No comments about Omar Bradley: The Great Generals Series.

3 comments about Recollections Of A Confederate Staff Officer (1917).

1. Excellent book for someone trying to obtain insight into characters of the conflict. Sorrel is candid and generally does not fall into the "hero worship" that many Confederate Officers did when writing their memoirs.

   He makes it very clear throughout the book that his observations are his own and may be flawed when viewed historically (and some are).

   Very easy reading -- not a lot of Victorian memorializing and generally flows well. A real good book for the beginner or historian alike.




2. As Civil War autobiographies go, this one is more delightful than informative. Well, Sorrel does tell us what he saw during the war, much of which he spent as adjutant to Lt. General James Longstreet. And in that capacity, he saw a lot. Near the end of the war, after Longstreet was wounded at the Wilderness, he was given a command of his own. Not long afterward he, himself, was seriously wounded.

   Written at the suggestion of his wife while he recovered from an illness, the general gives a ground level view of the war as a young soldier. Although privy to many decisions made by his superiors, he was not in on the decision making. Sometimes there is a certain naivete about his observances.

   This more personal view of the battles and times between would be of interest to any student of the Civil War. It is a valuable story, if only for his view of the controversial Longstreet.




3. General Gilbert Moxley Sorrell's memoir of the War Between the States is a must-read for any serious student of the War and a fascinating historical account of soldierly life and experiences. Sorrell served in Longstreet's Brigade beginning at Manassas and as his staff officer until his promotion to Brigadier-General in 1864. He paints a vivid picture of camp life and of the political climate of the times that is often overlooked in military accounts. Highly recommend

4 comments about Spitfire - A Test Pilot's Story (Crecy Soft Cover Range).

1. Mr. Quill outlines his life in aviation from the early 1900s until the advent of the early jet fighters, from the flying of which he had to retire from medical reasons. From 1936 until 1946, he was the main developmental test pilot of the Spitfire in all its 56 variants. This almost mystic aircraft still looks sleek and potent even now in the aircraft museums around the world. The subtle refinements of engine and airframe, along with the cure for alarming deficiencies, all are chronicled here, along with interesting autobiographical anecdotes. The British aeroplane industry indeed was a world beater in those years, and still some of the refinements used in the Spitfire could be yet applied to some later aircraft with good results. However, the interest of the industry went quickly to the jet, causing the grounding of Mr. Quill due to the time spent at altitude in unpressurized cabins. This book is an outstanding read for those interested in the evolution of aircraft, the achievement of excellence, and the drama of the Second World War.
   
   (For an interesting "coincidence" of this review appearing elsewhere unattributed, see: [...] I have emailed the firm involved, and have "not received the favour of a response.")



2. Langewiesche's brilliant STICK AND RUDDER now has a companion volume equally important to pilots: the outstanding SPITFIRE by Jeffrey Quill.
   STICK examines, in clearly expressed and practical detail, the core elements of flight. SPITFIRE translates many of the same lessons into an absorbing, practical history of the flight test and development of one famous aircraft. It gives flesh and blood to the act of flight that is, at the bottom, a scientific endeavour. It also chronicles the behaviour and cultural anthropology of a nation at war, and chronicles the responses of able, energetic men and women who would not accept defeat. There isn't a dull page in it.
   Quill writes excellently and candidly in an understated way, with a self-effacing sense of humour that is endearing. His grasp of technical detail is positioned and expressed precisely at the level of the general reader, not patronising to pilots and not over the head of those not skilled in the cockpit.
   It might be easy to dismiss this book, describing flying work done half a century ago, as irrelevant to current aircraft and flying. That would be wrong. Every pilot who takes stick and rudder in hand and under foot should read this book, not just for the pleasure of it but because it conveys the hands-on realities of flying that most of us experience regardless of what we fly.
   In fact, by describing a world of flight before many of today's electronic and physical 'aids' to flying, Quill reminds us of our roots and grounds us in flying's realities. Unless you are one of those who believes that flying requires autopilots and 'glass' cockpits, that flight plans and air traffic control are the crutches of cross-country flight, and that you do not need to comprehend the basic of flight to master a modern aircraft, this is essential reading.
   This is a wonderful book of timeless value.



3. If you have even the slightest interest in the history and development of the Spitfire, this Book, and 'Sigh for a Merlin, Alex Henshaw' are the only place to start. Both excellently written giving each authors account of their involvement in aviation and the Spitfire's development before and throughout WWII.



4. A fascinating read from a pilot who not only test flew all the Marks of this famous design, but also took it into combat. A not to be missed book by anyone interested in the development of R J Mitchell's superb WWII fighter.

5 comments about Kill-Cavalry: The Life of Union General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick.

