Gods and Generals: A Novel of the Civil War

By Jeff Shaara

The New York Times bestselling prequel to the Pulitzer Prize–winning classic The Killer Angels
 
In this brilliantly written epic novel, Jeff Shaara traces the lives, passions, and careers of the great military leaders from the first gathering clouds of the Civil War. Here is Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, a hopelessly by-the-book military instructor and devout Christian who becomes the greatest commander of the Civil War; Winfield Scott Hancock, a captain of quartermasters who quickly establishes himself as one of the finest leaders of the Union army; Joshua Chamberlain, who gives up his promising academic career and goes on to become one of the most heroic soldiers in American history; and Robert E. Lee, never believing until too late that a civil war would ever truly come to pass. Profound in its insights into the minds and hearts of those who fought in the war, Gods and Generals creates a vivid portrait of the soldiers, the battlefields, and the tumultuous times that forever shaped the nation.

BONUS: This edition includes an excerpt from Jeff Shaara's Blaze of Glory.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
• Release date: Oct 5, 2000
• ISBN: 9780345438492

Jeff Shaara

JEFF SHAARA is the award-winning, New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Publishers Weekly bestselling author of seventeen novels, including Rise to Rebellion and The Rising Tide, as well as Gods and Generals and The Last Full Measure - two novels that complete his father's Pulitzer Prize-winning classic, The Killer Angels. Shaara was born in New Brunswick, New Jersey, grew up in Tallahassee, Florida, and lives in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

Reviews for Gods and Generals

[mccarthys_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Gods and Generals is a work of historical fiction, written as a prequel to The Killer Angels, a book by the author's father. That book has the battle of Gettysburg as its centerpiece, and this book covers the war leading up to the second invasion of the north, building up to Gettysburg. The story is told through the eyes of confederate officers Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and union officers Hancock and Chamberlain. The book follows the four men from the lead-up to secession through the end of the Battle of Chancellorsville. The reader follows them to Antietam and Fredericksburg and learns about some other battles peripherally. Most of the story unfolds in the actions, thoughts and dialogues of the four men being followed and this method limits the amount of detail that can be covered without breaking away from the flow and format of the storytelling. Thus, someone with no background on the American Civil War might find themselves overwhelmed or confused at times. My primary criticism of the book is that it focuses on four officers, three of whom are already well know and their stories well-told. The most interesting tale is probably the story of Joshua Chamberlain, who was not a soldier at the start of the war and must learn his way in the heat of battle. This is the only truly unique perspective in the book. The other aspect I found frustrating was the abrupt manner in which perspectives changed, often with no overlap - even when it would have been interesting to have some. For instance, much of General Jackson's early exploits are uncovered not from Jackson's perspective but from Lee's. There are other times when the men are on the same battlefield and instead of exploring the same events from multiple perspectives - something I personally think would have added a rich layer to this book - the author instead hands the baton off between men with one man's story picking up where the other's ends. This book makes characters out of the four historical figures in a way that supposes to know their innermost thoughts and feelings on various topics. This sort of creative speculation is necessary in this style of book, but can occasionally feel disingenuous. That all being said, the book covers the men in a compelling way, and after a slow start, moves at a good clip. The books avoids the traps of excessive sensory details and of extraneous broader historical context and narrows in on the visceral experience of the main characters and the men they lead. It makes a drama of the civil war in a manner that feels remarkably free of moral judgement and only gets into technical criticism in situations where it is very believable and where historians generally agree with the criticism being leveled. I was happy with the reading experience and felt like my knowledge of the civil war was enhanced, albeit in a more personal sense than a technical one. I do plan on reading The Killer Angels next.

[buffalogr · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I perform yet another reread of this first in the series of historic fiction. Characters we know from the civil war are personalized and given dialogue to illustrate story line. Lee, Jackson, Hancock and Chamberlain are the four characters chosen by the author to view the war, and we learn a lot about them. Through Hancock and Chamberlain, we see the Union leadership flailing for one who can lead. if you don't enjoy detailed instruction about battles, this book is not yours. It won't make much sense audibly, without a map or a memory of the ground. Great way to read a history lesson.

[hskey-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Mostly good. The battles are well described, the inner thoughts of the major characters make sense and you feel for everyone involved. I found the pacing a bit slow and the last third definitely lost me a bit and felt repetitive. Weaving in real tactics from the battles was very cool. As I'm reading more historical fiction, I realize I should do more research prior to reading so I have a better fundamental understanding of the goings on. Was surprised the author chose to highlight both sides and not really have a set protagonist antagonist and not mention slavery that much but I suppose the Civil War was about more than that? Not sure, a bit confused about that. I guess history isn't always as clean cut as good vs bad so this probably was a good decision by the author. Following in his father's footsteps is super cool, looking forward to the Killer Angels.

[wb4ever1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

GODS AND GENERALS is another Civil War book that sat on my shelf too long before I pulled it down and read it. Written by Jeff Shaara, it is a prequel to THE KILLER ANGELS, the Pulitzer Prize winning historical novel written by his late father, Michael Shaara. The latter was an account of the battle of Gettysburg through the eyes of the officers and men who fought it; the son’s book follows a group of men from the years just before the Civil War through the battle of Chancellorsville just prior to Gettysburg. The men, two of whom—Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson—fought for the Confederacy, while the other two—Winfield Scott Hancock and Joshua Chamberlain—remained loyal to the Union. Shaara attempts to give the reader a ground level view of history as it unfolded day by day through the eyes of the participants, who grappled with events without a shred of the hindsight we enjoy in the present day. Shaara has done his research well, and does a good job of presenting the world views of Americans very much of the mid 19th Century, and they saw things very differently than their modern descendants. Robert E. Lee’s sense of duty and honor, as he understood it, would not let him take up arms against his home state of Virginia, even when men with whom he disagreed made the bad choice to lead the Old Dominion into the Confederacy. Jackson’s deep faith in a God who willed all things in accordance with an unknowable plan led him to take up arms against men with whom he trained and served beside in years past. Hancock was a supremely competent career officer with no qualms about what side he was on, while Chamberlain, a teacher at a college inMaine, felt compelled to go and fight alongside the young men he taught. Lee and Jackson have been the subject of many other books, both fiction and non-fiction, and I was familiar with the course of their lives, but it was great to learn about General Hancock, who commanded troops at nearly every major engagement of the war in the East. The Hancock Shaara presents is a man who grieves for the friendships severed with Southerners, but who never shirks when it comes to making war upon them, but whose biggest obstacle were the incompetent superiors whose greatest talent was to lose battles where the Union had the most advantages. The parts of the book dealing with the armed clashes between Union and Confederates were my favorites, as Shaara has a talent for giving the reader a real sense of what it was like to be caught up in the moment, and carried on the chaos of a battle where the side who is winning or losing changes from one minute to the next. Though he glosses over the battle of Antietam by showing it mostly through Chamberlain’s eyes while his unit is held in reserve, the bloody engagements at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville are vividly portrayed. So too the anger and anguish of officers like Hancock, who had no choice but to obey orders they knew would lead to military disaster, and the frustration of commanders like Jackson who reach for a total victory that is just outside their grasp. It is a true lesson on the definition of “the fortunes of war.” I like Shaara’s writing style, especially his command of character POV. Most of the chapters are relatively short and to the point, and there is a lot of attention given to detail—descriptions of uniforms and landscapes being most prominent—that may not be to everyone’s liking.And this book—published in 1996—may not be for every reader of history, for it is an example of a kind of historical fiction that would not find favor in many quarters in the 21st Century, where in the eyes of some, American history is solely the story of oppressors, the oppressed, and a few hypocrites who might fall in between. There is no doubt that Shaara’s treatment of Jackson, mainly at the end of the book, falls into outright romanticizing. The issue of race and slavery is barely mentioned, and the one Black character who appears is an emancipated slave who respectfully approaches Lee about buying his brother’s freedom. It comes off as an awkward scene, written to address the underlining and dominant issue of the Civil War, and then be done with it. But it does go the reality that the people of the time lived under a very different moral code, and did not debate the great issue of the day endlessly in every conversation. They were who they were, and not who a modern America thought they should have been. And Shaara makes it very clear that the Civil War was fought by men who very much did not want to go war, and who very much did not want to kill each other on a battlefield. So, GODS AND GENERALS will certainly “trigger” some, and this book is not for them. But for those interested in a fighting man’s perspective on the Civil War, this is a good book that makes flesh and blood out of some of the dry facts so many of us leaned in American History class. It proves that good history is a good story, one that can be retold endlessly time and again.

[webbard · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Jeff Shaara takes his dads book "The Killer Angels" and tries to extend it to cover not just the early war, but the years leading up to the war. In the end the style and viewpoints ends up spread far too thin to cover such a period of time. The book claims to cover 4 viewpoints, Robert E. Lee, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Winfeld Scott Hancock and Joshua Chamberlin. But in the end it works out that a majority of the book is from Lee's POV.Which brings us to the second major problem. While Killer Angels seemed to be a repudiation of the Mythos of the Lost Cause, with an attempt to rehab Longstreet's undeserved reputation at Gettysburg. Gods And Generals seemingly pulls out every single cliche it can from the Lost Cause. Kindly Mr Lee who was apolitical (How he can spend 3 years in Arlington across the river from DC during the late 1850s and yet have no idea about politics is beyond me) to kindly Mr Lee who was just looking out for the welfare of his slaves, which is why he kept them enslaved.Speaking of slaves, after an early appearance by a former slave at Arlington (written in the most white man writing a minority way possible), slaves never again appear in the story. Also somehow never mentioned is the Emancipation Proclamation, which was one of the major results of a battle smack dab in the middle of the novel. It's not a bad novel persay, but is disappointing because it could have been done much better. If for example the time period of the Seven Days Battles / 2nd Bull Run / Antietam which would have ran from July of 62 to September of 62 was it's own section and given time to build out of there instead of things feeling rushed (while somehow also feeling very slow at points) it could have been better.It's worth a read, I would definitely read The Killer Angels first, and if you want more then pick this up. Don't read this as a series starting here and going into Killer Angels.

[chellerystick · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I tried to read this. I really did. It was better than watching the film Gettysburg in middle school: names and families and motivations were easier to keep track of than a bunch of matching uniforms were. But the facts were still so tedious to slog though for someone who is not very military yet wants to be informed about U.S. history as an element of civics.

[novelcommentary · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Gods and Generals is written as a prequel to The Killing Angels, a Pulitzer Prize winning novel written by Michael Shaara. This novel, written by his son, seeks to further the historical retelling of the civil war up to the battle of Gettysburg. Jeff, his son, does a nice job of bringing the war to the reader by concentrating on four main Generals: Robert E. Lee, Thomas Stonewall Jackson, (from the south), and Joshua Chamberlain and Winfred Scott Hancock (from the north). Some points of interest include the relationship that all these men had with each other. They knew each other or of each other from attending West Point and some fought together in The Mexican war which was a land grab that gave us the southwest, and provided valuable battle experience for the men who would later fight the civil war. Men didn't necessarily chose sides based on their views of slavery, but were more opposed to the right of the central government to impose laws on individual states. For many it was the state's rights they were fighting for. I was interested to learn that Lee was asked to lead the troops for Lincoln, but could not bring himself to first feel loyalty for his home state of Virginia. It was also fascinating to learn of how many early Union losses were because of bad leadership. Meade constantly asking for more troops when he had Lee on the run. Burnside waiting for the pontoons instead of crossing in the shallow section of the Rappahannock River.Thus giving Lee a chance to man the bank on the other side and win the day in Fredericksburg . Shaara deciding to describe the battle through the eyes of four men also gives you a good perspective of the opposing ideas and insights into their beliefs, for example how religious both Jackson and Lee were. I would be interested in continuing my education in America's bloodiest battle and will look to go on to read about Gettysburg.

[deaconbernie · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Superb book. Tells the story of the Civil War through the battle of Chancellorsville through the eyes of four men: Lee, Jackson, Hancock and Chamberlain. The description of the death of Jackson is especially poignant.

[christineellei · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This book could be considered the prequel to THE KILLER ANGELS (reviewed separately), written by Mr. Shaara’s father. This book takes a unique perspective leading up to the Civil War, introducing us to the notable historical figures in that confrontation. Mr. Shaara shares with the reader, through excellent characterization and dialogue why the Civil war was so important to these men. The author manages to bring to life the years leading up to the Civil War. Seemingly historically accurate, this book answered many of my questions about why this battle even happened. Obviously, the dialogue and innermost thoughts expressed by the “characters” in this book are speculation but the book did serve it’s purpose for me. It did answer any questions in my mind in a colorful, non-textbook way.

Although, as mentioned, I generally shy away from “war” books, I do enjoy historical fiction and in my opinion, this was historical fiction at its best.

[dinadansfriend · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I believe this was written using research generated by the father, Michael. It's an okay novel, frequently dropping in on the earlier life of Joshua Chamberlain. Not very compelling, but the history seems competent.

