I was originally going to do a few more books, but, it has become more and more obvious to me that we need to go in a new direction now, and look more into the Contrevrsities of the Civil War. I plan to do the following:
Lee vs. Grant: Who is the Better One
Sherman: Hero or Monster
Which Side Washington Would Have Been On
Was Hooker Drunk at Chancellorsville
Was the South or North Right
and a couple more.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
What Hath God Wrought
To understand the times that transform the United States to the belemoth that broke up during the Civil War, one must understand the times preceding the war. One of the books that most clearly describes such events is What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe.
It begins how it ends, on the field of battle. It starts with the British disaster at New Orleans, due to the communication downfall of the time; and ends at a new type of battle, the Sceneca Falls assembly where women began advocating equal rights and abolitsinism. Though the battles were diffrent, it is fair to point out that in both battles, the black man was a part of the issue. ANd both showed the way people viewed them back then. At New Orleans: Jackson offered the black troops 150 acres of land for thier services, but convinently forgot about it and the men were still trying to fight for thier lands. At Seneca Falls: women wants blacks free, but that did not nessecarily mean equal rights.
Howe's books helps show how the country transformed into what it became, allowing it to survive during the Civil War. It also allows us to see what kind of land Grant, Lee, Jackson and Sherman lived in and grew up. This book describes the country of Mexico as a people that were eager to show thier independance from Spanish rule, and determined to hold on thier lands from American interlopers.
In short, this book is an excellant addition to any History buffs library. I wouldn't recommend this book to someone who is wanting a light read or still new to the history profession. Why? 900 pages, 10 size font, and long words. But, for the hard core prosn, or someone who really wants a good read, I highly recommend it.
I rate this book 10 out of 10.
It begins how it ends, on the field of battle. It starts with the British disaster at New Orleans, due to the communication downfall of the time; and ends at a new type of battle, the Sceneca Falls assembly where women began advocating equal rights and abolitsinism. Though the battles were diffrent, it is fair to point out that in both battles, the black man was a part of the issue. ANd both showed the way people viewed them back then. At New Orleans: Jackson offered the black troops 150 acres of land for thier services, but convinently forgot about it and the men were still trying to fight for thier lands. At Seneca Falls: women wants blacks free, but that did not nessecarily mean equal rights.
Howe's books helps show how the country transformed into what it became, allowing it to survive during the Civil War. It also allows us to see what kind of land Grant, Lee, Jackson and Sherman lived in and grew up. This book describes the country of Mexico as a people that were eager to show thier independance from Spanish rule, and determined to hold on thier lands from American interlopers.
In short, this book is an excellant addition to any History buffs library. I wouldn't recommend this book to someone who is wanting a light read or still new to the history profession. Why? 900 pages, 10 size font, and long words. But, for the hard core prosn, or someone who really wants a good read, I highly recommend it.
I rate this book 10 out of 10.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Dear America Diaries
There are several Dear America Diaries that deal with the American Civil War. They're fun to read, but entirely fictional. Most of the writers make up the people of the journals from real experiances people experianced.
Probably the best part of the books if you want info is at the very end. There, they include about a dozen pages of information about the war.
I would recommend this book to people who want to have something to read, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who really wants to learn about the war.
My rating: 7 out of 10.
Probably the best part of the books if you want info is at the very end. There, they include about a dozen pages of information about the war.
I would recommend this book to people who want to have something to read, but I wouldn't recommend it to someone who really wants to learn about the war.
My rating: 7 out of 10.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era
The Civil War was not just a conflict of bloodshed. During this time, it pitted technology against raw courage, and showed the true measure of men under pressure. It showed the cruelness of the land of equality, and saw fighting of more bloodshed on the North American contenient then any other conflict.
It is the most contrevorsial war of history. Millions are pitted against each other on which side was right, and which side was wrong. Millions believe that the South had fought a rightous crusade against the evil North, while millions vow that it was the North that fought the holy crusade to rid slavery and make the land of the free a fact, and not just a name.
Battle Cry of Freedom goes up to the challenge of trying to bring a true history of the war. Not a tainted view of the war, which has bias, but fits side by side with The Civil War by Shelby Foote, who is probably the greatest historian of the war to live. The book brings the Civil War to balance by trying to show both sides in thier true light; which is to say that neither one was bad, or wrong, they just had opposing views.
Who is the author to this book? Proffesor James M. McPherson. Years of dedication to this war is vividly shown in this book he has written. Intresting to note is the fact that he had no intrest in history until the Civil Rights Movements, which caught him in the grip which can be aptly described as: Civil War Fever.
This book does not just stick to the normal facts. It brings much more, and for being single book on the war, the 900 pages shows us not just the normal view, but what is not so commonly known.
One intresting fact the book brings to light: More westerners died then easterners to diesase because of most of them never having been exposed to city dieases' which were prevaliant in camps. But, more easterners died in combat then westerners.
But, I do not advise this book to someone who knows nothing about the war. The book is long, and the print is small. I would suggest something a little less detailed for beginners.
My rating of this book: 10 out of 10.
It is the most contrevorsial war of history. Millions are pitted against each other on which side was right, and which side was wrong. Millions believe that the South had fought a rightous crusade against the evil North, while millions vow that it was the North that fought the holy crusade to rid slavery and make the land of the free a fact, and not just a name.
Battle Cry of Freedom goes up to the challenge of trying to bring a true history of the war. Not a tainted view of the war, which has bias, but fits side by side with The Civil War by Shelby Foote, who is probably the greatest historian of the war to live. The book brings the Civil War to balance by trying to show both sides in thier true light; which is to say that neither one was bad, or wrong, they just had opposing views.
Who is the author to this book? Proffesor James M. McPherson. Years of dedication to this war is vividly shown in this book he has written. Intresting to note is the fact that he had no intrest in history until the Civil Rights Movements, which caught him in the grip which can be aptly described as: Civil War Fever.
This book does not just stick to the normal facts. It brings much more, and for being single book on the war, the 900 pages shows us not just the normal view, but what is not so commonly known.
One intresting fact the book brings to light: More westerners died then easterners to diesase because of most of them never having been exposed to city dieases' which were prevaliant in camps. But, more easterners died in combat then westerners.
But, I do not advise this book to someone who knows nothing about the war. The book is long, and the print is small. I would suggest something a little less detailed for beginners.
My rating of this book: 10 out of 10.
Civil War Books
Our next subject will be Civil War books. I will be reviewing several books during the next few posts.
Empire's The Civil War
Empires' The Civil War was one of the first games brought out. It was really a valient attempt to potray the Civil War accuratly, but, it failed in many aspects. It is in the format of a large map, which you have to scroll over with your mouse. All your units are in units of a division or larger, that are represented as boxes.
One of the things it failed at was movement. Most of the time, you can't get your guys to move, or they will move a little bit, then stop, or go right back to where you started off. It is really frustrating when your enemy is walking all over the place, and you are just hoping you can get even a single unit of yours moving.
Second is how easily you can win the war. All you have to do is walk into the enemy capitol and you win. I did so, and I won within a turn.
Third is your navy. Technically, they won't do anything on thier own. You have to order them to do everything. You tell them to patrol a certain place, they won't return unless you order them to. If you are the South, your cotton runs pretty much end when they land. They won't return with the cotton until you order them to.
Fourth is your population. You cannot make large armies by recruiting. Your states provide little in way of actual population. As such, you have to combine your units you already have, and hopefully you will have a large enough army to win.
It has several things right though. Such as combat. It did a very good job at describing battles involving two opponents based upon the leaders ability to fight, based upon leadership and terrain. In most aspects, few of your northern officers can win unless they have large numbers because they fight softly. There are few officers in the North to compare with the South in this game.
My rateing of this game: 3 out of 10.
One of the things it failed at was movement. Most of the time, you can't get your guys to move, or they will move a little bit, then stop, or go right back to where you started off. It is really frustrating when your enemy is walking all over the place, and you are just hoping you can get even a single unit of yours moving.
Second is how easily you can win the war. All you have to do is walk into the enemy capitol and you win. I did so, and I won within a turn.
Third is your navy. Technically, they won't do anything on thier own. You have to order them to do everything. You tell them to patrol a certain place, they won't return unless you order them to. If you are the South, your cotton runs pretty much end when they land. They won't return with the cotton until you order them to.
Fourth is your population. You cannot make large armies by recruiting. Your states provide little in way of actual population. As such, you have to combine your units you already have, and hopefully you will have a large enough army to win.
It has several things right though. Such as combat. It did a very good job at describing battles involving two opponents based upon the leaders ability to fight, based upon leadership and terrain. In most aspects, few of your northern officers can win unless they have large numbers because they fight softly. There are few officers in the North to compare with the South in this game.
My rateing of this game: 3 out of 10.
History Channel: The Civil War
The History Channel once again brings out a Civil War game. This game follows a first person shooter format, where you run around as a soilder from actual units and kill opponents with anything from knives to Revolver rifles. You can play two sides: Union or Confederate. For Union you play the following levels:
Fredericksburg (Iron Brigade)
Gettysburg (20th Maine)
Chattanoga (Unit unknown)
Selma (Wilson's Infantry)
Fort Fisher (United States Marines)
Petersburg
For Confederate:
Bull Run
Shiloh (Confederate Sabotgers)
Antietam (Mississippi Sharpshooters)
Chancellorsville (Stonewall Brigade)
Chickamauga (Texas Brigade)
Cold Harbor (Confederate Guerrilla)
The upside of the game:
1. Historical Battles
2. A wide variety of weapons (at certain points, you can even use a Gauntling Gun)
3. You don't follow just one persons' storyline, you go through several.
The downside of the game:
1. Do you know the real reason the North won? They were all clones! You are pretty much fighting clones, because the people who made it forgot that they can use more then three models for thier characters.
2. Ease. Even the hardest level is very easy to beat.
3. Play length. You can win the game in a day.
My score for HC: TCW: 6 out of 10.
Fredericksburg (Iron Brigade)
Gettysburg (20th Maine)
Chattanoga (Unit unknown)
Selma (Wilson's Infantry)
Fort Fisher (United States Marines)
Petersburg
For Confederate:
Bull Run
Shiloh (Confederate Sabotgers)
Antietam (Mississippi Sharpshooters)
Chancellorsville (Stonewall Brigade)
Chickamauga (Texas Brigade)
Cold Harbor (Confederate Guerrilla)
The upside of the game:
1. Historical Battles
2. A wide variety of weapons (at certain points, you can even use a Gauntling Gun)
3. You don't follow just one persons' storyline, you go through several.
The downside of the game:
1. Do you know the real reason the North won? They were all clones! You are pretty much fighting clones, because the people who made it forgot that they can use more then three models for thier characters.
2. Ease. Even the hardest level is very easy to beat.
3. Play length. You can win the game in a day.
My score for HC: TCW: 6 out of 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
