Abraham Lincoln always held a special place for General William Rosecrans because of his victory at the Battle of Murfreesboro (or Stone's River). This was a narrow thing, with the forces of Braxton Bragg coming very close to victory. But the star-crossed Confederate general ended up withdrawing, leaving Rosecrans' Union forces to claim victory by holding the field of battle.

Lincoln's gratitude is understandable, given the disaster at Fredericksburg and Grant's and Sherman's lack of success at Vicksburg. Rosecrans' victory was a rare bright spot at this time.

But how much of a bright spot, really, was it? That is why the story of this battle is important.

This is the story of two armies each planning the same first move in battle--an attack on the other side's right wing. Bragg was lucky to get in the first blow. His forces rolled up much of Rosecrans' right. The stubborn resistance of Sheridan and others slowed the onslaught. By the end of the day, lines were stabilized and Rosecrans had held--but just barely.

Bragg expected the Union forces to withdraw--but they did not. The Union generals met that evening to decide what to do and Rosecrans ultimately made the call to hold his position.

The next day, Bragg ordered a sanguinary attack and it was beaten off with heavy casualties. His withdrawal from the field followed.

This is a straightforward description of the battle. It may not be the best written account of a battle, but it moves the story along nicely and provides ample detail to get a sense of what was happening and what was at stake. All in all, worth reading. . . .

Abraham Lincoln always held a special place for General William Rosecrans because of his victory at the Battle of Murfreesboro (or Stone's River). This was a narrow thing, with the forces of Braxton Bragg coming very close to victory. But the star-crossed Confederate general ended up withdrawing, leaving Rosecrans' Union forces to claim victory by holding the field of battle.

Lincoln's gratitude is understandable, given the disaster at Fredericksburg and Grant's and Sherman's lack of success at Vicksburg. Rosecrans' victory was a rare bright spot at this time.

But how much of a bright spot, really, was it? That is why the story of this battle is important.

This is the story of two armies each planning the same first move in battle--an attack on the other side's right wing. Bragg was lucky to get in the first blow. His forces rolled up much of Rosecrans' right. The stubborn resistance of Sheridan and others slowed the onslaught. By the end of the day, lines were stabilized and Rosecrans had held--but just barely.

Bragg expected the Union forces to withdraw--but they did not. The Union generals met that evening to decide what to do and Rosecrans ultimately made the call to hold his position.

The next day, Bragg ordered a sanguinary attack and it was beaten off with heavy casualties. His withdrawal from the field followed.

This is a straightforward description of the battle. It may not be the best written account of a battle, but it moves the story along nicely and provides ample detail to get a sense of what was happening and what was at stake. All in all, worth reading. . . .

The battle of Murfreesboro (Stones River) is one of the most important neglected battles of the American Civil War - or one of the most neglected important battles, if you like. The battlefield is also a good illustration of the challenges of battlefield preservation, since large parts of it are preserved while other parts are buried underneath urban and suburban sprawl. A good history and a good battlefield guide would be welcome.

Unfortunately, "No Better Place to Die" is not that book. In fact, I'd say that it's really more of an example of how *not* to write military history. Almost all of the book is a descriptive, blow by blow account of the battle, often at the regimental and brigade level. This means that Cozzens does not provide a sufficiently frequent birds-eye view of the battle to supplement the action on the ground and to explain the choices people were making. His prose style is also pretty dry, though quotations from diaries help liven it up considerably.

The book also does not have enough maps. Especially in a blow-by-blow book, an abundance of well-designed maps showing the action are essential and would really help tell the story.

Despite its weaknesses, I managed to read the book to the end, largely because I was in Murfreesboro at the time. If you are physically there, the first chapter is good for setting the stage. In fact, Cozzens would have done better to write the other chapters more like the first. Moreover, if you are in town, you can get a sense of the battlefield without maps (and you'll have the park service maps after all). The book is also helpful because you will meet some characters whose monuments you might see around town.

I haven't read any of the other books available on the battle, so it may be true (as some other reviewers claim) that this one is the best available. But you'll probably note that most of the reviewers talk about the battle, not the book. It's a disappointment.

The battle of Murfreesboro (Stones River) is one of the most important neglected battles of the American Civil War - or one of the most neglected important battles, if you like. The battlefield is also a good illustration of the challenges of battlefield preservation, since large parts of it are preserved while other parts are buried underneath urban and suburban sprawl. A good history and a good battlefield guide would be welcome.

Unfortunately, "No Better Place to Die" is not that book. In fact, I'd say that it's really more of an example of how *not* to write military history. Almost all of the book is a descriptive, blow by blow account of the battle, often at the regimental and brigade level. This means that Cozzens does not provide a sufficiently frequent birds-eye view of the battle to supplement the action on the ground and to explain the choices people were making. His prose style is also pretty dry, though quotations from diaries help liven it up considerably.

The book also does not have enough maps. Especially in a blow-by-blow book, an abundance of well-designed maps showing the action are essential and would really help tell the story.

Despite its weaknesses, I managed to read the book to the end, largely because I was in Murfreesboro at the time. If you are physically there, the first chapter is good for setting the stage. In fact, Cozzens would have done better to write the other chapters more like the first. Moreover, if you are in town, you can get a sense of the battlefield without maps (and you'll have the park service maps after all). The book is also helpful because you will meet some characters whose monuments you might see around town.

I haven't read any of the other books available on the battle, so it may be true (as some other reviewers claim) that this one is the best available. But you'll probably note that most of the reviewers talk about the battle, not the book. It's a disappointment.

The battle of Murfreesboro (Stones River) is one of the most important neglected battles of the American Civil War - or one of the most neglected important battles, if you like. The battlefield is also a good illustration of the challenges of battlefield preservation, since large parts of it are preserved while other parts are buried underneath urban and suburban sprawl. A good history and a good battlefield guide would be welcome.

Unfortunately, "No Better Place to Die" is not that book. In fact, I'd say that it's really more of an example of how *not* to write military history. Almost all of the book is a descriptive, blow by blow account of the battle, often at the regimental and brigade level. This means that Cozzens does not provide a sufficiently frequent birds-eye view of the battle to supplement the action on the ground and to explain the choices people were making. His prose style is also pretty dry, though quotations from diaries help liven it up considerably.

The book also does not have enough maps. Especially in a blow-by-blow book, an abundance of well-designed maps showing the action are essential and would really help tell the story.

Despite its weaknesses, I managed to read the book to the end, largely because I was in Murfreesboro at the time. If you are physically there, the first chapter is good for setting the stage. In fact, Cozzens would have done better to write the other chapters more like the first. Moreover, if you are in town, you can get a sense of the battlefield without maps if you are there (and you'll have the park service maps after all). The book is also helpful because you will meet some characters whose monuments you might see around town.

I haven't read any of the other books available on the battle, so it may be true (as some other reviewers claim) that this one is the best available. But you'll probably note that most of the reviewers talk about the battle, not the book. It's a disappointment.