This Terrible Sound: The Battle of Chickamauga

The Civil War In The West #2

by Peter Cozzens

When North and South met among the desolate mountains of northwestern Georgia in 1863, they began one of the bloodiest and most decisive campaigns of the Civil War. The climactic Battle of Chickamauga lasted just two days, yet it was nearly as costly as Gettysburg, with casualties among the highest in the war.

 

In this study of the campaign, the first to appear in over thirty years and the most comprehensive account ever written on Chickamauga, Peter Cozzens presents a vivid narrative about an engagement that was crucial to the outcome of the war in the West. Drawing upon a wealth of previously untapped sources, Cozzens offers startling new interpretations that challenge the conventional wisdom on key moments of the battle, such as Rosecrans's fateful order to General Wood and Thomas's historic defense of Horseshoe Ridge.

 

Chickamauga was a battle of missed opportunities, stupendous tactical blunders, and savage fighting by the men in ranks. Cozzens writes movingly of both the heroism and suffering of the common soldiers and of the strengths and tragic flaws of their commanders. Enhanced by the detailed battle maps and original sketches by the noted artist Keith Rocco, this book will appeal to all Civil War enthusiasts and students of military history.

 

Genres: Civil War, History, American Civil War, Nonfiction, American History, Military Fiction, Military History

692 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 1992

About the author

Peter Cozzens is the award-winning author of seventeen books on the American Civil War and the West. Cozzens is also a retired Foreign Service Officer.

His most recent book is A Brutal Reckoning: Andrew Jackson, the Creek Indians, and the Epic War for the American South (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2023). Cozzens's next book is Deadwood: Gold, Guns, and Greed in the American West (Knopf: September 2025).

Cozzens's penultimate book, Tecumseh and the Prophet: The Shawnee Brothers Who Defied a Nation, was published by Knopf in October 2020. It won the Western Writers of America Spur Award and was a finalist for the George Washington Prize.

His The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West was published by Alfred A. Knopf in October 2016. Amazon selected it as a Best Book of November 2016. Smithsonian Magazine chose it as one of the ten best history books of 2016. It has won multiple awards, including the Gilder-Lehrman Prize for the finest book on military history published worldwide. It also was a London Times book of the year and has been translated into several languages, including Russian and Chinese.

All of Cozzens' books have been selections of the Book of the Month Club, History Book Club, and/or the Military Book Club.

Cozzens’ This Terrible Sound: The Battle of Chickamauga and The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: The Battles for Chattanooga were both Main Selections of the History Book Club and were chosen by Civil War Magazine as two of the 100 greatest works ever written on the conflict.

The History Book Club called his five-volume Eyewitnesses to the Indian Wars "the definitive resource on the military struggle for the American West."

His Shenandoah 1862: Stonewall Jackson's Valley Campaign was a Choice "Outstanding Academic Title" for 2009.

He was a frequent contributor to the New York Times "Disunion" series, and he has written articles for Smithsonian Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, True West, America's Civil War, Civil War Times Illustrated, and MHQ, among other publications.

In 2002 Cozzens received the American Foreign Service Association’s highest award, given annually to one Foreign Service Officer for exemplary moral courage, integrity, and creative dissent.

Cozzens is a member of the Advisory Council of the Lincoln Prize, the Western Writers Association, the Authors' Guild, and the Army and Navy Club.

Cozzens and his wife Antonia Feldman reside in Maryland.

Reviews

[David Eppenstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is difficult to evaluate but I am giving it 3.5 stars even though I am not entirely confident in that decision. The book was a chore to finish and I don't believe any but dedicated Civil War buffs or history nerds (guilty) will have the determination to wade through all 536 pages of text. My problem with the book is that I can't decide whether the ordeal is the fault of the author and his approach to telling the story of this battle or whether it was the chaotic nature of this battle that made the telling of it difficult. I have read Cozzens before and have never found fault with any of these experiences so I am reluctant to blame him but that doesn't mean he is above criticism. The battle itself was a mess and it has to be a casebook study in military mismanagement in which both sides were equally at fault. However, it is the author's task to deliver to the reader and understandable portrayal of this historic event and that understanding was not easily received.

