What do you think?
Rate this book
A Pitiless Rain: The Battle of Williamsburg, 1862
The intensity and significance of the Battle of Williamsburg on May 4 and 5, 1862, are often underestimated and misunderstood. Previously understood only as a rear guard action on the way to Richmond and overshadowed by the events of the Seven Days, it was in fact a savage two days' engagement which at its height involved more than 20,000 troops in combat. This is the first full length book to treat the battle in all its strategic importance. The authors draw heavily on original sources to reconstruct the action and to highlight the stories of military and civilian participants in the battle and its aftermath. That original material offers new insights into events associated with the Battle of Williamsburg. An extensive appendix describes the location of the battlefield and includes descriptions of key sites which still exist.
160 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1996
20 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
July 31, 2022
The 1862 Peninsula Campaign, waged on Virginia's "Peninsula" which stretches between the James and York Rivers, was the largest, and one of the lengthiest, campaigns waged during the War Between the States. It was also the most complex, with both sides leveraging pressure on each other's political centers via peripheral operations in other theaters (and it must be said that the Southerners, fighting desperately for their independence, manged this better with Jackson's brilliant Valley Campaign being the most notable of both side's peripheral operations), and both sides adding in naval elements to the clashing of the two principal armies in the field.
Despite the scale of the Campaign, with well over a quarter of a million men being involved at it's height, and the plethora of sizeable, and sadly blood drenched, battles that occurred (as Adrian Goldsworthy has remarked, modern historians do tend towards an odd blood lust...), the Campaign as a whole remains as one of the lesser studied aspects of the War.
Perhaps it is a revolutionary disgust with the conservative, conciliatory policies of Federal commander George B. McClellan (who as Ethan Rafuse, and Joseph Rose have pointed out, has fallen victim to the mythology sprung up ever since Grant put pen to paper with his memoirs, and his political backers all but beatified him, and his closest military associates, regardless of actual skill, record, or ability, in the process), perhaps a loathing to recount a tale where the North came so close to an early, war winning, victory and yet ultimately failed, but for whatever reason, the 1862 Peninsula Campaign gets overlooked in favor of other, maybe less complex campaigns elsewhere.
This means that sizeable encounters, with casualties in the thousands, such as Williamsburg, get ignored while already immortalized engagements like Gettysburg get entire works written on the tiniest details, such as a single farm trapped in the overall vortex of a grander battle.
The 5th May, 1862 Battle of Williamsburg (yes, that Williamsburg), was a battle roughly the size, scale, and ferocity of First Manassas, with similar casualties, and yet is often blown through in a page or two in most narratives of the Campaign, and sometimes completely ignored in overall histories of the War. The Hastings' little work is, thus far, the only attention paid to this highly important early encounter between McClellan's Army of the Potomac, and Joseph E. Johnston's Army of Northern Virginia.
The Battle was a rearguard action, waged by the Confederates to slow the pursuit of the Yankees, following their withdrawal from the defensive lines around Yorktown. And maybe because it was a rearguard, popular perception is that it was a meaningless engagement, with little import.
Quite the contrary.
As the Hastings' point out in their small, yet well researched, and well written work, McClellan's pursuit was not nearly as dillatory as is often portrayed in popular imagination, and Johnston was entirely concerned that a hot Federal pursuit, of an outnumbered and outgunned force operating in extremely inhospitable terrain, could very well wreck his Army. And such could have shortened the length of the War, considerably.
As this book portrays, the terrain, the wretched quality of the road network, impossible to improve with mid-19th century technology (the Peninsula is, essentially, a gigantic swamp), and the coastal weather patterns (it rained to an extent that would have made Scotland sigh) all conspired to slow not just Union operations, but likewise those of the Rebels.
McClellan's pursuit, led by Hooker's Division, ran into preprepared field fortifications, erected largely in 1861 by forward thinking Southern engineers, which delayed what kind of pursuit the Northerners were capable of mustering in the evil terrain. As more and more Federal forces arrived, and the pressure mounted on the Southern rearguard, Johnston ordered Longstreet to turn around, and solidiy the rearguard.
