This is a novel about what might or should have been an alternative Gettysburg history. From the very beginning everything makes perfect sense, with Robert E. Lee taking personal charge of the final events of the first day's battle (which he should have done anyway after a reorganization of the ANV)and forces the final assault on Cemetery Hill. Even today historian disagree as to whether it would or would not have been successful.

In this account the assault fails and Lee realizes that Gettysburg is not the place to fight. But instead of following Longstreet's suggestion of a flanking assault around the Round Tops, Lee thinks like the bold strategist history has painted him and executes a wide flanking maneuver forcing the Army of the Potomac to fight on Lee's terms and is a position of Lee's choosing.

Everything makes perfect sense in retrospect for a grand tactical maneuver worthy of Lee. The problem comes in, in that the authors do not quite know how to stage the final battle of Union Mills (Pipe Creek). It seems unlikely that Meade and his generals would have been so rash as to their final plan of action.

The novel is interesting and follows the day by day thoughts of the principal characters, Lee, Longstreet, Meade and Hunt. Choosing to view events thorough Hunts eyes is a bit odd as he is not what you would call a pivotal character of the historic Gettysburg. Hancock would have been a better choice as he did figure more prominately in events. There are other minor characters on the Confederate side that simple take up reading space and have no real bearing on events.

That said this is a perfectly logical development of the way the Gettysburg Campaign should have, or could have played out and is an enjoyable read and worthy of having in the collection of the Gettysburg historian.

This book is portrayed as an historical account of the battle of Gettysburg with the infusion of a dynamic dimension to the events and characters made possible by what Newt Gingrich refers to as "Active History". Gingrich explains what he means by active history in the introduction to this book. As he describes this active history approach to historical discovery, Gingrich explains that by looking at choices which were "not" made by key figures in this battle as well as uncontrollable circumstances such as weather conditions and other events, made it possible for him to gain a deeper and more dynamic understanding of this great battle. He goes on to explain, though, that it would be mere fantasy to consider an aggressive General McClellan, and that it is important to stay within the boundaries of what would be considered reasonable given the current facts of this historical event. This sounded logical and having read and enjoyed Michael Shaara's "Killer Angels", I thought I would be reading an historical account of the battle of Gettysburg with new insights to this historical event.
What I discovered though, was a complete re-write of the fighting which took place on the second and third days of this battle. I could not find the locations of where some of this fighting took place because I was relying on maps I had, i.e. pulled from Wikipedia, etc., and that this fighting did not even occur in Gettysburg but in surrounding towns and villages. Until I discovered that no account of the fighting which took place on Little Round Top did I realize that this was not a "true" historical account of the battle, but was a "what if" scenario of what could have happened. In my own view this is just as much fantasy as presenting an aggressive General McClellan. Gingrich explains that the reason why most people do not enjoy history is because it is presented on facts which are foregone conclusions where the only differences (I assume he means between historical accounts) can only be found in the minutia of things. While this may be true and history, at least to some people, is considered boring, it is what it is. How this could be considered as anything other than fiction is beyond me, and I find it a shame that Gingrich believes that he can re-arrange battlefields and still refer to his work as historical. For those who are not familiar with the historical facts of the battle of Gettysburg, and are not aware of this "active history" approach, will be confused when they probe deeper into the subject. I do not think that boredom is a reasonable excuse to re-write history, and that Gingrich did a disservice to those of us who enjoy history, regardless of what other's "feelings" toward it may be.

This is a fine alternative history. Being an avid Civil War buff, historical wargame player, and historian, I find the novel to be entertaining and fairly plausible, that is, up until the destruction of the Army Of The Potomac (AP) after the porposed Battle Of Union Mills (BUM).

Indeed, during the whole War Between The States (WBS), no major field army was destroyed in open battle. During the WBS this was so, because of the lethality rifled musket which made defense preeminent in the WBS. The facts are that it was far too easy for a relatively few brave, determined, and heavily outnumbered men to hold defensively. These few brave men would be able to effectively delay or to actually succeed defensively. Examples: Thomas at Chickamauga, Hornet's Nest at Shiloh, Jackson at 2nd Manassas, Lee at Antietam, and I could list dozens more.

After the proposed BUM in Newt's book, it is probable that a few knots of determined Union soldiers would have tenaciously hung on just long enough to allow most of the AP's remnants to escape to fight another day.

Otherwise, given the chronology of the proposed scenario in Newt's book, such a scenario could have been fairly darn possible.

In all cases, the book is exciting, enjoyable, and entertaining, especially, for the WBS history buffs. It is well worth reading, even for those not heavily historically educated or not with such historical proclivities.

PS - I have not read the remaining two novels in Newt's trilogy(, but I'm working on them). However, I don't think that a Southern victory at Gettysburg, even one as overwhelming as Newt's book proposes, would have ended the WBS in the South's favor. Indeed, the North had way too much materiel and way too many warm bodies.

This is a fine alternative history. Being an avid Civil War buff, historical wargame player, and historian, I find the novel to be entertaining and fairly plausible.

It is well worth reading.

This is a what-if version of the battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War. The year is 1863. General Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia invade the North and looks for a decisive battle that could annihilate the Army of the Potomac, thus to be able to claim the victory that would end the brutal war.

Gettysburg is only a small part of General Lee's plan. He launches a battle of maneuver. The Army of Northern Virginia march and flank the Union Army. They cut the Union Army line of supply and thread to attack Washington. The Union Army is then forced to fight in the territory chosen by Lee and his generals.

A very interesting what-if version of a famous battle. Highly recommended!

I don't say this very often, but in Gettysburg, Newt Gingrich and William Fortschen have created a masterpiece.

The Civil War itself, and the Battle of Gettysburg in particular, have been the subject of countless historical books, novels, and films. The war has also been the subject of more than one "what-if" scenario; imagining how history might have changed if a decision had been made differently, or if a crucial battle had gone to the other side.

In the Timeline-191 series, for example, Harry Turtledove, using Antietam has his point of departure, created a grim vision of a North American continent bitterly divided between nations and condemned to fight not just one, but four wars across much the same territory over the span of 80 years.

In Gettysburg, Gingrich and Fortschen start with what was arguably the last gasp of real victory of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Battle of Gettysburg.

In our world, it was a battle that lasted three days and resulted in a nearly decisive Union victory. In the novel, however, there is only one day of battle, no charges up the Round Tops, and no suicidal Pickett's Charge. Instead, Robert E. Lee, taking charge of his Army in a way he hadn't before, moves the battle onto more favorable ground in Maryland and, aided in no small part by the incompetence of General George Meade, fights a decisive battle near Westminster, Maryland.

What makes this book so great is the detail that the authors go into in describing not only the battles fought over three days in July, 1863, but also the characters that witness those battles, from Robert E. Lee, to Longstreet, Henry Hunt, Artillery Commander of the Army of the Potomac, and Herman Haupt, who ran the railroads for the Army of the Potomac.

There are historical allusions galore throughout the book. Joshua Chamberlin, a hero at Little Round Top, makes an appearance, as does James Longstreet, and George Pickett even gets to lead a charge just as glorious, and far more effective, than the one that occurred in reality.

And here's one piece of advice. If you do read the book, save enough time to read the final five chapters all at once. The climactic battle at Union Mills, Maryland isn't something that can be digested just a chapter at a time, and it's the primary example of just how well this book is written.

As the book ends, the Army of the Potomac is decimated and scattering across the Susquehanna River, but the Union is not defeated and Lee turns his sights on Washington for what he hope will be one final blow to end a war that he wished he didn't have to fight.

But there's a wind blowing from the West. Just as Lee was winning in Maryland, Vicksburg was falling and a man named Ulysses S. Grant is heading east.

Gave this to our Civil War Buff son-in-law to be as one of his civil war gifts. He loved it!
Fast, reasonable shipping.

Rather than take full advantage of the fantasy nature involved in some alternate history novels (like Turtledove's time travellers in "Guns of the South"), Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen give the Confederacy two things, small on their own, to provide ultimate victory for them in the Battle of Gettysburg: General Stuart's early return to the army, and a sudden blast of insight from General Lee and Longstreet when they realize the Union army is deeply entrenched in the city.


Unlike Shaara's "The Killer Angels", the writing here is rich, vivid, and very dense and gritty. The battle scenes are so bloodsoaked and gore-ridden as to compare with Pressfield, and the likes of "Gates of Fire".

The way the two write, you feel the pain, exhaustion, and emotions of the soldiers and generals involved. Rather than repeat what's been done by Michael Shaara in The Killer Angels, Gingrich and Forstchen focus primarily on the primary characters such as Lee and Longstreet, Meade and Hancock, as well as lesser generals and soldiers, such as Artillery General Henry Hunt, Seargents Hazer (CSA), Major Williamson (CSA), General Haupt (US) and noncombatants such as Lincoln himself.

The battle scenes are done to such an intensely bloody and emotional degree as to rival Pressfield in sheer scope and drama. While not nearly as gritty and gory as Pressfield, it gets as close as possible in a more modern realm of war. The knowledge of artillery specifically is evident throughout the book, and expert detail goes into such specifics as the timed fuses on cannons, the casualties caused by improperly fired cannons, and the science of how a minie ball pierces through flesh, shatters bone, and flattens into a disc, the way the splintering of wood from shattered cannons or muskets wreaks havoc on troops in battle.

The military strategy is also highly vivid and utterly compelling, truly experiencing the mastery of the likes of Lee, the frustration when Ewell fails to move properly, or with Meade's panic and pressured decision-making.


The alternate history:

*POTENTIAL SPOILERS*

Despite being alternately historical, common themes and events which occur in the actual battle unfold in different order here.

With Stuart's return to the army on the first day, rather than the end of the second, allowing Lee the benefit of cavalry. Rather than spreading southwards, along Cemetary Ridge and to the Round Top, Lee recognizes the importance of Cemetary Hill and commits an immense amount of soldiery to it. This fails, leaving the Confederates locked in to Gettysburg. This is where another pivotal point occurs, as Longstreet points out the Union army's lack of support south of their lines. Any reader of "The Killer Angels" knows that this is absolutely crucial, and that had Lee listened to Longstreet, they may well have cut off the Union army from their supplies.

In this instance, Lee realizes just how pivotal a move this is.

With Stuart commanding a division to demonstrate and distract the Union forces to the north (using trees for cover, and acting as though an entire corps were moving into place), Lee begins moving huge pieces of his army south, towards Taneytown, to eventually attack and take Westminster, and cut the Army of the Potomac off from supplies and Washington. Lee is absolutely critical in having Longstreet move quickly, before the Union realizes what is happening and attempts to stop them.

With great pains and brutal skirmishing, as well as Buford and his cavalry making another stand at the bridge leading to Taneytown, between Emmitsburg and Taneytown, leading to Buford's death, Lee finally moves his army down, and storms into Westminster, which is in a panic and flees, leaving the Army of Northern Virginia with a large piece of the Union's supplies.

From here, the events of the actual Gettysburg unfold in similar fashion for the Union. The Union moves on Confederate forces, aiming to take Taneytown, and besiege the heavily entrenched enemy at Westminster. Similar to his stand on the Little Round Top on July 2nd, Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and his 20th Maine regiment are the extreme right flank of the Union army marching into Taneytown, which is destroyed down to nearly a man by Pickett's Division and Armistead's Brigade. Chamberlain is badly wounded, but survives.

On July 4th, the Union chooses its own "Pickett's Charge" at Union Mills, and Pipe Creek. With nearly 20,000 or more Union soldiers marching across open land, while under heavy Confederate fire (keep in mind the CSA has taken the Army of the Potomac's supplies, and now has plenty of cannon ammunition and rifles), attempting to break through the Confederate's entrenchment at Union Mills. The battle is so bloodily and gloriously written, it outshines Pickett's Charge in sheer scale, blood, and dramatic courage and flourish. It ends with the Army of the Potomac badly battered, Meade proclaiming "It is all my fault", and Pickett's fresh Division finishing off the remnants of the army still at Gettysburg.

While 1/3rd of the Army of the Potomac survives, it is a bloody defeat, and an equally bloody victory for the Army of Northern Virginia, with new instances of battlefield events leading to deaths of well-known heroes and characters, and some shocking decisions many would see as fanservice (such as Lee's utter rage at Ewell's failure to attack the Union forces at Cemetary Hill while the bulk of the Army of the Potomac is being slaughtered at Union Mills, that leads to him dismissing Ewell from the army entirely).



While Lee achieves his victory, it is not absolute, and it does not end the war, as the series continues with two more editions. Gingrich and Forstchen write so epically, with amazing emphasis on strategy, battle, and humanity, that it stands as an action-packed, thrillingly dramatic epic even on its own.

In my opinion, and I can't imagine very many detracting thoughts, this single edition far exceeds "The Killer Angels" in nearly every field of literature and novel writing. Outstanding effort by Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen.

Outstanding novel, enough history to keep the Civil War buffs entertained and the "what if" makes it a wonderfull adventure into the imagination.

1. The prose brings the Civil War battlefield to life.
2. The premise is not all that off the mark. Newt and Forstchen create an entirely plausible sequence of events. I felt that even those that some scholars would argue with are adequately explained in the narrative.
3. The use of historical parallelism is fascinating, especially Chamberlain's leadership of the 20th Maine now in a different 2nd Day action but again the last unit on the flank, and "Pickett's charge in reverse", now [fittingly] on July 4th, rather than July 3.
4. The characters fulfill their commonly understood (if not in modern scholarship) personality strengths and flaws, and makes a downright fun read.

If you pass up this book because you might not like Newt's politics, you are making a HUGE mistake. I couldn't turn the pages fast enough!

Like to find out all I can about Gettysburg from different people and how they saw the war.

I will definitely buy Newt's other books, if they are as well written as this one

I bought this book some time ago and I only recently found it again on my bookshelf. I am a fan of counterfactual (what if) history for their entertainment value and believed it to be an interesting and relaxing book. It was interesting, but the historical content and the historical arguments that can be made throughout the text are anything but relaxing.

While I do not agree with Newt on his political views, I had hoped that being a son of Georgia he would try to utilize the more recent scholarship defending James Longstreet, Lee's commander of I Corps. After the war, Longstreet was attacked by old Confederates and brother generals such as Jubal Early because he supported the Republican Party during reconstruction and maintained his good friendship with U. S. Grant. The historiography of Longstreet is extensive but the view for the past 70 years has been that of a slow, mean, slightly ignorant general that didnt like to fight. Furthermore, the cult of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson has been very successful in convincing historians and enthusiasts that Lee and Jackson were closer, friendlier, and more understanding of one another. The truth is that Longstreet was the ranking commander of the two, was visited much more by Lee before Jackson's death, made as many errors as Jackson, and was actually favored by Lee because of his party atmosphere around his headquarters (Lee, a Virginia gentleman, was more attracted to the social scene than to Jackson's somewhat odd religious views. In addition, Longstreet was more tactically and strategically minded than Jackson or Lee and was questioned by Lee many times. (Although not always agreeing with Longstreet which is the entire basis of the book.)

Knowing this, I was angry at Newt. Longstreet here is constantly being reminded by himself, Lee, and the authors that Jackson was the number one corps commander and Lee's choice when deciding who should be utilized first in the field. Longstreet is depicted very much that same way that Sharra does in his "The Killer Angels", having him be mindful of his own problems and quick to temper. I still felt that Newt could have pushed harder for Longstreet to be recognized more by Lee rather than have Lee pit Longstreet against the memory of the dead Jackson.

The novel centers on three main characters although it does shift its focus to other lesser characters for brief periods of time. Lee, Longstreet, and Federal Chief of Artillery General Henry Hunt are given the most page time. The main issues are Hunt's problems with the upper leels of the Federal Army such as Meade, the very likable Sickles, and his own duties as a artilleryman. Lee attends to the battle, his frustration with being seen as a "marble man", and the incompetence of his corps and divisional commanders. Longstreet also attends to the battle, his frustration with being compared to Jackson, and his own problems with commanders. Along the way we encounter Sickles, Meade, Hancock (who is always portrayed as a great commander and man) Chamberlain, and Lincoln.

It is an interesting counterfactual that takes the greatest issue from the battle, the problem of turning south to flank the Federal army after the first day of Gettysburg, and following it to the authors' conclusion. It is enjoyable for the detail and character development if not the historical issues. Overall, I still feel that Lee is being portrayed in the Lost Cause school of history where he fights for god, country, and honor and can do no wrong. Even after taking Longstreet's suggestion to move to the right, Lee is given credit. While both sides are portrayed as being both merciful and murderous equally, the Lost Cause issue remains with Lee and is a nagging detail that some students of history might find bothersome.

While not giving away the ending, it is interesting to see Lee change his personality three times. On the first day of battle he is the typical Lee we have always read about: determined to fight and attack, forgiving of commanders and overly cautious, after the turn south he resembles Prussian General Helmuth von Moltke, quick to find alternate solutions and hear out suggestions, quick to press the attack if a defensible position is established, and more open to moving alongside troops in battle, where as in the final chapters he is General William T. Sherman, unforgiving of incompetence, quick to lead an action if the sight of him will boost morale, and even uttering Sherman's oft repeated statement likening war to hell.

Read the book, enjoy the book, but afterwards, study the battle and characters to see if you agree with the authors.

When writing a "what if" it is necessary by implication to alter the scenario while keeping the story within historical realism. In this book the authors have done a very good job but in certain respects have gone a little too far. For example they have altered Lee's personality from the tired, uninspired fatalism of Gettysburg to a dynamism that closely resembles Jackson. Perhaps this is necessary as it is no coincidence that with Jackson the Army Of Northern Virginia never lost a battle and without him never won one. That said this is an exciting and well written alternative history and well worth a read.

The first volume covers the battle of Gettysburg, though with strategic maneuvers beyond anything contemplated by the actual participants. Like any successful counterfactual history, the authors are careful in their initial changes - in fact, most readers will not even be aware of the changes in the battle to after the end of the first day's fighting, but by this point many small changes have already occurred - enough changes in fact to lead Lee to a strategic masterstroke on a par with Jackson's Chancellorsville march. From here the story rapidly diverges from what we know as history, but never beyond possibility, and it's amusing to see various participants like Sykes, Sickles, Joshua Chamberlain and others perform in this parallel universe.
The battles scenes are excellent and provide a closeup look at the experience of individual troops. They note often how the opposing sides would arrange unofficial truces when the battles end. You'll probably suspect that the climactic battle of the second book won't resolve everything since there's still that third volume! But that never subtracts from the tension & suspense of these books. Great history - my only regret is that Gingrich didn't start writing novels earlier, rather than spending so much time fighting other battles in Congress.

As a southerner who grew up on stories about the lost cause, I always heard two recurring phrases; 1.) What would have happened at Gettysburg if Stonewall Jackson had not been killed in a previous campaign and 2.) Would the Confederacy have won the war if Lee had won at Gettysburg? In this book, Gingrich and Forstchen set up a scenario of how Lee could have carried the battle in Pennsylvania, and set up two other volumes that carry the war to its conclusion.

I found the book to be engrossing and well written. I can picture the authors standing over a topographical map of the area, saying "What if...." They seem to have a solid understanding of the weapons and tactics of the day and a grasp of the impact that politics and political interference had on both the Union and Confederate armies. The latter issues particularly affect the scenario.

An enjoyable, engrossing read, giving a plausable what if to the eternal questions. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Highly recommend

I am not a fan of Newt Gingrich but I was very pleasantly surprised at both the quality of the writing and the myriad of authentic details regarding not only the events surrounding the battle but of the nature of the two armies and of their commanders.
As others of the reviewers have stated, this book is not for the casual reader of pop history but rather for civil war buffs who can appreciate all of the many details of the battle and its participants. With regard to other civil war buffs, like myself, we must actually suspend some knowledge of the nature of warfare during the period. As an only one example, the authors have an entire division of cavalry, under General Buford, completely disintegrate when attacked at a bridge over the Monocacy Creek. There is simply no record of a well-organized unit of similar size disintegrating during the Civil War. While Buford was (supposedly) killed, leadership would heve devolved on the senior Brigade commander and the unit would have retired while fighting a fierce holding action until relieved by other units of the Army of the Potomac.
Grant the authors more than one of their dubious assumptions and you can (tentatively) accept the results of the final confrontation at Pipe Creek. Otherwise enjoy, as I did, finding those dubious assumptions which led these two dedicated southerners to postulate an alternative ending to the three days in early July, 1862, at Gettysburg, PA. I recommend it unreservedly to anyone thoroughly interested in the Civil War.

The authors of Gettysburg did a spectacular job of setting up a "what if" that would have changed this country is so many ways. The battle of Gettysburg was, in all people's opinions, the most influential battle, and the turnig point of the Civil War. Up until Gettysburg, the Confederate army, led by Lee, was winning the war and outsmarting the North. In reality, the North won at Gettysburg and obviously won the war. This book plays things out a little bit differently, with Longstreet influencing Lee to act differently and the South ending up triumphant.

I love the spin here and would recommend this book to any Civil War fan or buff. I was tentative going in but was quickly consumed!

