What do you think?
Rate this book
Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil War
Presenting a fascinating portrait of Ulysses S. Grant, a reexamination of the most crucial battle of the Civil War explores the broader campaign and political decisions made in the White House and the Executive Mansion in Richmond. 20,000 first printing.
430 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1997
35 people are currently reading
179 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
April 3, 2025
A Study of Shiloh
Students of the Civil War have long recognized the importance of the battles in the West to the outcome of the conflict. The early stages of the war in the West, the battles of Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, and Shiloh were critical to the ultimate outcome.
Larry Daniel's "Shiloh: The Battle that Changed the Civil War" offers a detailed account of the bloody conflict that took place April 6-7, 1862 at Pittsburgh Landing in Tennessee. But the strength of the book lies more in Daniel's attempt to put the battle in its political context than in his description of the military actions.
Daniel argues that Jefferson Davis's policy in the West, which required a defense of every part of the Confederacy's large border, was based on highly dubious assumptions on how to garner support for the Southern war effort from European powers. Albert Sidney Johnston, a highly regarded general and a friend of Davis, received the unenviable task of commanding the Southern forces in the Western theater. Militarily, Davis's policy stretched the Confederacy's available manpower very thin and made a breakthrough almost inevitable. Following the disaster at Fort Donelson, the way was opened into the Confederacy's heartland in Tennessee and further South including, ultimately, the control of the Mississippi River.
Johnston, under severe criticism for the loss of Fort Donelson, was forced to evacuate Nashville. An ailing P.T. Beauregard was sent to assist Johnston and, it seems, Johnston allowed his junior to make many of the command decisions. Ultimately the Confederate troops concentrated in Corinth, Mississippi where the launched the surprise attack at Shiloh.
The Union forces had their own difficulties with a divided command structure, a great deal of personal jealousy and animosity among the generals, and suspicion of U.S. Grant. Grant ultimately sent his army to Pittsburg Landing with orders to wait until General Buell could join him before pushing South. The position was left unfortified and Grant did not expect a battle even though he knew the Confederates were only some 23 miles away.
Johnston and Beauregard hoped to launch their surprise attack on April 5 but difficulties in the march required its postponement until Sunday, April 6. Beauregard did not want to attack on April 6, but Johnston, at that point, pushed the action forward. The result was a grueling and bloody battle, full of missteps by commanders of both sides and fought largely by inexperienced troops. Johnston, leading his troops from the front, was killed on the right side of the Southern line at about 2:30 p.m. on April 6. Beauregard called off the attack at about 5:30 p.m., probably a correct decision but one that has been questioned by many. It is difficult to say whether the South could have, with a better battle plan, more troops, and firmer execution, prevailed on April 6 (or on April 5 if the attack had been brought as scheduled) in its bold gamble. But, reinforced by Buell, the Union drove the Confederacy back on April 7.
Grant himself said that Shiloh was the most misunderstood action of the Civil War. Shiloh is highly confusing in large part because the South's initial plan of attack broke down in short order and the battle became a series of uncoordinated engagements. Daniel's book compounds the confusion of the battle, as he writes in short overly-detailed sections without attempting to give an overview of the action. His account will likely be overwhelming to a reader coming to the battle for the first time. The maps in the book are widely spaced, and I didn't find them useful in understanding the text or the action on the field. I have been intrigued by the battle of Shiloh for many years. I read this book early in my study -- prior to a visit to Shiloh -- and then returned to it recently. I still found it difficult and frequently opaque.
Daniel's account makes a compelling case for the significance of Shiloh and he gives excellent accounts of many of the leaders involved in the battle, including Johnston, Beauregard, Grant, Sherman, Halleck, and Buell together with some figures whose names are not well-known. But readers wanting a basic account of the elements of a highly complex battle might be advised to start elsewhere.
Robin Friedman
Students of the Civil War have long recognized the importance of the battles in the West to the outcome of the conflict. The early stages of the war in the West, the battles of Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, and Shiloh were critical to the ultimate outcome.
Larry Daniel's "Shiloh: The Battle that Changed the Civil War" offers a detailed account of the bloody conflict that took place April 6-7, 1862 at Pittsburgh Landing in Tennessee. But the strength of the book lies more in Daniel's attempt to put the battle in its political context than in his description of the military actions.
Daniel argues that Jefferson Davis's policy in the West, which required a defense of every part of the Confederacy's large border, was based on highly dubious assumptions on how to garner support for the Southern war effort from European powers. Albert Sidney Johnston, a highly regarded general and a friend of Davis, received the unenviable task of commanding the Southern forces in the Western theater. Militarily, Davis's policy stretched the Confederacy's available manpower very thin and made a breakthrough almost inevitable. Following the disaster at Fort Donelson, the way was opened into the Confederacy's heartland in Tennessee and further South including, ultimately, the control of the Mississippi River.
Johnston, under severe criticism for the loss of Fort Donelson, was forced to evacuate Nashville. An ailing P.T. Beauregard was sent to assist Johnston and, it seems, Johnston allowed his junior to make many of the command decisions. Ultimately the Confederate troops concentrated in Corinth, Mississippi where the launched the surprise attack at Shiloh.
The Union forces had their own difficulties with a divided command structure, a great deal of personal jealousy and animosity among the generals, and suspicion of U.S. Grant. Grant ultimately sent his army to Pittsburg Landing with orders to wait until General Buell could join him before pushing South. The position was left unfortified and Grant did not expect a battle even though he knew the Confederates were only some 23 miles away.
Johnston and Beauregard hoped to launch their surprise attack on April 5 but difficulties in the march required its postponement until Sunday, April 6. Beauregard did not want to attack on April 6, but Johnston, at that point, pushed the action forward. The result was a grueling and bloody battle, full of missteps by commanders of both sides and fought largely by inexperienced troops. Johnston, leading his troops from the front, was killed on the right side of the Southern line at about 2:30 p.m. on April 6. Beauregard called off the attack at about 5:30 p.m., probably a correct decision but one that has been questioned by many. It is difficult to say whether the South could have, with a better battle plan, more troops, and firmer execution, prevailed on April 6 (or on April 5 if the attack had been brought as scheduled) in its bold gamble. But, reinforced by Buell, the Union drove the Confederacy back on April 7.
Grant himself said that Shiloh was the most misunderstood action of the Civil War. Shiloh is highly confusing in large part because the South's initial plan of attack broke down in short order and the battle became a series of uncoordinated engagements. Daniel's book compounds the confusion of the battle, as he writes in short overly-detailed sections without attempting to give an overview of the action. His account will likely be overwhelming to a reader coming to the battle for the first time. The maps in the book are widely spaced, and I didn't find them useful in understanding the text or the action on the field. I have been intrigued by the battle of Shiloh for many years. I read this book early in my study -- prior to a visit to Shiloh -- and then returned to it recently. I still found it difficult and frequently opaque.
Daniel's account makes a compelling case for the significance of Shiloh and he gives excellent accounts of many of the leaders involved in the battle, including Johnston, Beauregard, Grant, Sherman, Halleck, and Buell together with some figures whose names are not well-known. But readers wanting a basic account of the elements of a highly complex battle might be advised to start elsewhere.
Robin Friedman
July 12, 2023
To each his own when it comes to books about Civil War battles. Some people love to get deep into the details of the maneuvers and tactics and munitions, and who did what wrong, and what might have happened had they done something differently. What I look for is a good narrative, one that places the battle in the larger military and political context of the war before getting to the main event, and concluding with some insight about how it all impacted what followed.
This book about the Battle of Shiloh did an excellent job taking a wide view from the start and slowly zooming in - but then it kept zooming in so far, that I began to lose sight of the bigger picture, lose focus and, at times, lose interest.
The book’s preface makes some irresistible promises that made me think this may well turn out to be the perfect Civil War battle narrative. The book is not just about the fighting at Shiloh, in what turned out to be a shockingly bloody battle, Daniel writes. Instead, the book also incorporates "the role of politics" since "the battle cannot be viewed apart from the dynamics that occurred in the White House in Washington DC and the Executive Mansion in Richmond, Virginia.” Together with the political considerations, Daniel explains his goal is to examine “the larger imperatives: war aims, policies, diplomacy, the will to win, strategic planning and execution, and ultimate defeat and victory."
So the book is no great rush to get to the actual fighting. Daniel provides a good, thorough setup of everything leading up to his story’s central event, summarizing previous battles at Forts Henry and Donelson, Pea Ridge, and Island No. 10, and how they contributed to the conditions that led to the Battle of Shiloh. Important individuals are introduced with incisive character sketches rather than tedious mini-biographies that pull you out of the story. And you get a very good understanding of the personalities involved, their conflicts and how they all impacted what was to come.
Throughout the book, frequent chapter subheadings are designated by the location of events - whether it’s Washington, Richmond, St. Louis, Nashville, Corinth, or specific locations on the battlefield itself once the fighting begins. This gives you a good sense of how things were happening all at once in different locations - from those directing and monitoring events from afar, to those on the ground planning for the battle to come.
So it seems odd to say that the setup of this book was, to me, far better than the main event. Once the battle actually begins, it became difficult to see the big picture. The narrative at this point becomes a dizzying array of commanders, brigades, battalions and companies, who’s doing what over here and who’s doing what over there. At one point, we get a very detailed paragraph naming the individual foundries that cast the cannons for the various Confederate batteries. So if you’re into that level of detail, you’re in luck, because there’s a lot of it.
For me, the detail became overwhelming and stopped what had been a compelling narrative in its tracks. I was hoping to learn the who and the how and the why, but Daniel mostly provided the what and the what and the what. A promising story had turned into an encyclopedic after-action report - a confusing battle, confusingly told. A brief but emotional scene of Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston's death was about the only thing that managed to bring any sense of human drama to the narrative.
(An earlier scene from Washington, describing the illness and death of Abraham Lincoln’s son in the months leading up to Shiloh, states how Willie Lincoln "was deathly ill with fever, incurred while riding his pony on a chilly day," which was a little glaring to me, since it is not exactly our understanding today of how his illness actually came about.)
There are only a couple of brief concluding chapters once the fighting ends. These chapters recount the harsh post-battle criticism of General Grant, for the shocking casualty count and for being taken by surprise by the Confederate attack, ultimately tempered by Lincoln’s famous declaration about Grant that "I can't spare this man; he fights." Daniel does point out that this statement comes across to us as more of a ringing endorsement in retrospect, since in reality at the time, Grant was still on thin ice.
The concluding chapter wraps things up nicely, if tersely. The Union “won” the battle and earned important territorial gains, but the extent of the casualties on both sides darkened the victory. “No longer was there popular talk of a near end to the war," Daniel writes of Shiloh’s aftermath. Instead, “both North and South realized that the war had been dangerously escalated.”
It’s a satisfying end to a book with a great beginning. But when getting through the middle proves to be a slog, even a couple of brilliant bookends was unfortunately not enough for me to to rate this any higher than an average overall read.
This book about the Battle of Shiloh did an excellent job taking a wide view from the start and slowly zooming in - but then it kept zooming in so far, that I began to lose sight of the bigger picture, lose focus and, at times, lose interest.
The book’s preface makes some irresistible promises that made me think this may well turn out to be the perfect Civil War battle narrative. The book is not just about the fighting at Shiloh, in what turned out to be a shockingly bloody battle, Daniel writes. Instead, the book also incorporates "the role of politics" since "the battle cannot be viewed apart from the dynamics that occurred in the White House in Washington DC and the Executive Mansion in Richmond, Virginia.” Together with the political considerations, Daniel explains his goal is to examine “the larger imperatives: war aims, policies, diplomacy, the will to win, strategic planning and execution, and ultimate defeat and victory."
So the book is no great rush to get to the actual fighting. Daniel provides a good, thorough setup of everything leading up to his story’s central event, summarizing previous battles at Forts Henry and Donelson, Pea Ridge, and Island No. 10, and how they contributed to the conditions that led to the Battle of Shiloh. Important individuals are introduced with incisive character sketches rather than tedious mini-biographies that pull you out of the story. And you get a very good understanding of the personalities involved, their conflicts and how they all impacted what was to come.
Throughout the book, frequent chapter subheadings are designated by the location of events - whether it’s Washington, Richmond, St. Louis, Nashville, Corinth, or specific locations on the battlefield itself once the fighting begins. This gives you a good sense of how things were happening all at once in different locations - from those directing and monitoring events from afar, to those on the ground planning for the battle to come.
So it seems odd to say that the setup of this book was, to me, far better than the main event. Once the battle actually begins, it became difficult to see the big picture. The narrative at this point becomes a dizzying array of commanders, brigades, battalions and companies, who’s doing what over here and who’s doing what over there. At one point, we get a very detailed paragraph naming the individual foundries that cast the cannons for the various Confederate batteries. So if you’re into that level of detail, you’re in luck, because there’s a lot of it.
For me, the detail became overwhelming and stopped what had been a compelling narrative in its tracks. I was hoping to learn the who and the how and the why, but Daniel mostly provided the what and the what and the what. A promising story had turned into an encyclopedic after-action report - a confusing battle, confusingly told. A brief but emotional scene of Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston's death was about the only thing that managed to bring any sense of human drama to the narrative.
(An earlier scene from Washington, describing the illness and death of Abraham Lincoln’s son in the months leading up to Shiloh, states how Willie Lincoln "was deathly ill with fever, incurred while riding his pony on a chilly day," which was a little glaring to me, since it is not exactly our understanding today of how his illness actually came about.)
There are only a couple of brief concluding chapters once the fighting ends. These chapters recount the harsh post-battle criticism of General Grant, for the shocking casualty count and for being taken by surprise by the Confederate attack, ultimately tempered by Lincoln’s famous declaration about Grant that "I can't spare this man; he fights." Daniel does point out that this statement comes across to us as more of a ringing endorsement in retrospect, since in reality at the time, Grant was still on thin ice.
The concluding chapter wraps things up nicely, if tersely. The Union “won” the battle and earned important territorial gains, but the extent of the casualties on both sides darkened the victory. “No longer was there popular talk of a near end to the war," Daniel writes of Shiloh’s aftermath. Instead, “both North and South realized that the war had been dangerously escalated.”
It’s a satisfying end to a book with a great beginning. But when getting through the middle proves to be a slog, even a couple of brilliant bookends was unfortunately not enough for me to to rate this any higher than an average overall read.
November 29, 2015
Of the six modern accounts of the Battle of Shiloh (Cunningham, McDonough, Sword, Daniel, Groom, Smith) I have been able to read four of them (Edward O'Cunningham, Wiley Sword, Winston Groom and Larry J. Daniel). I read this book a few years ago while still in high school, and have to say now that my appreciation of the book has changed.
This is not, by any means, a bad book on the battle. Larry J. Daniel writes well, and he has clearly done his research. His assertions are sound, though they break little new ground. While definitely superior to Groom's recent work, it is not as good as Cunningham's work or my personal favorite, Wiley Sword's. Still, I do have to recommend this book, though with a couple of minor reservations.
In February of 1862 the Confederate defensive line in the Western Theater was irrevocably broken when Ulysses S. Grant's combined Army and Navy force captured, after severe fighting, Fort Donelson. The victory at Donelson rendered all of the best laid Rebel plans.
As the Federal forces swarmed down into Tennessee along the river route and towards the cities of both Nashville and Memphis, the Confederates did their best to salvage what they could and to concentrate their forces for a counter blow. Albert Sidney Johnston, President Davis' hand picked man to lead the Rebels in the West suffered a bit of a nervous breakdown during the crisis. He found himself overwhelmed by events and made little useful contributions to the war effort for some time. Daniel does a good job of parsing Johnston's leadership, or lack thereof, as everything around him crumbles and he has to find a way to save the forces near Columbus KY under Polk, the retreating forces from south central KY under Cheatham, and the remaining forces from the disaster in north western TN. Daniel shows that, were it not for P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederates wold not have been able to escape the roaming Federal forces, not concentrate at the rail hub of Corinth MS. In fact, Daniel's is a bit more lenient on Beauregard than many other historians, all while not failing to showcase the Creole's penchant for ridiculous flights of strategic fancy and whimsy. He really was a far better general than many give him credit for.
As always, Grant comes out fairly well in this accounting, though Daniel is not spare of criticism where it is due. Halleck is, rightly, excoriated for his personal animosity towards Grant and his inability to lead a field force effectively. Daniel does come down on Grant for not seeing to the disposition of his Divisions at Pittsburg Landing, and for not bothering to erect defenses for his encampments there.
Early on, however, and considering what they knew at the time, Grant can not be faulted overly much considering everyone, on both sides, was learning warfare as they went along. Both sides were led by men who had never lead more than a regiment in combat before, and now they were asked to lead and command as many as 150,000 troops. A bit daunting to even the stoutest of hearts.
The focus of this work is the battle itself, though Daniel does a good job of placing it in the context of the broader political spectrum both North and South. However, he never goes into as much detail of this as he claims to set out to do.
And as far as the campaign narrative goes, his focus is on the Rebel army. Not at all a complaint as many modern works tend to ignore the Confederate side of things or give them short shrift (possibly a bit too much of the fears of the PC crowd seeping in to academia?) so it's a bit refreshing to have a work focus on the Rebel side of the equation that doesn't involve Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson.
As the Rebels concentrate at Corinth Daniel does a good job of showcasing the haphazard nature of the buildup, Beauregard's oft times tyrannical pedantry in micromanagement (something he learned from and relinquished as the war went on, much to his credit) and Johnston's hopelessness and myopia. By thinning out the Gulf and Coastal Departments the Rebels were able to add over 10,000 excellently drilled and superbly equipped troops under the command of Braxton Bragg. While this decision causes some rifts in Richmond and causes many state governors to howl in protest, Davis and Beauregard hold their ground and make the right decision to attack somewhere with force, rather than defend everywhere with but little.
On the Federal side Daniel relays the somewhat familiar story of Sherman's brazen and stout hearted ignorance in the face of mounting evidence of a coming Rebel assault. Sherman takes it on the chin in the lead up to the battle, as he should, but Daniel is fair to him during the battle itself.
The battle itself brings me to my first reservation. The narrative is confusing to even veteran students of military history let alone those dipping their toes in the water as this book seems aimed towards. While he does head all of his action scene breaks as it were, this happens quite rapidly and can cause your head to spin unless you're already familiar with the Battle of Shiloh. And another reservation also concerns the battle narrative: the second days battle is glossed over. Though, to be fair, only Timothy B. Smith's new work even covers the Second day in its entirety, and I've yet to read that one. Daniel misses a key point by skimming the history of the Federal counteroffensive and that is the effectiveness of the Rebel army. The Confederates genuinely did withdraw in relatively good order from the field, not beaten in rout as is the current popular myth.
The battle itself was an attempt by the South to smash Grant's army by a brute force frontal assault. The operational plan as outlined by Beauregard, and seconded by a Johnston grateful to relinquish some responsibility, was a clumsy, inelegant affair of massed lines of Corps, stacked atop each other, that created a horrendous nightmare of confusion and intermingled units on the battlefield. Had it not been for the level of tactical surprise the Confederates achieved, or the ferocity of the Southern offensive that would be a hallmark of Rebel war fighting for the rest of the war, the Rebels might have won the battle. The first day saw them absolutely maul the Federals, though they were badly clawed themselves in the process. Command and control immediately broke down due to the bad Corps arrangement and the original intent, to weight the Rebel offensive on their left against the Federal right and turn their flank towards the river, simply erased as brigades sidled over to the sound of the heaviest fighting, and Generals became no better than observers of the bloody action.
The second day was little better with the Federals, heavily reinforced by Buell's forces, counterattacking in the exact same manner that they were assaulted the day before. In short, neither side showed much in the way of tactical brilliance beyond the frontal assault.
And this helps explain the ghastly toll of human life that was Shiloh.
Over 13,000 Federals and roughly 10,000 Rebels were killed, wounded or taken prisoner in just two days. In these two terrible, early spring days the two armies lost more men than in all of the fighting of the war, in all theaters, up to that time, combined.
And the war only got bloodier from here.
Again, Daniel doesn't really break any new ground, or shed any new light on this great battle. And, like all the others save Smith's new treatment, he overlooks the importance of the second day of battle. And his narrative during the fighting is oft times a bit confusing. However, it is very well written, flows wonderfully, and is filled with personal accounts from the men who were there.
As a first look at the Battle of Shiloh, or as an introduction to a campaign narrative of nineteenth century warfare, it is a good work.
This is not, by any means, a bad book on the battle. Larry J. Daniel writes well, and he has clearly done his research. His assertions are sound, though they break little new ground. While definitely superior to Groom's recent work, it is not as good as Cunningham's work or my personal favorite, Wiley Sword's. Still, I do have to recommend this book, though with a couple of minor reservations.
In February of 1862 the Confederate defensive line in the Western Theater was irrevocably broken when Ulysses S. Grant's combined Army and Navy force captured, after severe fighting, Fort Donelson. The victory at Donelson rendered all of the best laid Rebel plans.
As the Federal forces swarmed down into Tennessee along the river route and towards the cities of both Nashville and Memphis, the Confederates did their best to salvage what they could and to concentrate their forces for a counter blow. Albert Sidney Johnston, President Davis' hand picked man to lead the Rebels in the West suffered a bit of a nervous breakdown during the crisis. He found himself overwhelmed by events and made little useful contributions to the war effort for some time. Daniel does a good job of parsing Johnston's leadership, or lack thereof, as everything around him crumbles and he has to find a way to save the forces near Columbus KY under Polk, the retreating forces from south central KY under Cheatham, and the remaining forces from the disaster in north western TN. Daniel shows that, were it not for P.G.T. Beauregard, the Confederates wold not have been able to escape the roaming Federal forces, not concentrate at the rail hub of Corinth MS. In fact, Daniel's is a bit more lenient on Beauregard than many other historians, all while not failing to showcase the Creole's penchant for ridiculous flights of strategic fancy and whimsy. He really was a far better general than many give him credit for.
As always, Grant comes out fairly well in this accounting, though Daniel is not spare of criticism where it is due. Halleck is, rightly, excoriated for his personal animosity towards Grant and his inability to lead a field force effectively. Daniel does come down on Grant for not seeing to the disposition of his Divisions at Pittsburg Landing, and for not bothering to erect defenses for his encampments there.
Early on, however, and considering what they knew at the time, Grant can not be faulted overly much considering everyone, on both sides, was learning warfare as they went along. Both sides were led by men who had never lead more than a regiment in combat before, and now they were asked to lead and command as many as 150,000 troops. A bit daunting to even the stoutest of hearts.
The focus of this work is the battle itself, though Daniel does a good job of placing it in the context of the broader political spectrum both North and South. However, he never goes into as much detail of this as he claims to set out to do.
And as far as the campaign narrative goes, his focus is on the Rebel army. Not at all a complaint as many modern works tend to ignore the Confederate side of things or give them short shrift (possibly a bit too much of the fears of the PC crowd seeping in to academia?) so it's a bit refreshing to have a work focus on the Rebel side of the equation that doesn't involve Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson.
As the Rebels concentrate at Corinth Daniel does a good job of showcasing the haphazard nature of the buildup, Beauregard's oft times tyrannical pedantry in micromanagement (something he learned from and relinquished as the war went on, much to his credit) and Johnston's hopelessness and myopia. By thinning out the Gulf and Coastal Departments the Rebels were able to add over 10,000 excellently drilled and superbly equipped troops under the command of Braxton Bragg. While this decision causes some rifts in Richmond and causes many state governors to howl in protest, Davis and Beauregard hold their ground and make the right decision to attack somewhere with force, rather than defend everywhere with but little.
On the Federal side Daniel relays the somewhat familiar story of Sherman's brazen and stout hearted ignorance in the face of mounting evidence of a coming Rebel assault. Sherman takes it on the chin in the lead up to the battle, as he should, but Daniel is fair to him during the battle itself.
The battle itself brings me to my first reservation. The narrative is confusing to even veteran students of military history let alone those dipping their toes in the water as this book seems aimed towards. While he does head all of his action scene breaks as it were, this happens quite rapidly and can cause your head to spin unless you're already familiar with the Battle of Shiloh. And another reservation also concerns the battle narrative: the second days battle is glossed over. Though, to be fair, only Timothy B. Smith's new work even covers the Second day in its entirety, and I've yet to read that one. Daniel misses a key point by skimming the history of the Federal counteroffensive and that is the effectiveness of the Rebel army. The Confederates genuinely did withdraw in relatively good order from the field, not beaten in rout as is the current popular myth.
The battle itself was an attempt by the South to smash Grant's army by a brute force frontal assault. The operational plan as outlined by Beauregard, and seconded by a Johnston grateful to relinquish some responsibility, was a clumsy, inelegant affair of massed lines of Corps, stacked atop each other, that created a horrendous nightmare of confusion and intermingled units on the battlefield. Had it not been for the level of tactical surprise the Confederates achieved, or the ferocity of the Southern offensive that would be a hallmark of Rebel war fighting for the rest of the war, the Rebels might have won the battle. The first day saw them absolutely maul the Federals, though they were badly clawed themselves in the process. Command and control immediately broke down due to the bad Corps arrangement and the original intent, to weight the Rebel offensive on their left against the Federal right and turn their flank towards the river, simply erased as brigades sidled over to the sound of the heaviest fighting, and Generals became no better than observers of the bloody action.
The second day was little better with the Federals, heavily reinforced by Buell's forces, counterattacking in the exact same manner that they were assaulted the day before. In short, neither side showed much in the way of tactical brilliance beyond the frontal assault.
And this helps explain the ghastly toll of human life that was Shiloh.
Over 13,000 Federals and roughly 10,000 Rebels were killed, wounded or taken prisoner in just two days. In these two terrible, early spring days the two armies lost more men than in all of the fighting of the war, in all theaters, up to that time, combined.
And the war only got bloodier from here.
Again, Daniel doesn't really break any new ground, or shed any new light on this great battle. And, like all the others save Smith's new treatment, he overlooks the importance of the second day of battle. And his narrative during the fighting is oft times a bit confusing. However, it is very well written, flows wonderfully, and is filled with personal accounts from the men who were there.
As a first look at the Battle of Shiloh, or as an introduction to a campaign narrative of nineteenth century warfare, it is a good work.
September 25, 2011
This was the first book I had read on this famous battle and I must say that at times I found the book to be confusing. Overall the book provided a good account of the battle and it was an enjoyable read. The author provides 15 detailed and easy to understand maps of the action and a number of photographs of the battle area and personalities.
I must say however that the book did not get me involved as other books I have read on the Civil War. I did not get a feel for the soldiers or the Generals and the narrative on the fighting did not draw me into the text like Sears, Priest or Rhea. This was still a good book but not great!
I must say however that the book did not get me involved as other books I have read on the Civil War. I did not get a feel for the soldiers or the Generals and the narrative on the fighting did not draw me into the text like Sears, Priest or Rhea. This was still a good book but not great!
November 24, 2019
The author says this is “the battle that changed the Civil War”. That is based on the terrible casualty figures and the loss of a very strategic area of the South to the North. The author does a very thorough job of explaining what brought the two armies together (first 100 pages) including the politics of the North and South. What I found interesting was the speculations the author made throughout the narrative regarding individual decisions by military and political leaders and the hypothetical decisions that could have been made and what the likely results might have been. Nevertheless, it was two days of terror for thousands of soldiers that was a sign of what future battles would be like. A very detailed read.
September 2, 2022
This is one of the most detailed Civil War battle accounts I have ever read. This is both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that we know the author did exhaustive research (over 100 pages of notes/bibliography end this book) which has allowed him to paint us the picture of the Battle of Shiloh in minute detail. The curse is that it's pretty boring.
Boring may not be the right word. Tedious, repetitive. The battle is often explained in regimental, even as small as company level which which really hampers the narrative. It can be confusing to follow such a complicated and vast story when you are focusing on such small details. It becomes tiresome by the end. The book also has a heavy focus on the Confederate side of the battle and I felt that was a hindrance to the book as it led to confusion and a loss of the total narrative string (at least for me). The first 100 pages (if not more) also have to deal with events preceding the battle and I was almost exhausted by the book before the battle began. It felt like it took forever to get to the topic of the book.
I will be seeking out more books on the Battle of Shiloh as I find it a very interesting topic. This one didn't necessarily wow me as I'd hoped, but it was nonetheless a well researched and detailed account of the battle.
