I grew up near Gettysburg & have been there numerous times. I just spent 2 days there with this book on the battlefield--this book made the battle crystal clear! I ran out of time exploring the battlefield (it takes more than the 6 hours described in the book--my only criticism). This book brings the battle to life and explains the terrain like never before. I learned a lot about the battle that I never knew and many components of the battle came into focus in new and exciting ways. In particular, this book does a good job on overviews of each day and with it's clear directions, leads the reader through each stop--I really felt as if I had an expert by my side explaining all the facets of each aspect of the battle. Along the way, everything was just as the book described. The maps were excellent & it's nicely complimented with various portraits of leaders, common soldiers, etc. The guide brings the 3 days together as a cohesive whole. This is the book to get if you're going to visit Gettysburg; forget all the others.

I now live near Chickamauga and I plan on getting their book on that battle!

I recently took a trip to Gettysburg (my 3rd) and carried this tour guide for the 1st time. It is far and away the best experience I've had seeing the battlefield. It follows the battle chronologically and offers several sites and insights not offered on the audio tours available at the local shops. Many of the stops are multifaceted. At several points the stops feature 7 to 10 asides which often involve only a minor shift in position to point out various phases of the battle. It includes a side trip to the cavalry field which I've never run into on the audio tours. The driving directions are easy to follow but do veer from the order of the Military Park brochure and the audio tours to give greater detail to the battle. The book says to allow for 6 hours-it's more like 10 hours to give time for exploring beyond some of the "stand here and turn left" instructions. 11 hours total if you include a break for lunch. We started at nine on one morning, toured until about 4 with a break for lunch and finished the following day. Sites included on the audio and Park tours tend to start getting crowded from 11 to 3, so this will add to the tour time depending on time of year and crowd. To sum it all up and paraphrase a popular commercial-when going on a tour of Gettysburg-"Don't leave home without it!"

An excellent, well-written guidebook and the best I've seen on the subject. I carried this book on my first visit to Gettysburg in Spring 2001, and it greatly enhanced the experience. The directions are clear and up to date, and the text is precise and detailed enough to be compelling without trying to be an exhaustive treatment of every minute detail. If used as a companion to an actual visit, I would strongly recommend reading the book in advance of your visit, then bringing it with you for reference. There are only a few very minor faults I might find with this guidebook. On the maps, it would be helpful to have present-day landmarks indicated in some way to help with orientation. Also, the book suggests the full tour can be completed in six hours, but in my experience to make all the stops and fully enjoy it you'd need at least a full day, or preferably two. You'll want to leave some time for reflection at such places as McPherson's Ridge, Little Round Top, the High Water Mark, and others to think about the enormity of what occurred on that ground.

Read this book and you'll come away with a good working knowledge of the three-day battle. Highly recommended!

And Keep Moving On: The Virginia Campaign May - June 1864 written by Mark Grimsley is a book about the massive operation called the Virginia Campaign about ow Ulyses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee saw the war. But, this is not just a battle book, it is a book with the political context of the 1864 presidential election.

Not only the election, but appraises the motivation of soldiers, appreciates the impact of the North's sea power advantage and questions convential interpretations; andexamines the interconnections among the major battles, subsidiary offenives, and raids.

The Contents of the book is as follows:

Campaign Plans and Politics
The Wilderness
"Grant Is Beating His Head aganist a Wall"
The Collapse of Grant's Peripheral Strategy
"Lee's Army Is Really Whipped"
"The Hardest Campaign"
"It Seemed Like Murder"
The Campaign's Significance

"The art of war," maintained Lt. Gen. Ulyses S. Grant, "is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on." Grant the bludgeoner, Lee the master of maneuver were, in reality, the two commanders were almost identical in style.

Grant took over the hard luck Army of the Potomac and Lee had his Army of Northern Virginia and that ensured that the spring campaign of 1864 would pit the Civil War's two most successful generals against one another in a duel that became legendary.

The fighting was not restricted to a duel between Grant and Lee, either. In order to maximize his chance of success, Grant put into motion virtually every Union soldier in hte eastern theater. As a result, the struggle between the main armies... eventually dubbed the Overland campaign... was only part of a larger offensive that included major expeditions in western and southeastern Virginia as well as numrous impromptu raids aimed at the Confederate transportation infrastructure. Grant and Lee not only had to take these maneuvers into account, they often supervisedthem as well. It is therefore better to think, as they did themselves, in terms of a single, massive Virginia campaign of spring 1864.

Grant confronted Lee with four subsidiary offensives in addition to the Army of the Potomac's main advance: two in southwestern Virginia against Confederate salworks, lead mines, and railroads; a third in the Shenandoah Valley under Major General Franz Sigel; and a fourth in the James River estuary under Major General Benjamin F. Butler. Grant intended these lesser offensives to divert strength from Lee's army and, if possible, to achieve significant results on their own. He had particularly high expectations of Butler, believing that Butler could threaten Richmond, interdict Confederate communications with the Deep South, and help place Lee at a ruinous disadvantage. But by shifting their outnumbered forces adroitly, the Confederates thwarted Grant's offensive at every turn, defeating Sigel and Butler and administrating sharp checks to the Army of the Potomac in the battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, the North Anna and Cold Harbor.

You really get a feel for how the Virginia Campaign was fought in this book making it a definate addintion to you American History library. The narrative is easy going and the insights are engrossing, making for an informative and educational read.

Mark Grimsley does not seek to break new ground in "And Keep Moving On: The Virginia Campaign, May - June 1864". Up front he states: "This is primarily a work of synthesis. As such, my foremost thanks are due to the authors of the specialized studies on which it is based." These specialized studies are, either through their daunting size or their limited availability, unfamiliar to most persons interested in the Civil War. Mark Grimsley has performed a valuable service for such readers by drawing upon those narrow analyses to craft a comprehensive and lucid narrative about the Overland Campaign and its associated operations. In less than 250 pages of narrative text, Grimsley covers the fundamentals of not only such grand battles as the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor, but also Butler's fumbled thrust towards Richmond, cavalry raids in West Virginia, and fighting in the Shenandoah Valley. Moreover, he relates the pace of military matters to the political background (1864 was a Presidential election year in the North) and to state of civilian morale.

In discussing combat, Grimsley includes sufficient first-hand detail so the reader does not lose sight of the ultimate reality that the contending armies were made up of living, breathing, dying individual soldiers. Nonetheless, the book's primary focus is on the senior commanders. Grimsley states in the preface that he "evaluated the principal leaders as sympathetically as possible, always bearing in mind that they were intelligent men who operated under extraordinary conditions and pressure ... I have encountered few historical actors - even such perennial goats as Ben Butler - for whom I could not muster at least some respect." It seems that Franz Sigel, justifiably in my opinion, fell outside the author's range of sympathy. In writing of the battle of New Market, Grimsley quotes William C. Davis with favor about that hapless officer: "Franz Sigel was not just an incompetent; he was a fool."

The results of these several weeks of combat in the early summer of 1864 are presented by Grimsley as a mixture of limited success and deeper failure for both sides. Grant sought to destroy Lee's army, but he only succeeded in depriving Lee of the initiative while both armies battled each other into stumbling weariness. Lee tired to drive his enemies back from their invasion, but only managed to resist destruction while being driven back to the static defense of Richmond. In an absorbing extension of his analysis of the results of the campaign, Grimsley discusses the historical memory of these battles as filtered through the Lost Cause mythology of the post-war South, which portrays Lee as the flawless soldier of genius and Grant as the merciless butcher who wins by numbers alone. Grimsley rightly exposes such thinking as shallow and inadequate.

In his acknowledgements section, Grimsley pays special tribute to Gordon Rhea who has, thus far, published five excellent volumes on the Overland Campaign. The influence of Rhea's work is clearly evident on Mark Grimsley's book (Rhea's most recent book, "Cold Harbor", was unfortunately published too late to influence "And Keep Moving On"; if it had been available, I believe Grimsley would have rejected tired conventional wisdom about Union casualty rates during that battle and instead would have followed Rhea's illuminating evaluation of the subject), but even an enthusiastic reader of Rhea's histories can find much of value in "And Keep Moving On." The narrative is delivered in an engaging, persuasive manner, moving briskly towards its conclusion without a feeling of being rushed. This volume has found a permanent spot on my crowded Civil War bookshelves, and I can only hope that Mark Grimsley some day may write a similar volume about the Petersburg campaign that followed.

For a clearly written, concise, reliable summary of Western military history with an operational-level focus, this is the book to buy. I use it to teach military history, and my students (cadets) rate it highly.

This book (and its second volume: Military Operations since 1871) are both required texts for my Military History class. Most students claim to only rapidly skim required reading for classes, but I've managed to read everything so far (if that tells you anything). As far as material is concerned, this text is both wide-ranging and thourough, describing the invention and development of military techniques as well as discussing the society and government of the time, and how all these factors influence eachother. Highlighted areas include the Thirty Years War and the development of limited war, and the progression though the Napoleonic Wars to almost complete total war during the War Between the States. This book does an excellent job in tying all these early battles together and showing the overall development of warfare. However, if you are interested in nitty-gritty facts on Waterloo or Gettysburg, find a book specific to that battle instead of the sweeping panoramic view this book provides.

This book is the result of the collaboration of a number of the best military historians in the US today, including Mark Grimsley, George Herring, John Lynn, and many others, skilfully tied together by the editors (who are also major contributors), Professor Ira Gruber of Rice University and Colonel Robert A. Doughty of West Point. The result is an outstanding survey of modern Western military history designed for undergraduate history courses, but easily accessible to the general reader as well. The prose is exceptionally clear and the ideas lucidly presented. These two volumes are definitely focussed on the operational level of the "military art" (i.e. on the planning and conduct of campaigns), with some treatment also of strategy, tactics, and technology, but very litte material on "war and society" subjects (i.e. how wars and military developments have affected society and vice-versa). This makes it especially useful for ROTC military history classes, but it is also a very good introduction to the "sharp end" of military history for scholars or students whose main interests lie in the effects of war, rather than its conduct.

Grimsley and Simpson offer a brilliant collection of essays by various historians musing philosophically on the demise of Confederate States of America. With only 180+ pages of text, the six essays are nicely paced and well footnoted. From the possibility of Southern guerrilla tactics to the role of women at the homefront, this modest-sized book gives thought-provoking slants to varied aspects of the final options/last days of the CSA. I would recommend this book for readers more mature in their Civil War studies. I think the novice reader may get "lost" in the name-dropping of battles and personalities.

John Quincy Adams Campbell was well named. As determined and purposeful as the president he was named for, he led a life similar in focus on principal.

Almost all of the Civil War diaries, Union or Confederate, recount days of slogging through mud, choking in the dust of other marching soldiers, and of camp boredom. Quincy Campbell, however, is an observant man, a newspaper reporter by trade, a man of detail. Not only does he record the mileage tramped and the direction of the march, when he crosses a pontoon bridge, he steps it off and reports the yardage.

Campbell is also a careful observer of the countryside he marches through. He evaluates the farmland for crops as well as the small towns for prosperity and the scenery for beauty. Aware of its political import, he attends and reports on a "Unionist" meeting in Huntsville in March 1864, a meeting held in response to Lincoln's 1863 Amnesty and Reconstruction Act.

An ardent churchgoer and crusader against alcohol, Campbell is just as determined a Unionist and fervent anti-slavery man. His comments on the day to day life of a soldier in the Western theatre of the war reflect all of his deeply held convictions; he throws himself into battle as ardently as he criticizes his fellow soldiers for getting drunk or his superior officers for what he sees as their blunders.

Campbell's diaries follow the 5th Iowa through the battles along the Mississippi, including Corinth, Island #10, Vicksburg and Chatanooga. The maps in the book, while small, aid the reader in following the action although reading Campbell with an open Civil War battle atlas is more rewarding.

Kenneth William wrote a series of five books on Ulysses S. Grant in the 1950's. He died before he could complete his supposedly "definitive treatment" of Grant the general. Williams' books are well-researched and you will find few factual gaffes. However, his writing style is often torturous and his passion for meaningless minutiae will probably drive you crazy. He excels in listing every detail of a battle until you're shaking your head or holding it as you reach for the aspirin bottle.

Williams' reverence for Grant is evident throughout. He is also peculiarly defensive about the issue of Grant's occasional over-indulgence in whiskey and in his footnotes he becomes almost hysterical on this topic. This type of hagiography is misplaced in a serious work and seriously undermines the credibility of the work. William's five volumes have been pretty much forgotten in the modern era and for good reason. He tells the reader almost nothing about Grant as a human being, his private life (pivotal in Grant's story) is regally ignored throughout.

If you are interested in examining Grant as a general, opt for the much superior books by J.F.C. Fuller, available on Amazon. This is a lifeless and boring treatment of a highly complex and fascinating man.

I think the book is better than the other review gave it credit for. I will agree that he does go out of his way to discredit Grant's drinking. But on the whole these are pretty informative books not as dry as the other review says they are. The two new editions by the University of Nebraska Press have great introductions by Grimsley and Simpson. Simpson gives more credit to Williams than the review here gives. These introductions are excellent. But the volumes are not always about Grant. The Kentucky Invasion is covered in the second volume as is the battle of Murfreesboro. I recommend these books to anyone interested in Grant and/or the Western Theater of the Civil War.

The thesis of this study of Union military policy toward Southern civilians during the Civil War boils down to "it wasn't all that bad, and here's why." Grimsley sets out to study what the combination of severity (for example, destroying civilian property) and restraint (for example, not shooting civilians on sight) meant, and concludes that it reflected the continued working of political logic and a sense of moral justice. He chronicles an evolution in Union policy toward "hard war". It's an interesting study, apparently valid on a broad scale, though breaking down somewhat when applied to local area studies. Grimsley doesn't really deal well with border areas, and although he could have used parts of the mountain South to compare Confederate with Union policies toward dissenting civilians, he doesn't do so. Some of his arguments seem tendentious: is it necessary to construct an elaborate theory of class conflict to explain the fact that plantation houses were more often robbed than one-room cabins? Surely the fact that the plantation houses had more to steal played a part, as well as any ideology. It also seems to me that Grimsley minimizes the abuse of civilians which did in fact take place, and has little to say about the trauma even of relatively restrained foraging. A rather jingoistic bit of characterization--rampaging Continental soldiers were "brutes", whereas American volunteers were democrats--is used as one more reason for restraint. Use of sources is good, though enforcers of the policies are overrepresented compared to victims of them.

There is definitely useful information here, especially in the portrayal of international legal theory and the evolution of official policy, but I'm not sure how well some of it stands up upon close examination.