Have had this book for a long time and just read it on a vacation. I really thought it was awesome. As someone who's read a lot about the battle of Gettysburg I especially appreciated how plausible the whole thing seemed. The authors didn't make any huge leaps of imagination or ask the reader to in order to make the story work which I appreciated. They also made the characters seem very real and human which kept my sympathies shifting throughout the story. I can't wait to read the other two volumes of this series. BTW, the only reason that I even know that it's a series is because I read the book jacket and discovered it. They should really publicize it more.

Great research into the subject. Great imagination! Very enjoyable use of the concept of "active history".

The former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has teamed with a history professor William Forstchen to craft an alternative fictional view of the Civil War. After they lay out the historically accurate first day events at Gettysburg, they slip into a hypothetical view. This is what could have happened if Lee had listened to those near him, who knew that fighting an offensive battle on ground chosen by the Union was a losing proposition.

In this version, Lee sends Ewell, Pickett, and Longstreet on a vast flanking march into northern Maryland on day 2 of the Gettysburg campaign. In reality Lee sent Pickett into the center of the heavily defended Union lines where his corps was anihilated. Only one man survived Pickett's charge and reached the Union lines.

The rebels are then able to control several Maryland towns including Emmittsburg, Tawneytown, and the railhead at Westminster, and to capture huge quantities of badly needed Union supplies. Longstreet then turns the tables on history, by setting up a defensible position along a Maryland creek.

As the rebels are now behind the Union lines and between the Army of the Potomac and its capital, Mead is determined to attack, at any cost, in spite of overwhelming odds and poor fighting ground. Mead is routed, Lee outflanks the retreat and the Army of the Potomac appears doomed.

Of course, Lincoln won't give up so easily. Remnants of the Army of the Potomac escape across the Susquehanna, regroup under new commanders, and Lincoln summons US Grant to the Eastern front (but that is volume 2 of this trilogy).

Like me, Newt Gingrich is from central Pennsylvania; although he later moved to Georgia and achieved some notoriety there and in DC. The Speaker is familiar with Gettysburg and the role of the Pennsylvanians who fought there, including Generals Reynolds and Mead. Gingrich clearly thinks that the rebel leadership was superior in character, integrity, and intellect to that on the side of the Union, and he might be right about that.

General Sickles is given an interesting treatment; he is the New York politician who became a Union general, although better known as the congressman who got away with murder. Sickles shot a friend, another prominent Washingtonian named Key, a descendant of the famous lawyer-songwriter, who was having an affair with Sickles' wife.

Ultimately Sickles was found innocent by reasons of insanity, reunited with his wife, and got with his military and political careers. Gingrich paints Sickles very sympathetically, with Sickles showing much better judgement than Mead and likely poised for a bigger role with the new Army of the Potomac. Clearly Gingrich likes to see politicians do well in other areas of endeavor and he is sensitive to those with marital strife.

This book is for Civil War fanatics and not necessarily for the general public, but it is a fascinating view of how our history and country could have changed so completely if one decision made late at night by an exhausted and sick man had been reversed. In 2006, there could be several nations between Canada and Mexico, speaking various languages, and the Europeans could be living under repressive dictatorships and monarchies.

I'll cut straight to the chase on the "chesnut" stereotype.

On page 11, the authors have Lee saying to himself: "Then there was Longstreet. ... Sold, methodical, reliable, but everyone knew that he could be too methodical, slow, and firm of opinion."

Fact: Lee did, in 1862, call Longstreet "slow."

The complete fact: In the same breath, he called Jackson "slower yet."

Longstreet was the only top general in the Army of Northern Virginia who was not a Virginian. So, when the myth of the "Lost Cause" arose, especially as abated by Douglas Southall Freeman, Longstreet became the ideal scapegoat.

As Longstreet later showed at Chickamauga, he definitely was not slow.

Now, how does the stereotypical view of Longstreet undercut this book's premise? Well, if Longstreet really were THAT slow, or methodical to the point of sluggardness, would Lee have ever considered such a flanking movement as the authors have him propose?

Oops....

Otherwise, the particular counterfactual premise is relatively sound, but the authors' acceptance of legend as fact, and the illogical using of it, combined with the stiltedness I noted, get this book marked down a couple of stars.

I read in several previous reviews that others felt this novel was pretty implausible as 'alternative history'. I agree, but not for the reasons they mentioned. I can accept most of what happens as 'possible' even when some things aren't likely, such as Meade's attack on a fortified Confederate position. 'Likely' is not a term always associated with war, as wonderfully illustrated by the finding of Lee's 'lost' General Order by McClellan that immediately preceeded the Battle Of Antetiam (had a novelist invented this plot device, he would have been ridiculed!).
Still, it is the novel's portrayal of Lee attacking a well-known (and well defended) city that I find completely implausible. Historically, while Lee 'threatened' this ciy to keep Union forces close to home, attacking the city was NEVER considered by Lee or Davis (I am not mentioning the city to avoid a spoiler, but any Civil War buff already knows what city I refer to). The city was too well defended, and the fortifications were both monstrous and impossible to overcome without an attacking force numbering in the many hundreds of thousands (which Lee never even came close too). This was common knowledge to Lee and Davis. Having Lee in the novel attack this city on the flimsy premise that they have to at least 'try' to capture it is ridiculous. Lee would not waste men on an attack he was certain would fail (he thought the charge on the third day of Gettysburg would succeed), and the real-life Lee knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that that city could NEVER be taken. Ever. Historically, Lee moved north to draw the Army Of The Potomac out and destroy it in the open, attacking the city was never part of any plan.
I realize that Newt used this event to get the storyline more in parallel with the real historical timeline. By losing many men, Lee is the severe underdog numerically, and must be creative if he wishes to have a hope of defeating Lincoln's army. This really weakens the story. Personally, I would like to have seen what the authors would have written if they hadn't had Lee attack that city. That would have been far more plausible. Still, Gettysburg is a pretty good read, and entertaining. The next two books didn't capture my attention like Gettysburg did, but they are ok too. If you enjoy historical fiction, this is one you should definitely try out.

... but the way the story unfolds after the divergence from the historical decision is a little too obvious. Anyone with a knowledge of the historic three-day battle at Gettysburg will immediately notice the parallels with Pickett's Charge. While overall an entertaining novel, the historic "irony" was a little too much for this Son of Pennsylvania ... Read Coddington's "A Study in Command" on Gettysburg ... history makes for a better read.

I just finished reading all three books in the series. They are all very good, but the first one is the best because it is the most plausible. Lee's Maryland/Pennsylvania campaign begins as normal, with Stuart out of control, Ewell dragging is feet, AP Hill sick with syphilis and the methodical Longstreet preaching on the pulpit of "defensive" warfare. Heth's men go to Gettysburg to get some shoes, Buford's men block them, Reynolds and O.O Howard's corps come, get routed by Hill and Ewell's corps. The Union saves the ridges along Culp's Hill on the night of July 2nd, and anchors a very strong position. So far so good, right? However, this is where EVERYTHING changes, when the authors theorize that something called "Lee's Epiphany" takes place, where Lee comes to the realization that to attack the hills and ridges south of Gettysburg would be an exercise in futility and he would be better suited to do what he does best: maneuver around an inexperienced Union general who is hopelessly outclassed.

Gettysburg is a book of curious "what ifs" that does not depend on improbable situations, introduction of future technology or privileged information (i.e., Lee's plans unexpectedly falling into the hands of the Union early in the Antietam campaign). Lee's sudden realization that he could out maneuver Meade; a former corp commander who was new to field army command, didn't know the components of his army all too well and was not well liked by his corp commanders; is a scenario that should of really happened instead of the self immolation of Pickett's Charge on July 4th.

Gingrich and Forstchen have clearly done their research. They have studied the character, personality and past actions of all the main characters and have accurately postulated the likely decisions that these leaders would make in critical, but fictitious, situations. Some of the thoughts and situations Gingrich and Forstchen have the major characters go through are: What would Meade do if he was cut off from Washington? How would Meade perform if he had to make a large number of strategic, campaign wide decisions in a chess-like battle of maneuver instead of a few "no brainer" tactical decisions that he made in the historical Gettysburg? Could Longsteet find the offensive aggressiveness to imitate Jackson? What would a Union "Pickett's Charge" be like? What would Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton do if they couldn't communicate with Meade? These questions along with many more are asked and answered in a tightly woven yarn in breathtaking and lurid detail.

PLEASE do not avoid getting this book because of the political views of the author. This may or may not be well known, but Gingrich has a PhD in History from Tulane University. At least in this book (and the other two books in the series), Gingrich is a historian first and never does any of his politics seep into the pages. If you are an avid fan of Civil War history, but avoid this book because of your prejudices against Newt the politician, without knowing Newt the historian, it will definitely be your loss.

I know alot of people would be turned off of this book solely based on the author, I was for a bit myself. Once I started reading it though I was blown away and entranced for the duration. I am a lover of alternate history novels and this is one of the most articulate, well written alternate history books I've ever red. It will go down with "Guns of the South" and "the Killer Angels trilogy" as one of the finest works written about the civil war and I highly recommend it.

I was looking for an alternate Civil War history book to read ever since reading Sharaa's excellent series. I was contemplating reading Turtledove's well received book but I picked this one up on a friend's recommendation. Needless to say I was a bit skeptical considering this book was co-authored by Newt but it turned out to be an engaging and entertaining read.

This book asks and answers the question of "what if" Lee had decided not to press the attack at Gettysburg? The first third leads up to this crucial decision and the rest of it deals with the results. It's interesting (and not especially difficult) to try to find the exact point in which this book sways from history to alternate reality.

It's unclear which of the authors is responsible for what but it doesn't really matter. The action jumps off the page and the horrors of war envelope the reader. The characters are fleshed out as real people even though the authors end up slanting their actions to produce "good" guys and "bad" guys to some degree. Overall the writing is strong for this kind of book and this turned out to be a real page turner.

It must be noted that it's probably impossible to write an alternative history without some political undercurrents running through the text. Of course an alternative history of the Civil War will have the South winning something they didn't but it some may argue there is some serious pro-south sentiment in the form of hero worship. Also this book continues the recent historical trend of vindicating Longstreet wherever and however possible.

Although this is a fantastic book it really isn't for everyone. A certain amount of Civil War knowledge is necessary to really appreciate this. Advanced knowledge of specific events (most specifically Gettysburg) is important. Knowing things like how big a "30 pounder" is or the size of a brigade, division, regiment, etc. also helps since there isn't much explanation.

Bottom Line: An excellent read for history buffs out there looking for some entertainment. Try Shaara's trilogy for an awesome and accurate fictional account of the Civil War if you aren't too specific with the details.

This is a wonderful alternate history novel. It all revolves around one change in strategy by Lee on the second day of fighting at Gettysburg. Both authors are military historians, and it is evident in the work. The entire premise is plausable and the alternate events are depicted very well. The writing flows and was an easy read for me. If you enjoy this and want something with a little more science fiction in it, check out Forstchen Lost Regiment series about a civil war regiment that stumbles into another world.

Purchasing this book on a whim I thought it was entertaining (but not as good as The Killing Angels) and until I discovered that it was one of those "what if" history books. I almost gave up reading it, but am I glad I did not. It ended up being a very good read. In fact, I could hardly put it down. I do not want to give the plot away, but Gingrich and Forstchen give a very good "what if" scenario if history had taken a different turn that day.

What makes this book especially good in the insight the authors give concerning the life of the everyday solider. They bring us back through history, to the killing fields of Gettysburg, the horrific wounds the soldiers received and the sheer terror of being a foot solider in that great and terrible war.

Is it a great book? No, not really, but it is a very good book and worth the read.

A small part of me screams out that GETTYSBURG is a transparent attempt by co-author and Southerner Newt Gingrich to immerse himself and readers from below the Mason-Dixon line in a fantasy consistent with the sentiment, "The South shall rise again." And my first gut response is, "The Confederacy lost the war; get over it!" Having said that, however, I must go on to say that this alternative history of the events from July 1-4, 1863 is one of the two best works on the Civil War I've ever read, the other being that superb 3-volume narrative history of the conflict by Shelby Foote. The fact that Newt's GETTYSBURG is fiction makes it all the more remarkable.

History has it that on Day 1 of the Gettysburg battle the vanguard of Bobbie Lee's Army of Northern Virginia drove lead elements of George Meade's Army of the Potomac from Gettysburg, the latter digging in on the hills and ridgeline south of the town. Lee's blood was up, and spent the next two days futilely attempting to take those heights against the advice of his chief lieutenant, General Longstreet, who advocated a flanking maneuver around the Union left. In GETTYSBURG, Lee not only bows to Longstreet's counsel, but goes one step further, sending his army on a wide right sweep into Meade's rear to capture the Union Army's supply base at Westminster and cut the Army of the Potomac off from Washington, DC. What results is the apocalyptic Battle of Union Mills on July 4.

There are two things that make this novel so darn good. First, the characters of the commanders on both sides - Lee, Meade, Longstreet, Hancock, Sickles, Ewell, Heth, Hunt, Haupt, Sedgewick, Hood, Pickett, Armistead - and my own personal favorite, Colonel Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Maine, seem to remain true to reality, or at least true to my perceptions of them gained as a casual student of Civil War history. Second, I suggest that you'll find no better description of battlefield conditions and the horrors of Civil War combat than that found here.

There are two further volumes to this series, GRANT COMES EAST and NEVER CALL RETREAT. I intend to purchase both immediately and deliciously anticipate losing myself within their pages. I only regret that I'll have to put the books down occasionally to attend to life's relatively mundane daily activities.

I'd award GETTYSBURG more than 5 stars if I could; it's off the scale.

There's a small part of me screaming out that GETTYSBURG is a transparent attempt by co-author and Southerner Newt Gingrich to immerse himself and readers from below the Mason-Dixon line in a fantasy consistent with the sentiment, "The South shall rise again." And my first gut response is, "The Confederacy lost the war; get over it!" Having said that, however, I must go on to say that this alternative history of the events from July 1-4, 1863 is one of the two best works on the Civil War I've ever read, the other being that superb 3-volume narrative history of the conflict by Shelby Foote. The fact that Newt's GETTYSBURG is fiction makes it all the more remarkable.

