What do you think?
Rate this book
Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862
The bloody and decisive two-day battle of Shiloh (April 6-7, 1862) changed the entire course of the American Civil War. The stunning Northern victory thrust Union commander Ulysses S. Grant into the national spotlight, claimed the life of Confederate commander Albert S. Johnston, and forever buried the notion that the Civil War would be a short conflict.
The conflagration at Shiloh had its roots in the strong Union advance during the winter of 1861-1862 that resulted in the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson in Tennessee. The offensive collapsed General Albert S. Johnston advanced line in Kentucky and forced him to withdraw all the way to northern Mississippi. Anxious to attack the enemy, Johnston began concentrating Southern forces at Corinth, a major railroad center just below the Tennessee border. His bold plan called for his Army of the Mississippi to march north and destroy General Grant's Army of the Tennessee before it could link up with another Union army on the way to join him.
On the morning of April 6, Johnston boasted to his subordinates, "Tonight we will water our horses in the Tennessee!" They nearly did so. Johnston's sweeping attack hit the unsuspecting Federal camps at Pittsburg Landing and routed the enemy from position after position as they fell back toward the Tennessee River. Johnston's sudden death in the Peach Orchard, however, coupled with stubborn Federal resistance, widespread confusion, and Grant's dogged determination to hold the field, saved the Union army from destruction. The arrival of General Don C. Buell's reinforcements that night turned the tide of battle. The next day, Grant seized the initiative and attacked the Confederates, driving themfrom the field. Shiloh was one of the bloodiest battles of the entire war, with nearly 24,000 men killed, wounded, and missing.
Edward Cunningham, a young Ph.D. candidate studying under the legendary T. Harry Williams at Louisiana State University, researched and wrote Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862 in 1966. Although it remained unpublished, many Shiloh experts and park rangers consider it to be the best overall examination of the battle ever written. Indeed, Shiloh historiography is just now catching up with Cunningham, who was decades ahead of modern scholarship.
Western Civil War historians Gary D. Joiner and Timothy B. Smith have resurrected Cunningham's beautifully written and deeply researched manuscript from its undeserved obscurity. Fully edited and richly annotated with updated citations and observations, original maps, and a complete order of battle and table of losses, Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862 will be welcomed by everyone who enjoys battle history at its finest.
520 pages, Hardcover
First published April 15, 2007
86 people are currently reading
215 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 - 30 of 31 reviews
February 26, 2019
A very dry account lacking in analysis. The research is excellent, but the presentation is dull and the maps are awful. Also, he says almost nothing about the fighting on April 7th. I can't figure why this book is getting such high acclaim. Daniel presents the same information with better prose, better maps, some actual analysis, and while considering the political aspects of the campaign.
UPDATE: Better book the second time around. I am convinced I must have been in a bad state of mind when I read it.
UPDATE: Better book the second time around. I am convinced I must have been in a bad state of mind when I read it.
July 24, 2024
The most remarkable thing about this book is the story behind the story. Let me explain. This book is actually a phD dissertation that remained unpublished for over 40 years!! Happily, it is now in print and available for perusal. The author gives us a great campaign study of Shiloh, the bloody battle fought in western Tennessee in the spring of 1862. Heavily footnoted, the narrative involves everyone from major generals to privates and everyone in between. A very good effort, and hopefully the author will finally get his due for a solid piece of research.
February 18, 2011
Detailed analysis of the Battle of Shiloh which languished as an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation at the battlefield park for years. Well worth the read if you are curious as to how events played out on both sides, and the actions that Grant took to stem the Confederate tide.
August 28, 2021
This pandemic has allowed me the time to concentrate on a few hobbies of mine. It’s been my goal to get something of mine published, and I’ve been painting 15mm Civil War figures with the intention of staging a recreation of the Battle of Shiloh using John Hill’s Across a Deadly Field rule set.
The former has not happened yet, but I am getting close to having the necessary parts for the latter. I finished my mounted Albert Sydney Johnston and P.G.T. Beauregard for the Rebel high command the evening that I finished this book.
When I was searching for the best books on Shiloh Dr. O. Edward Cunningham’s Shiloh and the Western Campaign was not only on every list I found but consistently ranked the finest book on the battle by every commentator. Reading this book I agree wholeheartedly with that ranking. For anyone attempting to recreate the battle this book is indispensable. Battle lines are expertly traced, regiments and their commanders listed neatly in the back, their positions at all points of the battle plotted, and casualties noted.
For purposes of the game I’m trying to stage I wish there had been a complete list of regimental strengths but that’s a personal wish and does not impact the quality and depth of research that Cunningham has done. For armchair historians the book is accessible there is a bit of confusion where Cunningham will often just drop a name of a regimental, brigade, or company commander without always identifying them as Union or Rebel but this is a very minor complaint and only impacts some of the human interest stories Cunningham includes.
I was astounded though at the relative evenhandedness he applies throughout the text. One would expect a Louisianan writing in 1966 to be a thorough Southern partisan and while I sensed at least a general preference for the secessionists it was nothing approaching the noxious Lost Cause narrative that I grew up with nor is it distracting.
What also helps put this book above any of the other books published on the subject is its placement of Shiloh within the larger Western Campaign. The book does not simply close with the end of the battle but continues on the aftermath offering a more thorough closure.
Really, for anyone wanting to stage a war game on Shiloh this book is indispensable. For anyone curious about the Western theatre of the war this book is also indispensable. Even though the book is well over a half century old it will likely remain the standard unless some archaeological discovery should intervene.
Some miscellany:
For the amateur historian: the American Civil War is considered a hybrid of being among the last sort of Napoleonic conflict with its personalities and seeming romance as well as the first industrialized war where railroads and factories were worth armies unto themselves. Once a certain technological threshold was crossed the war bogged down into one of attrition and the trenches of Petersburg are closer to the Somme than Bull Run in appearance. But, you can still see the DNA of those later conflicts even in an early battlefield like Shiloh. Once the battle began control of the engagement devolved to junior officers very often down to the company level. Higher command becomes almost totally unaware of the situation on the battlefield. Johnston, leads from the front and is killed on the first day leaving a gap in command while Beauregard is located. During the First World War higher command remained in the rear- not out of any kind of callousness but because commanders could be better located if they remained in one location. In this regard Grant was in a far better situation. His headquarters was removed from the battlefield but was close enough that he could be promptly summoned.
Johnston is criticized for his tactics at Shiloh. He has his army bunch together and attack frontally. In his defence his army is a recent conglomerate of new regiments, amateur militia, odds and ends from the Deep South, some veteran soldiers, political generals, and a few experienced officers. He outnumbers the Union army but this is a brief advantage. Reinforcements will soon shift the balance to the Union. I think that Johnston is overrated as a field commander but, here he encounters the same issues as the British Expeditionary Force in 1916, the German Army in their Spring Offensives of 1918, and the French Army in 1914. Like the British and Germans he has an untried army lacking in even the basic competence in drill. Like the French Army he hopes that a certain degree of elan will make up the deficit. The terrain at Shiloh is such that there are natural points where contact will occur one such location being “the hornet’s nest.” A group of gamers who’d run through the Shiloh scenario I’m looking to use remarked that the game progressed very closely to the actual battle because of the features of the ground. The Union player found their surviving units converging on the hornet’s nest which managed to stopper up the Rebel drive to the river.
The former has not happened yet, but I am getting close to having the necessary parts for the latter. I finished my mounted Albert Sydney Johnston and P.G.T. Beauregard for the Rebel high command the evening that I finished this book.
When I was searching for the best books on Shiloh Dr. O. Edward Cunningham’s Shiloh and the Western Campaign was not only on every list I found but consistently ranked the finest book on the battle by every commentator. Reading this book I agree wholeheartedly with that ranking. For anyone attempting to recreate the battle this book is indispensable. Battle lines are expertly traced, regiments and their commanders listed neatly in the back, their positions at all points of the battle plotted, and casualties noted.
For purposes of the game I’m trying to stage I wish there had been a complete list of regimental strengths but that’s a personal wish and does not impact the quality and depth of research that Cunningham has done. For armchair historians the book is accessible there is a bit of confusion where Cunningham will often just drop a name of a regimental, brigade, or company commander without always identifying them as Union or Rebel but this is a very minor complaint and only impacts some of the human interest stories Cunningham includes.
I was astounded though at the relative evenhandedness he applies throughout the text. One would expect a Louisianan writing in 1966 to be a thorough Southern partisan and while I sensed at least a general preference for the secessionists it was nothing approaching the noxious Lost Cause narrative that I grew up with nor is it distracting.
