Showing posts with label Battle of Shiloh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Battle of Shiloh. Show all posts
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Touring Battlefields With Two Thousand Dollars Worth Of Booze!
If you enjoy reading James McPherson's books, touring battlefields, learning about the Battle of Shiloh and/or Abraham Lincoln, and doing all of this with $2,000 worth of wine, beer, and Scotch, then this might be the single-most enjoyable article the NY Times has ever published and you have ever read. Honestly, it's like the writer of this article thought "how can I write the perfect article for The Tipsy Historian?" and then went ahead and cranked it out. Fantastic!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Remembering Our Veterans With Accuracy And Respect: Why It's Time For A Moratorium On Civil War Combat Art
Today is the day that we remember our Veterans, and take a moment to give respect to their commitment and sacrifice. In this space, we consider how we have and continue to remember the American Civil War. Which brings us to the substance of this post, wherein I wish to again posit a criticism of the use of Civil War combat as a form of consumer art, especially when that work is given credit for "realism". I refer you please to my previous post on the subject where the work of Don Troiani, one of the most prolific ACW artists, was discussed.
The utter lack of reality within this medium resurfaced during the recent book chat on "Harvard's Civil War" a text with Troiani's "Fire on Caroline Street" on the cover. I brought this issue up in the chat given we were discussing the 20th Massachusetts Regiment's experience at the Battle of Fredericksburg. I presented my take on the complete absence of trauma or blood and mentioned this glaring lack of accuracy and candor in Troiani's work. Several of the people in the chat mentioned how they'd never noticed that before.
Somehow in the 147 years since the Civil War, amidst the mythologizing and glorifying, we've forgotten what a brutal and gruesome experience this was for the men who fought it. At some point, the reality of Civil War combat has given way to something that is acceptable to hang on the wall of someone's home. We've neglected, or perhaps chosen to consciously ignore or subconsciously block out, the grim realities that faced soldiers and civilians on Civil War battlefields.
This type of treatment is not so widely seen with other American wars. For example, The Jess and I did a Google and EBay search for artwork about the Normandy landings on June 6, 1944. There is a minute commercial market for such work, which demonstrates that it isn't, and by extension shouldn't, be roundly accepted. Too many people remember exactly what happened that day, and our memories of it are too stark and raw to be dumbed down like that.
So how come this sort of art is acceptable with regards to the Civil War? These paintings, and many others, are praised for their accuracy and bought and sold as commodities. They depict famous battle moments, to be sure, but the most salient point is that men, in the moments that are so memorable, also bled, suffered, and died on those spots. I do not believe the best way to remember what happened there is through this type of sanitized glorification of something truly awful.
The citizenry during the war, especially after the Battle of Shiloh, knew exactly what was happening. They were the first citizens to see the brutal reality of war through the camera lens, and communities were flooded with the wounded, and cemeteries filled with the dead. There were of course contemporary artist renderings of Civil War fighting, most from journalists and troops who witnessed fighting. This art, while certainly not as refined as Mr. Troiani's, pulled no punches when it came to showing destruction and death. You may be sure these depictions weren't getting slapped up on the walls of private homes.
There was no hiding from the realities of war in 1861-1865, and the Civil War should have been a seminal event in the way we think about war, one that would hopefully discourage us from ever wanting to see another. Somehow, this didn't happen. There is indeed a disconnect between the way we choose to think about Civil War combat and what actually transpired, and it is fed by this sort of pulp art that is only selectively correct and maximally palatable, but certainly not reality.
We have a responsibility to remember what soldiers in our wars have done, and we must emphasize the requirement that we do this honestly. It is not only inaccurate, but dishonest to continue to present Civil War combat in the way that we have become used to. To help cement my point, I give you some words from Mr. Troiani himself, quoted from www.historicalartprints.com:
"If an historical painting is not reasonably accurate, then it's worthless both as art and as a historical document," Troiani declares. "If you are going to become involved in this field then there is little excuse for a pattern of inaccuracies."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
The utter lack of reality within this medium resurfaced during the recent book chat on "Harvard's Civil War" a text with Troiani's "Fire on Caroline Street" on the cover. I brought this issue up in the chat given we were discussing the 20th Massachusetts Regiment's experience at the Battle of Fredericksburg. I presented my take on the complete absence of trauma or blood and mentioned this glaring lack of accuracy and candor in Troiani's work. Several of the people in the chat mentioned how they'd never noticed that before.
Somehow in the 147 years since the Civil War, amidst the mythologizing and glorifying, we've forgotten what a brutal and gruesome experience this was for the men who fought it. At some point, the reality of Civil War combat has given way to something that is acceptable to hang on the wall of someone's home. We've neglected, or perhaps chosen to consciously ignore or subconsciously block out, the grim realities that faced soldiers and civilians on Civil War battlefields.
This type of treatment is not so widely seen with other American wars. For example, The Jess and I did a Google and EBay search for artwork about the Normandy landings on June 6, 1944. There is a minute commercial market for such work, which demonstrates that it isn't, and by extension shouldn't, be roundly accepted. Too many people remember exactly what happened that day, and our memories of it are too stark and raw to be dumbed down like that.
So how come this sort of art is acceptable with regards to the Civil War? These paintings, and many others, are praised for their accuracy and bought and sold as commodities. They depict famous battle moments, to be sure, but the most salient point is that men, in the moments that are so memorable, also bled, suffered, and died on those spots. I do not believe the best way to remember what happened there is through this type of sanitized glorification of something truly awful.
The citizenry during the war, especially after the Battle of Shiloh, knew exactly what was happening. They were the first citizens to see the brutal reality of war through the camera lens, and communities were flooded with the wounded, and cemeteries filled with the dead. There were of course contemporary artist renderings of Civil War fighting, most from journalists and troops who witnessed fighting. This art, while certainly not as refined as Mr. Troiani's, pulled no punches when it came to showing destruction and death. You may be sure these depictions weren't getting slapped up on the walls of private homes.
There was no hiding from the realities of war in 1861-1865, and the Civil War should have been a seminal event in the way we think about war, one that would hopefully discourage us from ever wanting to see another. Somehow, this didn't happen. There is indeed a disconnect between the way we choose to think about Civil War combat and what actually transpired, and it is fed by this sort of pulp art that is only selectively correct and maximally palatable, but certainly not reality.
We have a responsibility to remember what soldiers in our wars have done, and we must emphasize the requirement that we do this honestly. It is not only inaccurate, but dishonest to continue to present Civil War combat in the way that we have become used to. To help cement my point, I give you some words from Mr. Troiani himself, quoted from www.historicalartprints.com:
"If an historical painting is not reasonably accurate, then it's worthless both as art and as a historical document," Troiani declares. "If you are going to become involved in this field then there is little excuse for a pattern of inaccuracies."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Book Review: "Shiloh: Bloody April"
In writing a campaign history about the Battle of Shiloh, author Wiley Sword, in "Shiloh: Bloody April" has tackled an incredibly complex battle that took place on a massive scale with far-reaching repercussions. The primary one being the fact, because of the nearly 24,000 casualties and savage nature of the fighting, forever changed the way this nation looked at war.
Sword has done an excellent, though not flawless job of presenting this campaign to the reader. We get a solid introduction to the events preceding the battle and the how and why the opposing forces came together as they did. Each of the primary officers involved; Johnson, Bragg, Beauregard, Grant, Sherman, Buell, get an adequate treatment that is clearly foreshortened for the sake of brevity. The text is well-balanced and liberally sprinkled with references from both sides of the battle lines. There is a wonderful grasp of the themes surrounding the campaign, and they are laid out in a clear and concise fashion.
The book ended with a series of individual questions that address all of the important issues: Beauregard's withdrawal order the night of April 6th, the death of General Albert Johnson, who was the commanding officer for the South at Shiloh, with both the short and long-term consequences addressed, the fighting at the Hornet's Nest and the possibility of a Confederate breakthrough, Grant's attack order of April 7th, and, interestingly, a section entitled "Tactical Lessons of the Battlefield." This last one was truly unique, and left me wanting a much longer treatment of this issue.
The strength of the book, and the reason it is regarded as a classic treatment of the Battle of Shiloh, is Sword's ability to put the reader right in the midst of the battle amidst the noise, chaos, and violence. We vividly see how the troops were by-in-large inexperienced, the terrain was by turns rocky, swampy, flat, forest, shrub-covered, all the while split by ravines, the weather was marked by torrential rain, and the fighting was up close, personal, and particularly savage. Sword does not sanitize the battle and does not shy away from the blood and death, with the effect of reminding us, over and over again, that there is no glory in such destruction and that what the troops had to go through is just unforgettably horrible.
Shiloh was a hellish place, and the battlefield was unbelievably confused. In order to follow such a battle, the text is not enough. All of the names, terrain points, regiments, etc get jumbled together without a frame of reference. The solution is to have accurate, consistent, and plentiful maps. The maps in this book, however, are its biggest weakness. First, there is no single battlefield reference map with all of the locations and initial troop dispositions available to look back at. There is a map at the beginning, but it's totally incomplete. The maps are inconsistent, ie, the notations change from division to brigade to regimental level. Also, when looking at different parts of the lines on a map, everything else is excluded, so it looks like the action is happening in a vacuum.It takes a bit of flipping back and forth, which is at times frustrating, but the ebb and flow of the battle can be followed.
This battle was a national catastrophe that shocked the people of both North and South, both in its scale and its brutality. After Shiloh, there was no argument that this was going to be a long and difficult war. Sword's effort does a fantastic job of capturing the broad scale of the campaign, as well as the horror of the fighting at its most basic level. This is not a flawless regimental history, but "Shiloh: Bloody April" gets a strong recommendation. You will come away not only with a greatly enhanced fund of knowledge about this campaign, but also with a heavy heart.
Sword has done an excellent, though not flawless job of presenting this campaign to the reader. We get a solid introduction to the events preceding the battle and the how and why the opposing forces came together as they did. Each of the primary officers involved; Johnson, Bragg, Beauregard, Grant, Sherman, Buell, get an adequate treatment that is clearly foreshortened for the sake of brevity. The text is well-balanced and liberally sprinkled with references from both sides of the battle lines. There is a wonderful grasp of the themes surrounding the campaign, and they are laid out in a clear and concise fashion.
The book ended with a series of individual questions that address all of the important issues: Beauregard's withdrawal order the night of April 6th, the death of General Albert Johnson, who was the commanding officer for the South at Shiloh, with both the short and long-term consequences addressed, the fighting at the Hornet's Nest and the possibility of a Confederate breakthrough, Grant's attack order of April 7th, and, interestingly, a section entitled "Tactical Lessons of the Battlefield." This last one was truly unique, and left me wanting a much longer treatment of this issue.
The strength of the book, and the reason it is regarded as a classic treatment of the Battle of Shiloh, is Sword's ability to put the reader right in the midst of the battle amidst the noise, chaos, and violence. We vividly see how the troops were by-in-large inexperienced, the terrain was by turns rocky, swampy, flat, forest, shrub-covered, all the while split by ravines, the weather was marked by torrential rain, and the fighting was up close, personal, and particularly savage. Sword does not sanitize the battle and does not shy away from the blood and death, with the effect of reminding us, over and over again, that there is no glory in such destruction and that what the troops had to go through is just unforgettably horrible.
Shiloh was a hellish place, and the battlefield was unbelievably confused. In order to follow such a battle, the text is not enough. All of the names, terrain points, regiments, etc get jumbled together without a frame of reference. The solution is to have accurate, consistent, and plentiful maps. The maps in this book, however, are its biggest weakness. First, there is no single battlefield reference map with all of the locations and initial troop dispositions available to look back at. There is a map at the beginning, but it's totally incomplete. The maps are inconsistent, ie, the notations change from division to brigade to regimental level. Also, when looking at different parts of the lines on a map, everything else is excluded, so it looks like the action is happening in a vacuum.It takes a bit of flipping back and forth, which is at times frustrating, but the ebb and flow of the battle can be followed.
This battle was a national catastrophe that shocked the people of both North and South, both in its scale and its brutality. After Shiloh, there was no argument that this was going to be a long and difficult war. Sword's effort does a fantastic job of capturing the broad scale of the campaign, as well as the horror of the fighting at its most basic level. This is not a flawless regimental history, but "Shiloh: Bloody April" gets a strong recommendation. You will come away not only with a greatly enhanced fund of knowledge about this campaign, but also with a heavy heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
