US Civil War Battlefield Guide

[PhilB]

I have the Civil War Battlefield Guide which covers all the 384 designated battles in the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report. All major actions have descriptions and battle maps superimposed on modern maps. An example is shown below. Numbers of troops involved and casualties are also shown.

Is this the kind of thing the IWM might undertake? Is it too big to consider for WW1? Would it be as popular as I think it would be? Phil B

[Paul Reed]

Phil - do you have the full details for this book? It is something I would like to own myself, given the look of that map!

[John_Hartley]

It is something I would like to own myself, given the look of that map!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And me

[PhilB]

Here we are, gents. Cost me $25 in one of the battlefield shops over there. Phil B

[PhilB]

It`s £12.38 at that firm named after a S American river! Let me know what you think of it and whether a WW1 equivalent is indicated. Phil B

[Paul Reed]

Thanks Phil - going to order it now.

[Guest]

First, are you suggesting a guide to "British battlefields of the Western Front", or a full guide to the battlefields of the war? There is a big difference, but I suspect we are talking about the former.

Even so, it would be a huge project compared to the comparatively tiny battlefields and short battles of the ACW. Gettysburg, for instance, apart fromthe cavalry battle, was fought over only three days on a battlefield just a few square miles in area.

If the IWM were to commit the resources needed by such a major project, I suggest they would need some guarantee of a return on the investment. Do you think they would really sell more than a few thousand copies?

There is one big difference with the ACW in that many of the most important ACW battlefields are preserved oin a way which would have been impossible for the Western Front, given that it is such a major chunk of France and Belgium. This is probably why they can produce a guide for such a modest price.

[PhilB]

You may well be right, angie. I`m not sure that battlefield preservation is a major factor, though. The less preserved the field, the more useful does the US style overlaid map become, so that you can see where the action was in relation to modern land features.

I have been led to believe that interest in the USCW among Americans is not very high, but they`ve produced this guide which encourages me to think that the greater interest in WW1 would facilitate a WW1 equivalent in some form or other.

Thanks for your comments. Phil B

[CROONAERT]

they`ve produced this guide which encourages me to think that the greater interest in WW1 would facilitate a WW1 equivalent in some form or other. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose it could theoretically be done for WW1, but it'd have to be several volumes in size and, even then, the authors would have to be very selective of which actions they choose to cover and leave many out (which would probably disgruntle some readers).

I suppose the "Battleground Europe" series does as good a job as any even though no volume of this (that I've seen) covers all the actions that could be covered by it's title.

Dave.

[PhilB]

the authors would have to be very selective of which actions they choose to cover and leave many out (which would probably disgruntle some readers).

Dave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe not, Dave, as the Battles Nomenclature Committee IIRC produced a list of recognized actions? I haven`t seen the list for some time. Can you give a guesstimate of how many actions they listed? Phil B

[CROONAERT]

Maybe not, Dave, as the Battles Nomenclature Committee IIRC produced a list of recognized actions? I haven`t seen the list for some time. Can you give a guesstimate of how many actions they listed? Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Something in the region of 151 (when not "splitting" major battles into their smaller componants)? If you want a book that only covers those listed by this body, then , yes it would be possible. However, it would leave a hell of a lot out!

Many of those listed by the B.N.Committee will have been covered somewhere or other previously. It's those not listed that would create the interest in a new book, I think

Dave.

[PhilB]

Something in the region of 151 (when not "splitting" major battles into their smaller componants)?  If you want a book that only covers those listed by this body, then , yes it would be possible. However, it would leave a hell of a lot out!

Dave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To give us a feel for it, could you give a few examples of actions which wouldn`t be in the BNC list but desirable in a book? Phil B

[andigger]

    I have been led to believe that interest in the USCW among Americans is not very high,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow! You haven't been over here in awhile have you. Not to mention the large scale reenactments, the Civil War Days festival in most every town... just stop in any book store and have a look through the ever present Civil War section, its usually as big as the business section, and in most cases dwarfs the WWII section. That means not only are people interested in visiting the battlefields they are persuing the war as a hobby or interest. I think east of the Mississppi (North and South) there is still a very strong interest.

Andy

[PhilB]

I bow to your superior knowledge! What do you think of a WW1 version of the book then? Phil B

[andigger]

I bow to your superior knowledge! What do you think of a WW1 version of the book then? Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil - Not superior knowledge, just on the ground experience. I think a similar book would be incredible for the batttlefields of WWI. I agree with most of the hindrances pointed out by the others though as well. Most importantly the scale of the WWI battlefield vs the Civil War is far more immense. The book might also be more tedious since the Civil War was a war of movement rather than the tacticle and logistical challenge that WWI was. That having been said, maybe a book that covered the first phases of the western from up to 31 Dec 1915 would be manageable (research wise) and more realistic.

Andy

[CROONAERT]

To give us a feel for it, could you give a few examples of actions which wouldn`t be in the BNC list but desirable in a book?    Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mining operations in the salient that are not covered by the generic "Actions of the Bluff, St.Eloi craters, etc... such as those near Wijtschaete of 1915 and 1916, Railway Wood, not covered by the "Actions of Hooge and Bellewaerde, etc. Any action just outside the "official" cut-off point of a certain Battle, such as the fights of the days after the "official" end of the Somme Battle and 2nd Ypres, etc. Large scale trench-raids not encompassed within any particular time period covered by the Committee, "line straightening and consolidation" operations along the whole front at various periods, areas that were never involved in major actions, but had high "daily attrition" rates, areas of experimental tactics and equipment.

Also, some of those covered by the Battle Nomenclature Committee, but not in much detail such as the "Operations on the Belgian Coast" .This encompasses a wide range of actions that don't get much coverage.

These are just some of the things that I, personally, would like to see covered in any such book.There will be many more.

Another point is that to map many of the actions that are actually covered by the BNC, would , to attain a good degree of accuracy and avoid confusion, have to really have "daily" maps showing the changing situation as it unfolded (as an example, the Official History has 23 maps covering the 2nd Battle of Ypres alone - and could possibly have done with more!).

Dave.

[PhilB]

What you have in mind, Dave, seems to be the ideal mapbook but one assumes there`s no hope of getting down to trenchraids. And the map of a mining operation might be a bit tricky - what do you show apart from the entrance? Could be some edgy French/Belgian householders if you show the locations of galleries!

I think the actions covered by the BNC might be the most one could hope for. Unfortunately. Phil B

[AndyHollinger]

Wow ... the Civil War book is a must have ...

One on WWI would be an interesting book as well. But, in the US today there is a book published on the ACW / WYA every day - and that is only the non-fiction. The symbols are still alive throughout our (US) culture - we still legistlate over it's issues, symbols and interpretations. There is no comparison between the marketplace of the ACW and WWI.

Sadly - every English language book will be analyzed on how it will do in the American market for it's economic viability ... I'm afraid such a book would not do even remotely well in the US.

BUT - on a smalller scale such a book might do well on individual battles such as Ieper and Somme. Like some of the posts above indicate, a book with modern maps and photos for these two battles might do fairly well ... I, for one, would buy it ...

[AndyHollinger]

Almost forgot ... there is a book I've seen where they took the Maps the ACW / WYA commanders had and superimposed them on modern maps to illustrate what various commanders did from the info they had ... I wish I could remember it because it explained A LOT!

I say this because in another string there's a project showing the land topography for the Somme. For the first time I could see and visualize why the plan, actions, etc. THIS would be great. I remember Tom Morgan showing me various places in the Salient and telling me about ridges and hills that were objectives, etc and me saying "where???" If you are from a part of the world that has hills and trees - Belgium doesn't give you much of a way to visualize it. A contour map with 5 meter lines actually does better than real life.

I say this because in my own experience when the lead was flying my way ... for the first time I saw and internalized just what a 1 meter rise or a 1 meter ditch can mean!

[PhilB]

Did anybody buy this book? Any comments? Phil B

[truthergw]

I think that there is an Atlas of the First World War ( approximate title) by West Point or one of the American Universities. Eyed it in the catalogues a few times but never took the plunge.

[bernardmcilwaine]

phil thats a smashing book,your idea about ww1 may not be a bad one,angie has a point though,it is a massive area to cover and the IWM wont take chances with a big project like that,BUT,whats wrong in them trying it out with the gallipoli campaign,that was a narrow front,if its a success,then they may try it out with the rest??,bernard

mr reed/hartley,i didnt know you were johnny rebs,theres been some damn good books about the ACW going dirt cheap on e,bay just recently

[ArmyOfficer]

If you're interested in Gettysburg you may want to pick up the National War College book - its the closest thing to a "Walking the Somme" for the War Between the States. Its used by our War College students on their visits and allows a good walking tour of key actions and has the relevant extracts of the Official Records embedded in each vignette.

I believe there is also one for Vicksburg.

Don't know that Vicksburg has too many UK tourists though. For that matter, Vicksburg doesn't have that many tourists from outside Mississippi or Louisiana

[andigger]

For that matter, Vicksburg doesn't have that many tourists from outside Mississippi or Louisiana

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually I visited Vicksburg and hail from Virginia. The battlefield is really well preserved and aside from Petersburg probably has the best preserved trenches in North America. Its well worth a visit, and a battlefield study could be easily done and understood.

Andy

[ArmyOfficer]

Andy - I went one hot July week and followed Sherman's approach as well as Grant's. There are parts of the battlefield outside the park that are horrifying. I'd rather fight in the desert anytime then fight in those bayous.

The area down around Raymond is nice though - all those old Plantation homes and live oaks.