What also helps put this book above any of the other books published on the subject is its placement of Shiloh within the larger Western Campaign. The book does not simply close with the end of the battle but continues on the aftermath offering a more thorough closure.
Really, for anyone wanting to stage a war game on Shiloh this book is indispensable. For anyone curious about the Western theatre of the war this book is also indispensable. Even though the book is well over a half century old it will likely remain the standard unless some archaeological discovery should intervene.
Some miscellany:
For the amateur historian: the American Civil War is considered a hybrid of being among the last sort of Napoleonic conflict with its personalities and seeming romance as well as the first industrialized war where railroads and factories were worth armies unto themselves. Once a certain technological threshold was crossed the war bogged down into one of attrition and the trenches of Petersburg are closer to the Somme than Bull Run in appearance. But, you can still see the DNA of those later conflicts even in an early battlefield like Shiloh. Once the battle began control of the engagement devolved to junior officers very often down to the company level. Higher command becomes almost totally unaware of the situation on the battlefield. Johnston, leads from the front and is killed on the first day leaving a gap in command while Beauregard is located. During the First World War higher command remained in the rear- not out of any kind of callousness but because commanders could be better located if they remained in one location. In this regard Grant was in a far better situation. His headquarters was removed from the battlefield but was close enough that he could be promptly summoned.
Johnston is criticized for his tactics at Shiloh. He has his army bunch together and attack frontally. In his defence his army is a recent conglomerate of new regiments, amateur militia, odds and ends from the Deep South, some veteran soldiers, political generals, and a few experienced officers. He outnumbers the Union army but this is a brief advantage. Reinforcements will soon shift the balance to the Union. I think that Johnston is overrated as a field commander but, here he encounters the same issues as the British Expeditionary Force in 1916, the German Army in their Spring Offensives of 1918, and the French Army in 1914. Like the British and Germans he has an untried army lacking in even the basic competence in drill. Like the French Army he hopes that a certain degree of elan will make up the deficit. The terrain at Shiloh is such that there are natural points where contact will occur one such location being “the hornet’s nest.” A group of gamers who’d run through the Shiloh scenario I’m looking to use remarked that the game progressed very closely to the actual battle because of the features of the ground. The Union player found their surviving units converging on the hornet’s nest which managed to stopper up the Rebel drive to the river.
September 4, 2018
Great overview & narrative with vignettes that bring the reality of the horrors of war into focus.
December 5, 2024
This was touted as the best Shiloh book ever by many learned historians.
While it was good, I didn’t think it beat out Wiley Sword’s Bloody April. If it was the only book on Shiloh it would still leave a lot of uncovered ground.
Examples.
The author doesn’t go into any detail on how Sherman ignored the advancing Confederates on 5-6 April. This was a major mistake of Sherman’s, and not even bringing it up shortchanges the history. The author soft pedals Prentis’s reluctance to form his division early in the fight.
The maps are ok, but not excellent. All at brigade level and covering the whole battlefield with each map. Not very tactical.
I could go on, but these are the main points. I found Bloody April to be a better read over all.
Not a bad read, just not the best.
While it was good, I didn’t think it beat out Wiley Sword’s Bloody April. If it was the only book on Shiloh it would still leave a lot of uncovered ground.
Examples.
The author doesn’t go into any detail on how Sherman ignored the advancing Confederates on 5-6 April. This was a major mistake of Sherman’s, and not even bringing it up shortchanges the history. The author soft pedals Prentis’s reluctance to form his division early in the fight.
The maps are ok, but not excellent. All at brigade level and covering the whole battlefield with each map. Not very tactical.
I could go on, but these are the main points. I found Bloody April to be a better read over all.
Not a bad read, just not the best.
March 23, 2012
The book is an adaptation of Cunningham’s, dissertation, as edited by Gary Joiner and Timothy Smith to broaden its readability. As this is the only book I have read on the battle, it is difficult for me to present comparative comments. It is obviously extensively researched, providing a general overview of the events leading up to the combat of 6-7 April, 1862, but the main focus, of course, is the actual combat. In this, Cunningham comprehensively captures the units involved, and provides color by giving the reader individual, personal accounts of the action. I would only comment that, at times, his unit listings and the detail given to them detract from the story-telling. This only makes sense when we look at the origins of the work as an academic study. Cunningham did a great job on the maps, which any student of history will appreciate. Overall, I enjoyed the book, learned from it, and it made me want to read more, thus I consider my time well-invested; I would recommend it.
