Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: soda72 on November 17, 2009, 10:58:23 AM
-
I've finished watching a few documentaries about the American Civil War and was wondering if anybody had any recommendations for any others.
Currently I've seen:
1.) 'The Civil War' by Ken Burns
2.) 'The Last Days of the Civil War'
3.) ''Great Battles of the Civil War'
Out of the three documentires I've seen I think Ken Burns 'The Civil War' has been the best. It doesn't go into great detail, but it does cover a lot of specific things that were going on during the war from 1861 through 1865.
'The Last Days of the Civil War' was also good. It's essentially a detailed account of what was going on in April, up to the point the war came to a close.
''Great Battles of the Civil War' was ok. It starts at the point where Grant takes command of the Union army and covers battles between him and Lee. It also goes into how his strategy and mind set was different from his predecessors.
-
America never had a civil war
we did however have a war against the confederate states, after they left the union and formed their own government.
-
what do you want to know about the civil war?
There is a great show about the civil war. "CSA: Confederate State of America".
-
Civil War Journal aired around the same time as Ken Burns' series. I tended to prefer it over Burns', especially before they replaced Danny Glover as the host.
-
America never had a civil war
we did however have a war against the confederate states, after they left the union and formed their own government.
LO...ok Cobia...however you want to translate that.
Oh...by the way, your location information is wrong...the word is alley as in a passageway...the word ally means to form or enter into an alliance...unless you're really forming an alliance with tornadoes. ;)
-
what do you want to know about the civil war?
There is a great show about the civil war. "CSA: Confederate State of America".
I would particularly like to learn more about the early years of the war specifically 1861-1863.
I'll have to check out "CSA: Confederate State of America".
Civil War Journal aired around the same time as Ken Burns' series. I tended to prefer it over Burns', especially before they replaced Danny Glover as the host.
I've seen a few episodes from Civil War Journal that were pretty good. I have two DvD's (hosted by Danny Glover) that covers '1st Bull Run', '54th Massachusetts', 'Fort Sumter', and 'John Brown's war'..
Any other episodes from 'Civil War Journal' you would recommend?
-
LO...ok Cobia...however you want to translate that.
Oh...by the way, your location information is wrong...the word is alley as in a passageway...the word ally means to form or enter into an alliance...unless you're really forming an alliance with tornadoes. ;)
so then your saying that 11 southern states did NOT secede from the union and form their own government ??
-
The Ostend Manifesto rears it's ugly head again. Must be on a six month cycle.
-
Not so much Civil War documentaries as a series with episodes on the Civil War, but the show Battlefield Detectives had some great ones about Civil War battlefields and using archaeology and research to unravel what really happened and why.
One that really sticks in my mind is live-fire demo of how dismounted Cavalry could have held off the Confederate Infantry for the crucial first few hours on July 1 at Gettysburg. Its one thing to read or hear about how things like that worked, quite another to see it demonstrated.
-
...but the show Battlefield Detectives had some great ones about Civil War battlefields and using archaeology and research to unravel what really happened and why.
That show is such a load of garbage. I watched their episode on Agincourt and never checked it out again.
-
soda, go to this web site. www.civilwar.com
-
That show is such a load of garbage. I watched their episode on Agincourt and never checked it out again.
I was actually quite happy with the Agincourt one. The only show on the battle I've ever seen (or book for that matter) that didn't just automatically chalk the victory up to the 'almighty English Longbow'. Showed just the sort of thing I've been saying for years about the armor and weaponry of the time, but nobody ever listens. And actually tried to show how the French were beaten tactically instead of just spouting the 'endless hail of armor piercing arrows' explanation. That ep was the first one I actually sat and watched, and I got hooked on the show from it.
-
I was actually quite happy with the Agincourt one. The only show on the battle I've ever seen (or book for that matter) that didn't just automatically chalk the victory up to the 'almighty English Longbow'. Showed just the sort of thing I've been saying for years about the armor and weaponry of the time, but nobody ever listens. And actually tried to show how the French were beaten tactically instead of just spouting the 'endless hail of armor piercing arrows' explanation. That ep was the first one I actually sat and watched, and I got hooked on the show from it.
Tactically my ass. Their conclusion was that one French guy tripped and fell into the mud, and everyone else fell down with him.
They COMPLETELY botched their arrow "test." Which consisted of smashing an arrow point down on a flat sheet of steel LAYING ON A HARD SURFACE. Yeah, when you have a freakin' concrete block beneath your test sheet of COURSE that arrowhead is going to bend when it hits. Nevermind the curves, angles and gaps in the plates. Compare this to other programs which actually fire an arrow at a period cuirass that show that at the proper range an angle, the longbow will INDEED punch straight through, especially if you find a gap between the plates. Nevermind the fact the even MORE devastating effect those arrows would have had on the French horses, turning your fearsome cavalry charge into infantry. Strike One.
Then they talked about the armor. And their "test" to show the French heavy armor would cause them to get stuck in the mud was to first press their flat block of steel down into the mud--flat surface down--to show that it gets sucked down and harder to draw out, making it harder to walk. Then they wrapped that same block of steel in cloth and did the same to show that this made it easier to withdraw. Which is TOTALLY pointless since the French didn't wear flat blocks of steel on the soles of their feet, and the English weren't walking around with their feet wrapped in burlap sacks. The armored "boots" fit over a regular old pair of leather or fabric shoes or boots, your foot was NOT completely enclosed in steel. Strike Two.
When they FINALLY started talking about the terrain I thought, "Ok, here we go, this is where they redeem themselves." Nope. Not at all. They didn't say ONE word about the English being in a choke point that would prevent the French from deploying the full weight of their army at once. Their entire focus was on crowd dynamics, and that if one Frenchman tripped the entire army trips with him. They didn't talk about the caltrops, trenches and stakes the English laid out to break up the French cavalry charge. Nope, the English won at Agincourt entirely because one Frenchman tripped.
Total, absolute load of crap. They didn't have ONE military historian or ONE person who's actually an expert on the weapons or tactics of the period. These guys may be forensic experts, but they are RANK AMATEURS when it comes to military history. It's just another of that channel's "psuedo-history" programs, and yet another reason why I less and less turn it on anymore.
-
America never had a civil war
we did however have a war against the confederate states, after they left the union and formed their own government.
And had the CSA won the war, that's probably exactly how they would have written the history books. :D
-
America never had a civil war
we did however have a war against the confederate states, after they left the union and formed their own government.
You mean the war of northern aggression?
-
America never had a civil war
we did however have a war against the confederate states, after they left the union and formed their own government.
Were you born retarded, or have you had to work at it? Thats about the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone not working for Fox News say publicly.
Seeing as how they had no legal or constitutional right to secede, were not officially recognized by any other major power (smuggling in weapons and uniforms is NOT recognition), and the war was only fought between the US and CS with no foreign intervention or alliances- yes, I would call it a civil war. Which by definition is a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. It pretty much IS the textbook definition of a civil war.
-
Were you born retarded, or have you had to work at it? Thats about the dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone not working for Fox News say publicly.
Seeing as how they had no legal or constitutional right to secede, were not officially recognized by any other major power (smuggling in weapons and uniforms is NOT recognition), and the war was only fought between the US and CS with no foreign intervention or alliances- yes, I would call it a civil war. Which by definition is a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country. It pretty much IS the textbook definition of a civil war.
Spot on.
-
Were you born retarded, or have you had to work at it?
Treize, do you mind if I add that to my sig? :lol
-
Treize, do you mind if I add that to my sig? :lol
Trust me, he won't mind.
-
Trust me, he won't mind.
:aok
-
:aok
No problem bro. :rock
-
Ken Burns' series impressed this ol' Brit. The photographs, the personal stories and interviews were 'of the people, by the people and for the people' of both sides.
Magnificent. :salute
-
Damn and blast the 'double post' caused by a hanging upload. :rolleyes:
-
Treize, do you mind if I add that to my sig? :lol
Sir, I would be honored. >
-
Sir, I would be honored.
>
<S> :aok