audiobook Battle Tactics of the Civil War by Paddy Griffith in History

Review

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Easy to readBy mahdi1rayThis is a well written and well researched book. It holds the reader's attention in a compelling manner. Easy to read. A must for all miniature war gamers especially American Civil War aficionados. Helpful to Civil War re-enactors Of general interest to all historians and antiquarians.0 of 5 people found the following review helpful. I found it at total bore. Definitely for the ...By Joanna ZimmermanI found it at total bore. Definitely for the tactical minded reader. Bought it as it was required reading in the class.45 of 49 people found the following review helpful. Take The Good With The BadBy Jonathan Gianos-SteinbergGriffith's book certainly makes some good points; but there's plenty of bad mixed in. Since so many have discussed what they believe is good about this book; I'll list my reservations. In addition to others who did a review of this book; I also suggest reading Archer Jones's "Civil War Command And Strategy" as a complementary book; since the latter breaks down the campaigns tactically while this book breaks down the battles.Field Fortifications - Griffith essentially concludes that field fortifications were a psychological deterrent more than a physical one. Often Griffith states that fieldworks didn't create a big advantage; and in doing this he cites figures on how many people were hit per minute or per shot fired. In other parts of this chapter; he claims that armies were too quick to dig in; even if they were on the offensive. With Jones pointing out how invaluable counter attacks were; and with Shiloh proving that point; I disagree with Griffith there as well. Finally; Griffith seems to ignore that multiple lines of fieldwork were generally put up at places like Gettysburg and Chancellorsville. To sustain big losses to take one set of works doesn't automatically grant a side the strategic or even tactical victory; as the Confederates proved on Culp's Hill on 2 July 1863.Cavalry - Griffith seems to take others to task for their "romantic lore" over how they view the CW. I wholeheartedly disagree with his conclusion that Civil War cavalry should have been used on the battlefield in condensed charges more often. In making his point; he often hearkens back to Napoleonic times; yet he conveniently omits any mention of how devestated the Grande Armee was at Waterloo by using that tactic. Griffith disregards the obstacle that fieldworks would have made on a cavalry charge by saying horses could jump them. I'd suggest to Griffith that he reads Keegan's chapters on cavalry in "The Face Of Battle."Finally there were just minor inconsistencies peppered throughout the book; whether negating the importance of Union raiding that mostly commenced in 1864; or suggesting Lee was "hardly surprised" by Hooker's Grand Plan when both Lee and Stuart corresponded in the beginning stages of the Chancellorsville campaign that they didn't know what Hooker was up to.I'm not going to pretend that these faults were made simply because the guy was British; or that he's either subjectively or objectively biased. I think he simply jumps to conclusions before he can ably prove them.