History has it that on Day 1 of the Gettysburg battle the vanguard of Bobbie Lee's Army of Northern Virginia drove lead elements of George Meade's Army of the Potomac from Gettysburg, the latter digging in on the hills and ridgeline south of the town. Lee's blood was up, and spent the next two days futilely attempting to take those heights against the advice of his chief lieutenant, General Longstreet, who advocated a flanking maneuver around the Union left. In GETTYSBURG, Lee not only bows to Longstreet's counsel, but goes one step further, sending his army on a wide right sweep into Meade's rear to capture the Union Army's supply base at Westminster and cut the Army of the Potomac off from Washington, DC. What results is the apocalyptic Battle of Union Mills on July 4.

There are two things that make this novel so darn good. First, the characters of the commanders on both sides - Lee, Meade, Longstreet, Hancock, Sickles, Ewell, Heth, Hunt, Haupt, Sedgewick, Hood, Pickett, Armistead - and my own personal favorite, Colonel Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Maine, seem to remain true to reality, or at least true to my perceptions of them gained as a casual student of Civil War history. Second, I suggest that you'll find no better description of battlefield conditions and the horrors of Civil War combat than that found here.

There are two further volumes to this series, GRANT COMES EAST and NEVER CALL RETREAT. I intend to purchase both immediately and deliciously anticipate losing myself within their pages. I only regret that I'll have to put the books down occasionally to attend to life's relatively mundane daily activities.

I'd award GETTYSBURG more than 5 stars if I could; it's off the scale.

If you've read and studied the Civil War classics (Catton, Foote, McPherson, Sears, etc.) you'll probably love this "alternative history" trilogy. Purists may dismiss the premise, but you may be won over once you realize that the "what ifs" are grounded in a deep understanding of the participants' strengths and weaknesses, the prevailing politics of the day, and other limiting tactical realities such as logistics and terrain. It is like applying war gaming theory to the past instead of the future. The result is not an entertaining fantasy but rather a deeper understanding of the key factors that decided a Civil War battle, as well as keener insights into the combatants themselves. At the outset I was skeptical of the overall concept of re-writing history, but I got hooked two-thirds of the way through volume one "Gettysburg." Everything clicked for me when I saw how the authors handled "day three" of the Gettysburg campaign. After that I relished "Grant Comes East" and was totally immersed in "Never Call Retreat." These books will stretch and extend your knowledge and understanding of the Civil War in ways that another non-fiction narrative simply cannot approach.

I picked up this book not knowing it was alternate history. Wow! Gingrich and Forstchen take the well known battle of Gettysburg and add some great twists.

I won't rephrase what has been said in earlier reviews, you can get the general plot outline there. What I loved about this book is how the characters came alive in all their humanity...this is raw war, and it shows the reaction to war, the shock, the digust, the nerves, the vomiting, the loose bowels (sorry, but it is reality). This is not a caricature of heroes past, but showing them in all their honor, fear, glory, and humanity.

I also found myself thinking a lot ....what if? What if Lee had flanked at Gettysburg instead of Pickett's charge? What if he had won a large battle south of Gettysburg and threatened DC while essentially destroying the Army of Potomac? And what if after the fall of Vicksburg US Grant had been called east? (the next book I am reading now).

A great read, whether Civil War buff, looking for a good read, or military expert.

I bought this book on a rainy day, when I found myself without anything to do. By nature, I love a good read, especially a well written historical novel. I am currently a History major, and thought this book looked good. I did not, however, read the back description which does state that this does end up being about what would have happened had General Lee and the Confederacy won the battle. This is fine, and is actually accomplished brilliantly by Gingrich and Forstchen.

This is the first novel I have read by Mr. Gingrich and Forstchen, and must say I am very impressed. Possibly the most compelling aspect of the Civil War is the personal stories that are tied into it, and are wonderfully put into this story by the authors. General Lee is seen to be a very courageous, and genuine man who above all else is a leader. The way he is depicted brings the reader directly into his thought process, and how he wants to win this battle decisively to end the war. He grapples with the prospect of encountering massive casualties, on both sides, but realizes by doing so he may be able to end the war.

Once I got about half way into this book, I couldn't put it down. It is compelling, and heart breaking at points. From the horrors of war, followed by the aftermath in which both Union and Confederate soldiers are seen helping one another, tending to each others wounded and dying... it's truly gripping.

I admire Newt Gingrich very much, and have a great deal of respect for this man. I look forward to reading his next novel soon. For any true lover of Civil War history, pick up this novel. You won't regret it.

My secondary school teacher has a PhD in American Studies. He affirmed that this novel is very imaginative and painstakingly thorough literature. From the many conversations and messages in the novel, it is clear that what is being celebrated is more Lee's specific accomplishments as a soldier than the example of his performance as Robert E. Lee. That performance reached what may be said to be its dramatic, reverant climax on July 12, 1863 when Lee became the man in a gray uniform while writing a letter to his wife Mary about the need for divine intervention. It fortunately became part of his permanent southern image. Mary read, "Our success at Gettysburg was not...great. In fact, we failed to drive our enemy from his position and have withdrawn to the Potomac. Had the river not unexpectedly risen, all would be well with us. But God in His all wise Providence willed otherwise... I trust that our merciful God, our only hope and refuge, will not desert us in our hour of need, but will deliver us by His almighty hand." If ever someone writes a history of this army, they will cite this march as one of the great exploits of the Civil War. One may only imagine that Meade's spies informed the Union general that Mary Lee was home in Lexington, Virginia rehearsing "The Song of Miriam". Although according to the novel, at 11:50 pm July 2, 1863 the Major wonders if the Army of Northern Virginia was like the Egyptian Pharoah's army just before arriving at the Red Sea. And the Sergeant doesn't seem to know if he is a good guy or a bad guy when he asks if they will make it home after getting "Moses". Fictional characters have always proved more adept at extricating themselves from tragic predicaments than their real-life counterparts and the authors' leaders of the Army of Northern Virginia are no exceptions. One can only imagine what Meade was doing and thinking by reading my favorite part of the novel that takes place at 11:45 pm, July 2, 1863, at Headquarters, Army of the Potomac, Gettysburg. To appreciate the excitement with which Meade's omission was received in Washington DC, it is necessary to understand how different it was from the purely offensive war plan that Union leaders had been anticipating for the few weeks after the July 1-3 battle. President Lincoln drafted a letter to General Meade on July 14, 1863 from Washington, DC. He wrote, "I do not believe you appreciate the magnitude of the misfortune involved in Lee's escape. He was within your easy grasp, and to have closed upon him would, in connection with our other late successes, have ended the war. As it is, the war will be prolonged indefinitely. If you could not safely attack Lee last Monday, how can you possibly do so South of the river (Potomac)... Your golden opportunity is gone, and I am distressed immeasurably because of it." This masterpiece is a fictitious attempt to emphasize Lee's strategic genius at Gettysburg so to counter the recent scholarship of several military historians who have revisited the battle, to the detriment of Lee's reputation. Thanks for showing the icons at the start of the sections so that the reader knows the settings.

I picked up Gettysburg because I've much enjoyed the work of William Forstchen in his "The Lost Regiment" series. I knew from those books that he could write good battle scenes, and I wanted to see what he could do with a "realistic" setting. I wasn't disappointed. The book, an alternate history view of Gettysburg where Lee decides on a flanking action rather than a direct assault, is excellent. I don't think it's quite as good as "Killer Angels," but it's close.

I don't know how much of this was written by Gingrich and how much by Forstchen, but I definetely saw many Forstchen touches, especially in the secondary characters and in the battle scenes. I will almost certainly give the two sequels a try. And for the readers who liked this, you should have a look at Forstchen's "Lost Regiment" series. If you can handle a little SF with your history then you should love it. I did.

Charles Gramlich
Author of Cold in the Light

Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen get together to write a very realistic Civil War novel about what would have happened if Robert E. Lee decided to carry out a sweeping, massive movement to out-flank the Union Army. Unlike most books about the Civil War, this book tosses out luck and almost magical changes in the thoughts of the main characters, basing the action and combat on the reality of the men and the leaders within both armies.
The battle scenes are painfully real, causing me to feel horror at some of details. Both authors refuse to hide anything, showing the heroism and the gore that was the Civil War battlefield.
A must for a What-If library or a Civil War library!

As someone who can't stand Newt Gingrich and thinks Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his sworn country who could have ended the Civil War in a few months if he'd accepted the offer of command of the Union armies, I wasn't expecting too much from this book. When the book got away from the standard history of the battle of Gettysburg on the first evening of the battle and became alternative, I became very uneasy. After all, though I'm Virginia born, I think the Confederate states were in the wrong, and I'm glad they lost. However, apart from a dozen times where Gingrich et al uses the same word twice in the same sentence, this is well-written, and it seems to come from a throrough knowledge of Civil War army life and of the terrain and of strategy. At its worst, the book is as good as the run of Civil War books, such as the Shaaras. That is to say, it's very readable and not badly written. At its best, though, especially in some of the battle scenes, the book approaches "literature" quality. I'm surprised to have to admit that. The 5 stars are due to judging the book by the standards of this type of writing. If you like war novels, whether or not they are dealing with historical events, this one is likely to please.

In this novel, we get an accurate history of day one of the Battle at Gettysburg. The fighting, in day one was fierce and early on, the Union forces seemed to be getting the better of the action. However, General Reynolds was killed and shortly thereafter, the tide turned. By the end of the day, the Union forces were pushed back to Cemetary Hill. Although they took a beating, the positions they were pushed back to were defensible. From this point on, the novel departs from what happened and explores what might have happened. General Longstreet suggests to General Lee that the Confederate troops commence a flanking action and Lee acedes to this. So, rather than the head butting assaults in the Devil's Den and Little Round Top (and several other such skirmishes) Lee leaves a small force in front of the Union forces to bluff them while the bulk of his troops march off to positions between Gettysburg and Washington. The fierce fighting of the second day and the unsuccessful head on assault known as Pickett's Charge on the third day are averted.

General Daniel Stickles sees what is happening and warns General Meade. Unfortunately, in a fit of anger, Meade admonishes Stickles and does not react in a timely manner. There is much confusion with the supply trains and General Haupt, who co-ordinated the railroads for the Union forces, fails to get proper cooperation from the locals. The trains are captured by the Confederate forces and as the flanking action continues, confusion reigns. The balance of the novel plausibly explores what would have occured in this situation. The authors assume just one major departure from actual events; Lee sees the error of attacking the Union forces head on when they have a defensible position on high ground. As in Chancellorsville, he divides his forces leaving enough at Gettysburg as a decoy while the others commence the flanking action. The outcome of this novel hinges on Meade's reaction to these events and the success of the Union forces in responding. This great saga continues with a sequel entitled "Grant Comes East." I recommend this gripping alteranate history.

There are several instances in history where things could have gone very differently, lynchpins if you will that could have dramatically altered the future course of events for the modern world. What if during the 2nd Punic War Hasdrubal, bearing war elephants and siege equipment from Spain, had managed to hook up with his brother Hannibal and lay siege to and conquer Rome? And what if Britain had fallen during the Blitz of 1940? Imagine how different the world would be had the Allies failed the D-Day invasion? And make no mistake, each of the above examples were very close things that with only the slightest push *could* have happened.

Certainly before the Battle of Gettysburg there was in no way a definite way to predict who would come out on top. By July 4th it was a foregone conclusion that although the war would continue it would eventually end with the capitulation of the Confederacy. As I read through Michael Shaara's outstanding "The Killer Angels" several months ago I had come to the conclusion that if Lee had listened to Longstreet and moved around to flank the Army of the Potomac things might have turned out differently indeed. At the time I had not picked this book up yet and didn't realize that that was exactly what the authors had in mind too.

This incarnation of the famous battle takes the premise that during the beginning of the battle Lee does in fact listen to Longstreet and move south towards Washington, blocking off Meade's lines of communication and supply. The only other difference that I was able to pick out related to Jeb Stuart's rejoining the army so early, which happened late in the real battle. And with all the pieces set we now have a pretty good idea of what could have happened had Lee used his noodle instead of brute force. As I stated before, I had read "The Killer Angels" before this and I must strongly recommend that if you read nothing else before you read "Gettysburg" then read that. It will be of immense value in that you will know the main characters and their original actions in battle, and conversely will get to see how they may have performed in this version.

Several generals that survived the original battle were killed here, and conversely a few that didn't make it during the original live here. As the Army of the Potomac makes a "Pickett's Charge" of thier own on Lee's army entrenched at Pipe Creek you're really drawn in, particularly as the authors describe the hell it must have been for the men on the front line of each column, describing each volley of Confederate fire from the ridge above with such clarity that it felt as though I was there.

How do the principle characters of "The Killer Angels" fare? Based upon the admittedly limited studying I have done on the subject I must say that each of the characters basic character traits were accurately depicted here. Armistead's sense of chivalry, Pickett and Stuart's yearning for glory, Meade's stubborness, and Chamberlain's quiet stoicism really shine through in key moments, written powerfully enough that at several points I wanted to re-read the passages because the emotion of the moment was too much to let pass with just one read through. The battle in which Chamberlain's 20th Maine defiantly takes on Armistead's entire division was written so well (a strange mix of Rourke's Drift meets Custer's last stand) I almost cried for the bravery on display. And at moments like that I would have to pull myself back and remember that it didn't really happen this way.

Whereas "The Killer Angels" focused on a unique few characters this one by and large focuses on others (although not ignoring the likes of Buford, Chamberlain, or the others) such as the villified politician-general Dan Sickles, Chief of Union Artillery General Henry Hunt, and US Army railroad General Haupt. In this alternate history these characters are the key players. I do hope to see more of the Chamberlain brothers in the future books to be released, and perhaps in this version Winfield Hancock and Lo Armistead will finally be able to meet each other alive and under better circumstances. One can only hope.

