Fixing Gettysburg: The First Day
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- In this three-part series, I review a classic Ron Maxwell film about a little known historical event that no one talks about called the Battle of Gettysburg. I also present an abbreviated and oversimplified history of the battle, while simultaneously criticizing the movie for presenting an abbreviated and oversimplified history of the battle.
In this first episode, I discuss the first day of fighting on July 1, 1863 - including Buford's cavalry, the Iron Brigade, the Railroad Cut, and John Burns.
Support Atun-Shei Films on Patreon ► / atunsheifilms
Leave a Tip via Paypal ► www.paypal.me/...
Buy Merch ► teespring.com/...
Official Website ► www.atunsheifi...
~REFERENCES~
[1] “General John Buford’s Report of his Cavalry’s Action at Gettysburg (2015).” Iron Brigader ironbrigader.c...
[2] W.C. Storrick: The Battle of Gettysburg (1931). J Horace McFarland Company, Page 11
[3] “The First Day at Gettysburg: Then and Now.” American Battlefield Trust www.battlefiel...
[4] “Lt. Colonel Rufus Dawes Describes the Fighting of the 6th Wisconsin Infantry at Gettysburg (2013). Iron Brigader ironbrigader.c...
[5] “Civilian John Burns at the Battle of Gettysburg (2018).” C-Span www.c-span.org...
[5 1/2] Allen C. Redwood: “The Confederate in the Field.” Civil War Home www.civilwarho...
[6] Codie Eash: “The Wounded Wisconsinite Who Witnessed Pickett’s Charge (2018).” National Museum of Civil War Medicine www.civilwarme...
[7] Cooper Wingert: “The Confederate ‘Slave Hunt’ and the Gettysburg Campaign (2020).” Emerging Civil War emergingcivilw...
![[🔴LIVE] งานประกาศรางวัล MAYA TV AWARDS 2024 : มายามหาชน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwmWYXXVwBY/mqdefault.jpg)
That was a really cool effect of you narrating from the B/W picture frame
Didnt expect to see you here 😁
@@Number1Irishlad :) This is a fantastic creative channel...he does some good stuff
@@EpimetheusHistory i agree, i very much enjoy what he does. And another unexpected suprise, a response from one of my favourite youtubers!
I think you are very subjective in your views. I don't want to endorse slavery but you are looking at the subject with C21st views which cannot see the situation in C119th terms.
@John C possibly but it is after 2 am
I wish more emphasis was placed on the literal fact that Lee's army kidnapped free blacks and sold them into slavery.
Viper Grant and his army robbed people of their goods. Black, white, it didn’t matter. That was the way wars had to be fought back then. The Confederates robbed black people of the personhood, an altogether different and racially motivated crime.
@@ZeteticPhilosopher "that was the way wars had to be fought" sounds like a very convenient excuse. If you're going to make the claim of 'that was the attitude of the time' then you can't blame the south for their actions either.
They were raised in culture where racism and slavery was the proper way to behave (plenty of Northers were still racist remember, they wanted to free blacks but still viewed them as inferior). Much as I hate slavery I can't hate the Confederacy for fighting for the thing they were raised to see as proper.
@@AeneasGemini My point isn't that "that was the attitude of the time" at all. My point is that actions against civilians are justified only if they are necessary to win the war, and will ultimately result in fewer casualties than if the war were to go on. Under this logic, the use of atomic weapons on Japanese cities is justified, because the hundreds thousand or so dead are far outnumbered by the estimated 7 million civilians (and 1 million odd US-UK-Canadian soldiers) who would have died in an invasion.
Armies of the mid-1800s could not possibly run supply lines in the manner we would expect in modern wars. They therefore had to take supplies from the land and people around them. This is justified, at least as much as anything in a war can be. However, looting of valuables, as Sherman himself noted, was generally seen even at the time as unjust, because it did not further the war effort. Forcing free civilians of an enemy nation into slavery (at least without the intention of returning them once hostilities have ceased, as in the case of POW camps) is the most unjustifiable form of looting, as it does not confer any military advantage.
You might respond that, like Sherman, perhaps the Confederates simply sought to damage the economy of the Union. However, were this the case, they would have enslaved or killed the white Union citizens they met as well. As they did not, the only real reason for the Confederacy's actions is clearly that they did not respect the civilian or freedman status of any blacks within the Union. This is wholly different from demanding enemy civilians feed your troops so that you can wage war.
Also, even if I were to accept your "attitude of the time" premise, I can still blame the South. Racism was certainly the ingrained attitude of nearly every white American, North or South. However, only one side consistently and unflinchingly defended slavery, an institution banned decades earlier in nearly every European and American nation (Brazil being a notable exception). Racism may have been the attitude of the time, but the South was a place of cultural luddites on the issue of slavery, clinging to an ideology the rest of the world had long since regarded as barbaric.
I really enjoy your brief venture in whataboutism as well, as though the fact that plenty of "Northers were still racist remember, they wanted to free blacks but still viewed them as inferior," is at all relevant when debating the difference between looting food from and enslaving civilians.
Lastly, you seem to have a confused notion of what it is acceptable to hate. Should I not hate the N4zis because they honestly believed what they did was right? What about the USSR, or the British Raj, or any other evil empire of note? It is absolutely acceptable to hate evil systems. The people within them, in this case individual Confederates, can be judged by the standards of the time (which, as I noted earlier, were against unnecessary looting and slavery) and forgiven for being on the wrong of a wrong war, should they prove their merit in other ways. But I see no reason not to convict a system, government, or culture that so obviously evil as the Confederacy.
@Viper as if that is somehow anywhere near the same level.
“This man literally kidnapped people to force them into chattel slavery.”
“Oh yeah well…this other man took their stuff! So he was just as bad!”
@@ZeteticPhilosopher Thats actually a bad retort as all armies have criminalss, mixed into the ranks, who defy orders and laws. War is insanity upon insanity, not to mention its messy and stressful on Logistics. You do not know anything about War if you have not actually fought in one. You are recruiting from the general population (or drafting) into the ranks and there were no good databases that tracked criminal activities. So there are always psychopaths and Sociopaths mixed into the ranks, who will take every opportunity to benefit at the cost of others, laws or no laws. Orders or no orders.
However, kidnapping people and selling them into Chattel slavery, in the south, is not the same as looting a house. Not even close. Not to mention, transporting a kidnapped person is not something that goes easily unnotice, especially upon ranking officers. Very very very bad false comparison you are making there.
I agree that Buford's role is exaggerated, however, from a narrative viewpoint it works well: Through him, we are introduced to the tactical background of the battle and understand the importance of that particular terrain. If the movie focused on the more intense fighting later during the first day, it would have lessened the dramatic impact of the events during day 2 and 3.
"Well General Reynolds, we held the high ground."
I agree with you. I also think focusing on the opening skirmish helped to show Lee's relationship with his generals. Most scenes from the first day of the South's POV are almost all Lee talking to his generals/officers. Where as the Union POV scenes are almost on the frontline. Save the scenes with Chamberlain of course.
Buford's Cavalry fight is criminally misrepresented IMO. I was pretty surprised the more I learned about it. The Confederates opposing the cavalry lost perhaps 30 men the whole morning. The main battalion skirmishing against them lost five. The troopers never held a fixed point, certainly not a wall, for any length of time.
@@rc59191 There's a book that's decent called "The Devil's to Pay." But there's tons of free stuff to read, you just have to know where. You might start by googling Buford Official Report Gettysburg. The park rangers assigned to battlefields are basically professors and are usually entertaining in their reading and presentation. You might bookmark and check this set of 'seminar' papers from years back on the first day. There's more too if you back out on all sorts of different stuff, all free too. npshistory.com/series/symposia/gettysburg_seminars/10/index.htm
You might also TH-cam Gettysburg Buford NPS NPS = national park service. Lots of free stuff. What's always struck me about Buford's 'stand' at Gettysburg is the fact that his casualties are very low. He lost more men at other minor skirmishes during the campaign than he did at Gettysburg. The 2nd Wisconsin literally lost more men in a single volley than both of Buford's Cavalry brigades lost during the whole battle. One cavalryman wrote that he fired his carbine 7 or 8 times. The infantry did the heavy lifting and took and held territory. Cavalry just scouted, shot, and ran. Crappy weapons too. The carbines had less accuracy. Confederate skirmishers were also better trained for that sort of fight than the Cavalry were. The cavalry lost more men than they inflicted. Their weapons gave them no real advantage. They were short like that so they could technically fire on horseback, though they rarely did.
Buy the book or find it used or see if you can find it in a library, it's not bad at all.
@@rc59191 "Gettysburg: The First Day" by Harry Pfanz is a great source for the first day battle. In fact, his entire Gettysburg Trilogy is a must read on the battle.
I'll be watching my framed pictures very closely after this.
Who knows they might be doing reviews of historical films behind your back...
Its like Toy Story for history buffs.
Especially the armed ones...
it was quite appropiate that he included a little scene from the 90s IT mini-series, when the portrait started moving and talking it right away reminded me of the similar scene that in that movie / series, fucking living and moving pictures were extremely creepy for the kid I was then, now I just find Tim Curry's Pennywise to be pretty funny actually.
@@Sealdeam Oh god. Where the portrait of little Georgie winks. Creepy.
Imagine this: A Band Of Brothers style mini series about a union regiment at gettysburg
Make it the whole war, and it sounds good. Dragging the battle out over more than 4 hours would make it too slow.
@@balazstatar7074 Tons of choices. 69th New York (Irish Brigade, lots of major battles), 5th New Hampshire (Lost more men than any Union regiment (295 killed, 756 wounded)) 23rd Ohio (2 future US Presidents), 1st Minnesota (suffered highest casualty rates in two battles, including losing 82% at Gettysburg), 3rd US Infantry (saw action throughout the war, now guards the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier)
Bryan Roper don’t forget the western theater. Lots of Illinois fought under Grant in the Battle of Vicksburg.
I'd die for a good depiction of Cold Harbor.
Or a Confederate unit
I get the feeling that Maxwell was a competent TV director, and under the wing of Ted Turner and TNT, he did that job well enough. Unfortunately, the success of _Gettysburg_ gave Maxwell the illusion that he was some kind of filmmaker. Then, he made _Gods and Generals,_ proving that he wasn’t.
He did make Parent Trap 2 before Gettysburg. Spoiler but its not very good...
Basically, George Lucas minus the success.
@@screamingphoenix8113 Lucas was a great filmmaker and producer at one point. But somewhere along the line he lost it. Whatever it was that drove his visionary genius, he lost it.
David Tuttle Lucas has never been a great director, at least not an “actor’s director.” He’s also a better writer when someone rewrites his first draft, which didn’t happen on the prequels. He should have let others write the shooting scripts and direct those films.
@@davidtuttle7556 Lucas had much greater restrictions on his properties when making 4-6. Hell, the only reason they produced his property, was because he took a paycut in exchange for the property rights. What turned out to be a multi-billion dollar decision. Go watch the dorectors cut of Star Wars 4, and it will bore you to tears. and it will give you flashbacks to the prequels.
Seeing a new Atun-Shei video is like finding a Christmas present that you'd forgotten to open.
But it being less than 20 minutes is like unwrapping the present only to discover it's JCPenny socks.
Jael Sonnen you have something against socks, you realize how hard 3rd world orphans had to work to make those socks bucko!
Finding out he's doing three days worth is like... I don't even know what. I'm that excited.
@@jaelsonnen5750 No foot rot, tho
Jael Sonnen bro whatever I love getting socks
NOW HOLD UP THERE BUDDY!
Are you trying to say I can critique a movie, but Also, love it?
THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE! *head explodes*
Thousands of Star Wars OT fans nod sagely
@@davidward2651 PFFFT HA HA HA HA!
Gettysburg, TITANIC
I feel the whole love but also critique TF out of them straight to my blackened soul
All the CinemaSins haters’ heads just EXPLODED
Obviously, you haven't watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies with me.
Let’s never forget how the noble Lee insisted that his troops pay Pennsylvanians fair value for all the goods they seized... with worthless Confederate Dollars they could never use...
Hey man, those are collectibles!
god bless Robert E Lee
Well, good propaganda for one. Suppose he had defeated the Union troops and Confederate troops had advanced toward Philadelphia. The city Fathers would have been terrified but also thinking their fair city would not be plundered. Then there was the rioting going on in NYC.
Curtis Ogle Sherman freed them from their captive by the rebel forces. How much is their freedom really worth!
@@curtisogle2136 Since neither of the fine gentlemen who preceded me said it: fuck off. Never in the history of the world has the victor of a civil war shown as much magnanimity as the US showed the Confederate states after the war. Yet people like you continue to bring up stuff like the March to the Sea as if it in any way is the moral equivalent of centuries of chattel slavery.
Last time I was this early it was to see what so proudly we hailed through the twilight's last gleaming.
Last time I was this Early I smashed Federal reinforcements on Barlow's Knoll
@@AtunSheiFilms so you're saying in a past life you were indeed Jubal Early? I have some questions I'd like to ask then. In all seriousness though great video and love your channel, sending my best from Mackinac!
@@AtunSheiFilms Hi, can you tell me why are so many people offended by all this youre saying against the south? Especially republicans, shouldnt we be fucking happy we won? xD For real, why glorify the enemy (rebels) ffs.. If the argument about state rights had at least a little bit of weight in that fight (which it didnt) then I would understand it a little more but as I say, it didnt.
@@MisoElEven I'm a republican but I have a father from Tennessee. We romanticize the war way to much and think it would dishonor American veterans to see them as the seriously racist and f'ed up people they were. Republicans are not coming from a place of racism though. with movies and stuff over time we began to see them as brave Americans who fought for a disgusting cause, but still Americans. But that is wrong and I admit that because you cannot commit atrocities and be honored for it. this channel does a lot of good I am happy I found it and I share it with all my friends.
@@MrCoolwolf123 You are saying we shouldn't represent the Confederacy as they were?
I think the Witchfinder General needs to do a thorough investigation of your home if your photos are coming to life and speaking Harry Potter style! Something foul is about!
The superstitious so-called "icons" prove that he is a practitioner of false Christianity, no wonder there be wicked happenings in his domain! 😆
Jacob Schall and yet he has yet to report himself to the magistrate in the shire for which he dwells!
Devilry!
What's he gonna do? Deliver him to the magistrates gathered in the courts of the shire in which he dwells? And if they see fit, will he put them to instant death?
“Gettysburg” will always have a special place in my heart. Like most civil war buffs my age, it was what got me interested in the civil war, and American history in general. If I had never watched this film I don’t foresee myself having such a deep interest in history, so I am forever grateful to it for that. Of course now I’m the guy who corrects every historical inaccuracy every time I see it, so I love this video, can’t wait for the next two
The director focused on General Buford because Sam Elliot played Buford and Elliot put in an amazingly memorable performance. Elliot's 'high ground' monologue was the best scene in the movie.
I actually agree because it set up little round top (the high ground scene) perfectly
It also reflects the way that the author wrote the book.
@@fireshack6485
This is true.
In fact the whole film is extraordinarily faithful to the source novel, with much of the internal monologue of the pov characters being turned into dialogue.
and the "tall hats and gold watch fobs" part is 120% ironic foreshadowing of Pickett's Charge on the third day
When given the opportunity to give Sam Elliot even 1 more second of screen time, you do it
I don't know if you've already done it yet but somebody needs to tear that Civil War mini-series the Blue and Gray a new asshole.
That would be as long as the miniseries itself
Or "North and South"
@@MrThedude77777 North and South is much worse, IMO. I loved The Blue and the Gray as a kid even then recognizing the dopey physic Stacey Keach or other nonsense. But I loved the battles. I have a soft spot for it because I love Bruce Catton's work even though it's dated. I also liked it because it gave us some Union perspective.
@@MrThedude77777
The ladies at Frock Flicks critiqued North and South. Well, its beginning--it takes considerable effort to even watch the thing..
