HF Gettysburg - Most Surprising Inaccuracy

[rbortega]

After seeing the film and reading more about the battle, was there a historical inaccuracy in the 1993 movie Gettysburg that you found surprising? For example, I was surprised to learn that Joshua Chamberlain actually spent the majority of the 20th Maine's defense of Little Round Top not carrying or using a firearm.

 

[Kurtlg]

The Chamberlain brothers were out of place after the charge. Since it's based on a novel I don't get too worried about historical inaccuracies. If I did I could make a decent sized list. A few things that bother me concern weaponry. The scene where the canister charge goes off in the face of the Confederates and they just moan and fall back. I know the actual effects would not be appropriate for the movie but perhaps they could have shown the dead after the smoke cleared. Another issue is the bent rubber (?) bayonet in at least one scene. That was just sloppy editing. BTW in the trailers for the new movie Napoleon they show the same thing !

 

[Bur Oak]

A few things that bother me concern weaponry. The scene where the canister charge goes off in the face of the Confederates and they just moan and fall back. I know the actual effects would not be appropriate for the movie but perhaps they could have shown the dead after the smoke cleared. Another issue is the bent rubber (?) bayonet in at least one scene.

Yeah, if they actually killed a couple hundred reenactors it would have been much more realistic. But I, for one, don't want to come away with PTSD after watching a movie.

My favorite inaccuracy is a bit trivial. It occurs in the scene where a few Confederate officers are playing cards and discussing "the cause." Pickett has some money in his hand. All you can really see is the back of one note. It's either a genuine example or a faithful reproduction (not one of the ubiquitous Whitman Publishing Co. play money fakes I've spotted in several movies). The only problem is, the design of that back did not exist on any Confederate note prior to February 1864.

(Okay, I said it was trivial.)

 

[Pollaco]

Col. Fremantle's red jacket has been pointed out on another thread. He was wearing a gray coat.

 

[infomanpa]

I can't say that any of the inaccuracies were surprising, especially since the movie was based on a book classified as "historical fiction."

 

[CavRTO]

The Chamberlain brothers were out of place after the charge. Since it's based on a novel I don't get too worried about historical inaccuracies. If I did I could make a decent sized list. A few things that bother me concern weaponry. The scene where the canister charge goes off in the face of the Confederates and they just moan and fall back. I know the actual effects would not be appropriate for the movie but perhaps they could have shown the dead after the smoke cleared. Another issue is the bent rubber (?) bayonet in at least one scene. That was just sloppy editing. BTW in the trailers for the new movie Napoleon they show the same thing !

That rubber bayonet sure gets around.
One of my platoon sergeants got a bayonet stabbed in his chest during the Korean War. He was a real dyed in the wool redneck from North Carolina. The Lost Cause wasn't lost with old Harvey .

 

[Jamieva]

An accurate portrayal of civil war artillery would requirs extensive cgi, which really didnt exist in 1993 at that level. Also would be crazy expensive

 

[Pollaco]

Well fed middle aged reenactors who had commanders with bad beards.

 

[edgeworthy]

Well fed middle aged reenactors who had commanders with bad beards.

Tom Berenger's version of James Longstreet looked like he had a dead cat on his face!

 

[6thMichCav]

No dirt or wood chips flying… still irks me to this day

 

[thomas aagaard]

As I also pointed out in the G&G topic. Gettysburg was originally planned as a TVseries, then became a Direct to TV movie...

The Budget reflects this.
and only later did it get pushed to the big screen.

Considering the budget I think they did a good job.

After seeing the film and reading more about the battle, was there a historical inaccuracy in the 1993 movie Gettysburg that you found surprising? For example, I was surprised to learn that Joshua Chamberlain actually spent the majority of the 20th Maine's defense of Little Round Top not carrying or using a firearm.

Why would he? carrying a revolver was not even required by regulations.
The weapon of a battalion commander was his battalion. And if he is firing his gun, he is not really doing his job.
And the same is the case for all other officers. If they carried revolvers, they where personal defense. (including against a mutiny)

(And then there are the exceptions. When the firefight is ongoing so there is no need for command decisions and at very close range, then the fire from the revolvers carried by officers can have an effect... but that really should not be the norm)


In Band of Brothers they actually make that point at two different times.
In one Nixon mention that had never firing his weapon in combat. (in spring 45)

And when the war in Europe end and Winters apply for a transfer to another division, he mention that he fired his last shots in Holland. At Bastogne he never fire it, despite being on the front lines the entire time.

 

[10th Michigan Infantry]

One that a friend point out to me is that when Thomas Chamberlain has a discussion with a Confederate POW on day 1, the Confederate POW says that he was part of Archer's Brigade, but that he was captured near the Railroad Cut, which would have been basically impossible.

 

[bayonet]

Never trust Hollywood to get anything correct as far as accurate history. Sometimes they come close. Stick to the books. Having been a reenactor in both films I could tell you plenty. Been there, done that, thanks for the experience, don't care to do it again, moving on. There is another thread on this website and they our really going at it over the 2 movies. I didn't bother responding but the comments make me laugh!

 

[10th Michigan Infantry]

Never trust Hollywood to get anything correct as far as accurate history. Sometimes they come close. Stick to the books. Having been a reenactor in both films I could tell you plenty. Been there, done that, thanks for the experience, don't care to do it again, moving on. There is another thread on this website and they our really going at it over the 2 movies. I didn't bother responding but the comments make me laugh!

Gettysburg mostly sticks to the history, even if there are some inaccuracies here and there. I still don't think people should get their history from a movie.

 

[JerryD]

Tom Berenger's version of James Longstreet looked like he had a dead cat on his face!

I thought it was a beaver clinging to his chin.

 

[JerryD]

My favorite is all the well fed middle aged rebel soldiers. A lot of those guys were pretty plump!

 

[MRB1863]

Unfortunately, some of our "Histories" are also more Historical Fiction, too! Perhaps "Historical Friction" is a better moniker.

 

[TallTallMan]

The wounding, return to lines of, and implied death of Kemper.

 

[dlofting]

The wounding, return to lines of, and implied death of Kemper.

If I recall correctly, Kemper was brought back to Confederate lines. His wound was thought mortal and he was left behind when the ANV retreated. He was taken in by the AOP and subsequently recovered.

 

[Booklady]

Gettysburg mostly sticks to the history, even if there are some inaccuracies here and there. I still don't think people should get their history from a movie.

As an English teacher I feel historical fiction, whether in novels or film, is a way to inspire students to learn the real history. I remember driving with my sons to Borders, back in the day, to purchase Jim Lovell's book about Apollo 13, immediately after we left the movie theater. Lois Lowry's Number the Stars has inspired countless kids to learn more about World War II and the Holocaust. I bet Gettysburg the film and the novel it's based on have done the same for the real battle.

But on another level, historical fiction may not teach literal history, but it teaches plenty of truth about what it means to be a human being. In that sense it is truth.