Conquered

Why the Army of Tennessee Failed

De: Larry J. Daniel

Narrado por: Paul Heitsch

Operating in the vast and varied trans-Appalachian west, the Army of Tennessee was crucially important to the military fate of the Confederacy. But under the principal leadership of generals such as Braxton Bragg, Joseph E. Johnston, and John Bell Hood, it won few major battles, and many regard its inability to halt steady Union advances into the Confederate heartland as a matter of failed leadership. Here, esteemed military historian Larry J. Daniel offers a far richer interpretation. Surpassing previous work that has focused on questions of command structure and the force's fate on the fields of battle, Daniel provides the clearest view to date of the army's inner workings, from top-level command and unit cohesion to the varied experiences of common soldiers and their connections to the home front. Drawing from his mastery of the relevant sources, Daniel's book is a thought-provoking reassessment of an army's fate, with important implications for Civil War history and military history writ large.

©2019 Larry J. Daniel (P)2019 Tantor

Excellent thematic overview of the Army of Tenn.

While not setting out to break new ground, the work describes the many reasons for the downfall of the Army of Tennessee. I found the writing and narration clear and engaging.

This is one of the best books I’ve ever read about the inner workings of the Civil War.

This book is one of the best Civil War books I’ve ever read.

I learned more about the Why And how the north won the war. And I learned more about the Y and how the south lost the war.

The book was absolutely intriguing.

Great Book

Tons of awesome details and firsthand accounts. Not just dates and facts. Really enjoyed it as a definitive history of AOT.

Alas, alas

Again, a fairly well- written and thoughtful account made almost intolerable by the narrator.

When are these people going to learn that trying to perform rather than simply telling the story detracts rather than adds to the experience?

And mispronunciations, venal sins in the case of place names (Trousdale and Maury Counties in TN, Versailles, KY), mortal in the case of the surname of the great Patrick Cleburne. Unbelievable.

Never Knew

So Bragg was hated!? Why did we name an army base after him? Logistics played a major part in the downfall of the traitors. A lesson for all armies.

The book that fails to explain the failure of the Army of Tennessee

Instead of concentrating on the things that went wrong with the army, the story sinks in a morass of meaningless minutiae while crucial actions can be bypassed almost completely. Sadly the author did not yet have the title in his mind while writing the book.
The audio version is well read, though.

Robotic Narrator

Overall this is a well researched book I don’t under researched area of the Civil War. The narrator however makes it almost unenjoyable. He sounds like a robot and the miss pronunciation of important names is cringe worthy i.e. “Clayborn” for Patrick Cleburn. Further the narrator attempts to insert emotion but does so it such inopportune times it’s hard to believe he is actually human. He seems to have an anti-South bias based upon win his narration is emotive. Listen to a sample before you purchase.

It is worth the time

It is what it says which is a detailed overview of the Army of Tennessee. There is a lot of minutia regarding the number of wagons, bullets, cows, casualties, etc. My comments are generalities and there are many counter examples throughout the book. This book drives down into all aspects of the army such as the medical and logistics groups and even the religious foundations of the army. The details are interesting but can drag and be hard to follow. As is common, the author quotes individual letters and extrapolates to the entire army. While most of the examples seem genuine, it is hard to know that letters written to family far from the field accurately reflect the army as a whole. The book is about the Army of Tennessee and tends to treat it in a vacuum. The absolute numbers of things such as soldiers and ammunition tell a story but it is not related to the other armies in the war. Was the Amy of Tennessee treated better or worse than the Army of Virginias, Mississippi, etc., let alone the armies of the north. The list of daily rations often seemed impressive, but it seemed that most of the time the soldiers were underfed. This is explained at times, but not always, due to specific campaign issues, but adding an overview that described what percentage of the war the solders had full rations would have helped. It would also be good to know how the rations and commissary compared to civilian life, which may not have been the purview of the book but would have added useful context.

The enemy also has a lot to do with results. It was hard to tell if a general was bad or the enemy good. Beyond the battlefield, the author seems to have a poor opinion of what he calls the “cabal” against Bragg. There is a lot of detail about individuals and the various relationships but the top-level connections were largely missing. When is a meeting of generals to oust the general in charge of an army that has constantly lost a plot of intrigue as opposed to a necessary action if victory is desired? When is poor performance due to circumstances or incompetence?

In the end, much of the information contained in the book was new to me and interesting. It gives a good feel for surviving in an army of the time. It is not a substitute for a good overview of the war or even the campaigns but it augments that information.