The Gettysburg cyclorama!

[Rhett Butler]

I have just finished "The Gettysburg Cyclorama" by Chris Brenneman and Sue Boardman- excellent book which gives a segment by segment breakdown of the painting. The first time I saw the cyclorama was in 1976 the last 2017 with 5 visits in between. So I have seen the "semi" original and the newly restored version. Irrespective of the version and differing narratives used during the show over the years it was for me a moving experience. However, there are some questions regarding the painting. I will just focus on two (trust me there are others but I don't want to be a bore!) The first is the Union uniforms and the second is the "Copse of Trees".
The book I mentioned stated that Phillippoteaux actively sought critical advice from actual participants who had been in this phase of the battle and was given positive feedback regarding the authenticity of the depiction. Clearly though the Federal uniforms are not particularly accurate especially the artillery- red collar and cuffs plus a white cross belt was definetly not regulation. The knapsacks worn by the infantry is also incorrect- too large and the blanket roll was attached to the top of the knapsack and not as shown. The authors did comment that some of the infantry are wearing white trousers , I think that is acceptable because it is more likely that the light blue dye could have faded to a whiteish hue especially as these regiments had been on active duty for months. 19th Century dyes were very unstable as well.
The copse of trees- the authors state that few if any immediate post battle photos were taken of the copse as it's importance was not appreciated at the time. I have wondered often enough if it was as important as has been suggested. Lee was supposed to have directed that the copse was a focal point for the charge. Firstly the copse would have been difficult to see by many of the CSA attacking brigades because of smoke from artillery and small arms, plus at least one barn in the vicinity was on fire. Secondly the frontage of the attack was lengthy and even today undulations in the relatively flat terrain would obscure sighting of the trees for units on the flanks. Lastly as a focal point for an attack at multi divisional level this is a really narrow area and if a breakthrough had taken place it would have been contained by fresh troops arriving ( this is shown in the painting). I just can't see an experienced commander of Lee's stature embracing a copse of trees as the focal point of an assault this size.
Does any one have any thoughts about the points I have raised? Be pleased to read them

 

[6thMichCav]

I have just finished "The Gettysburg Cyclorama" by Chris Brenneman and Sue Boardman- excellent book which gives a segment by segment breakdown of the painting. The first time I saw the cyclorama was in 1976 the last 2017 with 5 visits in between. So I have seen the "semi" original and the newly restored version. Irrespective of the version and differing narratives used during the show over the years it was for me a moving experience. However, there are some questions regarding the painting. I will just focus on two (trust me there are others but I don't want to be a bore!) The first is the Union uniforms and the second is the "Copse of Trees".
The book I mentioned stated that Phillippoteaux actively sought critical advice from actual participants who had been in this phase of the battle and was given positive feedback regarding the authenticity of the depiction. Clearly though the Federal uniforms are not particularly accurate especially the artillery- red collar and cuffs plus a white cross belt was definetly not regulation. The knapsacks worn by the infantry is also incorrect- too large and the blanket roll was attached to the top of the knapsack and not as shown. The authors did comment that some of the infantry are wearing white trousers , I think that is acceptable because it is more likely that the light blue dye could have faded to a whiteish hue especially as these regiments had been on active duty for months. 19th Century dyes were very unstable as well.
The copse of trees- the authors state that few if any immediate post battle photos were taken of the copse as it's importance was not appreciated at the time. I have wondered often enough if it was as important as has been suggested. Lee was supposed to have directed that the copse was a focal point for the charge. Firstly the copse would have been difficult to see by many of the CSA attacking brigades because of smoke from artillery and small arms, plus at least one barn in the vicinity was on fire. Secondly the frontage of the attack was lengthy and even today undulations in the relatively flat terrain would obscure sighting of the trees for units on the flanks. Lastly as a focal point for an attack at multi divisional level this is a really narrow area and if a breakthrough had taken place it would have been contained by fresh troops arriving ( this is shown in the painting). I just can't see an experienced commander of Lee's stature embracing a copse of trees as the focal point of an assault this size.
Does any one have any thoughts about the points I have raised? Be pleased to read them

Just thinking out loud, Lee could designate the target before the artillery barrage opened up. As his lines stepped off, they followed mounted generals, and the troops guided left or center as ordered. The generals would guide the direction, and the troops would follow until they hit the Federal lines.

Wildcard: Was the giant poplar tree on Cemetery Hill in line with the Copse of trees from Lee's vantage point??