The goal of this battle was for the Union troops under the command of General William Rosecrans to capture the city of Chattanooga being defended by Rebel troops commanded by General Braxton Bragg. Many factors rendered the execution of the duties of both of these generals difficult to near impossible. The first was the terrain surrounding Chattanooga which is mountainous and the mountains are heavily wooden and choked by thick underbrush making passage extremely difficult. There were also few roads and neither side had any significant familiarity with the area. Neither side had reliable intelligence so neither side knew where the other side was or what might be their intentions. Consequently, both sides had units scattered over a 30 or 40 mile area searching for the enemy. Couple this with the terrain and communications became impossible. Orders took anywhere from 8 to 18 hours to deliver to the intended party and by that time changes in circumstances rendered the order impossible or pointless. Furthering such frustrations was the fact that both armies had more than their share of prima dona generals that had no problem with ignoring or simply delaying their obedience to orders. In fact one of the criticisms of this battle was that there were entirely too many generals involved in this fight. So what happened here was two armies running around trying to find each other in the wooded mountains of Southern Tennessee and Northwest Georgia and the commanding generals frequently not knowing where major portions of his army was at any given time. When the battle was finally engaged it was primarily an accident in which neither side selected the battleground and that battleground offered nothing but obstacles for both sides.

The engagement of these armies came about after Rosecrans learned that Bragg had abandoned Chattanooga and was heading South. It was Rosecrans belief that Bragg was heading for Atlanta to avoid battle. Rosecrans thought he could send his right wing South and then East to head off and stop Bragg while his left wing chased Bragg from behind. Unfortunately, Bragg changed his mind and decided to turn around so that he could attack Rosecrans' left wing and roll it and thus crush his army in detail. The battle was engaged when Bragg ran into Rosecrans's left wing that was chasing him. Rosecrans' army was divided for this unintended collision so the right wing needed to return North ASAP.

The battle was fought over two days and its direction was initially from East to West along a road called Brotherton which intersected another road named La Fayette. The battles' direction then shifted South to North along La Fayette which appears to be the spine of the battlefield. What made the battle significantly difficult was the terrain. The field was hilly with several deep ravines and everything was densely wooded with thick almost impassable undergrowth. Visibility was frequently no more than 50 yards because of the terrain and undergrowth and when the smoke of battle was added visibility was even further diminished. Natural morning fogs and then the fires started by sparks from weapons igniting the dry tinder made visibility beyond 20 feet questionable and eerie. As a consequence injuries and deaths from friendly fire were a common occurrence and the fear of firing on friendly forces caused fatal delays in responding to the presence of unidentifiable forces. If the terrain wasn't enough to contend with the officers on both sides added to the chaos with their temperamental behavior and lack of military discipline. Why no courts martial ever resulted from this battle is a total mystery. Reading about this battle is unlike any other that I have ever read about and makes for a strong illustration for the necessity of professionals in the military.

The battle was indeed confusing and chaotic and probably presented the author with a good number of challenges in attempting to bring an understanding of it to the reader. So why did I find Cozzens' treatment difficult to understand? First, the book is incredibly well researched which is good but might also be bad. From the detail provided by the author it made me think he had every after action report written by every officer involved in this battle and found a way to include it in the book. Comprehensive would be an understatement. The first half of the book is a litany of troop movements in search of Bragg and Bragg searching for Rosecrans. These movements are at the regimental and brigade level and it was just too much. Further, these units were known by the names of their commanders who are vastly unknown figures even to Civil War fans so unless the unit was associated with a more well known Civil War figure the reader was often not sure whose army the unit belonged to and what its movement meant. Once the battle really began and all the units were brought together there was more focus and clarity but it would have been better to identify units by their state. Even in the battle the actions were described and fought by regiments and brigades for the most part and the commanders of such units were not readily known to the average reader. When divisions and corps were mentioned the commanders of these units were generally known and their movements better understood.

Another problems I had with the author's presentation was the maps. Talking about a battle without adequate inclusion of maps is like talking about a painting without a photograph of it. The author did include maps but not enough and not the ones that were really needed. The maps included were of segments of the battle at specific times. The problem was that this segmentation of the battle gave the impression of being separate battles at distant points when in fact they were part of the same battle at the same time and just a short distance down the road from the other engagements. What was needed were maps of the entire battle showing all the engagements going on at the same time and their proximity to each other. The author's treatment was to detail one part of the engagement at a particular time and then in the next chapter start discussing what was happening earlier or later down the road or on the other side's perspective. This made for a disjointed understanding and again compounding the confusion by referring to participating units by the names of lesser known commanders and there were a lot of such names.

