I’m familiar with Tom’s work (which is fine, though it would have benefited from a better editor, I think) but not the one you mention on the 1st MN. Appreciate the tip; will investigate.

Sorry that work prevented me from commenting sooner! We had only 1 book in common. Hint, as a wargamer, I’m fond of numbers! :-) But that’s exactly why I got all of you to join me in this little experiment. Between only the two of us we will have named 19 different books rather than my original 10. Add 8 other bloggers, and, well readers get the picture. I’ve linked to your list at the permanent page and Tweeted the list as well. Thanks for agreeing to do this.

I too would look forward to your First Bull Run list!

The fact that neither is a true Gettysburg book, as you say, is likely working against them in the list compilers’ minds. And I agree with you (but perhaps not for the same reason?) that Moe’s work has its drawbacks. But I have a real fondness for Pullen’s study, though it’s certainly dated now. It was one that helped fuel my CW interest way back when.

By the way, has this whole experiment given you any ideas for a Bull Run list?

I can’t speak for the others, but I didn’t consider those books for the very reason you describe. Both good books (though I find Moe’s seriously flawed in one respect), but they’re not “Gettysburg ” books, per se.