Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam

Well written and well researched. I believe Stephen Sears to be the best Civil War historian of our time.

I've read many battle accounts, and this is the first one that I can recall reading about a Civil War battle.Its reputation as a military history is well deserved. Sears tells well the maneuvering of the forces, starting with the battles around South Mountain, and through the main fight at Antietam. He includes a broad array of perspectives: Union and Confederate, generals and soldiers, military men and a few civilians. Sears provides a lot of grim details about casualties, and perhaps rightfully so, as the main fight at Antietam was a bloody battle, the bloodiest day in American military history, in fact.A constant theme of the book is McClellan and his failings: his hesitations, his overestimation of enemy strength, his lack of coordination throughout the battle. This is all true and probably warranted, especially considering the casualties involved, and the facts speak for themselves. All the more reason, perhaps, that Sears's judgmental tone becomes grating. I certainly enjoy playing armchair general; maybe I didn't appreciate it so much from a historian, who is supposed to be fair and balanced. There was a point at which the author's analysis crossed over into personal attacks on McClellan, which seemed un-historian, if not also a tad bit unfair to his subject.Balancing that, perhaps, is Sears's treatment of Lee. Sears doesn't exaggerate or fawn over the success of Lee's generalship at Antietam. Rather, Lee is portrayed here as shrewd, the consummate poker player, who consistently and quite accurately assesses his opponent. Their fighting in the Peninsular Campaign, which Sears touches upon in the beginning, gave Lee this insight. By positioning his army with his back to a river, the Potomac, Lee seemed to be daring McClellan. To what higher end, though, isn't entirely clear. The Maryland Campaign didn't seem to depend on the outcome at Antietam, and soon after the battle, Lee's army escaped, which arguably they may have done sooner, with fewer casualties.Sears discusses the fallout of the battle, especially surrounding his Macbeth, McClellan. The Maryland Campaign did fail in Lee's ultimate intent of inciting Maryland to join the Confederacy, so in that sense McClellan's fight can't be called a total failure; yet, as Sears reiterates, it also wasn't the glorious victory McClellan claimed it to be. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but what that blood-soaked truth is, Sears doesn't say (or I missed it). Arguably, and tragically, Antietam may have had no real military or strategic purpose, or it may have been a mistake, as it was kind of a draw.Throughout, Sears relies on archival research to build his story. Diaries, letters, and unit histories stand out. Even so, Sears leave some points hanging; why, for example, was the Union commander Couch so slow? It's not clear if this was never covered in the historical record, and for as many times as Sears brings it up, as a sort of mystery, it might have been beneficial to acknowledge why that wasn't investigated or questioned since. To be fair, it's quite possible that I may have missed that footnote among the many that strengthen Sears's assault, which is focused on Little Mac and the other Union generals.For readers who may be unfamiliar with this type if work, it's important to point that Sears doesn't provide context on some points that would help a modern reader understand the big picture. For example, he doesn't relate why Civil War fighting like this was so vicious; to most readers of this kind of work, it isn't necessary. If you are looking for that kind of broader context, or a fuller account involving civilian perspectives, logistics, or political analysis, you'll need to read other works. Perhaps this account could have benefited those kinds of details, but this is a military history, and specifically a battle account, first and foremost. In that, it's as fine, and as limited, as any of its kind.

In Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam, Stephen W. Sears draws on a remarkable cache of diaries, dispatches, and letters to recreate the fateful day of September 17, 1862 as experienced not only by its leaders but also by its soldiers, both Union and Confederate, to produce a comprehensive account of the Battle of Antietam. First published in 1983, Sears’ book is unrivaled in its elegance and complexity, examining not just the military history, but also the politics of the Army of the Potomac, which turned to 36-year-old General George B. McClellan to save the day.In late summer 1862, the Union’s prospects for victory seemed dismally low. Major General John Pope’s Army of Virginia was shattered at the Battle of Second Manassas, and President Abraham Lincoln called on George McClellan to once again take command of the Army of the Potomac and save Washington, D.C. Sears reveals Lincoln made this decision alone, against the wishes of his cabinet. By his own admission, there was no one else to turn to, but many in his administration, particularly Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, regarded McClellan (a staunch Democrat) as a traitor.Sears excels at explaining the political conflict between McClellan and the Lincoln Administration, making it almost more interesting than the Battle of Antietam itself. It is a side of the campaign you rarely see. In the battle’s aftermath, when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it incensed many officers and enlisted men. Some openly speculated about a Caesar-like march on Washington. McClellan, to his credit, discouraged those feelings and gracefully accepted his dismissal. In the end, all the talk of disloyalty came to nothing.As for the battle, General McClellan had at least six opportunities during the course of the campaign to crush Lee’s army. Each time, he failed to take the initiative. At the Battle of Antietam, a third of his army sat on the sidelines. Finally, he failed to pursue Lee’s exhausted and depleted ranks, again believing Lee outnumbered him. Sears makes a compelling case that McClellan was plagued by the same failings that cost him victory on the Peninsula in the spring. He seemed paralyzed during a fight, preferring to stay far behind the lines, feebly trying to manage events.Sears’ narrative of the battle is fast-paced and rich in detail, but he tends to overemphasize casualty statistics, as if to justify the book’s title. A battle’s intensity–or importance–can’t always be quantified by numbers of dead and wounded.

I’m a Civil War buff, I’ve read every book I could find about it, and considering how many died in the area the battle was fought in and how long it took this is the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War. I’ve been to where The Battle of Antietam took place and was amazed that that many people died in so small an area especially with the types of weapons they had then compared to what we have now. If you like Civil War books this is a good one.

... si rivela tale anche per questo che è e rimane un classico sulla battaglia di Antietam. Potrebbe trarre giovamento da una riedizione con nuove , più numerose e dettagliate mappe.

Wie in seinen anderen Büchern auch schafft es der Autor hier die zur Schlacht führenden Umstände, die Schlacht selber und die wichtigsten Personen dem Leser näher zu bringen. Was das Buch so lesenswert macht ist die Tatsache, dass nicht nur die Entscheidungen der an der Schlacht beteiligten Truppenführer dargestellt werden, sondern es werden auch Augenzeugenberichte und Briefe von einfachen Soldaten zitiert.Die lebendigen Schilderungen der Ereignisse sind in einem gut verständlichen und nicht zu akademischen Englisch verfasst, so dass auch Nicht-Muttersprachler sich ohne zu viel nachschlagen zu müssen den Text aneignen können. Inhaltlich sind fünf Sterne angemessen.Das Buch ist mit Illustrationen versehen, deren teils mangelhafte Druckqualität und Wiedergabe zu dem einen Punktabzug führt. Die im Buch abgedruckten Karten sind verständlich und lesbar. Das Buch insgesamt ist von eher schlechter Papierqualität, aber damit muß man bei Softcoverbüchern inzwischen leben.

All battles are chaotic, I suppose, but Antietam seems to have been more chaotic than most. In his very readable book Stephen Sears succeeds in untangling the events of the day ( and what went before) and sets them out in depth and with with great clarity .He also brilliantly brings to life the participants in the struggle giving a voice to the ordinary soldier as well as the senior officers. The reader is left in no doubt what an horriffic experience it was to be caught up in this very bloody battle and is left in awe of the courage shown on both sides. The best book I have read on Antietam by a very long way.

c'est probablement le meilleur ouvrage actuel sur la bataille d'Antietam ...description tres complete et détaillée de la campagne qui amene à la bataille, de l'engagement en lui meme et de ses suites ...on navigue avec bonheur à tous les échelons du combat, du simple soldat aux état-majors.l'engagement de chaque régiment est décrit en détail, les cartes sont excellentes...bref vous ne regretterez pas l'investissement ...seul détail évidemment, c'est en anglais (pas inabordable comme peuvent l'etre d'autres ouvrages historiques, mais dur dur pour un débutant ...)