The History Book Club discussion
AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
>
5. KILLER ANGELS (HF) ~ SECTIONS - 4. CHAMBERLAIN + 5. LONGSTREET - (122 - 142) (02/01/10 - 02/07/10) ~ No spoilers, please
date
newest »
newest »
I finally have more than just 5 minutes to spend on goodreads. Sorry for the delay.We see lots of thinking and philosophizing in this week's reading.
In Chamberlain’s chapter, the men are marching towards Gettysburg. We hear Chamberlain’s brother, Tom, orienting one of the Maine men about the regiment. They give us a good picture of a lot of army life that happens between battles. We are also in Chamberlain’s thoughts as he marches and remembers his school oration on “Man, the Killer Angel.” And we see what war was like for a man in the middle. Colonel Chamberlain commands a regiment, but worries as much as they do about who is in command of the army.
Longstreet’s chapter shows him riding back to his men after meeting with Lee. Longstreet knows Lee will attack in the morning, and it depresses him. Longstreet has a long talk with Freemantle, the Englishman. They discuss military formations, what it means to be a gentleman, and what made Stonewall Jackson a good officer. Longstreet offers a great overview of the history of war. And yet he knows honor is more important than winning to many men, such as Freemantle.
Lots to discuss here. Let’s share our thoughts about their thoughts.
One of the big things that struck me this week was more items for the list of what makes a good officer. At the beginning of his chapter, Chamberlain gets off his horse because "A good officer rode as little as possible" (page 123). It made me laugh that a few pages later the Color Sergeant Tozier tells him to please "do us all a favor and get back on that ... horse?" Tozier says the recruits would be happier if their "officers would act like they got sense" (page 128).So, which is it? Does a good officer ride or walk?
At the end of his chapter, Chamberlain also thinks through advice given him on what an officer must do. "You must care for your men's welfare. You must show physical courage" (page 132).
In the middle of Longstreet's chapter, he and Freemantle discuss what made Stonewall Jackson a great officer. "He could move troops. He knew how to hate." And later down the page, Longstreet says, "A little eccentricity is a help to a general" (page 139).
Did I miss anything in these chapters, or earlier? Why is knowing how to hate useful? What about "a little eccentricity"?
I'm really curious what you all think about these things.
That's a good question, Jeff. I need to do some looking into McClellan to get a feel for the specifics on it. In general, though, I think people often pick someone to like based on things other than their track record. After all, I'm a Cubs fan and it has been over 100 years since they won it all. When kids pick people to be on their side for a game, they are more often picking their friends than the kids who are the best players.Part of what hit me about whether or not a good officer rides a horse is the fact that what makes someone a good officer in the eyes of the men below them may be different from a good officer in the eyes of peers or a good officer in the eyes of superiors. And one group of men might be different than another.
The Confederate soldiers loved Lee. Partly for his successes. But I think there are other reasons, some of which we'll see later in KA.
I was so struck by this very unique juxtaposition of high ideals in the Chamberlain chapter and then the nitty gritty toughness of the Lee chapter. Shaara knows how to show the whole human being, from the nobility of Chamberlain's thoughts to the discussion of the unique, almost strange quality of Lee's army - tough, passionate, a wee bit (or more) crazy... Loving this book!
Elizabeth S wrote: "One of the big things that struck me this week was more items for the list of what makes a good officer. At the beginning of his chapter, Chamberlain gets off his horse because "A good officer rod..."Perhaps someone can explain the psychology but the reason Chamberlain was asked to get back on his horse was because he was willing to get off it.
In a post nearby, Jeff mentions the many ways someone can be a good leader, which is a sound answer in my opinion. A common thread when people discuss why they did brave things during a war is that they didn't want to disappoint their fellow soldiers. Soldiers look to their leaders to not disappoint them. The leader must show he understands and fulfills the needs of his people. For example, Chamberlain's men understood he couldn't control having to continue their march after a long day but he showed he was willing to suffer along with them.
Ambrose Stephen E.wrote about the brotherhood of war in a significant number of his books.
Erick wrote: "Perhaps someone can explain the psychology but the reason Chamberlain was asked to get back on his horse was because he was willing to get off it...."Are you saying that the men were glad Chamberlain marched with them for a time, and were letting him know he didn't need to do it anymore? Interesting thought. Kinda like I don't really want my husband to do all the dishes every night, but I do appreciate that he offers.
By the way, did you mean this Stephen E. Ambrose?
I've only read one of his books, but it was very good and did talk a lot about soldiers looking to each other for support. For some reason, the goodreads "add book/author" search doesn't bring up the best result for Ambrose. Looks like a librarian needs to go in and merge some of those author pages together.
Viviane wrote: "I was so struck by this very unique juxtaposition of high ideals in the Chamberlain chapter and then the nitty gritty toughness of the Lee chapter. Shaara knows how to show the whole human being, ..."It is fun looking at 2 chapters a week, because these kind of juxtapositions can come up. These two chapters do complement each other well, don't they.
I very much like the balance Shaara offers between this philosophical chapters and the actual fighting. To me, a good book about a battle has some of each.
Elizabeth S wrote: "Erick wrote: "Perhaps someone can explain the psychology but the reason Chamberlain was asked to get back on his horse was because he was willing to get off it...."Are you saying that the men wer..."
Thank-you for straightening out my author reference.
Mod
John KeeganThere is a who's who in Military History:
John KeeganThere is also the history of warfare:
John KeeganBut I think the one you are really referring to is the following...hope I am correct:
John Keegan
Mod
Great team work, Jeff and Bentley. Don't you just love it when things actually work out. :)
Mod
Erick wrote: "Elizabeth S wrote: "One of the big things that struck me this week was more items for the list of what makes a good officer. At the beginning of his chapter, Chamberlain gets off his horse because..."What should an officer be? A leader, someone who says jump and you jump. Someone who says charge and you charge, even when it is suicide. Now ask you're self: If your "one of the boys" are you a leader? To me the answer is simply, to be an officer you have to be alone and feared and not one of the boys. Chamberlain breaks that mold. The real question is: How on earth did he get his men to do what they do on little round top? Please answer that one when you get to that part of the book.
I think you have some points, James. But frankly, to some people, they jump higher for someone they honor and respect than for someone they fear. And I think honor and respect can sometimes be strengthened when someone gets down in the trenches with the men. Let's not take the little round top question any further, we don't want to risk any spoilers.I think it comes down to one's definition of what an officer should be. I think Chamberlain was aiming closer to what his mentor said (page 132, last page of the Chamberlain chapter): "You must care for your men's welfare. You must show physical courage." I think the first is hard to show if you separate yourself completely from your men. And the second would be done best, in my opinion, both from a distance and from close at hand.
Of course, it is all open to interpretation. That is why we can see successful officers and leaders with a variety of styles.
Since this week's Chamberlain chapter gives us the title of our book, I thought we should be sure to discuss that part. In my copy, it appears on page 126. Chamberlain is remembering sharing a speech he had memorized with his father. The speech is from Hamlet. Only a part is quoted in KA, here's the whole paragraph:
"What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so."
Chamberlain's father thinks for a minute and then says, "Well, boy, if he's an angel, he's sure a murderin' angel." Chamberlain used that as the basis for an oration in school, "Man, the Killer Angel." Remember, Chamberlain was a scholar, a professor, before he enlisted.
By the way, I can't find any reference on any of the Chamberlain websites to such an oration or paper. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, though, because most of the sites focus mainly on the Civil War and later. Anyone else know for sure either way?
I think it is interesting what Chamberlain's father does with Hamlet's speech. He points out that however noble man is, he still kills. That phrase, "the killer angels" refers to the best and worst of mankind.
And what a better title for a book about a glorious battle, another oxymoron. Already so far we have seen death and honor, wisdom and foolishness, and action and philosophy.
Lincoln's frustrations with his generals offers a case study of military leadership in the Civil War. As Jeff says in message 7, a good leader, particularly a commander-in-chief, must have not only the respect of the troops but the confidence of other generals and the President.Lincoln goes through a series of generals, including McCellen(twice),Burnside, Hooker, Meade and, finally, Grant. Until Grant is appointed in March of 1864, no general was in sync with Lincoln on key issues of over-all strategy, execution and the intangible of their personal relationship. Grant provides Lincoln with all of these attributes, as Bruce Catton explains in "Never Call Retreat". He writes:
"The President at last had found the general he wanted... They saw the military problem in the same way. Grant's overall design was exactly what Mr. Lincoln had long hoped to see put in effect... and the two men talked the same language. When Grant explained that an army with a defensive role nust do its job in a way that would contribute to the offensive elsewhere, Mr. Lincoln nodded and said, "As we say out west, If a man can't skin he must hold a leg while someone else does." This remark would have puzzled Meade, it probably would not have been made to Hooker, and it undoubtedly would have made McCellen wince. As the son of a tanner, Grant understood it. The President had a general-in-chief he could talk to."
Critically, Grant was the only general who really understood that the armies in the East and West must act in concert, not independently, constantly pressing the Confederate army on all sides until they could break it. Bruce Catton
Hi Jeff, you have to agree with Keegan's assessment of Grant. He knew that the conflict had to be waged as a total war and the fight taken to the enemy, on their land and against his war production capability including their citizens.
Mod
I'll add just a little from what I read on Grant (to the point of leadership) in Keegan's book. Keegan made a statement early on that made me wince..."
Jeff, I love Keegan..but considering some of the points he got wrong in his recent civil war book which just came out not too long ago...you have to think that possibly some of his assessments about the Civil War may have not been 100% on target. I am still of the mind that Lee was overall the best general..Let us not forget he was Lincoln's first choice. Grant was not too shabby but I think he was not the "man" that Lee was (not even close). Of course that is just MHO.
Hi Bentely, I don't disagree with you totally, Lee was a brilliant tactician although his style of command has been questioned by a few historians/authors, not providing a clear & direct plan/command but offering a general outline of what he required and letting his subordinates act in a way that they felt appropriate which of course didn't always work. I don't think Grant was much of a tactician but he knew that for the war to be finished he had to take the fight to the people and he had the means, vision and force of character to do it. He saw what was required and forced his plan/s through and didn’t deviate or let side issues cloud his judgement and he was also a commander who picked the right people to follow his plans to completion.
Mod
I see Lee and Grant similar to a comparison of an architect and mason. A mason just slaps the concrete in place and moves the bricks..he just does one after the other...not thinking what lies ahead just getting the wall done. Then there is the architect who has to create something from nothing; create an art form and then make this design work even from nothing; making sure that the engineers and the construction personnel follow the plan that he designed. Lee was the architect to me anyways and Grant was the mason. I see Grant as picking the right bricks and thinking with a little concrete I can force this wall to stand. Lee was much more lofty in his approach and weighed his decisions and his behavior in relation to long term effect and consequences.
But there is room for every opinion and none of us know these men except from the books we have read.
You know Aussie Rick at Gettysbury every year; they have an annual re-enactment of the battles at Gettysburg and I hear it is quite something...that would be right up your alley.
Hi Bentley, I like your analogy of Lee and Grant, and it's very true. When I read books on the American Civil War I always enjoy the flair of the Confederates and their leaders although in the end the grim work of warfare requires a steadfast labourer banging away at the wall till it gives way (but not in mindless frontal assaults like WW1).
Both are great leaders in their own way as were many of their subordinates. I would love to visit Gettysburg one day and see an re-enactment, maybe one day soon I hope!
Mod
That is why years later even though nobody is alive who fought on the Confederate side..if you went to South Carolina (and I did last year) there you will see the Confederate flag still flying in front of the capital...not over the capital...just a technicality (they were forced to take that down from above the main building - lol)...but it is still flying. I had to laugh..there is always a loophole. Not that I agree with it...I think it is about time to put all these flags away in the attics or hang them in museums...but the cause still runs in their veins like part of their DNA I am afraid.
I think sometimes that in SC there are some and maybe more than a few that are still fighting the war in their mind.
Mod
The mason and the architect.
All interesting stuff on great leaders. I like the mason and architect analogy. And I like Jeff's point, that you can define someone as a great leader for different reasons.Sorry I haven't has as much online time this week as I usually do (and it will continue through next week too--I'm in charge of a big event Friday night). I was hoping to do some research on the bugle calls. I'm intrigued with the relationship between the 20th Maine's call and the most commonly known bugle call today: Taps.
Mod
A better youtube for taps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38wx8C...
Taps Lyrics:
Marine Corps Band lyrics -
Day is done
Gone the sun
From the lakes
From the hills
From the sky All is well,
safely rest.
God is nigh.
Fading light Dims the sight
And a star Gems the sky,
Gleaning bright From afar,
Drawing nigh,
Falls the night.
Thanks and praise,
For our days,
Neath the sun,
Neath the stars,
Neath the sky,
As we go,
This we know,
God is nigh.
A very interesting discussion on Grant. I don't know much about him but I understand he was considered to be a good tactician with an often subtle touch. I believe he also has a solid reputation as a two term president. Definitely a complex man.There is way to much history to get through but this discussion makes me think of how a group discussion of a book about Grant would go.
A very interesting discussion developing in regards to command style between Lee and Grant. Can I offer the following book that may interest those who would like to delve further into what made a good combat leader during the Civil War: “The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War” by Thomas Buell. The book compares the leadership styles of the Federal generals; Ulysses S. Grant, George H. Thomas, and Francis C. Barlow and the Confederate generals; Robert E. Lee, John Bell Hood and John B. Gordon.
by Thomas Buell"One of the greatest difficulties in understanding how the generals functioned is that much of the war's history is biased and distorted. Upon scholarly inquiry, truisms about popular historical events and personalities are often discovered to be entirely misleading or wrong. It was something that Samuel Johnson knew about. "Many things which are false," he once said, " are transmitted from book to book, and gain credit in the world." So it has been with much of Civil War history. The misconceptions are pervasive and widespread, even among those who are in a position to know better. A few years ago I accompanied a party of Army War College students on a staff ride across Virginia Civil War battlefields. These senior army officers, steeped in the principles of their profession, expressed the view that the Confederacy's generals were the superior leaders in terms of competency and experience, and that the Federal generals ultimately prevailed not because of their leadership skills, but the abundance of northern manpower and material. This prevailing but mistaken view of the Civil War generals is considered common knowledge from grammar school to the senior service colleges. While it does not bear up to scrutiny, rarely is it challenged The importance of the western and eastern theaters is similarly distorted. The popular PBS Civil War documentary, like most works on the war, emphasized the eastern campaigns. Gettysburg received nearly an entire episode, Franklin and Nashville but a few moments of passing commentary, yet the Tennessee campaign was the more decisive on the outcome of the war. Under these circumstances, Civil War history and the roles of its generals cry for clarification and revision. Through my researching primary sources to the extent possible, facts have come to light that have cleared away layers of mythology and folklore. What follows in the book is a fresh assessment of what happened and why." - Thomas B. Buell
Mod
Any spoiler text needs and is required to be placed on the glossary thread since these threads are weekly non spoiler ones. The synopsis that you added does not appear to contain any glaring spoilers but just be mindful that some just might.
Bentley
Hi Bentley, sorry about that, I have put this post in the Civil War thread as well.
Mod
Mod
Grant was the type of person in battle that thought that the ends justifies the means. Just keep throwing troops and keep plowing through and things will work out. Maybe not for your troops. He certainly was known for his aggressiveness and was regarded as more successful in his generalship rather than his presidency. Typically, he ranks in the lowest quartile in ranking presidents mainly I think because of the political corruption in his administration. He was certainly able to accomplish big things for Lincoln. Lincoln had once said. "I can't spare this man, he fights." Grant was not afraid to order direct assaults and just kept pushing
Lee was the better man of the two and more intelligent and did a great job even getting an army together for the South which was really starting from nothing. I really wonder if the roles were reversed how successful Grant would have been given the same hand. Lee inflicted great casualties on Grant at the beginning but was unable to replace his loss in men, etc. Many historians have criticized Lee's invasion of the North and of course Gettysburg was one of the main reasons for that criticism and probably a well deserved one.
I think possibly that some of the books posted would be best placed in the glossary as some seem to be going a little off topic for this book which covers a narrow timeframe and especially for this thread which covers Chambelain and Longstreet.
Please place all future books which discuss the total command and conflict in the glossary. This is a non spoiler thread so the events and people discussed should belong to the pages themselves. The glossary is a spoiler thread so any kind of discussion about the war in total can be discussed there as well as expansive discussion.
Just as a heads up, if a post is a spoiler post, it is always moved and deleted from the non spoiler thread. In the case of this discussion it would be moved to the Killer Angels glossary thread.
Here is the link to the glossary for Killer Angels:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Of the two, Grant was much more the aggressor. I can see how some folks would judge them differently; many have and of course, probably because of the way things ended up. Both men are fascinating studies.
One of my favorite books on military history destroys both Grant and Lee, detailing how neither is worthy of being considered a great general. The book does praise Stonewall Jackson and William Sherman (and many others) as examples of true military geniuses and great generals. Perhaps some of you will enjoy this as well. My opinion of Grant and Lee has never recovered from this analysis.
How Great Generals Win
P.S. I'm having some trouble getting the book cover and author image to copy here. I'll keep trying.
Hi Bill, I have read one of this author's books some many years back on the Civil War (I think). I have found a paperback cover to show:
by Bevin Alexander
Mod
Aussie Rick, thank you for posting an image of the cover. BTW, Alexander also wrote a book on Stonewall Jackson, which may be the book you recall.If you haven't read this one yet, I highly recommend it - it's my favorite book on military strategy and has permanently influenced how I view generals and their battles.
In addition to demonstrating convincingly (I think) why Grant and Lee should not be considered great generals, it made me realize why Mao and the Long March are such a part of Communist China's national mythology. I had always thought of Mao purely as a political leader, but he was a military genius without whom the Chinese Communist Party would never have survived and eventually triumphed.
The book also has excellent chapters on Stonewall Jackson, Rommel and T.E. Lawrence.
Mod
Thanks to you both.
And some of these comments might fit in well with the Civil War thread: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Bill wrote: "Aussie Rick, thank you for posting an image of the cover. BTW, Alexander also wrote a book on Stonewall Jackson, which may be the book you recall.If you haven't read this one yet, I highly rec..."
Hi Bill,
I had the same problem with posting the link to the book and author but Bentley and others talked me through it. This is the advice I received from Elizabeth and it works well:
"For a book link, use the "add book/author" link that is just above the comment box. When you click on it, it brings up a box where you can search by either book title (ISBN’s work best here if possible) or author name. You'll get a list of search results and you can pick which one to add. At the bottom of the box are two radio buttons to select whether you want a text link or the cover shown. (For this group, we prefer the cover if available.) After getting the book link in, if you click on "add book/author" again, it should still show your search results. If you select the "author" tab, it will automatically show the authors that match those search results. Again, at the bottom select whether you want a text link or picture.
"When you are done, try the "(preview)" link under the comment box next to the "post" button. It will show you what your comment looks like and you can check your work.
It makes your posting look pretty good and allows others to check out the books and populates the thread with titles & authors mentioned so others can research either the book or the author
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
How Great Generals Win (other topics)How Great Generals Win (other topics)
The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War (other topics)
Never Call Retreat (other topics)
Hamlet (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Bevin Alexander (other topics)Thomas B. Buell (other topics)
Bruce Catton (other topics)
William Shakespeare (other topics)
John Keegan (other topics)
More...
Hello Everyone,
Today we are continuing our historical fiction discussion on Killer Angels. This is the first historical fiction group selected book. We hope that the membership will participate.
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers.
This book was kicked off on January 4th.
This discussion will be led by assisting moderator of historical fiction - Elizabeth S.
We look forward to your participation. Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.
Since we only started this book on January 4th, there is still time remaining to obtain the book and get started. This is a quick and fast paced book.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
This thread opens today February 1st for discussion. This is a no spoiler thread.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL