Customer Reviews

Gettysburg: An Alternate History

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

 

 

Peter G. Tsouras' Gettysburg: An Alternate History is an interesting investigation of intriguing "what if" issues surrounding the greatest battle of the American Civil War. Military readers and historians will wade through the somewhat dry "blow-by-blow" and arrive at a better understanding of key issues of the battle which are not always obvious in accounts of the actual battle. On the other hand, the general public will not find this book appealing at all but rather, tedious and confusing.

Unlike other works of alternate history, which tend to effect only one change in a historical situation, Tsouras' narrative on Gettysburg poses five major changes. These changes are: (1) what if Stuart had turned up sooner, on the evening of 1 July 1863? (2) what if Ewell had conducted a more vigorous pursuit onto Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill on the night of 1 July? (3) what if Longstreet had persuaded Lee in allowing a wider Confederate envelopment of the Union left flank on 2 July? (4) what if the Confederates had mounted a larger, better coordinated assault against the Union center on 3 July? and (4) what if the Union had mounted a major counterattack after the failure of Longstreet's assault? Tsouras has encompassed the most intriguing possibilities about the battle in this account, but it probably would have been better to "de-link" the alternate events by means of an anthology. By putting all five alternatives into play in the same sequential account, plus other alternate events like Meade and Lee becoming casualties, the alternative nature of this account threatens to snowball out of control.

Tsouras' alternate history does help to highlight certain aspects of the two armies that will be interesting to military readers. First, the early return of Stuart demonstrates the reliance that Lee placed on that trusted commander, rather than just his five brigades of cavalry. Actually, Lee retained several other brigades of cavalry under his control but failed to make use of them in Stuart's (historical) absence. For Lee, Stuart was his Reconnaissance and Security (R&S) asset, not the actual cavalry units. Instead of just moaning, "where is Stuart, where is Stuart?" the historical Lee should have been re-constituting his R&S capability from other cavalry available. This failure to adapt was a major command failure on Lee's part - which has been obscured in actual histories of the campaign - which tend to affix great blame on Stuart. A second military issue that is revealed in this alternative history is the superior Union artillery organization (as opposed to technical and numerical superiority, which is frequently mentioned). The Union artillery at Gettysburg was under the firm central control of Major General Hunt, who coordinated both the artillery reserve and corps artillery. On the other hand, the Army of Northern Virginia maintained much weaker control over its artillery, lacking a central artillery reserve or a senior officer willing to coordinate the artillery of its three corps. Military readers will see in this issue the antecedents of the argument between "decentralization" and "centralization" in fire support with the latter winning in this case. Indeed, Tsouras' alternative clearly places the Union artillery center stage because three times it is the artillery that saves the Army of the Potomac when the Confederates achieve breakthroughs. The need to mass and redeploy artillery quickly was less urgent in the actual battle, but a major asset of the Union army nevertheless.

The weakest aspects of this alternative history are the chosen methodology and insufficient maps to follow the narrative. Tsouras follows in the footsteps of legendary Gettysburg park historian Harry Pfanz and elects to describe the movements, attacks and retreats of virtually every regiment in the battle. This is tedious and unenlightening. At times, the narrative becomes clogged and confusing, with too much low-level detail which does not aid the reader's understanding of how this battle differs from the actual battle. Furthermore, there is a gross insufficiency of sketch maps to follow the battle (nor can the readers use other books on Gettysburg, since the action deviates sharply from the historical dispositions), particularly in the crucial fighting on 2 July. Sedgwick's Union VI Corps movements, which cause Longstreet's flanking attack to unravel, are not even depicted.

As for the "alternate" outcome of this version of Gettysburg, southern readers will not be pleased. Instead of merely suffering a major defeat as they actually did in July 1863, in this alternative history the Confederates suffer a military catastrophe that results in the war ending shortly thereafter. Such a catastrophe was most improbable and readers should consider that a single battle that decisively ends a war - a la Hastings in 1066 - are exceedingly rare in military history. Even after great defeats, armies are often capable of slipping away to recuperate and rebuild. Not here. Furthermore, very few battles in the Civil War achieved anything like decisive results due to the limits of the technology, doctrine and training of the citizen armies involved. That the Confederates would mount a massive 35,000-man charge into massed Union artillery after suffering greater-than-historical losses on 2 July seems really improbable. It seems even less likely that a Union army that was so badly hurt could mount such a decisive end-the-war pursuit after Longstreet's attack fails. In particular, this account tends to elevate Union General Hancock to Napoleonic stature - which is in vogue now thanks to his coronation as "a great general" in Shaara's classic, The Killer Angels. Maybe if Hancock had succeeded Meade on 3 July he would have mounted an aggressive counterattack to crush the Confederates once and for all, but readers should consider that Hooker and Burnside had been aggressive corps commanders who choked when given the senior command. Given the scenario presented here, Hancock would have been just as inclined to "play it safe" since both armies were essentially "fought out."

The author demonstrates an excellent understanding of today's "conventional wisdom" as it pertains to the military decision making at Gettysburg. In specific, a more orderly Union command structure prevailed over that of their dis-jointed Confederate counterparts. Moreover, the author grasps what scholars have suggested in many recent thesis. The loss of Stonewall Jackson, and subsequent re-structuring of his command under inferior leadership, was the key reason victory elluded the south on day one and two of the campaign.

The alternative scenarios presented in this work are based on this understanding. To the reader this is critical, as the incompetence of General Ewell and General Early makes almost everything else presented in the work as possible. Their failures to seize the high ground at the outset and/or adequately support the Confederate assaults on day two work true to form in both the real, and alternate, worlds. Simply put, the outcome of the battle is the same. In the alternate history the reader will find the result more decisive though. I must also commend the author's understanding of the order of battle. There is little misrepresentation of troop placement or strength. The one exception being that of each side's calvary forces. In fact, this is the one aspect of the work a "purist" will find to be problematic. There were all too few great calvary-against-calvary conflicts in the American Civil War. Many battlefields, such as Antietam and the Wilderness, did not lend themselves to it. The field at Gettysburg is also hard to imagine as being the site of a monumental clash of men and horses. A step too far in my opinion.

I do recommend this book to any student of the battle of Gettysburg. It is entertaining, well written and, overall, realistic.

Peter G. Tsouras' Gettysburg: An Alternate History is an interesting investigation of intriguing "what if" issues surrounding the greatest battle of the American Civil War. Military readers and historians will wade through the somewhat dry "blow-by-blow" and arrive at a better understanding of key issues of the battle which are not always obvious in accounts of the actual battle. On the other hand, the general public will not find this book appealing at all but rather, tedious and confusing.

Unlike other works of alternate history, which tend to effect only one change in a historical situation, Tsouras' narrative on Gettysburg poses five major changes. These changes are: (1) what if Stuart had turned up sooner, on the evening of 1 July 1863? (2) what if Ewell had conducted a more vigorous pursuit onto Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill on the night of 1 July? (3) what if Longstreet had persuaded Lee in allowing a wider Confederate envelopment of the Union left flank on 2 July? (4) what if the Confederates had mounted a larger, better coordinated assault against the Union center on 3 July? and (4) what if the Union had mounted a major counterattack after the failure of Longstreet's assault? Tsouras has encompassed the most intriguing possibilities about the battle in this account, but it probably would have been better to "de-link" the alternate events by means of an anthology. By putting all five alternatives into play in the same sequential account, plus other alternate events like Meade and Lee becoming casualties, the alternative nature of this account threatens to snowball out of control.

Tsouras' alternate history does help to highlight certain aspects of the two armies that will be interesting to military readers. First, the early return of Stuart demonstrates the reliance that Lee placed on that trusted commander, rather than just his five brigades of cavalry. Actually, Lee retained several other brigades of cavalry under his control but failed to make use of them in Stuart's (historical) absence. For Lee, Stuart was his Reconnaissance and Security (R&S) asset, not the actual cavalry units. Instead of just moaning, "where is Stuart, where is Stuart?" the historical Lee should have been re-constituting his R&S capability from other cavalry available. This failure to adapt was a major command failure on Lee's part - which has been obscured in actual histories of the campaign - which tend to affix great blame on Stuart. A second military issue that is revealed in this alternative history is the superior Union artillery organization (as opposed to technical and numerical superiority, which is frequently mentioned). The Union artillery at Gettysburg was under the firm central control of Major General Hunt, who coordinated both the artillery reserve and corps artillery. On the other hand, the Army of Northern Virginia maintained much weaker control over its artillery, lacking a central artillery reserve or a senior officer willing to coordinate the artillery of its three corps. Military readers will see in this issue the antecedents of the argument between "decentralization" and "centralization" in fire support with the latter winning in this case. Indeed, Tsouras' alternative clearly places the Union artillery center stage because three times it is the artillery that saves the Army of the Potomac when the Confederates achieve breakthroughs. The need to mass and redeploy artillery quickly was less urgent in the actual battle, but a major asset of the Union army nevertheless.

The weakest aspects of this alternative history are the chosen methodology and insufficient maps to follow the narrative. Tsouras follows in the footsteps of legendary Gettysburg park historian Harry Pfanz and elects to describe the movements, attacks and retreats of virtually every regiment in the battle. This is tedious and unenlightening. At times, the narrative becomes clogged and confusing, with too much low-level detail which does not aid the reader's understanding of how this battle differs from the actual battle. Furthermore, there is a gross insufficiency of sketch maps to follow the battle (nor can the readers use other books on Gettysburg, since the action deviates sharply from the historical dispositions), particularly in the crucial fighting on 2 July. Sedgwick's Union VI Corps movements, which cause Longstreet's flanking attack to unravel, are not even depicted.

As for the "alternate" outcome of this version of Gettysburg, southern readers will not be pleased. Instead of merely suffering a major defeat as they actually did in July 1863, in this alternative history the Confederates suffer a military catastrophe that results in the war ending shortly thereafter. Such a catastrophe was most improbable and readers should consider that a single battle that decisively ends a war - a la Hastings in 1066 - are exceedingly rare in military history. Even after great defeats, armies are often capable of slipping away to recuperate and rebuild. Not here. Furthermore, very few battles in the Civil War achieved anything like decisive results due to the limits of the technology, doctrine and training of the citizen armies involved. That the Confederates would mount a massive 35,000-man charge into massed Union artillery after suffering greater-than-historical losses on 2 July seems really improbable. It seems even less likely that a Union army that was so badly hurt could mount such a decisive end-the-war pursuit after Longstreet's attack fails. In particular, this account tends to elevate Union General Hancock to Napoleonic stature - which is in vogue now thanks to his coronation as "a great general" in Shaara's classic, The Killer Angels. Maybe if Hancock had succeeded Meade on 3 July he would have mounted an aggressive counterattack to crush the Confederates once and for all, but readers should consider that Hooker and Burnside had been aggressive corps commanders who choked when given the senior command. Given the scenario presented here, Hancock would have been just as inclined to "play it safe" since both armies were essentially "fought out."

"Gettysburg: An Alternative History" is a fascinating look at many of the major "what if's" of the Battle of Gettysburg. What if Ewell had pushed his attack on the first night of the battle? What if Longstreet had swung farther to the right before launching his assault on the second day? What if the grand Confederate attack on Cemetery Ridge on the third day had been better supported? These and other might have been's are addressed. The book is written in the form of a history of the battle as if it had been fought with these "what if's" actually taking place. And it is well illustrated with photographs, maps, and even paintings and engravings of these events-that-never-were. Tsouras, a professional military intelligence analyst, writes in a lucid, exciting style, filling his narrative with eyewitness accounts from the men who did the fighting. Anyone strongly interested in the key battle should enjoy and learn from this book. By asking (and answering) these "what if" questions, Mr. Tsouras prompts us all to think about the how's and why's of the actual battle

For those interested in the Civil War, in the military past overall, or in thought-provoking propositions, author Tsouras's lively pursuit of the what-ifs of Gettysburg makes stimulating and worthwhile reading. I have read a number of the author's wide-ranging books on military affairs, and believe this is the best one with which to begin. It is knowledgeable--and fun. The book never feels forced--there is always a sense that Tsouras is in absolute command of the material. The result is a dead-accurate recreation, followed by a fascinating variation on the different course history might have taken, and all smoothly presented. Well done! I recommend this work strongly.

I am not a fan of alternate history. This book, however, has definitely changed my mind. The only thing a reader has to watch out for, though, is that the further you get in this excellent book, the more realistic it becomes, and you have to make sure you keep in touch with reality.

