this book is one that i had to read for my modes of inquiry class in college. it is very pertinent in helping the reader figure out a good way to go in depth in a research project. this book shows how different ways of looking at the same things can produce different results. this book is also good for those people who enjoy the history of interesting people that are usually unheard of. "Emma's Story" is one like this, and i would recommend it to anyone in the modes of inquiry class or to someone who enjoys a good humanities detective book.

I hate to nit-pick, but I found Fredericksburg 1862 and Chancellorsville 1863 to be replete with errors, at least the versions I read, both Military Book Club editions. The lists of errors I sent to Osprey went on for a three and six pages respectively. Many of them were relatively minor, but there were enough of them, and some not so minor, to cause me to consider the books greatly flawed. Let me note here that I live near Fredericksburg and volunteer once a month at the Chancellorsville Battlefield Visitor Center, so I am fairly familiar with the battles in question. I also want to point out up front that Osprey was very receptive to my comments and implied that future editions may incorporate some changes. I own more than 75 Osprey titles and that this is certainly not the norm for their products, many of which are excellent.

Some types of problems I noted with the books included:

- spelling errors such as Sedgewick for Sedgwick (not always, but several times), Siegel for Sigel and Hero Van Borke for Heros von Borcke.

- geographic errors such as inaccurate descriptions of the road net, an incorrect locations for geographic features, and faulty relative positions.

- graphical errors such as inaccurate troop dispositions (multiple instances), incorrect unit symbology and faulty depiction of vegetation on maps.

- factual errors such as placing events on the wrong date, incorrectly identifying unit commanders and referring to Chancellorsville as a farmhouse rather than an inn.

I recommend waiting for a revised edition.

The diagrams and orders of battle are very good. Some of the diagrams, including that of the attack on the town, are invaluable. However, if using this as a serious reference, make sure you have a second source. There are a number of disturbing errors. A quote credited to Longstreet was actually by Alexander Porter. The dates on the Mud March are wrong (or perhaps this section is just poorly written). The name of one of the two generals who criticized Burnside in Washington is wrong! These errors throw into serious question the editing and validity of the work.

Smith's is one of the better Osprey volumes, with some evocative Hook 'paintings' (I hesitate to use the word "art")and nicely detailed maps of the fighting in and around the town and Marye's Heights. While the narrative is a bit choppy, in terms of style, it makes its point. The detailed OoB is quite valuable . . .and would be more so if it weren't for the disturbing number of typos (The 22nd Mass regiment with 2100+ men? A battery with 21 Napoleons.) Not definitive, nor is it intended to be, but valuable nonetheless.

With Christmas season soon approaching, thoughts of home and a warm cozy spot by the fire may have surpassed any thoughts of war. Longing perhaps for a slice of Mother's homemade pie or a brief letter from home describing the latest events, men, many cold, hungry, and miserable went about their duties awaiting orders from their commanders. This terrible conflict showed no sign of ending and with the onset of colder weather, men dug in around Fredericksburg and waited. Both armies watching for signs of advance, until that fateful moment when General Ambrose E. Burnside, the unluckiest commander of the Civil War, took charge and laid forth a plan to cross the Rappahannock.

This complex plan if followed accordingly, would surprise General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and bring a swift end to the escalating conflict. However, crossing the river in the midst of winter became a logistical nightmare and the delaying actions caused by the weather allowed Lee's troops to occupy strong positions overlooking the town such as Marye's Heights.

Union men were sent into battle as if lambs led to the slaughter. Lead flew through the air like hoards of locusts during a plague, mowing down men where they stood. Bodies piled up and the living took refuge behind walls of once living flesh. Thumps of bullets could be heard as they entered the bloody makeshift walls as those clinging to life on the "killing ground" cried out for help. Burnside sent wave after wave of men to their death and even tried to rally his commanders by claiming he would personally lead men to the fight and win the day! He was finally persuaded to call of the attack with many of his troops lying on the cold bloody earth for the night. The cries of the dying intermixed with the hoarse prayers of those passing from this earth.

As one begins reading this work you begin to realize that more editing was needed before publication. The opening chapter of the book does a pretty good job of detailing the aftermath of Antietam. It gives a good account of the 178th Pennsylvania and their slaughter at Shepherdstown, and how the Rebel forces pushed them back across the Potomac. However, the 178th was not there - it was the 118th Pennsylvania, better known as the Corn Regiment from Philadelphia. This is not to say that the entire book is filled with errors, the detail and research that went into battle statistics were in good order but to miss the proper labeling of the regiment so early in the work is somewhat disturbing. Thorough editing would have picked up that key fact; alas it was not done.

The author does a good job in bringing the details of battle to light and carries the reader through the book at a nice pace without dulling the facts or swamping the reader with too much military tactics. The maps are easy to follow and the sidebars on the commanders are informative. I found the book to be enjoyable, but would like to see the book re-edited and hopefully brought back out in amended form. As is, it's adequate for those interested in the Fredericksburg Campaign and will do fine as a secondary source to primary source material.

Another typical Carl Smith Osprey book, which is to say it is full of factual errors and has a confusing description of the battle. I really feel that the book should be 1.5 stars; the maps and gaining a general feeling for the battle are worth more than 1 star, but 2 is being a little too generous. The maps in the book are good, particularly in showing the layout of the town. The rest of the book is suspect. Smith makes a lot of errors, most of them minor, but enough that anyone using this as the only reference to the battle will get much of it wrong. For instance, he gets such basic details as the date of the Mud March wrong. The two generals that went to Washington after the battle in a revolt against Burnside were Newton and Cochrane; Smith says it was Newton and Brooks. These are just two of the many errors found within the text.

The description of the battle itself is somewhat confusing. It's as though the original manuscript was too long and needed to be shortened, but the editing work was done in a rush. The assault on Marye's Heights -- which units attacked when and did what -- is particularly confusing and incomplete. This confusing narrative style is also found in Smith's other Osprey books.

These are just a few of the problems, which is unfortunate as Fredericksburg is an under reported battle.

Most of Osprey's books are reaonably good, but stay far, far away from Carl Smith's books (Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and this).

Carl Smith does a deicent job, but the book is confusing to follow. I am an avid Civil War researcher, and this is my first in-depth look at the Fredricksburg Campaign. OK for starters. A lot of good detail in specific areas, but difficult to follow in the whole scheme of things. Maps could incorporate a larger area for an easier way to follow along. Again, a good beginner book.

I am sorry to say that after much excitment in finally receiving my copy of this book I was bitterly disappointed in the end. In fact I did not finish reading this book but I put it away half way through it. I really wanted to get to the fighting and to learn why this battle (disaster) took place. I wanted to read about the courage of those Union troops attacking the postions on the heights above the town, I wanted to read about the Angel of Marye's Heights but I couldn't, I just found it too hard to continue reading. The book didn't draw me it from the start, the narrative had no warmth to it.

General Stackpole's The Fredericksburg Campaign is a solid work that serves as a good departure point for further study of the campaign, and I will relate some of the book's strongpoints and weaknesses.

Since there is no other campaign history of Fredericksburg written in the 20th century (there is in fact only one other, written in 1882) which makes Stackpole's book invaluable in and of itself. The major historians, Catton, Foote, and McPherson do not devote more than a few chapters to the subject. While Catton devotes portion of a book, but it is unsatisfactory as a campaign history. Gary Gallagher has recently edited a book of essays of various elements of the battle but again, it is not a campaign history.

The focused scope of the book allows it to discuss the aspects of the campaign and battle in great detail, which is another strongpoint. Also, I greatly appreciated the numerous maps; it enabled me to see the flow of battle and the importance of geography.

The book's only one major weakness is its concluding analysis. General Stackpole comes to to simple of a conclusion, although it is understandable given his military background he is disgusted with the apparently wanton waste of human life at Fredericksburg. General Stackpole's concluding analysis compels one to look further, to gain a broader perspective, and this is where I would suggest Gallagher's book as well as Jay Luvaas' Battlefield Guide to Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Stackpole provides a great foundation upon which further study will build.

I gave the book a rating of "8". Five points came simply because it is the only modern campaign history; that by itself makes it worthwhile reading. Two points came from the solid historical work; he makes good use of primary sources throughout and his analysis of the battle is sound. One point came from the maps, which again were quite useful and accurately detailed. I cannot give Stackpole higher due to his conclusions but this in no way should deter a! nyone from reading it. It is well-written (not in the sense of McPherson) and is an easy read. Stackpole doesn't answer every question, but he makes you want to delve deeper, which is the mark of a valuable book.