The Commanders Of Chancellorsville

by Edward G. Longacre

As equally matched in skill as they were opposite in personality, the brash Union Gen. Joseph Hooker boasted of a sure defeat of the reserved Gen. Robert E. Lee. "I've got Robert E. Lee right where I want him, and even God Himself cannot stop me from destroying him," Boasted Hooker. Yet the battle of Chancellorsville stands as Lee's greatest triumph. The story of the two generals has never been explored as it is here. "Fighting Joe" Hooker was brilliant, but also profane, bombastic, and his army so undisciplined that their pursuit of camp "followers" spawned the modern euphemism for prostitute. Robert E. Lee, equally gifted was known as the definitive devout, self-controlled Southern gentleman, leading an army that was exhausted, underfed, and outmanned. Chancellorsville stands not just as a pivotal battle of the Civil War but as the personal war between two warriors - stalking, striking, and counter-striking their way to ultimate victory or defeat.

Genres: Civil War

342 pages, Hardcover

First published August 2, 2005

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fast read for me as I've read so much about the Civil War since I was in grade school and most of this book was info I already knew. I was already very familiar with the Battle of Chancellorsville, Va. (May 1-4, 1863) and have also visited the battlefield. This battle was a major Union defeat- and has been considered Gen. Robert E. Lee's greatest masterpiece. I disagree as I think Lee lost too many men, losses he couldn't afford. And I mean not just the loss of his "right arm," Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson, due to friendly fire, but in terms of overall casualties. Union Gen. Joseph Hooker lost 17,300 casualties compared to Lee's 13,500. The comparison was actually in the North's favor, considering that Hooker's losses constituted 13% of his total force, while Lee lost 22% of his manpower. There was no way that the Confederacy could win taking such losses--unless the Union gave up (such as by Lincoln's losing in the presidential election of 1864).
What I liked best about Longacre's book is the comparison of the two commanders, Lee as the gentlemanly chess-player compared to Hooker, the boastful poker player. In the end, Lee defeated his opponent by being the better gambler. As Longacre put it, when Lee called Hooker's bluff, Hooker folded--and the game was Lee's. But I still think that due to the heavy losses that Lee incurred--losses that the CSA could not afford--in the long run, the game was Lincoln's.

[Vince · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good general survey of the Chancellorsville campaign with the emphasis being placed on the command styles of Hooker and Lee. As an introduction to the two commanders this serves pretty well as it is more of a biographical sketch of each, with the campaign being of secondary importance. For the novice Civil War historian this is not a bad place to start. The period illustrations and photographs are a nice addition to the text, but the several maps were too small for me to read comfortably without a magnifying glass. If you are already familiar with this campaign and the two main antagonists, this work won't add much to your knowledge.

[Jdetrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

There have been so many books written about the Civil War, but this book excels at focusing on one battle only. By digging deep into the Battle of Chancellorsville, it is able to have a brevity that makes it not a chore to read, as so many tomes on the war are. It also brings to light the inefficiency and incompetence of so many of the Union Generals in Chief, which helped to make the Civil War a four year ordeal.

[Hilmi Isa · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Commanders of Chancellorsville,hasil tulisan Edward G. Longacre merupakan sebuah buku yang membincangkan atau lebih memfokuskan tentang bagaimana personaliti seseorang komander tentera mampu mempengaruhi kesan dan akibat sesebuah pertempuran.

Robert E. Lee dan Joseph Hooker bukan sahaja menjadi komander kepada angkatan tentera yang saling berperang antara satu sama lain. Lebih daripada itu,kedua-dua mereka ini juga berbeza dari aspek latar belakang dan perwatakan. Lee merupakan seorang komander yang berpangkat jeneral di dalam Tentera Konfederasi Utara Virginia yang mempunyai disiplin dan pegangan moral yang amat tinggi. Sekaligus mengundang perasaan hormat dari mereka yang berkhidmat di bawah pemerintahan beliau. Manakala,Hooker pula merupakan sebaliknya jika dibandingkan dengan Lee. Hooker merupakan seorang yang suka berfoya-foya. Beliau juga merupakan seorang pemabuk,berjudi dan melanggan pelacur. Malahan,kenaikannya menjadi komander Tentera Potomac penuh dengan kontroversi. Hooker juga mempunyai sikap untuk menyalahkan orang lain atas apa yang salah berlaku ke atasnya.

Longacre menyamakan pertempuran ini umpama permainan catur dan poker. Hooker bertaruh dan yakin bahawa dengan mengepung tentera di bawah pimpinan Lee dengan melakukan serangan dari dua sisi akan menyebabkan Lee menyerah kalah. Namun,sebaliknya yang berlaku. Lee juga bertaruh dan mengambil risiko dengan membahagikan angkatan tenteranya untuk menghadapi ancaman Tentera Potomac. Walaupun mengalami kasualti yang tinggi,Lee berjaya mengalahkan Hooker secara muktamad dan jelas.