1 comments about George Rogers Clark and the War in the West.

1. This is a wonderful work; well written and well researched with superb insights into events of the American Revolution that are usually ignored or only given scant coverage. The only real weakness is the book's brevity which does not allow the full development of the author's ideas or enoough detail on important issues. The bibliographic essay is wonderful and provides an outstanding guide to the sources on this fascinating topic.

1 comments about We Refused To Die: My time as a prisoner of war in Bataan and Japan, 1942-1945.

1. This book was beautiful! American history was recorded so well by the author it made you feel his hunger! I gave this book to my grandfather, who is a WWII vet, and I plan on having my children read it. Amazing!

5 comments about The Sutras of Abu Ghraib: Notes from a Conscientious Objector.

1. Couldn't put this book down. Delgado tells a touching and troubling story: I was touched by how openly he spoke about his fears and feelings. I was troubled by the reality in Iraq that he revealed. Delgado was relatively fair and honest in portraying his superiors and peers and situation in the Army--it is not easy to talk about such an important moment in your life with objectivity. It shows a great amount of maturity in such a young author.
   
   If you are for or against the war, Buddhist or not---this is a book about the moments in your life that change who you are forever. Delgado's was a beautiful and painful transformation from a confused, naive college student to a Buddhist, veteran and activist.
   
   Everyone should read this book.



2. The Sutras of Abu Ghraib is a vivid description of a soldier's life in Iraq, and also of the life that led him to war and brought him back as a conscientious objector. An American Buddhist serving with the U.S. Army in Iraq, Delgado stuck out among his fellow soldiers as well as among Iraqis, and his book highlights the difficulty of a lonely, disassociated soldier trying to disentangle himself from what became for him an intolerably immoral war. Even if often ridiculed for his Buddhist principles, made to feel embarrassed about his application for conscientious objector, and even called a "terrorist sympathizer", Delgado describes how some soldiers - even the ones he least expected - were honestly understanding and even sympathetic, and this was the real love and brotherhood he found in the Army. Ranging from hilarious accounts of the absurdities of life to gloomy and disheartening stories of the real face of war, The Sutras of Abu Ghraib flies the reader from sandy deserts in southern Iraq, to sunny beaches in Florida, back through the dark bowels of Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, and into the heart and soul of a naïve soldier turned peace activist. A must read for anyone interested in the realities of the war in Iraq and in the hopeful possibility for personal growth and triumph in face of the worst challenges of life.



3. Aidan Delgado's book is not about THE war - my brother's book is about his war.
   
   Filled with some great moments, many comic and dreadful at the same time, Aidan's book shines brightest when he shows us his war, internal and external, through his eyes and then again through his hindsight.
   
   To some, his insights and reflections may initially come off as precocious if not awkward, but as you come to know the writer, come to see him as he no doubt sees himself, you find the juxtaposition appropriate. A young man too smart and too wise for the insanity of the situation and too self-conscious and self-aware to lose himself to THE WAR. In the tradition of books like "The Way of the Peaceful Warrior" a reader growths along side the writer until, at the books conclusion, you feel the mixed relief and emptiness of "what next."
   
   Even in the writing of the book, Aidan seems to recognize this inherent clash between his youth, his paygrade, his growing wisdom and thoughtfulness and the over-wrought social context into which his words fall. Normally, books like this are penned by seasoned men, graying at the temples and we are ready to accept their memories and insights. Despite Aidan's youth, his "voice" is truly captured in his writing.



4. This well-written book will hold your attention from beginning to end. A true story that reads like a novel with a range of "characters" that you care about - or strongly dislike. Mr. Delgado helps one to understand the situations and attitudes that make the abuse that took place at Abu Gharib (and other places) possible. He can feel proud that he took a stand to live up to his principles.



5. I found Aidan Delgado's willingness to share both his evolving convictions as well as his weakness and doubts throughout the Iraq experience to be deeply touching. His transparent honesty is unexpected and moving. This sifting, without pretense, of the humanity out of the horror of Abu Ghraib gives us all a glimpse of our own potential...either way.

5 comments about Kill-Cavalry: The Life of Union General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick.

1. The earlier critical comments about "Kill-Cavalry" are generally accurate. Here are some of the main points.
   
   1. Author Samual J. Martin is neither a trained writer nor a trained historian. He is a retired businessman in South Carolina whose post-retirement hobby is doing Civil War research. The lengthy bibliography attests to his detailed research, much of which is semi-original (manuscripts, official documents, correspondence, newspapers, etc.). His writing itself is dreadful, not in the sense of poor grammar or sentence structure but in its straightforward and completely uninvolving style.
   