Boring may not be the right word. Tedious, repetitive. The battle is often explained in regimental, even as small as company level which which really hampers the narrative. It can be confusing to follow such a complicated and vast story when you are focusing on such small details. It becomes tiresome by the end. The book also has a heavy focus on the Confederate side of the battle and I felt that was a hindrance to the book as it led to confusion and a loss of the total narrative string (at least for me). The first 100 pages (if not more) also have to deal with events preceding the battle and I was almost exhausted by the book before the battle began. It felt like it took forever to get to the topic of the book.
I will be seeking out more books on the Battle of Shiloh as I find it a very interesting topic. This one didn't necessarily wow me as I'd hoped, but it was nonetheless a well researched and detailed account of the battle.
May 3, 2025
Despite occurring nearly one year to the day of the start of the American Civil War, the Battle of Shiloh on April 6-7, 1862 is considered the first large scale battle of the war. Author Larry Daniel details the events leading up to and including the fighting, as well as the immediate aftermath. Daniel outlines how the scale of casualties dwarfed all prior engagements in the war up to that point. He even several times comments that the “innocence” of the war was lost during the battle, and all “romantic” sentiments about the war between the states was dispelled with finality. There was a massive level of carnage that exceeded even all of the previous wars(yes, more casualties at Shiloh than all of the entire wars fought by the United States in nearly a century of existence) fought by the nation. It was difficult for both the Northern Union and Southern Confederacy to grasp.
Daniel has painstakingly the battle, offering a nice history of a somewhat confusing conflict. The Union army was led by familiar heroes Generals Ulysses Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. However, neither were yet the leaders they would become in less than two years. Daniel documents how wholly unprepared they were for the Confederate attack, which might just have succeeded, but for bungling generalship on the parts of Generals Albert Sidney Johnston(who was killed during the battle) and PGT Beauregard.
Shiloh was primarily a tactical draw, with the Confederates overwhelmingly winning the first day April 6th, while Union reinforcements on April 7th pushed back Confederate gains and left Union forces in command of the battlefield. However, it ended as a smashing Union strategic victory, securing not only the states of Tennessee and Kentucky firmly in Union control, but most of the Mississippi River. Daniel writes in a typical fashion for historians of Civil War battles and campaigns. He does a nice job of incorporating the biographical information about the key historical figures into the narrative, rather than separating the biographical sketches into distracting separate sections. Definitely a great history of a hugely important Civil War battle that lovers of American and military history will enjoy.
Daniel has painstakingly the battle, offering a nice history of a somewhat confusing conflict. The Union army was led by familiar heroes Generals Ulysses Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. However, neither were yet the leaders they would become in less than two years. Daniel documents how wholly unprepared they were for the Confederate attack, which might just have succeeded, but for bungling generalship on the parts of Generals Albert Sidney Johnston(who was killed during the battle) and PGT Beauregard.
Shiloh was primarily a tactical draw, with the Confederates overwhelmingly winning the first day April 6th, while Union reinforcements on April 7th pushed back Confederate gains and left Union forces in command of the battlefield. However, it ended as a smashing Union strategic victory, securing not only the states of Tennessee and Kentucky firmly in Union control, but most of the Mississippi River. Daniel writes in a typical fashion for historians of Civil War battles and campaigns. He does a nice job of incorporating the biographical information about the key historical figures into the narrative, rather than separating the biographical sketches into distracting separate sections. Definitely a great history of a hugely important Civil War battle that lovers of American and military history will enjoy.
August 22, 2024
I got this book when I visited the Shiloh battlefield last year, so this one holds a special place for me. I read a larger book on the Civil War, and while detailed, a book solely on the battle as expected has more detail. More troop movements, names, battlefields, time, and the best letters. If you are OK with that, then you are in for a joy ride.
December 29, 2024
This is well-written and from what I can tell pretty thoroughly researched. The only major issue is the lack of maps illustrating the lead-up to the battle itself. There's a theater map on p. 25 that covers from southern Illinois to central Mississippi, but there's not another map until p. 103. This map is intended to show the area between Corinth and Savannah. This map isn't particularly useful though - the text immediately before and after the map is discussing the local road network, but two of the most important roads (the Eastern Corinth Road and the Pittsburg-Corinth aka Western Corinth Road) are not actually marked on the map. In the material discussing the lead-up to the attack, operations at the Chambers House and the Widow Howell House are discussed, but these are labeled on neither the Corinth/Savannah map on p. 103 or the zoomed-in map of the immediate battlefield on p. 107.
Once you get to the actual fighting, the maps are much better, but what makes this merely a good book rather than a great one is the lack of adequate maps for the pre-battle maneuvers.
Once you get to the actual fighting, the maps are much better, but what makes this merely a good book rather than a great one is the lack of adequate maps for the pre-battle maneuvers.
July 4, 2019
I read this book because I had the recent opportunity to visit the Shiloh National Battlefield and wanted to be prepared. Sadly, (but see later on) I only got as far as the preliminary moves in the months of February-March 1862 before I actually arrived at the battlefield.
Upon completing the battlefield tour (visitor center plus driving tour), I then finished the book.
For the most part the entire battlefield site is preserved. And as such, it was helpful to see the actual terrain to understand more about how the battle ensued. Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing is a plateau above the Tennessee River that is covered by thick woods with occasional small fields and riven by ravines draining into the river. There are few roads. (Of course, now, the roads are wider with greater verges than in 1862). There are no commanding heights. Knowing what was happening on the battlefield for a commander required getting accurate information to plot on maps plus visual / aural inspection by horseback (most likely seeing wounded and routed soldiers streaming away).
What am I getting at? Well, there is nothing like actually visiting a place (and its environs) to understand a battle story. You get a sense of distances (like how far is Corinth from Pittsburg Landing?) and the nature of terrain which without too much imagination you can put yourself back 140 years.
And so, when reading Daniel's book, rather than it being a story of regiment versus regiment told across the day, you can relate key places in the book (e.g. the Sunken Road) to something you actually saw. Or just how big were the cleared fields that saw such carnage. The maps in the book are excellent and you aren't left wondering where in the battle site a given chapter is recounting the action.
An interesting takeaway is how certain commanders (e.g. Beauregard) were sick with illness and how this could cloud their judgement (not surprising as when I'm feeling even a stomach upset my mental acuity is none-to-great).
Daniel writes clearly, and in the style of many other campaign/battle historians such as Sears or Cozzens, so the book is very accessible to the Civil War enthusiast. It is not a "specialist" book in any way. It is deeply sourced for which the modern reader can be grateful to there being a literate population in the 1860s.
p.s.
Should you decide to visit, here's a quick assessment of battle sites that are nearby:
* Fort Donelson - very easy to understand the battle due to the dominance of the terrain overlooking the Cumberland River. I was there in June but doing it on a snowy February might be more evocative
* Shiloh - see above
* Corinth - There is a nice visitor center but the town has grown up around the battle site. However, the key RR junction is still there and trains still rumble by.
* Iuka - nothing to see
* Stones River - the section of the battlefield covered by the final hours of the first day and the heights where artillery blasted Breckinridge's corps on the third day are preserved. But otherwise the 'real world has encroached on the original battle site.
* Chickamauga - Most of the battle site is preserved but as the site is heavily wooded and flat, understanding the battle from the driving tour is hard - especially as so many units were engaged across the day. I recommend going to Lookout Mountain first and gazing down on the valleys, river, railroads, and Chattanooga first to understand the strategic site and why Chickamauga was fought where it was.
Upon completing the battlefield tour (visitor center plus driving tour), I then finished the book.
For the most part the entire battlefield site is preserved. And as such, it was helpful to see the actual terrain to understand more about how the battle ensued. Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing is a plateau above the Tennessee River that is covered by thick woods with occasional small fields and riven by ravines draining into the river. There are few roads. (Of course, now, the roads are wider with greater verges than in 1862). There are no commanding heights. Knowing what was happening on the battlefield for a commander required getting accurate information to plot on maps plus visual / aural inspection by horseback (most likely seeing wounded and routed soldiers streaming away).
What am I getting at? Well, there is nothing like actually visiting a place (and its environs) to understand a battle story. You get a sense of distances (like how far is Corinth from Pittsburg Landing?) and the nature of terrain which without too much imagination you can put yourself back 140 years.
And so, when reading Daniel's book, rather than it being a story of regiment versus regiment told across the day, you can relate key places in the book (e.g. the Sunken Road) to something you actually saw. Or just how big were the cleared fields that saw such carnage. The maps in the book are excellent and you aren't left wondering where in the battle site a given chapter is recounting the action.
An interesting takeaway is how certain commanders (e.g. Beauregard) were sick with illness and how this could cloud their judgement (not surprising as when I'm feeling even a stomach upset my mental acuity is none-to-great).
Daniel writes clearly, and in the style of many other campaign/battle historians such as Sears or Cozzens, so the book is very accessible to the Civil War enthusiast. It is not a "specialist" book in any way. It is deeply sourced for which the modern reader can be grateful to there being a literate population in the 1860s.
p.s.
Should you decide to visit, here's a quick assessment of battle sites that are nearby:
* Fort Donelson - very easy to understand the battle due to the dominance of the terrain overlooking the Cumberland River. I was there in June but doing it on a snowy February might be more evocative
* Shiloh - see above
* Corinth - There is a nice visitor center but the town has grown up around the battle site. However, the key RR junction is still there and trains still rumble by.
* Iuka - nothing to see
* Stones River - the section of the battlefield covered by the final hours of the first day and the heights where artillery blasted Breckinridge's corps on the third day are preserved. But otherwise the 'real world has encroached on the original battle site.
* Chickamauga - Most of the battle site is preserved but as the site is heavily wooded and flat, understanding the battle from the driving tour is hard - especially as so many units were engaged across the day. I recommend going to Lookout Mountain first and gazing down on the valleys, river, railroads, and Chattanooga first to understand the strategic site and why Chickamauga was fought where it was.
May 4, 2021
Another great addition into researching this battle. But I do have some issues: mainly Daniel's criticism of Grant. Yes, Grant could have setup defenses to protect his army, yes he could have done this, done that, or that he had an ego, etc. These are Lost Cause myths and lies. Grant is a great general, he doesn't have an ego, and he never contradicted himself. He even said that in one of his letters the war was going to be bloody. Grant says this in his letters as well as in his memories, he knew that after Shiloh he immediately had to get moving to take the Mississippi Valley and take Corinth and Vicksburg. But Halleck slowed him and his army down when he he came to command after Shiloh, Lincoln said to get after the Confederates immediatley. Grant is a fighter, his memories and his letters shows his realism as well as his humanity. Just another bunch of Lost Cause criticisms. Overall, this is a great book to read and learn about Shiloh.
November 27, 2017
The best book on Shiloh. Daniel is a good writer, so the narrative has punch. His analysis of command decisions is spot on usually and he has no sacred cows. Third, the maps are superb. I still need to read Smith's account, but having read most of the rest I found the best balance in Daniel's Shiloh.
July 29, 2013
I hoped for something more interesting. I guess it takes a talent, of sorts, to make a Civil War battle almost boring. Only my optimism kept me reading.
August 12, 2019
As the author points out in the preface, there have been only three modern monographs on the Battle of Shiloh prior to this book’s release. The last was published some twenty years prior. Of the three, most readers will only be familiar with two of the works: Wiley Sword’s Shiloh: Bloody April and James Lee McDonough’s Shiloh: In Hell Before Night established the standards for future studies. The third, O. E. Cunningham’s unpublished dissertation Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862 is practically unknown outside the circle of the most serious students of the battle.
The time is early April 1862. Confederate forces have been sent reeling southward following the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson. The sudden collapse of the left flank of the Confederacy’s western cordon results in the loss of Kentucky and the fall of Nashville. At Pittsburg Landing on the west bank of the Tennessee River, 40,000 Federals of the Army of the Tennessee are encamped, and some twenty miles south 44,000 Confederates, having been rapidly rushed to Corinth, Mississippi from all over the South, prepare to move to the attack. General Albert Sidney Johnston knows his only hope for success is to destroy Major General Ulysses S. Grant's army before Buell’s Army of the Ohio can join him. For Johnston, it is a race against time, but only he knows it. Grant, believing Southern morale is low and underestimating Confederate recuperative power, is totally oblivious to the existence of the Army of the Mississippi only twenty miles south of his position. The stage is set for the bloody Battle of Shiloh.
Those readers who expect to jump straight into the action at farmer Fraley’s field that opened the Battle of Shiloh on the morning of April 6, 1862 will be disappointed with Mr. Daniel’s new book. The author obviously felt it important to carefully establish the campaign background, the “...larger imperatives: war aims, policies, diplomacy, the will to win, strategic planning and execution...” Thus, almost the first half of the book -- the first five of twelve total chapters -- meticulously set the stage prior to Daniel’s detailed examination of the battle proper.
With the publication of his previous works including Cannoneers in Gray and Soldiering in the Army of Tennessee, Daniel has solidly established himself as an authority on the Confederacy’s “other” army, the Army of Tennessee (which evolved from the Army of the Mississippi). The author argues that Shiloh was a “must win” for the South. The destruction of Grant’s army was the minimum acceptable outcome.
Mr. Daniel chose to present the Shiloh story in a format, as he puts it, “of different scenarios.” In other words, there is no neat and orderly chronological flow as the battle unfolds. The author explains this technique was adopted “...to show that events did not occur in well-ordered sequence...” While this approach forces the reader to pay close attention to the text and be able to rapidly “shift gears” mentally in terms of both time and geography, most should be able to adapt to Daniel’s style without difficulty.
Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil War is based on an impressive array of research material comprising extensive unpublished and published sources. It corrects many popularly accepted factual errors (including previously published map errors) and it provides a full, fair, and balanced account of the Shiloh campaign. Whether however, some of the major personalities are dealt with quite as much balance and fairness will almost certainly be a topic of debate among readers. A. S. Johnston fans in particular will find Daniel’s treatment of the Southern general harsh.
Excellent maps (I only wish there had been more of them), a complete Order of Battle, generous chapter-based end notes, complementary contemporary photographs and an exhaustive bibliography make Daniel’s Shiloh a welcome addition to the long neglected category of Western Theater campaign studies. It is gratifying to see the efforts of such authors as Larry Daniel finally beginning to redress this unfortunate imbalance.
The time is early April 1862. Confederate forces have been sent reeling southward following the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson. The sudden collapse of the left flank of the Confederacy’s western cordon results in the loss of Kentucky and the fall of Nashville. At Pittsburg Landing on the west bank of the Tennessee River, 40,000 Federals of the Army of the Tennessee are encamped, and some twenty miles south 44,000 Confederates, having been rapidly rushed to Corinth, Mississippi from all over the South, prepare to move to the attack. General Albert Sidney Johnston knows his only hope for success is to destroy Major General Ulysses S. Grant's army before Buell’s Army of the Ohio can join him. For Johnston, it is a race against time, but only he knows it. Grant, believing Southern morale is low and underestimating Confederate recuperative power, is totally oblivious to the existence of the Army of the Mississippi only twenty miles south of his position. The stage is set for the bloody Battle of Shiloh.
Those readers who expect to jump straight into the action at farmer Fraley’s field that opened the Battle of Shiloh on the morning of April 6, 1862 will be disappointed with Mr. Daniel’s new book. The author obviously felt it important to carefully establish the campaign background, the “...larger imperatives: war aims, policies, diplomacy, the will to win, strategic planning and execution...” Thus, almost the first half of the book -- the first five of twelve total chapters -- meticulously set the stage prior to Daniel’s detailed examination of the battle proper.
With the publication of his previous works including Cannoneers in Gray and Soldiering in the Army of Tennessee, Daniel has solidly established himself as an authority on the Confederacy’s “other” army, the Army of Tennessee (which evolved from the Army of the Mississippi). The author argues that Shiloh was a “must win” for the South. The destruction of Grant’s army was the minimum acceptable outcome.
Mr. Daniel chose to present the Shiloh story in a format, as he puts it, “of different scenarios.” In other words, there is no neat and orderly chronological flow as the battle unfolds. The author explains this technique was adopted “...to show that events did not occur in well-ordered sequence...” While this approach forces the reader to pay close attention to the text and be able to rapidly “shift gears” mentally in terms of both time and geography, most should be able to adapt to Daniel’s style without difficulty.
Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil War is based on an impressive array of research material comprising extensive unpublished and published sources. It corrects many popularly accepted factual errors (including previously published map errors) and it provides a full, fair, and balanced account of the Shiloh campaign. Whether however, some of the major personalities are dealt with quite as much balance and fairness will almost certainly be a topic of debate among readers. A. S. Johnston fans in particular will find Daniel’s treatment of the Southern general harsh.
Excellent maps (I only wish there had been more of them), a complete Order of Battle, generous chapter-based end notes, complementary contemporary photographs and an exhaustive bibliography make Daniel’s Shiloh a welcome addition to the long neglected category of Western Theater campaign studies. It is gratifying to see the efforts of such authors as Larry Daniel finally beginning to redress this unfortunate imbalance.
February 24, 2019
I read this book a second time and it was still a good read. After six years you forget a lot and this book is well written and documented and gives you a good analysis which still holds up although new research is always coming up which brings into question old opinions. Like most books I read I wish he would have included more maps and superimposed the battlefield on the current terrain. I’m sure they are available elsewhere but it would have been nice.
July 11, 2017
I find these kinds of books difficult to read because it is hard to visualize a battle. Still, I found this book very interesting. Hopefully, I will understand the Battle of Shiloh better after I see the battlefield.
November 6, 2018
Very authoritative and detailed book with lots of maps about a little known battle of the Civil War. I liked it because with the maps, it was easy to follow the movement of the battle as it progressed.
August 7, 2025
I found the opening chapters of this book (which attempted to focus on the build-up, maneuvers, and politics leading up to the battle) to be jumbled and poorly organized. It took me right out of the narrative before I even got to the battle. Just could not get into this one.
October 11, 2019
Very dry account. I think I need to look for another book on the battle of Shiloh.
June 14, 2020
Date read is a guess.
Really good, one-volume look at a battle that, had the Confederates managed to win, might have changed the whole path of the Civil War.
Really good, one-volume look at a battle that, had the Confederates managed to win, might have changed the whole path of the Civil War.
January 26, 2010
I cannot find the reference in my memory, but I do recall a line in some work on the Civil War in which a veteran soldier says something like "I wasn't so bad scared since Shiloh." Shiloh was the first monster battle of the Civil War. Prior to this contestation, the major battles included First Manassas (or First Bull Run), Wilson's Creek, Pea Ridge (or Elkhorn Tavern), and Forts Henry and Donelson. None was anything like Shiloh.
Larry Daniel's book is a detailed and very readable accounting of this battle. Quite useful are the maps included in the book. After the collapse of the Confederate line with Grant's victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, General Albert S. Johnston felt that he had to retreat. With General P. G. T. Beauregard, he contemplated an effort to recover the painful losses from the retreat. And thus, the movement toward Shiloh began.
After the capture of the Confederate forts, Grant moved to Pittsburg Landing, to await the arrival of General Don Carlos Buell's army. Together, they would move out to attack further south. In the meantime, the southern forces began a major effort to strengthen the units under Generals Beauregard and Johnston, including Braxton Bragg's forces. The "southern Napoleon," Beauregard developed an aggressive plan to surprise and attack Grant. Stunningly, Grant made himself an inviting target by not fortifying his position, an idea supported by his increasingly good friend William T. Sherman.
The southern army moved to the attack, with all sorts of mishaps in the process. The fact that the attack was still a surprise is an example of the oblivious northern army not paying attention to facts on the ground. Once the battle began, chaos ensured. The disposition of the Confederate Army was flawed; the Union army lost much ground. Johnston was killed; Beauregard took command of the southern forces. Many future officers of renown, such as Pat Cleburne, got their first major taste of battle and command here.
By the end of the day, the southerners were in reasonably good shape, but they could not drive Grant's force into the Tennessee River. Meanwhile, elements of Buell's Army arrived.
The next day, Grant, imperturbable even though he had almost lost the day, began a counterattack and ultimately drove Beauregard's army from the field. Both Union and Confederate leaders were stunned by the bloodiness and carnage associated with this battle. It was unlike anything that had gone before and foreshadowed the major bloodletting of later battles.
Grant's career was almost undone. However, as Daniel points out (page 311), ". . .Shiloh had been a tremendous strategic victory for the North. . . ." Few recognized that at the time, but it was so. This is a well written, well researched book that remains an outstanding rendering of the first titanic battle of the Civil War.
Larry Daniel's book is a detailed and very readable accounting of this battle. Quite useful are the maps included in the book. After the collapse of the Confederate line with Grant's victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, General Albert S. Johnston felt that he had to retreat. With General P. G. T. Beauregard, he contemplated an effort to recover the painful losses from the retreat. And thus, the movement toward Shiloh began.
After the capture of the Confederate forts, Grant moved to Pittsburg Landing, to await the arrival of General Don Carlos Buell's army. Together, they would move out to attack further south. In the meantime, the southern forces began a major effort to strengthen the units under Generals Beauregard and Johnston, including Braxton Bragg's forces. The "southern Napoleon," Beauregard developed an aggressive plan to surprise and attack Grant. Stunningly, Grant made himself an inviting target by not fortifying his position, an idea supported by his increasingly good friend William T. Sherman.
The southern army moved to the attack, with all sorts of mishaps in the process. The fact that the attack was still a surprise is an example of the oblivious northern army not paying attention to facts on the ground. Once the battle began, chaos ensured. The disposition of the Confederate Army was flawed; the Union army lost much ground. Johnston was killed; Beauregard took command of the southern forces. Many future officers of renown, such as Pat Cleburne, got their first major taste of battle and command here.
By the end of the day, the southerners were in reasonably good shape, but they could not drive Grant's force into the Tennessee River. Meanwhile, elements of Buell's Army arrived.
The next day, Grant, imperturbable even though he had almost lost the day, began a counterattack and ultimately drove Beauregard's army from the field. Both Union and Confederate leaders were stunned by the bloodiness and carnage associated with this battle. It was unlike anything that had gone before and foreshadowed the major bloodletting of later battles.
Grant's career was almost undone. However, as Daniel points out (page 311), ". . .Shiloh had been a tremendous strategic victory for the North. . . ." Few recognized that at the time, but it was so. This is a well written, well researched book that remains an outstanding rendering of the first titanic battle of the Civil War.
September 18, 2009
On April 6th through the 7th, 1862, at a place called Pittsburgh Landing on the Tennessee River, the Union forces commanded by General Ulysses S. Grant and Joseph Buell clashed with the Confederate forces led by General Albert Sidney Johnston and General Beauregard. At the conclusion of the two day battle approximately 24,000 were reported killed, wounded or missing in action. It is estimated that Confederate army suffered 45 thousand casualties while the Union incurred 56,000.
Both sides accounted for 1,700 killed in action. On the first day of action the rebels surprised the Federal troops and pushed them back to the river’s edge before nightfall. Grant’s line held on after fighting from 6:00am until 5:00pm. That evening Buell’s forces finally crossed the river to reinforce Grant. Johnston had been killed that afternoon, but Beauregard felt that victory was in their grasp and that they would merely need to mop up the next morning. A determined Grant resolved to counterattack the next morning. He and Buell found Beauregard’s troops unprepared and disorganized the next day. The Yankees recaptured ground lost the previous day and drove the Confederates into retreat. The rebels withdrew to Corinth Mississippi where there was a key railroad crossing linking Charleston to Memphis. This railroad crossing had been Grant’s original objective, and was captured in a subsequent battle.
More lives were lost in this battle than in all three previous American wars combined.
This is an easy to read history and one that presents the pertinent facts in an interesting and descriptive manner.
Both sides accounted for 1,700 killed in action. On the first day of action the rebels surprised the Federal troops and pushed them back to the river’s edge before nightfall. Grant’s line held on after fighting from 6:00am until 5:00pm. That evening Buell’s forces finally crossed the river to reinforce Grant. Johnston had been killed that afternoon, but Beauregard felt that victory was in their grasp and that they would merely need to mop up the next morning. A determined Grant resolved to counterattack the next morning. He and Buell found Beauregard’s troops unprepared and disorganized the next day. The Yankees recaptured ground lost the previous day and drove the Confederates into retreat. The rebels withdrew to Corinth Mississippi where there was a key railroad crossing linking Charleston to Memphis. This railroad crossing had been Grant’s original objective, and was captured in a subsequent battle.
More lives were lost in this battle than in all three previous American wars combined.
This is an easy to read history and one that presents the pertinent facts in an interesting and descriptive manner.
February 14, 2020
This is one of the better books on the American Civil War that I have read. It covers the Shiloh campaign and the battle itself, which shocked the people of both sides with its casualties and ferocity.
The book is well written and moves along nicely, but what really helps the most is the 15 maps that are included. They cover both the campaign and the battle and show most of the details that are talked about in the book. Sometimes one map is used to show too much, too long a period of time, but that's a quibble.
There are three major books on the battle, I own all three and this is the best by far. I appreciate the details in the book, the troop movements and the resulting combats, but I also appreciate his character sketches. The author does not have any axes to grind that I could detect with the result being a balanced treatment of a controversial event.
The book is well written and moves along nicely, but what really helps the most is the 15 maps that are included. They cover both the campaign and the battle and show most of the details that are talked about in the book. Sometimes one map is used to show too much, too long a period of time, but that's a quibble.
There are three major books on the battle, I own all three and this is the best by far. I appreciate the details in the book, the troop movements and the resulting combats, but I also appreciate his character sketches. The author does not have any axes to grind that I could detect with the result being a balanced treatment of a controversial event.
May 2, 2010
A few people have taken a crack at the fascinating and bloody Civil War Battle of Shiloh, but of the two treatments I've read, no one's completely nailed it.
Daniel's book is occasionally confusing, particularly in the pre-battle stage-setting and movements of the armies, and the approach he takes — short sections of a few pages each from different points on the battlefield — sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. And readers will have to stick with a dull first 100 pages or so before the battle heats up.
Wiley Sword's "Shiloh: Bloody April," though also flawed, is the better book. Daniel's book certainly is worthwhile but is not for the rare Civil War reader.
Daniel's book is occasionally confusing, particularly in the pre-battle stage-setting and movements of the armies, and the approach he takes — short sections of a few pages each from different points on the battlefield — sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. And readers will have to stick with a dull first 100 pages or so before the battle heats up.
Wiley Sword's "Shiloh: Bloody April," though also flawed, is the better book. Daniel's book certainly is worthwhile but is not for the rare Civil War reader.
February 20, 2016
An excellent account of the first major clash in the West during the Civil War. Larry Daniel gives an engaging portrait of the many characters involved in the battle, from the generals to the men on the field. With a generous helping of first-hand accounts, the reader gets a vivid picture of the violence that took place at Shiloh, which shocked both North and South and made them aware of just how terrible war could be (hence the ""battle that changed the Civil War"" subtitle). Also the book has many clear maps that illustrate the movements of the armies very well. All in all an exceptional volume, well worth reading.
August 14, 2016
If you don't know anything about the American Civil War battle at Shiloh in the western theater of operations; this is the book for you. It goes into great detail on troop movements, both North and South; battles fought and won/lost. Includes first hand accounts, what the battalion, brigade, division commanders were doing and thinking and what was going on with the army commanders. You can almost hear the horses running, the blast from a field piece, the sharp sound of musket fire and the smoke on the battlefield shielding the cry's of the wounded and hiding the dead covering the fields. Excellent research by the author.
July 27, 2019
Excellent book; it was recommended to me by a professor friend, and it's one of the books I read prior to a "Civil War Road Trip" my US Army Ret. history-buff husband and I did through Tennessee, which included going to Shiloh, as his great-great-great grandfather, who was a Union soldier who died at the beginning of the Civil War, is buried there. Shiloh itself was an eye-opener to me, and I recommend visiting it if you have an interest in American History and the Civil War- the massed pit graves of unknown Confederate soldiers will stay with me for the rest of my life... There are SO many things to learn that were NOT taught in school...
December 14, 2014
I thought this was really well done. My knowledge of the battle had been more of an overview -- from reading Shelby Foote's 3 volume Civil War history. Daniel does a great job considering some of the many theories and then presenting FACTS why certain things happened or could have happened (like whether the CSA really could have breached the Union line if it had pressed its attack on April 6th). He did not overreach, which I appreciated. The scene at Pittsburg Landing at about 5 pm on the 6th is vivid and will stay with me.
All around great job.
September 21, 2010
Read the book and really enjoyed it. Later found out that my great grandfather fought for the confederacy at this battle!
April 27, 2024
Good historical dive into a key Civil War battle
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews