Reviews for "Apollo in the wilderness"

The average rating for "Apollo in the wilderness" based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2012-05-26 00:00:00 Brittany Hudson First, a caveat: If you say, "War of Northern Aggression", hold dear the Lost Cause, and celebrate Massa Robert Lee's birthday as a high holy day, you should avoid this book altogether rather than read it and go on to write an emotional review raving against it and giving only one star. This book dares depart from the usual hagiographic treatment of Lee, suggesting that some of his actions were less than genius, and that some were brutal mistakes. Trust me, if you consider this sacrilege, please avoid this book. As for everyone else, this is an outstanding book - the freshest take on the Civil War that I have read in years. Buell ignores the received wisdom on such giants as Grant, Lee, Sherman, Hood, and Jackson, and goes back to original sources to reconstruct the actual men behind the legends. His take on these generals is sometimes controversial, usually enlightening, and always interesting. Buell focuses on three pairs of generals - Grant and Lee, Thomas and Hood, and Barlow and Gordon. This devise works well to allow him to examine each major phase of the war in both the eastern and western theaters. By including the lesser known Barlow and Gordon, Buell is also able to contrast the West Point trained professionals to volunteer generals who made up such a large segment of those who served in the Civil War. Grant and Lee, in particular, come in for reassessment in Buell's work, and both suffer somewhat from it. This, however, is not character assassination, but a valid reexamination of undeniably great men, assessing them by their actions rather than the legends that have grown around them. You might not totally agree with all of Buell's conclusions, but they may make you reassess what you think you already know. One of the high points of the book is the treatment of General George Thomas. One of the greatest generals of the war, Thomas has been often overlooked for many reasons (including the fact that he was a Southerner mistrusted by the North, he did not get along well with Grant, and he died shortly after the war leaving no memoirs.)What you read here will leave you hungry for more information on the great forgotten man of the Civil War. Buell writes well, his prose moves swiftly, and though he covers the general's actions in many battles, he never gets bogged down in the details that are more appropriately left to books that cover a particular campaign. Read this book and you will discover something almost as rare as a Burnside victory - fresh ideas about the Civil War.

Review # 2 was written on 2010-03-07 00:00:00 Mike Johanis This is an intriguing book, although not without some controversy. The method is to examine three pairs of generals, one each from the Union and Confederate armies--East and West--at different levels of command. The two top generals at the end of the Civil War, Ulysses Grant and Robert E. Lee are one pair. Two generals of armies in the West--George Thomas with the Union and John Bell Hood with the Confederates--are profiled and compared. Finally, two generals in the East--Francis Barlow and John B. Gordon--are compared, each at Division or Corps command level. The end result is illuminating. Certainly, Robert E. Lee is not treated kindly. Grant comes in for some hits, as well. Nonetheless the criticisms are handled pretty well and the author does credit each for their strengths. At the lowest level of command, Barlow and Gordon, we get an interesting tratment of two commanders who may not be as well chronicled as others. Nonetheless, each served with distinction and both were certainly interesting character studies. Finally, and maybe most controversial, is the juxtaposition of Thomas (Southern born, despised by his family and mistrusted by some in the North) and Hood. The latter is a perfect example of the "Peter Principle," where one gets promoted above one's level of competence. A terrific division commander, Hood was overmatched as an army (and probably even as a corps) commander. Buell's treatment of Thomas is almost over laudatory. To be sure, the record is clear that Thomas was a stalwart, at whatever level of command he held; he excelled from the start of the Civil War, with his crushing of Zellicoffer's army at Mill Springs to his smashing victory over Hood at Nashville. Nonetheless, the treatment of Thomas is perhaps a bit "over the top," despite his genuine accomplishments and the shabby treatment that he received from Grant and Sherman toward the end of the war. In the end, a very interesting book, marred mainly by the overenthusiastic treatment of Thomas (even though, I would argue, Thomas deserves much more credit as a general than he is often given).