Scan barcode
votesforwomen's review against another edition
2.0
Meh. Didn't do much for me- Killer Angels is much better. Jeff also just doesn't have the voice his father did. And there's no Longstreet in this book :(
But two stars because you know. Civil War buff and unashamed. :)
But two stars because you know. Civil War buff and unashamed. :)
sallyavena's review against another edition
5.0
I loved the look into the lives of 4 very different men, whose lives became intertwined by the Civil War. Well written.
mj470's review against another edition
4.0
The most surprising and enjoyable feature of this series in the Civil War is the humanity it brings to the conflict. This dives deep into the emotions behind the actions of the Confederacy. It humanizes the whole war and that is something completely missing from our present ideological conflicts.
bk2149's review against another edition
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
mary_soon_lee's review against another edition
4.0
Jeff Shaara is the son of Michael Shaara, who wrote the superb book "The Killer Angels" about the Battle of Gettysburg. "Gods and Generals" is a prequel to that book, covering the lead-up to the Civil War, plus the first two years of the war. The book adopts the same approach as "The Killer Angels," recounting events from the perspective of several key figures, in this case primarily Lee, Hancock, Jackson, and Chamberlain.
I found this a very good book, albeit grim reading. It is eloquent, engrossing, and moving. Since I know less about the Civil War than I would like, it had the added bonus of being educational. Nonetheless, I didn't think it quite the equal of "The Killer Angels." (But that is a high bar.)
I note that I remain conflicted about Robert E. Lee, who, here as elsewhere, appears a sympathetic figure. And yet he commanded the Confederate forces, choosing the wrong side in a war that, for me, clearly had a right side and a wrong side.
I found this a very good book, albeit grim reading. It is eloquent, engrossing, and moving. Since I know less about the Civil War than I would like, it had the added bonus of being educational. Nonetheless, I didn't think it quite the equal of "The Killer Angels." (But that is a high bar.)
I note that I remain conflicted about Robert E. Lee, who, here as elsewhere, appears a sympathetic figure. And yet he commanded the Confederate forces, choosing the wrong side in a war that, for me, clearly had a right side and a wrong side.
duparker's review against another edition
4.0
Very well written and interesting read. It is always a thin line between writing a lousy book and a non-fiction story when the main characters are real life people and the story is one of history. In this case, the book was great. I really dove into the characters, plot, and overall flow of the book.
richardiporter's review against another edition
3.0
Who should read it: people interested in Civil War History, who also know to take it with at least a grain of salt, as it is a work of fiction (albeit a well researched one.)
View my full review of the trilogy overall here https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3646898637?
For this specific book: what I liked best was the coverage of the lives of the men before the war began. What was Lee up to? And Winfield Scott Hancock? Josh Chamberlain? Jackson?
It was fascinating to consider how Lee was a LtCol, was given command of the raid at Harpers Ferry against John Brown because he was the only nearby operational level commander near DC. How he was offered operational command of the entirety of the Army serving under a severely aging Gen Winfield Scott. How he chose his loyalty to Virginia and family over that to the union despite misgivings and concerns (though I think Jeff is a bit of a Lee apologist in a lot of ways.)
I really enjoyed thinking about the career of Winfield Scott Hancock, his duty as a supply officer in California and his stand off with six shooters in his belt against Spaniards who never accepted Mexican rule let alone the rule of the United States Government. How he traveled to DC expecting to be made a quartermaster and was suddenly promoted from Captain to Brigadier General by McClellan who remembered him as having led infantry in Mexico, and needing every experienced combat leader he could promote (and what luck for the Union he did so.)
Wondering what it would feel like to have a society crumble into civil war, to have military units in which loyalties split, discipline breaks down, the host states become hostile territory and options become escape and evasion, surrender or fighting. The plausibility of additional components to the war vs merely North and South but also East and West are very interesting and something I hadn't considered well.
I can absolutely believe the feelings these men experienced and consider them in a modern concept, and it is shocking to me to be able to do so.
I also found myself very angry with the parade of inept Chief operational Generals of the Union Army. McClellan, Pope, Burnsides, Hooker and to the lease extent Meade made me mad. What fortune for us all that despite superior leadership overall the traitorous forces didn't press their advantage early with operational offense and tactical defense as a mashup of the preferences of Jackson and Longstreet could have yielded.
3 Star reviews mean this was a solid book. I probably won’t read it again but I could. I do recommend it to people interested in this sort of topic. No argument from me if you love this book.
View my full review of the trilogy overall here https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3646898637?
For this specific book: what I liked best was the coverage of the lives of the men before the war began. What was Lee up to? And Winfield Scott Hancock? Josh Chamberlain? Jackson?
It was fascinating to consider how Lee was a LtCol, was given command of the raid at Harpers Ferry against John Brown because he was the only nearby operational level commander near DC. How he was offered operational command of the entirety of the Army serving under a severely aging Gen Winfield Scott. How he chose his loyalty to Virginia and family over that to the union despite misgivings and concerns (though I think Jeff is a bit of a Lee apologist in a lot of ways.)
I really enjoyed thinking about the career of Winfield Scott Hancock, his duty as a supply officer in California and his stand off with six shooters in his belt against Spaniards who never accepted Mexican rule let alone the rule of the United States Government. How he traveled to DC expecting to be made a quartermaster and was suddenly promoted from Captain to Brigadier General by McClellan who remembered him as having led infantry in Mexico, and needing every experienced combat leader he could promote (and what luck for the Union he did so.)
Wondering what it would feel like to have a society crumble into civil war, to have military units in which loyalties split, discipline breaks down, the host states become hostile territory and options become escape and evasion, surrender or fighting. The plausibility of additional components to the war vs merely North and South but also East and West are very interesting and something I hadn't considered well.
I can absolutely believe the feelings these men experienced and consider them in a modern concept, and it is shocking to me to be able to do so.
I also found myself very angry with the parade of inept Chief operational Generals of the Union Army. McClellan, Pope, Burnsides, Hooker and to the lease extent Meade made me mad. What fortune for us all that despite superior leadership overall the traitorous forces didn't press their advantage early with operational offense and tactical defense as a mashup of the preferences of Jackson and Longstreet could have yielded.
3 Star reviews mean this was a solid book. I probably won’t read it again but I could. I do recommend it to people interested in this sort of topic. No argument from me if you love this book.
littlelady_28's review against another edition
5.0
If you like the Civil War and historical fiction you will enjoy this book. Sharra clearly did extensive research for this project but also managed to humanize all the characters instead of turning them into generic historical figures. I give it an A.
quiltmom14's review against another edition
4.0
While the writing isn't as phenomenal as his father's, this Shaara is pretty darn good. The history is a bit frightening when looking at the current condition of our country. Each character becomes a real person, so much so that I found I liked the confederate leaders much more than the union, and had to remind myself what they were actually fighting for. This book is rich In detail and worth reading every one of its (very many) pages.
caitlin_89's review against another edition
4.0
This book was so great. I really didn't know a thing about the Civil War. I have a much better idea now. Shaara brings to life the real people behind the war heroes.