Customer Reviews

Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation (Great Commanders S.)

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

 

 

It is easy to overlook the many contributions that non-Americans have made to the study of the American Civil War. Brian Holden Reid's outstanding study "Robert E. Lee: Icon for a Nation" brings an informed, fresh and balanced perspective to bear upon the Confederacy's greatest general. Reid is Professor of American History and Military Institutions and Head of the Department of War Studies at Kings College, London. He has taught military strategy and tactics and written extensively about America's Civil War.

Any new study of Lee must work on two levels. First, of course, it must examine Lee himself, his life, his career, and his generalship. Second, any study must come to terms with the extensive writing and radically shifting perspectives about Lee over the years. Following the Civil War, Lee quickly became an icon to Southern partisans in the "Lost Cause" tradition. His character and success, for a time, against long military odds soon elevated Lee into a figure respected and revered by many Americans, north and south. Then, in mid-20th Century a reaction set in against Lee, questioning some of the mythology that had grown around him and challenging his agressive conduct of the War, his focus on the Eastern theater, his alleged lack of broad strategic vision, and the high casualty rate to which he subjected the Army of Northern Virginia, among other things. The reasons underlying the reassessment were complex. They included correcting an overly iconic and uncritical account, the changing perspective with which Americans viewed the Civil War, and a general and, I think, unhappy tendency to debunk and to criticise important historical figures.

In clear, elegant prose, Reid examines Lee and Lee historiography. Although Reid avoids hero worship, he clearly admires greatly Robert E. Lee as a person and as a general. He finds that much, but not all, of the traditional picture of Lee has merit: he was an imaginative, agressive, savvy, and gifted commander who, importantly, inspired the love and the trust of his men. He fought and won many battles against long odds and prolonged the life of the Confederacy, giving it its best chance to achieve independence. Reid is far from uncritical as he points to flaws in, among other things, the command structure of Lee's army, the commander's frequent over-confidence, his tendency to overdelegate to subordinates, his conduct of the Battle of Gettysburg, and the failure to make the most of his opportunites in battles such as Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville. For all these faults, Lee emerges in this study as a remarkable, charismatic commander whom Reid believes is properly regarded as one of the greatest in history.

The book opens with a chapter on Lee the icon with a summary of how historians of the "Lost Cause" school have viewed him, under the influence of the writings of Confederate General Jubal Early. The book then discusses Lee's pre-Civil War career, focusing on his service in Mexico, but gathers force in its consideration of Lee's three-year career as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee's assumption of command in June, 1862, and the battles for which he is famous -- Seven Days, Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, the Wilderness Campaign, Petersburg, and Appatomatox, are discussed clearly and with sufficient detail. Reid keeps his and the reader's focus on the main themes of his study: showing Lee's greatness as a leader but his shortcomings as well.

In common with most books about Lee, his military exploits are discussed in detail but we see little of his inmost thoughts and feelings. Lee was a highly reserved individual. I would have also liked more emphasis on Lee's pre-Civil War career and, particularly, a fuller discussion of Lee's life and career as President of Washington University following the Civil War. The book includes some basic maps of the key theatres of Lee's operations -- placed at the beginning of the book to avoid cluttering the text -- a good, basic bibliography, and no footnotes.

Reid has written an excellent study of a great commander which argues convincingly that Lee deserves most of the esteem that he has traditionally received. This book will appeal to serious students of the Civil War.

Robin Friedman

Brian Reid, a British military historian who teaches such things to military officers aspiring to serve Her Majesty's Armed Forces on their General Staffs has written this book about Robert E. Lee.

To describe this tome as a biography would be inaccurate, for all intents and purposes it is a deft and tightly written critique of his skill as a general; after ploughing through its pages, I can almost hear Reid critiquing officers and their decisions on exercises. Being British, Reid brings the advantage of being able to dispassionately write about a man who, for Americans, became a sacred cow. And, all the same, Reid finds an enormous amount to commend.

As a crisp critique of Lee's generaling on the tactical and strategic levels, this book is a success. However, it comes apart when Reid (very briefly) addresses the moral level. Wars are fought on the tactical and strategic levels, but often won or lost on the moral level; if you can't persuade your people to fight for you, or your stronger enemy not to fight you, you have lost. Reid pithily and stunningly dismisses all claims that the war Lee fought was not about slavery; and yet Abraham Lincoln went into the war emphatically affirming that it was not about slavery, only to recant, and pull the rug out from under Lee with the Emancipation Proclamation when his prospects were quite shaky.

Could it be that Lee was hoping that the European powers, united with the South by an aristocratic culture, would intervene, a hope dashed by the Emancipation Proclamation? Why else would Lee, according to Reid one of the greatest generals of all times, have let himself into a war that he in the end couldn't win?

This book is a good critique of Lee's military strategy and tactics, and virtually exclusively so.

the author is a good writer, entertaining with an obvious wealth of knowledge of the subject. I couldn't imagine how the author could get a picture of Lee into that small book when it took Freeman four volumes, but it was well worth the purchase, I would highly recommend it.

At the end of the American Civil War Robert E. Lee had only five years to live. The heart problems that caused him to spend the battle of the North Anna River in an ambulance killed him. ==In the years following his reputation as a battlefield leader was heavily promoted by writers lamenting the lost cause of Southern independence. These included not only Southerners but Northernors as well.

In this book Brian Holden Reid, Professor of American History at King's College London, writes from the vantage point of a disinterested outsider to argue that Lee was one of the great commanders of all time. He does not claim that Lee didn't have faults. Everyone does, but that the overall generalship of General Lee ranks him among the best.

The American Civil War took place at a transition point in military affairs. The war before (Mexico, 1843) and the war that followed (World War I). The author contends that Lee was among the first of the modern generals. If the armies had listened to him during World War I, it probably wouldn't have turned into the mess that it was.

I found a non US especially Southern view to be refreshing. It is nice to have a European view of one of the greatest commanders. Holden clearly admires Lee and his battle tactics; however, he does criticize some of his and his subordinates decisions during major battles. I did feel that beginning of the book on Lee's pre war life and the ending of the book on Lee's last 5 years post war was short and very broad. But the focus of the book on his military leadership from 1862-1865 is written very well.

A decent short bio of General Lee, though I fear the author focuses so much on revealing his humanity that he fails to reveal his greatness. It is interesting to see a history of the Civil War through a Brit's perspective, though I fear his writing style is very dull. Overall, this book is a relatively accurate look at General Lee's life and military career, but it is dry and far from sympathetic.

This is a good book for a serious civil war fan. It is full of troop movement descriptions and landmarks that without diagrams make understanding battle sequences difficult to follow. This is not a biography as it appears. It is a military journal. I was dissapointed.

General Lee was a trator to this country and his training, and he would have replaced the Black-American slaves with the Irish serfs of Europe, according to Elizabeth B. Pryor, in her study of Lee, in Reading The Man. Please only recommend historal facts to me, and not some idealized opinion. Lee was a West Point trained soldier, and he selected personal comfort and convience over duty. Am I to believe that Ms. Pryor is incorrect?