The Battle of Chickamauga is reputedly the Civil War battle with the second highest casualty rate after Gettysburg. After reading about the conditions under which it was fought the reader will wonder why it didn't have the highest casualty rate. The Union forces abandoned the field so technically the Union lost. However, it is pointed out by both sides that the goal was capturing Chattanooga and at the end of the battle the Union had Chattanooga and held it thus opening the deep South to invasion. The whole last chapter of the book is devoted to the finger pointing and fault finding and the results of all the political and personality maneuvering. The debated conclusion is was the battle necessary and what did it accomplish? Bragg abandoned Chattanooga and Union force merely marched in and occupied the city. Did Rosecrans need to chase after Bragg and risk a battle in such inhospitable terrain with his army scattered? It is an interesting battle but whether or not this author presented the history of the battle in the best possible manner will be up to the individual reader. Enjoy.

[Sleepy Boy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though incredibly detailed I thoroughly enjoy Cozzens' writing style. He is masterful at not only conveying the intensity of the battle but also the depth of nuance of the personalities and egos of the commanders involved.

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

During my recent binge of books on major Civil War battles, I’ve come to realize that the best books excel at three things - describing the personalities, strategies and effectiveness of the generals in the field; showing how the battle played out in a thorough but understandable way; and describing how it was experienced by the soldiers and civilians who lived through it. The books that can do all three of these things well, have been great in my estimation. The ones that manage two out of three can still be pretty good, but they fall a bit short of great.

This book manages two out of the three. And it does them very well - it’s that third one that I just wish was as great.

Cozzens is an excellent writer and begins with insightful character sketches of the opposing commanding generals, Bragg and Rosecrans. Neither is the hero or the villain - rather, both are portrayed as flawed, somewhat overwhelmed and indecisive.

The book picks up in the aftermath of Cozzens’s No Better Place to Die: The Battle Of Stones River, in which Union forces took control of Central Tennessee and the Confederates holed up in Chattanooga, relatively safe, they believed, on the other side of the Cumberland Plateau. This book begins with Rosecrans's army moving toward Chattanooga over very difficult terrain, which Cozzens describes as “one of the most ambitious and perilous operations of the war.”

The Confederates begin to retreat south into Georgia, the Federals pursue them, and suddenly the battle is on - rather early in the book, at least as compared to others that spend a third to half of their narrative on the leadup to the main event. And once the fighting begins, Cozzens is great at portraying the human side of war - soldiers’ experiences, civilian suffering, the thrill and the terror of combat.

That’s two out of three. The third thing I was looking for, hoping for, in this book was an engaging, understandable depiction of the battle itself. But I found it so detailed, with seemingly every minor skirmish described alongside every major clash, that it was difficult to distinguish the important parts from the lesser ones, and I got a little lost. I didn’t get a clear sense of the geography (what happened where), the timeline (what happened when) or the objectives (what happened and why). And I’ve been to the Chickamauga battlefield, so I was looking forward to getting a better understanding of what happened where, but I just couldn’t visualize any of it as described. When relating events that occurred simultaneously in different locations, the narrative can double back on itself and go back in time to events that happened prior to something you just read about, so it’s not strictly chronological, either.

Granted, part of the problem is not Cozzens’s, because it was a chaotic battle. But I was hoping a seasoned writer could make some better sense out of it all, instead of offering a confusing story, confusingly told. He quotes Union Gen. Philip Sheridan as saying “there did not seem to be any well-defined plan of action.” And he critiques Bragg's “lackadaisical approach to the entire situation,” which only made things worse.

Oddly, he seems to reserve his greatest disdain for future president James Garfield. As Rosecrans’s chief of staff, Cozzens dismisses Garfield as ambitious and conniving, “who would measure his loyalty to his commander by its utility in furthering his political or military career.” With Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase as his patron in Washington, Cozzens portrays Garfield as Washington’s eyes and ears in Rosecrans’s camp, more loyal to Chase than to the general he purportedly served. Later, a daring ride through Confederate lines that his National Park Service biography calls “the pinnacle of James Garfield’s service,” Cozzens disparagingly downplays as being “inflated… into an event second only to Paul Revere's ride in its importance and unsurpassed in its danger,” sniffing that “few were as taken with Garfield's military abilities as he himself seemed to be,” and backhandedly dismissing his ride as “the highlight of his military career; apart from his assassination, it was perhaps the most memorable moment of his life.”

Ouch.

