Harms88
Sergeant
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2019
Title: Antietam: The Soldiers' Battle
Author: John Michael Priest
Pages: 394
Price: 45.67 (hardback), 34.39 (paperback), 11.49 (kindle)
What drew me to the book (besides the description) was the cover shown in the image posted above. However, this is one of only 4 different covers. The above image is the cover for the Kindle version of the book.
The above three images are for hardback (image #1), paperback (image #2) and for an earlier edition of the book (image #3). So that is the first thing one needs to keep in mind when wanting to buy this book. My copy was a used paperback, so I got the black and white Burnside Bridge cover.
Mr. Priest has a singular objective with this book. Tell the battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg from the viewpoint of the soldiers. This is not a study of the overall plan of battle. There is no time spent delving into the overall plans of McClellan or Lee for this battle, outside for the need to keep the Harper's Ferry Road open. This book if focused on what the soldiers saw, their very small sphere of influence as opposed to the more overarching view of the battle as would be seen by their commanders.
As such, Corps and Army commanders only appear as cameos in the stories of the soldiers. McClellan only appears at the very periphery of an aide of the V Corps who is sent to ask for additional troops to allow the Regulars to attack the exposed center of the Confederate lines. Burnside appears for only one brief moment. JEB Stuart isn't even seen in the book, outside of mentions that he has passed along orders.
The way this book is written, it challenges the idea that Antietam was a one day affair. It starts with the Union shelling of Sharpsburg on the 16th and ends with the skirmishing on the 18th, skirmishing that saw one regiment lose over 50 men. It also challenges the image of the nicely segmented battle. The one that starts in the Cornfield, stops when the Bloody Lane is attacked and the Burnside's Bridge being it's own separate thing that starts only after Bloody Lane ends. Instead, it shows the Bloody Lane as simply an extension to fighting in the Cornfield and the many woods of the right flank combat.
For example: even though the middle of the Confederate line was pushed back, the Union troops not only down to it's last rounds but was being flanked by Confederates streaming from the right, painting a picture where perhaps a continued assault with those troops were not the best idea. The book does it's best to disabuse many of the myths of Antietam, not by specifically stating such, but by showing through it's prose the realities facing these men.
Due to it's focus on the individual, there are many accounts that you don't hear about in the broader works on this battle. Such as Confederates in the West Woods murdering wounded Federal soldiers or Union soldiers continuing to shoot into the corpses of fallen rebels in the Bloody Lane. Or the soldier who wanders from the front line, starts picking apples only to have Robert E. Lee show up and berate him as a traitor to the cause. Or a horse that after loosing his master after being shot, returns to his side to try nudging him awake, only to get shot down because the horse had the audacity to be living.
This is clearly a book that has a Confederate leaning. While it is true that it does not paint the Confederates in a purely rosy light (such as you can clearly see Robert E. Lee's nerves and temper getting shorter and shorter each time he appears in the story until he's unfairly berating his officers for not crushing the flanks of the AOTP), it's very clear that Mr. Priest holds the Union in very low regard.
He describes Hooker as basically a scatter-brained idiot running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Hancock's actions are described as "histrionics". Mansfield is a old fool whose only saving grace was Hooker doesn't communicate the situation with him. The terms "absurd", "stupid", "idiotic", "cowardly", "blundering" are used rather liberally for the average Union soldier. On the other hand, the terms "heroic", "gallant", "courageous" are applied to many of the Confederates. The way the book is written, it's clear from even the level of the private, that the Confederates are at a level of manhood and generalship that simply can't be competed with by the Union. Which is true for the latter but not so much on the former.
There are a few weird typos. The author uses a lot of words that are either archaic or are correct only on a very technical level. Like someone who is not a native English speaker. One such that kept popping up is the terms "mow grass" and "mow field". I don't know if it's Civil War era slang for mowed grass or what have you, but it appears without fail almost every other page. Or at one point, he says a horse "stove in" a soldier's chest, which is correct but has been out of use for a long time.
It's not a bad read, but I do not feel that it gives as balanced a look at soldiers Blue and Grey as it seems to strive toward. The use of the archaic language at times feels like the author is trying to hard to sound smart by using words and phrases that are not common.
The anecdotes are great though (such as an aide getting trapped in a traffic jam on Burnside Bridge after the glorious triumphant assault which really wasn't an assault at all). And it gives a rather unique look at the battle that shows something far more complex then the general consensus would have it.
