Until recently; it has been difficult for anyone with an interest in the Army of Northern Virginia's horse artillery; which served under legendary cavalry commander J. E. B. Stuart; to envision what the men of the battalion endured. With the publication in 2002 of Robert Trout's seminal book; Galloping Thunder: The Stuart Horse Artillery Battalion; the endeavors of the unit were rescued from obscurity. In Memoirs of the Stuart Horse Artillery Battalion; Trout provides readers with complete versions of three important primary documents; written by soldiers of the battalion. Lt. Lewis T. Nunnelee's history of Moorman's Battery is based on a seven-volume diary that Nunnelee kept during the war and features near daily entries of the battery's actions. His extraordinary attention to detail offers readers an opportunity to follow the movements of the battery virtually hoofstep by hoofstep through the campaigns in which he participated. The “History of Hart's Battery;†as told by Maj. James F. Hart; Dr. Levi C. Stephens; Louis Sherfesee; and Charles H. Schwing; is; as Trout puts it; “a cannon of a different caliber.†It recounts in broader terms the battery's history from its inception before the war to its surrender as the last horse artillery in the field. The authors offer rare glimpses into the development of tactics learned from the “school of the battlefield.†Finally; Louis Sherfesee's “Reminiscences of A Color-Bearer†fleshes out many of the stories in the history that he co-wrote with Hart and his fellow soldiers. Filled with short vignettes; it offers a behind-the-scenes look at the battery in action. Together; these rich documents provide welcome insights into the day-to-day experiences of the often overlooked Confederate horse artillery; which played an important role in cementing Stuart's reputation as one of the most outstanding cavalry commanders in the Civil War. Robert J. Trout is a retired schoolteacher. He lives in Myerstown; Pennsylvania; where he taught fourth and fifth grade for thirty-three years. He is the author of They Followed the Plume: The Story of J.E.B. Stuart and His Staff and the editor of With Pen and Saber: The Letters and Diaries of J. E. B. Stuart's Staff Officers.
#2106271 in Books Orbis Books 2002-03-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 .52 x 6.03 x 9.27l; .69 #File Name: 1570754071197 pages
Review
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Hardly an objective look at Christian--Muslim Relations.By Luke S.This book was assigned reading for my undergraduate course on the history of Christian/Muslim relations; upon which I was required to write a review. During my time with this book I began to seriously question Armour's shallow and selective use of primary source materials that accompany an abundant supply of poorly supported conclusions. Armour demonstrates limited competency and ability to arrive at conclusions based on his analysis of primary sources. He admits in his preface that "...the real research has been done by others; scholars who have read the original sources in the original languages" (xiv). At best; Armour manages to amalgamate more formidable sources such as Armstrong and Daniel in an attempt to justify his fallacious conclusions. It is easy to see past Armour's tu quoque logic that actually works to distract the reader from being able to assess particular events or sources on their own. There are countless examples of this but I will choose a particularly entertaining one; Armour writes: "The Islamic pattern of relative toleration contrasts rather sharply with Christian Europe; which moved more and more to persecution and expulsion as the middle Ages passed. Exceptions to the Islamic system that allowed Jews and Christians to live undisturbed occurred from time to time; but usually as a result of mob violence or the aberrant behaviour of a local ruler. Over the centuries it was generally better to be a Christian or a Jew in an Islamic society than a Jew or Muslim in a Christian society" (29).This excerpt is taken from a chapter on "The Spread of Islam" only 4 pages in. I find it amusing that Armour somehow thinks that it is acceptable to arrive at the above conclusion from a single Nestorian Christian's opinion on the laxity of the early Caliphate. Armour jumps huge chronological hurdles while failing to mention even a single primary source that would potentially conflict with this ridiculous conclusion. He cannot be taken seriously by an honest student of history. How can we as historians; compare the 8th and 9th centuries with all of Medieval history and possibly draw a conclusion like Armour's? It would be nice if Armour actually put forward a shred of evidence to support such magnificent conclusions. Read it for yourself.Armour seems determined to present Muslim/Christian relations in a very one-sided manner. He blatantly skims over and outright omits events or sources that would implicate Muslim parties or cast a negative perception on Islamic society; praxis and theology. This is simply not a historically objective or in-depth look at Muslim/Christian relations. My Islamic studies professor forewarned the class of Armour's slanted perspective and the overwhelming consensus among the students was similar. This book is an excellent demonstration of biased; revisionist history at work.I would not recommend Armour's work as an effective introductory text to Christian/Muslim relations; however if you don't mind sacrificing your historical fidelity and enjoy a book scantily clad in both primary sources and well balanced dialogue; this book is for you.10 of 12 people found the following review helpful. Islam; Christianity; and theWest: A Troubled HistoryBy Peter B McCallThe author provides a wonderful compendium of a difficult topic in a concise; logical; and very understandable manner. Ideal for someone who wants to find the "first" book to read on the subject matter so they can see the whole picture and then hone in on the individual issues; of which there are so many.I thought I knew the history. But like the author points out so many times in the book; the "knowledge" most parties have on the struggle between Islam and Christianity is generally based on mis-information and complete falsehoods resulting from the historical separation of the two social systems.I now feel better prepared to listen and deal with all the news and information that we face in the continually complex Middle East. I no longer feel dependent on the historically biased slant one gets from the social and religious environments that we live with in the Western world. This book will help a person interpret and better understand the information that presents itself from the evolving Middle East events.7 of 9 people found the following review helpful. Unbalanced and ShallowBy AMTMAArmour sets out to write on Islam; Christianity and Judaism without defining them. The heart of Christian belief is that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried; and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures". Armour thus confuses Christianity with what many other writers call Christendom. These are two different things; the former spiritual the latter temporal - Christ said that his "kingdom is not of this world". Armour correctly notes that Islam combines the political and religious spheres.The feeble conclusion that they "will put their differences behind them" evades the fact that he has not identified what those differences are; for the "differences" are philosophical or theological and not simply about territory.This is a poor substitute for honest analysis of the respective truth claims of these three religions as for example done by Montgomery in his Tractatus or History; Law and Christianity.Armour relies too heavily upon modern authors such as Armstrong; Billing and Daniel and comes up with little new.The book may be of interest to anyone who still believes that European history is untarnished.
