Why do historians focus on certain battles?

[Blockaderunner]

By historians, I mean all of us who have an interest in the Civil War. Certain battles such as Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Vicksburg are disected in minute detail. Other major engagements such as Murfreesboro, Perryville, Cedar Creek and even Chickamauga are often no more than footnotes. I appreciate the importance of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, but all of the battles I have listed were significant events. Just what makes certain battles more interesting to you? Is it the personalities involved? The scale of the battle?

[richard]

I think that your last few word of the post has it right. The Scale, the Personalities and the location of the battle are what makes it intresting to most people. Unfortunatly, there are hundreds of small actions that are just as intresting at the large battles. How many people know, other than many students of the war, about a short 5 hour battle where 900 Union men held off Forrest and his force of 4500 in a small fort, suffered through 850 rounds of artillery during that time, and surrendered only after running out of ammo. Or how many people know that Longstreet could not crack the town of Knoxville and had just a lousy time in East Tennessee. For that matter, look at Morgan's raid through Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio.

[M E Wolf]

Dear Blockaderunner,

Have to agree with Richard. As well as your last paragraph -- the 'personalities' or 'characters' of interest usually draw connections to battles and their importance following an individual that holds someone's interests.

Little is researched on the first Confederate officer killed in the Civil War, John Marr, at Fairfax Court House in 1861.

There are many battles where there was no shortage of heros on either side and no shortage of horror, terror, woundings and death.

On the ground battles have always been a major focus, I suppose it is because it is 'accessable.' Those Civil War battles on the waterways are scarcely mentioned or studied, other than the introduction of the 'submarine' and the iron clads. The Naval 'firsts' and or 'introductions' of new types of battle.

Just as an example, there were 800,000 horses plus used on the Union side. Few are known by names, few riders are connected to their mounts yet--somebody had to ride, drive and or care for these mounts. Other than officers and an occassional focus--the rest of the men of the artillery, cavalry, wagon trains, Quartermasters, Sergeant Saddler and Saddlers, Blacksmiths and farriers,have all faded into history.

It is no different from the wars past and wars after the Civil War. Might have been a veteran, even a medal winner but--doesn't mean one's name will be subjected to historical interest. Generals on the other hand, are subjected to focus due to the orders they give and or receive.

Just some thoughts.

Sincerely,
M. E. Wolf

[larry_cockerham]

I believe you've collectively touched on many of the reasons. My favorite farrier is 'remembered' by me cause he was my gg grandpa and had my last name. I live near half a dozen battlefields, so logically I know a bit more about them and some other sites. Gettysburg gets attention from most everyone because of it's drama and the fact most all of us were connected to a soldier there (three in my extended family). As Richard said not all fields or battles are well known. My interest in Sugar Creek in southern Lawrence/Giles counties in Tennessee has to do with the terrain and two of my gg grandpas, mixed with Nathan Bedford Forrest and a good story. There is much more to this war than politics and statistics. Humans and horses coupled with the good land and some irony were involved. Heck, this is almost as interesting as the American Revolution. (As Ole would say, incoming!)

[30th_il]

Money. Book/TV sales. End of story.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Blockaderunner

By historians, I mean all of us who have an interest in the Civil War. Certain battles such as Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Vicksburg are disected in minute detail. Other major engagements such as Murfreesboro, Perryville, Cedar Creek and even Chickamauga are often no more than footnotes. I appreciate the importance of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, but all of the battles I have listed were significant events. Just what makes certain battles more interesting to you? Is it the personalities involved? The scale of the battle?

I think several books have been devoted to the battles at Chicagmauga and Stones River (Murfreesboro), and a few on the other's that you mention.

My particular enthralment with Stones River are several.
One is that New Year's Eve battle of the bands. Another is the odd symetry of that battle in which each army attacked the other's right, so there was an odd battle in which to taken in extremes, might have been a complete wheeling movement of both armies. Finally the fact that the Union army was so bent back on itself, and managed to extricate itself from that precarious position. It was a wonderful battle, one of my favorites.


-

[ole]

Other major engagements such as Murfreesboro, Perryville, Cedar Creek and even Chickamauga are often no more than footnotes.

I have about 4 books on Stone's River, 2 on Perryville, 1 on Cedar Creek and about 5 on Chickamauga. I have Wilson's Creek and Pea Ridge and at least one on every battle involving thousands.

The books are out there. But now, as then, the east and Lee remain of primary interest. I don't know why.

ole

[gary]

I'm drawn to accounts of sharpshooting.

[mt155]

I like to read about battles where Texans participated, particularly the 2nd TX. They were drawn from and mustered in from the counties where I work and live. Their big hurrahs were Shiloh and Corinth (Battery Robinett where the new interpretive center is)

Mike T.

[timewalker]

I think in some sense, it becomes an eternal cycle. The general public is drawn to a particular batle because it is dramatic, or because it was decisive, or because of the colorful personalities involved. The historians write books about same. The battles thus become more famous and thus more historians write about that battle because it is more likely they will sell books. With so many books on the topic, people learn more about that battle and want to know a little more. Or they have casual interest and pick up a book about a battle they have heard of over some battle they have never heard of.

The same is true of World War II. Books on Midway, D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge fill hole shelves while books on the Phillipines, Gudalcanal or the Italian Campaign are not nearly so prevalent.

If an author wants to get published, he is much more likely to get published with a new book on Gettysburg than he is with a book on Stones River. And the cycle goes on.