So while I didn’t get a good feel for the battle itself, Cozzens provides a good sense of where things stood when it was over. Even though it was a Confederate victory, it didn’t end well for the men at the top. Rosecrans retreated to Chattanooga before the battle was even over, leaving Gen. George Thomas to fight alone, and Rosecrans was later relieved of his post. The victorious Bragg was accused of failing to capitalize on his victory, ended up mired in infighting with his officers, and was soon to lose his own command.

The Union may have suffered a devastating defeat, but in the end it was only a setback. They would soon try again, this time with reinforcements from the west. Once he joined the fight, “Grant sprang from Chattanooga like a caged lion suddenly freed,” Cozzens writes - intriguingly setting up the rest of the story yet to come.

[Captain Sir Roddy, R.N. (Ret.) · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the largest land battles fought on the North American continent, and second only to Gettysburg in the total number of casualties (a total of about 36,000 killed or wounded), the Battle of Chickamauga was a horrific brawl fought in the dense woods in extreme northwestern Georgia over a two-day period in mid-September 1863. I guess I can't really quite put my finger on exactly why the Battle of Chickamamauga has fascinated me most of my adult life, but it sure has. I had a direct ancestor who fought on the Union side (21st Massachusetts) with the Army of the Potomac in the Virginia theater, but no one in the western theater. I guess it comes down to my assessment that a final and total victory in the Civil War ultimately favored the Union based upon the strategic and tactical results of the performances of Federal armies in the western theater. The Battle of Chickamauga is sort of anomalous as it was a resounding victory for the Confederate Army of Tennessee that had, throughout most of the Civil War, been beaten by various Federal armies, but had also been pretty badly used by its own high command.

While most battles fought during the American Civil War were generally won or lost based upon the decisions of the army and field commanders, Chickamauga was really one of the very few battles with an outcome that was largely determined by the soldiers on the ground. In spite of the leadership (or, lack thereof), this battle was a bloody testament to the tenacity of the fighting men in blue and grey as they engaged in this titanic two-day struggle.

In This Terrible Sound, Peter Cozzens has taken on the near-impossible task of trying to describe the completely confusing and chaotic fighting that occurred between the Union Army of the Cumberland, led by Major General William C. Rosecrans, and the Confederate Army of Tennessee, commanded by General Braxton Bragg. This two-day bloody affair was fought in a long narrow valley that was heavily vegetated with pine and oak woods, limiting visibility between the combatants, in most places, to just a few tens of yards at best. Most of the time intense combat flared up between the two armies as they blundered into each other in the dense woods up and down the valley. Brigade and Division commanders tried to respond to threats by feel and sound, and in many instances guessed wrong.

Cozzens goes into great detail describing the command structure and personalities of the leaders in the Confederate and Union armies, and while the Confederate Army eventually prevailed at the end of the day, it was not due to leadership qualities among the Confederate command structure. It was really much more the result of absolutely disastrous tactical decisions by Rosecrans and a few of his subordinates, and a hefty dose of just plain bad luck. Had it not been for the steadiness and dogged defense exhibited by Union Major General George H. Thomas at Snodgrass Hill, the entire Union army may very well have been decisively routed from the field of battle, or even completely destroyed in place. I was completely enthralled reading Cozzens' superb and detailed description about Thomas's day-long stand on the second day as he essentially bought time for the rest of the Union army to safely retreat from the Chickamauga battlefield and into defensive works in Chattanooga, Tennessee. It really was very nearly an utter and complete disaster for the Union Army of the Cumberland, and with his tenacious defense Thomas earned himself the sobriquet "The Rock of Chickamauga".

While the Battle of Chickamauga was clearly a tactical victory for Bragg and his Confederate Army of Tennessee, it ultimately turned out to be a strategic defeat for the Confederacy, as Bragg let the Union Army safely get away and regroup in Chattanooga. Eventually, Union General U.S. Grant came to Chattanooga and, replacing Rosecrans, he and Major General Thomas attacked and routed Bragg's army. This opened up the way for Sherman's campaign on Atlanta and his later "March to the Sea".

Cozzens' writing style is personal and descriptive. He gives you a very good feeling for the conditions on the battlefield, and for the experiences of the common soldiers in both armies as the battle raged back and forth. He has drawn liberally, not only from official Confederate and Union records and reports, but also from letters and diaries and first-person accounts related by the veterans themselves. This is a very compelling story about a battle that really receives little attention when it comes to discussions about the American Civil War, as most tend to focus on the campaigns and great battles that occurred in the eastern theater of the war.

