Customer Reviews

Gettysburg Battlefield: The Definitive Illustrated History

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

This book is full of errors. Here are some, but not all:

P.12 Buford commanded a division not a brigade
P.17 A.A. Humphreys is neither a major general in this image nor at Gettysburg. He was a brigadier.
P.21 Meade took command three, not four days before the battle.
P.22 There were eight Union Corps commanders at Gettysburg, not seven.
P.30 Sykes did not command all the regular army infantry units at Gettysburg. There were US sharpshooters in the 3rd Corps.
P.32 Buford commanded a division, not a brigade, at Gettysburg.
P.34 and 141 The same image is used twice in the book with slightly different captions.
P.41 Image was recorded in 1867, not 1865.
P.47 The photo of the railroad cut at Gettysburg is in fact a photo of Fredericksburg.
The author even provides a modern view of the site at Gettysburg!
P.50 Buford's monument was erected in 1892 not 1895
P.60 Early's Division did not have nearly 6,300 men at Gettysburg, it's closer to 5,500.
P.63 The light bulb atop the Peace Light memorial was replaced in the 1980s not the 1990s.
P.68 Robert E. Rodes was killed outright at Third Winchester, not mortally wounded.
P.77 John Burns and Abraham Lincoln did not attend services in Gettysburg. It was a political rally.
P.78 The view from the square to the Courthouse, is south, not west.
P.82 This image was recorded in July 1886 not c. 1861-1865. More than TWENTY YEARS off.
P.83 The photo was taken in 1886, not "ca. 1861-1865."
P.84 View was taken in 1867 not 1865.
P.85 View was taken in 1867 not 1865.
P.101 The Confederate attack did not swing past the Sherfy house "on the way toward" Devil's Den.
P.112 Confederate movements against the Round Tops did not occur to the north of Devil's Den.
P.112 The other branch of Plum Run fronts Cemetery, not Seminary Ridge.
P.113 Van Horne Ellis was not a fireman before the war; he was a Sea Captain, amongst other things.
P.117 The map key places the fighting at Devil's Den at least a mile away from where it took place.
P.117 On p. 126, Eicher calls it "unfortunate" when Samuel Crawford's middle name is misspelled, yet he spells Vannoy Manning's first name as "Vanney." Unfortunate, indeed.
P.121 The John T. Weikert House is not a wartime structure.
P.122 The photo was taken from Houck's Ridge not from "the area of the Stony Hill." It was recorded in the 1880s, not "ca. 1860s." Any Gettysburg author should know that there were no monuments on the field outside the cemetery until 1878. As to location, to not know that Rose Woods would be in the photographer's way from the Stony Hill to the Round Tops demonstrates a significant lack of understanding about Gettysburg.
P.123 This image is referred to as a variant of that on page 121, yet author is uncertain whether it was Mathew Brady's crew. Of course it is--it's a variant.
P.123 Ellis Spear was a Captain, not a Lt. Col. at Gettysburg. Off by two ranks.
P.124 The 93rd Pennsylvania Monument pictured was erected in 1884, not 1888.
P.128 The 1st Texas fought with the 15th Georgia in Rose Woods, not the 15th Alabama, which was on Little Round Top. Even the most popular regiments at Gettysburg are subject to inaccuracies in this book.
P.131 The white buildings in the distance, clearly on Seminary Ridge, are not those of George W. Weikert which were near Rose Woods.
P.132 The view looks east-southeast, not northeast.
P.135 The map key places the fighting at Devil's Den at least a mile away from where it took place.
P.135 Dan Sickles did not visit his leg at the Army Medical Museum every year.
P.138 and 166 There are two of the EXACT same historic photos of Little Round Top in two different places labeled as different photos. There are TWO DIFFERENT MODERN views roughly 150 feet apart for the SAME PHOTO! Finally, he labels one of the views as July 6, 1863, and the other as July 6 or 7, 1863. How could someone writing a book of this sort not know that he had two of the exact same photo? How can there be two different moderns?
P.139 The map key places the fighting at Devil's Den and Little Round Top at least a mile away from where it took place.
P.142 In speculating that this image is among the last recorded by Gardner's crew at Gettysburg, the date given is July 6, 1863. Yet, elsewhere in the book, Gardner views are dated as late as July 9 (p.78).
P.143 The two images were not recorded from different angles. They are the same angle but with different cameras.
P.145 Photographer (Gardner), location of the image (crest of LRT) and month (July) of both images are all known. All are listed as questionable or "unknown" in the book. Incredibly the famous "Warren Rock" and the distinctive tree next to it appear in the image on the right.
P.146 The photo labeled as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is in fact it is a photo of General Edwin Stoughton. Of all of the people to not recognize at Gettysburg Joshua Chamberlain!
P.158 While so many modern images are poorly recorded in this book, this one is among the weakest. See pp. 157, 161, 167, 172, 179 and others for more flawed examples.
P.169 This book claims to be definitive yet is missing many, many, known images of wartime Gettysburg. On this page, this series is represented by but three of five different, known images.
P.195 Top view was taken in 1867 not 1865.
P.195 Bottom view was taken in 1867 not 1865.
P.201 Top left view was taken in 1867 not 1865.
P.202 All four historic Tyson views on this page were taken in 1867 not 1865.
P.212 The Copse of Trees is in the wrong place. It almost seems a deliberate effort to make mistakes on Gettysburg's most well-known features.

I found this book to be an useful photographic guide to the battlefield of Gettysburg. The text appears to be well written and I enjoyed the comparsion photos between how the battlefield look back then compared to modern time. There have been comparison made between this book and William A. Frassanito's Gettysburg: A Journey in Time. I think both books got a lot of merit. Difference lies in presentation. Frassanito's book is all in black and white. Eicher's book got color photos. I liked color photos since it gives a more "modern" look in comparison to the old. Many of the color photos seem to be pretty well shot as well. It would be great if we can somehow combined both books together. I think both books supplement each other very nicely.

Eicher's book got a lot of flak for some its numerous errors and typos. I supposed most readers can overlook that to a certain degrees. But the critics is right about one thing, that isn't Joshua Chamberlain above his name. Its rather surprising that this author would make such an error since Chamberlain is well known thanks to that movie. As for the photo sizes, yes they are rather on the small size. I can lived with it but I wondered why they were arranged in such a way?

But overall, this book proves to be well worth the time and effort for anyone interested in the Gettysburg campaign. Its an overwritten subject matter but the interest carrys on generation after generation.

Brilliant - not reliable - superb - buyer beware - excellent - a total disappointment - gorgeous - design flaws - beautiful - didn't pass the laugh test - struck gold. What's going on here?

When I read these reviews, I marveled that so many people could see the same thing so differently. Naturally I had to buy this book to find out for myself.

Frassanito set the standard, no question, and Eicher gives great deference to him throughout, but Frassanitos work is not without fault. His "modern" pictures are always irritatingly taken ten steps to the left or fiften to the right instead of precisely where the original photographer stood. His theory about the soldier being drug uphill to the snipers den pretty well put him on the map, but compelling new evidence now indicates O'Sullivan drug the soldier downhill to prevent Waud from scooping him in Harpers Weekly. My point is that nobody's perfect and nobody "owns" Gettysburg's history.

I loved the "modern" color shots in Eicher's book as well as his obvious attempt to position his camera in exactly the same location as his counterpart. The mini-essays by the notible scholars added greatly.

It's obvious to me that there is something going on of which I'm not aware. No one without a grudge, an ulterior motive or a pecuniary interest would ever give this book one star. It's way too good for that.

The small pictures and the numerous tickey-tac errors are legitimate criticisms however, and anyone with a serious interest in Gettysburg couldn't, in all honesty, give it five stars either.

My advice: Buy it used for $15 and you wont be disappointed.

I've been reading on the Civil War for more than 40 years, yet I do not claim to be an expert. I like to think of myself as just an average 'joe' who has several Civil War discharges hanging on the wall from relatives. So I read to learn about those times and events, and also to gain understanding into what made members on both sides of our family put on Union blue, costing 5 lives on my mother's side of the family.

I've read the other reviews here and know nothing of the politics or discrediting, or errors contained within this volume. I purchased this volume and would not ask for the money back, I am satisfied. Further I have several other photographic volumes, including all of William Frassanito's, and can state for myself that I've yet to see a better overall compilation concerning Gettysburg. Some have complained of the small size of photos, well many years back when acquiring the 6-volume set of THE IMAGE OF WAR: 1861-1865, I purchased a magnifying glass and have no problem putting it to use where this Gettysburg volume is concerned.

As far as typos or incorrect information goes, does there exist any book ever published that is a complete and correct one without errors. I have found that today's editing is not as good as it once was, and I believe desktop publishing to be the culprit. Also, after spending 12 years in college, I'm certain not all editors graduated at the top of their class.

I will no doubt come in for my share of criticism concerning this review, but I rhetorically have to ask, "What more could the average person expect from a volume this size on a subject as vast as Gettysburg?"

Existing errors not withstanding, this is an admirable effort by the author, and a very worthwhile volume. I'm satisfied to have it on the shelf among many other volumes of the American Civil War.

Semper Fi.

I first visited Gettysburg in November 2005 and I've been fascinated by this historic battlefield ever since. Some of it may be due to the fact that my great-great-grandfather fought there and was wounded on the second day of fighting in the Wheatfield. In touring Gettysburg today, it's often difficult to get a feel for just how bad the carnage was. Gettysburg Battlefield: The Definitive Illustrated History by David J. Eicher is probably the best means to see Gettysburg through the eyes of Civil War soldiers.

Eicher includes hundreds of photographs that show scenes from Gettysburg, both before the battle and immediately afterward. But then he also includes modern day photos taken of the same locations from the same angles. These before and after pictures are haunting. It is hard to look at the peaceful Devil's Den of today and imagine the violence that occurred there. Eicher also includes dozens of maps as well as portraits of key figures.

