A li'l bit of history...

[GShock]

While i'm still looking for a good book on all the political, social, economical and military background on the U.S. civil war period, i stumbled onto this website:

http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar/

It is true that while some games boost cinema profits (and the other way around) some other games boost history book sales!

What caught my attention is not just the accurate description of events (that is present also in our game manual) but the pictures of generals, of battle locations, of soldiers...dead alive and of equipment. This and many sources state that the Gettysburgh defeat was the turning point of the war yet, strangely, losses were not so disequal considering the force disparity on the field...I guess the weak CSA economy needed a big blow on USA to try to equalize...and this hit didn't come. The website comes with important quotes from generals themselves after many events and not just about Gettysburgh.

I've finally seen how Longstreet, Stonewall, Meade, McClellan, Grant and others looked like and it's a pleasure, once again, to express my most deeply felt appreciation to the AgeOD team's job. The General portraits are incredibly accurate...on the spot. Period.

[arsan]

While i'm still looking for a good book on all the political, social, economical and military background on the U.S. civil war period...

Look no more!
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194608368&sr=8-1

McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" is excellent and have PLENTY of social, political of economical background.
Very good read!

Cheers!

[Paul Roberts]

I second the recommendation of McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom." It's the best synthesis of the causes, conduct, and culture of the ACW there is. McPherson is a top-notch scholar but also an excellent writer.

[D_K]

I just finished reading "Eye Witness to the Civil War" it was very good. Lots of stuff I didn't know. Covered the slavery issue, and other events before the war and went right up to after Lincoln's assasination and reformation of the union. Was a very GOOD read.

[Guru80]

I have over a dozen links now and many of them contain direct quotes from the generals, men, presidents, and eye witnesses. I have learned more about the personal aspect of the war since I got this game than I have in my previous 30+ years.

[GShock]

I have definitely learned where the States are (thanks to the color-codes lol) and, reading last night's website, i learned (by looking at that map) why the game map is put down this way and why the big rivers were so strategically important.

I'm just too lazy to learn history on websites...i can't read it by night when i go to sleep and ... nothing remains on the bookshelf, so i will most likely buy the books on amazon you've pointed out, arsan. Thanks

Got to start reading somewhere but I'm sure there's a lot of good books around on the subject.

I had always been curious about the Civil War...and i suppose (i am fairly certain actually) that NPC will contribute to *extend* my knowledge on world history.

I'm an expert of Roman and Japanese history. Let's hope AgeOD moves there one day.

[Linenoise]

I can't imagine that there is any book better than Shelby Foote's The Civil War. It is a 3 volume masterpiece that covers all the nooks and crannies of the war. In all it is about 2800 pages over three volumes and pretty much covers it all.

I am intrigued by McPherson's Battle Cry, but I have not yet read the book. However, by comparison, the length of McPherson's book is only enough to cover 1861-1862 in Foot's Civil War. Not to say that more pages equals superior reading, but if you want information on everything from the politics in Washington/Richmond as well as following the activities of damn near all the generals, you can't go wrong with Foote's writing. What also makes Foote's book so great is it is a Narative, so the entire thing is presented in this enjoyable story fashion. It makes it a little bit easier (and enjoyable) to read imo.


Now what I really want is a book similar in style and scope that covers the English Civil War, French Revolution, and/or The Thirty Years War.

[Guru80]

Just ordered Shelby Foote's The Civil War. I can't wait to dive into it!

[snoopy1710]

Just finished volume 2 of Shelby Foote's Civil War series and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this period (probably anyone on this forum).

The only drawback as Linenoise mentioned is that is a mountain of information (and paper), so it is certainly not for the faint of heart.

Snoopy

[Jabberwock]

While Foote is a much better military history, he doesn't cover the social / political background like McPherson. The books are complementary.

[RELee]

If I may so humbly point out, there were two views on the conflict.

The Lost Cause by Edward A. Pollard

Book Description
In this facsimile of the 1866 edition of the standard Southern history of the Confederacy, Pollard, who was the editor of the Daily Richmond Examiner during the war, offers a fascinating historical account that brilliantly conveys the South's cause. The entire war is covered here, from Fort Sumpter to Appomatox, and although it does look at the war from a decidedly southern point of view, it offers insight into what people thought at the time. Profiles of 24 leaders are also featured.

[GShock]

Yes RELee, there are always at least 2 points of view in a war. Generally speaking a single book is never enough to have a complete understanding of such a subject.

Everyone says history is written by the winners...i never believed that.
I believe history, instead, to be written by all of those who took part in doing it.

That's why we got different povs.

I must admit i haven't chosen yet which book to get and i'm very happy of this remark that makes my choice more ample. Thanks RELee.

[arsan]

While Foote is a much better military history, he doesn't cover the social / political background like McPherson. The books are complementary.

I agree.
Right now i´m reading Foote and enjoying it a lot. Highly recommended too.

But i´m glad i read McPherson first.
For an european like me with nearly zero knowledge of XIX century USA history its very convenient.
McPherson gives you a very complete general vision of the era.
After that, with Foote you can fill in all the details, the personalities, the anecdotes...
Also Foote is much more interested in the military than in the political/social, economics, the causes of the war... McPherson gives you that.
If i had read Foote first i think i would had feel a little lost.

Cheers!

[Guru80]

Well damn....I have my reading for the foreseeable future ;-) I will be picking up McPherson's book as well and I definitely am interested in reading a southern slanted book as to get a deeper understanding of the whole conflict not just the northern version that is mostly taught.

GShock, you are correct in saying that everyone involved is who makes the history. Unfortunately, however, it is also true that the Winning side almost always gets their side of the story as the right side and most taught. If the south had won the story about why, when and how would be a lot different. Same goes for WWII, WWI or any other major conflict. The victorious side gets all the say in most of the history books.

[Franciscus]

Well, I am reading vol 2 of Shelby Foote's masterpiece, and what strikes me most, apart from the military history and the way that all is interconnected, is how it conveys the personal aspect of the war, namely the wonderful depictions of the character and personalities of the leaders (amazing portrait of Lincoln the man) and main generals envolved.
Truly, it is a must have, but not for the faint-hearted.

I have not bought yet McPherson's, but will do it in time (together with something to go along with a certain game about the military exploits of some corsican guy that is about to be released )

[berto]

Well, I am reading vol 2 of Shelby Foote's masterpiece, and what strikes me most ... is how it conveys the personal aspect of the war, namely the wonderful depictions of the character and personalities of the leaders...

Agreed. Last week I was rereading Foote's account of Stonewall Jackson's death. Although I know the quote well and could see it coming, I choked up at the point of reading the chapter-ending, dramatic, Jackson's Famous Last Words:

"Let us cross over the river," he said, "and rest under the shade of the trees."

leure:

Today's reading was Foote's masterful account of Pickett's Charge.

Foote was a novelist. You can't beat him for fine writing and narrative impact.

[Ian Coote]

Yes I have to agree Foote's work is a masterpiece.Are you aware that there was a 40th anniversary edition in 14 volumes with lots of photographs,drawings and maps,something that was missing in earlier editions.Another good read for the military side only in one volume is "The Longest Night:A Military History of the Civil War".939 pages with 81 maps.Highly recommended.

[D_K]

I'm an expert of Roman and Japanese history. Let's hope AgeOD moves there one day.

Just thought you might like to know , I think I saw somewhere that Paradox was doing a Roman Empire game based on the EU3 engine. if you check http://www.paradoxplaza.com I think there is info on it.

Looks like fun as well

[bloodybucket]

Foote and McPhearson are both excellent, Pollard is a great work to get Southern perspective, but don't forget Bruce Catton.

[Jabberwock]

If you want one "well-rounded" series of CW history books, go with Catton.

Even though Foote was a novelist, what I like most about his writing is that when he gives his own opinions or assertions, he supports them with the relevant facts and details, often much better than the professional historians.

[Linenoise]

If I may so humbly point out, there were two views on the conflict.

The Lost Cause by Edward A. Pollard

I was initially wanting to read something from the Southern perspective. I had thought at the time of buying Foote's books that he was a bit of a Southern sympathizer. Having read almost the first two volumes he comes off pretty neutral. Aside from a clear liking for many of the southern generals...but who can blame him for that? Jackson, Longstreet, and Lee are easily my favorites. Well, my most favorite is Sherman but I probably shouldn't be telling that to a guy named RELee, eh? Although I am also quite intrigued with Little Powell. I don't know a lot about him but he seems quite the character.

One great thing about the ACW is there is no lacking for material. That is probably what contributes to the popularity of that war over other equally deserving wars.

In any case, thanks for the other referrals in this thread. My to-read list gets longer every day.

[Paul Roberts]

Well damn....I have my reading for the foreseeable future ;-) I will be picking up McPherson's book as well and I definitely am interested in reading a southern slanted book as to get a deeper understanding of the whole conflict not just the northern version that is mostly taught.

GShock, you are correct in saying that everyone involved is who makes the history. Unfortunately, however, it is also true that the Winning side almost always gets their side of the story as the right side and most taught. If the south had won the story about why, when and how would be a lot different. Same goes for WWII, WWI or any other major conflict. The victorious side gets all the say in most of the history books.

But the farther you get from the heat of the conflict, the more likely you are to find a certain balance impossible for either side at the time. While it's true that McPherson writes from the "winning side" perspective, as an honest scholar (and the wide consensus is that he is one) working more than 100 years later he is committed to understanding both sides and how they understood things. For instance: naturally he sees slavery as an evil, but he is more than willing to explore the kinds of arguments by which Southerners at the time convinced themselves that it was not. And he is tons of fun to read when he is discussing certain Northern generals' incompetence!

[Mangudai]

In my view it is essential to understand the issue of the western territories. The political elites were openly discussing the possibility of civil war from 1820 on. The Kansas territory was effectively in a state of civil war from 1854-1858. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas
Perhaps a house divided against itself can stand, but the US was a house under construction.

The average soldier in the Eastern theater for North or South probably would not mention the western territories as part of the reason why he fought. Nonetheless I think slavery in the western territories was the key issue. Without that the whole war could have been avoided or at least postponed for a long time.