What maps don't reveal
Reading the standard academic treatments of the battle provide a particular omniscient viewpoint, but looking at the battle from the perspective of the soldier on the ground quickly establishes the distinction between writing about history and actually making history.
Thinking about it all,
just north of Sharpsburg,
Mannie
8 comments:
Interesting take - I like the fact that your trying to convey some sense of empathy - something that not all interpreters realize.
For years as a kid I could never understand why Corn Fields were such a problem in the American Civil War. In the UK Corn is only about 2ft high. It wasn't till I was older that I learnt Corn was Maize and Wheat was Corn.
Now we have alot more 'CORN' fields in the UK I can see how hard they'd be to fight through.
Neil
P.S. Great Blog
Mannie -- simple yet insightful post. The Soldier's View is sometimes forgotten when discussing grand strategy.
Thanks for your excellent blog,
Todd Berkoff
Arlington, Va
Thanks for this prospective on the battle. Since I first read Sears 25 some years ago I was aware that men fought in the corn fields, but until you posted this video I never gave it much thought. Wonder how long it took for the corn stalks to be all knock down.
Then there are those fields in books that appear to be flat. That often changes once you start walking on then rather than viewing a picture. ~Gary
you should post this on the antietam facebook page.
Norma Stits
You need to add a disclaimer that no cornstalks were injured during the filming of this video.
See ya next weekend!
Tom Shay
It is my understanding that Civil War era cornstalks were not as tall as they are in modern times. Of course the average soldier of the era was not as tall as the modern soldier (excluding females), so I guess things even out to a certain extent.
Post a Comment