Roll Call to Destiny:
Illustrations, maps, endnotes, bibliography, index, 342 pp, 2008. Basic Books, 2300 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, $27.95 plus shipping.
The average Civil War study maintains the same literary components that have been written since the first books were churned out by veterans right after the war’s end. That is, a narrative interspersed with often colorful reminiscences by participants or quotes from official after-action reports. This narrative tradition, while entertaining and often informative, sadly tends to lack analysis. Brent Nosworthy’s new book, Roll Call to Destiny: The Soldier’s Eye View of Civil War Battles, is more than just another “Soldier’s Eye” view of battle. That has been done before with varying degrees of success. The author attempts to use microcosmic examples from all arms in combat – artillery, cavalry and infantry, using anecdotal evidence from both sides to reconstruct the “scene of the crime” (combat) if you will, and melds this with technological knowledge of Civil War weapons and tactics. His findings in some cases challenge more than a century of traditional wisdom on the war. Readers will be reminded a little of British military historian John Keegan, for Nosworthy, like Keegan, is concerned with the experience of the common soldier and the role of tactics and technology in combat. Many battle studies deal with the brigade level and above. Nosworthy’s focus is primarily at the regimental level and below. The guts of this book are pieces that ended up on the cutting room floor from his 752-page tome – The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War. Effective tactics and improved muskets with rifling had the potential to give advantage to a combat unit. Yet, as the author points out, despite the use of rifled weapons, Civil War combat between opposing forces tended to be fought within 200 yards, no different than had been known for a few hundred years of musketry. Nosworthy uses the experiences of several artillery, cavalry and infantry units as microcosmic examples to prove his points. In some cases these are augmented with sidebars to further illuminate tactics and technology of war. This use of discarded narrative and additional essays has mixed results. We learn the obvious, that green troops were a factor in Union defeat at First Bull Run. A field artillery battery was more decisive in capturing Arkansas Post than navy guns. Saber charges by cavalry were more successful than has been assumed and were not outdated manifestations of the Napoleonic Wars. Nosworthy’s chapter on the cavalry fight at Gettysburg on July 3 explains very well how this was a watershed in the maturation of the Union cavalry. A book such as this should have good maps. Sadly, that is one thing lacking in this study. Most if not all of them are original period maps from the Library of Congress. Good enough. However, for this work the publishers did not do a good job of reproducing them and they are very hard to read. Nosworthy’s book is part of a trend in Civil War history that is reexamining the traditional interpretation of weapons and tactics. Dedicated Civil Warriors will want to read this book. Readers may not agree with all of Brent Nosworthy’s conclusions, but some of his scholarship is compelling. Revewer: Ted Alexander is a historian and author of more than 100 articles for various publications and several books. He is Park Historian at Antietam National Battlefield.
|
