"New Maps for Chickamauga/Tullahoma Campaign/Battlefields" Topic

Wargame friendly, of course:

link

An example of the one of the maps:

link

The author has designed several paper wargames, including a huge regimental game on Chickaumaga itself. He also has a historical blog to support the book, which includes this article about that most controversial of ACW battlefield subjects- the combat range of the rifled musket:

link

Fooey! I knew all about the Chickamauga aspect from ConsimWorld, but Tullahoma as well? That's where I grew up. Chalk up another sale.

There is a book about the Tullahoma Campaign titled, "Tullahoma, The 1863 Campaign for the Control of Middle Tennessee", by Michael R. Bradley, ISBN 1-57249-167-1.

Oh, cool… The map shows the position of the 51st Ohio. That unit was raised in our county (Tuscarawas) and trained at, what was to become, the county fair grounds. They later helped hold the line at Chickamausg (on the right of the regulars, no less) and continued on in the Atlanta campaign.

It tends to personalize the Civil War a little bit when you can see where the home town boys fought.

Rats! Something else to spend my limited resources on. So many books, so little time.

Thanks, Mike. I've already shared that book with my brother. Even Motlow State Community College professors can get published. :-)

I hope it's better than The Maps of Gettysburg.

Tullahoma = from the Greek: "Tulla" meaning mud, and "Homa" meaning more mud! (a quip by a Union soldier in a letter home)

I already have mine on pre-order. I can't wait to pour over it!

donlowry…what didn't you like about The Maps of Gettysburg?

what didn't you like about The Maps of Gettysburg?

The maps are too schematic, not detailed enough. Ultra-straight roads, etc.

I am surprised by the lack of topographic elevation lines. Often topography explains why a line of battle is here, rather than there or why a unit followed this line of advance rather than another.

Topography is very important in a battle map, IMO.

Good point.

Well I don't think most folks need total exact elevation lines, BUT some indication of depressions and elevations would be nice, maybe additional dotted lines in some other color or something. Chickamaugua was not a golf course. What they have is still quite good IMHO!

I feel bad having to be critical to a fellow Chickamauga scholar, but unfortunately there are a number of errors I see on this map. I really am looking forward to this book. Chickamauga is a very confusing battle. I hope that when I get the book, a fresh new perspective will help me understand portions of the battle that I still have trouble with.

First, the position of the brigades is wrong, in my opinion. According to the 1901 National Park maps, and Johnson's own report, McNair's brigade was behind and supporting Gregg, not Fulton.

Next, the position of Culpeper's battery is incorrect. It was with McNair, and moved forward to add its firepower to repulsing Heg after initial contact was made. On this map, with McNair behind Fulton, and Culpepper behind Fulton, and even Robertson, this is impossible. (OR Vol. 30, Part 2, pg 453)

link

Also, Hood's division was to the right of Johnson, not behind it. Robertson was connected with Sheffield, as he describes having to break the connection with that brigade. Benning was in support, but it's not clear if he was in the middle rear of both brigades, or behind Sheffield. He certainly wasn't directly behind Robertson, as Benning describes Robertson as being "a little to my left" (OR Vol. 30, Part 2, pgs 510, 518).

link

I also think the Confederate line is too far forward. The Confederate lines were farther east than the eastern edge of East Viniard Field. Certainly not west of it. The marker for the 8th Kansas is deep in the woods. Now, the marker could be wrong, of course, but probably not that wrong. The finger of woods along the fence line of East Viniard Field isn't on the 1901 maps, and the very important ditch bisecting the Viniard Farm isn't there either.

On the Union side, the positions of the 101st Indiana and 105th Ohio are reversed and incorrect. Cozzen's map on page 184 shows this correctly, and it is confirmed in the 105th Ohio's regimental history, which describes the 101st breaking first on the right flank, and the 105th having to refuse its flank after the 101st breaks. (The Story of a Thousand, pg. 219) Also, in my opinion, Barnes' brigade had not yet reached the southern corner of East Viniard Field while Heg was in the woods battling Johnson's division for the first time.

Again, I do look forward to the book. I hope it proves to be a useful resource. Just researching this map, I have come across some areas where I can improve my own maps, and even a major error somewhere else. But in my opinion, this map presented here does have errors. If I seem critical, I would also state that I would hope others would offer constructive criticism to my work so that I can also improve. I have also seen three more maps elsewhere on the web, and they don't have any big errors as far as I could tell from the low resolution. Maybe I'm just jealous. He's getting paid and I'm not. :)

link