The American Civil War

by John Keegan

The American Civil War was one of the longest and bloodiest of modern wars. It is also one of the most mysterious. It has captured the imagination of writers, artists and film-makers for decades but the reality of it confuses and divides historians even today.

In this magisterial history of the first modern war, the distinguished military historian John Keegan unpicks the geography, leadership and strategic logic of the war and takes us to the heart of the conflict. His captivating work promises to be the definitive history of the American Civil War.

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

412 pages, Paperback

First published October 20, 2009

About the author

Sir John Desmond Patrick Keegan, OBE, FRSL was a British military historian, lecturer and journalist. He published many works on the nature of combat between the 14th and 21st centuries concerning land, air, maritime and intelligence warfare as well as the psychology of battle.

Reviews

[William2 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is basically a one-volume survey text interesting for its international views of the U.S. Civil War fighting. Particularly for how it anticipated many features of the First World War.

Many generals of both North and South were graduates of the West Point Class of 1846. Grant and Sherman, I already knew, were supremely competent fighters. But I did not know that Robert E. Lee was so highly regarded among that class, nor that he was a brilliant fighter who acquitted himself admirably in the Mexican–American War (1846-48). Certainly his showing against Grant at Petersburg was masterful, even if he ultimately lost.

Lee was almost put in charge of the Union army before deciding to "go with my state [Virginia]." Stonewall Jackson, too, is here considered a "military genius" and a master of tactical maneuver, though he was not as skilled in battle because of the personal faults of aloofness and poor communication with his subordinates. The chapter "Civil War Generalship" lays out each general's strengths and weaknesses.

Lincoln's growth as strategist for the Union, a skill learned only after much trial and error, is fascinating to read about. Churchill greatly admired him. How the North shut down Southern ports and initiated a naval blockade, virtually starving the South of foreign exchange, is cogently explained. The Union strategy was called the Anaconda Plan, which sought to deprive the non-industrial south of imports as well as exports (King Cotton). It was arrived at only after much wringing of hands because Lincoln had no good advisors at the start of the war. He was to become, however, quite proficient as a war-time leader. Something that can't be said of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy.

The North's bumbling in the early years of the war is depressing. The incompetence of the generals, especially McClelland, who was risk-averse if not downright timid, and Hooker, who quailed before Chancellorsville, is painful to read about.

Slavery had however kept the South primitive. It had no industry. The North was able to bankroll the war, and they did not stint, relying on the ancient idea of selling government bonds and imposing a temporary income tax. By contrast, the South, because of the Union blockade, was cut off both from proceeds for exports and imports, which were essential since it manufactured little. The North also had exquisite quartermasters handling logistics and communications. It helped, too, that the lion's share of the railroads were in the North.

If Robert E. Lee had taken command of the Northern armies, and had at his service the North's top-notch communications and logistics, the Civil War might have been concluded in far less time than four grueling years. It's tremendous fun, this narrative, as it sorts the heroes and idiots on both sides for the reader's delectation. The account of Stonewall Jackson's death is harrowing, unforgettable. Keegan breathes life into what in another's hands would be undistinguished drivel. This is my fourth Keegan book. I look forward to reading many more.

For me, the real fighting in the eastern theater, as opposed to skirmishing and retreating, doesn't start until Sharpsburg, Chancellorsville and Antietam. Gettysburg is mayhem, utter hell, droves slaughtering droves. And why? For what? To keep persons of color in slavery and not seek industrial development? What a waste of effort. It's like insisting on remaining Neolithic. The story's mind-numbingly effective in Keegan's telling, though he's done little original scholarship. All Americans should have as clear an understanding of our national calamity as this fine book affords. I have not read Shelby Foote yet, though I hope to. But there's much to be said for the one-volume approach Keegan uses here for the way it crystalizes the story of the war into a crisp and memorable narrative.

So an interesting book, but not one of his best. I particularly liked his A History of Warfare and The Face of Battle.

[Anthony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stepping Out of my Comfort Zone

Author John Keegan is from one of the most respected military historians of the 20th Century. Known for his works on First and Second World Wars Keegan brings his extensive knowledge of military history and strategy to the study of America’s most defining conflict. It is a distinctive addition to the huge amount of publications on the American Civil War, an area in history I am ashamed to say I am very weak on. As such, I took the plunge and decided to up skill myself, starting with easy to read and relatively short book.

Keegan approaches the Civil War with the same analytical rigor that characterised his earlier works, but with an outsider's perspective that both benefits and, at times, hinders the depth of his analysis. Like me Keegan is British and therefore it has been argued that he is somewhat removed from the cultural and regional intricacies that deeply influenced the war. As such, one criticism is that this has lead to a more detached and occasionally less nuanced interpretation of the conflict’s causes and consequences. Nevertheless, the book excels in its military analysis. Keegan’s strength lies in his ability to dissect and explain the strategies, tactics, and technologies that defined the war. He provides clear and detailed accounts of major battles, such as Gettysburg, Antietam, and Bull Run, making them accessible to both seasoned historians and general readers. His descriptions of the battlefield, troop movements, and the logistics of war are vivid and informative, demonstrating his mastery in conveying the complexities of military engagements.

Keegan’s exploration of how the Civil War represented a significant shift in warfare, blending old Napoleonic tactics with emerging modern technologies is one of the best parts of the book. He examines the impact of railroads, telegraphs, and rifled muskets on the conduct of the war, highlighting how these innovations transformed the nature of combat and contributed to the high casualty rates. However, where the book falters is in its treatment of the political, social, and cultural dimensions of the Civil War. Keegan’s focus on military history sometimes leads to an oversimplification of the war’s broader context. His analysis of the causes of the war, particularly his treatment of slavery and states’ rights, lacks the depth and sensitivity that many American historians have brought to the subject. As a result, The American Civil War does not fully capture the moral and ideological stakes that drove the conflict.

Despite these limitations, The American Civil War remains a valuable contribution to Civil War historiography, particularly for readers interested in the military aspects of the conflict. Keegan’s lucid writing and sharp analysis make the book a compelling read, even if it doesn’t fully engage with the complexities of the war’s origins and consequences. I am aware that this book may not provide the most comprehensive examination of the war’s social and political dimensions. However, in my opinion it does offer a compelling and insightful military history that will appeal to those interested in the strategies, battles, and innovations that shaped this pivotal conflict. For someone like me, this is a great place to start and so would offer it as a recommendation for the newcomer or casual reader. I am open to suggestions of where to turn my attention to next on this conflict.

[Debra - can't post any comments on site today grrr · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

Very informative read n the Civil War. Boy, did I learn a lot. I love books like these. I learned some about the civil war in school. You can can't learn everything but the basics. This book filled in the rest like how many battles were fought each and every day. How brave all of the soldier were. Facing certain death they kept on. Very impressive generals on both sides. Right or wrong they were bound by their devotion to each other and their belief in the cause. Very informative read.

[Donna · Rating 2 out of 5]

I started this book with great enthusiasm. As I was reading there were things that started bothering me about the text, though I couldn't put my finger on what exactly was wrong. Then I read McPherson's review in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/boo...
in which he lists a number of factual errors in the book. Now I'm just a Civil War buff, not a historian; but I've read enough Civil War literature to know that something was wrong here.

Secondly, the book just didn't seem to be edited well. It was as though a number of the middle chapters which discuss the specific battles and fields of operation were written as separate, independent essays with no relation to each other. Anecdotes were given almost word-for-word in more than one chapter. There is the mention of the capture of Forts Henry and Donelson at least six times in the book. I will grant you that these may be the most important "little known" of the Civil War battles, but it doesn't need six mentions.

Thirdly, a book which claims that geography was one of the great reasons the war was fought the way it was and for as long as it was owes it to the reader to provide at least a few maps showing the river system and how it affected strategy. The maps which were included of specific battlefield alignments didn't add to the text, but seemed to be a substitute for talking about the battles in more depth.

Finally, why with all of these complaints did I finish it? Actually the first few and last few chapters which are analyses of the over all operations of the war, explanation of strategies on both sides, evaluations of the general officers, and information on the war's end was actually pretty good. Also good was the analysis of how this pre-figured World War I.

So don't read this book as a military history that describes each battle in detail and what specific corps, divisions, brigades, regiments, or companys were doing or how everyone lined up. For that information read Shelby Foote's "The Civil War" (3 volumes). But if you're interested in the "whys" after you know the "hows", this book is OK.

[Joshua Van Dereck · Rating 1 out of 5]

John Keegan's The American Civil War is without doubt the worst volume of history I can recall reading. Structurally disorganized and illogical to the point of incoherence, the book is plagued by dozens if not hundreds of inaccuracies that range from technical mistakes to grandiose misstatements. The wider conclusions Keegan attempts to draw based on his years of experience as a war historian are often illogical, repetitive, and either outdated (drawn directly from time-honored but disproven or repudiated works) or obviously wrong. There are also overtones of misogyny and racism in these pages. One is left with the firm impression that Keegan, for his final book (he died three years after publication) opted whimsically and arrogantly to hold forth on a subject about which he knew next to nothing.

In crafting a history of something as complex as a war (as opposed to a more linear subject, like biography) historians often resort to a simple chronology. If the scope becomes too broad, however, a structure based on special themes or topics of interest can suffice, eg. industry, economics, women and families on the home front, the realities of battle, technology, etc. It is also common to break down sequential narratives by theatres of war when too many events transpired concurrently. In The American Civil War, Keegan opts for an absurdist mashup of all three narrative styles. There appear to be chapters oriented around theme, though they vaguely embrace chronology, which sometimes breaks down by theatre and sometimes doesn't. The result is frequent restatement of events out of sequence, and an altogether puzzling tendency to end sequential narratives before the conclusion of events only to pick up the narrative later, often after the inclusion of subsequent events out of order. If that sounds needlessly confusing, that's because it is. For example, Keegan relates the chronology of Grant and Lee's battles in Virginia in 1864-65 up until the fall of Richmond. Then he breaks for chapters on naval history and African American soldiers, among other things, relaying sequential narratives that range from the beginning of the war through to the end and afterwards, going so far as to describe the recovery of the Hunley submarine in the year 2000 and the subsequent burial of its crew in 2004. Then he goes back to the previous chronology to describe Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. I am a well-read student of the Civil War, having read hundreds of books on the subject, and I often found this book exceedingly difficult to follow. I imagine the structure would be hopelessly confusing to someone unschooled in the subject, and the confusion starts right from the beginning and continues resolutely until the end, making this a poor book even for excerpting.