February 5, 2023
The Civil War has never particularly interested me. I'm pretty sure this is the first book I've read about any Civil War battles. Through my reading of various biographies (Grant, Garfield, Powell, and a few others), I've picked up a bit. The difference being that those biographical pages concentrated on a single individual while this book covers all the action in the region of Shiloh Church over a somewhat extended time.
Readers of my reviews know that I prefer personal narratives over descriptions of campaigns or battles. I find it fairly easy to wrap my head around what Fred did, or Fred's company or battalion. No matter how skilled the author, I have a more difficult time making sense of wider events. Events that are happening simultaneously in multiple places involving large units end up being told many pages or even chapters apart. It's unavoidable. Nonetheless, Cunningham does about as good a job as anyone else.
One of the keys to understanding the bigger picture is having good maps. There is a large number of maps sprinkled throughout the text and they are generally simple, easy to understand, and seemingly accurate. One shortcoming, for me, was the lack of labels on the roads and streams. The text often refers to, say, the Corinth-Pittsburg Landing road or Wilson's Creek but none of the roads and waterways are identified on the maps.
Includes notes, index, bibliography, and appendices detailing the orders of battle and casualties. There's also a "Modern Photographic Tour of Shiloh" which has a map detailing the position and orientation of the nearly two dozen b&w photos.
Readers of my reviews know that I prefer personal narratives over descriptions of campaigns or battles. I find it fairly easy to wrap my head around what Fred did, or Fred's company or battalion. No matter how skilled the author, I have a more difficult time making sense of wider events. Events that are happening simultaneously in multiple places involving large units end up being told many pages or even chapters apart. It's unavoidable. Nonetheless, Cunningham does about as good a job as anyone else.
One of the keys to understanding the bigger picture is having good maps. There is a large number of maps sprinkled throughout the text and they are generally simple, easy to understand, and seemingly accurate. One shortcoming, for me, was the lack of labels on the roads and streams. The text often refers to, say, the Corinth-Pittsburg Landing road or Wilson's Creek but none of the roads and waterways are identified on the maps.
Includes notes, index, bibliography, and appendices detailing the orders of battle and casualties. There's also a "Modern Photographic Tour of Shiloh" which has a map detailing the position and orientation of the nearly two dozen b&w photos.
October 8, 2023
This was Dr. Cunningham's Ph.D. thesis. It is the result of a prodigious amount of research. The 2007 editors (Dr. Cunningham died in 1997) claim that the thesis is "extremely well written," and I regret to inform you that that is not true. I found him hard to follow, and especially got bogged down in the endless roll calls of troop dispositions (e.g., "The Kentucky Unionist [Crittenden] chose to attack with his Fourteenth Brigade, commanded by Colonel William Sooy Smith, a thirty-one year old West Point-trained Ohioan. Smith had the Thirteenth Ohio, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Hawkins, on the left, the Twenty-sixth Kentucky on the right, Lieutenant Colonel Cicero Maxwell, and the Eleventh Kentucky, Colonel Pierce Hawkins, in reserve. The Fourteenth Wisconsin, Colonel David Wood, was attached to the brigade, and it fought to the right of the Twenty-sixth" (353-54)---and this is a relatively small and restrained example). I get why the troop dispositions are an important part of Cunningham's thesis (so much research!), but that doesn't make them any easier to wade through. And otherwise, no, like most Ph.D. theses including my own, Shiloh is very clunkily written and I don't come away feeling like I understand the battle any better than I did before. I know more, if I can retain any of it, but I feel like I'm drowning in details (including awkwardly inserted human-interest anecdotes) and never got anything really to hang those details on.
So, yes, amazing research, kind of hard to read. It took me forever to get through it, partly because I kept putting it down to go read other things.
So, yes, amazing research, kind of hard to read. It took me forever to get through it, partly because I kept putting it down to go read other things.
