Thank you for your reply! When you say dry, what is dry to you in this book? Does it cover a good amount of soldiers who fought? I don't like books that have too much politics but rather focus on the soldiers and the armies themselves.
By dry I mean that this is a scholarly analysis and not a novel or popular history. Think more textbook than narrative. That said, any serious student of Gettysburg should read this book. While it may not delve too far into individual soldiers' tales, it is invaluable as a serious survey of the Gettysburg campaign and is a must for a clear understanding of what happened there. It is not political in the sense that Coddington doesn't take sides on the cause or who was the best, it's cold hard history and I would say necessary for anyone who wants to understand Gettysburg.
There have been several discussions of the Coddington book on this site over the past several years. You may need to revise your search methods if you are still interested.
When I read it about 25 years ago I did not find it dry. If I read it today with my 70 year old eyes I fear I might fall asleep.
I agree. I didn't find Coddington any more "dry" than the Sears book.
I found it to be more analytical than narrative and that's what I meant by "dry". It's an excellent book but some people (like myself) have more difficulty with that kind of writing. I much prefer a nice scholarly narrative. That said, it's been a number of years since I've read Coddington so perhaps I need to give it another go and see if my perspective has changed.
Definitely worth a second read. I did that recently and was surprised at what I didn't remember or missed the first time.
I got it out early this afternoon. Once I'm done with the books on my to-read list, I'll give it another go.
Bringing the