Review by Booklist Review
The first truly momentous battle of the Civil War, Shiloh was fought in April 1862 as Union forces tried to advance up the Tennessee River into the western Confederacy and the Confederates scrambled frantically to halt them. Generalship in both armies ranged from mediocre to abysmal, and whole divisions on both sides were only half armed and less than half trained. In a detailed, practically regiment-by-regiment accounting, Daniel shows how enough men stood and fought to produce total casualties of 23,000--more than those in all previous American wars put together--and a Union victory that ultimately meant disaster for the Confederacy. Daniel, a clear and sometimes even graceful writer, exhibits balanced judgment, thorough research, and the ability to explain strategy well to the lay reader. His Shiloh is one of the best recent battle monographs for beginning Civil War buffs and virtually every other kind, too. Joint main selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club and main selection of the History Book Club. --Roland Green
From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
The bloodbath at Shiloh, Tenn. (April 6-7, 1862), brought an end to any remaining innocence in the Civil War. The combined 23,000 casualties that the two armies inflicted on each other in two days shocked North and South alike. Ulysses S. Grant kept his head and managed, with reinforcements, to win a hard-fought victory. Confederate general Albert Sidney Johnston was wounded and bled to death, leaving P.G.T. Beauregard to disengage and retreat with a dispirited gray-clad army. Daniel (Soldiering in the Army of Tennessee) has crafted a superbly researched volume that will appeal to both the beginning Civil War reader as well as those already familiar with the course of fighting in the wooded terrain bordering the Tennessee River. His impressive research includes the judicious use of contemporary newspapers and extensive collections of unpublished letters and diaries. He offers a lengthy discussion of the overall strategic situation that preceded the battle, a survey of the generals and their armies and, within the notes, sharp analyses of the many controversies that Shiloh has spawned‘including assessments of previous scholarship on the battle. This first new book on Shiloh in a generation concludes with a cogent chapter on the consequences of those two fatal days of conflict. Illustrations not seen by PW. BOMC and History Book Club split main selections. (Apr.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review
Before Antietam, Shiloh stood as the bloodiest engagement of the Civil War. The April 1862 battle did not decide the war, as Daniel (Soldiering in the Army of Tennessee, Univ. of North Carolina, 1991) recognizes, but it almost ruined Gen. U.S. Grant, shook up the commands of both Union and Confederate armies, and left the West open to Union advances. Daniel's is the first study of the battle in 20 years and in many ways the most original. By juxtaposing accounts of fighting along the lines with scenes of political infighting in Washington and Richmond, Daniel shows how the politics of command, personal jealousies, piecemeal intelligence, and the skills of small-unit commanders affected the outcome of the battle. He also reminds us how little politicians and generals controlled events once soldiers started to fight. But he oversells the story. Only astute readers will escape from the swirl of battle details with a good sense of why Shiloh mattered. Recommended for large public and academic libraries.‘Randall M. Miller, St. Joseph's Univ., Philadelphia (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Kirkus Book Review
The first full-length history of this epic Civil War battle in two decades delivers Homeric gore minus the sweep and poetry. Granted, Daniel (History/Murray State Univ.) isn't trying to be Homer. His densely annotated study is a solid, even remarkable piece of scholarly reconstruction that stresses historical preciseness over drama, right down to its frequent, often clinical descriptions of wounds. The human dimension of the first large-scale slaughter of Americans by Americans remains strangely and unfortunately muted, buried beneath an avalanche of facts and figures documenting troop strength and tactical maneuvers. Telling details, like a rebel soldier's recollection of shivering in his tent on the eve of battle as a band played ``Home Sweet Home'' in the nearby Union camp, are too few and far between. Daniel's explication of the egotism, self-interest, and insecurity that hindered the judgment of both Union and Confederate commanders and the politics that guided staffing and strategy textures the blow-by-blow tactical commentary with some human interest. The inclusion of so many minor figures, while confusing, also shorts in-depth analyses of major players like Union general Ulysses Grant, who remains remote. Daniel's major accomplishment is that he effectively dramatizes the chaos of war--the traffic jams, bungled orders, and terror-stricken confusion that constitute the ragged improvisation of battle. But Daniel too often fails to rise above that chaos, miring the reader in it as well. Stepping back more frequently to add analyses to the description would provide badly needed perspective and scope, making the account more accessible to novices who don't know a regiment from a brigade. Though he purports to settle differences among historians, Daniel's tone is closer to mediation than finality. Exhaustive but workmanlike, this will be of interest to academics and hard-core Civil War buffs. (maps, photos, not seen) (Book-of-the-Month Club/History Book Club selection)
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Review by Booklist Review
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
Review by Library Journal Review
Review by Kirkus Book Review