The site's focus is costume, hair styles and makeup (frosty lipstick!) but they do eviscerate other aspects of the series.
www.frockflicks.com/snark-week-recap-north-south-1985-episode-1/
@@lordtazzman3140 Yeah North and South is far, far worse than the Blue and the Gray.
“And if you’re not a well adjusted person, hello brother, then chances are you know most of this shit already.”
Well you don’t have to call us out like that.
Having worked on Gods and Generals I can say with some authority that Ron Maxwel can knock out battle scenes with ease but when it comes to scenes that require human interaction he is worse than a hack.
Lol
What? The battle scenes suck ass and are choreographed laughably
"Toxic Civil War fandom" Is certainly not a phrase I expected to hear today.
@Shattered Dreams No I understand all that, I watch this channel after all, I was more commenting on the use of the word Fandom.
@Shattered Dreams they'd make you believe that Lincoln was worst than hitler lol
The phrase itself lays bare a very weird mindset people - enthusiasts - like ourselves (presumably) have towards these conflicts, it is on some level entertainment and thus a fandom generates from it but I'm not sure that's conducive to understanding the actual history here. The phrase rubbed me raw as well - the idea that a "fandom" revolving around the bloodiest, most partisan conflict in US history would be ANYTHING other than fucking toxic seems to be - frankly - fucking ridiculous.
@Live Life both sides use flase facts to make them seem better, and insults instead of arguments
@@Spongebrain97 There's a difference between saying that the South was justified in their perspective, and admiring them for the courage and passion with which they fought.
I imagine many of the troops doing the fighting really did see it as being about states rights and thus it's not unfair to represent their views here that way.
Can we take a moment to acknowledge how good that talking tintype effect is?
I’m glad you mentioned how Gettysburg was intended to be a miniseries.
Honestly, as a film it is too long, too slow paced in many parts, too many long action scenes that have no reason to be so long, too reliant on individual moments and events to carry the dullest parts...
But as a miniseries? If you watch it as a roughly three-part epic, each day being its own episode?
Brilliant. Still terribly and obviously flawed in some parts, but far more digestible and entertaining. Indeed, it’s strengths (ambition, human connection, generally coherent layout of events) and weaknesses are already obvious as a film, but seem more forgivable when watching the work in a few separate chunks, *if practicable* .
I agree.
@@JRobbySh He wants it LONGER!
When the movie was originally released, there was an intermission.
OMG, the bleeping out of Buster and Chamberlain had me laughing so hard!
Why did he do that?
@@geoffreypereira8024
To confuse those who haven’t seen it, and give everyone else a good laugh
@@geoffreypereira8024 The joke is that most white people back then were extremely racist, so he put the bleeps in to suggest that they were just non-stop spouting slurs.
@@hedgehog3180 Yeah...the characters who fought a war [one of whom died doing so] to end slavery have NOTHING on the YT movie critic who's never heard a shot fired in anger 🙂
@@geoffreypereira8024because the conversation in the movie wasn’t realistic, even most abolitionist would have used racial slurs when talking about black people and rarely saw them as equal to whites.
“Hack frauds from Wisconsin.”
I caught that
Very cool
@@IanFiebigwi GETTYSBURG I FUCKING LOVE GETTYSBURG , I GOTTA PLAY WITH MY LONGSTREET TOYS
I KNOW WHAT THAT IS
Did you clap though?
That's right, Jay!
The southern revisionism is dangerous stuff I’m a Canadian with family members that fought for the Union side and I remember having a soft spot for Lee about 10 years ago. The truth of the war needs to be laid bare and shown for the naked southern aggression in defence of slavery that it was
You'd probably enjoy the book "The Myth of the Lost Cause" by Edward Bonekemper. He really takes Lee to task about his failed strategies, and seems to suggest that Lee was the reason the South lost after only 4 years, that they could have held out longer without him, and if they had stuck to a defensive strategy. Which then makes one glad Lee was there, to help lose the war more quickly.
Mike Clark one word: blockade. the Union won the war with the blockade. And grant.
@@cyberherbalist That's false. The South economy was failing by Gettysburg. President Davis would toss his own money to the people of Richmond because they would protest a barrel of flour was insanely over priced from inflation. What killed the South was the politics and economy. Lee knew time was running out. Its why he lead the offensive in 1863.
Lee really seems to have relied on Jackson for his strategies and tactical decisions. Once Jackson died, the only battles Lee ever won again were when Grant got super aggressive in the Wilderness battles. And he made really awful, costly decisions in battle that probably would have never happened with Jackson with him, like Pickett's Charge.
@@Shatamx - Of course the economy was failing, no question the Confederacy was doomed anyway. But without Lee's adverturism (e.g. Gettysburg) and over-aggressiveness, they might have been able to eek out a year or so more than they did. Lee's Gettysburg offensive was, as you say, a "hail mary" play. One that failed. If he had won at Gettysburg it might have given the Confederacy some breathing room, but they were doomed whatever happened. That's all I'm saying. You're entitled to disagree, of course. We'll never know, will we? And another factor was Grant's victory at Vicksburg at the same time as Lee's loss at Gettysburg. If Grant had not won at Vicksburg, that might have presaged a longer war, with the Confederacy emboldened by the victory. But there was virtually no way the Confederacy could have won, ultimately.
I rarely re-watch videos, but I find myself drawn back to your videos time and time again. I honestly know no other that so perfectly packages great historical content in such an entertaining way. Really appreciate what you do.