 

[mwalker6043]

Ziegler's Grove was probably the most likely focal point.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Common sense would dictate that selecting an aiming point could only apply to one or two particular regiments designated as a guide, not to an entire column of troops. The entire front of the attacking column was some 1,470 yards across, while the copse was roughly 70 yards wide. Things would get very crowded very quickly if everyone was headed to the same spot. As it turned out, the far left of Garnett and far right of Archer were not far from the copse. Having reviewed a lot of participant accounts, I can't recall anyone ever mentioning a specific aiming point across the field. Instead they would guide to the left, or else to the right, or else on the center, of a particular command within the attacking column itself, not toward any objective that was sure to be largely obscured by either terrain fluctuations or else thick smoke from Union artillery and musketry discharges - both good reasons against designating a distant aiming point in the first place. Nearly all of Pickett's men were kept hidden and it appears few had any idea of what lay ahead of them until they were actually on their way and could see for themselves. Therefore I consider the idea of a pre-selected focal point for the troops to be a popular myth. I imagine the main issue for the senior commanders was proper alignment of their troops at the outset to ensure the left of Pickett joined the right of Pettigrew before they reached the Federal lines in order to prevent the enemy from exploiting a gap there.

 

[121st PA Vols]

Rhett: I think 6thMichCav essentially said it but you don't have to see the target with formations kept and-or adjustments/alignments made as we know occurred.
6thMichCav: No, the Poplar was not in line with the copse from Lee's viewpoint. It is well to the left and of course rear.
mwalker6043: I don't recall where I read the same on Ziegler's Grove possibly being the focal point. That's one of the curses of having seen many views, books, articles, conversations etc over the years.
I can say and no doubt well before it made print a fellow guide mentioned it in the 70s as we sat around the table in the old cyclorama leaving the rest of us stunned as we hadn't considered that before. We definitely touched on some great conversations in that room between trips.

 

[Gettysburg Greg]

I have just finished "The Gettysburg Cyclorama" by Chris Brenneman and Sue Boardman- excellent book which gives a segment by segment breakdown of the painting. The first time I saw the cyclorama was in 1976 the last 2017 with 5 visits in between. So I have seen the "semi" original and the newly restored version. Irrespective of the version and differing narratives used during the show over the years it was for me a moving experience. However, there are some questions regarding the painting. I will just focus on two (trust me there are others but I don't want to be a bore!) The first is the Union uniforms and the second is the "Copse of Trees".
The book I mentioned stated that Phillippoteaux actively sought critical advice from actual participants who had been in this phase of the battle and was given positive feedback regarding the authenticity of the depiction. Clearly though the Federal uniforms are not particularly accurate especially the artillery- red collar and cuffs plus a white cross belt was definetly not regulation. The knapsacks worn by the infantry is also incorrect- too large and the blanket roll was attached to the top of the knapsack and not as shown. The authors did comment that some of the infantry are wearing white trousers , I think that is acceptable because it is more likely that the light blue dye could have faded to a whiteish hue especially as these regiments had been on active duty for months. 19th Century dyes were very unstable as well.
The copse of trees- the authors state that few if any immediate post battle photos were taken of the copse as it's importance was not appreciated at the time. I have wondered often enough if it was as important as has been suggested. Lee was supposed to have directed that the copse was a focal point for the charge. Firstly the copse would have been difficult to see by many of the CSA attacking brigades because of smoke from artillery and small arms, plus at least one barn in the vicinity was on fire. Secondly the frontage of the attack was lengthy and even today undulations in the relatively flat terrain would obscure sighting of the trees for units on the flanks. Lastly as a focal point for an attack at multi divisional level this is a really narrow area and if a breakthrough had taken place it would have been contained by fresh troops arriving ( this is shown in the painting). I just can't see an experienced commander of Lee's stature embracing a copse of trees as the focal point of an assault this size.
Does any one have any thoughts about the points I have raised? Be pleased to read them

Just my opinion, I can't see three divisions being aimed at a single point. Their front extended over a mile wide when they stepped off. More likely, again in my opinion, Ziegler Grove is more likely the landmark pointed out as a goal, not a single aiming point. Check out the top photograph I took from Seminary Ridge that simulates General Lee's perspective. Compare the Copse of Trees to the Ziegler Grove we see today. Also, keep in mind that in 1863 the Copse was much smaller, and the Grove was much larger. The difference is even more obvious in the highly magnified crop from Brady's July 1863 panorama taken from Little Round Top seen on the bottom. This is the very first image showing the Copse of Trees. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be until 1876, 13 years later, before a cameraman aimed his camera at the Copse and the Angle. Check out the images below and see if it influences your opinion.

 

[Rhett Butler]

Just my opinion, I can't see three divisions being aimed at a single point. Their front extended over a mile wide when they stepped off. More likely, again in my opinion, Ziegler Grove is more likely the landmark pointed out as a goal, not a single aiming point. Check out the top photograph I took from Seminary Ridge that simulates General Lee's perspective. Compare the Copse of Trees to the Ziegler Grove we see today. Also, keep in mind that in 1863 the Copse was much smaller, and the Grove was much larger. The difference is even more obvious in the highly magnified crop from Brady's July 1863 panorama taken from Little Round Top seen on the bottom. This is the very first image showing the Copse of Trees. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be until 1876, 13 years later, before a cameraman aimed his camera at the Copse and the Angle. Check out the images below and see if it influences your opinion.
View attachment 485209
View attachment 485210

Thanks for posting these great views. To me it adds weight to the point of view that Ziegler is much more likely to be a target point of the assault - even allowing for smoke and terrain this would still be visible- shrouded to be sure but still visible. As an aside Lee may also have factored other aspects into his decision to attack the Union centre- for example a Union advance to meet the oncoming assault (this happened in a small scale on both flanks of the attacking forces with flanking fire) or the Union forces would break under the combined pressure of the artillery barrage and a determined infantry attack (like Chancellorsville and the second day at 2nd Manassas). It is unfortunate the Lee never really explained his thinking during those three days- other senior officers on both sides did put a post war "spin" on events but these were self serving or not entirely accurate (expedient exagerrations!).

 

[rob63]

Regarding your first point about the uniforms; Phillippoteaux was a French artist. He, and his team, completed the painting in France. Thus, the uniforms and equipment tend to reflect the French army of the time rather than the US army. The white pants don't have anything to do with fading uniforms, it is just a mistake made by a team of artists working in another country.

 

[mwalker6043]

Rhett: I think 6thMichCav essentially said it but you don't have to see the target with formations kept and-or adjustments/alignments made as we know occurred.
6thMichCav: No, the Poplar was not in line with the copse from Lee's viewpoint. It is well to the left and of course rear.
mwalker6043: I don't recall where I read the same on Ziegler's Grove possibly being the focal point. That's one of the curses of having seen many views, books, articles, conversations etc over the years.
I can say and no doubt well before it made print a fellow guide mentioned it in the 70s as we sat around the table in the old cyclorama leaving the rest of us stunned as we hadn't considered that before. We definitely touched on some great conversations in that room between trips.

It would be the biggest landmark on the union side of the field.
I can't see Lee, Longstreet or Pickett using a small clump of trees in a brushy area as a focal point. But a large grove of oak trees, there's a target.

 

[Kurtlg]

Regarding your first point about the uniforms; Phillippoteaux was a French artist. He, and his team, completed the painting in France. Thus, the uniforms and equipment tend to reflect the French army of the time rather than the US army. The white pants don't have anything to do with fading uniforms, it is just a mistake made by a team of artists working in another country.

Yes and those European style hay stacks.

 

[RedRover]

The book "Union Army Uniforms at Gettysburg" includes comments by General Hancock, if I recall written to the artist of the cyclorama, relative to the army's dress at Gettysburg. I recall he mentioned no officers wore sashes in the field.

Where the cyclorama artists were unsure of minor details, they employed French military details, like the knapsacks, and white belts on the artillerymen, etc.

As was previously noted the Copse of trees was not a focal point for the charge, but merely an "point of direction" or specifically a for Pickett's division to guide on in their advance and attack.

Staff officer Walter Harrison of Pickett's division noted:

So the "line of attack" was directed against the "Highest point" of the ridge, where it was presumed the federal's center was anchored. The federal center was the focus of the attack. Nothing to do with trees. The "small clump of trees" was a "prominent point of direction" evidently employed by Pickett's division. To compare to modern terminology, a "point of direction" is not an "objective," but a point selected by a commander employed for the purposes of allowing his subordinates to select intermediate points, upon which to dress their units in advancing. In other words a point selected ahead, which the directing guide or guiding unit, looks to, and selects intermediate points to dress upon when advancing towards it. It is not, in itself any kind of objective.


In simpler terms, a point of direction regarded the alignment of the attacking units. From some 19th Century military books:

From Winfield Scott's "Evolutions of the Line":

IN actually moving, there is also what is called a "point of appui", from which the force deploys for attack, etc., guiding from it towards the "point of direction"...

