Props to everyone on that military tactics post below. I'm going to have many, many more questions just like that one. You guys are great. It's a reciprocal process here.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/11491
It's a lot easier to get yourself inside the head of these commanders by playing out what they were dealing with. There are some great battlefield level games for this era from Multiman Publishing: either the less complicated Brigade Series or the more involved but more rewarding Regimental Sub-series.
There aren't too many games that deal with the unit level difficulties a la ASL, mostly because I think it'd be difficult to make an interesting game given the tactics.
If your other questions are going to have anything to do with moving troops around in formation, I'd recommend taking a look at Activision's Total War series of computer games. they deal with ancient and medieval history primarily, and are imperfect representations of the history, but do an excellent job at showing in a more organic way how these formations interact.
It's a lot easier to get yourself inside the head of these commanders by playing out what they were dealing with. There are some great battlefield level games for this era from Multiman Publishing: either the less complicated Brigade Series or the more involved but more rewarding Regimental Sub-series.
There aren't too many games that deal with the unit level difficulties a la ASL, mostly because I think it'd be difficult to make an interesting game given the tactics.
You know, I've read "Battle Cry of Freedom," and that was the biggest complaint I had: there wasn't a lot of soldier's perspective there. McPherson may have realized this, he released a follow-up volume focusing on it: "For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War." I would check it out.
Also, there are a couple of well-published diaries of soldiers popularized by Ken Burns' Civil War doc that are enjoyable reads on their own:
For the South: Sam R. Watkins’ “Co. Aytch”
For the North: Elisha Hunt Rhodes’ “All for the Union”
But the BEST Civil War memoir, by far: Ulysses S. Grant. Great writing, midwestern straight-talk poetry, and he wrote the whole thing dying of throat cancer to save his family. The most honest war account from someone in power I think you'll ever see.
Two excellent recommendations for viewpoint of the soldiers, I second them.
I haven't read Grant's memoir but have seen it recommended on this blog multiple times. I will have to read it.
I usually am suspect of the top generals view of the war, I just don't think they were close enough to the soldiers who actually saw "the elephant" (a soldiers term for battle).
Most generals also wrote to their own benefit and reputations.
mjnewt0n,
I agree with your critiques of general writing in general, which is why Grant's is extraordinary. First, Grant started fairly low on the totem pole, and he saw some pretty up-front action at the beginning, which I think gives him some perspective. Second, he was a failure before war, so he does not write with an ego to defend, which is also unique. Third, while he was writing to benefit his family, it's hard to get the sense he was hiding things to make himself look good. He lays out his thinking in all cases and sounds pretty reasonable, and does criticize himself, Cold Harbor most notably.
However, what most people are disappointed by is that he sticks strictly to the military history and thinking, and doesn't mention his drinking problem at all. Maybe he does it out of embarrassment or decorum, but don't go in expecting anything other than Grant's military story.
but tnc, you've *been* the soldier; you've *had* that perspective.
all that stuff about smooth-bore vs. rifles? yeah, that's true and important.
but it's nothing compared to the psychology of walking into danger.
when you walk, knowingly, into mortal peril, you want your buddies at your side. you want to feel like you are shoulder to shoulder. you don't want to be the lone man out there, with all of *them* looking at only one of *you*. you don't want to face it alone.
you *know*, that dude. you *lived* that back in b'more.
look, the reality of civil war era battles was that thousands of troops broke and ran. they broke and ran at the end of the battle--that's one way that battles ended.
and they broke and ran at the outset of battle. and they broke and ran half-way through, or whenever the shots got too thick.
grant calls them "stragglers". and he knows that you handle them best, not by shooting them or court-martialing them or even bullying them, but by *leading* them.
part of what he knew, and every savvy leader knew, is that it is completely *natural* to react to battle by getting the fnck out of there! what could be a more automatic reaction?
sure, there are the occasional misfits, like grant himself, who are just so focused on an objective that they hardly notice the carnage around them. (though he *hated* to see surgery, and hated the cruelty of bull-fighting even worse).
but most ordinary people just are not going to walk onto a battlefield, see people firing at them, and advance at a slow walk while pausing now and then to load and fire. just ain't gonna do it.
that's where group psychology comes in. closing ranks. standing together. got your back. i'm with you. we're all in this together.
i know the technological development of firearms has an important part to play in this story. it's especially important in explaining why infantry combat in wwii and after looks so much different from infantry combat before that.
but if you want to understand why troops at gettysburg advanced shoulder to shoulder in the way that troops at waterloo did in the way that troops at culloden did in the way that troops at...plataea in 479 b.c. did--if that's what you want to understand, then think about the teenage tnc on the streets of baltimore.
There's a lot of truth in this (I grew up in a project in Philadelphia), especially the idea of sticking together, wondering how you'll act in front of your friends, who will get your back, and how scared you can be and still keep going.
But combat is a whole other order of magnitude than Omar facing off. It's not a few guys getting sprayed, or being cut or stomped, cutting or stomping. It's people dying all around you, blood and shit everywhere - people get killed by the flying body parts of their friends. The wounded and dying are screaming and crying. You walk on body parts, fall down in blood, every awful thing you can imagine can happen. It's the worst day of your life and most of the time you, the soldier, don't have a clue what's going on more than a few yards around you.
Keegan's Face of Battle has been mentioned here a few times. It's a good book. William Manchester's Goodbye Darkness, a memoir of his time in the Pacific during WWII, is really open about what it's like for the ordinary guy in combat.
totally agree that combat is "a whole other order of magnitude".
i'm definitely not trying to downplay real combat. or glorify street violence, either.
my point is just: if you want to understand why commanders insisted on drill, on rank and file, on steady march, on maintaining order and keeping everyone in an even line, then i think you should focus on the psychology of panic and terror and how to keep it in check. even more than on how many yards a musket was effective.
and the worse the panic is--the more body parts and madness are flying around--the more you need those artificial props and supports of your comrades to the left and right of you to keep you going. the more you need to drop into that semi-zombie state of doing something that you have drilled until you can do it in your sleep.
i just felt that the last thread--in response to tnc's "dumb question", did a great job of talking technology, but did not do enough to emphasize psychology.
it's fear out there, fear and panic, and drill techniques are at least partly--maybe mostly--designed to help our guys panic less than their guys. whoever panics last has won the day, in nine battles out of ten (esp. in combat of that era).
Whenever I read an article about how the internet is "dumbing down " America I like to think of this blog . This blog is living proof that the internet can be an amazing tool for learning if you use it the right way.
Thank you MR Coates for starting these interesting discussions.
Gerald Linderman, Embattled Courage: The Experience of Combat in the American Civil War -- academic, but quite good.
John Keegan, Face of Battle, ignores the Civil War, but is still a cornerstone book in approaching military history
Fussell, Great War and Modern Memory; and Fussell, Wartime, are also excellent approaches to the soldier's perspective though the focus on the "Great War" and The "Good War" respectively.
I mean, if you're not reading Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative" -- well, you probably are reading it, 'cause you're a smart dude. But if you're not, then just do it.
Agreed. In particular, on the subject of marching and unit cohesion, read his discussion of Pickett's Charge. Two large units (I forget how big), meeting at angles in the middle of the field, forcing one of them to oblique and both to continuously dress their lines, in the face of just murderous artillery fire.... and they actually accomplished it with near parade-ground precision. Whatever you think of Lost Cause-ism, that kind of insane courage really does deserve respect.
For what it's worth ,I think that some of the best books on ordinary soldiers wartime experiences were written by World War One veterans.
They tend to be mainly written by the British.Maybe this is because the French or German books have not been translated.But I think it is also because there were many working class people in Britain that were self educated enough to write about their lives.There are a lot of great books written by British coal miners and steel workers.
I think that World War One is one of the first wars where people actually wanted to read about the ordinary soldiers.Especcially because the generalship was so bad in that war.
But I also think that the veterans did not feel the need to sugar coat their stories as future soldiers might have. I read one where a soldier bluntly admitted that many prisoners were shot on the way to POW camps by men who had lost their friends that day.
I also remember reading about a German soldier who talked about how he and his comrades lierally got ill and vomited over their machine guns during the battle of the Somme because they were so sickened by the fact that they were slaughtering so many British soldiers that day.
The one good thing about the WW1 memoires is that no one tried to pretend that the war was noble or glamorous . They tend to describe war in it's true horror.
If you really want to learn about this, TNC, go to Gettysburg. If you do some research beforehand (and it sounds like you have), and hire a guide for an individual tour. The level of detail in their understanding of what each person was doing minute by minute is incredible. Also, when you see the ground they actually fought on, and stare out at the other side (I particularly recommend making the walk of Pickett's charge), you get a much better sense of what it must have felt like to be there. Gettysburg is the best preserved and best documented battlefield in the world. There really is nothing like it.
totally agree with this, shwa. a couple of weeks ago i was urging tnc to hold a blog get-together at gettysburg.
i mean, c'mon--if tnc announced that he was going to be touring gettysburg on some given weekend, and that it was an open picnic for all his bloggy buddies, how many people do you think would show? i'm thinking that it would be one hell of a party. and a real learning experience for all involved.
That's a good suggestion for anyone Shwa.I rode my bicycle through Gettysburg a couple of weeks ago.Although it is so peaceful and beautiful out there that it is hard to imagine that a horrible slaughter occurred there once.
for what it's worth there is a great little 1940's style motel about 3 miles outside town near the battlefield called Blue Sky Motel.It's cheap ,clean and it's defintly old fashioned in a good way.Anyone going there should check out their website.the winter price deals are pretty darn good. I think it's $35 a night during the winter with your third night free if you stay 3 nights.
I loved Gettysburg. I'm due to go back however, when I visited they still had not restored Cemetary Ridge back.
I have to say I liked the Antietam Battlefield site as much or more than Gettysburg. There wasn't so much "marble". I think I found it easier to visualize without the monuments. I would recommend that.
But if you really want to see some stuff...I took a week and drove from Richmond VA, to Fredericksburg then into Maryland. Now that was awesome.
The site where TJ Jackson died was very moving.
Cold Harbor was haunting, The Wilderness was losing out to urban spread...Malvern Hill, how the confederates could ever think they could take that hill...The Crater and the museum at Petersburg...so many good things.
I agree with Carrington about Fussell, 'Great War and Modern Memory'; and Fussell, 'Wartime', covering WWI and WWll respectively. On Vietnam I add 'Dispatches' by Michael Herr.
I was an infantryman in the Central Highlands of Vietnam during all of 1969. I have a lot of events, scenes, sounds and smells burned into my mind and body from that year.
From time to time, I still try to figure it out, but now it's all faded out. Forty years is a long time.
Sometimes when I'm day dreaming I think maybe I wasn't there at all, but working at the soft ice cream place up the road, and making love to beautiful women the way all 22 year-old boys should.
MR Coates if you ever visit Baltimore again may I suggest that you visit the Baltimore Civil War Museum on Prsident Street.That is, if you havn't already.
It's very small and not worth a special trip to Baltimore.But it's pretty cheap[ 2 or 4 dollars as I recall].And it's very informative about how the first bloodshed of the Civil War occurred in Baltimore at the former President Street train station[ which is now the museum].The guy that works there was very informative and is defintly worth talking to.
Regarding your question Quizfan.Actually no, it wasn,t "All Quiet" , allthough that is a very good book which is very realistic despite being technichally fiction.
I have forgotten the title of the library book that I read back in 1992.I think it was called "Voices of the Great War " or something similiar.I tried to look it up on Amazon.com but all the books with similiar titles were written after 1992.
The book that I mentioned that talked about POW's being shot was "Old Soldiers Never Die " by Frank Richards.He was a welshman who served under Robert Graves[Author of I Claudious].It is defintly an interesting book by a man that had very few illusions about life, even before he went to war.
The [Mexican-American] war had begun . . What General Taylor’s feelings were during this suspense I do not know; but for myself, a young second-lieutenant who had never heard a hostile gun before, I felt sorry that I had enlisted. A great many men, when they smell battle afar off, chafe to get into the fray. When they say so themselves they generally fail to convince their hearers that they are as anxious as they would like to make believe, and as they approach danger they become more subdued. This rule is not universal, for I have known a few men who were always aching for a fight when there was no enemy near, who were as good as their word when the battle did come. But the number of such men is small.
On the efficacy of musket fire . . .
The infantry under General Taylor was armed with flint-lock muskets, and paper cartridges charged with powder, buck-shot and ball. At the distance of a few hundred yards a man might fire at you all day without your finding it out.
On the bravery of American troops in combat . . .
The balls commenced to whistle very thick overhead, cutting the limbs of the chaparral right and left. We could not see the enemy, so I ordered my men to lie down, an order that did not have to be enforced.
On his first combat action . . .
There seemed to be a few men in front and I charged upon them with my company. There was no resistance, and we captured a Mexican colonel, who had been wounded, and a few men. Just as I was sending them to the rear with a guard of two or three men, a private came from the front bringing back one of our officers, who had been badly wounded in advance of where I was. The ground had been charged over before. My exploit was equal to that of the soldier who boasted that he had cut off the leg of one of the enemy. When asked why he did not cut off his head, he replied: “Some one had done that before.” This left no doubt in my mind but that the battle of Resaca de la Palma would have been won, just as it was, if I had not been there.
Great idea. Antietam does a pretty good driving tour. Haven't had an actual guide though - they give you a cd to put in your car stereo that narrarates as you drive.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
It's a lot easier to get yourself inside the head of these commanders by playing out what they were dealing with. There are some great battlefield level games for this era from Multiman Publishing: either the less complicated Brigade Series or the more involved but more rewarding Regimental Sub-series.
There aren't too many games that deal with the unit level difficulties a la ASL, mostly because I think it'd be difficult to make an interesting game given the tactics.
If your other questions are going to have anything to do with moving troops around in formation, I'd recommend taking a look at Activision's Total War series of computer games. they deal with ancient and medieval history primarily, and are imperfect representations of the history, but do an excellent job at showing in a more organic way how these formations interact.
It's a lot easier to get yourself inside the head of these commanders by playing out what they were dealing with. There are some great battlefield level games for this era from Multiman Publishing: either the less complicated Brigade Series or the more involved but more rewarding Regimental Sub-series.
There aren't too many games that deal with the unit level difficulties a la ASL, mostly because I think it'd be difficult to make an interesting game given the tactics.
Thanks, I'm actually more interested in the perspective of the soldier.
You know, I've read "Battle Cry of Freedom," and that was the biggest complaint I had: there wasn't a lot of soldier's perspective there. McPherson may have realized this, he released a follow-up volume focusing on it: "For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War." I would check it out.
Also, there are a couple of well-published diaries of soldiers popularized by Ken Burns' Civil War doc that are enjoyable reads on their own:
For the South: Sam R. Watkins’ “Co. Aytch”
For the North: Elisha Hunt Rhodes’ “All for the Union”
But the BEST Civil War memoir, by far: Ulysses S. Grant. Great writing, midwestern straight-talk poetry, and he wrote the whole thing dying of throat cancer to save his family. The most honest war account from someone in power I think you'll ever see.
Two excellent recommendations for viewpoint of the soldiers, I second them.
I haven't read Grant's memoir but have seen it recommended on this blog multiple times. I will have to read it.
I usually am suspect of the top generals view of the war, I just don't think they were close enough to the soldiers who actually saw "the elephant" (a soldiers term for battle).
Most generals also wrote to their own benefit and reputations.
mjnewt0n,
I agree with your critiques of general writing in general, which is why Grant's is extraordinary. First, Grant started fairly low on the totem pole, and he saw some pretty up-front action at the beginning, which I think gives him some perspective. Second, he was a failure before war, so he does not write with an ego to defend, which is also unique. Third, while he was writing to benefit his family, it's hard to get the sense he was hiding things to make himself look good. He lays out his thinking in all cases and sounds pretty reasonable, and does criticize himself, Cold Harbor most notably.
However, what most people are disappointed by is that he sticks strictly to the military history and thinking, and doesn't mention his drinking problem at all. Maybe he does it out of embarrassment or decorum, but don't go in expecting anything other than Grant's military story.
Hey, looks like Project Gutenberg has put Grant's memoir online! This'll be my next read. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm
ASL = Advanced Squad Leader, right? I never got the opportunity to play that one, but always thought it looked interesting.
but tnc, you've *been* the soldier; you've *had* that perspective.
all that stuff about smooth-bore vs. rifles? yeah, that's true and important.
but it's nothing compared to the psychology of walking into danger.
when you walk, knowingly, into mortal peril, you want your buddies at your side. you want to feel like you are shoulder to shoulder. you don't want to be the lone man out there, with all of *them* looking at only one of *you*. you don't want to face it alone.
you *know*, that dude. you *lived* that back in b'more.
look, the reality of civil war era battles was that thousands of troops broke and ran. they broke and ran at the end of the battle--that's one way that battles ended.
and they broke and ran at the outset of battle. and they broke and ran half-way through, or whenever the shots got too thick.
grant calls them "stragglers". and he knows that you handle them best, not by shooting them or court-martialing them or even bullying them, but by *leading* them.
part of what he knew, and every savvy leader knew, is that it is completely *natural* to react to battle by getting the fnck out of there! what could be a more automatic reaction?
sure, there are the occasional misfits, like grant himself, who are just so focused on an objective that they hardly notice the carnage around them. (though he *hated* to see surgery, and hated the cruelty of bull-fighting even worse).
but most ordinary people just are not going to walk onto a battlefield, see people firing at them, and advance at a slow walk while pausing now and then to load and fire. just ain't gonna do it.
that's where group psychology comes in. closing ranks. standing together. got your back. i'm with you. we're all in this together.
i know the technological development of firearms has an important part to play in this story. it's especially important in explaining why infantry combat in wwii and after looks so much different from infantry combat before that.
but if you want to understand why troops at gettysburg advanced shoulder to shoulder in the way that troops at waterloo did in the way that troops at culloden did in the way that troops at...plataea in 479 b.c. did--if that's what you want to understand, then think about the teenage tnc on the streets of baltimore.
and i think you know this already, anyhow.
There's a lot of truth in this (I grew up in a project in Philadelphia), especially the idea of sticking together, wondering how you'll act in front of your friends, who will get your back, and how scared you can be and still keep going.
But combat is a whole other order of magnitude than Omar facing off. It's not a few guys getting sprayed, or being cut or stomped, cutting or stomping. It's people dying all around you, blood and shit everywhere - people get killed by the flying body parts of their friends. The wounded and dying are screaming and crying. You walk on body parts, fall down in blood, every awful thing you can imagine can happen. It's the worst day of your life and most of the time you, the soldier, don't have a clue what's going on more than a few yards around you.
Keegan's Face of Battle has been mentioned here a few times. It's a good book. William Manchester's Goodbye Darkness, a memoir of his time in the Pacific during WWII, is really open about what it's like for the ordinary guy in combat.
totally agree that combat is "a whole other order of magnitude".
i'm definitely not trying to downplay real combat. or glorify street violence, either.
my point is just: if you want to understand why commanders insisted on drill, on rank and file, on steady march, on maintaining order and keeping everyone in an even line, then i think you should focus on the psychology of panic and terror and how to keep it in check. even more than on how many yards a musket was effective.
and the worse the panic is--the more body parts and madness are flying around--the more you need those artificial props and supports of your comrades to the left and right of you to keep you going. the more you need to drop into that semi-zombie state of doing something that you have drilled until you can do it in your sleep.
i just felt that the last thread--in response to tnc's "dumb question", did a great job of talking technology, but did not do enough to emphasize psychology.
it's fear out there, fear and panic, and drill techniques are at least partly--maybe mostly--designed to help our guys panic less than their guys. whoever panics last has won the day, in nine battles out of ten (esp. in combat of that era).
Whenever I read an article about how the internet is "dumbing down " America I like to think of this blog . This blog is living proof that the internet can be an amazing tool for learning if you use it the right way.
Thank you MR Coates for starting these interesting discussions.
Gerald Linderman, Embattled Courage: The Experience of Combat in the American Civil War -- academic, but quite good.
John Keegan, Face of Battle, ignores the Civil War, but is still a cornerstone book in approaching military history
Fussell, Great War and Modern Memory; and Fussell, Wartime, are also excellent approaches to the soldier's perspective though the focus on the "Great War" and The "Good War" respectively.
I would agree with you that "Face of Battle " is a good book.
Mr. C. as always thank you for everything. I'm over here so much I feel like I should be bringing pizza.
I mean, if you're not reading Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative" -- well, you probably are reading it, 'cause you're a smart dude. But if you're not, then just do it.
Again, agreed.
I'm reading it right now.
For the 4th time.
If you want a good foundation of Civil War knowledge these are the books to read.
Agreed. In particular, on the subject of marching and unit cohesion, read his discussion of Pickett's Charge. Two large units (I forget how big), meeting at angles in the middle of the field, forcing one of them to oblique and both to continuously dress their lines, in the face of just murderous artillery fire.... and they actually accomplished it with near parade-ground precision. Whatever you think of Lost Cause-ism, that kind of insane courage really does deserve respect.
Comments are so good.
For what it's worth ,I think that some of the best books on ordinary soldiers wartime experiences were written by World War One veterans.
They tend to be mainly written by the British.Maybe this is because the French or German books have not been translated.But I think it is also because there were many working class people in Britain that were self educated enough to write about their lives.There are a lot of great books written by British coal miners and steel workers.
I think that World War One is one of the first wars where people actually wanted to read about the ordinary soldiers.Especcially because the generalship was so bad in that war.
But I also think that the veterans did not feel the need to sugar coat their stories as future soldiers might have. I read one where a soldier bluntly admitted that many prisoners were shot on the way to POW camps by men who had lost their friends that day.
I also remember reading about a German soldier who talked about how he and his comrades lierally got ill and vomited over their machine guns during the battle of the Somme because they were so sickened by the fact that they were slaughtering so many British soldiers that day.
The one good thing about the WW1 memoires is that no one tried to pretend that the war was noble or glamorous . They tend to describe war in it's true horror.
I would just like to thank all of the people who made book recomendations.I have defintly written some of them down.
If you really want to learn about this, TNC, go to Gettysburg. If you do some research beforehand (and it sounds like you have), and hire a guide for an individual tour. The level of detail in their understanding of what each person was doing minute by minute is incredible. Also, when you see the ground they actually fought on, and stare out at the other side (I particularly recommend making the walk of Pickett's charge), you get a much better sense of what it must have felt like to be there. Gettysburg is the best preserved and best documented battlefield in the world. There really is nothing like it.
totally agree with this, shwa. a couple of weeks ago i was urging tnc to hold a blog get-together at gettysburg.
i mean, c'mon--if tnc announced that he was going to be touring gettysburg on some given weekend, and that it was an open picnic for all his bloggy buddies, how many people do you think would show? i'm thinking that it would be one hell of a party. and a real learning experience for all involved.
say the word, t, and i'm in.
That's a good suggestion for anyone Shwa.I rode my bicycle through Gettysburg a couple of weeks ago.Although it is so peaceful and beautiful out there that it is hard to imagine that a horrible slaughter occurred there once.
for what it's worth there is a great little 1940's style motel about 3 miles outside town near the battlefield called Blue Sky Motel.It's cheap ,clean and it's defintly old fashioned in a good way.Anyone going there should check out their website.the winter price deals are pretty darn good. I think it's $35 a night during the winter with your third night free if you stay 3 nights.
I loved Gettysburg. I'm due to go back however, when I visited they still had not restored Cemetary Ridge back.
I have to say I liked the Antietam Battlefield site as much or more than Gettysburg. There wasn't so much "marble". I think I found it easier to visualize without the monuments. I would recommend that.
But if you really want to see some stuff...I took a week and drove from Richmond VA, to Fredericksburg then into Maryland. Now that was awesome.
The site where TJ Jackson died was very moving.
Cold Harbor was haunting, The Wilderness was losing out to urban spread...Malvern Hill, how the confederates could ever think they could take that hill...The Crater and the museum at Petersburg...so many good things.
You gotta do it.
I agree with Carrington about Fussell, 'Great War and Modern Memory'; and Fussell, 'Wartime', covering WWI and WWll respectively. On Vietnam I add 'Dispatches' by Michael Herr.
I was an infantryman in the Central Highlands of Vietnam during all of 1969. I have a lot of events, scenes, sounds and smells burned into my mind and body from that year.
From time to time, I still try to figure it out, but now it's all faded out. Forty years is a long time.
Sometimes when I'm day dreaming I think maybe I wasn't there at all, but working at the soft ice cream place up the road, and making love to beautiful women the way all 22 year-old boys should.
MR Coates if you ever visit Baltimore again may I suggest that you visit the Baltimore Civil War Museum on Prsident Street.That is, if you havn't already.
It's very small and not worth a special trip to Baltimore.But it's pretty cheap[ 2 or 4 dollars as I recall].And it's very informative about how the first bloodshed of the Civil War occurred in Baltimore at the former President Street train station[ which is now the museum].The guy that works there was very informative and is defintly worth talking to.
OT - enjoyed your Nation piece on the NAACP.
Pete wrote, "I also remember reading about a German soldier..[.]"
All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque?
Regarding your question Quizfan.Actually no, it wasn,t "All Quiet" , allthough that is a very good book which is very realistic despite being technichally fiction.
I have forgotten the title of the library book that I read back in 1992.I think it was called "Voices of the Great War " or something similiar.I tried to look it up on Amazon.com but all the books with similiar titles were written after 1992.
The book that I mentioned that talked about POW's being shot was "Old Soldiers Never Die " by Frank Richards.He was a welshman who served under Robert Graves[Author of I Claudious].It is defintly an interesting book by a man that had very few illusions about life, even before he went to war.
Best Regards to you Quizfan
From Chapter VII of Grant's Memoirs,
One the expectation of combat . . .
The [Mexican-American] war had begun . . What General Taylor’s feelings were during this suspense I do not know; but for myself, a young second-lieutenant who had never heard a hostile gun before, I felt sorry that I had enlisted. A great many men, when they smell battle afar off, chafe to get into the fray. When they say so themselves they generally fail to convince their hearers that they are as anxious as they would like to make believe, and as they approach danger they become more subdued. This rule is not universal, for I have known a few men who were always aching for a fight when there was no enemy near, who were as good as their word when the battle did come. But the number of such men is small.
On the efficacy of musket fire . . .
The infantry under General Taylor was armed with flint-lock muskets, and paper cartridges charged with powder, buck-shot and ball. At the distance of a few hundred yards a man might fire at you all day without your finding it out.
On the bravery of American troops in combat . . .
The balls commenced to whistle very thick overhead, cutting the limbs of the chaparral right and left. We could not see the enemy, so I ordered my men to lie down, an order that did not have to be enforced.
On his first combat action . . .
There seemed to be a few men in front and I charged upon them with my company. There was no resistance, and we captured a Mexican colonel, who had been wounded, and a few men. Just as I was sending them to the rear with a guard of two or three men, a private came from the front bringing back one of our officers, who had been badly wounded in advance of where I was. The ground had been charged over before. My exploit was equal to that of the soldier who boasted that he had cut off the leg of one of the enemy. When asked why he did not cut off his head, he replied: “Some one had done that before.” This left no doubt in my mind but that the battle of Resaca de la Palma would have been won, just as it was, if I had not been there.
Great idea. Antietam does a pretty good driving tour. Haven't had an actual guide though - they give you a cd to put in your car stereo that narrarates as you drive.