Impact Of Geology On The U.S. Civil War: War From The Ground Up

ScienceDaily ^ | October 7, 2008 | Geological Society of America

[SunkenCiv]

Whisonant and Ehlen also studied the terrain at Antietam, the site of the bloodiest battle in the Civil War, where on 17 September 1862 up to 23,100 soldiers were killed, wounded, or declared missing. "What's so striking at Antietam," says Whisonant, is that "two geologic units underlie [that area]. One is a very, very pure limestone that as it erodes it literally melts. Mostly what you get with that is a very even, level, open surface -- there just aren't a lot of deep holes and high hills that give soldiers a place to hide." On one area of this flat surface, known as Miller's Cornfield, "armies just shot each other to pieces until absolute exhaustion set in."

Nearby, however, a different formation lies beneath the terrain, made up of limestone and dolomite with some shale. "It makes for a very different kind of topography -- dissected topography" that provides good cover and concealment, and according to this study, "the casualties are much lower on that part of the battlefield."

[SunkenCiv]

Shelby Foote: "the weapons were way ahead of the tactics."

[mcjordansc]

So, the gist of the story is that on flat, hard ground with no natural protection for the soldiers, casualties were higher. Do I have that right? Did it take years of study to figure that out?

[org.whodat]

Actually, should be remember where 45,000 good southern men, kicked the dog sh== out of 85,000 Yankee’s.

[SunkenCiv]

---

Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief by James M. McPherson Audio CD		Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers by James F. Simon

---

[SunkenCiv]

:’)

[SunkenCiv]

I guess that explains Lee’s retreat?

[Born Conservative]

bttt

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[Mike Darancette]

Sounds like geography more than geology. As for making geography work for him there was no better Civil War General than Stonewall Jackson.

[dr_lew]

On the History Channel I saw a show where they investigated the importance of terrain at Bloody Lane. They showed the line of sight from the road as one person walked the Union line of advance. They topped a hill where they were raked with gunfire, but then descended and advanced under protection of another hill. When they topped that they were right on top of the Confederate position, and overran it.

This is what they concluded, at any rate.

[Monkey Face]

I prefer to think of it as the Battle where one set of my grandparents killed the other set. Not in time to prevent me, of course.... ;o]

[InABunkerUnderSF]

So... the brilliant scientists are saying that in a battle, if you take the high ground and dig in your casualties will be much lower.

Who knew?

Next they’ll be telling us that if you station you troops where you can pour enfilading fire onto the enemy you can will battles.

Note also, no mention of Fredericksburg, Balls Bluff, etc. But then, no bias intended on the part of the impartial academics, I’m sure.

[AuntB]

“So, the gist of the story is that on flat, hard ground with no natural protection for the soldiers, casualties were higher. Do I have that right? Did it take years of study to figure that out?”

I was asking the same.

[SunkenCiv]

Yeah, FWIW, I’d agree with that, his masterpiece being Chancellorsville (which was also his swan song); there were other generals perhaps similarly gifted though, like Sherman; NB Forrest comes to mind (although he seemed to be gifted on a lot of different types of ground :’); Meade has been vilified (mostly starting back at that time, due to a Senator from Michigan who disliked him, plus Meade had very poor relations with the press) but Meade was a great counterpuncher, took the best available ground at Gettysburg, and made Lee come to him for battle; for that matter, Lee and his staff at Fredericksburg had been in the same situation, but of course, versus an inferior opposing general in Burnside.

[SunkenCiv]

Wow. Grandparents? Not great-grandparents? Or shouldn’t I have pointed this out? [blush]

[Monkey Face]

I could have said “great-grandparents” but then I would have had to add several “greats.” It’s just easier to say “my grandparents.” You can do the math any way you want to! LOL!!

[SunkenCiv]

This topic was more of a can of worms than anticipated. :')

At Antietam, parade ground general McClellan's on the job training program bore some results, because he didn't commit his reserves to the foolish assault across that miserable bridge, but did make that assault; both moves effectively squandered his numerical superiority (75K to 52K). [nice map]

[SunkenCiv]

Who knew? ;’)

[SunkenCiv]

Whew. ;’) I have no Civil War veterans in the ancestry (Rev War, yes); (just one great) great-grandfather was a bit too old for the war, and had an old leg injury. Two or three of his brothers-in-law served though. :’)

[Monkey Face]

Welp...I have some in all the wars that have affected this continent, since before “white men” came.

I have a grandfather (with the “greats”) who was lost at sea in the War of 1812.

The list is quite long, but if I can gather up the documentation, I can join DAR. I have some of it...I just have to get off my laurels and compile it all, then send it in.

There is also an organization for the War of 1812, and one of these days....(man...maybe tomorrow, I’ll quit procrastinating.)