Peter G. Tsouras

The decisions and actions that led to and occurred during one of the most famous battles in American history has garnered attention from historians and armchair generals. Gettysburg: An Alternate History by Peter G. Tsouras changes the movement of troops and the tactics of the commanders to refight one of the most consequential battles in history.

Tsouras goes with three points-of-divergence, with the first being a night attack by Ewell on Cemetery Hill that gets into the rear of the Union but is beaten back. The second is Stuart arriving in time for the second day of the battle, which changes the Confederate angle of attack on the right. Yet after brutal fight that includes Dan Sickles foolish decision to advance off the line and almost ruining the Union—again—the day ends with both sides essentially ending at their historic lines. The previous two scenarios allow Tsouras to set up a massive version of Pickett’s Charge that is barely able to break through a stretched thin, battered Union line only to be steamrolled by a Union counterattack ordered by Hancock that shatters the Army of Northern Virginia into fragments that are defeated in detail within the coming weeks. One can credit Tsouras with doing an alternate Gettysburg that goes with an overwhelming Union victory, yet how he gets there and in doing so with historical actors is a bit ham-handed that he tries to hide with mixed results. The level of detail to the battlefield is great, but unless you are an aficionado on the detailed geography of the battlefield you are guessing where the action is taking place if it’s not one of the historical major locations. The fictional footnotes very early give away the end of the battle but are a unique touch to the book.

Gettysburg: An Alternate History is a very good book for those interested in a battle narrative as well as a counterfactual occurrence from the historical outcome. Peter G. Tsouras is noted for his alternate historical writing, and he delivers in this book.… (lisätietoja)

Með betri efsögum eða hjásögum (e. counterfactual history, what-if history) sem ég hef lesið. Virtir sagnfræðingar leggja mat á aðstæður í átökum bandamanna og Japans í síðari heimsstyrjöldinni. Þeir fylgja sögunni upp að vissum atburði og leggja síðan mat á hvað hefði gerst ef ákvarðanir hefðu verið teknar hjá herforingjum og pólitískum leiðtogum sem hefðu haft afdrifarík áhrif á gang baráttunnar Japan í vil. Þeir sýna fram á að við vissar aðstæður eða ákvarðanir hefði Japan getað náð umtalsvert betri hernaðarárangri en sömuleiðis hefðu þær getað valdið enn verri aðstæðum til langs tíma. Góðar röksemdarfærslur studdar rannsóknum ásamt lýsingum á því sem gerðist í raun og veru.… (lisätietoja)