The Killer Angels

1. This was probably the oldest book in my backlog. It's a very lightly fictionalized account of the Battle of Gettysburg, written by Michael Shaara in 1974. It's beloved by plenty of people and it won the Pulitzer Prize. I acquired it either early in high school or late in middle school from my father, who said it was one of his own favorite books. It took me more than ten years to get around to reading it (sorry, Dad!) because I've never been much of a Civil War buff. I like history and I'm fascinated by military tactics and strategies and the like, but I've just never been that interested in the Civil War. But I've been meaning to get around to it for a while now, and with all the rekindled nationwide debate about the confederate flag and the true reason for secession, why not now?

2. The Battle of Gettysburg took place across three days, and The Killer Angels is appropriately divided into three parts. Each part is divided into five to seven chapters told from alternating viewpoints, not unlike the way George R. R. Martin writes his Song of Ice and Fire series. Interestingly, the book spends more time on the confederate side than the union side - and in particular on Robert E. Lee and his second-in-command, James Longstreet. Most of the union chapters were told form the perspective of Joshua Chamberlain, merely a colonel. Plenty of other historical figures appear, as they did in the true battle: J.E.B. Stuart, Abner Doubleday, Pickett, Pettigrew, Armistead, Meade, Custer. It's no wonder history buffs love Gettysburg.

3. The book contained about twenty different maps that showed the evolving situation on the battlefield. These were incredibly useful. I had always known the basics of Gettysburg - three days, highest casualty count of any battle ever on American soil, Pickett's Charge, turning point in the war - but the maps really helped me understand why the different sides acted and reacted the way they did. Even more helpful for my understanding of the battle was seeing it from the perspective of the men responsible for planning it. So kudos to Shaara for distilling such a sprawling and complicated battle down into an easily digestible history lesson of sorts.

4. Having said that, the book was at its best when it took a break from the battles and the tactics; between the moments of carnage and bloodshed, the characters would pontificate on the philosophical and moral differences that made men take up arms. Some union troops come across a runaway slave at one point, and are reminded that this is why the confederates are fighting - to preserve the institution of slavery. At the same time, an English soldier who's just hanging out with Lee and Longstreet takes note of how distinctly European the South seems to be, with its adherence to traditions and its overwhelming uniformity (everyone is white, Anglo-Saxon, and protestant). He contrasts this to the North - full of diversity and new social practices and urban boom. Shaara himself points out that the army fighting to preserve federal unity was itself quite disparate and jumbled, while the army fighting for states' independence was extraordinarily unified and cohesive. Ironic!

5. I probably could have learned as much or more about the Battle of Gettysburg by spending twenty solid minutes on Wikipedia. (In fact, I did.) But the way the characters were fleshed out by Shaara - likely fictionalized to some extent, I'm sure - adds context to why the battle unfolded the way it did. All in all this was a very interesting read, but I'd stop short of blindly recommending this to everyone. Shaara more or less drops the reader into the mid-nineteenth century without explaining any of the political context and just tells the story of the Battle of Gettysburg. If richly detailed historical semi-fiction is your bag, then by all means, give this one your time. It was only 360 pages or so.