December 10, 2017
This book's origin was as a PhD dissertation in 1966 by Edward Cunningham. Editors Joiner and Smith published it as a book in 2007. The published manuscript is mostly the same as Cunningham wrote it, with a few corrections and clarifications made as a result of new research and evidence since it was originally written. Overall, it's an excellent account of the battle, with an introductory chapter on the Union Army's assaults on Forts Henry and Donelson and their subsequent movements to Pittsburg Landing. A summary is also provided of the Confederate Army's staging at Corinth. The story of the battle itself is very detailed. In fact, the level of detail is my only negative critique. Cunningham's original manuscript often included maneuver units down to the brigade level, along with respective commanders, which was sometimes distracting considering the many units involved and the fluid nature of the battle. I found myself having to gloss over the names and units in order to mentally maintain the overall flow of battle. I completely understand the need for this level of detail in the dissertation. However, I felt some of those details could have been edited out of the published work for a more smoothly flowing story. This small distraction was offset by the extensive use of maps, which were instrumental in helping the reader keep pace with the actions on the battlefield. Overall, I was pleased with the account and recommend this book for anyone wishing to know more about troop movements at Shiloh.
July 19, 2019
Very good detailed description of the battle of Shiloh, the events and movement of the armies leading up tp the battle, the battle itself, and the aftermath. The battle description was further explained with detailed maps. Cunningham did an amazing amount of research of letters and personal journals along with records of the operation from both sides. He points out the many mistakes made by both armies, the confusion on both sides, and the poor battle management by the leaders. He reveals the courage of the Confederates in their pursuit of victory, the lack of courage displayed by the green Union troops, many of whom ran from the battle. The Union army was the last standing on the battlefield and it was declared a Union victory, but the end result was really a draw because the Confederates were not beaten, still an army that posed a serious threat for the Union to contend with. The editors did a fine job clearing up the author's errors and misstatements, which helped clarify the events that occurred April 6 & 7 1862.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 7, 2019
Considered one of the best, if not the best, accounts of the Battle of Shiloh. Shiloh was one of the bloodier battles of the Civil War and was a precursor to the three years of bloody conflict still remaining in the Civil War. Cunningham does a good job of analyzing the action down to the regimental level. The book has good maps of the various sections of the battlefield, as well as a photographic survey of the battlefield. Highly recommended for those wanting a detailed study of the Battle of Shiloh.
May 7, 2020
Very comprehensive look at the Battle of Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862. Goes into great detail about the battle. Sometimes it gets a little too detailed (about battle orders and the like, which some enjoy, but I prefer a more narrative style),leading to a few boring stretches. Overall, a very good read. It certainly helps if you are somewhat familiar with the battlefield, as I am so you can place where the fighting takes place.
November 22, 2017
Good narrative with a lot of detail. However, there were times when it was laborious to keep up with the various units and determine which side was which based on the names of lesser known commanders.
September 29, 2024
Although written over 50 years ago I thought this book was pretty good. I am not sure how much of what we know now has changed scholarship wise since it was written, but it give a good lead up and follow up to the battle of Shiloh.
July 4, 2021
An incredibly thorough and objective view of the battle. Some familiarity with the ground and the commanders helps but not necessary. Highly recommended.
January 1, 2024
Highly recommend this book on the shiloh campaign. Great overview of the battle, great for all levels of armchair historians.
January 2, 2017
I have read several books on the battle of Shiloh. This version ranks up there with the best.
The book keeps your interest. I tried to read it in one sitting but my eyes are old.
Mr. Cunningham puts you in the battle . You feel the desperation and see the confusion of that battle.
Two huge and green armies that slugged it out in a horrible place foe anything much less a battle.
We see Sherman make one of his biggest mistakes and poor judgement in his military career .
Sherman's failure almost led to Grants failure,
It is a fast and compelling read. After you finish a section you feel like a veteran in need of R. and R.
It is a fun read.
The book keeps your interest. I tried to read it in one sitting but my eyes are old.
Mr. Cunningham puts you in the battle . You feel the desperation and see the confusion of that battle.
Two huge and green armies that slugged it out in a horrible place foe anything much less a battle.
We see Sherman make one of his biggest mistakes and poor judgement in his military career .
Sherman's failure almost led to Grants failure,
It is a fast and compelling read. After you finish a section you feel like a veteran in need of R. and R.
It is a fun read.
March 13, 2012
This book on Shiloh was written as O. Edward Cunningham's doctoral dissertation and later—much later—edited for publication by other scholars who had encountered the dissertation in their own research and found it too useful to be limited to the very small readership that would encounter it in dissertation form. Thus, it was revised, edited, and published but with a mainly hands-off approach that retained nearly all of Cunningham's original narrative approach. This aspect of the book had won it fans but also made it some enemies, or if not outright foes, at least readers who found Cunningham's style too dense, dry, and difficult. This is a shame because it really is the best overall book on Shiloh ever written and contains a wealth of information that has been neglected by other scholars. Yes, it is not as engaging a story as One Continous Fight (Wittenburg, et al) or some other battle books, but it certainly doesn't lack for scholarship of deep insight.
I don't know the whole story of Dr. Cunningham but it seems from the editor's notes that he may have died at an early age and had some health problems or something: while the story of an author is not the main business of any book aside from an autobiography, it would be interesting to know a little more about him. I agree the book is dry and difficult in places—to the point even that a lot of graduate school professors would have had issues with the prose and certainly, the dissertation doesn't appear to have been written with the goal of publishing it although I believe the editor remarks such was one of Cunningham's intentions nonetheless.
So with all that in mind, I found this book very helpful despite its textural flaws: if you're seriously dedicated to Civil War history or to this battle, certainly, you'll find Cunningham's book beyond useful and will even come to enjoy it. As always, Savas Beatie as a publisher stepped up to plate in the finest manner and the production values of this book are exceptional.
I don't know the whole story of Dr. Cunningham but it seems from the editor's notes that he may have died at an early age and had some health problems or something: while the story of an author is not the main business of any book aside from an autobiography, it would be interesting to know a little more about him. I agree the book is dry and difficult in places—to the point even that a lot of graduate school professors would have had issues with the prose and certainly, the dissertation doesn't appear to have been written with the goal of publishing it although I believe the editor remarks such was one of Cunningham's intentions nonetheless.
So with all that in mind, I found this book very helpful despite its textural flaws: if you're seriously dedicated to Civil War history or to this battle, certainly, you'll find Cunningham's book beyond useful and will even come to enjoy it. As always, Savas Beatie as a publisher stepped up to plate in the finest manner and the production values of this book are exceptional.
April 6, 2012
I read this on the heels of Winston Groom's new Shiloh, 1862. I have not read Sword's or Daniels' well-known books on Shiloh to compare to. I have read Sears and Cozzens for stylistic comparison.
This is a doctoral dissertation from 1966 with some editing; the antithesis of Groom's book in intent and style. Overall, I thought this was a good book and can see why it the editors wanted to get it published. The writing was not as clunky or dry as I expected based on previous reviews. It does focus much better on the titular battle than Groom's book, while still covering the important related topics like Donelson and Corinth. I really liked the maps that were added by the editors; not the best maps I've seen, but I've seem many books with worse maps. The citations and bibliography are as extensive as you'd expect from a doctoral dissertation and the editors do a good job of noting their changes, comments, and at times how Cunningham's opinions and conclusions compare with the other major Shiloh works (Sword, Daniels, McDonough).
That said, this book does have some notable flaws. I find the use of footnotes instead of endnotes distracting, especially when this extensive. I think the editors would have been better limiting footnotes to their comments, with Cunningham's original citations as endnotes. The editors also limited themselves to factual errors and misspellings, but this book would have been well-served by more extensive editing readability. A few points feel repeated, some the word usage feels clunky, and Cunningham has some odd habits such as "Henry Wager Halleck" (I recall Halleck's middle name usually being omitted by other writers) and "Albert S. Johnston" (I have usually seen Johnston's middle name - Sidney - is spelled out) as well as always spelling out regimental numbers (First instead of 1st).
This is a doctoral dissertation from 1966 with some editing; the antithesis of Groom's book in intent and style. Overall, I thought this was a good book and can see why it the editors wanted to get it published. The writing was not as clunky or dry as I expected based on previous reviews. It does focus much better on the titular battle than Groom's book, while still covering the important related topics like Donelson and Corinth. I really liked the maps that were added by the editors; not the best maps I've seen, but I've seem many books with worse maps. The citations and bibliography are as extensive as you'd expect from a doctoral dissertation and the editors do a good job of noting their changes, comments, and at times how Cunningham's opinions and conclusions compare with the other major Shiloh works (Sword, Daniels, McDonough).
That said, this book does have some notable flaws. I find the use of footnotes instead of endnotes distracting, especially when this extensive. I think the editors would have been better limiting footnotes to their comments, with Cunningham's original citations as endnotes. The editors also limited themselves to factual errors and misspellings, but this book would have been well-served by more extensive editing readability. A few points feel repeated, some the word usage feels clunky, and Cunningham has some odd habits such as "Henry Wager Halleck" (I recall Halleck's middle name usually being omitted by other writers) and "Albert S. Johnston" (I have usually seen Johnston's middle name - Sidney - is spelled out) as well as always spelling out regimental numbers (First instead of 1st).
August 10, 2011
Overall, I'm disappointed by this book. Mr. Cunningham gives a fairly good, objective description of how the battle of Shiloh evolved, and then of the battle itself, but I felt I was watching most of the action from a very wide angle lens, which is fine, except that Mr. Cunningham doesn't zoom in enough, so even though from time to time, he focuses up close - he quotes letters and diaries - most close up shots of enlisted men and officers are one shots, I never see these men again, and so I didn't feel sustained emotion for them.
Also, Mr. Cunningham tells us very little about the decision making of the top generals. Grant, for the most part, is nonexistent during most of the action. Yes, he probably was caught off-guard, Mr. Cunningham concludes, but what, if anything, did Grant then do to keep his army from being routed? In the end, did Grant, in spite of committing an early blunder, save the day for the Union, or did he just get lucky when reinforcement arrived in the nick of time? Mr. Cunningham doesn't offer any insight that will help us answer these questions.
For me, the best history is not just about wide screen events, but also about the thoughts, personalities and choices of the people who lived and shaped events, and, perhaps even more important, how personalities change events, and how events change personalities. I guess both forces, like opposing armies, meet somewhere. The best historians argue exactly where. While Mr. Cunningham doesn't, he nevertheless paints a broad and much needed picture of the battle that changed the course of the Civil War.
So though his picture is not a full one, Shiloh And The Western Campaign is an important work for military buffs. I wouldn't, however, recommend it to a casual reader.
Note: The e-version I downloaded was full of formatting mistakes. This made it hard for me to enjoy the book.
Also, Mr. Cunningham tells us very little about the decision making of the top generals. Grant, for the most part, is nonexistent during most of the action. Yes, he probably was caught off-guard, Mr. Cunningham concludes, but what, if anything, did Grant then do to keep his army from being routed? In the end, did Grant, in spite of committing an early blunder, save the day for the Union, or did he just get lucky when reinforcement arrived in the nick of time? Mr. Cunningham doesn't offer any insight that will help us answer these questions.
For me, the best history is not just about wide screen events, but also about the thoughts, personalities and choices of the people who lived and shaped events, and, perhaps even more important, how personalities change events, and how events change personalities. I guess both forces, like opposing armies, meet somewhere. The best historians argue exactly where. While Mr. Cunningham doesn't, he nevertheless paints a broad and much needed picture of the battle that changed the course of the Civil War.
So though his picture is not a full one, Shiloh And The Western Campaign is an important work for military buffs. I wouldn't, however, recommend it to a casual reader.
Note: The e-version I downloaded was full of formatting mistakes. This made it hard for me to enjoy the book.
April 16, 2011
Cunningham wrote this originally as a exhaustively researched doctoral thesis, on the details of a grueling battle of the American Civil War. He is profuse with information: he mentions the names of every commander down to the regimmental level, and follows the movements of those divisions, brigades, and regiments throughout the battle. He knows the highest commanders on the field - Grant, Johnston, Buell, Beauregard - and gives them credit where it is due, along with blame in its turn. The penultimate chapter bears the title "Victory?" - and the question mark is appropriately part of the chapter title. A Union Victory, one supposes, by the standard of being the one who occupies the battlefield at the end of fighting. It could have gone the other way very easily, and Grant showed wisdom in not trying to pursue his retreating foes. His army was thoroughly spent. Grant learned a valuable lesson at Shiloh. He had ben overconfident as the battle approached, and overemphasized his offensive role while neglecting the defense. He became a much more balanced general later on, in the Vicksburg and Chattanooga campaigns, and in the 1864-65 march to Richmond.
Read
August 2, 2011This book was originally a PhD thesis from back in the 1960's that wasn't published until a few years ago. Nevertheless, this book is well worth reading. The experts on Shiloh consider it the best book on the subject, even though there were at least 3 books written on the subject after this one. Why? Because of the author's expertise, his thorough research & his willingness to challenge standard assumptions about the battle.
