The banks of Stones River in Middle Tennessee was the site of a violent collision between the Union Army of the Cumberland and Confederate Army of Tennessee as 1862 turned to 1863. Yet, this conflict has received very little attention in historical writing. Cozzens is an able historian, and he provides a succinct account of the Battle of Stones River, or the Battle of Murfreeesboro from the Confederate perspective.

The eccentricities of both army commanders are discussed in detail. Bragg is portrayed in his typical stodgy, inflexible, and uncommunicative manner, while Rosecrans’ erratic energy bordering on neuroticism is equally demonstrated. There was mismanagement and poor battlefield command on both sides, but ultimately the Confederate political infighting proved the more difficult to overcome, leaving Rosecrans’ boys in blue in possession of the field of battle.

Stones River was surely a crucial battle in the campaign for the West during the Civil War, and Cozzens aptly recounts the history of this large battle.

Cozzens has become one of the best known and most beloved modern Civil War authors. This was his first book, written in the early 1980s, but like his peer Stephen Sears he hit the ground running. Stones River (aka Murfreesboro) was actually one of the largest and bloodiest battles in the western theater of the American Civil War. Until this book, I don't think the battle had gotten much study. It is now better appreciated, although still overshadowed by the other major battles like Shiloh, Chickamauga, and Chattanooga. Cozzens style hasn't changed much: this is a well-written regiment-level study like his later works.

The challenge with these sorts of books is balancing the details with the bigger picture. The sequential and linear nature of this battle makes it easier than say Chickamauga, although a few times I still found myself a bit confused.

Larry Daniel has a new book out on the battle which I just started reading so I'll be curious to compare it to this older work.

I'm a huge fan of Peter Cozzens' work and have read the trilogy on the Chattanooga Campaign out of order, reading 'This Terrible Sound' and 'The Shipwreck of their Hopes' before going back to read the first book, 'No Better Place to Die.'

It has the same impeccable and detailed research. Cozzens seems to have the goods on everyone from the army commanders to the privates in the thick of things. The book has his usual wonderful narrative flow and the events leading up to the battle are clearly described while at the same time the key players' characters are well established.

Unlike the other two in the series, I wanted more maps. Certainly more of the overall position as the battle developed. I also felt we lost the army commanders, Bragg and Rosecrans, for large sections of the battle while we focused more on the brigade and division level. I wanted to know what they were up to.

I'd still hugely recommend this book. Outside of Shelby Foote, no other Civil War writer I know has such an accomplished narrative style and such deep and assured knowledge.

Perchance, I have the opportunity to visit western and central Tennessee in the forthcoming months and I'm going to take the opportunity to visit Civil War battlefields that I have never seen.

On this list is Murfreesboro / Stones River, site of a three day clash starting December 31 1862 between the Army of the Cumberland under General Rosecrans and the Army of Tennessee under General Bragg.

So, I took out my copy of "No Better Place to Die" that I had read 20+ years ago and reread it.

This was Peter Cozzens' first Civil War battle narrative and he writes in the style of Stephen Sears and others where the story is centered on a battle. The book starts with the preliminary strategic situation after Perryville, then takes the reader through the maneuvering prior to the battle. The meat of the book is an hour-by-hour account of the Confederate assault that almost drove the Union army off the field. A day's rest, and then a final Confederate assault that is beaten back leading Bragg to retreat and abandon central Tennessee for good.

If you like Civil War battle histories that are filled with regiment-by-regiment details replete with hundreds of first-hand quotes from participants, this is the book for you. Chapters are tightly written and well-supported by detailed maps so you can follow the action ("now where was the 7th Indiana regiment?")

Although conventional wisdom is that Murfreesboro was a "draw" - the Confederates dominated on the battlefield but when it was over, the Union held the position, Cozzens makes a good case that it was a Confederate defeat/Union victory in that politically, it was the only one of the three December 1862 campaigns that did not end in abject Union defeat. Bragg abandoned central Tennessee.

Do I have any quibbles?

The main quibble would be the maps. Some of the maps are oriented with north to the right of the page - especially the main double-page spread depicting the forces on the morning of the battle. But most of the detailed chapter maps are oriented with north to the top of the page. And since only a portion of the battle was shown on the detailed map, it was "disorienting" to me to try and place the action, particularly when there were references to units on the flanks (not depicted on the detailed maps).

Having recently finished Chernow's "Grant", the deep character study in "Grant" made me yearn for more about Rosecrans, his wing commanders, and the same for the Bragg and his corps commanders. Cozzens doesn't ignore this, but his primary purpose was the battle. Put another way, I didn't learn anything new or profound about the main leaders.

You can probably find superlatives about most any major Civil War battle that make it stand out from the rest, prompting an author to justify why the battle should be better known and why you should read their book about it. In the case of the Battle of Stones River, its standout feature is that it had the highest percentage of casualties on both sides, relative to the number of people who fought there.

That, however, is not what this book focuses on. Cozzens does give the blow-by-blow of the battle, and does so succinctly in this just-over-200-page narrative. But the strength of his book is in his storytelling, his focus on the distinctive personalities involved in the battle (“in few other battles were the characters of the commanding generals so completely eccentric,” he observes) and his conclusions on why this was such an important victory for the North, but more importantly, why it turned out to be a devastating loss for the South.

Cozzens sets the scene by recapping Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg’s loss at Perryville, Kentucky and failed invasion of the state, after which he dug in in Middle Tennessee in late 1862. Bragg’s performance and personality had already left him on shaky ground - among Cozzens’ many pithy, cutting observations are that “Bragg seemed to repel men with disarming ease.”

Union forces were not in great shape either, with Gen. Don Carlos Buell having succeeded merely in driving Bragg out of Kentucky without crushing him, while the Union was also reeling from their recent defeat in Fredericksburg in the Eastern Theater. With Lincoln already committed to issuing the Emancipation Proclamation at the beginning of the year, “the administration now focused all its dwindling hopes for a victory before the new year on the army of the Cumberland,” Cozzens writes.

It was left to Buell’s replacement, Gen. William Rosecrans ("erudite, animated, indefatigable... (but) with an impulsiveness that suggested instability under pressure") to act before winter set in so Lincoln could issue the Proclamation from a position of strength.

That’s where things stand as the battle gets underway. Cozzens’ telling of the battle is efficient and easy to follow - in a book of this length, there’s not too much space taken up by detailed descriptions of troop movements and discussions of tactics and maneuvers, but I thought that was just as well.

Cozzens’ vivid descriptions of the personalities involved in his story continue to stand out, such as when he describes the late-arriving, self-aggrandizing Confederate Gen. Gideon Pillow as “ambitious, deceitful, mendacious, and - of cardinal importance to the soldiers he was about to lead - incompetent.”

When the battle ends with a Union victory, Cozzens explains how it provided a much-needed morale boost for the North. But he spends much more time discussing the impact of the loss on the South. The post-battle situation degenerated into finger-pointing among the Confederate command, as Bragg and his subordinates bickered about what went wrong and who was responsible. By this point, “the dissension sown by the twin defeats of Perryville and Stones River had all but wrecked the army (of Tennessee) from within,” Cozzens observes.

For half a year, as the bickering went on, the Confederate Army of Tennessee essentially did nothing. And when Rosecrans ultimately advanced, Bragg essentially conceded all of Middle Tennessee without a fight, setting the stage for the eventual battles for East Tennessee, which led to the Union march to Atlanta, which led to the end of the war.

Calling any Civil War battle “pivotal” or a “turning point” in the war is kind of a cliche. Cozzens never actually resorts to such a description in order to inject false drama into his story. But he doesn’t have to, as his narrative, his analysis and his conclusions make clear the importance and impact of this battle, and how it helped set the stage for everything that was to come.

Stones River was one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War and started a ripple effect that would end with the defeat of the South, yet there are few books on it. Peter Cozzens' book, No Better Place to Die, is the single best book detailing and explaining the significance of this neglected battle.

December of 1862 had been a very bad month for the Union. General Burnsides and the Army of the Potomac had been horribly defeated at the Battle of Fredericksburg, and Grant and Sherman had been stopped cold in their attempt to take Vicksburg. The Union badly needed a victory, and another defeat could have been disastrous. Stones River was fought between the Union's Army of the Cumberland and the Confederate's Army of Tennessee over three days — from New Years Eve 1862 till January 2, 1863. Though the battle was considered by many to be a tactical draw, and both sides claimed victory, General Bragg and his Army of Tennessee retreated, conceding middle Tennessee to The Army of the Cumberland and the Union, and setting the stage for opening up the back door to the heart of the Confederacy. The significance of this battle was not lost on President Lincoln, who after the battle wrote to General Rosecrans, commander of the Union forces at Stones River:
”I can never forget whilst I remember anything, that... you gave us a hard-earned victory, which had there been a defeat instead, the Nation could scarcely have lived over."

Cozzens writing can be dry, but his research is meticulous and his detail is exacting. No Better Place to Die is a relatively short book (just over 200 pages), and uses many direct quotes from participants in the battle that add color to the work. It is a clear and detailed book on this important battle, and anyone who wants to seriously study the Civil War and understand how it was won in the western theater can ill afford to miss it.

An interesting guide through a confusing battle. The maps are not as helpful as they might be, but the writing is clear and readable, and it's well-annotated.

Good writing, but has some proof-reading issues, and also some issues with the maps. most glaring was the maps for Breckenridge's assault on the Federal left, which occurred in the afternoon but the maps list as occurring 12 hours earlier in the AM. One other map listed the 35th Illinois twice, when one of them should have been the 25th Illinois, and the detail maps could have had the road names written down to make following them a little easier. Also, some units mentioned in the text were not shown on the maps which made following them a little difficult.
Other than that, not a bad read.

Second read thru of this the last month and it still is a great read. Cozzens has a writing style that a thoroughly enjoy and this is a relatively quick read compared to some of his other books. Probably required reading for anybody interested in The Battle of Stones River.

A recurring theme

Foot soldiers and cavalry fought hard.. It was the generals whose ego ran the battles instead of doing there jobs-leading there men. Many battles were lost due generals delays,working against each other and ego.

Good, solid description of the battle, along with decent analysis of the major players involved. As always, I wish there had been more maps to help with the narrative of the battles.

A well written study of an rarely covered battle. Cozzens' is not a masterpiece, but I'd happily read another book by him if it were on a topic of interest.