Fun fact: There was wealthy people watching the battle for entertainment at the hills a bit far from the battlefeild. Some of them even had picnics. Unfortunantly for the people watching the battle had to run after the battle when they saw the terrifyed union men running straight towards em.
I think you’re slightly confused on the subject. Since people in the union believed that the war could be won simply by over conquering Richmond, many union civilians took watch to view the battle in what they believed would end the war. They wanted to be there to see the end of the war and so they watched.
imagine how awkward it would be watching your enemies load and prepare to fire at you, looking at you straight at your eye while you're still reloading
It's even more bizarre in the 17th and 18th centuries. The European armies still observed the traditions of Chivalry and Honor that came out of the horrific brutality of the dark and medieval ages; also the rifles took MUCH longer to reload than the rifles in the American Civil War (and had much shorter range, and much less accuracy). So, columns of opposing soldiers would literally slowly march up to each other, get in range, then just take turns slowly blasting the other side, then reloading. I mean, truly bizarre when you consider how most of the history of warfare in the world has been. Alexander would've looked at that and wondered "these kings can't be serious, right? why... why not use like, cover? tactics?" it was a TRULY bizarre time. The warfare became so nonsensical to EVERYONE, including the monarchs, that within a century or two, it ushered in the Age of Reason/Enlightenment.
1861 onward, weapons outpaced 1812 tactics. Some smooth bores were still in use, but rifling made rifles more accurate. By 1865, Petersburg foreshadowed WW1.
In a way not really. Line infantry was still the way to go thanks to black powder that created lots of smoke after each shot, WW1 put the nail into the coffin with the increase in smokeless powder.
Petersburg was literally a forecast of the Western Front. Arguably, the American Civil War is important in regards to world history, not just American history, as it was one of the first "modern" wars where advances technology made traditional warfare more dangerous.
@Titus Pullo Agreed. Had the Industrial Revolution not occurred, we may very well have still been fighting traditional line battles instead of modern warfare.
As a long time living historian I was fortunate enough to be an extra in this film as well as Gettysburg. There's been quite a bit of speculation over the years as to whether the nickname Stonewall was intended to be flattering. According to a staff officer with Bernard Bee's South Carolina brigade, Bee actually meant it as an insult. By his account Bee realized he was outflanked and about to get overrun and was looking around desperately for someone to come to his support. He spotted Jackson's Virginia brigade at the top of the hill and sent a courier to tell him to move forward to assist him. Jackson ignored the request and held his position. It soon became obvious that Bee's position was no longer tenable and when a regimental commander asked about the status of reinforcements a furious General Bee pointed to the top of the hill and responded "Jackson's standing there like a stonewall". As the line began to crumble and his men started to run away Bee rode among them ordering them to "Rally behind the Virginians". Bee would be shot and killed a few moments later so nobody will ever know what he was implying with his comment.
Very cool, I find that the battles in Gods and Generals seem to be much more realistic both with the visuals and audio than Gettysburg. Did they use stock sounds for a lot of the scenes in Gettysburg? I can tell in the first movie that the rifles actually sound like rifles of that period being fired, albeit without the live rounds of course. Whereas in Gettysburg, gunshots sound more like they were added on in post. Gods and generals also had a lot of line on line, formation type fighting, whereas Gettysburg seemed a bit smaller scale with the quick cuts and tunneled field of view. The battles also seemed to have a lot more undisciplined skirmishing. I was also wondering if for the scenes that show the different divisions advancing like in the battle of Chancellorsville, whether or not they just had you guys move around and switch positions to make it seem more varied instead of having it look like it was the same hundred odd guys marching just with a different officer/actor at the front or the rear
@@snarfer5612 You have to remember that Gettysburg was filmed several years before Gods & Generals so there is a distinct difference in the production quality. There was actually quiet a bit of post production gunfire sound effects added to both films. Now the Picketts Charge scenes in Gettysburg were pretty much left alone because we had almost 3,000 reenactors on hand to generate a believable volume of gunfire. Gods &Generals didn't involve nearly as many reenactors but the more advanced filming technology made a huge difference. In Gettysburg every soldier you see is a real person whereas there is some CGI work in Gods &Generals. But for both films we would move guys around, change uniforms, change sides, etc. They would shoot several takes from different angles, move people around, do it again, and then edit it all together. For instance in Gettysburg I can be seen charging across the field as a Confederate soldier and then about 15 seconds later I'm seen in blue seemingly shooting at myself and a friend of mine can be seen dying 3 times during Picketts charge. In Gods &Generals I was one of Stonewall Jackson's men at the battle of Manassas, then appear with the Irish Brigade at Fredericksburg and die, and then turn up again with Stonewall during the Chancellorsville battle scenes. I didn't get paid a dime but I loved every second of it and hope that you enjoy the films as much as I enjoyed helping to bring them to life for you.
@@johnnychaos152 Thank you for the reply, your insights and experiences are very cool! Things like this make me really appreciate all the work and attention to detail they went through for these movies. I've always wondered how often big reenactment battles like this happen, or even smaller ones. Aside from the cost of getting all the gear, rifles, etc. is it hard to get into reenacting? I live near Cowpens, South Carolina so I'd think there'd be some kind of community around here for that. I'd be sincerely grateful for any insight or tips into reenacting in general, for either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War.
@@snarfer5612 No problem. I know that Civil War reenacting was really booming in the mid to late 90s. It's definitely dropped off in recent years thanks in large part to politics and far less appreciation for history among young people. I myself grew up in West Virginia which was actually formed during the War and there are reminders of it everywhere. I got a book about the war from the school library when I was in 3rd grade and I've been hooked ever since. As far as the hobby itself, there used to be hundreds of groups all over the US as well as in Ireland and Germany that I know of. A lot of groups have loaner gear with which to outfit you for a couple of events so you can determine if it's something that you want to stick with before you invest your money into it. A lot of it depends on your leanings as well. Some guys will only do Union and other guys will only do Confederate. The unit I was with actually did both so we had to have two different uniforms. Some groups portray specific units and have fairly strict uniform guidelines whereas groups like mine did a more generic impression that would be accurate for any time period of the war and would be appropriate for any theater of it. I know there is a prominent group in your State that portrays the 6th South Carolina Infantry and they are really good. I believe they also put on the blue from time to time. They have a homepage full of useful resources and contact information so that might be a good place to start. From my personal experience some of the nicest people I've ever met were reenactors. I myself don't do a lot of the mega reenactments these days. I prefer to do local living history presentations and talk to a lot of school groups which is very cool. The textbooks these days are extremely watered down and not entirely accurate when it comes to a lot of American History so I enjoy the opportunity to have a clear cut, no BS, conversation with the younger generation about what I consider to be the most pivotal moment in the history of this Country. I hope that you find a reenacting home and always remember that we're not here to refight the war, we're here to educate!
@@johnnychaos152 I was reading your comments and I just want to say thank you for the new history I have learned from you about reenacting ( especially The American Civil War). I am a big American Civil War nerd and I like to hear about this stuff.
I read that there was alot of confusion during this battle. With uniforms and flags not being very distinct, due to being early in the war. Many regiments were firing at eachother, on both sides.
@@Danche925 The battle flag wasn't introduced until later in the war. The reason behind it being that the stars and bars confederate national flag looked too much like the union's old glory when there was no wind.
The reason the csa did all this was to trick the americans thats the reason they made the main flag similar to the American flag and there uniforms similar to American
@@carlbowles1808 Many of the Confederate officers had previously been in the U.S. Army and simply wore their old uniforms. And to add to the confusion the regulation militia uniforms of Virginia, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia happened to be blue.
Well the technology of their rifles was much less advanced than ours. But they were still effective at killing, just not as efficient when it came to reloading.
British infantry had the best tactics when defending against an oncoming enemy. Just suicidal most of this stuff. Lee was a 'butcher' and even after his defeat at Gettysburg he still carried on the war. I don't know about hero. More like a mass murderer!
@@gazza2933 The weapons were much more advanced. Both armies still used 18th century warfare tactics by standing in lines and waiting turns to shoot. Because of more deadly weapons, said tactics were useless
There was no "unwritten policy" among Union soldiers to shoot Confederate prisoners of war. In fact prisoner of war camps were operated by both sides, with their populations swelling after the end of large scale prisoner exchanges in August 1863 (a result of the Confederacy's decree that that neither captured black soldiers nor their white officers would be subject to exchange).
If anything, it was Confederate policy to shoot Union POWs! The confederates massacred Union POWs multiple times throughout the war and even Union soldiers in prison camps weren’t safe from Rebel bullets. You are absolutely correct.
@@drinks1019History is written by the winners until a divine intervention, miracle of GOD. Matthew chapter 10 verse 26, KJV Bible - 26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
Back then it was still the tradition to do linear formations, now why they still did that with accurate and deadly rifles when that formation was for very unaccurate muskets is beyond me
@@Rafa8689, that is not the point. It would not be a problem to change the position to have cover or, like the Prussians, take sandbags with you to quickly set up a field fortification PLUS having some kind of "primitive" bullet proof vest. The key point is that there is no way to reload a muzzle loader when you lie down, cower/squat or while sitting. You can only reload it while standing. As long as they used the muzzle-loading systems, there was no way to copy the far better warfare of the Prussian army.
Man, the Civil War is so interesting. I can't get enough about the history of the war. Such an incredible time. The heroism shown from both sides of this war is unreal.
Desmond Huntington the confederates though, field of lost shoes... they were hero’s and died the way men can only hope to die, in glorious battle slain, think what thousands fell in vain
TheCrazyKid1381 Abraham Lincoln wanted you send your people back to Africa and the northerners were just as cruel to your people as the southerners were. Ever heard of the country called Liberia in Africa? Is was founded to resettle slaves back in Africa
What I dislike about almost all war movies is the lack of details in battle scenes. People get hit and die or they dont get hit and keep fighting. Where is the people that get shot in the leg and crawl to cover? Where is the people that get their hand blown off? Where is the people who get hit to the face but dont die instantly? Movies simply do not care about what is actually happening in such a battle.
This is 1st Manassas/Bull Run a Confederate Victory and a year later they won again on the same ground at 2nd Manassas. It is a beautiful park and well preserved. Lots of great restaurants close by.
Hermus Glodiac traitors? I’m sorry that is not true they were forced to leave the union they loved the union but they weren’t just gonna allow the money grubbing north and destroy their homes and states most of these men were BOYS so you have no right just like the men in blue they gave their all and paid the ultimate sacrifice they too are American veterans and 2 of Lincoln’s family member FOUGHT FOR THE SOUTH not to forget the thousands of northerners who fought in southern units!
This is from gods and generals. My wife and I saw this at the theater. We dressed period . I wore a uniform and she wore a hoop dress. We got some looks from people. It was cool!!!!!!
Just finished a living history at this battlefield a few days ago. The battle was hectic. Over 200 different uniforms on both sides, 45 dead a minute, and a few civilians caught in the cross fire. Edit: Stonewall did say to yell before they charged, or during such. Too bad they didn’t add that.
John Paul Jones yea maybe but the guns they used back then aren’t good for penetrating a juggernaut suit so that hey would need like a cannon or something to affect me
TheCrazyKid1381 yes im sure all of the soldiers on that battlefield were rich and owned luxurious plantations with upwards of hundreds of slaves. very few people in the south owned slaves. and the men fighting almost never did. southern soldiers could barely afford shoes let alone slaves
War is hell. A huge waste of human life. All that time and work invested by the dead and wonded soldiers parents, just to see their children wasted by a pointless war.
Battles were such a grind in this war both sides pretty much suffered equal casualties except for a hand full like Fredericksburg. But even at Chancellorsville Lees greatest victory he suffered more killed and wounded than Hooker
Manassas is such a beautiful and serene place. I was there. It's just an hour away from Washington and probably even closer to Richmond. Who could've guessed such a peaceful farm could host the beginning battle in what was the deadliest war in Western American history
@@jcrass2361 Slavery was already on the docket of being abolished before the war happened. No one mentions that but hey, the victors always write the history. Hell, slavery was ruining the southern economy.
@@iamatoaster2693 Yeah, it would’ve just dissolved segregation and then segregation could be over by WWI, but hell, Lincoln and the Yankees had to do their thing, and it ended up making history a whole lot worse.
@@wilhelmiikaiserofgermany8181 Interesting history lesson. What was the point of the Mason Dixie line and why did all states south of it, just happen to agree on "States rights" for the reason to secede? Here's a bonus point question, if you're up for it: Can you name the one state that joined the South that didn't support slavery?
@@Spectre11B one better, if the issue wasnt about slavery, why did the articles of secession identify the primary reason for their secession as the protection of the institution of slavery?
I read the Greek Civil War, after the Germans were driven out at the close of World War 2 was horrendous. Atrocities on both sides- as every conflict seems to bring, no matter the combatants
Cavalry in the napoleonic era WAS for scouting and pursuit. There where two distinct types if cavalry. Heavy cavalry such as the British Dragoon guards and French lancers and light cavalry such as British and French Hussars. The heavies did the battlefield charges and the light cav did scouting and pursuit
Wilmer McLeans house was on this very battle field 3 years later he was living in a quiet area called "Appomattox Courthouse" were Robert e Lee surrendered McLean stated "The war started on my front yard, and ended in my front parlor"
That is the craziest coincidence of the entire war and it's not a joke or exaggeration by any means. The war began and ended at that guy's home. Excluding Fort Sumpter.
It cracks me up- the view that the war was fought by the South to preserve the Rights of Man from an invasive government. I would agree with that statement, as long as it was noted, the Rights of the White Man. The Black Man of the South was not allowed to partake of said rights. A most important and ignored point by those who seek a moral justification for this war. I have family who fought on both sides. My Southern kin held human beings in bondage. I respect the courage but not the cause of the South. Peace all, American fellows all again
@Andy Mo - The problem is Gen. Lee knew the South can't fight a long drawn out war. The North is slowly gaining more other states joining the Union in the war, specially with their bigger industrial strength and larger population than the South. While the South is being choked on supplies. The only way for the South to win the war is to end it as soon as possible. Remember Gen. Lee is only head of the Army of North Virginia not of the entire Confederate South. Being severely always outnumbered and less equipt than the North, it is only his sheer genius that the South lasted that long.
I'm pretty sure the guys in the blue uniforms at 0:03 are actually Confederate. You can clearly see the Confederate battle flag at 0:06 to the left. Some Confederate units at the Battle of Manassas did wear blue, and some Union regiments wore gray.
The South never had a policy of executing black soldiers, its just that they had no policy *against* killing them, or when it happened, it was usually ignored by the government
@Ducks probably in retaliation to the confederates slaughtering black soldiers who tried to surrender. once you start doing that, people won't much care whether you're black or white. all they see is that they slaughtered surrendering soldiers and thus decided to returned the favor in kind...
@Ducks So the only reputable source I can find for that phrase being used during the American Civil war is attributed to Confederate irregular soldiers. There is an article from "Dixieoutfitters" that says black soldiers at The Battle of the Crater shouted that when they charged into the crater, however all the "sources" he lists are accounts given 40-50 years after the battle was fought. Not to mention the actual battle itself would cast doubts on those accounts as the black soldiers were not the first into the fight on that day.
G'Day, I haven't seen this footage before. What film or series was this taken from? Very well done. It shows how confusing First Manassas must have been with some Rebs in blue and some Yankees in grey as well as slightly similar flags to add to the confusion. "Friendly Fire" must have been a great problem. Cheers, Steve
Can praise this all you want but the ONLY film to capture the horror of battle in the civil war was "Cold Mountain" Best dam civil war battle scene to date and 10/10 use of music, lighting, cinamatapragy, visual and practical effects. Best Civil war film as a whole for me "Glory" Officers and Tactics, Gettysburg Part 1
One interesting thing to note, is the difference in Generalship the Confederate's had vs. The Union. You can tell how much better they were in this battle alone.
We’ll both sides had their fair share of good and bad generals. Even the most well known such as Lee, Grant and Jackson made poor mistakes especially when it came to tactics. Many civil war generals focused on attack which was considered the best tactic of the time, which any military historian would say is false.
I think Hollywood really gets what these battles actually looked like wrong. They fought in messy lines slowing lurching at each other from disorganized masses of men confused, approaching each other in piecemeal brigades and regiments. Clumping behind cover and using the terrain until you have had enough and break. I mean to say this was the dawn of the skirmish line as the main linear formation. Hollywood shows them fighting as if it were their grandparents on some distant wide open European battlefield where they faced down smoothbore muskets and the ever present danger of elite Calvary men.
the soldiers with red and blue hats, blue and red pants, are zuavos, from Argelia, they were soldiers at the service of the french empire, here in Mexico we were invaded by France and we had a second mexican empire, when Maximilian of Habsburg from Austria and the Emperess Carlota, were ruling our country, the Zuavos had a big presence in war, that's because in Mexico and mexicans in the US, celebrate in may 5th, in 1862, was declared the Batlle of Puebla, by the General Ignacio Zaragoza, and the President Porfirio Diaz Mori, who in that time was a soldier,
Regiments of red-uniformed "Zouaves" were raised on both sides in the secession war of 1861-65. They were not in the French service: it was just another American military fancy dress. The ones in this battle (First Manassas) were the New York Fire Zouaves. Both sides also raised Highland regiments who fought in kilts and marched to the pipes. Not many of them were actual Scots Highlanders, to be sure!
Some things about this video, The statement that there was an unwritten policy to kill Confederate prisoners-of-war (POWs) is not entirely true. By Bull Run, neither side was prepared for a full fledged war. As such, until 1863, they relied largely on paroling and exchanging prisoners. Many captured in the field were held, paroled, and sent back. However, they weren't immediately released from their parole once repatriated. They were held in camps until a proper exchange was made where an equal number of prisoners on both sides were exchanged, or exchanged depending upon rank-a general be worth so many privates and such. There was a policy by the Union to execute Confederate guerrillas during the war, as it was allowed by rules of war of the time. Guerrillas largely wore civilian or captured Union uniforms and used them to their advantage. At Mine Creek, Kansas on 25 October 1864, after routing the Confederates, Union cavalry charged into their midst. They had been given the order than any Confederate found wearing an article of Union uniform-pants, blouse, cap, etc, was to be executed on the spot. This order was carried out. How many were killed is not known exactly. But, this wasn't a blanket order for all Union forces. On the subject of uniforms, the Battle of Bull Run (1st Manassas), the Army of Northern Virginia (Union, yes, that's what it was called at the time of the battle) and the Army of the Potomac (Confederates, again, yes, that's what it was called-eventually the names were changed when they gained new commanders) were filled with volunteers were all over their lands and each regiment had their own unique flare in uniforms. The men in red shirts I believe were the 11th New York (Fire Zouaves) recruited from New York City firemen. Many Union regiments came in wearing grey uniforms and many Confederate regiments wore blue. One company, Company K (Continental Morgan Guard)-5th Virginia Regiment of the 'Stonewall Brigade'-turned out in their Continental uniforms complete with tri-corner hats. Other regiments wore French inspired Zouave uniforms of North Africa, red fez caps, blue vests with ornate red trim, and baggy red pantaloons. These mixes in colors led to a great deal of confusion, hesitation, and friendly fire during 1st Bull Run.
I like studying wars that have no hand grenades, cover, trenches, tanks or military vehicles or machine gun fire, just musket volley fire on a plain grass field.
..."unlike" in the "Napoleonic era" the role of the cavalry was scouting - defense (?? ...what?...) - and pursuit of the enemy, once it broke the lines ?... but the same thing happened DURING the "Napoleonic Wars" - that WAS the main role of cavalry already back then, even though - at times - the cavalry would ALSO (from time to time) charge "en masse" the frontline, though RARELY against infantry positions, but rather against other cavalry. Murat's charge at Pruss-Eylau was a typical example.
He was known to hold his arm up in the air, almost like he was constantly pointing towards heaven. I just wonder how often he actually did this odd behavior. Eventually, he was shot in the left arm (Lee's right) and it was amputated. Just never really put that together.
@@pyry1948 Well, aren't you on for a fight. The guy said it as if states rights was the only reason, which was not the case. States rights and slavery were the big reasons.
@@pyry1948 Oh, hey! I know this myth! 1% of the American population owned slaves in 1860, according to a census taken at the time. It would be strange if Southerners were willing to fight an entire war over the "property" rights of such a small population, wouldn't it? But look at the wording - that census recorded the percentage of AMERICANS who owned slaves, not Southerners; it included Northerners, who had banned slavery, and slaves themselves. When you restrict the dataset to Southerners, it turns out that closer to 5% of them owned slaves. This number is misleading as well, however; say you have a family of seven that owns and profits from a plantation worked by slaves. Their food is cooked by slaves, their clothes are mended by slaves, their dishes are cleaned by slaves - pretty much all of their manual and domestic labor is performed by slaves. Who, in this family of seven, will be recorded as owning a slave for the purposes of our census? Just one - probably the husband. All seven benefit from and likely command/torture slaves, but only one "owns" slaves. Adjusting for the statistical noise generated by this family problem I just referred to, the overall number is closer to 25% of people (households) owning slaves. This varied from state to state; in some states, this figure approaches 50%. Also not included in our census data are the families who were too poor to own slaves and instead "rented" them from richer families. Similarly not included are those who were too poor to rent or buy slaves, but aspired to do so and supported the right to own slaves because they thought they were going to do it one day. In light of all those factors, this much is evident: the South in 1860 was a slave state. A huge portion of the Southern population owned slaves, another portion rented them, and another portion yet WANTED to own them and supported the right to do so. That's the main reason why the South seceded - to protect their ability to own human beings.
@@leviuhrig2487 One of the reasons why the questions of state's rights is always brought up is that is a current and legitimate reason to break away, even if the particular topic of contention is over something like slavery. This true for the CSA then, just as it is true for Brexit, Scotland referendum, Crimea referendum, Hong Kong, and Catalonia referendum today. Also it is comparable that the lives of POOR whites (rich whites is another story) was in many but different ways just as bad as it was for black slaves. A black slave had zero guaranteed freedom and had to work in any way that pleased the slave owner including as a sex slave sometimes with the possibility of having their family ripped apart and sold separately or face non-judicial punishment including torture, but was certain to receive all the necessities for life like food, water, shelter, and even healthcare as stated in the state laws of the slave states. A poor white by comparison had the "freedom" to either work on a farm where at any time they could be killed by Indian raids, disease, famine, or any manner of natural evils with zero support from society save their own family group in walking distance or the "choice" to work in one of the northern urban industrial hell-scapes working 16+ hour days literally chained to the assembly line with not even as much as a bathroom break without permission. Or they could just starve. And neither group had the right to vote, male or female, as you had to own property to vote back then.
@@ColinTherac117 I don't want to spend too much time on this reply because otherwise I would be guilty of getting lost in the dirty and largely unnecessary quagmire of comment section arguments, but there are a few interesting points about your response I want to highlight. The first is that, without expanding upon your reasons for thinking this way, you posit that a state's "right" to allow its citizens to possess slaves is a legitimate reason for seceding from a larger democratic union, and, further, that this secession is ethically on par with modern independence movements. There are a number of differences between the two, but most relevant here is the fact that the modern movements you mention are largely pro-democracy and in favor of MORE individual rights rather than fewer. The Confederates, on the other hand, were actually afraid of democracy and what it might entail; they didn't like the result of a few elections, they didn't like the way public opinion was shifting, and they especially didn't like the idea of a certain subgroup within their population gaining the right to participate democratically. It is also interesting to compare your theory of the Southerners as champions of "states rights" with the fact that these same Southerners were vehemently opposed to a state's right to, say, aid in the flight of runaway slaves. American Southerners didn't seem to have a problem with invoking federal power when it involved bolstering their ability to own other people. Perhaps this "right to secede" you allude to exists independent of the Confederates' intentions, but I reckon that the Confederates would be very surprised to hear that. What you have introduced is a poorly-substantiated political philosophy. It is not history. I'm not going to go through and research each point you've mentioned comparing poor whites to slaves, for two reasons. First, it's not especially relevant; conditions being poor for one group do not justify government-endorsed poor conditions for another group. Second, it is clear to me that you are not arguing in good faith - I know this from a cursory analysis of your final point. Almost none of the Southern states had property ownership as a prerequisite for voting rights, and, of those which did, most of them got rid of those restrictions throughout the first half of the 19th century. By 1856, there were no states which required white men to own property to vote. If you don't believe me, here is my source: economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sokoloff-050406.pdf (see chart on p. 35) I do not feel obliged to research or argue against your other points when it is so clearly evident that you have not sufficiently researched these points yourself.
Yes. States rights - to own slaves. I you think it was purely about southern states rights, I suggest you read the confederate constitution in which the gov't is far more centralized. Everything else is revisionist bullshit.
I remember learning that soldiers would just stand in lines to shoot at each other, not even thinking of having any protection in front of them aside from the enemy’s poor aim, and thinking how stupid that sounded even as a kid. Don’t give them something to shoot at!
it was necessary, though it was starting to change around this time. For a long time firearms were pretty inaccurate and the most effective way to use them and maintain good volume of fire was to keep men in close rank so precise orders could be given through bugles, drums, or shouting. nowadays you can spread guys out further and maintain good cohesion and volume of fire thanks to radios, but that obviously wasn't possible back then.
@@LighthawkTenchi well that and rifling in the barrel. rifling spin the bullet making it more stable during flight and is what really pushed fire arm technology to the next level.
Jackson and Lee were both brilliant tactical commanders. The Shenandoah campaign showed Jackson's ability to use logistics and defeat in detail to perfection. Longstreet imho was a far better overall strategist. He was against engaging in Gettysburg, and was always wary of troop casualties suffered - something that Lee and Jackson didn't do in the same degree.
*strategic commanders. When it came to tactics both Jackson and Lee were average, while winning offensive battles (the cult of the offensive being popular in warfare at the time) they would suffer high casualties, which the confederacy couldn’t afford to lose.
Jackson wasn’t better then Longstreet. He had moments of brilliance but also screwed up a lot. Longstreet was reliable throughout the war and often knew when it was better to not attack since csa was almost always behind in men whereas Jackson could be overly aggressive and engage in assaults that cost to many men
Totally agree. It's nice to see someone else appreciate Longstreet's superiority as a tactical General. I would only place Union Generals Reynolds and Thomas above him.
Jonathan F this is nonsense, Jackson’s Shenandoah campaign alone is more brilliant than anything Longstreet ever accomplished. Longstreet has A LOT of fuckups, I don’t know how you don’t realize that. Great defensive general.
@@King_Stannis_Baratheon list em. Jackson and Lee's style of warfare lead to alot of victories but they also lead to alot more casualties that could not be replaced.
It astounds me that the first 200 years of firearm warfare was standing 50 yards away from the enemy in tightly packed lines taking turns shooting each other until you got close enough to just bare knuckle.
Bayonet charges and the like had essentially died off at this point. Don't get me wrong, they were still used. With the adoption of firearms, it became harder to convince people to brutally stab each other to death. Defenders mostly routed when faced with a bayonet charge.
During the Napoleonic Wars, the French tactic used is first artillery, then infantry volley fire follow by bayonet charge and lastly cavalry chase the fleeing enemies. Most casualties are from bayonet charge because the musket have short effective range, The British change their tactic to open fire only at 50 yards to defeat the French troops. When the same French tactic are used in the civil war, most casualties are due to the minie ball with rifle that have longer effective range. The British tactic is also obsolete due to the longer effective range of the rifle. Trench warfare start to evolve due to the weapon change.
Even if you only got wounded your chances of survival were 50/50 - infections of all kinds killed more soldiers than bullets. No matter what age the battles took place - the result was the same - War is Hell.
if you were in ww2 or maybe some modern wars like afghanistan, you would probably see the enemy was aiming at you when you are shot. but in this case it's literally random and you never know if you're next or not
That's amazing! WIsh I live in such a place. One my friend lives by the Red Banks battlefield park in NJ, he said to find independence war bullets in his backyard.
@@Firefly712 Read articles of Succesion it's all about the right to own slaves. Texas mentioned the "right" to own slaves 21 times. It was all about slavery!
the union named the battle after the Bull Run Mountains, while the confederates named it after the Manassas railroad junction. both names represent the same battle.
I don't understand why movies consistently fail to portray the distances at which engagements of this time took place. There is simply no reason why crane-shots couldn't have been implemented to show the much vaster ranges at which line-infantry exchanged fire. I think this is cinematic laziness and makes warfare of the time look silly and illogical. The vast majority of their footage is head-on or diagonal footage facing the lines themselves, firing or being fired upon. It would have been so easy to replace the remaining flat, dishonest "point of view" shots (which seem to establish a completely nebulous distance of engagement which constantly changes) with one or two large, sweeping shots of advancing regiments at realistic distances.
I didn't think there was much of a point in saying in you're opinion that Jackson was a better General than Longstreet... If Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg then the CSA most likely wins the Civil War. Did you know at Fredricksburg that Jackson asked Lee numerous times for permission to attack instead of holding defensive positions... Jackson gets a lot of credit as he should & the CSA definitely wasn't the same without him... Later in the war when Longstreet would go out to TN to fight with Bragg who was getting his but kicked by Grant... Longstreet still wasn't given overall command of the Army... Honestly the CSA wasted Longstreet in 2 serious ways... 1st was Lee not listening to him at Gettysburg... Longstreet didn't want to attack on day 1, day 2 & damn sure didn't want to send in Pickett! Again if Lee had listened to Longstreet & they had retreated on Day 1 & went & gained some high ground in between the Union Army & Washington DC... That was the chance they were looking for & Lee wasted it! The 2nd was they had to stop or at least slow the Union down from taking control of the TN river. After TN lost Albert Sydney Johnson at Shiloh & Bragg took over it was just retreat after retreat... Then they finally sent Longstreet & his corp out to TN yet Bragg still had overall command... So you are wasting a great General both at Gettysburg & when he was sent to TN. It would be the same if you had sent Jackson out to TN just to be under the command of Braxton Bragg... What a waste of time, lives & resources.
I agree with what you pointed out. I'm just curious I've heard other people say that General Lee just wanted one big battle to decide the war. What's your take on that? Because everything else that you wrote is spot-on and I agree with you. But like I said I've heard others I General Lee just wanted one big battle of annihilation at Gettysburg to decide the war.
Longstreet was the best. Jackson was operationally brilliant but inconsistent and sent troops in piecemeal when overall commander partially because he was so secretive with his orders for fear of interception that his own subordinates were often at a loss as to what he wanted