The Confederate's, utilizing more aggressive, and flexible, tactics than their Union counterparts manged the battle quite well, despite the mythology blown up around the scrap between Hancock and Early's men. The authors spend quite a bit of time analyzing the story of the action on the Yankee right, and the Confederate left. Their conclusions, well researched, and well argued, argue that the repulse of Early by Hancock's men wasn't the catastrophic mowing down of Southern infantry as is often portrayed, and that the Rebel assault wasn't nearly as hard pressed as has been portrayed in other accounts.
By that point, tactically, the Rebels had already achieved their objectives in the center and on their right, via aggressive counterattacks, and a showcase of a very American penchant for fighting from fixed positions.
The authors make a good case that the Confederates achieved all of their objectives with the Battle of Williamsburg, and I think their case holds up well. They more than bloodied the nose of the Federal pursuers, inflicted nearly 2,000 casualties in a few hours of sharp fighting, and despite Early's repulse on the Southern left, they loss less than 1,500 men of their own. And more importantly than attritional bloodletting, they secured their withdrawal further up the Peninsula, without the fear of a hot Federal pursuit.
As mentioned above, the fact that this was a rearguard action does tend to assure it being overshadowed by other, seemingly more dramatic, encounters elsewhere in the War's historiography. However, as the Hastings' point out, the scale of the Battle of Williamsburg was that of First Manassas, with many of the same players being involved, as well.
Written in the early 90's, before the modern trend of infusing modern politics into historical analysis ruined the art of Historical research in the West, this little book still stands as the only available study of a sadly ignored, yet quite important, battle of the War Between the States. Unfortunately, it is long out of print, coming from a small publishing house, which I believe is now defunct. So finding copies that are affordable is difficult.
I got lucky and found a used copy at a very reasonable price.
If you can find one, it's worth your time to look into, and it does flesh out your understanding of one of the most important campaigns of the War. Very highly recommended.
Despite the scale of the Campaign, with well over a quarter of a million men being involved at it's height, and the plethora of sizeable, and sadly blood drenched, battles that occurred (as Adrian Goldsworthy has remarked, modern historians do tend towards an odd blood lust...), the Campaign as a whole remains as one of the lesser studied aspects of the War.
Perhaps it is a revolutionary disgust with the conservative, conciliatory policies of Federal commander George B. McClellan (who as Ethan Rafuse, and Joseph Rose have pointed out, has fallen victim to the mythology sprung up ever since Grant put pen to paper with his memoirs, and his political backers all but beatified him, and his closest military associates, regardless of actual skill, record, or ability, in the process), perhaps a loathing to recount a tale where the North came so close to an early, war winning, victory and yet ultimately failed, but for whatever reason, the 1862 Peninsula Campaign gets overlooked in favor of other, maybe less complex campaigns elsewhere.
This means that sizeable encounters, with casualties in the thousands, such as Williamsburg, get ignored while already immortalized engagements like Gettysburg get entire works written on the tiniest details, such as a single farm trapped in the overall vortex of a grander battle.
The 5th May, 1862 Battle of Williamsburg (yes, that Williamsburg), was a battle roughly the size, scale, and ferocity of First Manassas, with similar casualties, and yet is often blown through in a page or two in most narratives of the Campaign, and sometimes completely ignored in overall histories of the War. The Hastings' little work is, thus far, the only attention paid to this highly important early encounter between McClellan's Army of the Potomac, and Joseph E. Johnston's Army of Northern Virginia.
The Battle was a rearguard action, waged by the Confederates to slow the pursuit of the Yankees, following their withdrawal from the defensive lines around Yorktown. And maybe because it was a rearguard, popular perception is that it was a meaningless engagement, with little import.
Quite the contrary.
As the Hastings' point out in their small, yet well researched, and well written work, McClellan's pursuit was not nearly as dillatory as is often portrayed in popular imagination, and Johnston was entirely concerned that a hot Federal pursuit, of an outnumbered and outgunned force operating in extremely inhospitable terrain, could very well wreck his Army. And such could have shortened the length of the War, considerably.
As this book portrays, the terrain, the wretched quality of the road network, impossible to improve with mid-19th century technology (the Peninsula is, essentially, a gigantic swamp), and the coastal weather patterns (it rained to an extent that would have made Scotland sigh) all conspired to slow not just Union operations, but likewise those of the Rebels.