... Which is just as well, since the historical scholarship in the book is abysmal. Keegan's minor errors kick in early and often. When describing the war's first military engagement of Fort Sumter, Keegan notes that Confederate officer Beauregard was the pre-war artillery instructor of his opponent, Colonel Robert Anderson (the reverse was the case). He notes that the only casualty of the bombardment was a mule (it was a confederate officer's horse). He misstates casualty numbers, confuses the position of states relative to each other, bungles the flow and direction of rivers, and even appallingly misstates who was Britain's Prime Minister at the time of the war. Even if he doesn't know anything about American history, you'd think this celebrated British historian might know a basic fact or two about Britain!

These are all mistakes of the minor sort though. It is in the domain of conclusion or overarching analysis where Keegan's failings really show up. Keegan advances the 1970s (Vietnam inspired) analysis that the South might have resisted more effectively with a Fabian strategy of guerrilla operations—a theoretical concept long debunked, stemming from the obvious problem that the South's whole cause was built around defense of the institution of slavery, which could not be maintained with the loss of land and control. Keegan suggests that African Americans (he insists on using the term negro) made for poor soldiers because they were overawed by battle and the prospect of fighting former masters—this despite the fact that "colored" regiments performed with inestimable fortitude and valor at many engagements in the war, including but not limited to Battery Wagner, The Crater, and Nashville. He insists that Stonewall Jackson was a general with no command of strategy, despite the fact that books exist dedicated solely to Jackson's theory of aggressive war and repeated urging that the war be brought North to target Union industry—a clearly enunciated strategic concept, whether meritorious or not. Keegan posits that the network of rivers west of the Appalachian mountains acted as barriers to Union advances on the Confederacy, when in point of fact they acted more like highways for invasion, enabling rapid and easy waterborne concentration of forces. Keegan points out several times that battles in the Civil War were oddly indecisive, and suggests that the reason for this was the prevalence of stalemating earthworks—this despite the fact that neither side did much digging at all until late in the third campaigning season of the war and the combatants found no greater decisive success in those earlier years. Frankly, the only times in the book where Keegan seems to grasp important concepts or advance thoughtful analysis of events are times where he is stating nothing new or original and simply parroting the ideas of more insightful historians.

Throughout The American Civil War, Keegan sidetracks into long comparisons between the Civil War and other wars in history, most frequently the Napoleonic Wars or The First World War. These wandering musings ranked among the more interesting parts of the book for me, as they reflect a pointedly European perspective on a period in history that is invariably recounted by Americans in books. However, unless one is expertly versed in these other conflicts, their inclusion provides next to no explanatory value. Moreover, the sidetracking really wanders. At one point, Keegan gets entirely lost sharing Karl Marx's perspective on Civil War strategy, an inclusion that acts as a curiosity but adds no value to the work and seems absurdly superfluous in such a short survey of such a vast topic.

Keegan seems to have read none of the vast literature on the underlying causes of the Civil War, instead letting the Lost Cause revisionist movement power much of his reflections. He repeatedly puts forth a quote that the war was "in some way about slavery," while taking pains to point out that most Southern soldiers were not slave holders and many Northern ones were racist. Obviously, this misses the point of the economic underpinnings of slavery and the complex relationship between industrial and agricultural economic predominance in antebellum America. At times, Keegan seems to waffle from the almost self-deluding ignorance of his stated confusion over the cause of the war, setting forth tepid but at least more coherent ideas, but this only serves to confuse the matter further. The ambivalence reflected by Keegan's statement of the causes of the war is then amplified when he states at the end of the book that the causes for which the war was fought "have been settled." This is a remarkable assertion, given that the book was published in 2009, the year after America elected its first African American president, an event that was heralded as revolutionary, indicative of the fact that the United States was still working on the progress of integrating people of color as full and equal citizens. Moreover, less than a dozen years after this book's publication, an armed insurrection bore the Confederate flag through the halls of the United States Capitol in open defiance of the rule of law and embracing Rebellion and desecration of the Union—as clear an example as one could possibly imagine that the causes for which the war was fought have not been settled 150 years later and indeed, brew in violence and antipathy just below the surface of American politics.

I have to add, though it is a minor point, that Keegan includes some truly egregious statements about women in this book, at one point holding forth on the primary role of women in war as emotional comfort for the traumatized souls of men, and at another, suggesting that the salient "feminine qualities" of Southern women (whatever those are) made them more appealing to Europeans than Northern women were. Women rarely receive mention in these pages, and there are actually a few reasonable and competent anecdotes about luminaries like Clara Barton and Dorothea Dix, but here and again, Keegan takes pains to show himself off as a misogynist fossil, and it really stands out.

By the time I trudged to the end of this book, I felt that, rather than having been treated to a thoughtful and engaging survey of the Civil War, I had been dragged through a nonsensical rambling morass of ignorance, supposition, and abysmal scholarship. It seems markedly clear that John Keegan seems not to have fully grasped why the Civil War was fought, what it was fought for and why the fighting was so ferocious and lethal, how or why it was won and lost, and what the legacy of the war's conclusion was and is. For students of the Civil War, this book will be infuriating. For those looking to learn about the war, this book is dangerously misleading, dull, and hopelessly confusing. Honestly, this is a book I can confidently assert that no one should read.

[Ed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excuse my naivete but I'm shocked that one of the best histories of the U.S. Civil War has been written by an Englishman. Granted that I'm a Keegan fan and thought his history of WW I helped me understand that war for the first time. Nevertheless, I would have thought that there was no room for new insights into the Civil War until I read this book.

His ability to show the impact of geography on the conflict was outstanding. His analysis of the economic aspects of the conflict was clear. His explanations for the South's ability to maintain itself in spite of everything against it were enlightening. He also was able to illustrate why the Confederate Army had such clearly superior leadership early in the war.

I very much liked his approach to the chronology of the war in that he discussed campaigns in detail but not battles, a welcome departure from most Civil War Histories. His conclusion that there was no way the South could have won the war is one I totally agree with, southern disclaimers to the contrary.

Keegan supplies enough detail to support his conclusions. For instance, he shows how the railroads of the North were clearly superior to those in the South and therefore severely limited the Confederate's ability to maneuver. He uses maps and specific examples to support his obviously well researched arguments.

I've read a number of Civil War histories. Most of them left me somewhat overwhelmed and confused. I recommend this volume to anyone who would like to have a clear appreciation of how and why the war was fought in the way it was.

[Katherine Addison · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is uneven. Most of it is what the subtitle promises, a military history of the American Civil War, but at the end it devolves into a collection of random essays on the Civil War. I observe from the copyright page that "portions of this book originally appeared in The Civil War Times and Military History Quarterly," and that's what they read like: magazine articles that have a set word limit and thus only so much space to delve into their subjects, with the result that these chapters feel superficial and, as I said, random---there's one about Whitman, and one about Black soldiers, and one on "the home fronts," which includes a paean to Southern womanhood (or perhaps I mean Southern Womanhood) that I found so bizarre it is going to be one of my lasting memories of the book.

Which is a pity, because most of the book is extremely interesting. John Keegan was, of course, the great English military historian, and his view of the Civil War is fascinating, both because he is, obviously, not American and looks at the progress of the war with a detachment that American historians, even now, do not have. (He is also the first historian I've read who buys Major General Dan Sickles's argument (promoted tirelessly after the fact) that he was the hero of Gettysburg for disobeying orders on the 2nd day.) But also because he really is writing a military history and thus spends a lot of time talking about geography, particularly rivers, in a way I had not thought about before. Keegan has ensured that I will now think of the Civil War as a war about rivers---the Mississippi, most obviously, and the Tennessee and the Cumberland and the Ohio, but also the Rappahannock and the Rapidan and that series of parallel rivers between Washington and Richmond.

So three and a half stars, round up to four.

[Bookmarks Magazine · Rating 2 out of 5]

In his broad, single-volume history, Keegan offers an outsider's view of the American Civil War, providing fresh insights from a bracingly impartial perspective. However, though critics were quick to voice their admiration for Keegan's previous works, they were deeply disappointed by The American Civil War. His narrative is lamentably riddled with inaccuracies, including the dates, locations, and events of major battles. He incorrectly attributes well-known quotes, presents disproved myths as facts, and repeatedly contradicts himself. Critics also bemoaned the brevity of the book, which muddled the repetitive descriptions of battles and troop movements, and Keegan's obscure asides. ""He's loath to leave any of his erudition off the table,"" opines the New York Times. Critics expected more from this eminent historian, and readers may be similarly disappointed. This is an excerpt of a review published in Bookmarks magazine.

[Bill Rogers · Rating 2 out of 5]

I bought this book expecting to be impressed. I was, but not in a good way.

Some time in the past, I don't know when, I read Keegan's single volume histories of World War I and World War II. I liked these, so when I saw he had also done a book on the US Civil War I jumped on it. I expected this to be as good. Unfortunately, while there are many things to like about this book, it wanders and is sloppily written.

On the good side of the ledger, Keegan emphasizes the practical issues of the war, while most other histories I have encountered emphasize the story of the war. Historical series like Bruce Catton's Army of the Potomac or Shelby Foote's Civil War bring the characters to life, but however riveting the personal stories may be, however good a view you have of the shape of the war, you don't see much of the bones beneath the skin which gave the war that shape. Keegan discusses these quickly, clearly, and well. These are such issues as the distances involved, the economic and political constraints on the North and the South, the importance of geography, and the impact of changing technology on the results of the war. Often, reading other histories, I became frustrated at the apparent stupidity of Generals and Presidents. Why didn't they go somewhere else, or do this, that, or the other thing? After reading Keegan, I understand the reason is usually that they couldn't, and I even understand some of the reasons why.

On the bad side of the ledger, Keegan wanders, often repeating himself, saying the same thing two or three times ten or twenty pages apart. This is barely tolerable in a long, multi-volume work, but it is not excusable in a single-volume short history. There is no room to spare. What room there is shouldn't be wasted on redundancy.

Also, there are errors and sloppy writing. I would not ding Keegan much for saying the United States rifled musket, the Springfield, had a smaller bore than the British Enfield when the opposite is true. Nor would I ding him for getting both their bore sizes wrong. These are trivial technicalities that only a fanatic like me would notice; besides, my reading recently has taught me that if you presume that any British popular author knows nothing whatsoever about guns, you'll be right far more often than not.

However, I would have expected a British Subject to know that Benjamin Disraeli was not Prime Minister of Britain during the US Civil War (it was Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston). I would expect Keegan not to contradict himself, such as when he says the Carolina coast wasn't invaded until the end of the War, but then goes on to explain how it was invaded at the beginning of the war. I would expect him to put Vicksburg on either the west or east bank of the Mississippi, not switch it across. I would expect him to know that it was not necessary for the Northern troops to invade Cairo, Illinois, since (being in a Northern state) it was in Northern possession from the beginning. Those were just a few of the errors I caught. Many of them are minor such as should have been caught by the author during revision, or by a competent editor before publication. But they were not caught. When an author is wrong on some of the few facts I do know, it makes me wonder if they were also wrong on everything else.

I have very mixed feelings about this book. I'm glad I read it, but I can't recommend it for someone who doesn't already know quite a bit about the subject. Presumably, that would include most people who would want to read a short, single-volume history like this.

[Roger · Rating 1 out of 5]

What a strange and disappointing book. John Keegan was a well known military historian; one of his books, The Face of Battle, broke new ground in the description of the experience of fighting, from generals to the humble private. Unfortunately, the book under review does not attain the standard of that earlier work.

I picked up this book after watching the film Lincoln, which I enjoyed immensely. I realised while watching the film that my knowledge of the American Civil War was pretty sketchy at best, so I thought I'd remedy that and Keegan was close at hand.

Keegan calls his book a military history, yet the first description of battle does not appear until the reader is one third of the way through the book. The hundred pages or so before our first taste of battle is filled with a confusing mash of discussion - a brief and inconclusive foray into the causes of the war, and then a description of the armies involved which actually tells us more about what was going on in Britain at the time rather than America, and a treatise on the "Military Geography of the Civil War", which is simplistic and repetitive.

Repetition is in fact the bane of this book - Keegan is forever jumping forward or backwards in the Civil War chronology to make a point, most annoyingly referencing battles that are yet to occur to illuminate a point about the one he is currently writing about. He continually makes the same points about the advantages and disadvantages of the rivers in the battle areas, and of the railroads. It almost seems as though the chapters of this book are a collection of separate essays that have been brought together, without any editing process.

For a war that had, "By common computation, about 10,000 battles, large and small", the book intersperses the major battles sparsely throughout the text, with much intervening material. The reader gets no feel for how close in time battles might have been to each other, or how wins or losses affected the public at large, apart from brief glimpses.

Once Keegan actually gets on to the fighting, he takes us up to the Fall of Richmond, and then proceeds to wander off the chronological path again, with chapters on Black Soldiers (which restates much he has already stated), the Home Front, Walt Whitman, and chapters on Generalship, Battles, and on whether the South could have survived (which again is a re-hash of earlier sections of the book). Only after this 50 page foray does he get to the final climax of the War, which is then followed by a very strange section which purports to show how the Civil War inoculated the American worker against Socialism!

This book is really all over the place, and the good points - some of the battle descriptions, the pen portraits of the major Generals - are overburdened by the meandering repetitious nature of much of the rest of the book.

The maps are sometimes helpful (although there are not enough of them), and the apparatus is OK (although there are some gaps in the index), but overall, I'd have to recommend not to read this book if you want to be any clearer on the American Civil War. In fact I've found it difficult to write about in any coherent way. One for aficionados - if only to pick holes in.

Check out my other reviews at http://aviewoverthebell.blogspot.com.au/

[Steven Peterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Keegan is a major military historian. His book, "The Face of War," is a fascinating examination of major battles from a very different perspective. But his one volume history of the Civil War disappoints.

On the one hand, this is a standard one volume history of the Civil War. It takes a largely chronological view of the war, with some concluding chapters on very specific aspects of the war, such as naval battle, black soldiers, the war at home, Walt Whitman's role in and view of the war, and so on. These latter elements add interesting sidebars to the main narrative. While Keegan does make some 30,000 foot analyses of the war, there is rather little general large scale analysis.

At the same time, there are strange repeats. At one point he might speak of a battle. Text intervenes. And then he returns to a statement similar to where he had started.

Factual errors are especially jarring. General Ord was NOT a key figure at Five Forks, when Sheridan wrecked the Confederate right flank. The Ninth Corps of the Army of the Potomac was not composed mostly of black troops at Petersburg, although these soldiers comprised a significant percentage of the Corps' manpower. On pager 276, the Battle of Franklin is muddled beyond easy understanding. Hood as a cleverer opponent of Sherman's than Johnston? And so on. One or two errors might be understandable. But for a major figure to make so many is surprising (and other reviewers have noted this, too).

There are interesting points made, including comparisons of the North and South in terms of resources and strategy.

Overall, though, the book ends up disappointing as much as satisfying.

[Moses · Rating 4 out of 5]

I debated between 3 and 4 stars for this one. Three stars for a basic, workmanlike history of the Civil War. Surprised at how much of it was familiar from studying the Civil War in grade school - which is to say, many moons ago. Keegan's book, then, doesn't turn over any new ground. It would probably be quite boring for readers who have studied the Civil War in any depth already.

But I bumped the rating up to four stars for a couple reasons. First, Keegan's thrilling description of the battle of Vicksburg, with which I was unfamiliar, was excellent. Second, his insistence on the importance of geography and the ways in which the vastness of the South and the difficulty of the terrain changed the way war was fought was interesting and not previously known to me. For Keegan, a British military historian, the Civil War is most important for its military innovations that prefigured the Great War.

Finally, Keegan's portrayals of the generals involved in the Civil War is fascinating. He gives much time particularly to Grant, Sherman, and Lee (as most other historians would), but his focus on lesser-known generals such as Bishop Leonidas Polk and others really brought this section of the book to life.

Conclusion: if you haven't read a book about the Civil War (besides The Killer Angels), then start here. If you already have a few books under your belt, give this one a pass.

[Corentin Judet · Rating 4 out of 5]

J’ai bien aimé ce livre. L’auteur décrit avec bcp de détails les différentes batailles de la guerre de Sécession le tout illustrée par des cartes.
Je ne connaissais rien à cette partie de l’histoire ce qui a rendu la lecture plus plaisante mais parfois plus compliquée à comprendre.
Ce conflit le plus meurtrier dans l’histoire des États Unis donne un avant goût de la 1ere GM où les tranchées ont permis aux soldats de se protéger de l’artillerie grandissante. L’Union (Nord) a battu le Sud (Confédérés) grâce à sa supériorité numérique et économique et non tactique.

[Peter Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting book and it gives you a real feel for the topic. Keegan gives you plenty of detail, but never goes too deeply into things, so you never feel as if you're getting bogged down. In particular, this is most evident when he is discussing the many battles. You get the broad details, plus anything else that is interesting or significant, but you don't get pages of minutiae of which unit went where and what they did.


You can learn a lot from this book and as it doesn't just concentrate on the big set pieces, you come away feeling much better informed than before.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not exhaustive, but a relatively complete picture of the war, its aims and strategies, and a fair sampling of the more significant figures in the military aspects of that war. The narrative is crisp and there are few distractions.

[Daniel Deem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Keegan’s one volume account of the Civil War benefits from its incredible accessibility. As a Brit, his perspective on a war which Americans continually disagree about, feels fresh. Keegan makes interesting comparisons to other conflicts (notably the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War) throughout the book. More breadth than depth, this is a good place to start if you want to know more about the triumphs and disasters that constituted the American Civil War.

[Stefan Toma · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Keegan delivers one of the most compelling and intellectually rich accounts of the American Civil War that I have ever encountered.

What struck me the most is how clearly Keegan shows that the Civil War was the first truly industrialized war—a conflict where modern logistics, mass production, and large-scale mobilization reshaped both strategy and human experience. This perspective adds enormous depth and made me understand the war in a completely new light.

The book is filled with moments of courage, tragedy, and incredible human spirit. The way Keegan reconstructs the major battles genuinely moved me. His portraits of the commanders—combining their tactical brilliance, personal flaws, and moral dilemmas—are vivid and unforgettable. I was especially impressed by the intellectual complexity and determination of the generals on both sides.

And then there is Abraham Lincoln. Keegan’s interpretation made me an even bigger admirer of him. His leadership, clarity of purpose, and moral strength come through with incredible force.

Overall, this is not just military history — it’s a profound exploration of character, leadership, and the birth of modern warfare.
An exceptional read (and listen). Highly recommended.

[Peter Goodman · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The American Civil War: a military history,” by John Keegan (Random House, 2009, audiobook). A truly new perspective, for me certainly. What can John Keegan bring to the Civil War that thousands of previous historians and scholars have not? An outsider’s perspective. Example: Keegan concludes that the US never developed a socialist movement as powerful as those in Europe because of the Civil War. For decades after it ended, Americans carried a deep, lasting knowledge of what a real army of change driven by ideas was like: horrific, awful, beyond comprehension. So there was no interest in creating another revolutionary army. So: the Civil War killed socialism in the US. Of course, this ignores the strength of the socialist movement up to and including WWI. But Keegan is talking about a revolutionary socialism, which never did gain real footing here. Throughout the book, Keegan shines an outsider’s perspective, and looks at the war from directions I have not seen elsewhere. For example, he describes how Americans had to learn how to fight, with no significant military history, tradition, or even a significant trained officer corps. The drill, the logistics, the uniforms, the weapons, all were basically created from scratch on both sides. The Europeans considered the American troops an armed mob---and that was close to true in the first year or so. By the end of the war, Keegan says, the Union
Army could have taken on any Continental force. Strategy: no one on either side really knew much about the geography or topography of the country. There were no maps, let alone good ones. There were few roads. There was a lot of wilderness, uncharted and forested land. There were few great open plains for massed battles such as happened in Europe. Winfield Scott’s “Anaconda Plan” was ultimately the strategy the North used, surrounding, squeezing and strangling the South from all sides. But that’s not how things began. There was no underlying strategy---just fighting. The South didn’t even have that vision. No one in the South had any kind of plan to win the war. Lee’s two movements north were not really meant as strategic moves. The wars in the West and Virginia developed completely separately. But there was a tremendous amount of fighting: thousands of battles over the four years, more than one a day. The South had few physical targets: not even the capture of Richmond would have ended the fighting. Only the destruction of armies---but, vicious as the battles were, none came close to be being decisive. He talks about the economics: the South thought the loss of cotton would force Europe to take its side---but not only did England have a large reserve of cotton, but the loss of American cotton allowed other regions to develop their own crops. He asks why soldiers on both sides fought so hard and so valiantly despite horrific suffering in battle and afterward. They just did not give up. The generals: Keegan considers only Grant to have been a great general, with Sherman not far behind. Lee he considers a good tactical fighter, but with no clear vision of what or why he was doing anything. Jackson was probably a great general, and his death was devastating for the South. There are some significant blind spots: he does not mention Grant’s General Order No. 11, expelling all Jews from territory under his control. The racist aspect of the New York Draft Riots is ignored completely. Nevertheless, really profound study of the war.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...

[Joshua Neil · Rating 3 out of 5]

The American Civil War is exactly what it says on the tin: a thorough study into the American civil war of 1861, looking at its causes, major battles and eventual outcome.
This book has a lot going for it, and yet I wouldn't say I enjoyed it very much. The good points: It's certainly very thorough and well-researched: if all you're looking for is a decent understanding of the dates, major actions and characters in the war, it will do its job.
Unfortunately, there are many downsides too. The writing is average at best, and never engages or interests in the vein of Beevor or Zamoyski. Similarly, the entire book comes across as quite dry and overly-factual; there are very few first-hand accounts or attempts to really bring across the human elements of what is happening in the war. Similarly, due to the book's need to shove all the history into one book, many major events are glossed over and breezed by, with no ral sense of how the war was fought or how soldiers lived.
Similarly, the chapters are rather randomly ordered: the book begins with a select few independent chapters on how soldiers were armed and equipped, the backstory of the war and how plans were drawn up before we even begin to chronologically narrate the war's events: after that is done, however, we cut back to another series of random chapters, on how black people and women served in the war and whether the South could ever have won. It lends a disjointed and disorganised feel to the book, giving no real flow to the reading.
This disjointedness is continued in the writing itself, which often repeats basic statements time and again. It feels as if every chapter were written independently by someone else, and sewn together at a later time, particularly when - as in two or three cases - things are repeated almost word-for-word.
Some of these random chapters are very interesting, however - particularly whether the South could ever have won - and the pictures the book contains are interesting and well-placed. While the book does have its most important maps right at the front of the book, others, particularly battle maps, are spread throughout the book, though always near to the appropriate description of the battle.
Overall this is a clear, well-researched description of the American Civil War that will give you all of the salient details you need to understand its major characters, events and facts. But those looking for a more in-depth, narrative-based or engaging read will be disappointed by the cold rapid-fire facts that the book sets out.

[Maitrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this book up as a complete Civil War novice. One day I realized, I've absolutely no idea about any of the battles (apart from Gettysburg) that were fought and hardly any of the personnel involved. John Keegan comes with an impeccable background as one of the foremost military historians of our times, so I thought, why not, this will be illuminating.

I think I've got a good grip of the timeline, and some of the major battles that were fought (according to one count, there were something like 10,000 (!) battles in the American Civil War, both big and small). So just getting a bare-bones account I can live with. Unfortunately, this book was extremely dry. Also, I realized, I didn't like the fact that when Keegan meant military history, he stuck to it. I think I'd have loved to see what was happening in Washington and Richmond to influence the decisions being taken on the field. There wasn't any narrative flair whatsoever, something I've come to expect in my history books that aren't completely academic. At times, it was a slog just to get through. This book isn't for the novice, it expects you to have some knowledge of the timeline before hand (something I think an American high school education will provide, not so much elsewhere in the world though).

What I liked were some of the introductory and concluding chapters. They were wonderfully written, with a scholar's touch. Things like what motivated the common soldiers to fight even against hopeless odds or what they ate, or was the war really about "something to do with slavery" will stay with me, and allow me to read other books on military history in a new light.

To conclude, this is a dry as dust military history of the American Civil War. For people who like that sort of that thing, go for it. Otherwise, I'm looking for good recommendations on history books that deal with the Civil War in its entirety: the politics, the cultural changes it spawned, or even post civil war migrations into the American West.

[Donna Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a disappointment. Keegan's history of World War I was outstanding, and likewise he did a brilliant job with World War II. In contrast, his treatment of the American Civil War is nothing special. His sources are secondary; he hasn't spent countless hours sitting in local and regional libraries reading collections of letters or rare documents. The man lives in England, and as far as I can see, he may have written this book from there. His maps are insufficient, and the ones he does use are the ones you see in anyone else's American Civil War literature. Likewise, his photographs are ones I already saw somewhere else.

All of that could still make a four star work if he put a fresh perspective into play. I recently read and reviewed the outstanding Our Man in Charleston, by Christopher Dickey. That book offered the British perspective on the conflict, and it was very different from that of either the Union or the Confederacy. I had hoped that Keegan would likewise offer a new perspective and a lively discussion.

The book is instead, dull, dull, and dull. I did not see one piece of information I didn't already know...and he called John Brown a "wild man", perpetuating the textbook stereotype that tends to be used by those that don't care to dig too deeply.

In his end notes he thanks James McPherson, and really if you read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom along with the memoirs written by generals Grant and Sherman, you'll learn far more and with much fresher, more interesting prose. It is these to which he refers most liberally.

On the plus side, I got my copy used. On the sorry side, it was still eight bucks I could have spent on something I can use.

I advise you to read something else. If you want to read Keegan, read about one of the world wars. If you want one basic yet thorough treatment of the American Civil War, read Battle Cry of Freedom. But not this book.

[James (JD) Dittes]

Keegan is simply the best military historian writing today, and his "American Civil War" gets the perspective just about right. American history buffs are used to seeing dozens of new books about the CIvil War come out every year, focused on individual battles, specific regiments, letters, etc.

It took an outsider--and a Brit with no less than Keegan's military expertise--to write a definitive book like this. Keegan has made a close study of American geography (his account of the assault on Vicksburg's impregnable heights is brilliant), and the options available to generals when it comes to materiel and maneuver. He is able to put the Civil War in the context of other great struggles of that era like the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, even World War I.

What I really enjoyed about the book were Keegan's conclusions. Could the South have ever won? He kindly dismisses this idea--the lack of centrality by the Confederacy made it unable to raise money or requisition troops (the responsibility of the states); the "bright spots" of the struggle were the result of cowardice or incompetence by Union generals.

He credits Lincoln as being the master strategist for the North, who muddled through for three years until Grant took command.

Most importantly, he recognizes the American Civil War as the war that "fixed" the American Revolution--finally making it possible for the promise of the Declaration of Independence to be realized for "all men, endowed by their Creator," in the same way that Lincoln's immortal Gettysburg Address reiterated Jefferson's letter to King George III. Lincoln had the will--and the Union had the fight--to fix this once and for all.

[John Bianchi · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Keegan remains the most exciting military historian currently writing, and I had looked forward to The American Civil War. Keegan could have benefitted from a more active editorial hand; several passages, which were key points in what is essentially an expanded essay, were repeated nearly verbatim several times over the course of the argument when a simple reference would have sufficed. Not a narrative and therefore not as engaging as James MacPherson's single-volume history, Keegan's effort has value in being written from the perspective of a first-class military mind from Britain. Therefore, his judgements and opinions are unclouded by partisan north-south coloring. Its very refreshing for a historian writing about our civil war to clearly recognize that the South was doomed from before the first shot was fired, and to further recognize that it was the terrain and geography that allowed the South to hold on as long as they did, not the superior generalship so often ascribed to the string of Southern successes. With an outsider's ability to tell painful truth, Keegan also points out the failure of the war to eradicate slavery in fact, if not in law, further putting the proposal forward that American apartheid only began to die with the civil rights movement. A compelling if flawed read.

[Sean Chick · Rating 1 out of 5]

There are no original ideas here, just the same mish-mash of Grant/Lincoln hero worship we have all come to know. Grant was a very good general, and Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents but really people, there is no shame in pointing out their faults and failures. It isn't like The Lost Cause devotees are going to get a beachhead by us admitting that Grant and Lincoln were not gods. As regards to Keegan, I think he simply wrote a book because he figured we needed the 'Keegan touch.' On page 233 of The Mask of Command Keegan states that promotion makes normal men into neurotic pomposity. The same is apparently true of notoriety for historians. Now that Mr. Keegan is a lord of history, he no longer feels close to the men of Waterloo, but rather closer to the same Caesar he once damned as a historian.

[Florent · Rating 4 out of 5]

Très plaisant à lire, un auteur agréable qui approfondi l'aspect humain et social du plus grand conflit des USA. Seules réserves, les évenements sont abordés par théatres et non chronologiquement, ce qui est parfois un peu difficile quand on n'a qu'une vague connaissance initiale du sujet, et la cartographie est un peu faible.

[Steven Yenzer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sort of a baffling book. The beginning and end were very interesting, providing a look into the lives of Civil War soldiers and the America they fought in. But the middle, in which one would expect the "Military History" part to shine, was rather boring. Keegan's battle descriptions are muddled and confusing, and I got very little out of this bulk of the book.

[Erik Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrible history on slavery. Bad takes on African-American soldiers’ willingness and ability to fight.

Putting the casual racism aside- deep understanding of military tactics and good overall military analysis. Well structured by using specific examples to illustrate tactical concepts while telling a larger narrative of the war.

[Andrew Masters · Rating 1 out of 5]

Keegan rates the generals towards the end of the book. He rates Ulysses S. Grant as the best general. That tells you all need to know about the worthlessness of this book. (For the record, I am a northerner.)

[George W. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great one volume read. I was going to do an in depth review myself. After reading William2’s review I decided to refer to it instead. I couldn’t improve on his review on my best days! Read it, you won’t be disappointed.

[Lars Sønderskov · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meget skuffet. Kegan er den bedste militærhistoriker, men denne bog er tung og ustruktureret.