derrierloisirs.fr
» » Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas

Download Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas ePub

by Benson Bobrick

Download Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas ePub
  • ISBN 0743290267
  • ISBN13 978-0743290265
  • Language English
  • Author Benson Bobrick
  • Publisher Simon & Schuster; 1 edition (February 9, 2010)
  • Pages 448
  • Formats rtf lit azw mobi
  • Category Biography
  • Subcategory Leaders and Notable People
  • Size ePub 1855 kb
  • Size Fb2 1577 kb
  • Rating: 4.4
  • Votes: 864

• A first-rate historian: Benson Bobrick is the author of several celebrated books, including The Fated Sky and Testament . His work has been hailed as “Lucid and vivid” by The New Yorker , “elegant” by The Washington Post Book World , and “engrossing…detailed and gripping” by the Chicago Tribune . And The New York Times Book Review says, “Bobrick is perhaps the most interesting historian writing in America today.”.• A fascinating biography of an underappreciated American hero: George H. Thomas was, Bobrick argues, the greatest general of the Civil War. Known as the Rock of Chickamauga, Thomas was regarded by his contemporaries as the equal of Grant and Sherman. In the entire Civil War, he never lost a battle or a movement, and he was the only Union commander to destroy two Confederate armies in the field. But Thomas never wrote a memoir and history neglected him. Until now. .• Powerfully told and grippingly rendered: With his characteristic flair for drama and fast-paced writing, Bobrick takes readers onto the battlefields, into the smoke of gunpowder and the stench of bodies. From the parade grounds of West Point to the bloody Battle of Chattanooga, Bobrick masterfully renders every detail, right down to the buckles on Thomas's boots and the courage in his heart. Backed by scholarly research, this informed and vivid biography at last brings Thomas's tale to readers everywhere.

Thomas' regard of his fellow man regardless of race, color or creed was exemplary and the example he set of humbleness, selflessness and self-dignity was a true example of Christianity.

Электронная книга "Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas", Benson Bobrick. Эту книгу можно прочитать в Google Play Книгах на компьютере, а также на устройствах Android и iOS. Выделяйте текст, добавляйте закладки и делайте заметки, скачав книгу "Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas" для чтения в офлайн-режиме.

In Master of War, Benson Bobrick gives us a finely written and . Even Thomas' pre-civil war life made for a fascinating read. The book helped me become a great admirer of General Thomas. It comes with a comprehensive bibliography and notes.

This book was long overdue. - Jeffry D. Wert, author of Cavalryman of the Lost Cause. And the sad thing is, many of these falsehoods don't even have anything to do with George Thomas.

Benson Bobrick's new biography, "Master of War: the Life of George H. Thomas (2009) . At the outset of his book, Bobrick acknowledges that Thomas is generally ranked as one of the three great Union generals of the Civil War, together with Grant and Sherman. Thomas (2009)" amply explains why Thomas deserves to be remembered. As such, the book is valuable. Unfortunately, the book is marred by a great deal of polemic and derogation of other leaders. pp 1-2) This acknowledgement is itself worthy recognition of Thomas. It is unclear about the value of insisting that Thomas should be rated first among these three generals, as Bobrick tries to do.

Benson Bobrick's book Master of War argues ever so validly that General George Thomas was the best Civil . General thomas gets his due. By Thriftbooks. com User, February 24, 2009. 40 Years ago,I read a book by Bruce Catton. The title was This Hallowed Ground.

General thomas gets his due. It was the first time I heard about General George . homas.

A first-rate historian: Benson Bobrick is the author of several celebrated books, including The Fated Sky and .

A first-rate historian: Benson Bobrick is the author of several celebrated books, including The Fated Sky and Testament. detailed and gripping" by the Chicago Tribune - A fascinating biography of an underappreciated American hero: George H. Thomas was, Bobrick argues, the greatest general of the Civil War. Known as the Rock of Chickamauga, Thomas was regarded by his contemporaries as the equal of Grant and Sherman.

Close X. Learn about new offers and get more deals by joining our newsletter.

Memo to Benson Bobrick: The American Civil War was not a war between Ulysses S. Grant and George H. Thomas. It was a war between the Union and the Confederacy. You could be forgiven for not knowing that, should you read this book without knowing more about the Civil War. It is far too much of a smear campaign against Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. To be sure, there is near-universal agreement that Thomas was one of the great generals of the war. His victory at Mill Springs was one of the first great Union successes of the war. He very possibly saved the Union with his brilliant defense at Chickamauga.

George Henry Thomas (July 31, 1816 – March 28, 1870) was a United States Army officer and a Union general during the American Civil War, one of the principal commanders in the Western Theater. Thomas served in the Mexican–American War and later chose to remain with the . Army for the Civil War as a Southern Unionist, despite his heritage as a Virginian (whose home state would join the Confederate States of America).

Talk about Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas


Jelar
A potentially good book ruined by agenda-driven blatant factual errors.

