Customer Reviews

Donnybrook: The Battle of Bull Run, 1861

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is just an excellent telling of the first battle of Manassas. The facts are accurate and the sequence of events is near perfect. Mr. Detzer clearly explains the positions of both armies throughout the book. BUT THE BOOK HAS NO MAPS. This makes it nearly impossible to relate to the author's information. How a book this good could not have maps is an author's and publisher's unacceptable omission. If the reader cannot constantly visualize the stone bridge, The Henry house hill, Matthews hill and other important locations, this will be a most frustrating read. To force the reader to have additional maps and go back and forth between reading and viewing makes the book totally unenjoyable for a reader that does not have a clear understading of the topography. The book is a 10. No maps pulls the rating to a 3. What a shame.

If you have read David Detzer's book Allegiance then you are already familiar with his wonderful writing style. Detzer is really a talented writer and Donnybrook definately lives up to his previous works. It's well researched and well written.

One of the nice things about Detzer's work here is that like with Allegiance, it's not just the story of the Xs and Os of the battle but the political and social atmosphere surrounding it. In the end the reader is left with not just a better understanding of the battle itself but the political pressures involved.

One point I especially enjoyed was the book dealt rather heavily with General Patterson and his failed attempt to hold Johnston's forces in the valley so they could not reinforce Beauregard at Manassas Junction. Detzer shows pretty convincingly that General Winfeld Scott's confusing orders had as much as anything to do with Johnston's ability to escape Patterson and join Beauregard.

My only criticism of this book is that there are no maps of the battle. There is a general map of the Eastern Theater inside the front cover but that's all. While Detzer does a wonderful job in describing the battle and the actions of the units I still think he should have included at least a few to help the reader better understand the movements of the armies.

If you are someone familiar with the battle before reading the book, this shouldn't be a problem. If you are rather new to the battle you might want to look up a map of the battlefield online when reading it. Either way, this is still a fine book so don't let the lack of maps keep you from picking this one up.

You had better have a good understanding of the battlefield becuse the the book has no maps. I can not understand how a publisher would release a battle history or an author would want his book damaged so. If you know enough about the battle to not need maps, this text will not impress you. If you need maps, the text will help you get lost. Either way, you have spent $28 on a semi-good book.

This is a shame as Mr. Detzer's "Allegiance" was excellent and I was looking forward to this book.

This is the third David Detzer American Civil War book I have read and reviewed (The other two are "Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War", and "Dissonance: The Turbulent Days Between Fort Sumter and Bull Run". Both good books I recommend) and I believe this is a good addition to someones understanding of the Battle of first Bull Run. But, you have to realize that the author has his own style and flair that does not sit well with all readers.

First, I want to get the issue of maps out of the way. His first two Civil War books deal with the begining of the war and even they needed more maps than the ones that were included, and they didnt even cover a field battle. To keep track of all the troop movements, attacks, retreats, etc., you have got to have more maps! (I recommend using "The Maps of First Bull Run" by Bradley M. Gottfried as a map guide while reading any book on the battle.) For the experienced Civil War Buff who knows the flow of events, not that big of a deal, for the novice and/or casual reader, I dont know how they could keep up with whats going on? On the positive side for the maps included (my paperback 2005 edition has seven maps) the map showing the route of Johnston's Army of the Valley as it made its way to Manassas was helpful and easy to follow. And the Area of Operations map showing Washington D.C. and Northern Virginia from the Potomac River to Bull Run creek (Loudoun, Fairfax, and Prince William counties Virginia) showed all the roads that Union General McDowell's troops used to advance to Bull Run and was pretty good allowing me to follow the campaign before and after the battle. The other five maps were period maps of the battlefield on 21 July, 1861 that are good for getting an idea of the terrain (they even show all the major terrain features (Matthews Hill, Henry Hill, Chinn Ridge, etc.) but are not very helpful following the troop movements (Especially the insanity on Henry Hill!).

The authors writing style is really good though. This can save military history with insufficient or bad maps and in this book I believe this to be the case. Mr. Detzer has a biting wit and does not pull any punches. As far as an anti-Southern bias? I dont know? In one part of the book he belittles Jackson's performance and that of his brigade in holding Henry Hill but later he gives Jackson and his units credit during the actual fighting where I felt it was due. All of the units were inexperienced as well as their officers at commanding units as big as the ones they were leading on 21 July, 1861, so it was give and take. If a unit could actually manuver as a regiment they were doing pretty good, let alone while fighting and dying.

I felt the authors view of the attack by Stuarts Battalion of the 1st Virginia Cavalry was probably pretty much true, though a lot of people wont(Detzer believes that the incident has been embellished over time). He felt that Beauregard got too much credit for a mediocre performance during the battle (Overall, I agree), and that Joe Johnston did a much better job at Bull Run (Again, I agree). Detzer is the only writer I have read who defends Union General Patterson and his actions in the Shenandoah Valley and does not blame him for the outcome of the battle (He makes a good argument but I dont buy it). I liked the way the book investigated the story behind Jackson's nickname and how he got it (I dont think we will ever know for certain). Also I liked the way he described background for both sides in areas such as tactics, weapons, straggling from units before combat, etc. and the information presented in this book on the medical branches of both armies and their efforts to treat and care for the wounded of both sides is excellent.

I recommend this book, but not as someones only exposure to the history of this campaign and battle. The best single volume I have read on First Manassas/Bull Run is "The First Battle of Manassas" by John Hennessy. Also the map book mentioned earlier to follow the complicated action on the battlefield. Check this book out, but as an enhancement of your knowledge on the subject.

Donnybrook recounts the story of the first battle of Bull Run, inclusive of the months leading up to it and the days immediately following it. The writing is good; the battle descriptions give a real flavor of the confusion of the combatants at all levels. Comparing the action here with battles later in the war is very instructive in terms of seeing how all levels of the military matured with experience.

In terms of weaknesses, the dearth of maps is very unfortunate. Readers interested in following the action will - unless they already know the geography - need a supplemental map. Donnybrook contains just a single map (albeit printed twice), and that map lacks sufficient details and labeling to identify the majority of the critical sites mentioned in the text. Finally, the author scatters through the text a few uncalled for snide and/or cynical remarks about the motives and/or morality of various of the characters.

A good introduction to the first Battle of Bull Run.

Detzer has written one of the better overviews of the campaign and battle of First Manassas or Bull Run. Detzer succeeds with this book for several reasons. First, the book is very easy to read and is broken down in manageable chunks. Detzer further broke the book down with the events before and after the battle. This allows the reader to take everything in and not get too overwhelmed. Second, the mini-biographies of all the players and participants are a good intro to many differing personalities. Third, Detzer has used many, many resources in bringing this book together. Fourth, Detzer does something that few military historians do--he explains to the reader what things like caissons are, how the armies were divided up, and introduces the reader to military jargon and ranking systems. While this may be boring for those with more military knowledge, novices will find this refreshing and helpful. Fifth, Detzer has cut through the legends surrounding this battle and gone right for the truth. He admits that sometimes only conjecture can be applied due to lack of resources, but cuts through many legends and debunks them. Finally, Detzer humanizes the battle. Many military historians tend to just talk about troop movements, casualty lists, and the high ranking commanders while passing over the common soldier. Detzer does not make this mistake. In fact, Detzer argues, very convicingly, what a role such things as heat, dust on a march, lack of water, and lack of food could play on commanders' overall schemes as often times soliders could not, or would not, carry out grand ideas for tactics due to fatigue or hunger, something often overlooked by other military historians. Detzer also, refreshingly, talks about how ludicrous it is to dismiss any battles as minor (as some historians have done with Manassas) due to a lack of casulaties. As Detzer points out, 1 dead soldier leads to many broken hearts.

However, there are a couple negatives. First off, as many others have already pointed out, there are no maps. Books about battles should always have maps. Detzer tries to explain the topographical elements as best he can, but maps are needed. Also, Detzer does seem to have a slight anti-Southern bias and while that doesn't keep him from giving kudos to Southern soldiers and leaders, he does sometimes seem overly harsh or petty when writing about the Confederates. Finally, Detzer's writing style is unique (he adds lots of little tidbits in parentheses, just like this) and takes some getting used too.

Overall, this ranks amongst the best military history books I have read and is certainly one of the best on Manassas. A good read for a novice or hardcore military history buff.

This book is excellent in every way: comprehensive, well-written and well-researched, aspects which do not always accompany each other. The author explains fundamentals in such a way that non-Civil War buffs can understand, but still conveys the more technical and detailed information that enthusiasts demand. I cannot recommend this book too highly.

David Detzer brings an excellent finale to his three book series on the start of the civil war. While not a revealing story of little known events like the first two he provides a different take on the battle of Bull Run. Details of the battle are given within this book but it is not your typical civil war book and the lack of maps is more intentional since it really is about the political fallout and what the military on both sides learned from their encounter. From the defeat of the Union and the retreat to Washington and the rising of Civil War legends like "Stonewall" there is a little something about every side in this book. There is not an inherent bias and what is nice is the coverage of peripheral armies such as those stationed in the Shenandoah, Western Virginia and Harpers Ferry showing their impact on the battle. It is a complete overview and for those who are starting out on civil war history it is a great first book to read. For the more advanced reader of civil war history there is also plenty to gleam since the coverage goes into many areas not looked at as comprehensively by other books. Very highly recommend to those interested in this era of US History.

In a rainy dawn on 22 July 1861 the Federal troops of Gen. Irving McDowell began stumbling into Washington. Many men were so exhausted and broken that they literally dropped to the wet ground and slept. The Battle of First Bull Run had ended, and because initial newspaper censorship had been so effective, the Washington residents were largely unaware that the day before the Confederate army under Gen P. G. T. Beauregard had successfully... well, not defeated the Federals exactly, but certainly repulsed them. Spanked them, if not whipped them.

The collision of these two armies, the significant -- and fascinating -- details of that day and the weeks leading up to it, and the kaleidoscopic nature of battle are the subjects of David Detzer's Donnybrook: The Battle of Bull Run, 1861. He does a masterful job of explaining the sometimes vast difference between battle plans on paper in that age, and what happened in reality, and why. If "donnybrook" can be applied to approximately 40,000 (engaged) troops clashing for hours in regiments and companies and unorganized groups, untried, and confused for most of that day, then Bull Run was indeed a donnybrook. What could go wrong mostly did go wrong, and what went right on both sides was largely blind luck.

Detzer's ability to evoke the physical and psychological conditions of a Civil War battlefield makes this book particularly absorbing. The heat, dust, weariness, dehydration, and lack of discipline had already affected the troops on both sides in trying to reach the expected enemy, to the point that men broke ranks throughout the day to devour handfuls of ripe blackberries in an effort to quench their thirst. Many died with faces equally stained by cartridge powder and berry juice. This was the largest land battle yet fought on American soil, with the railroad just coming into military use, and Detzer captures the uncertainty and ineptness of so many commanders, West Point professionals and Mexican War veterans, confronted with grand strategies gone awry by reality and bad maps.

This book is not definitive because the history of no battle is. Detzer realizes that, and says so, but he does organize the pieces well and turns them up for closer examination.

This is one of the best accounts of a Civil War battle I've read in recent years. Bull Run was the first major battle of the Civil War, of course, and it has as a result entered the narrative of the "Lost Cause" as a missed opportunity, a sterling example of Northern aggression, and an instructive example of the superiority of Southern manhood. Stonewall Jackson, after all, got his nickname here, and various other Confederate Generals (Richard Ewell, James Longstreet, Joseph Johnston, P.G.T. Beauregard) went on from this battle to be influential for much of the rest of the war. Similarly, Union generals like Ambrose Burnside, Oliver O. Howard, and William T. Sherman, participated with varying amounts of success. The battle also had a series of incidents involving various units, each of which became storied later in the war. Included in this group are the First Minnesota, the Second Wisconsin, the whole Stonewall Brigade, and the "Black Horse" cavalry, which eventually became the nucleus of Jeb Stuart's cavalry. This all means that there's a great deal of separating fact from fiction involved in any effort to write a book on this subject, if it's going to be done right anyway. Author Detzer does a wonderful job of this, especially taking on various sacred cows of the Confederate accounts on the battle.

This is one of the better, more detailed, well-written, interesting books describing a battle of the American Civil War that I've read in a long time. The author covers every aspect of the fighting, and the issues that surround it, and he's refreshingly free of the sillier aspects of Civil War history. He does a great deal to slay some of the sacred cows of the battle, noting as a for instance that two of Stonewall Jackson's regiments didn't act stonewall-like at all, running away, and other units fell apart during charges.

The one negative thing regarding the book is the maps. In several of the reviews that I've read regarding this book on this site, reviewers complain that there are no maps. In my trade paperback edition, there are maps, seven of them, in a separate illustration section in the middle of the book. The problem I have is more subtle than those complaining about the lack of maps. The maps in my edition are just not that helpful when you're reading the book. All of the maps included are from the period, except the first two, are from the National Archives or the Library of Congress. Those first two maps are general ones that show the battlefield in one case, and the route Johnston's army took to get to the battle in the other. The rest of the maps are from the period of the war, or just after it. Maps from that era show contour lines and other, considerable detail, which makes them cluttered and hard to read. Also, since the author is being somewhat revisionist about the course of the fighting, the maps (which aren't) don't really reflect the text very well. This situation is a crystal clear example of why the author of such a book should work directly with a cartographer and devise maps that show what he wants to illustrate, so that said maps actually add to the narrative.

Complaints about the maps aside, this is still a very good book. Frankly, if you know the story of the Battle of Bull Run in general, the map issue isn't that important anyway. I really enjoyed this book, and would recommend that any Civil War buff get a copy, along with someone else's atlas of the battlefield.