It is about time that a true scholarly description of this long neglected but fascinating battle has been written. It destroys quite a number of myths! Sheridan was not invincible. The Confederate Cavalry did not die at Yellow Tavern with J.E.B. Stuart (it died at Appomattox with the rest of the ANVa). That Wade Hampton was a capable and perhaps more suitable cavalry commander for that period of the war. I bet that with even numbers that Hampton would have trounced Sheridan. As it was, outnumbered he stopped Sheridan cold and hurt him bad.

The battle is exciting, complex and had Hampton had just a little more strength Sheridan would have been in bad trouble; as it was he was hard pressed to claim any real results.

It is also hoped that this draws more attention to the preservation of this battlefield, which is in pretty good shape- but the bull dozers will come eventually.

This is a book for learning Civil War personalities, style of command, how cavalry fought in the civil war and documents this battle superbly. Well done and well worth the price od admission. I'll be on the outlook for more by Messr Wittenburg.

Phil Sheridan's battle against the Confederates at Trevillian Station is covered in 391 pages with maps, photos, orders of battle, statistics on loses, an excellent bibliography, and index. Author Eric Wittenberg has done an outstanding job of narration, explanation, and interpretation of the battle. (Wittenberg's knowledge of the Union cavalry adds to the book immensely, as does his keen appreciation of the landscape.) This text is a treat for Civil War buffs and would be a great addition to the library of descendants of those on both sides who were participants.

As another reviewer said, this book makes some good points, but ultimately is too one-sided. Phil Sheridan's image may be more untarnished than it should be, but if the author wanted to bring it into proper perspective, he could've accomplished that simply by giving us an honest, reasonable portrait, pointing out the shortcomings that others have tended to gloss over. Instead he has given us a diatribe. The author is an attorney, and I happen to be a judge. When a lawyer refuses to admit that his opponent has ANY evidence or legal authority in his favor, when it is obvious that he does have some, I tend to look more askance at that lawyer's entire argument. I had the same reaction reading this book. Instead of being content to bring Sheridan's lofty reputation back down to earth where it belongs, he "trashes" him, and thereby weakens the force of his argument. Had Wittenberg simply argued that Sheridan was not as good - even not nearly as good - a general as he is commonly thought to have been, one might be readily inclined to agree. But he essentially argues that Sheridan was a bad general, and the evidence does not support that argument. Those who like so-called "advocacy history" may enjoy this book; those who believe that historians should simply attempt to present what they believe to be the truth, without having an axe to grind, will likely not.

The author is an attorney, and as he admits, this book is written like a legal brief. A lawyer's job is to present one-sided arguments, and that is what Wittenberg has done here. The result is a book that raises some valid points, but which overstates its case. It essentially is a compendium of every attack ever made on Sheridan, from his personality to his generalship.
While many of Sheridan's flaws and errors have been recognized both by his contemporaries and by historians, it is of some value to lay them out in a single book as a corrective to his largely untarnished image among casual Civil War buffs.
This could have been accomplished, however, without exaggerating Sheridan's shortcomings. Wittenberg, for example, tends to credit Sheridan's every detractor, no matter how biased they themselves might have been. At one point, he even quotes Southern newspaper reports from late in the war, which clearly smack of propaganda meant to reassure their readers that the CSA was in no danger of falling, to support his argument that one of Sheridan's cavalry raids was a failure. Likewise, he quotes Confederate leaders' postwar comments to the effect to the effect that they were unimpressed by Sheridan, without questioning whether their judgments were honestly made, or whether they were colored by resentment over the ultimate outcome of their encounters with Little Phil and his men.
Every success is chalked up to Sheridan's subordinates or colleagues, while every failure is laid at his feet, until one is left wondering how such an incompetent general could have inspired the unwavering confidence of both his commanding officer, Grant, and of his troops. A chapter near the end that recognizes Sheridan's achievements during the final campaign against Lee is so inconsistent with the rest of the book that it seems jarring to find it in the same volume.
As stated, though, Sheridan was far from perfect, and this book is not without some value for reminding us of his flaws. I can recommend it, however, only for readers with a solid background in Sheridan's Civil War career, who will be able to assess Wittenberg's arguments with a properly critical eye, much the same way that a judge would read an attorney's brief.

As stated in other reviews of this work, this book by noted cavalry historian Eric J. Wittenberg will challenge both established history as well as the preconceived notions of the reader. It is heavy-handed at times in criticism of Sheridan, but perhaps that is as it should be. For far too long, Sheridan's so-called "accomplishments" have gone down in history as unquestioned. Scholars will learn little of the truth of an operation or engagement by reading his official reports, and his Memoirs provide some of the best fictional reading the Civil War has to offer.
It is about time that a skillful researcher has balanced "accepted" history concerning this man with arguments of such a critical nature. Perhaps the true history lies somewhere in between - but one fact remains, and that is that Mr. Wittenberg is truly the first modern writer to take on the teflon persona of a man who, inarguably, crafted his own career out of the dust left from ruining others'. Several fine
American Civil War officers went to their deathbeds under the crushing defeats by Sheridan - not on the battlefield where they belonged - but within interpersonal relationships. Sheridan destroyed careers for no reason other than his own desire to capture the glory won by others. It is high time that he be taken to task for his shortcomings and ineptitude.
Sheridan certainly had a great deal of assistance, as well. He didn't have the power to accomplish his aims alone, and Wittenberg deftly exposes this as well. For anyone who is unchallenged by today's "coffee-table" type works that espouse the traditional legends surrounding those who made such an impact on the history of this country, and desire instead to be forced to both re-think and reevaluate those notions, this work will be a treasure to them. Wittenberg's book is no less than an in-your-face attorney's arguments against these notions. As with any lawyer worth his salt, all he or she asks is that you have been impressed enough by the presentation of evidence to intelligently form your own opinion. And ask yourself if what you've believed all along is your own opinion or that of another. In causing the reader to think that deeply, Mr. Wittenberg has accomplished his aims in the way they are known to be honorable - with the credit due to none other than himself.
Read this book. It will train you to ask the deeper questions and explore for yourself how history should remember those who shape it.