This is a very well written book with plenty of excellent information about one of the Unions least-known yet most effective generals of the civil war. Right from the start it had me hooked. Even Thomas' pre-civil war life made for a fascinating read.

I wish I could say that was all there was to this book and give it 5 stars, but sadly that is prevented by some blatant and quite frankly unforgivable factual errors. And the sad thing is, many of these falsehoods don't even have anything to do with George Thomas.

The problem seems to be the author's agenda. It isn't just to tell the story of George Thomas, but rather to make the case he was the best general of the Civil War. While that may be true, Bobrick goes out of his way to make this case, and apparently feels the need to do so by dragging other top civil war generals down. No where is this more clear then his writing on U. S. Grant. Grant's animosity toward Thomas is well known, and apparently the author takes it personally, as if this was some sort of personal insult against himself. As such, he spares no effort to denounce Grant at every opportunity, going out of his way to shame grant as an incompetent bumbler who harbored irrational grudges.

Now if Bobrick merely had the opinion that Grant was incompetent, that would be fine. After all, Grant's career was not flawless, and considering the book is about Thomas and not Grant, the author's opinion of Grant should be a non-issue. The problem is that in the process of denouncing Grant, he states several clear-cut falsehoods that are simply impossible to ignore.

When covering the Battle of Shiloh, Bobrick first states that Union army was caught so badly off guard that several officers were bayonetted while sleeping in their beds. This is clearly not true. As anyone who knows anything about the battle can attest, Union Colonel Everett Peabody had sent out a patrol early that morning, which made contact with the approaching Confederate army, and conducted a fighting retreat while sending runners back to warn the Union army of the coming storm. Because of this, Grant's army was already alert and forming into battle lines when the clash of armies began. The idea that anyone was still left sleeping in their beds at this point is laughable. But amazingly, Bobrick completely ignores this. He doesn't even mention Everett Peabody at all.

Bobrick then he says only the arrival of Buell's Army prevented Grant's defeat. This is a highly disputable claim. While Grant's army had taken a pounding, by the end of the first day he had rallied his troops into a very formidable final defensive line, which including a considerable amount of artillery as well as support from Union gunboats in the river. This, combined with the arrival of several thousand fresh troops under Lew Wallace's command (Bobrick claims Wallace's division was "idle through the fight" and does not mention their arrival on the field before the end of the first day), would have made a Confederate assault to deliver a final blow extremely difficult, if not impossible, even without the arrival of Buell's troops. While there is no question Buell's arrival played a crucial role in the successful Union counter attack on the next day, whether or not they "saved" the Army of the Cumberland is highly disputable, and it is a flat out falsehood to claim that it was an absolutely certainty.

Finally, when talking about why the Federal army was not entrenched prior to Shiloh, Bobrick claims Grant's explanation was that his troops were "unused to the pick and shovel". I have found no source anywhere stating Grant ever said such a thing. What he did say in his 1885 memoirs was this:

"...the troops with me, officers and men, needed discipline and drill more than they did experience with the pick, shovel and axe. ... under all these circumstances I concluded that drill and discipline were worth more to our men than fortifications."

While this is a debatable point (I personally disagree with Grant on this), it's clearly different then what Bobrick claimed Grant said. Grant didn't say his men didn't know how to use entrenching tools, he said he felt they needed drilling more then they needed entrenchment. Bobrick seems to be blatantly distorting the truth for the sake of making Grant look bad.

Shiloh was one of Grant's finest moments as a general. It's true he bears responsibility for his army's ill state of preparation, however he shook off the initial hammering, rallied his army into an effective defensive line, and then went on to lead them to the most important Union victory in the early years of the war. This is a notable contrast to many other Union generals throughout the war, like William Rosecrans, George McClellen, and Joseph Hooker, who completely broke down when their army suffered early setbacks in battle. Yet bobrick would have us believe Grant spend the whole battle sitting around doing nothing until Buell came to save the day. He then goes on to claim Lincoln's famous quote of "I cannot spare this man, he fights" as justification for not relieving Grant of command as a mistake rather then a brilliant act of statesmanship. It's beyond absurd. Lincoln's choice not to relieve Grant is widely seen today as a stroke of brilliance, yet Bobrick has rendered himself completely blind to it.

Sadly this series of blatant falsehoods isn't just reserved for Grant at Shiloh. He also covers Grant's victories at Donelson and Henry in the same manner, as well as his successful siege of Vicksburg, and the victory at Missionary Ridge (all credit in the Chattanooga campaign goes to Thomas, none goes to Grant, who was in overall command). General Henry Halleck gets the same treatment in the Corinth campaign (another victory), as well Sherman in the Atlanta campaign (that victory that assured the outcome of the war in favor of the Union), and John Schofield's victory at the Battle of Franklin. All of these victories are attributed to good subordinates, confederate mistakes, dumb luck, or some other factor that didn't involve the commanding general leading the army. Pretty much no Union General in command of an army in the entire book gets any credit for any victory other then Thomas.

When Bobrick reaches the Battle of Nashville, things get really ridiculous. Bobrick tries to depict it as an epic battle between two evenly matched forces that could have gone either way. In reality, it was a lopsided contest that had all the suspense of a tulip being crushed by a steamroller. By the time the battle commenced, Confederate General John Bell Hood had a mangled wreck of an army with less then 30,000 men (Bobrick falsely puts the number at 45,000) against Thomas' 55,000. Furthermore, Hood's army leadership was decimated at the Battle of Franklin, where it lost 6 generals killed, 1 captured, and 7 wounded. The notion that Hood had any chance of willing the Battle of Nashville with this hollow shell of a force is absurd. His army was in taters and he had no hope of victory at all. This is not to say that Thomas didn't do a good job at Nashville. On the contrary he led the army superbly there. Only that it is clear to any objective observer that the outcome of this battle was never in slightest degree of doubt.

At Nashville, Thomas was simply finishing off what was left an army that had already been fatally crippled by Schofield's troops at Franklin. Yet Bobrick would have us believe this was on par with Napoleon's performance at Austerlitz! That's not an exaggeration by the way, Bobrick actually makes the comparison in this book. He compares Nashville, where Thomas' 55,000 man army plowed through a battered, mangled, and thoroughly depleted 30,000 man rebel army lacking every essential supply needed to fight a war, to Austerlirtz, where Napoleon's grand army of 68,000 defeated the fresh combined armies of two different nations that outnumbered him 98,000 to 68,000. What is one to make of such a ridiculous claim? There are no words.

Bottom line: this book is a terrible propaganda piece, designed to make Thomas look like the greatest general on earth at the expense of everyone else (and many documented facts). I think Thomas himself, who the author emphasizes was not a shameless self-promoter, would take offense at it. Leave this one alone and look elsewhere for good books on him.
Cashoutmaster
I find many books that use battles to state a case to be tedious and bogged down in too much detail, but this book had a masterful combination of personal and military information to state the author's case for General George Thomas as the most effective general in the Civil War. It is a case Bobrick is making, and he makes a compelling one at that. The poor reviews by some readers who bashed the author for elevating Thomas above Sherman and Grant is unfortunate because the author does offer an ample amount of evidence gathered from Sherman, Grant, other generals and officials in Washington DC including President Lincoln himself. All testify to Thomas's greatness and his penchant for winning key battles with incredibly low casualties. There seems to be no way to deny Thomas's greatness or the fact that Sherman and Grant with their issues and jealousies certainly downplayed Thomas's contributions to the Union.
Kulafyn
A truly excellent book. I learned how jealous Grant and Sherman were of him. For good reason. Unlike those two, who tirelessly and falsely criticized Thomas, the latter was able to execute huge battles in the western theater with minimal casualties while Grant and Sherman were butchers. Had he not been a Virginian and the highest ranking officer from the south who remained loyal to the Union, Lincoln may have trusted him sufficiently to become Supreme Commander of the northern army instead of Grant. That, surely, would have saved tens of thousands of casualties. This is a masterful book that brightly brings to life one of the true heroes of the Civil War.
anonymous
Kudos to Benson Bobrick's Master of War. It gives full credit to my favorite Civil War general George Henry Thomas but also puts him in his proper place in history a full century and a half after our great war between the states. Bobrick gives credit to a man who was not only a great military genius but who was a great human being as well. Thomas' regard of his fellow man regardless of race, color or creed was exemplary and the example he set of humbleness, selflessness and self-dignity was a true example of Christianity. His battlefield successes speak for themselves, a perfect record of victories and triumphs. In the book, Bobrick compares his achievements constantly to Grant and Sherman almost as if they were in competition with one another but Thomas was a team player, he wasn't a solo star who cared about what order he played in the lineup. Thomas just did his best, which usually was superb, and gave all the credit to all his fellow team mates, the soldiers, and humbly went about his job.
Gerceytone
Historians of the Civil War, after sifting through primary war records and first-hand documents since the titanic conflict ended in 1865, have more or less unanimously agreed that General George H.Thomas could be considered the third most capable Union generals (next to Grant and Sherman) who contributed to the success of the Union armies and the defeat of the Confederate "rebels" to end the war. Bruce Catton, among others, praised Thomas highly, suggesting even that Grant and Sherman did not give Thomas the full credits he deserved. This book also cites secondary materials to support this suggestion. Because Thomas didn't live long enough to write his memoir (he died of a stroke while serving duties in San Francisco, at 53), we may have to rely on some secondary sources to gauge Thomas's achievements. This is such a book. It sheds some light (without saying so directly) on why Thomas, a Southerner, would pledge his loyalty to the Union, and fought for it. The book helped me become a great admirer of General Thomas. It comes with a comprehensive bibliography and notes. Highly recommended.