The first few chapters had me worried about where the book was going. These chapters contains the background to the war which is common knowledge to most SCW buffs. Chapter four gets to the stuff you would expect from the book and my opinion turned positive. The lives, missions and interactions are described very well and the story becomes more interesting as it goes on. This book gave me a better appreciation of the Republican Airwar during their hey-day and the tight relation between the Americans in the "La Patrulla Americana". It is a small book with only 150 pages and generally pulls together information into one source. I found it a very quick read and a good addition to my SCW collection. I rate it 3 stars due to the VERY high price.

There are two ways to view historiography. The first is relatively straightforward (how does the author research and relate the facts) and the second is more contextual (how does the author's style, voice, etc., relate to the works of his/her contemporaries and how has this book influenced the study and writing of history.) Edward Creasy's book is less valuable in the former view of historiography and more valuable in the latter.

Creasy presents few if any new facts or analysis of the battles and leaders discussed in Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, which is disappointing. More attention is devoted to some battles at the expense of others. The Greek victory at Salamis, first first chapter, is engaging but the following chapter, on the Athenian defeat in Sicily is sparse and detached. Flaws in Creasy the historian appear in his description of the victory of Arminius over the Roman legions in Germany in AD 9. Creasy connects the Germanic tribes' defeat of the Romans to the nature of the Germanic nation as a whole, then linking it to that of the English. At that point, Creasy emerges from a facade of objective analysis as a historian, and the book never truly recovers. Creasy never outrightly claims that decisive battles are consistently won by superior societies or races, but this is implied throughout. I do not mind that viewpoint as I do the poor historiography that emerges in the book. That is its major detraction.

That said, however, Fifteen Decisive Battles is an intruiging study in that 1) it is considered a landmark work in history - although now students of history are usually told to avoid it, 2) Creasy introduced the concept of the decisive battle into the Western study of military history, 3) Creasy's assumptions/notions have remained influence despite lack of real, hard evidence to the modern day, to include "Carnage and Culture," etc. Given this context, I found the book a little more palatable, at least I felt that when reading it, I had to look at the context in which it was written and its influence since its first publication.

I rated this book as a three, because although the prose is often engaging, the historiography is lacking yet the book's impact is such that a serious student of history should read it and judge it on its own merits

Mr Hallsey is too generous is his review of this book. McKenzie would have us believe this is a serious treatment of a serious issue. Wrong! McKenzie fails miserably to support his assertions with probably this and probably that chapter after chapter. To re-examine Lee's career, we really do not need a play-by-play of every battle. A direct approach to Lee's faults and detailed evidence of such would have served the purpose. Instead the reader is given a flimsy statement and referred to footnotes. One footnote citation is not even listed with the footnotes - I had to check the bibliography to find the full title of that reference. Lee's victories at Second Manassas and Chancellorsville are taken from him by this faux historian while he fawns over the immortal Jackson. Historical context is ignored or twisted in McKenzie's stories of Confederate Command failures and the retention of Lee in command over his own proposed resignations. Additionally, the book has inexcusable typos - the aftermath of the Seven Days left the armies EAST of Richmond, not west. The publisher, Hippocrene Books, should be ashamed of itself to put out this shoddy product at such an outrageous price.

Comical is the best word to describe John D. McKenzie's book Uncertain Glory. It should be considered a work of creative fiction and not a serious history book. The research is shallow, the review is cursory and assumptions are never fully developed. The accuracy in the book is also in question since on page 254 Mr. McKenzie has the battle of the crater taking place on "July 30, 1964." This book could have been a remarkable treatise had any serious time been spend exploring artillery placement, troop deployment and southern economic conditions. It would have also been useful to use the opinions of modern military experts to bolster his position. Having studied the Civil War seriously for many years, I find the book to be bankrupt of any serious historical fact (that has not already been discussed) is not worth serious academic consideration.

Southern historians, the author feels, have had it all their way, denigrating Union leadership and enshrining Lee in a mythos of superb generalship he doesn't deserve.
In this trenchant analysis of the Confederate defeat, McKenzie's criticisms of Southern arrogance, disorganization, corruption, military errors, and dubious ideology are difficult to refute, but considering the 5:2 manpower and 10:1 industrial advantages of the North, his belief that a defensive strategy and greater Southern dedication might have prevailed is less persuasive.
With bibliography, a good index, and wonderfully clear action-maps which lack only scale to be perfect, McKenzie's work is recommended as a highly readable, if tendentious catalyst for further discussion.

(The "score" rating is an ineradicable feature of the page. This reviewer does not willingly "score" books.)

When I brought this book, I expect to read about the modern pro and con of actions of Robert E. Lee. Instead, what I got was a superifical biography on Lee and some summary judgement of his actions based on the author's say so. So where is that debate of Lee's critics?? Many people like to dismissed Lee's critics as revisionists but they got it backward. While Lee was alive, he was soundly critized in many circles by veterans of Confederacy and by his foes. It was only after Lee's death did this mythology of Lee's greatness took on a godly scale as the reconstruction period was ending. This period of Lee's mythology is the true period of revisionism which did not really end until Thomas Connelly came out with the Marble Man which brought Lee back to Earth and where author critized without merit. This book lack any depth and appears to be pretty shallow work. If the author wanted to back up Lee, do with so with evidence and logic. Just saying so don't mean much. This book will probably go back to the used book store soon......

Taylor's book is a satisfactory survey of Lee's life. Unfortunately, that is not how the book is billed. Taylor purports to answer Lee's critics. I'm squarely in his camp; I find much of the criticism of Lee to be scholarly opportunism: an attempt to make a name through iconoclasm. Taylor is right when he notes that the attempt to puncture the Lee myth went too far, but he fails to convincingly demonstrate why. He brings up specific criticisms infrequently, inadequately lays out the critic's argument, and often dismisses the criticism without having made a convincing case of his own. His arguments concerning Lee's attitudes toward slavery are never fully convincing, for example. This is particularly distressing when one can see that, in most cases, the convincing counterargument is there, waiting to be made. By constructing his book in the format of a chronological narrative, Taylor lost the opportunity to level a blast at academic graverobbers. A book aimed at answering Lee's critics needs to spend a great deal more time and effort on the critics and their arguments. To Taylor's credit, he never attempts to whitewash information damaging to one of his points. He tries to be complete in his portrayal, and that alone makes this a worthwhile read.