Most Helpful Customer Reviews
15 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Perhaps the best battlefield History of the Civil War, May 4, 2003
I'd never heard of David J. Eicher when I picked up this book. He has written about the Civil War before, notably doing a book-length bibliography (The Civil War in Books) and a book on Civil War battlefields, but his only narrative work of book length prior to the present work is a picture book on Robert E. Lee. Apparently, he's rather young and this is a first effort; who knows what he'll come up with next. The Longest Night is one of the best books I've ever read on the Civil War, and I have read a considerable amount of stuff. Eicher spends little time on the politics of the war, instead devoting most of his attention to the seemingly endless series of battles and campaigns that were once called the "American Iliad." He exhibits an awe-inspiring command of sources and narrative, and must have an encyclopedic knowledge of Civil War combat. In addition to every major battle, more minor fights and even skirmishes are mentioned at least if not covered thoroughly. The maps seem to represent the battles they cover well, though occasionally they fall short of complete. I suppose that's inevitable given the size of the book. I suppose I should comment on the bias allegations and the one fellow complaining about General Blunt being on the train. The bias involved here isn't pro-Northern, it's insufficiently pro-Southern. On two of the more controversial issues of Civil War history, the Dahlgren affair and the Fort Pillow Massacre, the author essentially stays out of the controversy, presenting the evidence briefly, and then leaving it up to the reader to decide. With the Lincoln assassination, he acknowledges the work done by William A. Tidwell, connecting the Davis administration with the plot, then baldly asserts that there's no proof the Confederates were directly involved in the assassination. In all three of these instances, a true pro-Northern author would be much more positive in his assertions; Eicher's just telling you what happened. And the reference to Blunt's wagon train even specifies how many teams of horses and mules were captured. No mention of locomotives is made. I did have a few quibbles with the book, largely with the way the information is presented, though none of this is enough to lower my rating from 5 stars. For one thing, throughout the book there are passages describing various topical aspects of the Civil War: medical procedures and casualties, what the troops were armed with, how prisoners were dealt with, etc. For my money Eicher would have done better to put these in a separate chapter at the beginning of the book, or in an appendix. The chapters carry titles, but they only describe one event that occurs in each, and each is stuffed full of events. I would have liked to see the old style chapter sub-headings, or perhaps page headers describing what's going on on that page, along with the date of the events. When he listed ships, he seemed to be unaware he didn't need to put USS or CSS before every ship's individual name. Given all of that, there's a mountain of information here, and it's well-presented. The author tells you of the passing of every general in either army, and the cause of death. He also makes an effort to correct previous works which credit various soldiers with promotion. Several reviewers seem to think he was bragging in this regard; it looked to me as if he was making sure everyone was on the same page. He singled out no one for special criticism. One last point. In the forward, Eicher gives an overview of previous books on the Civil War, justifying his work. Let me quote his description of Catton's Centennial History of the Civil War: "...relatively light on military history and analysis, rich in the political relations between officers, and superb in it's biographical glimpses of the characters." I'm a fan of Catton, was raised on him, and that seems a fair assessment to me. Eicher's main critique of the Centennial History is that it was written forty years ago, and much scholarship has been done since on the Civil War, so that it's rather dated. Not exactly negative, is it? On Foote, he criticises him for pro-Southern bias, comparing the way the author dealt with Lincoln and Davis, and Grant and Foote, and quotes that author from several points in his work, pointing out passages that prove his point (in his mind anyway). This goes back to the issue of bias, and kind of proves what I was saying earlier. Eicher is determined not to be biased, and works at it. Taking all of that in mind, this is a wonderful book to spend a weekend or an evening with, if you're a Civil War buff. It's not for the faint of heart: the text runs to 850 pages, and covers every military event concievable for the four years plus of the war. Every twenty pages or so he breaks down the organization of the opposing armies again, and after each battle he runs through the casualties, noting which generals got killed or wounded, if any. There is so much information here it's staggering, and the writing, while not quite Shelby Foote, is certainly good. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Civil War.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
41 of 48 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The Longest Read, March 7, 2002
This review is from: The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War (Hardcover)
David J. Eicher's "The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War" is more than a military history of the civil war, but unfortunately it is also less. The facts may all be there, the details meticulously researched, developed and reported for the reader, but from the very beginning he has a "my book is more accurate than their book" attitude about those who have come before him and this undoes the work. He seems to revel in being right, and repeatedly corrects the prior record with snide remarks and asides, which if left unsaid would have made this a much better book. James McPherson who arguably wrote the best single volume on the Civil War, "Battle Cry of Freedom," says in the foreword that this work is an "essential starting point" on Civil War history. With the utmost respect I completely disagree and refer Mr. McPherson to his own work as more than worthy of that description. Eicher's book is for those who have read just about everything else on the subject and are looking for more battle detail, which the author does provide. This is not by any measure a linear narrative of the war; events aren't always smoothly tied together, and there is a lot of social and political history, which has been omitted, as it should be in a strict military history. The maps are ample, clear and well detailed, though the author or the editors must have an orientation bias. All maps have north pointing to the top of the book; as a result there is never a need to turn the book to review a map. For battles/events with a north/south orientation this is fine, these maps cover the entire page. The maps which have an east/west orientation suffer however as they are reduced in size to about a third of the page to maintain their orientation with the top of the book. Lastly, the maps often make the armies difficult to differentiate, as the gray representing the south is often very dark. What the author does in his introduction however is completely unforgivable. He critiques both Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote's excellent multi-volume works. He complains that both are biased in the reportage, Catton for the North, Foote for the South and goes so far as to apparently blame Catton for the lack of research materials which has surfaced since he wrote his two trilogies decades ago. He takes Foote to task for other biases, as well and each are wholly inappropriate and uncalled for. There is no place for such personal editorial material in a purportedly objective historical work. In addition to this error of judgment, throughout the text he makes want one can only call catty references to what he refers to at one point "dusty histories of the Civil War..." (pg. 365). He feels compelled to correct the written record by stating that in previous written histories such and such was reported, but it really was not that way at all. Occasionally he offers no further proof as when he relates on page 473 that "the term for `hooker' as slang for prostitute most certainly existed long before Joe [Hooker] came onto the scene." The statement "most certainly" is proof of nothing. Lastly, his attempts to set the record straight becomes extreme and laughable when in retelling the rainy battle of Tullahoma he relates "The soldier's legend that Tullahoma was derived from the Greek tulla, meaning `mud' and homa, meaning `more mud,' was untrue." Eicher seems to miss the point that the soldiers were making a joke. Finally because much of events in the Civil War overlap, the author occasionally gets his sequencing wrong. Most notably he relates Lincoln's assassination before he resolves Sherman's final triumph over Johnson. So Lincoln dies in mid-April and then we go back in time to March to Sherman's final pursuit. If you have a driving need to read a book on the Civil War and have read everything else at least once (including McPherson, Foote and Catton) then if you must, read this. But it will be The Longest Read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A long, tough slog, June 15, 2005
First off, let me say that there is much to praise in Mr Eicher's book. There is a lot of detail here, and the author does an exhaustive job of covering every action of the Civil War. If you're interested in a battle of any consequence from this conflict, you'll find it described in here.
And that's how this book should probably be approached: as a reference. Reading it from cover to cover is a tough slog. The writing style is dry and forced, and calls to mind a high school essay, albeit a long one and one with impeccable research behind it. Part of this is simply due to the fact that Eicher lacks the writing skill of a Shelby Foote or Bruce Catton. Another part of this is the fact that material that could have and should have been put in a table or in an appendix is placed in the body of the text. So you are forced to trudge through long lists of brigade commanders, unit strengths, artillery descriptions, etc. This is good data, and likely well researched, but it brings the narrative to a grinding halt.
Finally, Eicher presents detail that I just find hard to credit. He will list unit sizes or city/town populations down to the individual, a practice that would just make me pause and think, "Were there really _exactly_ 2,876 people in Pensacola? Weren't people being born, dying, arriving, and leaving every day?" A nit, but the book is tough enough to get through without additional stumbling blocks.
Bottom line, this is a nice reference that appears to be thoroughly researched and that contains a wealth of information. The writing style makes it tough to get through.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