One thing to remember is that a lot of the “omissions” talked about were omissions from the Killer Angels, so Michael Shaara deserves some of the blame as well.
One of the few channels where giving the video a like before even watching it never makes a liar out of me
Decided to rewatch this for the 161st anniversary. This series is incredible, and I'll never forget your emotional, stirring speeches. Can't wait for the Second Day tomorrow!
Jeff Daniels is one of those actors that always seems to give everything 100%
B A Y O N E T S ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Unless Keanu shoots him
Especially with a certain scene from Dumb and Dumber.
...
Y
A
H
P
"Hack frauds from Wisconsin"... I did not know Rich Evans and Mike Stoklasa were THAT old!
Gettysburg was the most disappointing battle since the Almo... I should know! I'm the last survivor!
But while the Alamo eventually led to Texan independence, Gettysburg led to the end of the Army of Northern Virginia’s capacity for offensive operations.
It could never be undone. It would never go away.
*Flash cuts to corpses next to a sunken road while screeching is heard in the background*
@@warlordofbritannia Get out of my sunken road!!! AHHHHH!
Jay Bauman is oldest, actually - he's the original immortal vampire that raided the old folks home and bit Rich and Mike out of a fit of loneliness.
I absolutely love that you're uploading these on July 1-3, exactly when the battle happened. It's touches like that that show your dedication and make your channel so awesome. Well done, sir
“I’ll tell you Lawrence, I sure was found of that man”
“YYEEPP”
Having written a rather lengthy paper about the American Civil War for a university class debunking the Lost Cause that included a trolling title, that scene included in the intro where Longstreet suggests the slaves should have been freed before Fort Sumter nearly killed me because I was drinking a hot cup of tea at the time.
Well, Longstreet did say this, at least in "The Killer Angels.” And the fact is that in the South there was always a lot of sentiment against slavery, all of which went along with an general racism. Racism was a rising theory in the West, based on its emerging power in the world. Andrew Jackson hated the power of the plantation owners and at the same time despised blacks. Only the most generous of what people thought of black persons in the same way they thought about white people. The same for New England Yankees about the Irish immigrants among them.
People confuse the reason for seccision and the reason for fighting back then the slave holders left the union was because of slavery the reason US poor white fought was because the Yankees invaded our land rich man war poor man fight
@@donaldharris3037 That was gibberish. Try again?
Longstreet became a radical Republican after the war. He was condemned by ex-confederates during his lifetime and used by lost causers after his death to downplay slavery during the war.
@@TheRealColBosch while his English needs some work, he does bring up a valid point. Secession which I hate generalizing since it wasn't a single event in which all of the states declared independence but rather a decision that each state chose independently from one another and the outbreak of war itself wasn't an overnight thing. In fact that period between the two is often overlooked and is almost never included in general courses about the war. Are very different. while secession was most definitely was to preserve slavery...there were other reasons but slavery was definitely the dominant reason. The war is not as cut and dry....there was a lot of resentment that the north was daring to raise an army to invade the south and in hindsight probably made the situation worse. and a lot of southerners were In reality pissed that the north would dare invade the south. now this all gets very interesting as the war progresses as the war progresses and the population realizes what they had unleashed upon the nation causing anti war movements to develop in the north and south.
I watch Gettysburg every year on July 1-3 as tradition.
Thomas Marren I’m British and we do in my household to, except this year we started on 30 June because the first bit of the movie took place before 1 July it seems
A ship in a bottle, an Egyptian cat, a cactus, a pair of Byzantine icons and a talking photo among other things...that is one eclectic array of objects. All I have on my desk are a few books and a shot glass.
As always, great video. Interesting take on the film... my teacher actually showed us scenes from that movie in 9th grade, one of the better classes that year due to not having to listen to him lecture. Happy 4th of July... looking forward to the next one!
I have a very clear memory of going to see Gettysburg on its release day in theaters. My parents let me take the day off of school because they knew I couldn't miss this movie and that everyone expected it to be a flop which would disappear from the theaters almost immediately. I was 7 and already insisting that my toy musket be retrofitted with a replica ramrod and bayonet.
This first historical inaccuracy that always immediately jumps out to me whenever I’m watching Gettysburg is that all the common soldiers look to be between 40-65 and kind of heavy
Just took my teenage daughter to Gettysburg. She had taken a picture of the railroad and then made a rock painting of the same. It wasn't until your video that I found out how decisive those tracks were. Thanks for opening both of our eyes. You do a great job, and present history in easy to understand terms and bite sized chunks. Thanks again. Keep up the good work.
Orthodox icons? The Servant of God, Atunshei
Another reason why I love this channel ☦️🇷🇸
Was about to make the same comment!
Hmm. Orthodox branch of church always was quite low in protestant/catholic America. There are was some immigrants from Russian Empire, but usually it was "heretics", independent from patriarh of the Russian Orthodox Church (and sometimes repressed by goverment), like old-believers, molokans, duhobors and etc and etc.
BTW, the are was one Russian officer (and Orthodox), who became Union brigade general. Ivan Turchaninov (John Basil Tuurchin). This dude deserve separate video or topic, exetially in our times, when anti-Russian histeria quite powerful in the US))))
Great seeing Serbs interest in American Civil War. My step-father is from Belgrade. I’ve actually brought some CS flags and other CW related items to Serbia for a guy. Y’all have a great culture there!
@Blackbooted Rhodesian
He was a Don cossack, i did't find any information about his ancestors.
BTW, in the Russian Empire was matter only your personal oath to the emperor and your membership in the orthodox church. German princesses after marriage with the Russian emperor usually was re-baptised in the orthodox way and taked their new names. Serbians already was orthodox and always was welcomed in the Russian empire.
Last time I was this early, Atlanta wasn’t burnt down yet
I’m coming
General William Sherman no need it’s already burned now again
By who? BLM or the Union?
Wisemankugel Memicus both
@@gregorflopinski9016 that's pretty early
Fantastic video, at 44 years old. I ‘ve told myself that I knew “everything” about history. But I find myself learning more and more. I watch your videos with my kids, our favorites are “check mate linconite!”
Please never leave TH-cam. Your videos are of such awesome quality. I feel like I’m watching what History Channel used to be.
Edit: minus the cursing, obviously.
imagining Rich Evans commanding a Union infantry brigade
The AAAAAIIIIIDDDDSSSS Brigade
Sir they are firing fart bags at us!
History channel documentary narrator: "Rich Evans failed to lead the charge.....because his diabetes flared up"
@@jaxwagen4238 brigAAAAIIIIDDDSSSSSS
His men all retreated because he mis-pronounced "advance"
The content on this channel always continues to improve and I’m loving it.
8:40 Fun fact: a confederate soldier is reported to have said “It’s them black hatted bastards!” when he saw the Iron Brigade.
Hearing you give the Iron Brigade the (fairly substantial) credit it deserves is no small matter of pride for me. I am from Wisconsin. We contributed a *fairly substantial* amount to the war effort.
Hearing the phrase “hack frauds” dampened that pride somewhat, but oh well.
It was a RedLetterMedia reference and meant with love
"Some hack frauds from Wisconsin" oh my gaaaaawd
We need to have a talk at the "Bubbler". ;-)
1:35 That description of Civil War buffs who obsess over this movie is about as accurate as a Springfield Rifle shooting at Picketts Charge.
That subtle "there is no time for that" was brilliant.
I love the film Gettysburg, and this is an amazing TH-cam channel. This will be a treat! Great effect there, btw with the picture! 😄👍
The Iron Brigade is one of my favorite units in history (ignore the fact I'm from Wisconsin and bias). Also did you just call us Wisconsinites hack frauds?
It's a joke about Redlettermedia. It's a joke phrase to refer to the hosts, who are from Wisconsin.
@@golgarisoul gotcha, I was just teasing as all 😂
Have to say the Irish Brigade is my favorite unit. He was referring to Lee's outlook on a bunch of guys in black hats stopping is army. The Iron Brigade did you proud.
Keep 'er movin'.....😂
My distant cousin was adjutant of the regiment until he became aide-de-camp for General Gibbon.
"And if you're not a well adjusted person... *hello brother* "
Hello, from across the pond,
"We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumpter." - Longstreet, 1863
"We should have accepted Austro-Hungarian rule of Bosnia, then shot Archduke Ferdinand." - Princep, 1914
This made me laugh, but at least they gave the line to Longstreet, as nonsensical as it is. If anyone would have had this view it would have been him
I’m a history major and at my university, Historiography is a required course for all History Major. As for Gettysburg, I enjoy the film and think that because the focus is on the battle and not the people, it shows the Southern POV without diving too deeply into the Lost Cause, unlike Gods and Generals. I still enjoy both these films, but I know you hate the later.
Historiography is very important in British universities, we have to be very familiar with the historiography of each topic we study.
The defense I’ve seen for the movie is the fact that for a lot of the movie, we are given the southern perspective, and they aren’t entirely reliable narrators. The men on the ground thought they were going to war for righteous reasons, so of course they try to justify it. When the Union gets its turn, slavery is on the forefront of the conversation, they are very direct about it and give their points as well. This attempt at an unbiased portrayal is why I consider Gettysburg to be great. Unlike the biased spew that is Gods and Generals
This video was amazing I'm British and I'm interested in the civil war and other parts of American history thanks to this channel
If you're interested in the kind of first hand account of combat, Men of War by Alexander Rose might be a good start. It tries to impart the realities of fighting through three iconic battles including Gettysburg. If I recall, it is an homage to a similar work about British soldiers.
There's still a British connection as there were thousands from the United Kingdom and British Empire who participated in the war. The only monument to the war outside the USA is the Scottish-American Soldiers Monument at the Old Calton Burial Ground
in Edinburgh for Scots who fought in the war.
I picked up this book up at a local thrift store because of this video and this channel as a whole. It’s fantastic!
The only part of this movie I have a problem with is when the confederates start talking. I recall a scene in Killer Angels (the book) where Longstreet outright says the cause of the war was slavery. The best part f the movie is definitely the scenes with Chamberlain.
"When the Confederates start talking" because God forbid we see them as human beings rather than evil souless robots.... *sigh*
Heaven forbid you realize the difference between “humanizing” and “whitewashing”.
I don’t mind them being humanized, General Longstreet is humanized very well in the film, he’s one of the best characters. My problem is when the Confederates talk about states rights and how they aren’t fighting for slavery. It’s the same Lost Cause myth as in Gods and Generals or Gone With the Wind.
Bit By Bit but that's what they would have said! That's why it's in the movie to try and impress Fremantle. Longstreet cuts through the BS in his scene with Fremantle and simply says "your government would never ally itself with a confederation that held the institution of slavery. You know that, and so do I"
MackerelSkyLtd is letting CSA characters talk at all is whitewashing then we they don't even get a chance to be humanized...
This is great. I love the Iron brigade. They are some of the greatest soldiers of the civil war. Fighting doggedly at Second Manassas, Antietam, and of course Gettysburg. Thank you for this wonderful video. I appreciate it. 👍
Wished there was a Band of Brothers style miniseries on those guys.
Makes me proud to be a Wisconite
Longstreet was shown criticizing Lee on days 2 and 3, and Hood protesting to Longstreet. Also some stress was shown in Longstreet's altercations with Pickett and Alexander on day 3.
But most of your other points are valid. Gettysburg for all its quality is an idealized depiction of history that goes well with the idealized perception the abbreviated history books for general public are leaving. No rivers of blood, guts spilled, surrendering enemies slaughtered in rage etc. etc. etc. Some of those things are merely hinted at. As a comparrisson you could have also shown excerpts from a documentary on the Battle of Gettysburg that follows historical fates of several participants on both sides (Rufus Daws among them) that is far more down to earth and took me a little aback when I first saw it (years after seeing Gettysburg) but then I realized - this is certainly closer to how it really was.
Indeed they focused on certain parts of the battle - Buford's defense, Little Round top, High water Mark - but IMHO that was a necessity due to limited screen time and pacing. Essentially they let each of those symbolize the general effort of both armies on each day. If they did not make that compromise they would have ruined the pacing and made it too confusing - Gods and Generals, Bridge Too Far and Tora Tora Tora come to mind as examples of films that fell into that trap. So while I totally agree with you from the historical point of view (My biggest grievance is with the decisive day 2 and omitting Dan Sickles), I find it curious that you, a film editor/director failed to appreciate the necessity of your trade to compromise on this in order to make a good film for the general public (I am neither a director nor a film editor BTW, just a history buff).
Interesting take, nuance when it comes to history. I wonder if this will catch on with the rest of the internet.
I think discussing historiography is an important point. It's one thing to be too hung up on historical accuracy, it's another completely yo duscuss the historiography and message of art. This is especially important when a historical movement like the Lost Cause plays such an important role in later history.
The "Killer Angels" is classified as a novel for a reason. It is best enjoyed as an impression of Gettysburg that conveys concepts rather than strict, hyper-accurate history.
I really appreciate the time you put into these videos. You have greatly helped to open my mind to new perspectives and ideas and I am very thankful for that! It’s annoying when someone who knows nothing about history yells at people for thinking a certain way, but hearing someone who knows about this stuff really well talk about other perspectives, it’s really cool. Thank you!
Man this channel has quickly become one of my favorite channels that I stop everything to watch. Thanks so much Atun-Shei!
Oddly enough, one of the most offputting aspects of Gettysburg for me is precisely what made the movie possible in the first place: reenactors. I mean, they may know their minutia details and all, but Jesus, those old, fat reenactors, looking like they ate half the ANV, their wobbling bellies in the Pickett's Charge, their poor acting... no, nope. Just no.
Either the raiding was a smashing success, or the army is now just made up of commissary officers.
I. Agree it's hard to find them believable to old and fat
It probably also limited what Maxwell could do. These guys would be exhausted after just a single scene.
@@rangergxi Oh no! Bobby Joe just passed out! Was it the heat? Nah he couldn't climb Devils Den because he weights 260 pounds.
@Shattered Dreams None. There is no right answer.
Lines like the one @2:29 are why I enjoy these videos.
“Hello brother.”
I remember having to watch this for a college course called "History of Warfare through Film." This thing was a slog and grind to get through, man. And you pointing out the lack of perspective on the soldier experience may have been my biggest problem with the movie. That little description you read from a book was way more intense than any of the battles in the movie. That and also, the obvious Lee worship was hella sus and obvious upon first viewing
"And if your not a well adjusted person
..
Hello brother"
Instantly felt at home, subscribed
Even though he wasn't a real person, Buster was my favorite character. He seems to be a singular representation of the average Union Soldier.
The average NCO, at least. Older, more experienced sergeant who's been there and seen it all.
IndianaBones
Isn’t it implied that he’s also an Irish-immigrant? I’m pretty sure it was explicitly stated in “Killer Angels” but I do not recall that in the film.
Very fascinating to have that acknowledgment of how many foreign-born Americans fought for the Union, nonetheless.
You also forgot to mention the fact at one point in his life, Lee's staff at his estate, or just flat-out Lee himself, captured a family of slaves that tried to escape, whipped them brutally, and then ordered to have their wounds washed out with brine water.
Seriously, I am from Arlington which many consider to be a practical hometown of his here in Virginia, and I was fed this whole idea that he was actually a calm and gentle man who was respectable in every way. Then lo' and behold with a bit of research I discover who he really was. Even as a kid I didn't buy the whole "Well he actually WANTED to free the slaves but he had to fight for his state!"...okay...SO? Who gives a fuck what he personally believed? What he DID was dearly help, and deliberately aid a nation that fought to preserve their perceived "right" of owning and treating other human beings as property. I think that's a pretty big deal here. Can you imagine if we used that logic in other areas?
"Look, yes that man murdered fifteen people throughout the years, but if you ACTUALLY read what he believed, he actually very much valued human life and believed it should be protected thoroughly!"...ok...AND? What the man ended up DOING was murdering people...
Sam Elliott is so good though. His monologue envisioning the confederates on the high ground gives me chills
I'd love to see you talk about TNTs later film, Rough Riders, from 1997, more or less then ONLY film that deals with the Spanish-American War, at least in a mainstream light.
Shattered Dreams bad, but still fun haha
10:12 I understood that reference.
New video! I found your channel a week ago and I’m absolutely hooked. Been binge watching all your content throughout the night and seen that you’ve gained around a thousand subs since last night. Godspeed!
when he said his joke about "hack frauds from Wisconsin blocking Lee's way to Washington" I got the image of Mike and Jay as dunk Union Soldiers, somehow defeating the Rebels with drunk comedy shinannigans
Glad to see your videos have blown up so much! You truly deserve it with all your creativity and great analyses
You did a great job with this video. I particularly found the intro with the old looking photograph to be well done. You’re getting really good at editing.
I think you have become my favourite TH-camr. :) Congrats.
Are you kidding? That version of Odysseus is awesome! Though mainly for Armand Assante as Odysseus, great performance.
That opening sequence reminds me a lot of at the Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield, IL they have a movie explaining Lincoln's life and how hard his death was on Mary, and then at the end it turns out the librarian presenting the show was actually the ghost of a soldier from an Illinois regiment who was killed at Vicksburg. It was so cool!
I simply love the movie Gettysburg, but I must agree with your points on how much truly happened on the first day. But I personally enjoy the portrayal of Buford in the movie because in the documentaries I’ve seen either mention him a a footnote or not at all. I know that I’m more than likely biased for the story of Buford, but I personally think that the movie does Buford justice since he’s not talked about as much in other mediums.
But saying that, I must agree, I would have liked to see the story of a trooper in the 8th Illinois Cavalry the field firing his carbine and later being relieved by the Infantry of Cutler’s Brigade. Especially with a bit of back and forth prodding between the cavalry and infantry. That would have added that kind of “soldiers humor” that the soldiers during the Civil War would have had.
Absolutely right about the “Black Hats"’s role. But interesting to speculate how the battle would have gone if Reynolds had not gone down, removing his skillful hand from the reins. This was, after all, Lincoln’s first choice for command of the Union Army, and a fine commander.
You were definitely the kid who went above and beyond with his history presentations at school. Meanwhile I was at the podium reading scrabbled notes I wrote at 5 a.m. that morning.
Just a point at around 10:00 but corporals aren't enlisted men, they're NCOs. It's fuzzy since today the E-4 can be either an NCO (corporal) or enlisted man (specialist). As NCOs, they would be expected to show some leadership and initiative and it wasn't uncommon for NCOs to have the highest casualty rates.
One of the things that really makes me mad about historical films is how bloodless the melee combat is. If you run someone through with an infantry sword, it’s not meant to look elegant
Watching again 1 year later, I think I'll watch this every Gettysburg anniversary.
Here again, continuing this mini-tradition of mine, year #4.
Statues to J.E.B. Stuart, Jefferson Davis & Stonewall Jackson coming down in Richmond on the anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg & this video series? What a great July 1-3 this year
This might be a controversial opinion, but I believe the statues should have stayed, but changed to emphasize how wrong they were in their beliefs. Historical revisionism is bad. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes, and statues that had nothing to do with slavery are coming down too, by low-level thinkers just like you....they just got their beak wet with the confederate ones, Mr. Taliban.
I had no idea that Redlettermedia originally got their start as members of the Iron Brigade
Looking forward to PART 2. Glad to see less and less people buying into the Southern lie of the "Lost Cause". Greatest propaganda ever forced on American society. 🇺🇸
Second only to the revolution....
Your opinion
@@adampender2482 a fact
@@Winaska hwat
@@evanceier8577 the lie that we fought for a righteous cause of freedom against a tyrant. We fought for Indian land against a crown that was attempting to protect it.
Dude, thank you for what you do. You are not just a film-maker you are an educator, and making the world better for what you're doing with your life.
I'm sure you have seen it, but I'd love to see your take on the movie "Glory" from 1989, about the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. I watched it in 8th grade during history class and have a particular fondness for it but I'm sure there's plenty to critique about it. Love your work
this guy deserves a lot more subscribers, plus his extensive historical knowledge is amazing.
I asked the framed photos in my house what movies they were thinking about too, but they must have been all old silent films because I didn’t get much
"God I'm so glad you're dead"
Goddammit flaring up my Bronchitis with how funny that deliver was!
Are those Orthodox Icons in the beginning scene? (Possibly Saint Sava and the theotokos)
Looked to me more like Nicholas of Myra. Though to be fair, I am not an Orthodox Christian (or any type of Christian, for that matter) and only an amateur student of Orthodox iconography
The Theotokos and Saint Nicholas
@@evang7252 ah I felt it may have been Saint Sava, I feel like I've heard him say that he had Serbian ancestry before. But I'm not sure.
Little known fact: as seen in Apocalypse Now, in Vietnam older Robert E. Lee was a surfing Colonel who told a younger Robert E. Lee that napalm smelled like victory.
Never clicked on a notification faster
Your knowledge and understanding of nuance while being extremely relatable is unparalleled. Keep doing it brother!
This chad has icons of Saint Nicholas and the incarnation on his desk. Based
Is this really the appropriate comments section for an alt-righter?
Based on what?
I got Gettyburg on DVD about 20 years ago. I watched it a lot. Well I watched side one with Day one and Day two because I didnt know it was a double-sided disc!
I would really love to see more "Vietnam-esque" films depicting the experience of disillusioned confederates
Interesting timing for this three day dissection...