Cain at Gettysburg 1st (first) Edition by Peters, Ralph published by Forge Books (2012) Hardcover

Battle Hymn Cycle #1

by Ralph Peters

Excellent Book

Genres: Historical Fiction, Civil War, Fiction, American Civil War, Military Fiction, War, American History

Hardcover

First published February 14, 2012

About the author

Ralph Peters is a novelist, an essayist, a former career soldier, and an adventurer in the 19th-century sense. He is the author of a dozen critically acclaimed novels, two influential works on strategy, "Beyond Terror" and "Fighting for the Future".

Mr. Peters' works can also be found under the pen name "Owen Parry." He also appears frequently as a commentator on television and radio networks.

http://us.macmillan.com/author/ralphp...

Reviews

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

“War was a sorrier business than storybooks told.” (4.5 stars)

In his Author’s Note to his excellent book CAIN AT GETTYSBURG Ralph Peters writes, “A novel about Gettysburg for our time must demonstrate war’s horror and its appeal, while depicting the complex humanity of those who shoulder rifles or lead armies.” That is a tall order, and this text achieves it in spades!

Writing with a 3rd person omniscient narrator point of view allows the author to give us the perspectives of many characters over the course of the novel, on both sides of the conflict, historical and fictional. It gives the reader a very full view. Peters is great at characterization, but one reoccurring character in the book really stood out to me. Sergeant Blake of the 26th North Carolina regiment, a lapsed Quaker. Peters does a swell job of slowly revealing more and more about his character as the novel progresses. Blake’s musings and inner life is superbly rendered.

In all honestly, I’m having a hard time writing this review. I don’t know where to focus. So, I’ll just share with you some moments/insights I had while reading the text.
1. July 2, 1863 is brilliantly depicted in a harrowing, tension filled manner. Mr. Peters captures the small nuances and ‘almost’ moments that peppered that day, on both sides. I knew the outcomes, but the writing is so good, that I forgot what I knew and was fully invested in the moments.
2. The text demonstrates the contradictions of war brilliantly. A solider experiences great horniness after a day of battle, surprised that physical desire replaces grief; a general lies dying, startled at the thoughts that crowd his final moments; a solider ponders Abraham, Isaac, and God while he wonders who redemption is really for. Truthful moments like these are all throughout the novel.
3. At the end of chapter 17 some characters have a conversation about their pasts, their current motives, and what it might mean. It is astoundingly great human and character writing.
4. There is a chilling depiction of a psychopath, an Irish solider in the Union Army named Gallagher. Getting the viewpoint of one of those sick men who enjoy death and destruction is unnerving.
5. The portrayal of Confederate general James Longstreet is well rendered. Longstreet’s reluctance to engage in the false bravado that permeated much of the southern leadership who would not contradict the views of Robert E. Lee is made more poignant with our foreknowledge that almost of all Longstreet’s assessments (which he knew would lead to unnecessary death) were correct.
6. There are many moments of dramatic irony that only the best historical fiction, where the reader has the advantage of foreknowledge of events, can provide.
7. The final day of the Battle of Gettysburg is horrifically rendered. As a reader you just want to get past it. It is unrelenting. I felt trapped and anxious.

Quotes:
• “Blake knew jealously cheapened a man, and he fought it.”
• “I’m not certain that they have given me command of an army, or of a political convention.”
• “The mind accepts terrible things, because such things are only to happen to other men.”
• “Men feared different things. But all men feared.”
• “How lives changed, as the fires of youth burned down.”
• “In war, thinking laid a fine foundation, but battle was captive to the foibles of man.”
• “There were times when men had to die, and he had to make them do it.”
• “Battle was a litany of mistakes.”
• “A page had turned in the heavens, but he could not read the script.”
• “But knowledge had no power to vanquish emotion.”
• “The day had engulfed them all in its awesome magnitude, and it was a blessing to bob up alive at the end of it.”
• “The angel had saved Abraham: the spared life of his son was incidental.”

Ralph Peters has done an extraordinary thing with CAIN AT GETTYSBURG (the title alone is brilliant). He has written the best novel I have read (to date) on the American Civil War. He has written four other novels that take the war to its conclusion from Gettysburg, and I will be reading all of them!

[Lawyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cain at Gettysburg: Ralph Peters' Perspective on Three Days in July, 1863

The Killer Angels will remain the most beloved Gettysburg novel. Michael Shaara's skillful writing, mythic portraits, and romantic view of the battle make it incomparable.--From Peters' Afterword to his novel

Peters starts out just fine. But calling Shaara's work "mythic" and "romantic?" Peters continues to say that there is enough material that emerges from the battle of Gettysburg that a dozen novels could be written about those three days in July. Peters has certainly written one, which he describes as more fitting for generations of Americans who have not served in the ranks. He further informs us that he has studied the battle of Gettysburg for more than fifty years.

On that note it surprises this reader that Peters attributes the battle of Gettysburg being fought over shoes, one of the most popular myths that has entertained generations of school children. General Lee's troops were under direct orders not to enter a general engagement in Gettysburg until the whole army had gathered. General Harry Heth used the story of the possibility of the presence of shoes as his excuse for entering the town. Of course, Confederate forces had no intelligence about what lay before them as Jeb Stuart in charge of Lee's Cavalry had provided no intelligence of the location of Union forces, much less the presence of provisions in Gettysburg. So Peters begins his epic tale with a mythic portrayal of his own.

I give Peters great credit for his portrayal of Confederate and Union fighting men. Here are Southerners from the Blueridge, and Union forces of Irish, Polish and German immigrants. Their dialogue rings true. We witness their hardships, their courage, and their loyalty to their causes.

Further, Peters' battle scenes crackle with a grit and bloodiness that speaks of Peters' military career. His depiction of the effective use of artillery drive home the futility of Pickett's Charge, the final assault at Gettysburg, cementing Robert E. Lee's greatest mistake.

In Peters' effort to produce a novel far different than The Killer Angels, he focuses on different areas of combat, especially General Sickles almost fatal advance beyond Union lines in the Peach Orchard on the second day of combat.

It is interesting to note that Peters excludes action around Devil's Den and the repeated attempts to take Little Round Top. Joshua Chamberlain's name does not appear in Cain at Gettysburg. For the reader who is not familiar with lesser known officers on both sides of the battle, having a basic guide to the battle at hand would be helpful. Peters presupposes the reader has a great understanding of the ground and men who fought there. Essential background is missing from this work.

Booklist in a blurb prominently plastered on the cover of this novel claims that Peters "Surpasses Michael Shaara's classic The Killer Angels...Brilliant...Brilliant. Starred Review." While worthy of a read, it doesn't come close to Shaara's achievement.

[happy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every bit as good as Shaara’s Killer Angels! Peters presents a slightly different view of the Battle of Gettysburg from Shaara, but it is every bit as readable and memorable. Where Shaara used the Battle for Little Round Top and the 20th Maine and Joshua Chamberlain as the focal point of his account of the battle, Peters uses the battles of the first day and the 26th North Carolina and the 26th Wisconsin as the two Regiments he follows. He also portrays the 69th Pennsylvania and the 26th NC again to tell the tale of Pickett’s Charge.
For the high command, Peters follows Longstreet for the Confederates and Meade for the Union. In fact the opening scene in the book is Meade being awakened in the very early morning og June 28th to be told he is now the commander of the Army of the Potomac. One can tell that Peters really admires Meade and he gives the best possible spin on his actions during the battle. For example the council of war that Meade held on the night of July 2. Peters spins it as Meade’s way of getting buy in from his Generals for his plans for the next day.
Peter’s battle scenes are vividly drawn. One can almost hear the thunder of the cannon, the screams of the wounded men and horses, and smell the gunpowder. His scenes in camp with the soldiers are also very good.
A couple of small quibbles – Peters tends to use military jargon at times (ie- trains for the Supply area, fields of fire and plan of fires). Also, while it is well documented that Longstreet did not want to fight at Gettysburg and definitely did not want to attack, Peters has him bringing up the subject EVERY time he and Lee meet. Somehow, I don’t think Lee would have stood for it.
All in all this deserves to be mentioned in the same breath with Killer Angles

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A New Novel Of Gettysburg

As the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 -- July 3, 1863) approaches, many new books may be expected to commemorate and to attempt to offer new insight into the event. Ralph Peters' new novel, "Cain at Gettysburg" (2012) undoubtedly will rank among the best of these books, both as a work of fiction and as a readable history. Peters is a retired Army officer and a prolific author of both fiction and non-fiction.

"Cain at Gettysburg" offers a largely chronological history of the battle, dramatically told. Divided into four large parts, the first part of the novel, "The Ignorant Armies" begins on June 28, 1863, with Lincoln's appointment of George Meade to replace Joseph Hooker as commanding general of the Army of the Potomac. Peters shows well the movement of both the Union and Confederate Armies as they move haltingly through Maryland and Pennsylvania to what will become the Gettysburg battlefield.

The second part of Peters' novel, "The Day of the Soldiers", is an account of the fighting on the first day of the battle on July 1. Portions of both armies collided west and north of Gettysburg, setting the stage for the two days of fighting which followed. The third part of the book, "The Day of the Generals" describes the large, uncoordinated, and ultimately unsuccessful Confederate attacks on July 2, on the left and right of the Union line. The fourth and final part of the book, "The Limits of Valor" describes the climactic event of the battle: Lee's disastrous attack on the Union center in what will forever be remembered as "Pickett's Charge."

In his description of the many battle scenes, Peters shows the confusion, horror, and heroism of combat. Non-fictional accounts of the battle frequently tend to be confusing to readers unfamiliar with military maneuvers. Peters writes well and accurately and with imaginative power. In his portrayals of the fighting at Seminary Ridge and Barlow's Knoll on July 1, at the Peach Orchard and Cemetery Hill on July 2, and at the center of the battlefield during Pickett's charge on July 3, Peters builds tension and displays great military knowledge of the course and conduct of the battle. Readers new to the details of the battle will be able to follow and respond to his account while enjoying the development of character, thought, and other aspects of fiction.

Any new novel of Gettysburg invites comparison with Michael Shaara's Pulitzer-Prize winning "The Killer Angels" (1974). Shaara's novel emphasizes the larger-than-life character of some of the battle's heroes. In particular, Shaara focuses on Joshua Chamberlain and the Twentieth Maine and the valiant defense of Little Round Top on July 2 on the far left of the Union line. The military importance of Little Round Top remains a matter of controversy. It receives little discussion in Peter's story of the battle. Instead, for the July 2 fighting, Peters focuses on the flawed, slow Confederate preparations for attack and on Union General Sickles, the commander of the Third Corps, near fatal move away from his assigned position. Peters thus offers on the whole a broader view of the fighting than does Shaara.

Peters' novel is also less heroic and more realistic in tone than Shaara's. The approaches are complimentary and both are valuable. Peters' characters are heroes but they are also deeply flawed people. And while Shaara focuses almost entirely on leaders and commanders, Peters also has foot soldiers as lead characters, with an emphasis on immigrants. Peters spends a great deal of time with the battle at the regimental level. In the Confederate Army, Peters focuses on the on the 26th North Carolina, which sustained large casualties on both July 1 and July 3. In the Union Army, Peters pays close attention to the 26th Wisconsin. The 26th Wisconsin of the Union First Corps was a regiment of "Dutchmen" or German immigrants, looked down upon by much of the rest of the Union Army. The 26th Wisconsin fought with courage on July 1, on the Union retreat through Gettysburg and then fought again on the evening of July 2 in the defense of Cemetery Hill, as the Union line narrowly held against a strong Confederate attack. In addition, Peters develops the character and leadership at Gettysburg of Wlozimierz Kryzanowski, a Union Brigadier General and Polish immigrant whose commitment to freedom and Union, as Peters says, "eclipsed that of many a native-born officer." Among other characters, Peters also describes the heroic actions of Union artillerist Alonzo Cushing in helping to repel Pickett's charge.

Peters' book manages to inspire while describing with great force the terror and waste of life of battle. His book offers the opportunity to learn the facts of the Battle of Gettysburg and to think about its significance and about the characters of the participants at all levels of the armies. Both Shaara's novel and Peters' novel offer approaches to the Battle of Gettysburg for readers interested in the continued fascination it exerts for many Americans.

Robin Friedman

[Larry · Rating 5 out of 5]

As good as Shaara's "Killer Angels' was, Peters' "Cain at Gettysburg" is the best Civil War novel I've read. Peters's military background shows, especially in the study of the ground fought over and of the men doing the fighting. His writing, always assured, has reached a new level of skill. His depiction of combat decisions and the reality of Civil War fighting is unsurpassed. (He's even better at depicting military actions than Bernard Cornwell, which is a staggering accomplishment.) His depiction of individual units and the men in them (the 26th North Carolina and the Wisconsin German units, the 26th Wisconsin, especially) shows the range of his strengths as a writer: the ability to convey valor and heartbreak. This book will haunt me for a while.

NOTE: Shaara's book deals with aspects of the battle that Peters doesn't write about; e.g., the 20th Maine vs the 15th Alabama, the incredible sacrifice of the 24th Minnesota on the second day, etc. The two books reinforce one another for a full view of the battle, though Shelby Foote's treatment of the battle in his magisterial history (or Stephen Sears's' book) is essential reading.

Note: And now consider "Gettysburg: The Final Invasion," an elegantly written treatment of the battle.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the afterword to Cain At Gettysburg, Ralph Peters said that the purpose of his book was to write an anti-The Killer Angels. At a minimum this means a tale from Meade’s perspective, rather than Lee’s. But it is true in myriad other ways:

Peters hovers in the camps of immigrant Germans, Poles, and Irish men, rather than native Anglo-Saxon stock.