He also traces the Civil War in the west from the Battle of Mill Springs in eastern Kentucky and the captures of Forts Henry and Donelson through the Battle of Shiloh to the capture of Corinth.
Most histories of Shiloh consider the fighting at the Hornet's Nest to be the key to the first day. The author considers the fighting of Sherman's and McClernand's troops near the Crossroads to be just as crucial.
A bonus feature added by the editors is an appendix with a series of photos of the battlefield along with a map showing the locations and directions of the photos.
If you're going to only read one book about Shiloh, it should be this one.
He also traces the Civil War in the west from the Battle of Mill Springs in eastern Kentucky and the captures of Forts Henry and Donelson through the Battle of Shiloh to the capture of Corinth.
Most histories of Shiloh consider the fighting at the Hornet's Nest to be the key to the first day. The author considers the fighting of Sherman's and McClernand's troops near the Crossroads to be just as crucial.
A bonus feature added by the editors is an appendix with a series of photos of the battlefield along with a map showing the locations and directions of the photos.
If you're going to only read one book about Shiloh, it should be this one.
February 3, 2023
Shiloh is a fascinating battle to me because I had an ancestor in the 36th Indiana. I have yet to visit the battlefield, so reading is my best option to learn about this battle. I have three books on the subject (Cunningham's, Timothy Smith's and Winston Groom's). Smith's, in my opinion, is the best. Groom's is not bad, but he kind of rushes as the end. He explains the first day very well, but the second day is not given the same detail. Cunningham's, although not better than Smith's, is a good addition to have in your Shiloh collection. It is a readable dissertation. My problem with Cunningham , which is a small one, is that he gets bogged down in unnecessary detail. Some of the narrative could have been removed and improved the book significantly. For example, providing the background of most of the officers could have been shortened. I think it would have been better to keep it brief. I am sure some of you found or will find that part captivating, but I didn't. Again, Cunningham did a magnificent job explaining the Battle of Shiloh and what caused these men to fight there.
September 16, 2015
A Truly Good Read
I gave this book the highest mark because of the incredible effort that the author put in to make this book as accurate and concise and detailed as humanly possible, and because the book with some additions and modifications was originally Cunningham's thesis for his doctorate. Few have gone to such an effort to be as detailed as to write a thesis of this magnitude. This book a true study in the love of the subject matter, and gives true honor to the men North or South who fought at Shiloh who after all, right or wrong, were and will remain American soldier's.
I gave this book the highest mark because of the incredible effort that the author put in to make this book as accurate and concise and detailed as humanly possible, and because the book with some additions and modifications was originally Cunningham's thesis for his doctorate. Few have gone to such an effort to be as detailed as to write a thesis of this magnitude. This book a true study in the love of the subject matter, and gives true honor to the men North or South who fought at Shiloh who after all, right or wrong, were and will remain American soldier's.
March 28, 2009
This volume is based on a doctoral dissertation by O. Edward Cunningham from over 40 years ago. It has just been publsihed in book form, edited very ably by Gary Joiner and Timothy Smith. My own sense is gratitude that the publisher, Savas Beatie, took a chance and put this in print.
The book holds up extremely well, evewn though it was written long ago. It is very competently written (doctoral dissertations do not normally "sing"). If one wants to learn more about the sanguinary battle at Shiloh, this is an excellent entree. Highly recommended.
The book holds up extremely well, evewn though it was written long ago. It is very competently written (doctoral dissertations do not normally "sing"). If one wants to learn more about the sanguinary battle at Shiloh, this is an excellent entree. Highly recommended.
June 19, 2013
This book was the result of Cunningham's doctoral research and therefore it is heavily and well documented, and the editors have further improved on the author's original version. As a result, this is one of the most complete, one might say near-perfect accounts of a Civil War battle that can be found. It lays out almost everything that can reasonably be covered concerning the battle of Shiloh and the events surrounding it.
Read
November 24, 2011To devote an entire book to one battle was a challenging read although I have read more interesting books on Gettysburg which was a three day battle.
April 18, 2012
This was a doctoral dissertation turned into a book - it was a good recount of the Battle of Shiloh, but the writing leaves something to be desired.
October 3, 2015
very good book with great detail: have read it twice and will probably read it again.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews