|
Post by bobdurham on Jul 21, 2007 6:44:04 GMT -5
Let me know what you think of "Shiloh" when you get to it. Cunningham's account of the battle action is exhaustive -- many, many individual stories. I think he wrote it as a doctoral dissertation and I was expecting a dry, professorial tome -- but his writing style makes the battle very exciting -- he did an unbelievable amount of research. The North wins the battle -- oops, I didn't mean to give away the ending. ;D
I agree with you about William C. Davis; I've read a lot of his stuff. I'm partial to unit histories and his history of the Orphan Brigade is one of my favorites.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 21, 2007 11:47:05 GMT -5
Since we're talking the ACW, and you mentioned unit histories, I'll second what Stuart said about Rhea's four volumes(?) on the Overland Campaign. Although, they can be a bit dry, they're about as definitive as you could want. The same can be said of Cozzens' 3 Volumes on the Army of Ohio vs the Army of Tennessee (Murfreesboro, Chickamuaga, and Chattanooga).
BTW, were you aware of how the US Army commemorates the Civil War? The Battle/Campaign Streamers are primarily Blue and Grey, for units that fought for the Union, the Regulars, and todays National Guard descended from the Northern States, the Blue predominates, Southern National Guard units the Battle Streamers are predominantly Grey. And, where the two sides had different names for the battle eg Murfreesboro/ Stones River the modern unit Battle Streamer carries the name it's Civil War ancestor used.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 21, 2007 11:52:21 GMT -5
Since we're talking the ACW, and you mentioned unit histories, I'll second what Stuart said about Rhea's four volumes(?) on the Overland Campaign. Although, they can be a bit dry, there about as definitive as you ccould want. The same can be said of Cozzens' 3 Volumes on the Army of Ohio vs the Army of Tennesee (Murfreesboro, Chickamuaga, and Chattanooga). There are only four volumes I know of, but I assume there's a fifth on the way to cover the battle of Petersburg. Volumes 2-4 are a touch dry, (albeit certainly definitive) but Vol.1 "The Battle of the Wilderness" really is ferociously gripping at times
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jul 21, 2007 17:24:20 GMT -5
I've never heard that Rhea is going to cover the Petersburg siege. We could use a definitive, modern history of the siege.
One of my favorite campaign histories is Robert G. Tanner's Stonewall in the Valley, concerning the 1862 Valley Campaign. I have a well worn copy of the first edition that I took on several expeditions to the valley. A few years ago, Stackpole came out with an expanded second edition. Old Jack sure ran rings around his opponents in that campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jul 21, 2007 19:33:43 GMT -5
You know a battle I'd like to see somebody like Rhea or Cozzens write about is Perryville. I personally consider it one of the truly decisive battles of the War, by stopping Bragg's invasion of Kentucky, it cemented Union control of Central and Western Tennessee. Tennessee was second only to VA in population and industry and its early loss to the South pretty well sealed the Confederacy's fate. It's an interesting battle a lot of the future major players on both sides were involved and most didn't fare to well. I only know of one history of the battle, by Hafendorfer.
It's a shame it's been so ignored.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jul 22, 2007 6:13:54 GMT -5
I've never heard that Rhea is going to cover the Petersburg siege. We could use a definitive, modern history of the siege. No I'm referring to the battle on June 18; Grant's last attempt to break through before he settled down to the siege. There is a modern account of the siege by someone (Trudeau I think) but I don't have details to hand. Sor far as other battles go, has anybody else read Shea and Hess' book on Pea Ridge?
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 28, 2007 14:46:58 GMT -5
Let me know what you think of "Shiloh" when you get to it. Cunningham's account of the battle action is exhaustive -- many, many individual stories. I think he wrote it as a doctoral dissertation and I was expecting a dry, professorial tome -- but his writing style makes the battle very exciting -- he did an unbelievable amount of research. The North wins the battle -- oops, I didn't mean to give away the ending. ;D I finally finished it, Bob. I quite agree with you about the writing style, and I really like the way the editors footnoted their "corrections" and compared others analysis of the battle. Shiloh is a hard battle for me to follow. I'm fairly familiar with both The Army of Ohio and Army of Tennessee, and while the future leaders are present at Shiloh, the organization is just enough different, and given the habit of naming units after their commanders, many who died at Shiloh, it's a little hard for somebody that's more familiar with the organizations a few months later in the war to follow. The one thing the book really brings out is how untrained/inexperienced both armies were, and how badly equipped the Confederate Army was. I knew, that the Army of Virginia was not totally percussion cap rifle equipped until after the Confederate Victory at Chancellorsville, and the Army of Tennessee until after Chickamauga, but very few histories bring out how large portions of the Confederate Army was fighting with flintlocks and muskets for the first two years. I loved the quote from Forrest, "I Suceded in gaining thir rear....they wair not looking for me I taken them by surprise they run like Suns of Biches". He certainly had a knack for boiling down tactical concepts to everyday understanding!
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Sept 26, 2007 1:48:19 GMT -5
The book surprised me in that, for a doctoral dissertation, Cunningham didn't do a lot of analysis of some of the more controversial aspects of the battle -- the editors did most of that. I liked the book a lot, maybe because he just presented the story in a straight forward manner. I agree that the battle is a little hard to follow, especially the second day. The way Johnston (or Beauregard) set up the Confederate attacking columns, one behind another, they got so jumbled up that its almost impossible to keep track of.
Have you visited the battlefield? I've been to a lot of battlefields and Shiloh is one of my favorites. After I left San Antonio two years ago, when I was there for the High Holy Days, I stopped at Wilson's Creek, MO -- another nicely preserved battlefield. Not too far from you, you should definitely go there if you haven't already. I think I may stop there again on my way back home, if I make this year's Alamo stuff.
I have a friend who just moved to Little Rock, AR so I'll probably stop there on the way out this time -- and I want to visit Pea Ridge while there.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 27, 2007 15:53:05 GMT -5
No, regretfully I missed Shiloh. and for that matter Wilson's Creek also, though I do have some family that don't live too far from there.
I've probably walked Perryville more than any other battlefield. I was stationed for awhile at Fort Knox as an instructor, and we studied two battles as part of the course, Perryville, which we did a full blown Staff Ride every class, and Nancy-Arracourt from WWII.
Perryville is pretty unique, and imo, one of the most significant battles of the Civil War, and virtually unknown. The State Park located not too far From Lincoln's Birthplace and Bardstown, KY is off of and east of I65 south of Louisville. The State park only occupies the ground where McCook's Corps was virtually destroyed, the rest of the battlefield is private property, but it remains farmland and for the most part is virtually unchanged from the battle.
The property owners gave the Army access for our classes, so we could walk virtually the whole battlefield, and except for a few more houses, and bridges at the old ford sites look at virtually an untouched battlefield.
It's how I met Alan Huffines, too. He was still on active duty, and came in to reconstitute the History Department of the School, I was headed out, but was tasked to educate him on what we had been doing. I don't know how many hours we sat up in office drinking coffee, talking military history, and getting paid for it! ;D
The sad thing is he was still working on "Blood of Noble Men" off duty, and neither one of us knew of the others' interest in the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Oct 2, 2007 4:05:12 GMT -5
I've been to Perryville a couple of times -- I agree, its pretty unique, almost pristine condition. And extremely significant to the war in the west. I envy you being able to walk the parts of the battlefield outside the park boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Oct 6, 2007 16:12:39 GMT -5
Perryville is one of only two incidents in the ACW that I've been able to find where a cavalry charge broke formed infantry of equivalent size. IIRC the 8th Texas, Terry's Texas Rangers, operating as what we would call a covering force today, charged and broke a Union Infantry Brigade on the Union Left. This allowed the Confederate Infantry to climb the bluffs above Doctor's Creek (they actually cut a road, still used today) and deploy unmolested prior to attacking McCook's Corps.
According to one of the accounts I read, every man in the 8th Texas carried two to four Colt pistols. The men were roughly divided in groups of four with three of the men carrying shotguns and the fourth a long rifle. When charging the men would empty their shotguns and pistols, and if the enemy broke - pursue, if the enemy stood it's ground the 8th would break contact, withdrawal and reload under the cover of the riflemen.
They had done this just a couple of day earlier at Bardstown, where outnumbered they attacked and broke a Union Cavalry force and pursued them with empty weapons!
|
|