   2. Although Kilpatrick led an extremely colorful (if brief) life, he is a difficult subject for historical research. His daughter burned his personal papers after his death, his contemporaries are long dead, and his tendency to exaggerate his successes and disguise his mistakes make most surviving accounts suspect. Factor in the difficulty of tracking the activities of any individual cavalry unit during the Civil War and you have a very difficult task making any definitive claims about Kilpatrick.
   
   3. Martin has an obvious ax to grind concerning his subject. While Kilpatrick was a self-promoting scoundrel, an objective examination of most of his contemporaries would reveal that these qualities were almost a prerequisite for ascendancy within either army. Martin's anti-Kilpatrick agenda sidetracks him from the two best biographical styles for a subject such as Kilpatrick. The most entertaining would be a light-hearted examination of his escapades (Kilpatrick was a Civil War version of actor Errol Flynn-both of Irish descent) and a fun look at his exploits would be quite entertaining. Another alternative would have been to draw parallels with contemporaries like Dan Sickles, Phil Sheridan, and George Custer. Unfortunately Martin's pious disapproval does not allow him to explore either avenue.
   
   4. Because of Martin's prejudices about his subject and his lack of good source material he seems compelled to editorialize throughout the book. Bad enough, but his narrative often contradicts his conclusions. For example, Martin is convinced that Kilpatrick was a cowardly soldier and points to many examples of Kilpatrick losing his nerve in combat situations. Yet at the same time he details Kilpatrick's drive for recognition and tendency to recklessly commit his command to action. Like all but the most senior cavalry officers, Kilpatrick was up in a saddle with his troopers on all their raids and maneuvers, and remained this style of cavalryman for almost the entire war. He was not an armchair general but a field officer in a serious pursuit of advancement and fame. There were far easier and safer commands for West Point trained officers. Had he been lazy or cowardly he would have sought a desk job but he believed the cavalry offered him the best prospects for advancement and recognition.
   
   5. Martin is highly critical of both Kilpatrick's command performance and his refusal to expose himself to danger at Brandy Station in 1863. He does not even mention Kilpatrick's saber fight with a hated West Point classmate during that engagement. But Eric Wittenberg goes into detail about this incident in "The Union Cavalry Comes of Age" (2003): Kilpatrick squared off with a Confederate officer he had known and disliked at West Point...the Southerner gave Kilpatrick a slight cut on the arm...receiving a vicious slash the Confederate officer reeled in his saddle. Seeing an opportunity Kilpatrick killed his injured foe with a slashing cut of his saber. The victorious colonel rejoined his brigade, proclaiming, "That rights a wrong. I have wanted to meet him ever since the war commenced".
   
   6. Rather than bring Kilpatrick to life, Martin fills many pages of the book with general Civil War history. For a book of only 268 pages, there is simply too much detail about the battles and movements of the two armies, without regard to whether Kilpatrick himself was involved.
   
   7. Martin sensationalizes the cavalry charge Kilpatrick and Merritt ordered during the 3rd day of Gettysburg. He goes into great detail about a somewhat dubious account of Kilpatrick's interaction with a subordinate commander, yet fails to examine the very real tactical opportunity that he and Merritt had recognized and were trying to exploit. One of Merritt regiments had tied up the two brigades of Confederate cavalry in Fairfield; leaving the right flank of Lee's army open to attack. Had Law's (formerly Hood's) division been positioned to support Longstreet's assault on the Union center, the cavalry charge would most likely have been a significant success.
   
   Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.



2. There are some figures of the Civil War that it is very easy to hate. Even today, very few Civil War buffs have anything good to say about Braxton Bragg or Henry Halleck for example. While not as well known as Bragg or Halleck, there is much to distain in the life of Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, a Union cavalry commander from New Jersey. Samuel J. Martin provides more than enough dirt on Kilpatrick's rather sordid personal life and less than honorable character. Kilpatrick was a selfish and vain man whose ambition for power and glory led him to act rashly and often foolishly while covering his mistakes in the press and reports to his superiors. Furthermore, Kilpatrick was a womanizer who had no qualms about cheating on his wife and discarding mistresses, even those who he impregnated. Martin certainly proves that General Kilpatrick was a scoundrel.
   
   Martin leads the reader through Kilpatrick's rather checkered Civil War career. Graduating from West Point in 1861, Kilpatrick served with the New York volunteers and became known for his rash charges and his willingness to fight. Martin seems to accept this reputation but seems to argue that Kilpatrick was a physical coward, a rather odd statement considering the general's willingness to fight on the battlefield or off (even calling out Southern cadets at West Point to fist fights). Kilpatrick won some fame for driving his men to within 2 miles of Richmond as part of the Stoneman Raid during the Chancelorsville campaign and became a general in the summer of 1863. While part of his division won laurels at Gettysburg (Custer's brigade), the Kilpatrick ordered charge on July 3 proved to be an error, costing the lives of many men of Farnwsorth's brigade including Farnsworth himself. Kilpatrick would lead another raid on Richmond in early 1864, hoping to free a number of Union prisoners, pass out Lincoln's amnesty proclomation and capture and perhaps kill key Confederate leaders including Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Martin agrees with the Stephen Sears that Kilpatrick was in charge of the raid though a recent article by David Long (which he is turning into a book) argues that Dahlgren planned to kill Davis and that Kilpatrick, a notorious leaker to the press, was out of the loop. After the failure of the raid, Kilpatrick was sent west and led Union cavalry for Sherman's march to the sea and Carolina campaigns.
   
   After the war, Kilpatrick, who in the war expressed presidential ambitions, made two failed efforts to get the Republican gubenatorial nomination in New Jersey, ran unsuccessfully for the House of Represenatives in 1880 and twice served as ambasador to Chile. He passed way in 1881 in Chile at the age of 45. While a Republican, he was recalled from Chile by Grant which led to his supporting Horace Greely in 1872. Kilpatrick returned to the GOP and supported Hayes in 1876 and Garfield in 1880.
   
   Martin certainly reveals Kilpatrick's dismal character and offers a solid, if often overly critical, account of his military career. In all fairness Martin had little to work with as Kilpatrick's papers were destroyed. Still, Kilpatrick's political career could have been examined in greater detail. For all his faults, Kilpatrick had an energy and ambition to him which made him a fairly represenative figure for his times. One is left wondering, after reading Martin's book, why Kilpatrick simply was not shelved. Kilpatrick, again with all his baggage, was a fighter and those were few and far between in the Union ranks. His ambition forced him to the battlefield and took him into politics. While Martin reveals the dark side to this ambition, Kilpatrick rose out of youthful obscurity to win a solid reputation. He could not have been merely the talentless scoundrel that Martin depicts. While Martin seems to rely a great deal on secondary sources, he really had no other choice. Despite that, one suspects that Martin went into writing the book with his thesis already formulated and that is what proves frustrating about this book. Martin should have given the reader a portrait of Kilpatrick in full as opposed to bashing us over the head with how much of a jerk the man was.



3. 
   To say Hugh Kilpatrick was a controversial figure would be an understatement. Small in stature, it's my opinion he suffered from the "little man" complex: he attempted to over-compensate for his slight physical size by his recklessness and bravado. This would explain his rashness regarding his plan to attack Richmond and free the prisoners there, which was repulsed decidedly by the Confederates (though Sheridan attempted the same thing 10 weeks later with the same results). Disparaged by many of his fellow officers (Sherman called him a "damned fool"), it's also reported that his men respected him. Martin is highly critical.
   
   Kilpatrick was born in New Jersey in 1836 and graduated from West Point the year the Civil War broke out. He commanded a number of New York Cavalry brigades during the first two years of the war, receiving a serious wound at Big Bethel and then seeing much action in Virginia. After participating in the largest cavalry engagement of the war at Brandy Station in June 1863, he was promoted to brigadier general. He was conspicuous at Gettysburg, where his orders to E.J. Farnsworth to attack Hood, who was well-positioned behind stone walls, on the third day caused much slaughter to Farnsworth's men and Farnsworth's own death from five separate wounds. In the winter of 1864 he made his ill-fated attack on Richmond which resulted in failure. In the spring of that year he served in the Atlanta campaign and was wounded seriously for the second time at Resaca, GA. Recuperating by August, he performed well as commander of cavalry during the Carolina campaign and was a major factor in the capture of Fayetteville, NC, in March 1865. After the war he was appointed U.S. Minister to Chile, where he died in 1881.
   
   Martin's dislike for his subject is quite clear. In this he joins a long list of historians, most of whom regard Kilpatrick as showing poor judgment and costly wantonness. He finds his failure at Richmond to be his worst mistake. Despite this, however, I thought the book was interesting and well written, and made an honest attempt to capture the life of the man for the reader. The book also contained excellent maps and clear elucidation of military affairs. Not the definitive work on Kilpatrick, but not one for the waste heap, either.



4. This book smacks of a work done by someone who had a thesis and then did everything he could to prove it, rather than letting the research bring him to a conclusion.

   Fortunately, I did get the feeling that the basic history of Killpatrick was decent and reasonably fair-minded. At the end of each chapter, however, Martin adds his commentaty about how the foregoing information shows that Kilpatrick was a horrible leader, womanizer, thief, etc. At one point, Martin suggests that the attempt on Jefferson Davis' life introduced the idea of assination, even to the point of possibly leading to Lincoln's murder. Right.