General Longstreet, who planned Pickett's charge, understood the distinction. For example noting his fighting for round top the previous day, after the war he stated he had selected it as his point of appui in the attack:

Postwar, General Webb, whose command held the small copse, notes, per Harrison etc. that that copse was a "point of direction" for Longstreets assault column.

Historians, early on, seem to have misquoted Harrison, calling the copse a "object of direction" rather than a "point of direction."

An object of direction, from some period books, means essentially the same as a "point of direction" but regards only an object rather than a specific point of ground. Still does not mean any kind of tactical or military "objective" point in the modern sense.

Like a "Point of direction" by an "object of direction" a column would use such an object of direction to determine the direction of its front, say in deploying, etc.

We are aware Pickett's division did change its front in the advance and attack. And per Harrison's comment we know that they had pre-planned the movement some hours in advance of the attack, with point of direction of Pickett's division in its advance being the small clump...

General Longstreet, who was assigned command of the assault, claimed that General Lee merely designated the point upon which the column would advance...

Which according to Harrison of Pickett's staff was simply the highest point on the ridge and the center of the federal line. Lee's July 31, 1863 official report notes his goal was to drive the federals from the ridge. Not take a copse or grove of trees.


Col. Hall, commanding a brigade of II Corps, produced this map showing the advance of Pickett's division, including its compression into a deep assault column before pressing upon the Union line at the angle, etc.

Elliott's map of the graves shows the "footprint" of that column, where it got shot to pieces...

General Hays, USA noted long after:

Col. Rice of the 19th Massachusetts of Hall's brigade, to the left of Webb's, noted of the condition of the Confederate column at the copse of trees, as the federals advanced against it:

Walter Harrison of Pickett's staff noted:

General Hays noted, apparently correctly per Walter Harrison's statements, that the copse was merely a guiding point of the allignment of Pickett's division, but not an objective. He felt the position they sought to occupy more akin Ziegler's grove. Harrison, however, just says the goal was the "highest point" on the ridge, viz. the federal center...

The Point of Direction of Pickett's division was evidently the "small clump of trees" (or the copse if you will), but their target, evidently in tandem with the division of Heth, etc., on their left, was the center of the federal army, which was believed to be at the "highest point" on that part of the ridge.

You can see from this topographical map that the clump or copse of trees is NOT on the highest point of the ridge by any means. But Zeigler's grove is higher, and on or about the "highest point."

 

[Rhett Butler]

Regarding your first point about the uniforms; Phillippoteaux was a French artist. He, and his team, completed the painting in France. Thus, the uniforms and equipment tend to reflect the French army of the time rather than the US army. The white pants don't have anything to do with fading uniforms, it is just a mistake made by a team of artists working in another country.

Noted, but the French army from the 1850's to 1915 wore red trousers, and sometimes mid blue. White trousers disappeared with Napoleon. So I am not sure why white was chosen.

 

[Rhett Butler]

Yes and those European style hay stacks.

The book I read does make reference to the haystacks. It seems that haystacks of this nature were used sometimes- many of the farm owners were from European (mainly German) origin and so used "old country" practices.

 

[Rhett Butler]

The book "Union Army Uniforms at Gettysburg" includes comments by General Hancock, if I recall written to the artist of the cyclorama, relative to the army's dress at Gettysburg. I recall he mentioned no officers wore sashes in the field.

Where the cyclorama artists were unsure of minor details, they employed French military details, like the knapsacks, and white belts on the artillerymen, etc.

As was previously noted the Copse of trees was not a focal point for the charge, but merely an "point of direction" or specifically a for Pickett's division to guide on in their advance and attack.

Staff officer Walter Harrison of Pickett's division noted:

View attachment 485200

So the "line of attack" was directed against the "Highest point" of the ridge, where it was presumed the federal's center was anchored. The federal center was the focus of the attack. Nothing to do with trees. The "small clump of trees" was a "prominent point of direction" evidently employed by Pickett's division. To compare to modern terminology, a "point of direction" is not an "objective," but a point selected by a commander employed for the purposes of allowing his subordinates to select intermediate points, upon which to dress their units in advancing. In other words a point selected ahead, which the directing guide or guiding unit, looks to, and selects intermediate points to dress upon when advancing towards it. It is not, in itself any kind of objective.


In simpler terms, a point of direction regarded the alignment of the attacking units. From some 19th Century military books:

View attachment 485202

View attachment 485201

From Winfield Scott's "Evolutions of the Line":

View attachment 485220
View attachment 485221

View attachment 485222

View attachment 485223
View attachment 485224

IN actually moving, there is also what is called a "point of appui", from which the force deploys for attack, etc., guiding from it towards the "point of direction"...
View attachment 485225

General Longstreet, who planned Pickett's charge, understood the distinction. For example noting his fighting for round top the previous day, after the war he stated he had selected it as his point of appui in the attack:

View attachment 485226

Postwar, General Webb, whose command held the small copse, notes, per Harrison etc. that that copse was a "point of direction" for Longstreets assault column.

View attachment 485227
View attachment 485228
Historians, early on, seem to have misquoted Harrison, calling the copse a "object of direction" rather than a "point of direction."

View attachment 485193

An object of direction, from some period books, means essentially the same as a "point of direction" but regards only an object rather than a specific point of ground. Still does not mean any kind of tactical or military "objective" point in the modern sense.

Like a "Point of direction" by an "object of direction" a column would use such an object of direction to determine the direction of its front, say in deploying, etc.

View attachment 485195

We are aware Pickett's division did change its front in the advance and attack. And per Harrison's comment we know that they had pre-planned the movement some hours in advance of the attack, with point of direction of Pickett's division in its advance being the small clump...

View attachment 485196


General Longstreet, who was assigned command of the assault, claimed that General Lee merely designated the point upon which the column would advance...

View attachment 485197

Which according to Harrison of Pickett's staff was simply the highest point on the ridge and the center of the federal line. Lee's July 31, 1863 official report notes his goal was to drive the federals from the ridge. Not take a copse or grove of trees.


Col. Hall, commanding a brigade of II Corps, produced this map showing the advance of Pickett's division, including its compression into a deep assault column before pressing upon the Union line at the angle, etc.
View attachment 485233

Elliott's map of the graves shows the "footprint" of that column, where it got shot to pieces...

View attachment 485190

General Hays, USA noted long after:
View attachment 485192

Col. Rice of the 19th Massachusetts of Hall's brigade, to the left of Webb's, noted of the condition of the Confederate column at the copse of trees, as the federals advanced against it:

View attachment 485232

Walter Harrison of Pickett's staff noted:

View attachment 485198


General Hays noted, apparently correctly per Walter Harrison's statements, that the copse was merely a guiding point of the allignment of Pickett's division, but not an objective. He felt the position they sought to occupy more akin Ziegler's grove. Harrison, however, just says the goal was the "highest point" on the ridge, viz. the federal center...

View attachment 485229

The Point of Direction of Pickett's division was evidently the "small clump of trees" (or the copse if you will), but their target, evidently in tandem with the division of Heth, etc., on their left, was the center of the federal army, which was believed to be at the "highest point" on that part of the ridge.

You can see from this topographical map that the clump or copse of trees is NOT on the highest point of the ridge by any means. But Zeigler's grove is higher, and on or about the "highest point."

View attachment 485230

Appreciate the contribution, will need to read several times but I was interested in the comments attributed to Longstreet regarding Little Round Top but that is a topic for another thread I think.

 

[RedRover]

Appreciate the contribution, will need to read several times....

Apologies for the confusing content. My only point was that a "point of direction" is just a visual marker, relative to an allignment of moving units which must keep their dress, intervals, etc. so far as possible. In other words its soldier's tactical techno-speak, and relates to the esoteric military manuals' of the period and the "evolutions of the line."

Longstreet on the assault on July 3 describes the target of the attack like this:

The "center of the assaulting column" was the connection of the left of Garnett's brigade of Pickett, and the right of Fry's (Archer's) brigade of Heth's divisions.

A definition of a salient, which Heth's division etc. was to strike, to the left of Pickett:

William H. Swallow, a Confederate staff officer, watched the whole charge from his position, and described it like this:

Next, Colonel Swallow describes the federal position, the point of attack, in their center, which Longstreet referred to as the "salient" in the federal line that Pettigrew's division was to strike at the same time Pickett was to strike their line of battle to their right:

Maps like this showing the attack as if in just a straight line are not entirely accurate. Another of Pickett's staff officers, W.S. Symington, notes a change of direction to the left before closing on the federal line:

So above it was noted that a "salient" was either a projecting angle of the enemy's works on flat ground, or on rolling ground particularly a forward projection, as in a slope. Longstreet says his intent was for Heth's division on Pickett's left to strike at the "salient" while Pickett's division struck at their line extending from the angle. It appears that is essentially what occurred, but not in enough strength to secure victory.


Here's a snip from the cyclorama, with the copse of trees out of view to the left, showing the angle of the stone wall..

Here's a reference that Marshall's (Pettigrew's) brigade, to the left of fry and Garnett, did in fact face more of a slope in its advance, while to its right some of Fry's men and Pickett's got into the angle:

Lane's brigade, behind Pettigrews', according to his official report, next pressed up the slope toward the stone wall before being flanked and driven back..

 

[Rhett Butler]

Apologies for the confusing content. My only point was that a "point of direction" is just a visual marker, relative to an allignment of moving units which must keep their dress, intervals, etc. so far as possible. In other words its soldier's tactical techno-speak, and relates to the esoteric military manuals' of the period and the "evolutions of the line."

Longstreet on the assault on July 3 describes the target of the attack like this:

View attachment 485250

The "center of the assaulting column" was the connection of the left of Garnett's brigade of Pickett, and the right of Fry's (Archer's) brigade of Heth's divisions.

A definition of a salient, which Heth's division etc. was to strike, to the left of Pickett:

View attachment 485251


William H. Swallow, a Confederate staff officer, watched the whole charge from his position, and described it like this:
View attachment 485252
View attachment 485253
View attachment 485254
View attachment 485255

Next, Colonel Swallow describes the federal position, the point of attack, in their center, which Longstreet referred to as the "salient" in the federal line that Pettigrew's division was to strike at the same time Pickett was to strike their line of battle to their right:

View attachment 485256
View attachment 485257
View attachment 485258


View attachment 485260

Maps like this showing the attack as if in just a straight line are not entirely accurate. Another of Pickett's staff officers, W.S. Symington, notes a change of direction to the left before closing on the federal line:

View attachment 485263

So above it was noted that a "salient" was either a projecting angle of the enemy's works on flat ground, or on rolling ground particularly a forward projection, as in a slope. Longstreet says his intent was for Heth's division on Pickett's left to strike at the "salient" while Pickett's division struck at their line extending from the angle. It appears that is essentially what occurred, but not in enough strength to secure victory.


Here's a snip from the cyclorama, with the copse of trees out of view to the left, showing the angle of the stone wall..
View attachment 485264


Here's a reference that Marshall's (Pettigrew's) brigade, to the left of fry and Garnett, did in fact face more of a slope in its advance, while to its right some of Fry's men and Pickett's got into the angle:

View attachment 485259

Lane's brigade, behind Pettigrews', according to his official report, next pressed up the slope toward the stone wall before being flanked and driven back..

View attachment 485262

please no apologies! Not a bit of it. I really appreciate the detailed contribution and enjoyed reading it. No confusion was caused I can assure. My initial reason for starting this thread was to get a USA point of view on the uniform aspects and how the "clump of trees" legend is regarded. I have visited Gettysburg 8 times and walked much of the field but found it difficult to get a real feel on how it is regarded in terms of individual actions (on all 3 days) from present day Americans. This forum is helping to resolve this. So many thanks for your earlier post and the latest one, particularly the pic showing the aspect of the "angle" which raises some other issues which I may raise in another thread.

 

[RedRover]

please no apologies! Not a bit of it. I really appreciate the detailed contribution and enjoyed reading it. No confusion was caused I can assure. My initial reason for starting this thread was to get a USA point of view on the uniform aspects and how the "clump of trees" legend is regarded. I have visited Gettysburg 8 times and walked much of the field but found it difficult to get a real feel on how it is regarded in terms of individual actions (on all 3 days) from present day Americans. This forum is helping to resolve this. So many thanks for your earlier post and the latest one, particularly the pic showing the aspect of the "angle" which raises some other issues which I may raise in another thread.

General E. Porter Alexander included this exaggerated topo map in his book, to more clearly illustrate the terrain of the Battlefield.

If Longstreet's attack had driven the federals off the highest point of the ridge in the federal center, it would have concentrated them into that bowl like low ground between it and Culp's hill. Recall, Alexander intended for nine howitzers to accompany the head of Pickett's division to the ridge, where they could have fired shells over the ridge into the federal rear in that ground...

This map also illustrates the bowl, if you will, around which the federal right was positioned.

I've always thought an idea of what might have happened if the Confederate force had indeed secured the high ground there, was illustrated by Thomas' victory at Nashville in December, 1864.

The Confederate line was anchored on Shy's Hill. and was in a fish-hook shape, similar to Meade's at Gettysburg. When the federal assault swept the high ground, the Confederates fell back into a fish-bowl from which the had to stampede and skeddadle to get out the bag.