Shattered Nation

by Jeffrey Brooks

History records that, in the summer of 1864, Confederate President Jefferson Davis relieved General Joe Johnston from command of the Army of Tennessee, putting the aggressive General John Bell Hood in his place. Hood was subsequently defeated at Atlanta, allowing President Abraham Lincoln to secure reelection. The last chance of Confederate victory had been lost. But what if history had unfolded differently? Shattered Nation takes readers into history as it might have been. A single telegram radically alters the course of the war. As armies clash in epic battles outside Atlanta, Jefferson Davis strives to secure an independent Confederacy while Abraham Lincoln struggles desperately to keep his dream of a united America alive. A story of military adventure and political intrigue, Shattered Nation is one of the most spellbinding alternate history novels yet published.

807 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 24, 2013

Reviews

[Charles van Buren · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as good as it could have been, September 17, 2016

This review is from: Shattered Nation (Kindle Edition)

Many novels of alternate history are actually books of alternate history which read as do most books of history rather than as novels. Shattered Nation is actually a novel which, depending upon taste, makes it more interesting or makes the action drag. I do not think that the novel elements are a drag on the action but the seemingly interminable comments and discussions of slavery and why the two sides are fighting definitely slow the book. Some of this discussion is needed for those who do not know much history but there is rather too much of it. And too much of it is of the, " Oh My", hand wringing variety and ignores many other things and viewpoints.

The author does something interesting with the point of departure that General Johnston is not replaced by General Hood. Many who consider this idea end with Sherman failing to take Atlanta and Lincoln losing his reelection bid, resulting in a negotiated end to the war. In this novel, Sherman fails to take Atlanta and there is still half the book to go as the author explores many other things which could have happened. Most is reasonably realistic other than the handling of the Confederate cavalry, particularly General Forrest. There are more believable ways to blind the Confederate army at a critical juncture. I also felt that the ending was weak and not very believable.

This is almost a five star effort, but for some obvious bias and playing loose with characterizations of some of the historical figures. John Bell Hood in particular is treated in a very shabby manner. He may not have been a great general, but it is hard to know as the pain from his broken body caused him to use alcohol and opium too heavily. The man had to be tied onto his horse. He clearly was not functioning as well as he did before his severe wounds. In this novel Mr. Brooks also portrays him as a man of low character.

[Bill . · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love alternative history, especially about the Civil War era. Most books on this subject focus on Robert E. Lee, and so I was thrilled to find one that focused on other parts of the war.

Mr. Brooks created an excellent story, and told it in a manner that flowed very well, giving enough detail that you understood what was happening, but never being boring. While there was, of course, a winner and a loser, he didn't make anyone out to be superman, which makes his story so much more believable and enjoyable.

If you enjoy Civil War alternative history, you just have to read this book.
Comment

[D J Rout · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well-researched alternate history. The author has clearly done his homework. He has borrowed, from Harry Turtledove the structure of the grand overview, the actions and characters of the upper echelon of the military, and how the actions of the war appear to the enlisted men. While R.E. Thomson has a more poetic way of describing battles, and a better knowledge of military tactics (it seems to me), Shattered Nation is a complete novel, not two thirds of a trilogy!

For a self-published book, there are few typos and editorial issues, although one character, arriving out of the blue to inflict decisive damage on Ulysses Grant and the US Army, appears to change names. The editing is, therefore, nearly as good as Lisa Stout's Shadowbound

The novel ends with a Confederate victory, or it wouldn't be an alternate history, but little is said about the CSA after Lincoln is defeated in the US election of 1864. This may be dealt with in later books, as Book 3, House Of The Proud: A Shattered Nation Novel is also out. But first I want to find out what Book 2 is called.

So, this ranks just behind the immortal The Guns of the South in my list of favorite alternate histories of the War of Northern Aggression.

[Jolon · Rating 3 out of 5]

In reading this book, I was struck by the enormous similarities between it and Stonewall Goes West, which I had read a short time previously. Both revolve around the unlikely and neglected idea of revived Confederate fortunes in the Western front, with reverses against Sherman's army as the November Election of the Union approaches and peace sentiment grows in the North.


One unavoidable aspect of both books was that the voice they give to various historical characters is unavoidably at times discordant with expectations of that person's personality and record. (Particularly, both novels disappoint me in their portrayal of Jefferson Davis.) In Stonewall Goes West, the Bishop-General Polk is portrayed as a scheming and deathly ambitious man, although there is no historical evidence for this whatsoever. In Shattered Nation, it is Braxton Bragg and John Bell Hood's turn to be borderline treasonous, placing revenge on rivals and personal advancement ahead of their nation, up to and including deliberate sabotage of military maneuvers. Braxton Bragg is a very disagreeable character, and Hood a quite flawed one, but neither of these charges really stick. I am not sure why either author felt the Confederacy, with as much external threats as it had, required ahistorical internal intrigue for added dramatic effect, but this is a theme in both works, more pronounced in Shattered Nation than Stonewall Goes West.

Stonewall Goes West aims to be a trilogy, with two novels having been released; however, in their entirety it seems they may come up short of the length Shattered Nation reaches, with Shattered Nation having a postwar sequel seemingly in the works. While Stonewall Goes West's length is fairly tight, leaving the reader wanting more, Shattered Nation drags a bit.

I would be remiss in not mentioning Shattered Nation's boots-on-the-ground Protagonist, McFadden- it can't be escaped that the author is a Texan of Scottish extraction, exactly like his protagonist. Without seeming to have invested as much in the character, Stonewall Goes West's corresponding rank-and-file Confederate is a similar but more believable and effective character, without such dramatic highs and lows of character arc, or overbearing sense of author-avatar invincibility.

Shattered Nation seems very much to want to distance itself from supporting Slavery; everybody who is anybody in the Confederate roll-call, as well as the wording of the seemingly neutral narrative, do everything they can to decry slavery while even introspectively wondering if the South has a moral right to victory for it vile sins. As these are Confederate soldiers, the whole thing is unbecoming and forced. On a related note, Nathan Bedford Forrest is seemingly given up for his presumed sins- the Confederacy the author wants to imagine having no place for his like, or something like that.

Stonewall Goes West does not labor heavily one way or the other on the evils of slavery, although its Yankee characters occasionally do. (Yankee characters would naturally be the more reasonable mouthpiece for any abolitionist sentiments the author feels need to be uttered, but I digress.)

Finally, Stonewall Goes West features the Confederacy's enigmatic genius serving on a new front, and how his energetic leadership might revive that front's flagging fortunes. Even so, he is beset with half-victories and bloody setbacks, and his final victory is by no means clear as of midway through the series. Contrasting with this, Shattered Nation gives the somewhat questionable general Joseph E. Johnston a victory of scale unseen by Confederates in our historical conflict, achieved in a tactical situation that amounts to a frontal attack on an outnumbering force. Militarily, Stonewall Goes West is considerably more believable.


Shattered Nation, despite being considerably longer than Stonewall Goes West, has at least the virtue of less editing errors, and is by no means a bad book- although it irked me at points throughout for the reasons mentioned, in the end I read it as fast as I could and mostly enjoyed myself doing so. It is just unfortunate to have the existence of such a similar and superior rival work.

[James Walters · Rating 2 out of 5]

On the plus side, Brooks paid keen attention to his historical details and actually wrote a novel. Too many of these self-published things are ugly hybrids between being a novel and something like what Peter Tsouras or MHQ would do. This really is a novel, showing far more than telling.

On the minus side, the book is about 250 to 350 pages too long, and that is bad given some of the flat prose, molasses-like pacing, and flatter characters. It's a novel, but not an imaginative, engaging, or lively one. Getting through it was a real struggle. George R.R. Martin's books are twice as long, and I read them in half the time if that gives you an idea.

Finally, as a Civil War buff I think the author makes way, way too much of Joe Johnston. I won't say he denigrates the guys in blue, but Johnston must practically be the man's demi-god from the way he is treated here. It is his one serious departure from the historical record, and man is it an egregious one.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

What if Jefferson Davis did not replace Johnston with Hood during the summer of 1864? Brooks provides one answer in this surprisingly exciting book. His knowledge of the Civil War, the battles around and for Atlanta and the key players is very deep. I think Brooks goes a little too far in stressing only one aspect of the respective personalities of Grant and Sherman but he presents a very plausible plot. The last part of the book is really exciting, fast moving and absorbing. A few typos here and there and some anachronisms in language (dog and pony shows happened later in the 1800s; best-case scenarios weren't so-called until the 1950s; Lincoln may have felt hassled but he wouldn't have used that word) are unfortunate but tolerable. Good book.