Customer Reviews

They Met at Gettysburg: A step-by-step retelling of the battle with maps, photos, firsthand accounts (Stackpole)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Do not buy this book if you wanted a detailed blow by blow description of the battle, see Coddington's work for a great study of the battle. While sections of the book do have detailed analysis and descriptions it's the look at the command structure that sets this book apart.

Stackpole goes to great lengths to show the differences between Meade and Lee and how these differences affected the ebb and flow over the course of the 3 days in question. I've read many books on Gettysburg and there was something about this book that really appealed to me, whether it was the way the author presented the material or his writing style I can't say but I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

As Civil War histories go, this book is unusual. One could expect from the title a blow by blow account of the battle of Gettysburg. Instead, what is offered is a study in leadership contrasts between Robert E. Lee and George Meade. Lee is presented as perhaps America's greatest general fighting his worst battle. Meade is portrayed as an uninspired mediocrity that benefited greatly from his corps commanders and fortuitous circumstances.

Much of the familiar litany of Gettysburg lore is mentioned, but not re-hashed in great detail. J.E.B. Stuart's failure to provide timely reconnaissance, James Longstreet's lack of enthusiasm for Lee's offensive strategy and tactics, Richard Ewell's failure to secure the high ground on Cemetery Hill and Culps Hill are briefly examined. In addition, the inability of either Ewell or A. P. Hill to replace Stonewall Jackson as an effective corps commander is discussed. These facts provide the framework that gave Lee the impetus to strike "those people" (as he called the Union Army) in his own way. The ghost of Stonewall Jackson, who crossed over the river at Chancellorsville, haunts the scene. The pairing of Lee and Jackson caused some of the most spectacular victories of the Confederate Army, and Stonewall's loss was still keenly felt. One can only imagine what Jackson would have done with Lee's order to attack Little Round Top, or the Union center along Cemetery Ridge.

While Lee aggressively yearned to strike the enemy, Meade hesitated. At one point, Meade gave serious consideration to a retreat. Finally, he let his corps commanders vote the idea down. After the failure of Pickett's charge, Meade failed to take the initiative to counterattack Lee and deliver the fatal blow that could have ended the war.

The material is presented objectively, without particular bias. The book openly admires Robert E. Lee, but so do many. The brutal fact that Gettysburg may very well be Lee's worst fought battle is not glossed over. The failure of some of Lee's lieutenants to show their best effort is not used as an excuse to cover "Marse Robert's" errors. The reader doesn't hang on every word, but reading of the various commanders' abilities and limitations is informative. In addition, there is an abundance of illustrations and detailed maps that assist the reader in following some of the technical details. This Civil War book has value for the serious Civil War buff.

For the reader already familiar with a Gettysburg account by a recent historian like Shelby Foote, James McPherson, or Harry Pfanz, I recommend They Met at Gettysburg as a good choice for follow-up reading. Written in 1956 by General Edward J. Stackpole, this moderately sized book offers an interesting analysis of Lee's and Meade's contrasting leadership styles, and explores their tactical decisions.

Stackpole's interest is clearly revealed by chapter titles like Lee versus Meade - A Study in Leadership, Meade Takes Command, Lee Moves in as Meade Hesitates, The Opposing Commanders Review the Situation, and A Lost Opportunity to End the War.

The account of the battle itself is generally satisfactory, but it is not exceptional. Stackpole's concise reporting on Pickett's Charge lacks the emotional impact of Shelby Foote's remarkable narrative. And, there are surprising omissions. For example, while he fully credits General Warren, Meade's Chief Engineer, for plugging the gap when he discovered that Little Round Top had been left unoccupied, there is no reference to the role played by Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine in the actual defense of this little rocky mount.

Stackpole is at his best when discussing communication problems, troop movements, supply problems, and other tactical issues. For example, in examining how J.E.B. Stuart's long absence impacted Lee's situation, he concludes that Lee's detailed, but somewhat unclear directions to Stuart, contributed to this debacle. Also, in Stackpole's view, Lee could have used other readily available cavalry forces to offset Stuart's absence.

Longstreet comes under considerable scrutiny and fares rather poorly, much more so than in the hands of Michael Shaara in The Killer Angels, or in Shelby Foote's account. Stackpole's portrayal of Meade is mixed. While recognizing Meade's difficult situation as a replacement general on the eve of a critical battle, Stackpole largely credits the key tactical decisions over the three days to Meade's capable corps commanders.

On the plus side, They Met at Gettysburg is enhanced by numerous photos, portraits, and maps, but unfortunately some black and white illustrations are rather grainy. (Gettysburg 1863 by Carl Smith is a good source for higher quality illustrations.)

I reviewed the third edition; the dust jacket indicates that my printing is the 40th Anniversary Edition.

They Met at Gettysburg is an good intermediate level text of the battle. Stackpole, a retired Army general, knows his subject and digs deep into the minds of Lee and Meade. There is much more emphasis on troop movements and battle philosophy than on the actual fighting. For instance, Pickett's Charge earns less than 5 pages of text in a 400 page book. Stackpole is also a little harder on General Longstreet, and softer on Lee, than one would expect. He repeatedly says this was Lee's worst battle, but just as often says that Lee was far superior to Meade, Longstreet, and everyone else on the field. A little hero worship, perhaps. You can see the references to this book in Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels, except that Shaara has a more favorable impression of Longstreet. All in all, a fine book, but not as good as I anticipated

Like many other Civil War books focusing of specific battles, They Met at Gettysburg is excellent in some respects, and strongly lacking in others. The book does excel in the aspects of history leading up to the battle of Gettysburg, and as a study of the generals that were a critical part of that battle. What it lacks is an adequate description of the battle itself. The immortal Pickett's Charge does not get nearly the description it warrants, and the heroic defense of Little Round Top by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and his 20th Maine (which has filled entire books on its own) does not even get a single mention. Thus, this book does have some strong points, and should be read by anyone strongly interested in the leaders at Gettysburg. For a true work about the battle itself, however, look elsewhere.

As the Gettysburg literature goes, Stackpole's They Met at Gettysburg provides the lightest reading you're going to get, while still retaining good substance. This is because Stackpole focuses on army commanders' strategy and decision making, and mostly the movements of corps and occasionally divisions. Refreshingly absent are the mind-numbing minutiae of smaller unit dispositions that are cherished by many "buffs" but render the reader unable to see the forest for the trees. What remains is an excellent overview or introduction to Gettysburg, with some insightful analysis and opinions thrown in by the author.

Stackpole draws from mostly secondary sources, and the best known primary sources such as the Official Records, Battles and Leaders and Freemantle. He covers all the clichés on the southern side: Ewell's failure to assault and take the high ground, Longstreet's petulance, Stuart's waywardness and Lee's uncharacteristic reluctance to maneuver. For the Union, however, Stackpole seems most focused on Meade, and lays the blame squarely on the Union army commander for letting Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia escape. He even entertains the idea that Meade WANTED Lee to get away--thus the title of this review.

Stackpole concludes by stating that Gettysburg belongs in Creasy's Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World. I disagree. I think that J.F.C. Fuller, who in his Military History of the Western World includes only the Seven Days, Vicksburg and Chattanooga as the decisive battles of the American Civil War, comes closer to the mark. As interesting as Gettysburg is as a study in command, it was not decisive in that the ANV returned across the Potomac, bloodied but unconquered. They had simply been repulsed from what could best be described as a raid, not an invasion, and would fight on for two more years.

An excellent introduction and overview to the 1863 Civil war battle at Gettysburg,P.A. Highly recommended to be read before a visit to the actual battlefield. This book deals mainly with the strategies and leadership styles of the commanders on each side

Stackpole was my introduction to many civil war battles. He writes simply and concise and makes you want to investigate these battles more in depth. Of Course these nerds that dont have a life and have read every volume of every civil war battle ever written are not going to like Stackpoles books, this one included, but everyone that has a love and expertise of military history had to start somewhere and if your a novice and want a introduction to this battle this is the book for you. Stackpole eases you into the battle. He is an expert at that. If you like it then certainly go to Coddington's Gettysburg Campaign. This is not the end all book of Gettysburg but if you want your interest piqued Stackpole is an expert. If your a novice and want to be totally baffled by a battle read Showalter's Tannneberg: Clash of Empires. Oh for the guy that said in his review he quit halfway through Stackpole's The Fredricksburg Campaign cause Stackpole took too long to get to the actual fighting. Genious it is calledd The Fredrickburg Campaign not The Battle of Fredricksburg. If it says campaign your going to get almost equal amounts of before, during, and after the battle. If you get a book like that and your bored learn how to skim the boring parts til you get to the meat.