"The Battle of the Wilderness in Myth and Memory:..." Topic
4 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Media Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleDamaged in an ocean crossing, Bay Area Yard's 1:600 scale U.S.S. Marmora finally appears in Workbench.
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 17 Jul 2019 10:24 p.m. PST |
…. Reconsidering Virginia's Most Notorious Civil War Battlefield "In this highly revisionist study, historian Adam H. Petty tracks how veterans and historians of the Civil War created and perpetuated myths about the Wilderness, a forest in Virginia that served as the backdrop for three of the war's most interesting campaigns. This forest had a fearsome reputation among soldiers, especially those from Union armies; many believed it to be an exceptional landscape with a menacing mystique that created favorable combat conditions for Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. According to Petty, the mythology surrounding the campaigns in the Wilderness began to take shape during the war but truly blossomed in the postwar years, continuing into the present. Those myths, he suggests, confounded accurate understandings of how the physical environment influenced combat and military operations. While the Wilderness did create difficult combat conditions, Petty refutes claims that it was unique and favored the Confederates…"
Main page link
Amicalement Armand
|
Garde de Paris | 20 Jul 2019 8:36 a.m. PST |
Thanks, Tango. Not my era, but I'd like folks to tell us about this book if they read it. My observations, of no value to those who fought, but possibly of value to today's relative of Union soldiers who fought, are that any battle where 2.5 or more Unions soldiers were casualties to 1 Confederate, waa a clear-cut Confederate logistic/strategic victory. There were not many of them, and rarely large engagements. From Wikipedia for The Wilderness, from Wikipedia: Union Strength 124,232 ("present for duty") Confederate: 60–65,000 Union Casualties and losses 17,666 [17.6 Union to 11 Confederate. Not up to 2:1] (2,246 killed, [22 to 14, less than 2:1. Just over 3 to 2.] 12,037 wounded, [12 to 7.8, less 2:1] 3,383 captured/missing)[7][8] [Just over 2:1] Confederate Casualties and losses 11,033 (1,477 killed, 7,866 wounded, 1,690 captured/missing) Heavy drain on the confederacy, with no way to replace as the Union could. |
Garde de Paris | 20 Jul 2019 9:15 a.m. PST |
Continuing, Chancellorsville comparisons:
Overalll, 17,287 Union to 12,762 Confed. [Less than 3 to 2] 1606 Union killed to 1665 confed [Essentially 1:1!] 9,762 wounded to 9,081 cofed. [over 1 to 1] 5,919 captured/missing to 2018 confed. [That's about 3:1!] (I'd be curious to find if any records were kept of missing returning to the colors on either side.) Mine Run was 1272 union all causes to 680 confed. [about 1.9 Union to 1 confed] |
Tango01 | 20 Jul 2019 12:23 p.m. PST |
No mention my friend… and thanks for the info!. Amicalement Armand |
|