I give it a 3.5/5.
Author: John Michael Priest
Pages: 394
Price: 45.67 (hardback), 34.39 (paperback), 11.49 (kindle)
What drew me to the book (besides the description) was the cover shown in the image posted above. However, this is one of only 4 different covers. The above image is the cover for the Kindle version of the book.
The above three images are for hardback (image #1), paperback (image #2) and for an earlier edition of the book (image #3). So that is the first thing one needs to keep in mind when wanting to buy this book. My copy was a used paperback, so I got the black and white Burnside Bridge cover.
Mr. Priest has a singular objective with this book. Tell the battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg from the viewpoint of the soldiers. This is not a study of the overall plan of battle. There is no time spent delving into the overall plans of McClellan or Lee for this battle, outside for the need to keep the Harper's Ferry Road open. This book if focused on what the soldiers saw, their very small sphere of influence as opposed to the more overarching view of the battle as would be seen by their commanders.
As such, Corps and Army commanders only appear as cameos in the stories of the soldiers. McClellan only appears at the very periphery of an aide of the V Corps who is sent to ask for additional troops to allow the Regulars to attack the exposed center of the Confederate lines. Burnside appears for only one brief moment. JEB Stuart isn't even seen in the book, outside of mentions that he has passed along orders.
The way this book is written, it challenges the idea that Antietam was a one day affair. It starts with the Union shelling of Sharpsburg on the 16th and ends with the skirmishing on the 18th, skirmishing that saw one regiment lose over 50 men. It also challenges the image of the nicely segmented battle. The one that starts in the Cornfield, stops when the Bloody Lane is attacked and the Burnside's Bridge being it's own separate thing that starts only after Bloody Lane ends. Instead, it shows the Bloody Lane as simply an extension to fighting in the Cornfield and the many woods of the right flank combat.
For example: even though the middle of the Confederate line was pushed back, the Union troops not only down to it's last rounds but was being flanked by Confederates streaming from the right, painting a picture where perhaps a continued assault with those troops were not the best idea. The book does it's best to disabuse many of the myths of Antietam, not by specifically stating such, but by showing through it's prose the realities facing these men.
Due to it's focus on the individual, there are many accounts that you don't hear about in the broader works on this battle. Such as Confederates in the West Woods murdering wounded Federal soldiers or Union soldiers continuing to shoot into the corpses of fallen rebels in the Bloody Lane. Or the soldier who wanders from the front line, starts picking apples only to have Robert E. Lee show up and berate him as a traitor to the cause. Or a horse that after loosing his master after being shot, returns to his side to try nudging him awake, only to get shot down because the horse had the audacity to be living.
This is clearly a book that has a Confederate leaning. While it is true that it does not paint the Confederates in a purely rosy light (such as you can clearly see Robert E. Lee's nerves and temper getting shorter and shorter each time he appears in the story until he's unfairly berating his officers for not crushing the flanks of the AOTP), it's very clear that Mr. Priest holds the Union in very low regard.
He describes Hooker as basically a scatter-brained idiot running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Hancock's actions are described as "histrionics". Mansfield is a old fool whose only saving grace was Hooker doesn't communicate the situation with him. The terms "absurd", "stupid", "idiotic", "cowardly", "blundering" are used rather liberally for the average Union soldier. On the other hand, the terms "heroic", "gallant", "courageous" are applied to many of the Confederates. The way the book is written, it's clear from even the level of the private, that the Confederates are at a level of manhood and generalship that simply can't be competed with by the Union. Which is true for the latter but not so much on the former.
There are a few weird typos. The author uses a lot of words that are either archaic or are correct only on a very technical level. Like someone who is not a native English speaker. One such that kept popping up is the terms "mow grass" and "mow field". I don't know if it's Civil War era slang for mowed grass or what have you, but it appears without fail almost every other page. Or at one point, he says a horse "stove in" a soldier's chest, which is correct but has been out of use for a long time.
It's not a bad read, but I do not feel that it gives as balanced a look at soldiers Blue and Grey as it seems to strive toward. The use of the archaic language at times feels like the author is trying to hard to sound smart by using words and phrases that are not common.
The anecdotes are great though (such as an aide getting trapped in a traffic jam on Burnside Bridge after the glorious triumphant assault which really wasn't an assault at all). And it gives a rather unique look at the battle that shows something far more complex then the general consensus would have it.
I give it a 3.5/5.