1. This author falls into the same trap that's been laid for researchers for the past 135 years. The most glaring example is the standard portrayal of Kilpatrick at Gettysburg, all of which is based on one source who admitted years later he was never a witness to what actually happened or was said on the field that day. Like researchers before him, the author missed this glaring truth.

   Here are two hints of Kilpatrick's character and performance: (1) His men held him in such high esteem that they petitioned Lincoln to have him promoted to general (a rare occurrence in the CW); and (2) after the battle of Gettysburg his men presented their commander with a Damascus sword in appreciation for his leadership on July 3.

   In short, an author who doesn't dig deeper than his predecessors is dancing to the worn-out tune of incredulity.




2. This book smacks of a work done by someone who had a thesis and then did everything he could to prove it, rather than letting the research bring him to a conclusion.

   Fortunately, I did get the feeling that the basic history of Killpatrick was decent and reasonably fair-minded. At the end of each chapter, however, Martin adds his commentaty about how the foregoing information shows that Kilpatrick was a horrible leader, womanizer, thief, etc. At one point, Martin suggests that the attempt on Jefferson Davis' life introduced the idea of assination, even to the point of possibly leading to Lincoln's murder. Right.

   Killpatrick's womanizing, thievery, etc comes out, for sure, but were his casualities really highter than comparable commanders? That's not clear. He won some battles and lost others--like most Civil War leaders.




3. 
   To say Hugh Kilpatrick was a controversial figure would be an understatement. Small in stature, it's my opinion he suffered from the "little man" complex: he attempted to over-compensate for his slight physical size by his recklessness and bravado. This would explain his rashness regarding his plan to attack Richmond and free the prisoners there, which was repulsed decidedly by the Confederates (though Sheridan attempted the same thing 10 weeks later with the same results). Disparaged by many of his fellow officers (Sherman called him a "damned fool"), it's also reported that his men respected him. Martin is highly critical.
   
   Kilpatrick was born in New Jersey in 1836 and graduated from West Point the year the Civil War broke out. He commanded a number of New York Cavalry brigades during the first two years of the war, receiving a serious wound at Big Bethel and then seeing much action in Virginia. After participating in the largest cavalry engagement of the war at Brandy Station in June 1863, he was promoted to brigadier general. He was conspicuous at Gettysburg, where his orders to E.J. Farnsworth to attack Hood, who was well-positioned behind stone walls, on the third day caused much slaughter to Farnsworth's men and Farnsworth's own death from five separate wounds. In the winter of 1864 he made his ill-fated attack on Richmond which resulted in failure. In the spring of that year he served in the Atlanta campaign and was wounded seriously for the second time at Resaca, GA. Recuperating by August, he performed well as commander of cavalry during the Carolina campaign and was a major factor in the capture of Fayetteville, NC, in March 1865. After the war he was appointed U.S. Minister to Chile, where he died in 1881.
   
   Martin's dislike for his subject is quite clear. In this he joins a long list of historians, most of whom regard Kilpatrick as showing poor judgment and costly wantonness. He finds his failure at Richmond to be his worst mistake. Despite this, however, I thought the book was interesting and well written, and made an honest attempt to capture the life of the man for the reader. The book also contained excellent maps and clear elucidation of military affairs. Not the definitive work on Kilpatrick, but not one for the waste heap, either.



4. There are some figures of the Civil War that it is very easy to hate. Even today, very few Civil War buffs have anything good to say about Braxton Bragg or Henry Halleck for example. While not as well known as Bragg or Halleck, there is much to distain in the life of Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, a Union cavalry commander from New Jersey. Samuel J. Martin provides more than enough dirt on Kilpatrick's rather sordid personal life and less than honorable character. Kilpatrick was a selfish and vain man whose ambition for power and glory led him to act rashly and often foolishly while covering his mistakes in the press and reports to his superiors. Furthermore, Kilpatrick was a womanizer who had no qualms about cheating on his wife and discarding mistresses, even those who he impregnated. Martin certainly proves that General Kilpatrick was a scoundrel.
   
   Martin leads the reader through Kilpatrick's rather checkered Civil War career. Graduating from West Point in 1861, Kilpatrick served with the New York volunteers and became known for his rash charges and his willingness to fight. Martin seems to accept this reputation but seems to argue that Kilpatrick was a physical coward, a rather odd statement considering the general's willingness to fight on the battlefield or off (even calling out Southern cadets at West Point to fist fights). Kilpatrick won some fame for driving his men to within 2 miles of Richmond as part of the Stoneman Raid during the Chancelorsville campaign and became a general in the summer of 1863. While part of his division won laurels at Gettysburg (Custer's brigade), the Kilpatrick ordered charge on July 3 proved to be an error, costing the lives of many men of Farnwsorth's brigade including Farnsworth himself. Kilpatrick would lead another raid on Richmond in early 1864, hoping to free a number of Union prisoners, pass out Lincoln's amnesty proclomation and capture and perhaps kill key Confederate leaders including Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Martin agrees with the Stephen Sears that Kilpatrick was in charge of the raid though a recent article by David Long (which he is turning into a book) argues that Dahlgren planned to kill Davis and that Kilpatrick, a notorious leaker to the press, was out of the loop. After the failure of the raid, Kilpatrick was sent west and led Union cavalry for Sherman's march to the sea and Carolina campaigns.
   
   After the war, Kilpatrick, who in the war expressed presidential ambitions, made two failed efforts to get the Republican gubenatorial nomination in New Jersey, ran unsuccessfully for the House of Represenatives in 1880 and twice served as ambasador to Chile. He passed way in 1881 in Chile at the age of 45. While a Republican, he was recalled from Chile by Grant which led to his supporting Horace Greely in 1872. Kilpatrick returned to the GOP and supported Hayes in 1876 and Garfield in 1880.
   
   Martin certainly reveals Kilpatrick's dismal character and offers a solid, if often overly critical, account of his military career. In all fairness Martin had little to work with as Kilpatrick's papers were destroyed. Still, Kilpatrick's political career could have been examined in greater detail. For all his faults, Kilpatrick had an energy and ambition to him which made him a fairly represenative figure for his times. One is left wondering, after reading Martin's book, why Kilpatrick simply was not shelved. Kilpatrick, again with all his baggage, was a fighter and those were few and far between in the Union ranks. His ambition forced him to the battlefield and took him into politics. While Martin reveals the dark side to this ambition, Kilpatrick rose out of youthful obscurity to win a solid reputation. He could not have been merely the talentless scoundrel that Martin depicts. While Martin seems to rely a great deal on secondary sources, he really had no other choice. Despite that, one suspects that Martin went into writing the book with his thesis already formulated and that is what proves frustrating about this book. Martin should have given the reader a portrait of Kilpatrick in full as opposed to bashing us over the head with how much of a jerk the man was.



5. The earlier critical comments about "Kill-Cavalry" are generally accurate. Here are some of the main points.
   
   1. Author Samual J. Martin is neither a trained writer nor a trained historian. He is a retired businessman in South Carolina whose post-retirement hobby is doing Civil War research. The lengthy bibliography attests to his detailed research, much of which is semi-original (manuscripts, official documents, correspondence, newspapers, etc.). His writing itself is dreadful, not in the sense of poor grammar or sentence structure but in its straightforward and completely uninvolving style.
   
   2. Although Kilpatrick led an extremely colorful (if brief) life, he is a difficult subject for historical research. His daughter burned his personal papers after his death, his contemporaries are long dead, and his tendency to exaggerate his successes and disguise his mistakes make most surviving accounts suspect. Factor in the difficulty of tracking the activities of any individual cavalry unit during the Civil War and you have a very difficult task making any definitive claims about Kilpatrick.
   
   3. Martin has an obvious ax to grind concerning his subject. While Kilpatrick was a self-promoting scoundrel, an objective examination of most of his contemporaries would reveal that these qualities were almost a prerequisite for ascendancy within either army. Martin's anti-Kilpatrick agenda sidetracks him from the two best biographical styles for a subject such as Kilpatrick. The most entertaining would be a light-hearted examination of his escapades (Kilpatrick was a Civil War version of actor Errol Flynn-both of Irish descent) and a fun look at his exploits would be quite entertaining. Another alternative would have been to draw parallels with contemporaries like Dan Sickles, Phil Sheridan, and George Custer. Unfortunately Martin's pious disapproval does not allow him to explore either avenue.
   
   4. Because of Martin's prejudices about his subject and his lack of good source material he seems compelled to editorialize throughout the book. Bad enough, but his narrative often contradicts his conclusions. For example, Martin is convinced that Kilpatrick was a cowardly soldier and points to many examples of Kilpatrick losing his nerve in combat situations. Yet at the same time he details Kilpatrick's drive for recognition and tendency to recklessly commit his command to action. Like all but the most senior cavalry officers, Kilpatrick was up in a saddle with his troopers on all their raids and maneuvers, and remained this style of cavalryman for almost the entire war. He was not an armchair general but a field officer in a serious pursuit of advancement and fame. There were far easier and safer commands for West Point trained officers. Had he been lazy or cowardly he would have sought a desk job but he believed the cavalry offered him the best prospects for advancement and recognition.
   
   5. Martin is highly critical of both Kilpatrick's command performance and his refusal to expose himself to danger at Brandy Station in 1863. He does not even mention Kilpatrick's saber fight with a hated West Point classmate during that engagement. But Eric Wittenberg goes into detail about this incident in "The Union Cavalry Comes of Age" (2003): Kilpatrick squared off with a Confederate officer he had known and disliked at West Point...the Southerner gave Kilpatrick a slight cut on the arm...receiving a vicious slash the Confederate officer reeled in his saddle. Seeing an opportunity Kilpatrick killed his injured foe with a slashing cut of his saber. The victorious colonel rejoined his brigade, proclaiming, "That rights a wrong. I have wanted to meet him ever since the war commenced".
   
   6. Rather than bring Kilpatrick to life, Martin fills many pages of the book with general Civil War history. For a book of only 268 pages, there is simply too much detail about the battles and movements of the two armies, without regard to whether Kilpatrick himself was involved.
   
   7. Martin sensationalizes the cavalry charge Kilpatrick and Merritt ordered during the 3rd day of Gettysburg. He goes into great detail about a somewhat dubious account of Kilpatrick's interaction with a subordinate commander, yet fails to examine the very real tactical opportunity that he and Merritt had recognized and were trying to exploit. One of Merritt regiments had tied up the two brigades of Confederate cavalry in Fairfield; leaving the right flank of Lee's army open to attack. Had Law's (formerly Hood's) division been positioned to support Longstreet's assault on the Union center, the cavalry charge would most likely have been a significant success.
   
   Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

4 comments about Ghosts of Thua Thien: An American Soldier's Memoir of Vietnam.

1. John Nessser takes the reader on a journey through hell as he tells of his personal experience as a soldier in the infamous 101st Airborne Division which suffered the 3rd highest mortality rates during the Vietnam War. Nesser brings his mid-Western upbringing to Vietnam... duty, Country and values that were instilled in him as a young boy growing up in Wisconisn. He loses part of himself in Vietnam as he faces the harsh realities of this War. This is a remarkable journey to hell and back told with honesty and great courage. Nesser is a hero but probably would not look at himself this way. This is a struggle for the soul of the Author and is a must read if you want to experience daily life in Vietnam during that terrible war. I could not put this book down.



2. I have known John for over 30 years, as a good friend and neighbor. After reading this excellent book i realized that i didn't really know John and what he went through in Vietnam. Once i started reading The Ghosts of Thua Thien i found it hard to put down. It is one of the best written books about a soldier's experience from growing up in Central Wisconsin,college,a new family man and being drafted in the Army. His experiences in basic training,to combat in Vietnam and his returning home to live a normal life. John is a very quiet person I know it must have been difficult to relive these good and bad experiences. He brings them to life in this book for you to relive with him. Thanks John for writing this book! Terry



3. I served in another battalion of the 101st Airborne at the same time and area as John Nesser, and I can testify to the realistic picture he describes of the daily life of a grunt. The A Shau Valley and DMZ were particularly rough and dangerous areas, and John captures the feeling of these places. His description of the day-to-day details of a grunt's life is one of the best I've read.



4. I am a Board Member of the Military Writers Society of America, and author of The Angel From Vietnam.
   
   I spent four years in Vietnam and hope I know more about the war, the troops, the Vietnamese, than the average person who was there for a one year tour of duty and just wanted out. I've read many books on the war and must truthfully say that I was not really looking forward to reviewing another "war book". Too many of them, to me, have been repetitive, predictable, and full of clichés.
   
   The cover of the book features a photo of a combat assault somewhere near the DMZ (demilitarized zone). I thought to myself, `here we go again'.
   
   I was blown away by this book. Finally something noticeably different. John Nesser was no hero in his eyes, but did heroic things. He was absolutely able to capture the truth about this most understood of wars. John had reservations about the war, but conducted himself as a true patriot and soldier of the highest commendation; and he did so humbly, and with compassion. Too many books portray endless day-to-day combat, and that was just not what happened. The author skillfully details the boredom, the day-to-day drudgery, the missteps and the Peter Principle that, if we could reach a certain level of incompetence, Vietnam was no different.
   
   The American soldier is portrayed as he was, the good, bad, and the ugly, but certainly soldiers who redeemed themselves when they needed to be counted on. Certainly far more commendable soldiers who were so much different than portrayed in today's movies and stereotypes.
   
   There are personal photos and a few maps, but the glory of this read is in the author's wonderful writing. I will be submitting this wonderful book for top honors in its category for 2008.

5 comments about Operation Homecoming: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front, in the Words of United States Troops and Their Families.

