During the big civil war battles, why did all the men on both sides line up, side by side, in front of the opposing army? Seems to me that would be the best way to get oneself shot for sure. Anyone who aimed into a line and fired a shot would be sure to hit someone. This is why the death rate was so high during those battles.
Hi Fred,
Think West Point. Both South and North generals were steeped in European style fighting tactics and strategies. General Lee studied Napoleon and other great European generals. The left and right flanks with a center were the positions that must be broken down to defeat an army.
There were battles such as Shiloh at the Hornets Nest fought in a wooded terrain but still the losses were over 20,000 thousand plus.
Lee and Grant met in the Wilderness in the latter part of the war in wooded terrain with losses also 20,000 plus.
Stonewall Jackson did use guerilla tactics with far fewer men than the Union forces in the Valley Campaign with great success. He used surprise tactics at Chancellorsville by having his men surprise the Union force when the South came out of the woods to panic the Northern forces.
Not till the latter part of the War did it become a siege affair with ditches and trenches and barbed wire.
Although Vicksburg did fall to Grant, after a siege was placed on the city, only after the citizens were living in caves and eating rats did Gen. Pemberton surrender to Grant.
Lining up like that goes back to Roman times, but that was when combat was hand to hand and men had to be just 2 feet in front of one another to strike the enemy with a sword.
But long after the invention of rifles, why would any army line up in an open field, side by side, when they were being fired at?
The style of fighting did allow for armies to meet and again apply old tactics. We scratch our heads today and wonder why?
It was the custom and the way to wage war. Not till the latter part of the War did that change when the North adopted a Total War concept where even civilians were at risk.
Gen. Lee did not originally pick Gettysburg as his first place to meet the North but circumstances dictated the battle be fought there after the Rebel and Union forces met and encountered fierce fighting.
Gen. Lee desperately wanted a victory at Gettysburg to win European approval and break Lincoln with a defeat that would discourage Northern support.
Gen Lee has been criticized for Pickett's Charge sending 12000 men across open terrain to break the Union center at Gettysburg.
I do not. I believe he was badly served by his Generals who did not carry out his plan with alacrity and force. He sorely missed Stonewall Jackson who was accidentally killed at Chancellorsville.
Not all the fighting at Gettysburg was in open terrain. Little Round Top and Culps hill saw fierce fighting with some of it hand-to-hand.
Had the South won, things might be very different today. And they came very close to winning the battle even with all the mishaps.
Have a great weekend.
P.S.
Noted historian James McPherson found when he researched the reasons the ordinary soldier fought in The War Between the States for the respective sides it was to hold the Union together for the Northern soldier believing his ancestors left him the country he knew and it was to defend his homeland from invasion and the right for Independence for the Southern soldier as he believed his ancestors had left to him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGZ-QU4iDds&feature=related
Edited by: JakeHolman on Feb 17, 2012 9:36 PM
Edited by: JakeHolman on Feb 18, 2012 12:40 PM
