Yes and no. It's very dry. It's well researched to be sure, but very statistical. He, like many history writers, uses French phrases without a translation. Parts are very good. I like the details about the battles. Especially the Romanian front, which has received very little coverage. I just think for the most part, it's far too general: "this division attacked this division at this place. The Russians had x amount of men, x amount of heavy guns, x amount of light guns.....etc" these are all important facts to be sure, but first hand accounts would go a long way to making a better story.
He repeatedly says "thousand million" as opposed to "billion". He is British and perhaps that's the normal way there. If so, then it's fine, but it makes me cringe every time I hear it. Other than that- he's a fine narrator.
I would love to see a documentary focusing on the eastern front in World War I
I doubt it.
The ability to "read the book" while working...I do like Grover Gardner as a narrator and have many books read by him.
I would've cut a lot actually. First I'd point out that the author is contradicting himself in the main premise of the book as well as facts. An example of fact, he mentions the fact (multiple times) that the Mississippi brigade was defeated at Malvern Hill and also at Fredericksburg (during the Chancellorsville campaign), both previous to Gettysburg. However he says, also multiple times that the Mississippi brigade was undefeated when they got to Gettysburg.
The author did a great deal of research and I liked the detail and first hand accounts of the book, but I didn't like he writing style. His main theory is that the Mississippi brigades charge should be "the real high water mark." But when I finished the book I felt he actually disproved his theory. He says basically of Pickett's Charge that they did get to cemetery ridge, did break the union line, but couldn't maintain their position and had to withdraw. That's true, however he keeps mentioning how close Barksdale was to the ridge and if they got there the south would win a crushing victory at Gettysburg and win the war. However he doesn't seem to take into account, seriously if at all, that the brigade would basically be out of ammunition, without support, in the middle of the union lines with union reinforcements on the way. Had it gotten to the ridge, wouldn't it seem to be reasonable to assume that what happened to Armistead could happen to Barksdale? He seems to believe that the Mississippi Brigade stepping foot on Cemetery Ridge alone would win the war for the Confederacy. I just had a problem with that.
If you had family in the Mississippi brigade then this would be a definite book to read as you can maybe get some idea of exactly what your ancestor saw through the first hand accounts. If you're interested in Gettysburg, then you could get the book by Sears or, my personal favorite, Witness to Gettysburg. I would advise against this otherwise however. He contradicts himself too often and is very repetitive with points and phrases that had me wanting to delete it before finishing.
Yes, Jefferson Davis is a man I knew about, through books on the Civil War and the Mexican war. This however was entirely about his lifetime and went into very good detail about it.
I don't think the narrator detracted from the book, but the editing did. There are obvious breaks in the flow and several times it seems that the stop the recording when he's in the middle of a word or sentence and then start the next track without editing out the cut off word/sentence.
It is a very good biography. It's thorough, without being dry. While Davis is obviously the central figure of the book, it shows him for the person he was without being partisan. It's objective, which is important to me. I like the rhythm of the book which is very in depth at points, but it doesn't get boring. I'd recommend it for anyone interested in Jefferson Davis, the Civil War, American History or just trying to learn something new.
The narrator isn't bad, but for Gods sake, the man can't for the life of him say the word "cavalry". It sounds ridiculous I know, but he constantly says "calvary" and it started off ok, then I started to wince every time and now I just get mad. Why didn't anyone tell him? Other than that he's not a bad narrator at all and I would listen to more of his books so long as they don't involve cavalry...
It should be, but it won't.
The first half is very very dry.
Yes. It's a cool story
Czar Peter. He was extraordinary.
He has a lisp that is difficult to get over.
No- it's like 40+ hours long...
Depending on the subject matter
Most of my friends aren't interested in history the way I am, but assuming I had some who were I would probably do so, but make sure to tell them that most of the book is very dry.
Yeah, I guess.
The book is very long which is good. It's very detailed. The descriptions of the battles are great. It could have been better. Maybe better imagery and a bit shorter. The last chapter went back over everything which isn't a bad idea, but just seemed to drag on. I'm glad I got it. It taught me a lot but for those who aren't really interested in this time, this isn't the book for you at all.
Report Inappropriate Content