13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Truly Outstanding!, November 8, 2004
This review is from: Decision in the West: The Atlanta Campaign of 1864 (Modern War Studies) (Paperback)
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.
Theo Logos
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good work about an important battle...., January 21, 2000
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
