive, brave, and devoted to the Union, and lastly not quite the buffoon that others have thought him since, all accurate observations, far as I'm concerned.

I enjoyed this book a great deal, and aside from the flaws above, I found it fun. It's not very well-served by the maps in the text (The Killer Angels did a better job of that) but besides that and the misgivings I put forward above, this is a very good alternative history novel.

Rating:
Summary: A very interesting alternate history...
Review: There are several instances in history where things could have gone very differently, lynchpins if you will that could have dramatically altered the future course of events for the modern world. What if during the 2nd Punic War Hasdrubal, bearing war elephants and siege equipment from Spain, had managed to hook up with his brother Hannibal and lay siege to and conquer Rome? And what if Britain had fallen during the Blitz of 1940? Imagine how different the world would be had the Allies failed the D-Day invasion? And make no mistake, each of the above examples were very close things that with only the slightest push *could* have happened.

Certainly before the Battle of Gettysburg there was in no way a definite way to predict who would come out on top. By July 4th it was a foregone conclusion that although the war would continue it would eventually end with the capitulation of the Confederacy. As I read through Michael Shaara's outstanding "The Killer Angels" several months ago I had come to the conclusion that if Lee had listened to Longstreet and moved around to flank the Army of the Potomac things might have turned out differently indeed. At the time I had not picked this book up yet and didn't realize that that was exactly what the authors had in mind too.

This incarnation of the famous battle takes the premise that during the beginning of the battle Lee does in fact listen to Longstreet and move south towards Washington, blocking off Meade's lines of communication and supply. The only other difference that I was able to pick out related to Jeb Stuart's rejoining the army so early, which happened late in the real battle. And with all the pieces set we now have a pretty good idea of what could have happened had Lee used his noodle instead of brute force. As I stated before, I had read "The Killer Angels" before this and I must strongly recommend that if you read nothing else before you read "Gettysburg" then read that. It will be of immense value in that you will know the main characters and their original actions in battle, and conversely will get to see how they may have performed in this version.

Several generals that survived the original battle were killed here, and conversely a few that didn't make it during the original live here. As the Army of the Potomac makes a "Pickett's Charge" of thier own on Lee's army entrenched at Pipe Creek you're really drawn in, particularly as the authors describe the hell it must have been for the men on the front line of each column, describing each volley of Confederate fire from the ridge above with such clarity that it felt as though I was there.

How do the principle characters of "The Killer Angels" fare? Based upon the admittedly limited studying I have done on the subject I must say that each of the characters basic character traits were accurately depicted here. Armistead's sense of chivalry, Pickett and Stuart's yearning for glory, Meade's stubborness, and Chamberlain's quiet stoicism really shine through in key moments, written powerfully enough that at several points I wanted to re-read the passages because the emotion of the moment was too much to let pass with just one read through. The battle in which Chamberlain's 20th Maine defiantly takes on Armistead's entire division was written so well (a strange mix of Rourke's Drift meets Custer's last stand) I almost cried for the bravery on display. And at moments like that I would have to pull myself back and remember that it didn't really happen this way.

Whereas "The Killer Angels" focused on a unique few characters this one by and large focuses on others (although not ignoring the likes of Buford, Chamberlain, or the others) such as the villified politician-general Dan Sickles, Chief of Union Artillery General Henry Hunt, and US Army railroad General Haupt. In this alternate history these characters are the key players. I do hope to see more of the Chamberlain brothers in the future books to be released, and perhaps in this version Winfield Hancock and Lo Armistead will finally be able to meet each other alive and under better circumstances. One can only hope.

I have read a number of the other posts and take issue with several of them that say that the book has a bias in favor of the Confederacy, and especially with regards to the description of the Generals involved. I have to say that I heartily disagree with them. After having read several accounts of Meade I feel he was accurately portrayed here. I do believe that the book does justice to him, even evoking a great deal of sympathy for him at the end. I had nothing but the most utter respect for most of the Union generals as described in the book, even Dan Sickles although history may showcase his faults more than his contributions. The kinder, gentler Robert E. Lee is nowhere to be seen in this book, instead he's portrayed as a barely held in check pit bull with regards to commanding the Army of Northern Virginia, although in between battles we are treated to a more traditional view of the man and his ethics.

Overall I have to give this book 5 stars. We'll never know for sure if the battle would have swung in this direction had only 2 minor changes taken place so early on, but it sure is enjoyable reading it. It is extremely well written and throughout the book you get the feeling that as you read you're going through entirely new territory. I cannot wait to begin on "Grant Comes East" in what is sure to be the showdown of showdowns. I must again *strongly* recommend reading "The Killer Angels" before tackling "Gettysburg".



Rating:
Summary: Good book, but it ain't Gettysburg
Review: They say you can't judge a book by its cover. In this case, you can't judge a book by its cover, its title, the description on the front or back covers, or by the interior title pages. Nowhere in these areas is it mentioned that this is a book of fiction, that is based on a "what if" scenario of Lee's second invasion of the North. I was 220 pages into this "novel" when suddenly the story took a dramatic swerve from being a historical novel to a complete flight of fancy. Not even the much more accurate Shaara novels were so bold as to position themselves in such a fashion. It is a shame, really, because I found the book to be entertaining. I wonder why they felt like they needed to hide the fact that it was a complete work of fiction. What's next? The novel "D-Day" that describes Nazi Germany's annihilation of the 1944 European invasion forces? Or the novel "Pearl Harbor" that describes America's defeat of the Japanese fleet with a pre-emptive fleet battle in early December, 1941. I really felt like I was misled by the authors/publishers and that they sold this book as something it was not - a somewhat historically accurate novelization of the battle of Gettysburg.

Rating:
Summary: War
Review: This book is amazing. Good read with great detail. A must read. Very detailed and shows what would happen if Lee took Gettysburg

Rating:
Summary: Awesome Book!!! (Not a fan of authors politics!)
Review: This is a great book to listen to, I am reviewing the unabridged CDs. I have a hard time turning the car off. Great job and looking for the third book in series, I have finished both now...

Rating:
Summary: Superb!!!
Review: Unlike the review which suggests that only those ignorant of History would find the book "Gettysburg' accurate. I do have a degree or two in the subject and find it remarkably accurate especially , for "What If" History. I felt like I was in the General's tents as they argued about their battle plans. The alternative described is logical and there was obviously a lot of research done as to the personalities of the Officers involved.
Speculative History is flawed because it did not happen that way so we muct judge it on lucidity and probability. Both are superb. I suspect, but acknowledge that I could be wrong, that some critics are politically motivated in slahing this book. The best speculative History book I have ever read. 5 stars.C

Rating:
Summary: A musr read Gettysburg Alternative battle Gem
Review: What a tremendous accomplishment for these two well known writers. I received this book on a Saturday evening and have read it almost straight through. It is a book you just can't set down. I have studied the battle extensively and visited Gettysburg many times. It is so accurate and also explains a lot about the character of the generals and soldiers that I had not imagined before. It is just as good as "The Killer Angels".

I can not wait to read "Grant Comes East".