So I just saw Gods and Generals...

[Xenophobe3691]

No, not him...

Fuck, I can't remember... I think it was a B-something.

Burnside?

That sounds about right...

Yep, the old gray dude with the weird sideburns? Yep, Burnside alright

[Nathan F]

Yes, GaG definitely has a pro-south twinge to it, although it definitely isn't anti-north. I, personally, don't consider it to be all that bad, as compred to alot of the revisionist tripe that is spread about these days.

But, as you have been explained, it was a realistic and historically accurate movie, most of those battles happened just about that way. The north was notorious for the ineptness of it's commanders and the inexperience of it's troops.

[RogueIce]

Yes, GaG definitely has a pro-south twinge to it, although it definitely isn't anti-north. I, personally, don't consider it to be all that bad, as compred to alot of the revisionist tripe that is spread about these days.

But, as you have been explained, it was a realistic and historically accurate movie, most of those battles happened just about that way. The north was notorious for the ineptness of it's commanders and the inexperience of it's troops.

Yeah.

Ah well.

Did you manage to not be horribly bored with the endless prayers, poetry, philosophising, and every other thing they did besides fight a war? I mean, we had what, maybe 30 minutes of actual battle footage in a four hour Civil War movie? And I swear a bunch of that was recycled filler!

[UltraViolence83]

I actually didn't mind the praying. But then I'm not the kind of guy to scream "Fundie! Fundie!" at someone who kneels down to pray. I'm not the leading expert on Stonewall, but if he was very pious then the movie shouldn't shrink from that aspect of his life since it seemed to pry into his life more than anything.

And the movie was too drawn-out. See the thread about 2001.

[LadyTevar]

It is a well-known fact that even for his day, 'Stonewall' Jackson was a very pious man who did not believe in cursing or strong spirits. Yet his men loved him. Jackson was said to ask nothing of his men that he himself would not do.

[Trytostaydead]

Jackson was almost fanatical in his ways.

Granted, G&G should not have added those additional scenes with the civilians and the black cook and I think the movie would've been just fine. Those civilian women COULD NOT ACT. But also remember, most "gentlefolk" back then were classically educated and a lot of their education also came from the Bible.

As for the battles, they were pretty accurate (not entirely of course).. I felt that unlike Gettysburg, there was no real defining moment or character that the movie could really wrap around except for Stonewall. Though, outside of the lack of gore.. as you mentioned RogueIce, it was an apt depiction of the horrors of modern warfare with outdated tactics.

[Xenophobe3691]

The scene with the cows in the night comes to mind as a bit of disgusting modern warfare...

I honestly hope the next two movies are better, that's all I'm saying.

[Sea Skimmer]

Did you manage to not be horribly bored with the endless prayers, poetry, philosophising, and every other thing they did besides fight a war? I mean, we had what, maybe 30 minutes of actual battle footage in a four hour Civil War movie? And I swear a bunch of that was recycled filler!

When you consider how few major battles there actually where in that's quite a high ratio. And there was nothing recycled that I could notice. Though in many cases inside Fredericksburg the same men can be seen shooting at themselves because the same renactors played both sides for those scenes

[CmdrWilkens]

Officers where in such short supply the Union had to double the size of its infantry companies for much of the war. Napoleonic tactics where really the only option. Skirmishing could be effective, but only as long as you weren't concerned with advancing and being overwhelmed by a massed enemy would be a constant risk.

That is both a truth and a misnomer. Yes there was a shortage of useful captains and lieutenants HOWEVER the Union Army had something like five to seven times the number of colonels and higher for equivalent sized formations compared against European armies. With one Colonel per initial 1000 men vice the common Napoleonic 1 per 2k, the Union Army was vastly overstaffed with Colonels, Brigadiers, and Major Generals so out the ying yang its hard to believe.

[Sea Skimmer]

That is both a truth and a misnomer. Yes there was a shortage of useful captains and lieutenants HOWEVER the Union Army had something like five to seven times the number of colonels and higher for equivalent sized formations compared against European armies. With one Colonel per initial 1000 men vice the common Napoleonic 1 per 2k, the Union Army was vastly overstaffed with Colonels, Brigadiers, and Major Generals so out the ying yang its hard to believe.

Which was only because the Federal Army appointed civilians with no military training as officers on a massive scale. You could become an instant colonel simply by getting 1000 men to volunteer to be your regiment.

[RogueIce]

When you consider how few major battles there actually where in that's quite a high ratio. And there was nothing recycled that I could notice. Though in many cases inside Fredericksburg the same men can be seen shooting at themselves because the same renactors played both sides for those scenes

There were a few scenes, where they viewed across the lines in general (I guess from the commander's perspective) where it certainly looked recycled. And in Bull Run there were some scenes that looked redone.

The most noticable, for me, was in the retreats around Fredericksburg. Those looked almost identical the two times they did it.

[CmdrWilkens]

Which was only because the Federal Army appointed civilians with no military training as officers on a massive scale. You could become an instant colonel simply by getting 1000 men to volunteer to be your regiment.

Yup, even worse was that they then let the men elect their Captains and Lieutenants in many regiments. Thus not only were your Colonels a mixed bag (some states like Massachucettes REALLY tried to appoint only qualified men) btu your junior officers were even less likely to be competent. Fortunately they instituted a review board in early '62 but it took a year or two for that to be effective. Thus the seeming rise of a competent officer corps begining in mid '63 and onward.

[irishmick79]

Actually, the Union only assaulted Mayre's Heights 14 times. After that, a openly weeping General Burnside swore that he would personally lead a fifteenth charge against the heights, but his corps commanders managed to talk him out of it. Burnside was canned in march after a second futile attempt in February to get the Army of the Potomac moving against the Rebels. Joe Hooker got promoted to the command, and then got canned after he managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory at Chancellorsville.

I personally don't mind the fact that Jackson was the prime focus of the movie. Historically he was one of the main catalysts for the string of Southern victories in the east until his death, and the first two years of the war revolved somewhat around his magnificant ability as a commander. Telling the story of Jackson's life in the southern army is also a good vehicle for the director to make the point that while the Southern high command was brilliant early in the war, attrition took it's toll on the command staff and began to affect the performance of the army negatively later in the war.

[irishmick79]

Which was only because the Federal Army appointed civilians with no military training as officers on a massive scale. You could become an instant colonel simply by getting 1000 men to volunteer to be your regiment.

Yup, even worse was that they then let the men elect their Captains and Lieutenants in many regiments. Thus not only were your Colonels a mixed bag (some states like Massachucettes REALLY tried to appoint only qualified men) btu your junior officers were even less likely to be competent. Fortunately they instituted a review board in early '62 but it took a year or two for that to be effective. Thus the seeming rise of a competent officer corps begining in mid '63 and onward.

The volunteer armies that the north and the south formed were absolutely huge. No way could either side count on the small regular army to provide for a capable corps of officers. Both sides had to rely on what they could get as far as civilians-turned-officers were concerned. The south fared better early on with it's crop of civilian-officers than the north did, but combat losses in the southern officer corps could not be replaced later in the war.

Officer elections were quickly done away with once the military high commands of both sides realized they were in for a fight.

[CmdrWilkens]

Yup, even worse was that they then let the men elect their Captains and Lieutenants in many regiments. Thus not only were your Colonels a mixed bag (some states like Massachucettes REALLY tried to appoint only qualified men) btu your junior officers were even less likely to be competent. Fortunately they instituted a review board in early '62 but it took a year or two for that to be effective. Thus the seeming rise of a competent officer corps begining in mid '63 and onward.

The volunteer armies that the north and the south formed were absolutely huge. No way could either side count on the small regular army to provide for a capable corps of officers. Both sides had to rely on what they could get as far as civilians-turned-officers were concerned. The south fared better early on with it's crop of civilian-officers than the north did, but combat losses in the southern officer corps could not be replaced later in the war.

Officer elections were quickly done away with once the military high commands of both sides realized they were in for a fight.

You are, I believe, completely incorrect in your assertion that neither North nor South could depend on the regular army to provide a capable corps of oficers. The Federal Army in 1861 was certainly small but most of its Sargeants and senior NCOs would have been a far cry better than hundreds of the Lieutenants and Captains raised with the volunteer Army. Remember also that up until the disaster (for both sides regardless of who won) of 1st Bull Run the Armies were still relatively small. The initial union call up was for only 75,000 men. These men, had they been competently officered and drilled (highly probably from the 17,00-odd man force that was the Federal Army) woudl have been the kind of force that would have won 1st Bull Run and possibly taken Davis prisoner (he was observing the battle) going a good way towards an early resolution of the conflict.

[Xenophobe3691]

Actually, the Union only assaulted Mayre's Heights 14 times. After that, a openly weeping General Burnside swore that he would personally lead a fifteenth charge against the heights, but his corps commanders managed to talk him out of it. Burnside was canned in march after a second futile attempt in February to get the Army of the Potomac moving against the Rebels. Joe Hooker got promoted to the command, and then got canned after he managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory at Chancellorsville.

You're kidding me. The North deserved to lose with generals like this, pity the cigars got dropped...(Turtledove fans )

[irishmick79]

The 17,000 man regular army was in no way shape or form able to serve as a training corps for the north. Most of the army commands were scattered throughout the western frontier, on assignment fighting indians and such, and in various outposts throughout the south. While the government recalled as many soldiers to the east as they could afford, they still had to maintain military presence in California and on the frontier. The regular army was also split over the issue of secession, as the rest of the country was. A great many soldiers and officers decided to go south, further reducing the capabilities of the officer corps that remained loyal to the north.

Keep in mind that the 75,000 man force that was initially called up was not called up to congregate in one place. The recruits had to be deployed to southern illinois, missouri, western virginia, Kentucky, as well as Maryland. The northern command had to spread out the troops in order to form the nucleus for the massive volunteer armies that were to follow. Irvin McDowell could only field 32,000 against the confederats at First Bull Run as a result.

Granted, the regular army corps did provide some foundation to build an officer corps from. It simply could not be relied upon to fully supply either army with the required numbers of capable officers. The armies were so large and spread out over such vast distances, it became impossible for either the northern or southern governments to utilize the regular army soldiers in such fasion, and they were forced to utilize the raw volunteers that were flooding the ranks.

[irishmick79]

You're kidding me. The North deserved to lose with generals like this, pity the cigars got dropped...(Turtledove fans )

Nope. Funny thing is that Ambrose Burnside wound up as Governor of Rhode Island after the war, and became the first president of the National Rifle Association.