"Civil War Tactics in Perspective" Topic

"How many Civil War historians also research and write about the Napoleonic era, the eighteenth century, or other wars of the 19th century? Almost none – but the rare ones who do give us the greatest insight into Civil War combat. How can you understand Civil War tactics without perspective, without studying what Civil War generals studied, without comparing Civil War weapons to those that came before and after? You cannot. How can you understand Civil War tactics by looking solely at the infantry? Many Civil War historians attempt just that, getting bogged down in the minutiae of battles instead of gaining perspective by researching and understanding other eras. Because of this lack of perspective, many historians don't fully understand why Civil War combat was indecisive. And because of their lack of background, when historians specializing in the Civil War have seen Civil War generals write of "Napoleonic" tactics, firstly – they may not have understood what Napoleonic tactics were – something more than men fighting shoulder to shoulder – and secondly, it didn't occur to them that "Napoleonic" might refer to another Napoleon, Napoleon III. Nineteenth century French tactics were an evolution of earlier tactics and included a faster 'gymnastic' pace of attack to reach enemy lines faster, hopefully negating the advantages of the new rifled musket. (The Bloody Crucible of Courage, Brent Nosworthy)…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I don't write about earlier wars, but I have read about them.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand