Visit Gettysburg

[MS Fowler]

With the start of the summer vacation season, and in because of a member's plan to visit Gettysburg next week, I thought it might be Ok to start a thread where we could discuss that battle, give advice, places to see, etc.
Is there any interest for that?

[vwbuge]

Never forget my trip there. I went almost 10 years ago on a whim on the 4th of July. Took Route 30 from Johnstown to Gettysburg. Took the old motorcycle.

[Botnst]

I visited with a PhD military historian about 35 years ago. Nothing like being with somebody who knows all about everything. Even the terrain. Stand somewhere and he'd say, "General XXXX" was here with his staff" or "Here's where XXX soldiers met at bayonet point." If I were wealthy and wanted to learn some stuff deeper than a brochure, I'd go to a good university and hire a PhD grad student or post-doc interested in the history of that particular battle or campaign. Hire her/him for a couple of days at a good rate and pay cash. Pay for a day or two of research so the historian would have time to organize and provide you with copies of this and that. I'll bet for $2K you would get a hell of an education.

[novaalison23]

my great too many times to say, was the first man to the top of little round top. Ive always loved gettysburg... ALWAYS.. there is also a house u should vist while there, a mini house, its sooo cool.. you can see the bullet holes from the war. when i went there was a tour you could take, and they would tell you about the river of blood, and stepping on other peoples heads to get over the fence.. (gag, but cool). okay im done, mesesd up my carpul bones thats wht the ty[ping stinks a bit (cant drive my baby eiher).

[MS Fowler]

Glad to see some interest.
I have been studying/ reading/ walking the battlefield on odd days for years. I think I understand what happened on July1, and July3. July 2 is, to me the most interesting day. A lot of activity, much of it lost in the fog of battle, and probably will never be fully understood. The caldron of fire from all directions near "the stony, little hill" ( Not LRT), near the wheatfielf is, to me, baffling. It seems like troops from both sides sorta wandered there and began firing with no one in command knowing who was where.
I ponder the bravery that casues men to stand almost muzzle-to-muzzle and fire at each other. The fear of running and being called a coward back home was probably worse than the fear of death.
JLC ( Joshua Lawerence Chamberlain) probably gets all the acclaim he deserves; a truly great American! But there were others, many whose name, and even their deeds have been lost to history.
Then there are the politician-generals, who, for personal glory/ fame, ignore their orders , ( or diliberately misinterpret them) and send thousands of good men to needless deaths.
All in all, a fitting way to celebrate the Americans" who here gave that last full measure of devotion...."

[Botnst]

I think the bravery of standing muzzle to muzzle is mostly lack of imagination on the part of the field-grade (and above) officers. That was the way wars with firearms had been fought for 400 years--massed troops alligned and blasting away. They did it because the firearms, muzzle-loading smoothbore muskets, were so low-power and inaccurate that individual fire control was ineffective. The primary advantage of musketry over bow and arrow was that bow and arrow required lots of practice and highly developed skills. Muskets required a couple hours of training and you're good to go. Muskets were originally designed as a pike with a firing tube so that the soldier could take a shot at distance and then wail away with the pike. This evolved to the bayonet. Until the 1800's the bayonet was a more effective weapon on the field than musket shot, another reason why massed troops on an open field were the norm rather than exception.

But the firearms advanced faster than tactics in the 19th century. Mass production of rifled barrels and breechloaded weapons rendered massed troops on the field obsolete. So did explosive shot from rifled artillery. Unfortunately for common soldiers, most general officers didn't notice that change. A few did, mostly on the Confederate side. Nathan Bedford Forrest (my favorite general officer from either side) was one. He recognized that maneuvering of large forces was more important than massing. Same with Jeb Stewart and Jackson. One of Lee's greatest blunders was meeting union troops at Gettysburg and using 18th century battle tactics against 19th century artillery and small arms. Had the union forces tactics to match their weapons, they could've annhilated Lee's army instead of just soundly defeating it. But they were stuck with the wrong tactics, too.

Fortunately for the union, the confederates never acquired effective modern weapons. They were stuck with a collection of unstandardized smoothbore muskets and a strange mix of smoothbore field pieces.