Author Discussion: William Manchester vs. Stephen E. Ambrose

Both were distinguished historians of their time and their works to this day are still well known and read. Both of them wrote works on history. Stephen Ambrose seemed to write a little more on World War II and other topics such as politics and biographies. William Manchester he did write a few books that involved World War II, but wrote on other topics also like politics and biographies. I personally have read two of Ambrose's books (D-Day and Band of Brothers) and one of Manchester's books (Death of A President: November 1963), and both are good historians.

Those who have read books by either Ambrose or Manchester, if you had to choose out of the two which one would you prefer and why?

 

D. None of the above.

But, if forced to chose, it would have to depend on what I wanted to read. Ambrose, I don't consider to be a historian, so much as he is a story-teller - his works are light on facts and details, but long on story...Light reading. While Manchester is a much more detail oriented author(although I did not care for his Goodbye Darkness), his book on Krupp was quite thick and detailed.

 

I do have his book on Krupp manufacturers which I hope to read in the nearby future. Regarding his attention to detail, to me that is what characterized Death of a President to me.

 

I agree with Takao. When picking up an Ambrose book, it's practically a narrative that is, at times, loosely based on facts. I used to enjoy his work when younger, but with all the scrutiny, I steer away.

 

I'm just curious but do you also feel that way about Band of Brothers which is probably one of Ambrose's most well known books if not maybe his most well known books according the acclaim that it has received.

I was just curious. I thought that the two books by Ambrose were pretty good, but your insight is eye opening and interesting to me.

 

Don't get me wrong, they were good reads and love a good story. Unfortunately the accusations thrown his way and with the lack of substantial detail left a sour taste.

 

Ambrose was a novelist.
Tainted, with his entire output ranging from the lightweight to the disgraceful.
Enough controversies & queries raised over the years to make me now distrust everything he ever wrote or co-wrote.
Like KJ, I read 'em when I knew no better & enjoyed them, but the more you absorb on a given subject, the more dubious his stuff becomes.

Only read one by Manchester, and that was the Krupp book.
Not bad if I recall, bit old fashioned maybe, but it was a long time ago & I've not read much on the specific subject to compare it to.

 

Manchester is really into detail. by really into detail I mean really into detail.

I guess that all of you would agree that Stephen Ambrose is overrated?

 

Well, to be fair, you have to separate "Band of Brothers" - the book, from "Band of Brothers" - the TV Series. In BOB - the book, Ambrose relies on Webster's writings(then unpublished...BoB would be published in 1992, and Webster's book would not come out until 1994) somewhat heavily and quotes Webster often. Webster's "shunning" and, for that matter, his character's attitude in the TV series is all from the writers of the TV series...One of those "artistic license" fibs to get more "drama" out of a character than there really was. It should be mentioned...That Episode 8 "The Last Patrol" which focused on the Webster character - except David Webster did not participate in the "Last Patrol"(despite what the series shows).

There is another major continuation error in Episode 9 "Why We Fight", where the Easy Company troopers are taking foodstuffs out of a German bakery, and the German baker starts pitching a fuss. So, the Webster character, properly outraged, sticks his .45 in the German civilians face and proceeds to yell at him. The German baker, of course, proceeds to beg for his life - in German - and the Webster character does not understand what he is saying, and need some no-name trooper to tell him what the German is saying...Except...Webster has been portrayed "The Last Patrol" as being very fluent in German - he served as the patrol's German translator, and communicated with three captured German soldiers...In German!

AFAIK, while Ambrose is listed as a producer of the series, he did not have that much to do with the script or production.

PS Webster was shot in the leg/calf, not the posterior.


To close, I will leave this passage from Mark Bando's "Trigger Time" website

Trigger Time home page: http://www.101airborneww2.com/

The where-to-go place if you want to find out anything about Easy Company.

 

Not really rivet-counterish or techie at all, Geoff. Assuming I've grasped your meaning.
More your slightly old-fashioned populist, standing somewhat between the academic & the mainstream, or as much as any other historian did in that period. (Though as I've only done one of his books, I'm hardly qualified to comment).

 

Sorry for going a little off topic, but this whole discussion got me thinking but has anyone read Cornelius Ryan?

 

Classics. Ryan had a knack for narrative in non-fiction. I don't think he gets enough credit for ABTF and the Last Battle.

 

I was just curious. I too have read "The Longest Day" and it was probably one of the best narratives of D-Day I have read. I did just recently buy "A Bridge too Far." Which is something that I should read sometime in the nearby future.

Going back to Stephen Ambrose, his son Hugh Ambrose wrote the official companion book to the Pacifc HBO series. Do you think he is a little more credible than his father or has he not written enough to have a full idea? Because I think that so far the only thing Hugh's written was the Pacific companion book.

 

Read The Last Battle myself and found it excellent. Likely Ambrose the Younger was selected as much for his fame as the son of Ambrose the Senior and his connection to Band of Brothers which laid the foundation upon which The Pacific would never had been made without it.

Ambrose is not a bad author by any means, writing books that both get read and then made into major mini-series indicates an ability to speak with his audience. It can be argued that he was a flawed historian.

 

Flawed historian is a good way to put it.

 

I always thought highly of Cornelius Ryan...you can find his first co-authored book, "Star Spangled Mikado"(on the early American occupation of Japan) here: https://archive.org/details/starspangledmika00kellrich

Hugh Ambrose has the potential to be a good author, but time will tell. "The Pacific"(book) is his first outing as an author, but he has worked as a researcher for several years.

I am about 25% through The Pacific right now...It is a good read, but has an unpolished feel to it. Most likely from Hugh's inexperience as an author, and a rush to tie it into the TV series before audience interest faded.