1. This book really gives you a taste for how it is in Iraq...I think everyone should read it...especially Pres. Bush.



2. I am a NCO in the army and have been to Iraq 4 times and this book sent chills through my bodie many times with the pure honest look at war. Most of the stories are reflections of events that any service member will identifie with. Then there are some events told in this book only a select few will truely grasp. This is a must read if you would like a insight into the mind of a Military member who has been deployed. I cant recomend this book more then just get it read it and prepair to get choked up. I know i did



3. I am a military wife. My young daughter and I survived 12 months while my husband served in Iraq. This book was absolutely amazing. I cannot come up with the words to describe how much this book meant to me. I don't know about other spouses, but no matter how much my husband and I talk, it is not easy for him to communicate his thoughts or feelings on his service in Iraq. It was even difficult for him to describe his life over there when asked directly. I think a lot of it is him trying to protect me, but also, his brain does not work that way. He was there, he did what he had to do as a soldier, end of story. This book brought me insight into my husband. It made me laugh. It made me cry. It made me sick. It made me angry. It made me happy. It made me joyful. It made me all of these things at the same time. I am so thankful to the organization(whose name escapes me right now) that made this book possible. It is a book that touched my heart and soul. I will never be the same, and I am greatful for that. It is in know way a "light" read. I read it quickly, as I do everything, but because I was hungry to read more, to know more, to feel more. Do not read it without a box of tissues next to you.



4. This book was very moving. I laughed and I cried. There were sad stories and poignant stories and many positive stories. I recommend this book to anyone wanting a real look at how the military and their families feel about going through these deployments. I also recomment it for families going through the deployments now. I have learned a lot about what my son may be going through and may not be willing to share with us right now.



5. This is an awesome book. I laughed and cried. It's heartbreaking and uplifting. I highly reccommend this for all US citizens - whether you are associated with the military or not. It gives an understanding of what the military members and their families deal with, and who they are.

5 comments about "Happiness Is Not My Companion": The Life of General G. K. Warren.

1. Before I review this one, let me admit that I've never been into book length biographies, even when they concern Civil War era figures, so this is a bit of a new experience. Keep this is mind when reading these early attempts at reviewing biographies. I picked up this bio of Gouverneur Kemble Warren for two reasons. First, Indiana University Press was having an unbelievable sale, and I managed to find this one as a brand new hardback for only $6. Second, I'd been looking to get into the biography arena by looking at men who commanded at division level or higher during the siege of Petersburg.
   
   "Happiness Is Not My Companion" takes a look at the checkered career of Gouverneur Kemble Warren, a man who was stripped of his command at the moment of his greatest triumph at Five Forks. Author David Jordan covers Warren's life in some detail, though I thought that a closer and more definitive work can probably be penned at some point in the future. With that said, I enjoyed this biography, especially the section dealing with the Petersburg Campaign. Jordan keeps the reader interested while moving the story along. The author argues that Warren was wronged by Sheridan at Five Forks, but he does candidly admit many of Warren's flaws, though I suspect he may not have gone far enough in revealing these.
   
