11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Fantasy Land, June 14, 2004
This review is from: Robert E. Lee's Civil War (Hardcover)
This book is a mixed bag of stuff that's largely not worth bothering with.
First, Alexander points out that Lee made far too many frontal assaults, from his first battle to his last. This is quite true, and we can justly point out that what Nathan Bedford Forrest figured out in his first action ('Never make a frontal attack if there's a half-way decent alternative'), R. E. Lee may still not quite grasped in '65. But a one-sentence idea does not make a book.
Second, Alexander rehashes his 1996 volume "Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson." If only Davis and Lee and _listened_ to Jackson, we're told, and implemented his strategies, the South would have won in 1862 or '63. But war is the realm of uncertainty: the one time Jackson's ideas were followed to the letter, Chancellorsville, things didn't go as planned, Jackson died, and it's arguable that Hooker would have won the battle if he hadn't been wounded.
Thirdly, there's fantasy masquerading as analysis. For instance, during the Gettysburg campaign, Lee should have attacked Philadelphia! That would have taken the Army of Northern Virginia 80 or so miles further into Northern territory, cut Lee's line of retreat, and enabled Lincoln to move troops there first via Philadelphia's concentration of rail lines, the thickest in the United States, but what the heck, it was certain to work because . . . well, that's where I lose the thread.
And then there's random inconsistency. Lee was a menace to the Confederacy because he constantly made frontal assaults on superior numbers in strong positions. Braxton Bragg, otoh, invaded KY in the summer of '62, and had a chance to take Lexington -- by making a frontal assault against superior numbers in a strong position. Ah, but Bragg also had an entire separate Union force on his tail, one that ALSO outnumbered him. Besides, Bragg's troops were badly worn out by marching and short rations, and Bragg's subordinates frequently disobeyed orders without even telling Bragg what they were doing. So obviously Bragg's failure to attack Lexington reflects a loss of nerve, because a Confederate attack would have inevitably won. "RIGHT!", as Noah said to the Lord.
There are many good books on the Civil War. This isn't one of them. Skip it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Bombast, Egotism, Vulgarity and Nonsense..., September 7, 1998
By A Customer
This review is from: Robert E. Lee's Civil War (Hardcover)
Mr. Alexander work is a heterogenous mass of bombast, egotism, vulgarity and nonsense... One can conceive of no better reward than the lash for such a violation of decency.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Hindsight is 20/20, June 30, 1998
By A Customer
This review is from: Robert E. Lee's Civil War (Hardcover)
As a reader of scores of Civil War Hisorical accounts, I would rate this book at the bottom. Mr. Alexander less than detailed accounts of Robert E. Lee's command of the Army of Northern Virginia were easy enough to digest. But his opinions of the results of Lee's battles and maneuvers were lacking sufficient credence. In addition, Mr. Alexander's alternatives to Lee's decisions lacked any substantial proof of greater success. Mr. Alexander proves that it's easy to criticize after the fact.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