   Killpatrick's womanizing, thievery, etc comes out, for sure, but were his casualities really highter than comparable commanders? That's not clear. He won some battles and lost others--like most Civil War leaders.




5. This author falls into the same trap that's been laid for researchers for the past 135 years. The most glaring example is the standard portrayal of Kilpatrick at Gettysburg, all of which is based on one source who admitted years later he was never a witness to what actually happened or was said on the field that day. Like researchers before him, the author missed this glaring truth.

   Here are two hints of Kilpatrick's character and performance: (1) His men held him in such high esteem that they petitioned Lincoln to have him promoted to general (a rare occurrence in the CW); and (2) after the battle of Gettysburg his men presented their commander with a Damascus sword in appreciation for his leadership on July 3.

   In short, an author who doesn't dig deeper than his predecessors is dancing to the worn-out tune of incredulity.

5 comments about Chicken Soup for the Veteran's Soul: Stories to Stir the Pride and Honor the Courage of Our Veterans.

1. This book is full of short stories by veteranns about veterans. I must recommend this book for anyone that has any affiliation to a veteran, simply the best, short stores from all wars and conflicts that will cause you to swell up with love and pride. This is a quick read and a must read, it certainly gave me pride to have worn the uniform. Mike - Des Moines, Iowa



2. If you never really appreciated a veteran, you definitely will after reading this book. This book has so many wonderful true stories about American veterans. Some of us never realize what they have to go through. I loved the whole book - it's hard for me to say which stories were my favorites.



3. This book was sent to me from a dear friend and I love this book so much. I think all Veterans will love it and heck anyone should. It is a book I will cherish always!



4. This book was given to me by a good friend. He thought I, as a Vietnam vet, would identify with some of the stories. It is one of the absolutely most enjoyable books I have ever read. I even slowed down my usual reading speed to savor the stories . Each day, in the sunshine of my patio, I read two or three stories. Every story got my full attention. I even found one story about a man I knew in the army. I adamently recommend this book to any veteran.



5. A truly wonderful book with numerous short tales about veterans.
   Perhaps I am prejudiced, being a retired USN radioman. These
   stories will uplift your spirits tremendously. Reading of the
   selfless actions of veterans throughout our nations history may
   add a new dimension to your life. What impressed me besides the
   shear joy of reading these stories is that each and every one
   was new to me. I suggest you keep some tissues nearby, this book
   will truly tug on your emotions. I've sent this book to 3 others
   so far. There's a huge series of Chicken Soup books. They all seem
   to be written with the same care as this one.
   
   
   UPDATE:
   
   At the start of 2007 I had one of those V8 moments and decided to start a mission for myself. It would be pretty
   easy. Simply it is to hand out a copy of this marvelous book to any veterans I might run across. Just a simple
   "thank you for your service" gift. I carry three in my car's glove box. I usually order 10 at a time here. So far I've handed out 50 copies. I really get into this! I was beside a guy in a truck at a red light with a VietNam decal on the bumper. I yelled over and asked if it was his. When he nodded yes I asked him to pull over I wanted to give him something. He pulled into an animal vet parking lot. Give him one, he had been in the USAF. I typed up a short note and staple them inside the cover telling a little about my service and what my mission was. Now that I have blown my own horn way too much I would like to toss out an idea. How about doing a similar thing where you live? You meet the greatest folks and feel super when you've handed another one out.
   
   Best Regards

5 comments about The Coveted Black and Gold: A Daily Journey Through the U.S. Army Ranger School Experience.

1. I highly recommend this book. Especially interesting Rangers or soon to be Ranger candidates.
   Read the day to day activities, night operations and tough moments of Ranger school from a new perspective. I couldn't put this book down!



2. John has done a wonderful job of putting me back into hell. I could actually feel the scrapes and bruises. There were times that the memories were real enough that I had to put the book down. I highly recommend The Coveted Black and Gold to anyone who has this experience under their belt and to anyone looking to take the challenge.



3. Reading this book opened all the floodgates of memory of my own Ranger School class in the winter of 1970. I had forgotten so much of the physical punishment, of one C-ration a day while climbing the mountains and wading the swamps, of teeth-shattering snow and icy swamp water, of halucinating and sleeping on my feet, of dropping to 125 pounds on a 5-foot 10-inch frame. And more than the physical, there was the emotional and the mental toll. Heartbreakingly exhausting past exhaustion. There were times when the book invoked such vivid memories of misery that I really wanted to just put it down and walk away for awhile. What an outstanding book! I'm amazed that the author was able to pull off keeping the journal and his small Kodak cartridge camera through all the Ranger instructor equipment shake-down inspections. I'm also amazed at the consistency of his experiences and mine. People have asked me through the years, "What was Ranger School like?" I never could begin to find any words to do the experience justice. How do I describe the indescribable? Now, however, J.D. Lock has done just that. The next time I'm asked, I'll just hand them the book and answer, "Here. Read." Every Ranger or family of a Ranger should have this book. Rangers Lead The Way, Sir!



4. This book is extremely valuable for its day-to-day description of life at Ranger School, to give aspiring Rangers an idea of what's in store when they tackle the nine-week course.

   And for someone who completed Ranger School just a few years before the author, it was a stunning trip backward in time. The passage of almost three decades had blurred my memories substantially, but Lock's account resurrected a significant number of them -- little things that added so much richness to the course yet faded immediately upon graduation, plus some monstrous things that one's mind tends to dilute on purpose. It's all here: The kinetic, frenetic action of the first phase, the physical training, the long runs, the hand-to-hand combat sessions (along with taking a dive during the competitive portion, to avoid injury), the mess hall experience, chin-ups before every meal, reporting to the Tacs at every meal, low-crawling on that rocky road in the company area, the swelling unpleasance of Camp Darby, where night operations began the sleep deprivation process. The descripion of the Mountain Phase is equally vivid, the terrible patrols up and down horrendous, 60-degree slopes in the dead of night, with fallen trees blocking the way, the fatigue really starting to take its toll now -- Lock's account brought it all back... the rain, the sleep-starvation, the hunger, and even a photo of those little Mountain huts I thought I'd never see again.

   Lock noted something I considered significant at the time, an excellent example of the Ranger Department's psychological choreography. At the end of the Mountain Phase, classes were roused early (0300) to make the return bus trip to Fort Benning from Camp Merrill. Some students were feeling great after the Mountains, having passed all of their graded patrols; others, like me, were one up and two down -- on the brink of failing the course. As the busses entered the Benning Ranger area later that morning, we saw the previous class standing on the old airstrip behind the City Team barracks, enjoying its graduation ceremony. Students who were doing well (such as Lock) were jubilant and inspired; students who were faltering (like me) experienced a massive wave of depression.

   Lock's account of the Florida phase was terrific... cold, wet, exhausted and starving. I had forgotten how we surreptitiously obsessed over food, frequently murmuring about the things we would eat after we finished the course... fried chicken, cherry pie, gosh, hamburgers!

   The last days of slogging through the swamps, the RELIEF when it was all finally over, the brevity of the double-time graduation ceremony (during my own, we saw the busses from the next class pass before us; more Ranger excellence in timing and execution!) -- it's all here.

   Lock's constant use of vernacular was appropriate, reflecting how Ranger students, soon completely immersed in the training, communicate with one another. You'll pick it up, after a few pages.

   This is a super little diary. I just can't imagine how he found the energy or time to do it. Enjoy, and Drive On.




5. This is the real deal. An insider's look at the fabled Ranger School, a course designed to weed out all non-hackers and craft a group of the finest soldiers on God's green earth. The United States Army Rangers are truly an elite breed, and this day-by-day account of the qualification process shows how a man changes when placed under the stress of such rigorous training. Author John D. Lock is a talented writer and the account of Ranger School is his own quest for "the coveted black and gold." We should be grateful that Lock was able to clandestinely take notes on each of his day's activities, a practice that would have most likely earned him disqualification from Ranger School had he been discovered. His daily log lets perspective Rangers know what to expect, but can also be read for entertainment purposes for those who are not considering entering Ranger School. I have been seriously debating trying to become a Ranger after I am done with school, and this book made me think twice about it. However, it also made me think a third time and became an inspiration for me. Pick this book up, it doesn't get much better.

2 comments about Love and Duty.

1. When we were making the documentary film, "In The Shadow of the Blade," we got to meet a most amazing couple -- Ben and Anne Purcell. We had landed in a wooded LZ up in the Georgia hills next to a river. We were there to interview several veterans and for me to perform a wedding ceremony in our Huey helicopter. It was exciting to around some of the nicest people in the world and to be part of that journey across America. But the single most memory of that trip that stands out for me was sitting around at night next to our Huey listening to Ben and Anne talk about their experiences while he was held captive as a POW in North Vietnam for over 5 and half years. He was the oldest POW of that war (Having just turned 40 the week he was taken prisoner) and he was listed as MIA for almost the entire time he was held captive.
   
   His story and that of his wife who waited at home with all their children are what "Love & Duty" is all about. It is a most remarkable and inspiration story as you could read. They both showed lots of courage and class. The book explores the treatment Ben endured and the emotional account of how Anne coped not knowing even if Ben was alive for all that time.
   
   There is neither bitterness nor hate or even angry in the book or in them personally. They truly are people of great faith and more importantly great love for each other, their country and God! This couple represents the very best of America and of what it means to be a human being. This is one tale of being a POW that will inspire the readers. You will come away from this book with the greatest affection and love for these two people.
   
   This book deals with both of their experiences. Ben wrote alternate chapters that follow that same time frame with what she was going through at home trying to make her life and family work and what he was enduring as a POW. The thread of love and faith is fully visible in the fabric of the story they jointly present. If you were going to read just one book about the POW experience then this is the book to buy!
   
   MWSA's 2004 Gold Medal Award for War Memoirs



2. Ben Purcell was turning forty when he was captured during the Viet Nam War. He mentions how one of his captors called him "an old man" when he found out Purcell was forty, and then actually showed him an odd sort of respect as a result. What Purcell faced in the prison system was a lot different from that show of respect, and Purcell gives a good account of that experience. The book is well written, and gives you a firsthand look at the POW experience. He writes about his deep Christian faith, and how it played an important part in his survival while imprisoned. The book goes into detail about Purcell's two(!) escapes from the prison system, and his subsequent punishements. It is a quick read and would be interesting for anyone looking to read about the American POW experience--or the experience of the wife of a POW--during the war. It would also be interesting for someone looking to read about that experience from a Christian's viewpoint.

1 comments about I Acted From Principle: The Civil War Diary Of Dr. William M. Mcpheeters, Confederate Surgeon In The Trans-mississippi (Civil War in the West).

1. St. Louis physician and Southern sympathizer, Dr. McPheeters' experience with Federal arrest and banishment, plus his day-by-day account of life in camp and with the local populace, gives an excellent picture of the impact of the Civil War in the Western Theater. You'll also gain knowledge of medical treatment, Confederate Trans-Mississippi politics, and military excursions by General Stirling Price.

5 comments about Joan of Arc: A Military Leader.

1. Joan of Arc, A Military Leader by Kelly DeVries presents one very notable problem: it doesn't truly establish her as one. While the book is a passable biography, it fails on most fronts to present Joan as anything more than an inspirational mascot and a rallying point for the dispirited Armagnac forces of the dauphin of France.
   
   By DeVries' own admission, Joan was excluded from nearly every war council occurring between the siege of Orleans and her capture. Thus, any discussion of tactics and strategy, necessary components to establish leadership qualities, are limited to Joan's proclivity for the frontal assault. Unfortunately, the headlong charge when deployed for every contingency, no matter how brave, is neither tactics nor strategy. It is, at best, a habit.
   
   DeVries tries to compensate for this shortcoming by repeatedly alleging that the jingoism of Joan's contemporary Burgundian and English opponents (and latter-day English historians), provides a willful underestimate of her wartime acumen. He seems oblivious that this cuts both ways. Might the French be guilty of embellishment? Indeed, DeVries provides a quote from one of Joan's high-ranking Armagnac compatriots comparing her to Alexander, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar! Even the most casual of amateur historians can recognize this as ludicrous on its face.
   
   Mitigating in favor of Joan of Arc, A Military Leader is the quality of its design and construction [hardcover]. Solidly built with glossy pages and ubiquitous text-specific photographs, it is a very handsome edition. But this, in the end, is all it is: a quality edition containing an average biography falling short of its stated goal. 3 stars.



2. I have been reading over several sources for a research paper on Joan for a graduate seminar class. Some of the complaints on this book strike me as odd. The title of the book seems somewhat...well false. After reading several documents (Craig Taylor Compilation) it is clear that Joan was little more than a mascot for the French army. While she claims to give orders, she is always positioned away from the battle (excluding a few times where she joined the fight). None of the sources give exact details on how the French attacked or if Joan really directed the attacks. Where the French leaders may have listened to Joan because of her spiritual claim, the period makes it less likely that Joan actually led a battle. The title of the book is attractive, but probably further from the truth.



3. Kelly deVries sets out to correct a serious oversight in modern historical analysis of Joan of Arc. Other twentieth century writers have downplayed her role as a war hero and general, often in contradiction to the original source material. I am what you could call a serious aficionado of Joan of Arc: I have read most of the leading modern biographies and plays, perused a good part of the original documents, and once spent three weeks in France following her campaigns. Ms. deVries's book deserves a place on the shelf of any Joan of Arc devotee.
   
   Historical records about Joan of Arc are unusually abundant. She led what was probably the best documented life of her era. We have far more reliable information about her career than, say, of William Wallace. In fairness to Ms. deVries, these original documents are sometimes frustrating. They say so much that they tempt the reader to demand more. The captains who fought alongside Joan of Arc have high praise for her military skill yet are sketchy about her tactics. Where the scholar wants to deduce an artillery arrangement the records instead report which color horse she rode that day. Many of the fortresses where Joan of Arc fought still stand, at least in ruin. The surrounding earthworks are largely unrecoverable. At a distance of six centuries we cannot reconstruct these scenes with the detail of the American civil war.
   
   This well-researched work corrects and amplifies the subject. That said, I have a few bones to pick. The topic deserves a discussion of weapons technology. Ms. deVries overplays the importance of gunpowder to the point where I suspect she misunderstands the fifteenth century meaning of "artillery." Medical scholarship might have illuminated some issues, particularly the instances when Joan of Arc overcame battle wounds and returned to combat. Finally Ms. deVries omits all mention of Joan of Arc's escape attempts as a prisoner of war. As examples of good soldiering they deserve attention: Joan actually leaped from a seventy foot tower and survived with no broken bones.
   
   With minor reservations, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader is a welcome addition to my collection.



4. The history I knew but what I was hoping for a detailed analysis and study of military tactics used by Joan.
   
   If you want a fairly good history of her, you might read this.



5. While the subject matter of this book holds great potential interest to the reader, unfortunately, Mr. Devries fails to deliver on that potential by way of new material or analysis - notwithstanding his own claims to the contrary. Mr. Devries, however, does break new ground at the very beginning of his book - in the Acknowledgements. Typically, this section is devoted to thanking other people who have played a role in supporting the author, but Mr. Devries has shown great creativity by turning that old-fashioned notion on its head. His Acknowledgements proudly features - well - himself! In addition to jamming twenty-six (count `em) instances of the pronoun "I," two of "me" and nine of "my," into this short section, he manages to drag in his family members throughout, and even then, only so far as they must have missed his delightful presence while he wrote this book.
   As to the text itself, while not purely a redaction of existing works on the subject, this volume appears to shed little new light - especially as it lacks a certain capacity for critical insight, which one hopes to find in such works. If one does not have ready access to more original works on the subject, this volume may serve to point the reader in the right direction. How sad that readers of exciting materials such as the trial transcript of the Maid of Orleans find no glimmer of that brilliant female mind in the strategies addressed in this volume. If the author had effectively compared Jean's maneuvers with those of past military leaders who found themselves in similar circumstances, we would have had a firm grasp on how Jean's brilliance compared to theirs. Unfortunately, this requires familiarity with a broad range of military analyses and a reading knowledge of the sources in their original tongues--especially since the names of weaponry and even military maneuvers frequently do not translate consistently.
   Our universities have for decades been turning out graduates who are hampered by forays beyond their native languages. I can't help but remember how even the limited introductions, terse footnotes, and line drawings in our old Latin editions of Caesar's Belli Gallici carried enough information to bring to life the military strategies of that great leader. Where are the descriptions of the battle techniques utilized by Jean? Where the analysis of how her forces utilized their resources better-or worse--than others of her time? Alongside the spate of TV films on this extraordinary woman, we now have yet another volume that adds inches and weight, but little fire and light, to our love of a singular woman's mind.

5 comments about The Confederacy's Greatest Cavalryman: Nathan Bedford Forrest (Modern War Studies).

1. This is the definative biography of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Although it is clear that the author admires his subject, he provides a fair and balanced account of Forrest's life. The book is well written and thoroughly researched. If you are going to read one book on Forrest, this should be it.



2. What I like about Wills book, besides the bio, is that it addresses why Forrest was often not in the main theater of operations during the crucial times of 1864. Forrest is well defined as a frontier planter whose strong belief in honor combined with an explosive action oriented temperament made him a ferocious opponent yet he was difficult as a subordinate except under the right conditions. In the case of the latter, Forrest literally offers to slap Braxton Bragg for his lack of action after Chickamauga and only fails to do so because in his estimation, Bragg was not a man thus not worthy of the challenge. Wills does an excellent compact bio of Forrest capturing the early life and his rise to success as a slave trader and planter to a private in the Confederate service to the immediate promotion of Colonel and on. All the daring raids are captured, aided by maps but aside from Shiloh and Chickamauga, the only truly large operation Forrest was involved with was Hood's march to Nashville where the inexplicable Spring Hill disaster is laid at Forrest's feet unfairly when Hood had responsibility of creating a sufficient force to stop Schofield's escape. The tremendous work ethic combined with his fearlessness and temper is described throughout the book including Forrest's post war life and business. Forrest does amazingly well defending his Mississippi, Tennessee and Alabama sector with a relative small force culminating in his great victory at Brices Crossroads. Wills includes Forrest's post war career with an example of Forrest's feared temper by describing a railroad meeting where one of Forrest's engineers starts the discussion with a loaded pistol on the table in case the company President, Forrest, intended a violent interruption. Although not captured in gross detail, Forrest's role at the infamous Fort Pillow is described in sufficient detail along with Forrest's post war role in the Ku Klux Klan. The role of the Klan is described as an attempt to maintain a retaliatory police force against over stepping radicals and to force former slaves into roles as cheap labor and as a channeled political force obviously through violence if deemed necessary. The association with Forrest seems quite clear but murky before congress. One thing is very clear in this bio, if Forrest was involved, he had to lead the action, or he otherwise was not interested. A most feared adversary, inventive, unpredictable and incredibly daring leading his men wherever he wanted them to go. As Wills points out, how unfortunate he rarely had a suitable commander to follow in larger campaigns and he was not used effectively during Sherman's initial march to Atlanta. If he was, Sherman would not have got there until at last 1865. The book is approximately 381 pages, maps and pictures and another 100 pages of notes and index. The book is endorsed by the late Emory M. Thomas (The Last cavalier), Dr. James I. Robertson, Jr. (Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend) and William C. Davis (The Lost Cause).



3. Any time a writer fails to use all available sources the end result is always worthless.
   
   The 1871 Congressional hearings of Forrest chaired by William Tecumseh Sherman regarding both Ft. Pillow and the KKK failed to support the author's tired repetition of the 1864 "investigation." Why stick with the wartime 1864 propaganda hearing when the later hearing disputed virtually everything previously assumed?
   
   At Ft. Pillow Forrest took 39 USCT prisoner and turned them over to his commanders. He turned over 14 of the most grievously wounded surviving USCT to the Acting Master of the U.S. Steamer Silver Cloud (Federal Official Records).
   
   Hardly the acts of a "massacre."
   
   Same old tiring retelling of second-hand propaganda when first-hand contemporaneous sources are actually available.
   
   Your Obedient Servant,
   
   Colonel Michael Kelley, (...)
   "I came here as a friend...let us stand together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment." - LT Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA, Memphis, Tennessee - July, 1875



4. The Confederacy's Greatest Cavalryman : Nathan Bedford Forrest (Modern War Studies) by Brian Steel Wills is a fine biography of perhaps the most complicated and interesting leader of the Civil War. In describing Forrest it is difficult, if not impossible, to remain neutral. For those that love or hate him there is plenty of ammunition. However, Wills does a better than anticipated job taking the neutral course.

   For those that view Forrest as the reincarnation of the Devil, there is plenty of evidence, and Wills covers most of it. Forrest was a crude, ruffian slave trader who would not think twice of killing a man who he believed showed him disrespect. As Willis writes, he was responsible for the massacre of Union troops at Fort Pillow. As a General he was brilliant when in independent command, but did not do well when working under someone elses command or part of a larger team. This failure limited his ability to have a greater impact on the course of the War. His failure to work with other Generals who he believed were inferior was part of the reason that the Union Army was able to escape destruction at Spring Hill.

   On the other hand, Forrest was a brilliant tactician and a real leader of men. From leading his troops out of the encirclement at Fort Donaldson to his brilliant victory at Bryce Creek, Forrest was a fighter and a leader. Furthermore, if Hood had listened to Forrest after Spring Hill, and allowed Forrest to out flank the Union troops at Franklin, the battle of Franklin may have been a Confederate victory rather than a disaster.

   Willis deftly moves between the several General Forrests. He seems not to have an agenda, giving the good with the bad. At least until the Civil War ends. While Wills does describe Forrest's contribution to the founding and growth of the Ku Klux Klan, he seems to hold his punches. However, that is a slight criticism. Al in all, this is a good book about one of the most interesting personalities in the Civil War.




5. I have read several biographies on Lee, Jackson, and Grant, but this is the first that I have read on N.B. Forrest. I thought the battle details were about right so as to instruct on what went on and to give insight to Forrest's great ability, but not so much as to bog down a reader who has not read much about warfare. I thought Wills was fair concerning the incident at Ft Pillow--he did not place the blame at Forrest's feet, but was sure that Forrest was not in total control of his men. I, personally, would liked to have had more detail about Forrest's deeds after the War Between the States. Some of Wills' comments seem to be a little vague, and at times he seemed to be jumping sides as to Forrest's involvement with the KKK. Overall, I did learn about this interesting man and am glad that I read this book. It was a good starting place for continued reading on General N.B. Forrest.