What makes Gettysburg Battlefield more than just a picture book is the commentary. In addition to Eicher's own narrative, he includes 15 different essays from 14 guest Gettysburg experts. Eicher was looking for little known stories about this famous battle. There were two that I found interesting. One involved the NY 45th Infantry. Many of these German-Americans were captured and then transported to Southern prisons. Their monument is off the beaten path next to a soccer field. Another recounts the saga of The God Tree--one of a dozen witness trees that still survive from 1863.

One thing kept me from giving Gettysburg Battlefield five stars, and that is that fact that there are a number of errors. But overall, the photographs are the main reason I purchased this book and they alone are well worth the expense. This truly is a "visual remembrance."

This book is a total disappointment. There is a photo of Fredericksburg identified as Gettysburg. There are scores of other errors. There are no significant new finds. I have seen all of the historic photos in other places. The photoreproduction is decidedly poor in most places. Again, a total disappoitment!

I have visited the Gettysburg battlefield on numerous occaisions. Everytime that I'm there I bring with me many, many photographs from Brady, Gardner etc. As a result, after hours and hours of exploration, I've been able to recreate 'then and now' photos that are far more accurate than what this book offers. The 'now' photos in this book are not lined up accurately with the 'then' photos. Sure, it is the same area, but with a little extra effort they certainly could have recreated the angles that Brady, Gardner, etc. had shot from. Yet, while the photos are definatley disappointing, this book still provides a wealth of information about the Battlefield. I'm sure that any novice will enjoy this book. If you really want to see what it looks like now, however, you will need to go there for yourself, or explore more specific works.

First saw this book at a bed and breakfast in Gettysburg and knew I had to have it. Very interesting.
L.Sweigart
Pennsylvania

Eicher has done a mostly superb job despite a few errors here and there. The Chamberlain one has been pointed out, and in Ted Alexander's essay on the first Union soldier to die at Gettysburg, he points out that a Cpl. William Rihl of the New York Lincoln Cavalry was killed at Fleming's farm on June 22, 1863 in action with Jenkins' Confederate Cavalry.

On the other hand, the masterful Noah Andre Trudeau in his: "Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage" notes that Private George Sandoe, of Captain Robert Bell's Pennsylvania cavalry squadron, was the first to die at Gettysburg, killed on the 26th,on the town's western outskirts, while valiantly trying to stop the onslaught of Lige White's cavalry, attached to John Gordon's division of Jubal Early's corps.

I have always been intrigued by the story of Bell's little cavalry squadron, which tried to stop Gordon's initial march into the town, and was scattered for its efforts. Bell and his men seem to drop off the pages of history, save for Trudeau's work.

Eicher also seems to subscribe to the same criticisms of Alfred Pleasonton (the Union Cavalry commander)that Edward Longacre, and more recent historians have seem to suggest. Still Pleasonton performed very capably and competent when he was allowed to by Meade. Meade didn't like cavalry, and as an engineer officer inspecting and improving lighthouses along America's eastern coast before the war, had developed a dislike for Pleasonton's father, a government bureacrat. Simply stated, Pleasonton didn't not have the slack that Phil Sheridan had, later on, under Grant. Eicher also suggests that the doomed Elon Farnsworth never received his Brigadier General commission when he was killed in Kilpatrick's senseless cavalry charge in the vicinity of the Round Tops immediately following Pickett's repulse. When nearly all other sources, including Longacre, suggested that he had.

The Cavalry actions on the third day are as usual, minimally covered. The brisk fight between Custer and Stuart so recently well-covered in Tom Carhart's "Last Triumph" at least rates an two-page essay. The Farnsworth charge only merits two paragraphs.

Eicher was wise to invite fellow Civil War Historians to provide a number of very well-written essays, and while all of them are exceptional, the beginning one written by James McPherson, arguably our greatest living historian, is a compelling one that urges all Americans who love their history to visit the Gettysburg Battlefield and get that sense of what is was like then.

Photograph choices are very, very good. Some of Eicher's photographs could have easily been taken by anyone with a Kodak instamatic and a good printer, but overall they still convey very well the now as opposed to the then. Many of the "old" photographs collected seem to have been printed with a deliberately "grainy" image - note the photo of Buford and his staff, or the remarkable one of Lee near the beginning of the book. I happen to like the effect; some other readers might not.

Well-worth it as an addition to your Civil War bookshelf if purchased at amazon's nice bargain price, and as another reviewer said, would blend in well if you have artifacts of the battle, as I do. Still, I wouldn't pay the full or the paperback price.

Yes, the competition is trying hard to cry foul, but it hasn't worked too well.

This gorgeous book is a joy to own and peruse regularly, whether one is seeking new details on a particular aspect of the battle, or just a very pleasant coffee-table "tour" of the battlefield. Eicher's modern photographs are masterful, and his excellent, elegant writing does much to underscore the wonderful photographic presentation. The equally fine maps and sidebar contributions add a very nice breadth to the book.

I'm put off by the base, unwarranted, yet concerted effort by friends of another author to attack Eicher, and proud to recommend this book to *my* many Civil War friends!