As with most battle books, more frequent maps would have helped to illustrate the flow better. Can never go wrong with another map though I'm sure page count is a limiting factor.

Got this to read prior to spinal surgery on my neck. Doctors thought the name was funny! Great book. Written in a tone not dry but living. Good read!

I have yet to read any book by Cozzens that was less than good.

This compelling book tells the battle of Stones River, an early battle of the Civil War. My ancestor, John Looper, was involved in the campaign. I try imagine the battle through his eyes as I read.

I bought this book at the Stones River battlefield gift shop in 2014 and finally got around to reading it. I give it 3 stars because of the obviously well researched and detailed account. I would give it 0 stars because of the disgusting southern slant. Not a single word of the fact that it was a war to continue human bondage. Every civil war book should give how many slaves each confederate "general" owned when they are introduced. So far I've been to almost 30 battlefields and all the southern ones show the racists bias of the south. Would not recommend this book.

Well-written history of the battle of Stones River

A decent enough account of a key and oft-overlooked Civil War battle. However, despite the usual grandiose pronouncements at the beginning of the book about how critical this particular fight was in the context of the wider war, much of the critical assessment one would expect from (for example) a Stephen Sears battle or campaign account is missing here. The maps also leave much to be desired, though I suspect that as usual the Kindle version is part of the problem.

Less importantly (though still annoying), Cozzens doesn't devote as much attention to assessing the various Union subordinate commanders as he does to the Confederates, whom he covers from the Corps to Brigade level, and the style of writing out the numbers of regiments (e.g., Thirty-Sixth Illinois rather than 36th Illinois / IL) makes many pages of the book turn into a morass of spelled out numbers.

Extremely detailed account of the Battle of Stones River. I agree with another reader that you should have your own set of maps of how the battle played out. There are several good ones available on the internet (in color). It was not an easy read as there were so many different engagements taking place during each day, and I sometimes felt very confused about what was unfolding over the days this battle occurred. I am not all that versed in military actions and was reading this before visiting the battle site in Tennessee. Actually, I found the book made me feel how disorganized this battle seemed.

Random thoughts on No Better Place to Die by Peter Cozzens:

- Cozzens makes the case that this battle helped turn the tide of the war towards the Northern states. Certainly, the Confederacy had won some recent battles and the populace in the North was losing its patience for the war effort. By holding their own in this battle - it could not be called a definitive victory on the battlefield - the Federal troops allowed the Northern newspapers and leadership to declare a victory that helped change the perception of how the war was going.

- Cozzens also posits that this campaign to protect middle Tennessee, of which this battle was a huge part, was the beginning of the end for General Bragg of the Confederacy. Bragg completely lost the confidence of his subordinates and spent more time fighting internal battles with his officers than planning battle strategy. It got worse after this battle, and Bragg became increasingly preoccupied with the complaints of his officers which took him away from how to defeat the Federal troops.

- This book also highlights two of the inherent problems that the Confederacy had to consistently battle. For one, the government in Richmond routinely accorded the army in the West second-class treatment and acted without a sound appreciation of Western problems. Jefferson Davis' focus was on the protection of Richmond, and so most of his attention was given to Lee's army. This led to the second issue: the Confederacy had an administrative system that divided the west into highly legalistic departments that the army of Tennessee was expected to defend, but from which is could draw neither food nor recruits nor equipment. Basically, the government put the Army of Tennessee in charge of defending a huge area, but did not give them enough supplies or authority to supply themselves.

- This battle, like all of the Civil War battles, illustrates the importance of intelligence and information. Generals on both sides simply didn't have enough information to make good decisions. They were constantly guessing at the size of their opponents' armies, their positions, their intentions, etc. So the Generals' personalities often dictated how they acted. If a General, or brigade leader, had any doubts or fears, they came to the forefront in the heat of battle, particularly without enough information to make a confident decision.

- Lots of detail, but not enough maps to follow along consistently. A good history of an important battle.

A great military history of a lesser battle from the lesser known front in the Civil War. Stones River saw the Army of the Cumberland clash with the Army of the Tennessee in the deep winter. Like many Civil War battles there are many excellent small scale stories and the book captures them well. The use of maps is appreciated, although it is helped that the battle was relatively simple compared to the multi-day fights at Chickamauga or Gettysburg.

The first and unquestionably the least in Peter Cozzens' "trilogy" about the Army of the Tennessee, "No Better Place to Die" also is the shortest by far, and enjoyment suffers because of it. This is good, but Cozzens' next two books, centered on Chickamauga and Chattanooga, were much better.

Superb Civil War study of this battle. Cozzens does great at taking the strategic and first hand accounts and putting them into a cohesive, exciting, narrative.