I thoroughly emjoyed this book. It is highly readable, the scenarios as they play out are highly believable, and the author skillfully weaves a tale that immediately grabs the readers interest. I found myself thinking 'too bad it didn't happen this was' as that most tragic of wars would have been shortened by almost two years and so many lives saved in the bargain. So much for wishful thinking.

I especially liked the way in which the author brought in characters that weren't players in the actual battle, such as 'Uncle John' Sedgwick and Captain Ulric Dahlgren, both of whom would be killed in action in 1864.

Finally, the ambush and capture of the ambulance and escort for the wounded Robert E. Lee was superbly done.

Peter Tsouras has woven an intricate, highly believable tale blending fact and fiction to deliver a smash hit piece of alternate history that should be on the bookshelf of every Civil War enthusiast.

This book is highly recommended.

Peter Tsouras' book, GETTYSBURG AN ALTERNATE HISTORY, has an interesting premise, as do most alternative history books. However, the author spends so much time and space using and documenting quotations from an endless list of sources that one has to wonder whether these outnumber his own words and whether the book truly deserves being classified as a work of `fiction'. In addition, the chapters and segments within each chapter are so disjointed that there is really no "flow" to the book. An "alternate outcome" for the battle of Gettysburg ends up as a minor point compared to the overuse of documentation and quotations and the overwhelming and constant parade of names. It seemed that there was not a Union or Confederate commander, officer, soldier, division, brigade, or corps that was not mentioned ad nauseam. Rather than an alternate history, this should be called a definitive bibliography. If you are looking for an entertaining and very believable alternate ending for Gettysburg, the Newt Gingerich-William Forstchen book is a much better choice.

The Battle of Gettysburg remains the most compelling topic for "What ifs" in American military history. A large part of the reason for this is the insistent belief that if only the Army of Northern Virginia had won the three day battle in southern Pennsylvania that the Southern Confederacy would have or could have won the Civil War. As is the case in any battle there were strategic and tactical mistakes made by both sides and it is easy to think that knowing where the pitfalls are you can replay the battle and change the outcome.

In "Gettysburg: An Alternate History" author Peter G. Tsouras ("Disaster at D-Day") focuses on four key controversies: (1) Jeb Stuart's failure to arrival at the battle until the close of the second day; (2) the tension between Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet over the nature of the invasion of the North; (3) the poorly co-ordinated and understrength attack of the Union center on the third day; and (4) the failure of George Gordon Meade to order a counter-attack following the repulse of the Pickett's charge.

This alternate history is presented as "an attempt to rationally explore what changed might have occurred and then track their geometric rate of change in the situation, producing in the end a different outcome." Tsouras insists that each of his alternate events is firmly anchored in the context of what actually happened "and are all within the scope of what was genuinely possible." However, I think he hamstrings himself in terms of the conceit he adopts in the writing of this book.

Tsouras writes "Gettysburg: An Alternate History" as if it were a history book from an alternative reality. Specifically that involves providing footnotes from recognized memoirs and histories, such as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's "'Bayonet! Forward!' My Civil War Reminiscences" and Douglas Southall Freeman's "Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command." However, there are also fictional sources, marked my asterisks, which allow Tsouras to give the same sense of historical weight to the divergent path of his narrative.

But because most of the footnotes are indeed from real works, Tsouras puts himself in the position of cutting and pasting historic testimony into his alternate history. This means that he is constantly compelled to have history repeat itself, albeit in a slightly different way. For example, Chamberlains' 20th Maine is still the end of the Union line and still on Little Round Top on the second day of the battle, but this time the extreme right instead of the extreme left. The 1st Minnesota is still ordered by Winfield Scott Hancock to charge a vastly superior Confederate force, to a different effect, and George Pickett still says the same stirring words before the charge that will no longer bear his name.

Ultimately there is a sense that most of these changes are minor because in the end the final charge still takes place on the third day and still converges on the Angle on Cemetery Ridge. The big difference is that it is now a charge of 35,000 rebel troops, essentially entire strength of the Confederate army on the field. Many readers will also be struck by the idea that in the end Tsouras stacks the deck because to play out his new end game the way he wants he contrives to replace the leadership of both armies for the climax. In other words, having laid the groundwork for the Confederate attack to have its best chance, he tips the scale back the other way with a relatively minor move. Undoubtedly this move will offend some readers while others will be gratified by it.

The thesis of Tsouras' alternate history is clearly that correcting the key mistakes made by the Confederacy at Gettysburg would not have changed the outcome of the battle. In other words, Lee can take his best shot at the Army of the Potomac, it is not going to matter in the end. However, the book ends rather abruptly, with an epilogue devoted entirely to the fact of one key actor in the drama, and without exploring the alternate history that would result from this outcome except for a few footnotes, the most important of which would be the second one in the epilogue.

That alternate history after the battle's conclusion matters because if the Civil War essentially ends in July 1863 with a decisive Union victory at Gettysburg coupled with the surrender of Vicksburg to U.S. Grant in the West, then we avoid both the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the destructive march through Georgia of William Tecumseh Sherman's Army of the Tennessee. Avoiding the blight of Reconstruction, which was not undone until the Civil Rights movement a century later, is certainly a laudable goal in constructing an alternate history and one that I believe is the driving force of the trilogy being written by Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen. Their novel "Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War" strays far a field, literally, from the original battlefield in marked contrast to the constraints Tsouras chooses to work under in his own novel.

But one of the goals of these alternate histories is to be provocative and Tsouras surely meets that goal. Besides, it is not like anybody is ever going to have the final word on this debate and the two camps regarding the pivotal question of whether the Confederacy could have won the war at Gettysburg are even more firmly entrenched that the red and blue sides fighting out the electoral map this November. That is merely presidential politics whereas here we are talking about the Civil War. Final Note: Readers are warned to ignore the photographs and illustrations collected in the center of the book, or at least their captions, until they finish reading the book, because they give away many of the key details of the game.

So close, so very, very close
Peter G. Tsouras' Gettysburg: An Alternate History, is a fun read for those who are more than a little familiar with that monumental battle. He sets the table well with historical pre-battle events. The First day is pretty much as it was and things do not start to change dramatically until the bloody 2nd day of battle. It is interesting how Mr. Tsouras gets Robert E. Lee to change his original battle plan and adopt General James Longstreet's tactical plan. Allowing Longstreet to use his plan of attack on the 2nd day changes General Longstreet's enthusiasm for battle. He takes aggressively takes charge and the battle is joined on General Meade's left flank and rear. Still the fog of war allows the Union to whether the storm although left in a precarious state. Day 3 would tell the tell in Mr. Tsouras' alternate battle of Gettysburg.

Day 3 dawned clear and hot with Robert E. Lee in relatively good shape compared to General Meade's somewhat precarious position. Still the outcome was in somewhat of doubt as General Lee decides to attack the middle of the Union line. Massing over 35,000 Confederate troops to be led by General James Longstreet after a thunderous cannonade, It certainly appeared to everyone that General Lee had the upper hand. The final battle was joined with General Longstreet leading his gallant troops in the field: 35,000 strong. Mr. Tsouras' outcome is indeed an alternate history worth reading.

I liked this book. I enjoyed Mr. Tsouras' use of maps, interesting dialog, and alternate possibilities. The Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill day 2 action was very interesting. I also enjoyed how he kept pretty close to actual history concerning the 1st day's events. All in all a fun read for civil war buffs. Beware for the uninitiated for this is an alternate history with days 2 and 3 radically different from what really happened at Gettysburg. Could this have actually happened as Mr. Tsouras portrays? That's the fun of What IF scenarios; anything is possible in an alternate universe!!

Tsouras does a very thorough job of writing an account of how the battle of Gettysburg could have gone. This is both his greatest asset and his greatest debit. True Civil War buffs (the kind that visit battlefield sites for their vacations, and model them to scale in their basements)will absolutely love all the incredible detail Tsouras packs into this novel (for THEM the book gets a resounding 10, the 3 is for the rest of us). They will lick their lips in anticipation as they recognize a deviation from the "real" history and anticipate where it may lead. Everyone else will hate it because you will be completely lost within 10 pages unless you happen to be remember every last regimental and brigade commander involved in the battle. Top it off with Tsouras' writing in the format of a college history text, and you'll soon be bored enough to OFFER to apply the fungus cream to your mother in-law's toenails - just for the excitement.