View single post by ashbel
 Posted: Mon Feb 11th, 2008 09:27 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
ashbel
Member
 

Joined: Fri Jan 25th, 2008
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 165
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I agree with Reb on the statement that Pickett's Charge would not have succeeded anyway.  My opinion is based on the terrain and supports the value of visiting battlefields.  The perfect defensive position for the armaments of the day was being at the military crest of a gently rising plain.  Gettysburg was not the only place where this was proven true.  Look at Fredericksburg and Malvern Hill and others.  Such a position proved to be almost impregnable.

If you read the accounts of the battle your impression is that in Gettysburg the Union held the "high ground."  In my mind that means that the Union positions were at least several hundred feet above the surrounding land.  But when you go there you realize that it wasn't the case.  The same with Marye's Heights in Fredericksburg.  The Heights were just the top of a gently rising plain.  I remember visiting there and thinking "Is that all there is?"  And Malvern Hill is not much of a hill either.

And I agree with the statement that you have to study before you go to a battlefield.  Otherwise you just don't know the significance of what you are seeing.

 

 Close Window