I have read a number of the other posts and take issue with several of them that say that the book has a bias in favor of the Confederacy, and especially with regards to the description of the Generals involved. I have to say that I heartily disagree with them. After having read several accounts of Meade I feel he was accurately portrayed here. I do believe that the book does justice to him, even evoking a great deal of sympathy for him at the end. I had nothing but the most utter respect for most of the Union generals as described in the book, even Dan Sickles although history may showcase his faults more than his contributions. The kinder, gentler Robert E. Lee is nowhere to be seen in this book, instead he's portrayed as a barely held in check pit bull with regards to commanding the Army of Northern Virginia, although in between battles we are treated to a more traditional view of the man and his ethics.

Overall I have to give this book 5 stars. We'll never know for sure if the battle would have swung in this direction had only 2 minor changes taken place so early on, but it sure is enjoyable reading it. It is extremely well written and throughout the book you get the feeling that as you read you're going through entirely new territory. I cannot wait to begin on "Grant Comes East" in what is sure to be the showdown of showdowns. I must again *strongly* recommend reading "The Killer Angels" before tackling "Gettysburg".

Although this book is a good read, it is not plausible. Not by any sense is this story beliveable. For this reason, I can't recommend this book. And, this book has a strong bias towards the south and Lee, making him look like some sort of god.
But first, let me highlight why the book is not plausible.
First, Newt has us believe that Lee's army can march 35 miles in enemy territory without a warning from the populous that this is happening, all while the Union army could march less than half that disance to get to Union Mills first. And, he writes this off, saying that Meade was getting many statements that the Rebels were here and there and everywhere. I can see this happening in Virginia, but I'm sorry not in Pennsylvania. Incredulous!
Second, when Meade is brought news from Buford's courier that Longstreet's corps is in Taneytown and going for Union Mills (where the good defensible ground was at Pipe Creek) and all the Union supplies in Westminster, what does Meade do? He vacillates. And, when Hancock argues with him, he decides to call a council of his corps commanders, waisting six valuable hours of road time. Just think, now really, what would have happened? Hancock would have asked to take his corps to Westminster. Meade, being a new commander, would have relented. After all Hancock had done this before at Fredericksburg (see the movie Gods and Generals which is better than this book), and given the danger of (1) losing his supply center (2) having the Confederate army between him and Washington, DC, and (3) having the Confederate army capture the highly defensible ground at Pipe Creek (where he was planning to defend), and especially how Meade acted afterwards, why wouldn't he have relented? Does Newt think that Meade was that stupid?
However, if Meade had acted on this news from his best scouting General, Buford, by the way, who just saved the day prior to this, Hancock would have been in both Westminster, and Union Mills before Longstreet, and that would have ruined Newt's implausible story. Hence - his bias.
Third, when Meade finally relents and moves the Army of Potomac to Union Mills, he decides to attack, when more than half the Confederate army is on the hill and dug in, knowing full well that his chances of success are minimal. Also, can't he read the maps like Lee? Doesn't he see that Lee is poised at his flank in Taneytown to take Littletown and close the door trapping the Army of the Potomac in a Cannae battle. But, to the keep the implausibility going, Newt has them attack at Pipe Creek, the ground that the Union generals looked at and noticed that no one would be able to crack. Again, does Newt think that Meade was that stupid?
Now for the bias - Newt's love of Lee bias. Buford gets killed (yes he does) from a cannonade of a couple of batteries. All of the generals of the Army of the Potomac but Sickles and Hunt are either killed or captured. But... Lee and Longstreet are in the open, while a cannonade of 230 cannons from the Union army explodes around them, wounding and killing people around them. Do they get killed or hurt? No.
And then there is the Longstreet and Lee story - the enduring story about Gettysburg brought out so well in a great book, not a poor book like this one on Gettysburg - but a great book, The Killer Angels.
Hey, Newt, Lee did not come up with the idea to do a turning movement and then find defensible ground to get the Union army to attack, be accurate and read some history. Get your facts, right! Longstreet suggested this - see all the credible history books on this. No, Newt, Longstreet did not suggest a turning attack on the flank, but a great move around 35 miles. However, of course, Newt rewrites the facts so that he can make Lee look like a god.
But, then again, the flanking wouldn't have worked, because Hancock would have been in Westminster first and the Confederate army would have been destroyed in detail, when Sickles attacked their retreating troops like he suggested.
Which, I suppose is why Lee was right in attacking at Gettysburg, and the only redeeming quality of this book. The book's story is so implausible that you recognize the Lee in fact did what he had to do - to attack and dislodge the Union army. He thought this out, recognized that the Union army had the center line of axis due to the roads, didn't have stupid generals, and would be warned by the populace.
So, Lee attacked. Why? Because if he did what Longstreet suggested, his army would have been destroyed.
When you get all the facts straight, the battle of Gettysburg was set on the first day when Buford forced the Confederates to attack them, held them until Reynolds came up and then the Union held the high ground.
Sorry, Newt, although an interesting read, your alternative is implausible.

There are any number of alternative history books and articles that posit a Confederate victory at one point or another in the Civil War. Of course Gettysburg gets more than its share of this stuff, all the way back to Faulkner's famous assertion that all Southern boys imagine participating in Pickett's Charge, and imagine that they can change history, this time. Given that the authors are Southerners, and that this has been done before, I was, to be frank, somewhat apprehensive as I started this book, and the first 50 pages or so didn't dissuade me from my negative feelings.

The authors, of course, are familiar with the lore of the battle as seen through the lens of the "Lost Cause." One of the hoary old "truths" of Gettysburg is the Confederate claim that if Ewelll hadn't hesitated and ultimately flinched when faced with Cemetary Hill, he could have captured that height, and unhinged the whole Union position. In this book, Lee does that many neo-Rebs fantasize about: instead of issuing a vague discretionary order, he goes himself to Ewell's headquarters, and demands action, immediately. The attack goes in aggressively, as most Southerners think it should have, though things aren't perfect: the divisions are a bit uncoordinated.

This is where things get interesting. I've always been of the opinion that Southerners and what I call the neo-Rebs are essentially overconfident with regards to this supposed "easy" attack. There were troops at the top of that hill, some who had been there for hours, fortifying, and artillery with extra ammunition. In this book, what I believe would have happened does: the Union artillery blows the Confederate attackers right off the hill, and the Union manages to hold the hill.

This results in a council of war that evening in Lee's headquarters, and Longstreet speaks up, advocating his march around the Southern flank of the Union army. Instead of ignoring him (as he did in real life) Lee decides to go along with it, and further goads him by various references to Jackson, and how the fabled dead general would have handled the situation. The result, as you can imagine, isn't the same as the one that followed the actual battle.

There are a few things that I found annoying or unrealistic or bad representations of people in this book. The authors (or their editors) mispell Robert Rodes' name repeatedly, and some of the characters act in ways that are uncharacteristic. I don't, for instance, believe that the manipulation attributed to Lee and recounted above would ever, in actuality, have occurred to the man, let alone seemed honorable enough to actually do. I did enjoy the depiction of the Union army generals, though. Hancock of course is seen as the backbone of the army. Henry Hunt is one of the main characters, a soldier very decisive in the actual Union victory at Gettysbu