While Cozzens has included twenty-five very detailed maps, it was still difficult to fully comprehend the complicated and chaotic movements and counter-movements of the brigades and regiments as the fighting surged up and down and back and forth across the valley over the entire two days of the battle. I was so glad to have, readily available, David A. Powell's The Maps of Chickamauga: An Atlas of the Chickamauga Campaign, Including the Tullahoma Operations, June 22 - September 23, 1863. This is a "must-have" if you truly want to maximize your experience reading Cozzens' brilliant book. I really enjoyed them both, and if you're a Civil War or military history buff I think you will as well.

[Avis Black · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cozzens is for readers who like their battles hard-core. He wants to know what every single regiment was doing during the engagement, and he's going to make sure you learn, too. He's a difficult read for the novice, but the trek is unusually rewarding. Cozzens has a good eye for anecdotes and he likes to make clear the gory cost of battle. He's also an excellent exploder of myths--and does a reassessment of those soldiers whose efforts have been either overlooked by history, or overpraised.

By the time you're done with one of his books you will have learned the fight about as thoroughly as anyone can from a single volume. You really don't understand Civil War battle history until you are willing to delve into one of these conflicts on the level Cozzens is trying to take you, and it's well worth going on the journey with him.

Available at Open Library:
https://openlibrary.org/works/OL97680...

[Todd Price · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chickamauga, a Cherokee word meaning the River of Death was a most appropriate name for the battle of September 19-20, 1863. North Georgia saw some of the bloodiest fighting of the entire United States Civil War, second only to the Battle of Gettysburg in number of casualties. The Battle of Chickamauga hasn’t received near the attention of Gettysburg. There are a few reasons for that, including the fact Chickamauga was a Confederate victory, whereas Gettysburg was won by the Union, and as always history is written by the victors. Another element was simply location and geography. Northern Union capital city Washington DC and Southern Confederate capital Richmond, Virginia were relatively close to one another, so the actions of the armies in the East received significantly greater media attention, and subsequently garnered greater historical interest. However, the landscape and nature of fighting probably contributed even more to its lack of historiographical study. I lived only 10 minutes from the Chickamauga battlefield and have visited and explored it more times than I could count. 150 years and more after the battle, it retains much of the wild, broken, tangled, forested wilderness features that wreaked havoc with battlefield command for both sides on that fateful day in the fall of 1863.

Because the terrain at Chickamauga was so difficult, it caused incredible difficulties for the commanders of the armies to issue effective instructions and coordinate efforts with other units. Civil War armies were primarily organized in a descending structure of: Army-Corps-Division-Brigade-Regiment. Cozzens shares that “…the combat…quickly degenerated into a struggle of brigades - and sometimes of regiments - operating largely on their own. Fortunate indeed was the brigade commander who knew the location of all his regiments.” The dense forests along Chickamauga Creek prevented anyone from knowing a great deal about what was occurring outside of the immediate(largely observable) vicinity. Units were fed into combat piecemeal, resulting in a great deal of back and forth advance and retreat of competing sides over the same small parcels of ground. Despite the challenges, Cozzens does an admirable job of trying to bring order from this chaos. He relates Union General Philip Sheridan’s assessment of the battle: “‘There did not seem to be any well-defined plan of action in the fighting, and this led to much independence of judgment in construing orders among some of the subordinate generals. It also gave rise to much license in issuing orders, too many people were giving important directions, affecting the whole army, without authority from its head.’”

One of the best known elements of the Chickamauga Battle is the presence of Confederate General James Longstreet. During the second day of the battle, Longstreet commanded an assault against the center of the Union line, where a large gap in the line had been created. The Confederate charge caused a massive Union retreat and secured victory. However, Chickamauga was one of the first Civil War battles to see extensive use of more modern repeating firearms. Cozzens dedicates a good deal of time to this important military development. Colonel John Wilder of Indiana commanded a brigade of mounted infantry known as Wilder’s Lightning Brigade. They carried 7-shot Spencer repeating rifles, and repeatedly faced down much larger units of Confederate soldiers throughout the battle, only to emerge victorious due to the impressive rate of firepower. “…the 539-strong Twenty-first Ohio Volunteer Infantry…were armed with a five-shot, cylinder-fed, .56 caliber Colt revolving rifle.” While the Confederate Army of Tennessee ultimately won the battle, both the Spencer rifles of Wilder’s Brigade and the Colt rifles of the 21st Ohio Regiment played pivotal roles in the battle, demonstrating for the first time on a large scale the devastating effects of modern industrial technology on the battlefield.

I have also read Cozzens’ account of the Battle of Stones River. While the style is identical, he seems to write a clearer account of Chickamauga. Again, the historical detective work needed to properly understand, interpret, and accurately relate the details of the Battle of Chickamauga was daunting, so my compliments to Cozzens on a job well done. For Civil War enthusiasts, I can’t recommend this book enough. However, for the average reader unfamiliar with the basics of the American Civil War, this work would be daunting, to say the very least.

[Peter Corrigan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough and mostly absorbing account of this pivotal and to me lesser known battle (compared to the eastern battles). At 600+ pages though, this is not one for the unenthusiastic or the somewhat interested. I was lucky enough to make a brief visit to the Chickamauga battlefield in the midst of reading this (had just gotten through the first day) which really helped to visualize the actions better. I was a little surprised at how compact the battlefield was (and how heavily vegetated), which probably contributed to the intensity of the fighting. They were fighting over control of a couple of roads and small hills, through what must have been much thicker undergrowth than the park today. One detraction of the book is that the maps are really hard to read due to the mottled and varied terrain depiction and the tiny fonts identifying the regiments. Made it very tough to understand the ebb and flow, but there are enough to get a general sense of the action. For the most part the author is content to describe the actions, movements and decisions and let the numerous first-hand accounts fill in the 'atmosphere'. This is very effective in conveying the mayhem, madness and horror of it all. You look back and wonder how it all happened. The Civil War remains the most defining event in our short U.S. history, and it still seems worthwhile to try and understand it even as it fades further into the realm of the distant past.

[Cropredy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another in a fine series of Civil War battle books by Peter Cozzens. I recently visited the Chickamauga battlefield and bookended (so-to-speak) that visit with this account.

If you've read other Cozzen's histories, there are no surprises in the writing style or accompanying maps (particularly essential for Chickamauga as the battle lasted over three days in heavily wooded northern Georgia).

Minor critiques:

1 - The individual actions throughout the day, while well-illustrated by a detailed map, lack context as to what was going on elsewhere on the battlefield at the same time. I constantly referred back to the overall battle map to try and place some field or crossroads in the context of the whole action.

2 - The maneuvers up to the start of the battle are also hard to follow despite an good overview map of the entire TN/GA region including railroads and roads. More of such maps were needed with daily positions to help get into the head of Rosecrans and Bragg. McElmore's Cove was often mentioned but never depicted (at least that I could find).

Side note: If you want to understand the subsequent battle of Chattanooga, there is no better place than the National Park atop Lookout Mountain (get the guided tour). While standing 1000+ feet above the Tennessee River Valley, you really get a feel for why Chattanooga was (and is) the gateway to Atlanta and why it was so difficult for the Union to break Bragg's siege.

4 stars for being a modern scholarship account of a complex battle that is also highly readable.

[Josh Liller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent book. Cozzens isn't as good a writer as Stephen Sears, though he aims for the same level of detail. Some of the book gets a little dull and parts of the battle on the first day are a bit confusing in the writing; I think this is in part because the battle itself was simply a confusing fight in the woods. The battle wasn't as neat and orderly as say Antietam or Gettysburg and this impacts writing about it.

The book has quite a few maps, but many of these fall short especially for the first day of the battle: they are too focused on a small area at a particular time. The book really could have used more maps covering a larger area and with more use of arrows to indicate the movement of units rather than just their static position at a point in time; again this is predominately in regards to the coverage of the first day of the battle and isn't much of an issue on the second day of the battle.

[William Guerrant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly and impressively researched, I cannot imagine that this whopper of a book will ever be supplanted as the definitive history of the Battle of Chickamauga. Relying almost entirely on first-hand accounts and primary sources, the author presents the story down to the regimental level--which is great for researchers and enthusiasts. For most readers, however, I think the telling would have been improved if the author had occasionally stepped back and described the "big picture," with a few maps showing the state of affairs across the entire battlefield.

For readers who want to learn about Battle of Chickamauga, this is not the place to start. But for those ready to dive into the weeds and get to thoroughly KNOW the battle, this book is indispensable. 

[Baxter Hodge · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very detailed account of the Battle of Chickamauga.

It is full of first person accounts of the battle and pays special focus to the personal experience of battle from dozens of junior officers and Soldiers.

My only critique is that the chapters occasionally provided a disorienting large amount of detail and anecdotes such that it’s difficult to understand how each engagement fit within the broader battle.

[Mark Herman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Still the definitive book on Chickamauga

This is the most detailed description and analysis of the CSA’s last major victory during the ACW. The story moves from the firing line to the command confusion that characterized this bloody struggle in densely wooded terrain. I think it still sets the research standard for this battle.

[Randy Fonner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. Lots of detail.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent narrative history of the battle. So many rich details; you feel like you're there. A bit hard to keep all the actors and actions straight, but overall a very good read.

[Monica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book

[Arthur Rohloff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb! Cozzens does an excellent job of recounting this battle. The narrative really draws you in and there is a great balance between the military analysis and the personal details.

[Michael Cawley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written detailed history of the Battle of Chickamauga

[JeffParrotte · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent combination of detailed assessment and readability.

[Sandra Oldfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like everything that Cozzens writes--very detail oriented.

[Gavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book that I read first in the '90's. I, like others, was disappointed by the maps, but I enjoyed Cozzen's writing and narrative of the battle. I have lived most of my life in this area and am always deeply impressed by the fighting at Chickamauga. The cycle of high points and low points as the tide of battle flows. The actions of Generals Bragg and Rosecrans also amaze me. Rosecrans lost his command after this fight. Bragg should have not even have still been in command, but he even hangs on after letting the Army of the Cumberland escape back into Chattanooga and then does not follow up his advantage.

The Army of the Tennessee proves itself to be full of intrigue and infighting. General D. H. Hill would lose his command because of the intrigue in trying to remove Bragg as commander had this to say, which Cozzens closes his book:

"There was no more splendid fighting in '61, when the flower of the Southern youth was in the field, than was displayed in those bloody days of September '63. But it seems to me that the elan of the Southern soldier was never seen after Chickamauga- that brilliant dash which had distinguished him was gone forever....He fought stoutly to the last, but, after Chickamauga, with the sullenness of despair and without the enthusiasm of hope. That 'barren victory; sealed the fate of the Southern Confederacy."

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

More than I was expecting from the cover and first scan. Quite a detailed runthrough of the battle, and Rosecrans manuevers to reach the Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge valleys. Only real flaw was an obvious prejudice towards Longstreet, and Cozzens could have spent more time assessing the collapse of Rosecrans. Learned of Thomas' stand on Horseshoe Ridge, which I had not heard of before, that basically covered the entire army's withdraw. This book would be a valued field guide when walking the battlefields, and I feel no need to find a more modern updated account of the battle.

[Staten Rall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book for CW buffs and those who love to dig into why events happened as they did. Cozzens glues together some amazing and obscure details throughout the book to paint an active, vibrant picture of the fighting. He weaves together harrowing eye-witness accounts and battle reports to show how the landscape played a major part in the outcome, and how commanders on both sides were on their own, cut off and blinded in the thick forest, smoke and darkness.
I continually fall back on this book for research.

[Kingpin543 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full of detailed information -- too detailed, too full, to make fun reading. But it's a very complex battle. I disagree with some of his conclusions, such as who was to blame for making a hole in the Union line right where a huge Confederate attack was to strike, but it's still a good one-volume account of a much-neglected Civil War battle.

[Bap · Rating 2 out of 5]

Other than a die hard civil war afficiendo, I can't recommend this book which has so much details of what particular brigades are doing, that the forest is lost by the trees. Shelby Foote writing on the civil war is poetry whereas this book is a hard slog.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the more interesting Civil War battles and one of the genre's better writers? It seems as if you couldn't go wrong, and Cozzens doesn't. This is one of the best campaign/battle studies available.

[David Howell · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best accounts of the Battle of Chickamauga.Well written and authoritative.Takes the reader into the heat,dust and deep forests of north Georgia in the early fall of 1863,as two great armies and portions of another struggle for control of the gateway to the deep south

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just too much detail to be anything but a reference source.

[Derrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good book, about my favorite battle of the Civil War.

[Hud (Bob) Huddleston · Rating 3 out of 5]

So tired of battle books with poor maps. There has to be a better way. But a solid tale of idiosyncrasies and egos which lead to the death of many men.

[Guera25 · Rating 2 out of 5]

I would rather have my fingernails torn out with rusty pliers wielded by a spastic inquisitor than read this book again.