First book I've encountered that covers Tennessee during the Civil War. I was drawn to the book as I have only recently discovered I had ancestors living in the state during that time period and wanted to read about what they may have experienced. It is a very dry, academic read, but I am sure Civil War buffs and history buffs in general will likely find it's highly researched and detailed writing fascinating. I'll continue to browse it for a long time to come.

This was a well-researched and objective examination of this army. I have felt there are some good points about some of the generals of the army (particularly Braxton Bragg.) The author does a nice job of keeping the action moving at a steady pace to keep your interest, even while going into details about the day-to-day workings of the army and not discussing the more glitzy battle scenes. I would recommend this book for the general reader, but for those who lean toward military history and are not easily bored about discussions of military matters. This is, however, a disclaimer that applies toward any book regarding military history. I would especially recommend this as this is the first book by this author that I have read and trust that his other books are of the same quality. I have wanted to read a book by this author for some time and I have a growing interest in the Western Theater, so I know I will have a few good books lined up.

One of the driest books I have ever read. It is interesting to look into the details of how various Confederat units were successful while others were not. The details and facts presented are not in question but the writing style of Daniel leaves much to be desired.

With a large operating theater covering multiple states, the Army of Tennessee played an often neglected but vitally important role in the fate of the Confederacy. It’s failure, as compared to the Army of Northern Virginia, is often blamed solely on the poor leadership of generals Braxton Bragg, Joseph E. Johnston and John Bell Hood. Under them it won few battles and failed to halt the advance of the Union armies in the west. But the reason for its failures go beyond the performance of its top commanders. While the Army of Tennessee had some excellent division and brigade commanders, it suffered largely from the infighting and poor performance of its corps commanders like Polk and Hardee. Military historian Larry J. Daniel’s analysis goes beyond previous works that have focused on questions of command structure and the battlefield, he provides a clearer view of the army's flawed command structure, from President Jefferson Davis to the army’s top-level command and unit cohesion to the varied experiences of common soldiers and their connections to the home front. Daniel takes full account of work by previous historians, but he is not shy about pronouncing his own fresh judgments of the army’s generals, troops, campaigns, successes, and failures. As Daniel persuasively argues, there is no simple answer to the question of why the army was conquered, but he provides us an informed range of suggestions that enrich our understanding of Confederate military operations and the war as a whole.

I enjoyed this book thoroughly and would recommend it highly, as it takes a different approach to evaluating the reasons for the lack of success the Army of Tennessee had on the battlefield. It's clearly written and eminently readable while still being a scholarly and well-supported text on the subject. My review (which I hope to expand upon later) at Amazon is linked below.