The Killer Angels (original 1974; edition 1987)

Beyond helping you to understand the facts of this key battle (lots of maps showing positions on day 1, 2, 3) this book gets inside several major participants, showing some very positively (Chamberlain, Longstreet) and others (notably Ewell, Stuart and even Lee) as contributing to the negative outcome for the South.

It was striking to me how much “science” there was (is?) to “military science” . I’m not sure why this was so surprising to me. For example, quoting Chamberlain:

“Now here’s the move. Keeping up the fire, and keeping a tight hold on the Eighty-third, we refuse the line. Men will sidestep to the left, thinning out to twice the present distance. See that boulder? When we reach that point we’ll refuse the line, form a new ine at right angles. That boulder will be the salient. Let’s place the colors there, right? Five. Now you go on back and move your men in sidestep and form a new line to the boulder, and then back from the boulder like a swinging door. I assume that, ah, F Company will take the point. Clear? Any questions?”

Shaara also shows that there was very little agreement, especially in the South, about what the war was about. Most seemed amazed that slavery was brought up so often and a conversation with a Southern prisoner was related in which he declared it was about “rats” [rights], he wasn’t sure what they were, but knew some were being kept from him and that is why he was fighting.

Concerns about family and friends were highlighted—Chamberlain’s wife didn’t want him to go to war, preferring university life, Longstreet had recently lost his three children to a fever, Armistead had vowed that God should strike him dead if he ever fought his dearest friend. These all too human thoughts and concerns influenced their motivations, actions and decisions.

Truly an outstanding book. ( )

Read from June 13 to July 06, 2011

This is a solid book (great writing!), but I didn't think it was spectacular. While there is some great insight provided regarding decisions made by Lee, I feel like if I'm going to read historical fiction, I would like a little more character development...a little more emotion...a little more Gone with the Wind.

I know! I'm such a girl...but I really think this is a book really meant for guys. It's not that I think women won't enjoy it, but I think it appeals to the less-emotional state of men. Does that make sense?

I appreciate the holes the novel fills by trying to explain strategic aspects of the Civil War, but the maps included confused me more than helped me. And all the names! Hard to keep it all straight...

With all of that said, I'm glad I read it...but more than anything it makes me want to read Gone With the Wind, some John Jakes, and even a little Ken Follett. ( )

I really enjoyed this book, and I am not a Civil War history buff. I was alternating reading, and listening to the 1991 recording by George Guidall. His performance added a lot to my enjoyment. Great book. ( )

I actually didn't mind it, but I have too many other things to read. I guess I'll never find out who won the battle of Gettysburg...

Tolstoy still wins for "Best fight scene," but this is in the running. Quite a large cast of characters, not always well defined, so it was a struggle to keep track of everyone - but it's such a perfect telling of one thing - Gettysburg - that yeah, it's a five star book. ( )