These Brave Irishmen

[rebelgirl]

In the movie Gods and Generals,during the Battle of Fredricksburg,
there was a part with the Irish Brigades fighting each other. I think that is a important part in the movie, it shows that these men were fighting people they cared about:friends,family and neighbors. Not just enemies. What's your opinion on the matter??

[johan_steele]

It never happened... the Confederate Irish unit was on another part of the line, On the far right IIRC. I believe the only time the two all Irish units actually exchanged fire was during the Battle of Antietem... though I'm not certain.

That most if not all of the men who fought in the Civil War were fighting men is not a question that needs answering. Many friends & family fought each other. Particularly in the border states. The lost causers would have people believe that the lines were every clearly drawn, they weren't. Historically Kentucky was better than 80% Union loyal, part of Tennesee, Eastern Tennesee in particular was heavily pro Union. Northern Alabama and parts of Louisiana as well had staunch pro Union sentiment. However, on the other side of the coin Illinois had a VERY large pro confederate bias and there were pockets in Iowa, Indiana and New York as well. So the proportion of friends and family doing their best to kill each other was far higher than many are willing to admit.

All in all I was horribly disapointed w/ Gods & General. I think I would have prefered to see the Antietem footage than the Fredricksburg. The movie was supposed to be about Jackson, while his role at Fredricksburg was important it was no where near as pivotal as at Antietem. Antietem showed all of his qualities far better than Fredricksburg. My own thought of why Fredricksburg was included instead of Antietem is that Fredricksburg was a decisive victory for the CSA and the director and Mr Turner didn't want to show the Union in anything but a poor light. Frankly I think they relished the scenes of Union soldiers falling en masse which they did a fine job of. As I've said... I'm just glad I know who surrendered at Appomotax.

I think I'm glad we're not going to see the next installment...

As a cinematic experiance it was a nice work, as a historical interest maker... it was abysmal. I would have been much happier if it had been just half the movie that Glory or Gettyburg were. Anything Hollywood puts out is guaranteed to have its historical shortcomings and all things considered Gods & Generals had less than most. I just wish a truly talented director the caliber of Spielberg would give us something about the Civil War.

[rebelgirl]

I agree about Antietem, it should have been in the movie. The director
probably thought the movie was long enough. He may or may not have known about the Irish at Antietem,but I think that if he did know he may have placed it with the Fredricksburg scene to save time. The point I was(and maybe the director too)trying to make was the fighting between family members and friends was emense during the Civil War. And although I have only seen parts of both Gettysburg and Glory, I think that the movie Gods and Generals(though inaccurate in some parts)got the point across of what these men were facing and the horrors of war.

[johan_steele]

I'll agree w/ you Rebelgirl. The horrors that the average soldier faced in the Civil War were like few have seen in history. Injuries from battle were ghastly and almost always left a lifelong scar. IIRC better than 70% of the men wounded in the war carried their scars for life. Ironically disease was actually far more lethal than combat... and God forbid a trip to the surgeon.

The "Glory" was little and far between; thankfully the US has not seen a war like the CW since. Just one example is the battle of Shiloh, where 1 in 4 men on the field was killed or wounded... not a healthy place to be.

I think the Fredricksburg scene got the horrors of War across well enough as well as the folly. There were poignant moments no doubt but I have to admit to a bias in the fact that I didn't care for the film. The battle scenes were far superior to Gettysburg and Glory but the acting was not... though Duvall was a far better choice for Lee than Mr. Sheen. But the overall Union portrayal was... gak, for lack of a better term. I suppose what I didn't care for was the impression that the Union couldn't win a battle to save itself. Frankly Chanclorsville was the last decisive Victory of the ANV and I'm glad it was as well portrayed as it was, some nitpickers can nitpick the scene to death but it was well done. It was a brilliant gamble that paid off.

[scone]

We must keep in mind that the movie is fiction based on historical fact..

There could have been lots of inprovements in some areas but to cover the first half of the war correctly it would have to be close to 16 hrs long in not more..

What Maxwell or someone else needs to do is make a movie like Gettysburg on each major battle of the war.. in the east as well as the the west.. now that would be a somthing to see


Kindest regards,
steven