   
   Gouverneur Warren was an extremely intelligent man, but his main faults, according to author David Jordan, were his difficulty in following orders given to him while at the same time giving frequent unwanted "suggestions" to his superior officers. Jordan downplays somewhat Warren's nature to frequently act with great condescension, which is to me his greatest flaw. Warren was born on January 8, 1830 in upstate New York in the little town of Cold Spring, just a short distance from West Point. That Warren ended up at the Military Academy is hardly surprising given his birthplace and his prominent family. He graduated second in his class, and was awarded a spot in the coveted Corps of Engineers. In this role, Warren spent the better part of the 1850's on expeditions to the west, where he encountered friendly and hostile Native Americans, including the Sioux, and participated in his first military actions. Warren had accepted a position to teach mathematics at West Point by the time war broke out, but he soon became Lt. Colonel and then Colonel of the famous 5th New York, Duryea's Zouaves. He led the men of this regiment as a brigade commander in the Seven Days and at Second Bull Run, and was afterward promoted to Chief Topographical Engineer and then Chief Engineer of the Army of the Potomac. It was in this position at Gettysburg that Warren perhaps gave his greatest contribution to his country. Warren, while out scouting on the Union far left, noticed the importance of the Round Tops and the fact that Confederate infantry were approaching. He immediately found the nearest Union troops, the brigade of Colonel Strong Vincent, and sent them scurrying for the crest of Little Round Top. They barely beat the Confederates to the crest and managed to secure this vital area for the Union. Warren was promoted to Major General after the battle, and he was temporarily placed in command of the II Corps while Winfield Hancock recovered from his severe Gettysburg wound. In the Mine Run Campaign of November 1863, Warren called off an attack that he deemed suicidal on his own responsibility. Meade was at first furious that Warren had disobeyed, but he agreed with Warren's decision after taking a look at the Confederate entrenchments. This first instance of Warren questioning his orders as a corps commander was only the beginning. Meade and Grant would grow exasperated with Warren on more than one occasion during the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns. It was during this time frame, while commander of the V Corps of the Army of the Potomac, that Warren had his greatest problems as a commander. Meade and Grant were on the verge of relieving him several times for his continued questioning of orders, or in some cases, his outright disobedience of these orders. Jordan quotes the diary of Charles Wainwright, the V Corps Artillery Chief, quite often during this time period. Apparently Wainwright did not much like Warren and was constantly critical of his commander. All of this was leading up to Warren's greatest triumph...and his greatest disappointment. Warren was placed under Phil Sheridan during the attack on Five Forks. Grant, apparently having grown tired of Warren's tendency to question his orders, gave Sheridan the right to sack the v Corps commander at any point and replace him with any of the V Corps division commanders. Although Warren moved his men up in a satisfactory manner, and although the V Corps was able to flank and drive off the Confederates guarding Five Forks, Sheridan relieved Warren and sent him back to Grant. Jordan discusses Warren's unceasing efforts after the war in his quest to see a court of inquiry convened. It wasn't until the early 1880's that Warren was able to make this possible. He had known that while Grant or member of his circle were in power that his request would never be granted, so he had waited until Rutherford B. Hayes was President to press home his request. In my mind, Jordan demonstrates pretty conclusively that Warren was not at fault in any way at Five Forks, though Warren's peers who oversaw the court were rather ambivalent in their findings, perhaps to appease Sheridan, who now commanded the entire United States Army. Warren died before the findings of the court were made public. He deserved better, from Sheridan on April 1, 1865, to Grant in the intervening years concerning the granting of a court of inquiry, to the men who finally made judgments on his behavior.
   
   As I stated in the introduction, this is a good but not great book. Jordan goes into considerable detail, but I couldn't help feeling that even more could have been done. He also seems to go a little easy on Warren in some cases, especially when it concerns Warren's difficulty in dealing with subordinates and superiors who he felt were not as intelligent as he was. One trait I dislike more than most in my fellow human beings is condescension. Warren was filled to overflowing with condescension for quite a few people, and I would have liked to see the author get into this in more detail. Other than that, I thought he tried to be impartial, as a good biographer always should. The maps that accompanied the text were solid, and really a bit of an unexpected bonus as far as a biography goes. Anyone interested in biographies of Civil War generals will not be disappointed in this one. Those interested in G. K. Warren or in the later campaigns of the Army of the Potomac will also want to give this one a look.



2. Solid bio on General Warren, like George Picket, known for Gettysburg and Five Forks, the latter in his casea great controversy. Warren was the opposite of the Confederacy's impetuous A. P. Hill, Warren was brave but detailed and thorough in his planning. Often thinking of his men's welfare, he frequently clashed with not only Meade but by war's end Grant and Sheridan. The author provides a healthy history of Warren's family and his time at West Point and his gallant service mapping the Black Hills among the Sioux before the war. The reader may be a little impatient to get to the Civil War and the controversy but you get there relatively quickly. Warren serves on McClellan's staff and stays as a staff officer as a topographic engineer through his famed role at Little Round Top. Warren then becomes a corps commander, although he seems ill suited personality wise for the task. His dispatches to Meade naively offer too much advice and seemimg less action than his superiors expect, which he never seems to fully appreciate. Jordan utilizes many primary resources such as reports and letters by Warren, his bombastic artillery Officer, close military friends, commanders and many other witnesses to give you a first hand perception of the man. Warren's was notable in refusing to attack Lee's fortifications at Mine Run, a little written about campaign that establishes Warren as a man considerate of his men yet suffering in the eyes of his his commander. Here the author could have offered more maps as the Mine Run campaign starts questions about Warrens propensity to inform and perhaps lecture. During the overland campaign, Warren alternately hesitates and attacks and the author describes the reasons for each, particularly the Confederate fortifications. Rhea, in his great series of books on the 1864 campaigns, probably describes best Grant and Meade's frustration with Warren but Jordan does well here in this 320 page book. Although aquiting himself well during the Petersburg siege, with some question at the Crater, Warren's 5th corps continues to actively pivot late in 1864 alternately with Hancock's 2nd to the western outside edges of Petersburg. A question worth asking here is why, if Grant and Meade already question Warren's timely ability to attack, did they not keep his corps east of Petersburg in a static position? This is not answered by Jordan but should have been explored. By late March 1865, he is ordered to maneuver around Lee's far right to support Sheridan that culminates in the battles of Dinwiddie Court House (a setback for Sheridan) and then Five Forks. This unusual collaboration between two Generals that mutually dislike each other is immediately antagonized by too many confusing orders from both Sheridan and Meade to Warren compunded by Grants independent control of Sheridan. Jordan points out well that Warren is succesful in his dificult manuevers in the face of the enemy yet Warren fails to report timely to Sheridan. Jordan covers the battle of Five Forks well, ironically Warren's best and most succesful attack, and the controversy of Sheridan sacking Warren after the battle was won. Jordan's reserach also notes Warren's colorful charge across the final breastworks with his troops happens just before his sack notice reaches him as opposed to what some historians describe as happening only after he learned he was sacked. Ed Bearss book "Five Forks" in the VA. series probably describes the battle best with an excellent map but Jordan does a fine job describing the battle. The latter parts of the book follow Warren's post war career and his unusual dedication as an military engineer refusing to leave the army for much needed income as a private engineer as he waits his day in court. Warren comes across as a festidious egineer more suited for that kind of work but his extended military career and his desire for a trial seem to aggravate his sensitive health. The trial, 16 long years later, is well covered as well as the political difficulties as Sherman, Sheridan and Grant act as roadblocks. Jordan paints Warren appropriately as a man of talent but lacking in perception that the war changed and that Grant and Sheridan were trying to bring the war to an end in a hurry, which contributed to the abrupt and disasterous decision by Sheridan ironically after the day at Five Forks was won. At Five Forks Warren was relieved not for his actions that were unknown to Sheridan at the time but for the reputation that preceded and sterotyped him in Sheridan's eyes. One of the last ranking officers who served with McClellan, it is unfortunate that Warren did not leave when Hancock did or at least recognize that Grant and Meade required less opinions but timely reports of action as did Sheridan. A sad end with a final victory, reversed court finding, coming too late as the book's title aptly professes, happiness was not be his his post war companion.