[bradkautz · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Gods and Generals is a work of historical fiction by Jeff Shaara set in the time shortly before the Civil War and ending just prior to the battle of Gettysburg. It is written as a prequel to a work of the author's father, Killer Angels, which I understand to be focused on the events of Gettysburg. The central characters of Gods and Generals are Robert E. Lee, Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, Winfield Scott Hancock, and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. As the story unfolds it shows these men during the time before the war. All except Chamberlain were military men whose careers were essentially languishing and there is little evident about them prior to the war that would suggest what they would be capable of accomplishing when leading men into battle. My understanding is that each of these central characters, Jackson excepted because of his death at the immediately previous battle, looms large over the landscape of Gettysburg.While a work of fiction I believe that Shaara does a good job at capturing the likely internal thoughts of both his central the many supporting characters during the first half of the Civil War. He shows their strengths and weaknesses, their frustrations in dealing with the politics of the respective governments, as well as the politics within the army that often had a direct consequence on the field of battle. I enjoyed this very readable book.

[mgeorge2755 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Following in his father's footsteps, Jeff Shaara has written a fantastic book that enables the reader to know these Civil War generals on a personal basis. "God's and Generals" perfectly sets up Michael Shaara's work in "The Killer Angels." 

[oldman_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Exceptional novel of the Civil War era covering several battles and speaks of what the individaul soldier must have felt. Very good read, very sensitive. five stars

[donna828 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Gods and Generals focuses on the men who shaped the early part of the American Civil War through the different points of view from both the Union and Confederate sides. Through the eyes of Winfield Scott Hancock and Joshua Chamberlain we see the ineptitude of the Union leadership and the frustration of losing the first major battles of the War Between the States. The Confederate narrative of Robert E. Lee tells of the struggle to choose between country and homeland. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson epitomizes the fierce will of the southerners to defeat the Yankee "invasion."This is not an easy war to understand or write about. However, through the skill and passion of Jeff Shaara, history comes alive as he provides a foundation of the tumultuous years of 1858 - 1863 when two armies "led by fallible egos and blind fantasies of men" collided. Every American would benefit from reading this fictionalized but accurate historical account of a sad and bloody time in our nation's past.

[rustyboone · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This book, though fiction, brings realism to the lives of our heroes of the civil war. The research done by Jeff Shaara is amazing. It puts you there... it makes you sympathize with the generals on both sides of the fence. Awesome...

[zoharlaor · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I liked the book due to its fast paced and "man on the ground" type of feel. Mr. Shaara writes well about battles and the history - in an overview sense - is mostly accurate mainly concentrating on Manassas, Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville.As in most of Mr. Shaara's books this one is also "historical fiction", an oxymoron if you ever head one, and is a very interesting character study of the major players. I especially enjoyed the characters of Jackson and Chamberlin and give thanks to this book for sparking my interest in those two fascinating figures which prompted me to read more about them.It is a very nice complement to history books and biographies I have previously read.

[jthierer_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I had read "The Killer Angels" several years ago, so I was hopeful that this book could live up to its predecessor. About halfway through, I realized that I was drawn into this book and into the lives of the characters even more. I think the glimpses of the lives of Lee, Hancock, Jackson and Chamberlain before they became household names took them out of history for me and made them people. I would recommend this book as a stand alone read or as the start of a wonderful trilogy for any reader interested in American or military history.

[karlstar_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

If you aren't familiar with Mike and Jeff Shaara's works, this is not a typical history. It is the story of the early days of the civil war, told from the point of view of a small group of officers on both sides. Instead of recountings of battles, the author follows each author before, during and after the battle, from their first person point of view. This really gives you the feel of the war, though not a lot of military detail, and only some battles are covered. Its facinating to read, and still good history.

[jpsnow · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The chronicle leading up to Gettysburg, written by Michael Shaara's son. (The "sequel" was the basis for the movie "Gettysburg.") The lives of Robert E. Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, Winfield Scott Hancock, and Joshua Chamberlain are told from a perspective that is somewhat more than historical fiction and somewhat less than biography. It's a very entertaining and moving novel that reflects the character, tactics, and devotion of these and other men.

[joles_3 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Jeff doesn't quite share his father's ability to spin a great story. "Gods and Generals" was a nice tribute to the legacy his father began with "Killer Angels" but barely meets it's glory. The book was informational but didn't draw me to the characters the way "Killer Angels" had. A nice continuation of the story and not a bad read, but it doesn't hold a place in my heart like "Killer Angels" does.