Soldiers are brooding, profane, base, and despising or questioning of God rather than chaste, virtuous, and reverent.

Fights and charges are mean, cruel, and gory rather than brave and noble.

And significantly, the Union is saved by an artillery man’s careful planning, rather than a valiant bayonet charge led by a certain Maine college professor.

One interesting thing that hasn't changed is the contentiousness between Longstreet and Lee before and during the battle. Peters tromps arm-and-arm with Michael Shaara through the Rebel camp as “Old Pete” broods and lobbies Lee to maneuver around Meade and avoid the ill-fated charges against entrenched Union positions.

Peters said he attempted a book for the modern reader, and a response to the unfair treatment given to some of the true heroes of Gettysburg. I suspect he may have projected too much of a modern soldier’s sensibility onto the canvas of Gettysburg. And his warts-and-all approach often leaves the reader spending too much time with rather unlikable men.

But certainly the work is masterfully written. It succeeds as an implement to right the wrongs done by past historians, writers, and politician-generals who out-lived or out-talked more deserving men.

[Carol Storm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unquestionably the best of the series, not only in terms of the brutal combat but the realistic details about the pressures of command and the nuts and bolts of organizing an army during the Civil War.

Anyone who's seen the movie GETTYSBURG will understand the basic outline of what is happening, but Peters gives a much more uncensored, gruesome, and terrifying picture of the aftermath of combat. His Confederate soldiers -- the enlisted men, not the officers -- speak in real language about the everyday injustices of the army, and the raw ugliness of class divisions in the slave-owning South. You wouldn't see this in novels by Charles Frazier or William Faulkner.

On the other side of the line, Peters really highlights the role of German immigrants in the Union Army, an immigrant group that has largely been forgotten. These foreign-born soldiers are not only principled and articulate, they feel the stigma of their own status keenly and sacrifice themselves to make a difference.

What keeps this from being a five star book is that a lot of the writing in the combat scenes is ridiculously flowery and artificial. Except for Dan Sickles, Peters never met a general he didn't like. And the most hateful Confederate generals all get five-page Molly Bloom style interior monologues, that continue on and on hilariously even while they're being blown out of the saddle. Did anybody edit this book?

[Lia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alarmingly real battle scenes. Not for the squeamish yet a picture that needs to be painted. We are so removed from the base humanity and these people have become myths. This books grounds them and restores Meade the underdog, Sickles the rogue, Longstreet the stoic (my all-time favorite general), Lee the fallible, Pickett the scapegoat, and the men brave and fearful, human, lives wasted.. I wish he had written about Little Roundtop and Culp's Hill. Such major fighting in this battle. But ultimately Pickett's charge was well detailed and the communication errors revealed. Peters has a gift for wholly inhabiting the characters with their language, backgrounds, strengths and frailties. He flits seamlessly from Union general to Confederate captain. Even the horses' sufferings are made real. His knowledge of the battleground and troop movements is precise but you do not feel like you are reading a textbook. The characters carry you through each flanking, dressing, rout, charge. I'm looking forward to his book on the Valley Campaign. I hear ALL the characters are historical and fleshed out. Peters' name ranks with Foote's, Sears', Shaara's.. Waiting for a movie!

[Jodi · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Civil War is not my area of expertise though I have been to Gettysburg. This book is about the battles leading up to and including Gettysburg along with the men responsible for the decisions that led to Robert E. Lee's crushing defeat. This is historical fiction, but it read a lot like a textbook in many places. Unless you went into the book knowing all the players at this point in the war, you weren't going to figure it out by reading this. We spent a significant amount of time on the Confederate side working with Sergeant Blake and his division. We also meet a typical cavalcade of men who all think that they are the smartest, most deserving, best leaders in the world and know better than anyone else. It takes a while to meet the Union. But it doesn't mean that once we meet them we remember who they are. Except for George Meade and his artillery commander. I listened to this so maybe the book had lists of divisions. Family trees except for the military. But one thing that did come across loud and clear was that war is not a game. It is bloody, painful, emotionally devastating, physically agonizing and ultimately, only solves things on the surface. The reading of the action was incredibly compelling but the rest of the narrative was slow and confusing without a key to review or intimate knowledge of battle of Gettysburg. This is the first in a series. If you are a Civil War buff this series is probably going to appeal. If you are not, there is no need to read this. (I should probably add a spoiler alert, but it is pretty common knowledge. Nearly everyone dies in the end.)

[Nick Roser · Rating 4 out of 5]

While my reading preferences are typically tuned toward non-fiction accounts of personalities, battles, or campaigns, I’m very happy I stumbled into the “Battle Hymn” series of books. Although I’d contend it does not reach the level of “The Killer Angels”, I thoroughly enjoyed the alternate narratives given here. Particularly, the interactions involving those higher ranking officers of both armies kept me glued to the material. My biggest knocks against it would be the excessively graphic descriptions of combat and inclusion of overly deviant subplots that I did not feel added to the story being told. I understand the purpose of the rank and file characters in adding a depth of stark reality and humanity to the story, but I found myself craving less “camp time” and wanting more focus and interaction from the larger personalities like Longstreet, Hood, Henry Hunt, Meade, etc.. Overall, a great read that kept me engrossed in the struggle. I’m quite looking forward to the next book in the series.

[Matthew Bartlett · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cain at Gettysburg is one of those novels where no matter who you ask, the response tends to be “well, what did you think about it?” The danger of being a novel such as Cain is the comparison it receives to The Killer Angels and many other Gettysburg fictional works. There is no doubt of the magnitude which Ralph Peters has taken on by adding to the Gettysburg powerhouse. Nevertheless, this book has avoided my review for some time because I did not know what to exactly say about it. There have even been some people who have bugged me to review this book in order to gauge my opinion, but I have avoided it since. Now, you get to know why.
Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army Officer and is considered a controversial strategist and veteran of the Intelligence Operations world. He is also a journalist who frequently appears on many channels of broadcast media. He is the author of The New York Times bestseller The War After Armageddon. Peters has studied the Battle of Gettysburg ever since he was a child and makes annual trips to the battlefield walking in the steps of history.
Where to begin with Cain at Gettysburg? I guess the first thing I should tell you is that it took me five attempts to read through the first hundred pages. This was not because the book was boring but because the overall feel of the work felt wrong. I pondered for ages on what it was in this book that did not feel write and have finally come to the conclusion that the language used by the characters is completely out of character for the age. It was nice to see a narrative from the perspective of George Meade instead of Lee but through the reading of the dialogue, I never at once felt as if I was reading the character of Meade. Some of my readers may be confused as to the ideal of language in this book and if I were to describe it, we would be here for quite some time. The characters felt very wooden and harsh and instead of relating to them, I began to hate all of them. What bothered me the most about this work was the complete derivative biblical narrative attempt. I know there is a lot in that description, but the title just exhumes all of those biblical themes which the entirety of Civil War fiction has already dealt with. The implied horror of brother against brother has been looked into over and over again and now Peters book is handling it as if this very subject is new. Even in the author’s afterword, it seems as though he damns Shaara’s work while praising it at the same time. One of the important factors of a book such as The Killer Angels is that Shaara took something and made it Shakespearean in its very humanity. Peters book does not recreate that; in fact, it becomes a drudge to get through because every description and action seems out of place for some of these characters.
In my description of the author, it should be noted that he was a controversial strategist. I would imply the same about his writing style. Ever since it appeared on the market, Cain at Gettysburg was always considered a controversial work. The most unappealing thing to me about this book was the shameful need to place his own political ideals into a novel not about his ideals. Looking into the following work, Hell or Richmond, it seems as though he does that as well. I was never sure if the book was pro or anti religion due to the rants of religion which found its way into the narrative structure of a book on the Battle of Gettysburg. I am not arguing whether or not religion should be placed in a book on Gettysburg, but when the narrative switches from commanders to soldiers, the pacing felt off. There were also some points in the book which just seemed ripped off from other authors, both Michael and Jeff Shaara included, and took me away from what was going on in this work. That is the danger of writing a book on Gettysburg; soon enough, it is going to sound like a rip off.
I do not know whether or not to recommend this book. I am leaving it to the readers. I think there are some people out there who will like this book and others who will despise it. There is no middle ground. As for myself, I don’t like it. But that does not mean the people out there will feel the same way. I only hope that Peters continuation of his career does not fall into the same narrative style he found in Cain at Gettysburg.

Matthew Bartlett - Gettysburg Chronicle

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cain at Gettysburg is the finest Civil War novel I’ve read since The Killer Angels. It seems there are so many different aspects to the Battle of Gettysburg that you can tell the same story from a different perspective and it still seems new. While Cain covers some of the same ground as The Killer Angels it also breaks new ground right from the start. General George Meade is awakened in the middle of the night and told he’s been given command of the Army of the Potomac only three days before the battle. It’s a very interesting first chapter because I can’t remember reading anything that goes into any depth about Meade’s feelings and how he gets a handle on things.
Cain at Gettysburg focuses on each day of the battle, especially the first day. The battle takes on a life of its own without any direction from the higher command of either army.
The second day concern’s Longstreet’s reluctant assault on the Union left. Again, Peters sheds his light on two of the commanders on either side – William Barksdale of Mississippi and Dan Sickles of New York. Sickles was a political general who committed a blunder that could have lost the battle. Barksdale just plain hated the Yankees.
The third day, of course, is Pickett’s Charge. It seems there was almost as much infighting among the Union high command as on that bloody field.
The descriptions of the battle are very realistic, i.e. bloody and violent. Also, there are a large number of recurring characters on both sides from the enlisted men up to the Army commanders. Robert E. Lee takes a beating as he refuses to consider any plan that does not include fighting the enemy right in front of him. George G. Meade gets a very sympathetic, and overdue, description as the driving force behind the Union victory.
The last chapter describes the later life of the historic characters after the war. I liked that very much.
I’ve given Cain at Gettysburg my highest rating. BTW: Cain is the biblical Cain, not a character in the book.

[Joe Stack · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author makes clear in his "Author's Note" that he considers Michael Sahara's THE KILLER ANGELS the "incomparable" story of the battle at Gettysburg. This story is Peters' stab at telling a story about Gettysburg that 'demonstrates war's horror and appeal, while depicting the complex humanity of those who shoulder rifles or lead armies. . . . Imperfect men fought an imperfect battle and so preserved "a more perfect union" for all." ' This reader thinks Peters was successful with his objective in writing this story.

Civil War buffs will enjoy this story, but it's not just for such readers. The author's writing is clear, engaging, and provides all readers a quality tale to all readers about war: Blood & guts; fear & loathing; perseverance & dedication; pride & hope. The hubris of thinking your army can't lose vs. the thinking that your army must win but might not. Mistakes vs. mistakes.

With the author's focus on the 26th North Carolina Infantry and the 26th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry, Peters examines the battle from the perspective of the citizen soldier. He vividly put the reader alongside the soldiers and readers get a sense of what war does to the psyche of the participants, best expressed by one of the non-fictional characters, Gallagher, a foreign observer: "officers had their own queer notions about what inspired the lads, all high thoughts and nobility, when Gallagher knew damned well and enough that nothing roused the boys like drawing blood. Give them some lively killing to do, and a fair enough chance to do it, and every lad among them would stand proper."

By also including the Irish, the story explores the situation of the Irish and German immigrants who faced enemies "to their front and to their rear."

The author also focuses on the generals. Here is where the author through his fine story telling lets the reader in on the mistakes, how the battle was unplanned, and how the imperfections of the leaders influenced the fighting and the outcome. As Col. Kryzanowski (another historical figure) of the 26th Wisconsin unit puts it, "Battle was a litany of mistakes. The goal was to take fewer missteps than your enemy. . . . Perfection took no part in any war, and even their greatest genius needed luck. Wars were won not by the most competent arm, but by the least incompetent on a given day. You did your best, praying that you and this above and below you bungled less than the men on the other side."

Here are two more ruminations from a couple of figures, Union generals Meade and Garnett:

"War demanded a seasoned mind, but wanted a youthful body."

"He [Gen. Garnett] had learned war -- or thought he had -- fighting the Seminoles and cornering Mormons, and in the minor Indian spats that briefly broke the boredom of Ft. Laramie . . . He had never imagined this, though: the magnitude, the bravery, the waste . . . "

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much like Shaara’s "The Killer Angels", Peters’ "Cain at Gettysburg" is a fictional account of the battle of Gettysburg. But while there are similarities between the two books, they are definitely not the same. While there are several scenes in Cain at Gettysburg that are very reminiscent of "The Killer Angels", utilizing similar dialogue, one can only assume these are actual quotes from the participants that were used by both authors. Shaara’s narrative concentrated on Chamberlain’s 20th Maine and James Longstreet. Longstreet is also central to Peters’ book, but the fight at Little Round Top happens off camera and Chamberlain’s name is never mentioned. George Meade serves to represent the Federals here. Unlike Shaara, Peters spends much time looking at the common soldier, specifically the men of the 26th North Carolina and 26th Wisconsin. The reader sees that Gettysburg was a battle between soldiers as much as between generals. Peters also attempts to resurrect the reputation of Meade, who was the first union general to beat the Army of Northern Virginia, but because of political attacks by Dan Sickles and a relatively early death, he is usually lumped with the earlier commanders of the Army of the Potomac and is criticized for allowing Lee to escape rather than being lauded for beating him in the first place. Peters also attempts to do some justice for the Federal 11th Corps, nicknamed the “Flying Dutchmen” after Chancellorsville. The Corps, made up primarily of German immigrants, was smashed by Jackson’s flank attack and although some of the regiments put up a stout defense, they are remembered for running rather than fighting. There retreat on the first day of Gettysburg seemed to add to their poor reputation, but their fighting retreat allowed the army to establish defensive positions on Cemetery Ridge, without which the entire army would have been forced to retreat.

If the book has a flaw, I believe it is the author continually hitting the reader over the head with the idea that Longstreet knew best. If only Lee had listened to Longstreet’s numerous entreaties to move around the flank, all would have been well. Obviously this is a fictionalized account and no one knows exactly what conversations transpired between Lee and Longstreet but there is little evidence that Longstreet pressed his point as often as the author has made it appear.

[Justin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very engaging read. This isn't a retread of The Killer Angels. The violence described is raw and bloody, showcasing the true brutality of war. The language is unfiltered, which allows the reader to better understand the mindset of common soldiers and officers on both sides. Usage of maps allows you to follow the Battle of Gettysburg through the characters with ease. Highly recommended.

[Becky Loader · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nicely detailed descriptions from various viewpoints.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid read and introduction to Gettysburg and the civil war. Admittedly my first one in the conflict and it was interesting. Took me a little to adapt to the writing style and pace but it ended up being a very rewarding read.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

If something works once, why not try it again? Shaara's book, "Killer Angels," is rightly evaluated positively. It humanized Gettysburg and provided different perspectives on the battle and the role of personalities. Ralph Peters does the same thing here. And he is quite successful.

Some of the characters through whose eyes we see the battle are familiar, such as James Longstreet. Others are different, such as George Gordon Meade. The tale is also told from the perspective of troops in the ranks. In that sense, there is a kind of populist thrust to this work. But the main point is this: Peters is quite successful. I would not wish to choose between the two fictionalized accounts. Both work well on their own terms. Both are well written.

The story begins with the lead up to the battle, as Confederates marched northward, as Jeb Stuart took off on another "joyride" (as some critics called it at the time). The story starts, too, with Meade being named to command the Army of the Potomac after Joseph Hooker drove the Washington leadership to distraction, such that they accepted his letter of resignation.

There is more of Meade in this story, and that is to the good. We see his engineer's eye view of the battle and see how he tried to bring his forces together, at mutually reinforcing distances. We also see him losing his temper but--also--being cool when he needed to be.

The first, second, and third days are told well. Once more, as with "Killer Angels," we get Longstreet's fear of a disaster by attacking too much. And we get Robert E. Lee's differing perspective and the tension between the two.

All in all, a worthy addition to the literature. . . .

[Rob Squires · Rating 2 out of 5]

I struggled to maintain my determination to complete this historical novel of the Battle of Gettysburg. It doesn't even come close to being as good as Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels --although I do admit that I read that book over twenty years ago. On the other hand, I found it considerably better than, although having some of the same annoying qualities of, Jeff Shaara's historical novels. For one thing, the generals all seem to be the same cardboard caricatures, since they're all teeming with jealousy and their knee jerk reaction to everything is to become angry, furious, or enraged. Needless to say, that gets a little old, so some more nuanced character development would have been welcomed. Overall, when compared to The Killer Angels I'd give it two stars, but when compared to the Civil War novels of Jeff Shaara, I'd give it four stars...thus I gave it three.

[Donna · Rating 4 out of 5]

There was only one problem with this book: The cover blurb says: "Surpasses Michael Shaara's classic 'The Killer Angels.'" Now "The Killer Angels" is on my personal fiction top ten list, so this book started off having a high bar to reach. While there certainly are echos of Shaara's classic, this book takes a somewhat different perspective. Imagine a tale of Gettysburg without mention of Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and only the barest reference to General Lewis Armistead. Instead we meet the privates who are doing the most fighting and dying. The hero of this book is General George Gordon Meade who the author claims is the most underrated and not-written-about leading figure of the Civil War.

"The Killer Angels" is certainly about war, but also contains a good bit of philosophy. "Cain at Gettysburg" is all about war and injury and death (lots of blood and gore). While it doesn't replace "The Killer Angels" in my lists, it is a very good (and well researched) novel and I do recommend it.

Ralph Peters also wrote (under the name of Owen Parry) historical mysteries set in the Civil War of which I have read two and liked them.

[Gerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I started to read this, I was thinking, "Killer Angels clone" and almost discarded it. Gamely continuing, I came to like it because it gives us different perspectives, that of some of the enlisted men and especially of Union General George Meade, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac. Meade is one of the war's unappreciated generals, and Peters gives him his due. I also enjoyed reading of the 26th Wisconsin (home state), one of the ill-starred "Deutsch" or "Dutch" regiments of the XI Corps. Peters thinks they may be getting an unfair share of blame by history. The Lee and Longstreet difference of opinion is presented here as it is in The Killer Angels and neither author explains how one disengages an army from contact with the enemy when, through lack of cavalry, that enemy's total whereabouts is still unknown. Still, a good read and I'm looking forward to Hell or Richmond.

[Mike Shoop · Rating 5 out of 5]

While Shaara's The Killer Angels is still the classic novel about the Battle of Gettysburg, this book is right up there. It is very readable and accessible, with interesting characters and convincing narrative concerning the battle. Peters' description of how the battle was managed or mismanaged by those in charge, his depiction of squabbles and and infighting on both sides, and his portrayals of ordinary men caught up in a nightmarish horror of a battle were compelling and absorbing. He does much to rehabilitate Longstreet and Meade, and he shows all these great figures as humanly flawed. A very worthwhile read, an important novel for this 150th anniversary of the battle.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although this old-fashioned "history with dialogue" style doorstopper about the battle of Gettysburg does better with strategy than with characterizations -- Lee is too ornery and Meade is too personable -- it does draw the reader (provided the reader is a history buff) into a fascinating story via all the nuts and bolts. And while Peters' novel may not be as elegantly written as Shaara's shorter "The Killer Angels," it also delivers what is a (slightly) less biased version of this pivotal battle.

[Ken · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very nice portrayal and story about General Meade and the Battle of Gettysburg. I felt at times the writing could have been a little bit stronger, but still a very enjoyable read.

Thank you also for this uncorrected advance reading copy won through the first-reads program, and for getting it out to me so quickly as well.

[Gerry Connolly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cain at Gettysburg is the first of a series of civil war novels by Ralph Peters. Faithful to history this work takes the reader into the heat, gore and carnage on those three July days in 1863. Lee is not the storied figure of tradition. His stubbornness costs the South its last major offensive in the east and ultimately the war itself.

[Robert French · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not having read a lot of books about the Battle of Gettysburg, I quite appreciated Cain at Gettysburg. It is the first time I have really understood the sequence of events of the three days of the battle. I have not read Killer Angels, but will probably give it a try in the near future.

[George Ashmore]

I have read all of Colonel Peters earlier fiction--always interesting, exciting, thought provoking. I am looking forward to the new one.

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting. Sections featuring Meade are particularly good.

[Dennis McMahon · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the finest historical novels I've read. It did edge out 'The Killer Angels' in my list of personal favorites.

[Dennis L. · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Explosive, Well Written Novel - Yet Well Researched History

I have been a Civil War Buff since 1961, when my History class in Jr. High used the Centennial issues of Life magazine to study this era of history. In the meantime, I have read a large number of weighty tomes about this battle. I have visited, and hiked the battlefield at Gettysburg, so I am familiar with the topography of this place. On this basis, I am telling you, Col Peters gets it right.
In the same vein, I have read just about every novel set during this battle. That includes what I consider to be the best example of this genre. Jeff Shaara’s “Killer Angels.” This novel presents a perfect compliment to Shaara’s work. It is constructed to the same pattern. Namely , up close and intimate characterization of individual Officers, Units, and enlisted men. This is not a criticism, but rather a word of praise.
Peters emphasizes General Meade slightly over General Lee and his staff. Instead of Col. Chamberlain, and the 20th Maine. He emphasizes the Germans of the 26th Wisconsin, and the rest of the ill regarded 11th Corps of O. O. Howard. He also chooses to follow in detail Union Chief of Artillery Hunt. An interesting character, and more of a key figure than I previously thought.
Peters also emphasizes different parts of the battle. He writes well and expressively about the Union retreat through the town of Gettysburg, and the establishment of the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge. Instead of the struggle for Little Round Top, he writes of the Peach Orchard and the Wheatfield, a tragedy brought on by the vanity and political ambitions of General Sickles.
The piece de resistance-pun intended-of the book and of the battle is Pickett’s Charge, and the epic defense at the Stone Wall, and The Copse of Trees. The center of the Union line. The author introduces the 69th Pennsylvania Infantry at this point. They were an Irish Regiment, part of “The Philadelphia Brigade”. A group instrumental in this vital defensive stand. Also he turns a well deserved spotlight on the heroism of Lt. Alonso Cushing, commanding Battery A, US Artillery, who gave the last full measure of his devotion, for which he was awarded a posthumous Medal of Honor in 2014.
This book is a much needed reminder that war may be necessary at times, but it is not romantic, nor always glorious. Bravo Col. Peters. Got to go now and find the second volume of this trilogy.