3. For Civil War readers, Gouverneur Kemble Warren is not an unfamiliar name. He is most associated for his slow response in the Wilderness campaign where he was dismissed without, as we read, justifiable cause. This action was driven more by spite and the ego issues of Phil Sheridan, who failed to understand the issues causing Warren's delay at Five Forks. And then there was U.S. Grant's rigid blind faith in Sheridan that led him to summarily dismiss Warren, also without knowing all the facts. Jordan does a good job of showing the many facets of a general who was not only competent but ethical in his conduct of the war. While admittedly cautious and slow at times, he was still able to win battles and not needlessly compromise his men's lives. As a psychotherapist, it was personally interesting to see the psychology of this complex man, from his highs to his rages and deep depression. He was without question, intelligent and with great courage. He did have issues that could compromise his "generalship" at times but then shine at others. Yet, his leadership of men was done with character and ethical responsibility and discipline. I highly recommend this book as not only a means to understanding an excellent civil war general but also as a way to see how circumstances create decisions, both good and bad. To see how incompetent leaders can manage to survive and highly competent ones fall, all in a flash. The book, from the early days of Warren, through his Civil War battles, court of inquiry trial and, ultimately, his lonely and sad death, is well written, easy to read and, like a complex movie, shows us pieces of the war and its many unseen still frames that are so easily missed. The reader will come away with a greater understanding of G.K. Warren as well as the civil war. David L Mazzola



4. In "Happiness is Not My Companion," David M. Jordan performs his usual solid job in assembling a biography. Jordan is, as always, excellent when it comes to digging in primary sources and he does breathe a good deal of life into the rather obscure G. K. Warren. Best known for his role at Little Round Top, Warren led the 5th Corps of the Army of the Potomac during most of the Overland campaign before his removal at Five Forks. He also held a number of important staff assignments under Joe Hooker and George Meade. Jordan is able to offer an excellent account of Warren's Civil War career as well as his quest for vindication from being removed from command. Jordan also offers an excellent look at Warren's morose and often overly critical personality. There remain some problems in the book. Warren's role as an explorer is covered too quickly. The same can be said of his role as an engineer in the West after the war. Still, Jordan is excellent on Warren and the war. Anyone interested in the Union effort in the east would profit from this book about a leading and very unique general.



5. Having had little information on the life of my great, great, great grandfather this book was facinating. I had no idea he had participated critically in so much of the civil war. Not only Warren's genius of analysis of conditions in battle, but his engineering skills were also very notable, indeed his accomplishment in cartography and engineering of the Rock Island bridge some could say eclipsed anything he did during the war between the states. The book is a facinating inside look at relationships between men of high rank and served to show that patriotism was not the sole factor in their decisions and exploits. Great leaders, sadly, usually have great egos and Warren was no exception. I also thought the final analysis of why Warren, though brillant, failed to achieve the greatness he was surely capable of achieving, to be profoundly accurate, in light of previous chapters of each battle. His broad understanding of the big picture came into direct conflict with men of lesser intellect, but higher rank, who had the "tunnel" vision to stay the course and simply overwhelm the enemy with shear numbers. I applaud this work of David Jordan and for taking so much time to research and write about a man the world did it's best to defame and hide in obscurity.

3 comments about Halleck: Lincoln's Chief of Staff.

1. This biography of Henry W. Halleck provides great insights into
   the life & career of one of the Civil War's most vilified figures. Stephen Ambrose provides a balanced overview and keen
   analysis of Halleck and his contributions to the Union war effort. Studying the full story of Halleck's numerous and very
   valuable contributions will be an eye-opening experience for many students of the Civil War. Though he may not have been a "great captain," he was an extremely effective organizer and judge of military talent, The "George C. Marshall" of the Civil War! Buy and read this book - you'll thank yourself!



2. Henry Halleck, that is the name that would rise a storm of scorn or derision among most Civil War readers. General Halleck have not been well regarded by most Civil War historians since the Civil War. This short biography (90% of 212 pages of text are on his Civil War years) by Stephen Ambrose tries to take a revisionist tack to Hallack's accomplishments, talents and his contribution to the Union cause. Ambrose's effort was to show that Halleck was bit more then just a paper general but an effective organizer and coordinator of the Union war effort. While admitting that Hallack was no battlefield general, his massive intellect on military matter was more suited for support roles to the armies at front, a classical bookworm general.

   The book was originally published back in 1962 so the writing may not be as good as Ambrose's later efforts. But its still nicely readable and provides some very insightful views on Halleck's role in the Civil War. Whether you agree with Ambrose or not, is up to you.




3. I'll not repeat the comments made by the other reviewers since I agree with their sentiments. This is a very informative book about "Old Brains," a man without whom neither Lincoln nor Grant could have suceeded.
   
   The most important fact about this book is its importance for the author. Ambrose is without a doubt one of my favorite historians. This was, I believe, his first published work, the result of his PhD research. Soon after it was published, General Eisenhower read the book. He liked it so much, he invited the young author to meet with him to begin writing an official biography. The rest is history, so to speak. Because of this book, we have other great works of history, great because they relate so much of importance and they relate it to the common man.
   
   Thanks to this little book, we all can read D-Day, Citizen Soldier, and outstanding biographies of Nixon and Eisenhower.
   
   Doug

No comments about Gunbird Driver: A Marine Huey Pilot's War in Vietnam (Blue Jacket Bks).

4 comments about Warrior's Rose.

1. A friend gave me this book to read book and it is wonderful. It's written very colorfully in Tamas's own words and tells of his life preceding the Legion, his joining the French Foreign Legion, and his experiences of Legion life and his battles in Algeria. He describes, as a boy, leaving Hungary and entering war-torn Paris. His heartbreaks and his trials are difficult to relate to by modern day standards but yet his warrior spirit remained intact. His story includes his wild, boyish pranks that will make you laugh and cry. By the way, Tamas Weber is also one of the most respected Karate Masters in the world. Not only a highly decorated Legion hero but a ninth degree Karate master. This is his endearing story and a great read.



2. This colourfully-written book gives a real insight into the young man who grew up to be Tamas Weber, karate and self-defence master. It paints a picture of his childhood, youth and early manhood in war-torn Europe and his experiences in the French Foreign Legion. The story is told with Tamas' compassion, strength and very unique sense-of-humour... If you ever have the chance to train with Tamas Weber, do so!
   
   Osu!!!!!!!



3. This autobiography starts with early childhood memories in Budapest during the Second World War. After loosing his father the family makes a difficult escape to Paris. Soon after arriving there Tamas and his brother are de facto abandoned by their mother and forced to grow up as orphans. Many episodes illustrate the hardships and pleasures which result in a developing street wisdom. At the age of 16 he joins the foreign legion which he is forced to leave after repeated injuries in Algerian battles as a highly decorated officer. Many tales of camaraderie and battle cries are vividly described.
   This story is told with a unique sense of humor and sharp observations. Between the lines a strong willpower is shining through. One can sense that the Spartan formative years are either destroying the psyche or building an extraordinary personality.
   I finished reading the book in one session and had the feeling that it should have a follow up. What happened to this kid as a grown up?
   Fascinating reading



4. I Have the pleasure of reading the Warrior's Rose .
   Once I began this extraordinary book ,I could not put it down Highly recommended!
   I Salute to Mr Tamas Weber and to the French Foreign Legion.
   Read it and Enjoy.
   
   Nitzan Halperin