McClellan's pursuit, led by Hooker's Division, ran into preprepared field fortifications, erected largely in 1861 by forward thinking Southern engineers, which delayed what kind of pursuit the Northerners were capable of mustering in the evil terrain. As more and more Federal forces arrived, and the pressure mounted on the Southern rearguard, Johnston ordered Longstreet to turn around, and solidiy the rearguard.
The Confederate's, utilizing more aggressive, and flexible, tactics than their Union counterparts manged the battle quite well, despite the mythology blown up around the scrap between Hancock and Early's men. The authors spend quite a bit of time analyzing the story of the action on the Yankee right, and the Confederate left. Their conclusions, well researched, and well argued, argue that the repulse of Early by Hancock's men wasn't the catastrophic mowing down of Southern infantry as is often portrayed, and that the Rebel assault wasn't nearly as hard pressed as has been portrayed in other accounts.
By that point, tactically, the Rebels had already achieved their objectives in the center and on their right, via aggressive counterattacks, and a showcase of a very American penchant for fighting from fixed positions.
The authors make a good case that the Confederates achieved all of their objectives with the Battle of Williamsburg, and I think their case holds up well. They more than bloodied the nose of the Federal pursuers, inflicted nearly 2,000 casualties in a few hours of sharp fighting, and despite Early's repulse on the Southern left, they loss less than 1,500 men of their own. And more importantly than attritional bloodletting, they secured their withdrawal further up the Peninsula, without the fear of a hot Federal pursuit.
As mentioned above, the fact that this was a rearguard action does tend to assure it being overshadowed by other, seemingly more dramatic, encounters elsewhere in the War's historiography. However, as the Hastings' point out, the scale of the Battle of Williamsburg was that of First Manassas, with many of the same players being involved, as well.
Written in the early 90's, before the modern trend of infusing modern politics into historical analysis ruined the art of Historical research in the West, this little book still stands as the only available study of a sadly ignored, yet quite important, battle of the War Between the States. Unfortunately, it is long out of print, coming from a small publishing house, which I believe is now defunct. So finding copies that are affordable is difficult.
I got lucky and found a used copy at a very reasonable price.
If you can find one, it's worth your time to look into, and it does flesh out your understanding of one of the most important campaigns of the War. Very highly recommended.
August 17, 2014
The Battle of Williamsburg is one of those Civil War engagements that flies mostly under the radar. The average Civil War student may hardly find more than a breath mention of it. But in Hastings's book, he details the entire scope of this operation, discussing Johnston's move up the Peninsula and the Union's attempt to track them down. Then at Williamsburg, they find that not only do they have to fight, but a full scale battle ensues. Hancock begins his run which would leave him with the nickname, "The Suburb."
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this account. Loved the author's detailed references, bringing personal accounts into it. His maps were also very helpful - especially if you have visited Williamsburg today. It really provides a visual of where things happen.
Appendices include an Order of Battle and the current (1996) state of sites where parts of the battle happened. Although a bit out of date, it will help modern day battle buffs approximate locations.
Wish this book wasn't so hard to find. But I do highly recommend it, especially for those who are trying to study the actions on the Peninsula more closely.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this account. Loved the author's detailed references, bringing personal accounts into it. His maps were also very helpful - especially if you have visited Williamsburg today. It really provides a visual of where things happen.
Appendices include an Order of Battle and the current (1996) state of sites where parts of the battle happened. Although a bit out of date, it will help modern day battle buffs approximate locations.
Wish this book wasn't so hard to find. But I do highly recommend it, especially for those who are trying to study the actions on the Peninsula more closely.
December 3, 2020
This seems to be the only book published on the battle of Williamsburg, so I got it as part of my research on my great great grandfather who fought in it in the 7th VA. I was expecting a rather amateurish writing from this local historian, but wanted the details of the battle in any case.
What a pleasant surprise! The book is a gem, well written and deeply researched. The authors recount the tactical details of the battle excellently, with effective maps augmenting the narrative. Even descriptions of the Peninsula Campaign to that point and of the fortifications were enlightening. The coverage goes from good descriptions of the leaders down to personal recollections of the fighting men that convey what the fighting was like.
An excellent battle monograph.
