I recently acquired an original copy of the book but it's in pretty rough condition.
Has anyone read it? I learned of it reading Shelby Foote's book and thought I would give it a look.
I think it's available online to read also.
I recently acquired an original copy of the book but it's in pretty rough condition.
Has anyone read it? I learned of it reading Shelby Foote's book and thought I would give it a look.
I think it's available online to read also.
Nice finding an original. :-)
If you want to learn more about infantry tactics I suggest this lecture:
Civil War Infantry Tactics and Weapons Earl Hess talked about the different infantry formations and maneuvers used during the Civil War and when generals might have used them. He also spoke about how tactics and weaponry impacted solider experience and compared this to later wars.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?416997...actics-weapons
It also cover the whole myth of the rifle musket and the fact that it had very little impact on the war.
Oh, and remember that Foote is not a historian, and his books are not history books but (great) narratives.
(he don't give sources for his information and don't use footnotes. And you can't trust everything he writes...)
Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard
Wow that is nice! Yes, I have read the manual a few times. I printed out a scanned copy of an original but also read it online, a little easier that way.
To the Colors!
Captain Lance Rawlings
Company K, 38th North Carolina, Pender's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Jackson's Corps, Army of Northern Virginia
http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...lina-Boys-quot
Thank you kindly sir I will check that out!
I understand about Foote's books, to be honest narrative history books are the only ones I am interested in these days. I much prefer an impression of what it would have been like to be there as opposed to straight statistics and dates but I realise their value. I read an article about the effect of rifled muskets being nullified by poor training, soldier nerves and often too much smoke to see the enemy clearly. The officers were not idiots who insisted on napoleonic tactics just because it was tradition as some may have suggested and massed rifle fire was often the most effective tactic. Fascinating stuff.
Last edited by lowflyingsasquatch; 02-14-2017 at 04:30 PM.
I found it on the Library of Congress Archives online. It's not so much the language that is difficult, though it isn't easy, it's mostly the small print and the worn text. There is also one here which has been typed up: http://www.drillnet.net/1862/1862.htm That's the revised edition, but the original from 1855 is also on there.
To the Colors!
Captain Lance Rawlings
Company K, 38th North Carolina, Pender's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Jackson's Corps, Army of Northern Virginia
http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...lina-Boys-quot
A good example of a pirate version of his 1855 book.
Where they added a few extra chapters at the end that might be useful for the civilian turned none-commissioned officer.
The original 1855 book was never copyrighted, so publishers north and south made pirate copies and sold them.
This was one of the reasons why Hardee made a revised edition. The other reason was obviously that he actually did make some changes to the manual of arms.
Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard
I like Foote's narratives, but not everything is correct. (like the myth that Bufords men had repeaters at Gettysburg)
The problem is that they did not use Napoleonic tactics... but more of a version of mid 18th century infantry tactics. Marching forward in close order, then trading fire at close range.
During the Napoleonic wars using 25 or 33% of your infantry as skirmishers was common . But very rarely done during the civil war.
For one think, it require well trained infantry men, who can operate in small groups and know how to sue their guns to a good effect.
By the later part of the war the csa did start using sharpshooter battalions to good effect, but their numbers was still very small, compared to when Wellington in Spain had a light division who focus on fighting in front of the main line as skirmishers.
And some union units did start using a sort of heavy skirmish line as the standard way of fighting...
So the men did learn...
With the masses of civilians turned soldiers and very few professional officers (at the regimental level) I think they did a good job...with rarther poorly trained men and officers there is a clear limit to what you can do on the battlefield. So the basic infantry tactics was often rather simple...
And as mentioned later in the war, the two sides did start to try improve...
Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard