Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage

  • Title: Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage
  • Author: Grady McWhiney Perry D. Jamieson
  • ISBN: 9780817302290
  • Page: 258
  • Format: Paperback
  • Attack and Die Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage In the first twenty seven months of combat Southern soldiers died This number was than the entire Confederate military force in the summer of and it far exceeded the strength of any army
    In the first twenty seven months of combat 175,000 Southern soldiers died This number was than the entire Confederate military force in the summer of 1861, and it far exceeded the strength of any army that Lee ever commanded More than 80,000 Southerners fell in just five battles At Gettysburg three out of every ten Confederates present were hit one brigade lost 6 In the first twenty seven months of combat 175,000 Southern soldiers died This number was than the entire Confederate military force in the summer of 1861, and it far exceeded the strength of any army that Lee ever commanded More than 80,000 Southerners fell in just five battles At Gettysburg three out of every ten Confederates present were hit one brigade lost 65 percent of its men and 70 percent of its field officers in a single charge A North Carolina regiment started the action with some 800 men only 216 survived unhurt Another unit lost two thirds of its men as well as its commander in a brief assault Why did the Confederacy lose so many men The authors contend that the Confederates bled themselves nearly to death in the first three years of the war by making costly attacks often than the Federals Offensive tactics, which had been used successfully by Americans in the Mexican War, were much less effective in the 1860s because an improved weapon the rifle had given increased strength to defenders This book describes tactical theory in the 1850s and suggests how each related to Civil War tactics It also considers the development of tactics in all three arms of the service during the Civil War In examining the Civil War the book separates Southern from Northern tactical practice and discusses Confederate military history in the context of Southern social history Although the Southerners could have offset their numerical disadvantage by remaining on the defensive and forcing the Federals to attack, they failed to do so The authors argue that the Southerners consistent favoring of offensive warfare was attributable, in large measure, to their Celtic heritage they fought with the same courageous dash and reckless abandon that had characterized their Celtic forebears since ancient times The Southerners of the Civil War generation were prisoners of their social and cultural history they attacked courageously and were killed on battlefields so totally defended by the Federals that not even a chicken could get through.

    • [PDF] ↠ Free Download ☆ Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage : by Grady McWhiney Perry D. Jamieson ↠
      258 Grady McWhiney Perry D. Jamieson
    • thumbnail Title: [PDF] ↠ Free Download ☆ Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage : by Grady McWhiney Perry D. Jamieson ↠
      Posted by:Grady McWhiney Perry D. Jamieson
      Published :2019-05-22T01:26:55+00:00

    About Grady McWhiney Perry D. Jamieson


    1. Grady McWhiney Perry D. Jamieson Is a well-known author, some of his books are a fascination for readers like in the Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage book, this is one of the most wanted Grady McWhiney Perry D. Jamieson author readers around the world.


    718 Comments


    1. Until the last chapter, I had planned to give this book a fourth star. The authors wandered far afield with a pet theory in the final chapter.The bulk of the book is a good analysis of the failings of the Confederate command structure to adapt to the technological changes in warfare. Too often, Confederate attacks were made in ways that might have worked against the weapons of the 1770s or even the 1840s, but which were suicidal against the actual weapons of the 1860s. In addition, generals on b [...]

      Reply

    2. Sun Tzu and his “Art of War” would never have been able to reconcile the stature of General Robert E. Lee with the several disastrous decisions he made at Gettysburg in July, 1863. Lee negligently gave up the strategically superior high ground and impulsively ordered frontal assaults on two successive days against secure defensive positions which literally tore his Army to pieces and left carnage never to be forgotten.A very narrow and single minded theory of warfare -- dictated from the top [...]

      Reply

    3. McWhiney and Jamieson have an interesting and compelling initial hypothesis: The South lost because they used antiquated Napoleonic era tactics in a struggle against the rifle, a weapon far superior to the muskets that preceded the Civil War era. They acknowledge that the North used the same tactics, but the South could never make good on their losses due to a lack of manpower. The North could.The authors mention, but don't credit enough, other logistical factors impacting the outcome. The North [...]

      Reply

    4. The focus of this book is boldly stated on page xv: "How and why the Confederates lost so many men is the burden of this book. We contend that the Confederates bled themselves nearly to death in the first three years of the war by making costly attacks more often than did the Federals."One theme of the book is that warfare had been changed by the outset of the Civil War, with the development of rifled guns. Masses of troops firing at one another at close range made some sense with the inaccurate [...]

      Reply

    5. They attacked a lot against rifled muskets. And that was because of their Celtic heritage. I'm not convinced it was a simple as that. I think the Rebs had to attack in many cases to defend Richmond and drive the Yanks from Southern soil. You don't win a war by holding still. And in several cases, such as at Second Manassas, Chancellorsville, and Chickamauga, massing the forces at the right place paid off. Not so much at Shiloh and Gettysburg. The book describes the confidence in the attack Ameri [...]

      Reply

    6. I thought the book was worth reading even though I wasn't convinced their theories were totally correct. While I agree with their premise that the offensive was more costly especially against earthworks, they didn't address what other options the South could use to win the war. I also had trouble with the last chapter which made the south into a land of Celts. They made a nice comparison between the ancient Celts and the Rebs of the nineteenth century but it was only a comparison. I'm still wond [...]

      Reply

    7. "But Southerners, imprisoned in a culture that rejected careful calculation and patience, often refused to learn from their mistakes. They continued to fight, despited mounting casualties, with the same courageous dash and reckless abandon that had characterized their Celtic ancestors for two thousand years. The Confederates favored offensive warfare because the Celtic charge was an integral part of their heritage".

      Reply

    8. Dry but informative. Mostly useful as a lit review - the only original conclusions it draws (in the last chapter) are tendentious, to say the least. But everything before that is very interesting, and supports the general thesis that Southern culture was at least partially (and perhaps significantly) responsible for the Confederacy's defeat.

      Reply

    9. yes I acually read this book in college, it is as dry as the cover states it.

      Reply

    10. I like the outline of the authors' explanation, but found the last section on southern celtic culture a bit tenuous.

      Reply

    11. Interesting, but the Celtic-Confederate link in the final chapter was a bit startling to me.

      Reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *