First Bull Run What is the best in depth study of 1st Manassas

My new one--the Buford at Gettysburg book--is actually the sixth title of mine published by Savas-Beatie, Ole. Number seven--a study of the Second Battle of Winchester written by my friend Scott Mingus and me--is in Ted's hands, and number eight will be under way some time after the first of the year.

Ted Savas shares my philosophy that no book can ever have too many maps or illustrations, and he loves footnotes--as opposed to end notes--as much as I do. Ted's my favorite publisher. Always will be....
As an aside, I have an original misprint of Cunningham's Shiloh. Got to know him then. Of course, he has no idea of who I am.
 
Can't go wrong with Detzer. He manages to weave in more than just movements.

He has a very refreshing take on the campaign and battle. He takes apart some myths and really opened my eyes to some things (I've changed my view on Patterson's involvement). The lack of maps hurts. I think there's a vagueness that comes in at times as well, which is subtle, but also weird considering his depth in some areas.

Donnybrook and Battle at Bull Run, combined, would be my recommendation from now on. If you want purely military I'd go Davis' work, but a little more social (I guess, or maybe just the human side of it) I'd go with Detzer.
 
I am about half-way through this and am really enjoying it. So far it has painted McDowell in a very positive light. Maybe he was an average (above average?) commander who just had very bad luck.
The govt in DC pushed him too make the attack too soon, before he had his army trained. But it's also true that you don't attack a brigade at a time. That lesson came hard to a lot of the "Old Army" officers.
 
McDowell was a desk jockey. He also had the poor luck to be the highest ranking officer capable of commanding an army.
 
Back
Top