What a pleasant surprise! The book is a gem, well written and deeply researched. The authors recount the tactical details of the battle excellently, with effective maps augmenting the narrative. Even descriptions of the Peninsula Campaign to that point and of the fortifications were enlightening. The coverage goes from good descriptions of the leaders down to personal recollections of the fighting men that convey what the fighting was like.
An excellent battle monograph.
April 11, 2021
The Battle of Williamsburg gets lost in histories of the Peninsula Campaign as a minor prelude, but it deserves better. Earl C. Hastings Jr and David Hastings seek to restore Williamsburg to its proper status in what appears to be the only book-length study of the battle.
The first thing to note about the authors is that they are locals with an intimate and detailed knowledge of the ground. They seem to have walked it all including private areas not generally accessible to the public. That knowledge combines with their research on the defences and the concepts of military engineering behind them to deliver an excellent grasp of the challenges facing both the defending Rebels and the assaulting Union Army.
While the authors go to great lengths to debunk many of the hackneyed myths about the battle they do deliver credit to its traditionally well known figures e.g. Kearny, Hooker, and Hancock. They also note the performance of less well-known characters like John J. Peck. On the rebel side they are rather more forgiving of John Bankhead Magruder than many authors before or since, choosing to ascribe his performance to exhaustion and disappointment rather than drink ("tired and emotional" in British Parliamentary code). The less well known elder Ewell brother, Benjamin S. Ewell, also gets some well-deserved publicity.
In a level of detail that would frustrate Phil Kearny (who described it as "minor affair") the authors give an excellent description of Hancock's crossing of Cub Run, his seizure of the abandoned redoubts, and his repulse of the piecemeal attacks of Early and D.H. Hill.
Yes there are a great many typographical errors in the book (good luck working out who the historians referred to are - their names are often garbled beyond recognition) and the odd error creeps in on the periphery (they have the West Point goats assigned to the infantry rather than to the cavalry) but for anyone interested in a thorough and engaging treatment of this early battle this is a must have text.
The first thing to note about the authors is that they are locals with an intimate and detailed knowledge of the ground. They seem to have walked it all including private areas not generally accessible to the public. That knowledge combines with their research on the defences and the concepts of military engineering behind them to deliver an excellent grasp of the challenges facing both the defending Rebels and the assaulting Union Army.
While the authors go to great lengths to debunk many of the hackneyed myths about the battle they do deliver credit to its traditionally well known figures e.g. Kearny, Hooker, and Hancock. They also note the performance of less well-known characters like John J. Peck. On the rebel side they are rather more forgiving of John Bankhead Magruder than many authors before or since, choosing to ascribe his performance to exhaustion and disappointment rather than drink ("tired and emotional" in British Parliamentary code). The less well known elder Ewell brother, Benjamin S. Ewell, also gets some well-deserved publicity.
In a level of detail that would frustrate Phil Kearny (who described it as "minor affair") the authors give an excellent description of Hancock's crossing of Cub Run, his seizure of the abandoned redoubts, and his repulse of the piecemeal attacks of Early and D.H. Hill.
Yes there are a great many typographical errors in the book (good luck working out who the historians referred to are - their names are often garbled beyond recognition) and the odd error creeps in on the periphery (they have the West Point goats assigned to the infantry rather than to the cavalry) but for anyone interested in a thorough and engaging treatment of this early battle this is a must have text.
November 3, 2025
Amazone
Excellent Book On A Forgotten Battle
8/10
A Pitiless Rain sheds light on the little known but bloody battle of Williamsburg in 1862. The authors get to the battle quickly, but succinctly describe events on the Peninsula prior to the battle. The description of the battle is good and gives plenty of detail. The maps are fairly good but a couple more would have been nice
It's interesting to see officers like Hooker and Longstreet in action before they became well known.
Although not the most interesting writers, the authors put you into the battle in an informative but readable style. Recommended for all Civil War buffs wanting to read about a little known battle.
Arkansas
August 16, 2023
A solid, easily readable monograph describing a neglected battle that never gets caught up in excessive detail or lengthy tangent. There's enough description of the leaders' personalities and excerpts from soldiers' accounts to humanize the history, and it pointedly (and effectively) ends by telling how a slave in Williamsburg learned that she was free from a Yankee soldier after the battle.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews