The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War [Hardcover]

Brent Nosworthy (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 2003

Some historians argue that the Civil War, with its use of rifled muskets and artillery, was the first great "modern" war; others argue that it was a sideshow of amateur generals and citizen soldiers whose tactics yielded few innovations or lasting lessons. Acclaimed military historian Brent Nosworthy takes on this great controversy and, for the first time in any book, covers the methods of Civil War warfare in their entirety. This work presents the most thorough study of Civil War military practices ever written. With diagrams, photos, and maps throughout, Nosworthy weaves together the story of newly emerging weapons, the resulting changes in military doctrine, and the combatants' experiences as these innovations were applied to the battlefield. Detailing the four-year evolution of warfare from General Irvin McDowell's first tentative efforts to Lee's and Grant's final exertions at Petersburg, the author examines tactical variation due to regional differences and the distinctive circumstances of each campaign: the methods used in the eastern theater versus those in the west; the confused fighting in the wilderness; the "trench" warfare at Vicksburg; and the techniques used in other famous battles, like Gettysburg and Antietam.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

This massive study of Civil War weaponry, tactics and combat practices covers so much so well that it's indispensable; it's also so densely written that even series students of the conflict may find it slow going. The author, a distinguished independent scholar, has written similar studies of the 18th century's wars (The Anatomy of Victory) and Napoleonic ground combat (With Musket, Sword and Cannon), and here, as in those books, is politely revisionist. Civil War generals were not ignoramuses who mindlessly pitted mass infantry formations against rifled muskets, but men who had studied the revolution in both tactics and weaponry in more detail than is usually allowed in conventional Civil War historiography, of which the author has no high opinion. (It also neglects the prewar roots of the ironclad ship, which Nosworthy does not.) The need for a revolution had not been proven in 1861, and the outstanding merit of the book is the way it pulls into a single narrative how that revolution was completed-or in some cases not completed. Competent officers soon learned that the rifle was potent but not invincible, until it became a repeater (which it should have been in the Union Army by 1863) and the riflemen were snug behind field fortifications, supported by rifled artillery. But the smoothbore Napoleon (for Napoleon III, be it noted) saw out the war because of its greater mobility, and the much derided bayonet retained a psychological impact and the cavalry saber a physical one, both at close quarters. With its first-hand accounts, diagrams and all-in-all exhaustive coverage, this volume is an exceptional reference.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 754 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books; 1st Carroll & Graf Ed edition (June 2003)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0786711477
• ISBN-13: 978-0786711475
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.5 x 2.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.7 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (20 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,190,552 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

38 of 41 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally, How The Civil War Was Really Fought!, August 7, 2003

By 

Roger Kennedy (USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War (Hardcover)

This superlative book is one of the first to breakthrough many of the myths and lore that have become so common in the study of our Civil War. Americans relish this conflict as a national rite of passage, yet seldom has a war been so venerated, with so little known about how it was actually fought. There have been countless books on this subject, yet few provide any solid picture as to how troops actually fought, with what methods, and how their weapons performed in the bloody crucible of combat.

This is a book that the study of the Civil War has long awaited. Yet, its acceptence may be hard for many devotees to accept. The American Civil War has cherished many myths and ideas, which, when taken out of their isolaoted context and compared with other conflicts of the time may seem less significant. This will be hard for many Civil War fans to swallow at first, but if they are to emerge with a greater understanding of this conflict, they must allow their beloved topic to be studied out of its box. This is something which the subject has long demanded, and which many the so-called experts in the field have been unable to do. Here Mr. Nosworthy has carefully studied the Civil War in comparison with contemporary wars of the day to provide a comparative analysis. We learn how the military studies of Jomini actually distorted how Americans perceived true Napoleanic tactics. Jomini was a conservetive French military writer who drew upon aspects of Napoleanic tactics to support his own views. The results across the Atlantic in America was a bizarre hybrid of columnar and linear tactics which would make the Civil War so difficult to compare to other conflicts. In fact if we look at the grand tactical elements of many of the Civil War battles we might be surprised to learn how un-Napoleanic they actually were. Jomini was more an advocate of 18th century linear warfare, where control of the entire line of battle was essential. This satisfied his conservetive ideas well, while to appear modern he threw in a few columns of the Napoleanic Wars just for good measure! we tend to look on civil war battles as more or less linear engagements, or heavy skirmish lines where prolonged firefights dragged on for hours. Nosworthy shows us that columns were indeed used, though not the flexible smaller ones of the Napoleanic period. Civil war troops were frequently deployed into columns of regimental width, arrayed along successive lines. Many battles saw this employment, yet this is something which has gone over the heads of most Civil War historians. American officers, following more or less the Jomini principles, added their own variations by tending to deploy early in most engagements. Civil War troops might march into battle in column, but they were generally formed into line. Still, these tactical distinctions so long ignored by many, are brought to the fore here for the first time.

Nosworthy is also careful to interlace primary accounts within his text to provide first hand accounts of how formations were used. This goes to show that such information was always there, but was never examined in this light before. Many contemporary journals are also used to show how current debates of the time discussed the issues at hand. These have long been ignored by most historians of the conflict. Instead, most secondary works have concentrated on troop movements, commanders decisions, and some general descriptions of how bloody some of the battles were. Our fuller understanding of how grand tactics played themselves out on the battlefiled have been largely ignored by these historians. Nosworthy further explains that in order to understand the nature of Civil War combat we must see how military matters stood abroad. This is something most have been unwiulling or unable to do. We learn for example how many American historians have wrongly attributed Napoleanic tactics to Napolean I, instead of to his grandson Napolean III who was a contemporary of the Civil War. References to Napoleanic tactics at the time were intended to mean this, but over the years Americans became confused over which Napolean was actually concerned! This subtle, but vitally important difference has been lost on generations of Civil War historians. We must remember that French military doctrine and style were vital until the eclispe of the Second Empire by the Prussians in 1870. The wars of Napolean III in Moracco, Italy and the Crimea had profound influences on American military thought. This has largely been forgotten in most studies today. In their desire to make the Civil War a purely "American" expereince, many American historians simpy overlooked these important facts. They have continued to do so today.

Nosworthy attempts to break the Civil War down into various parts so that we can see the variations that existed. He creates for us an anatomy of Civil War combat. This has not been done before to this extent here. We learn how combat differed in the Eastern and Western threaters of the war, we also see developments in ironclad technology, artillery, cavalry and infantry. We even see how ilregulars like Forest and Moseby conducted their hit and run battles. All of these aspects are discussed clearly, in one single volume, without bias, and without the legends and lore of the Civil War distorting matters. This book also dispels many myths about combat in the Civil War. Infantry firefights generally took place at much shorter ranges than we have been lead to believe. We learn that rifled muskets might not have been the sole reason for increased casaulty rates. Most Americans, unlike their European counterparts, were more familar with firearms because of the frontier style of life many had adopted in the Southern and Western parts of the country. In combat this translated into more accurate fire whether with rifled or smoothbore muskets. The stresses of combat often profoundly influenced how weapons performed as oppsed to the testing ground. Few studies have taken this into account. The bayonet, so often lauded as the decisive weapon of the war, was in fact more a pyschological threat than a physical one. There is a big difference between a bayonet fight and a bayonet charge. Many Civil War memoirs often don't make the difference. The former was very rare, while the latter more commonplace and almost never resulted in actual combat between opposing troops in open ground. Such careful reading into these accounts enables us to perceive details that were never considered before.

The final summation shows us that Europeans did not discount the Civil War, but simply saw it as one of many conflcits of the period. Many of the so-called firsts of the war which American historians are so proud to point out had in fact taken place already in earlier conflicts. The use of Ironclad technology, rifled muskets, railroads, etc had already occured by the time of the Civil War. The subsequent development of Prussian tactics employing skirmish lines supported by small mobile columns would revolutionize future tactics and provided a tactical flexibility that was unknown on the Civil War battlefield.

The final conclusion of this book is that the American Civil War needs to be studied outside of its own little box if it is to have any significant place in the evolution of warfare. Some readers may find this hard to swallow, but it is so. This book should take its place along side the lenghty tomes of Mcpherson, Sears, Foote et al. By reading this book you will get a better understanding of the Civil war than has yet been provided to date on the nuts and bolts of the conflict. Highly recommended for serious Civil War buffs, re-enactors, wargamers, and all who want to get a better understanding of how the Civil War was really fought.

20 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Fascinating and important, but with serious flaws., February 12, 2006

By 

Epops (usa) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War (Paperback)

Brent Nosworthy describes himself as an "independent" author. He is also a Civil War re-enacter. In writing this book he has made an original and informative contribution to the historical analysis of the American Civil War.

Nosworthy covers a wide range of subjects, many of which I hadn't previously understood, such as why some units in the early days of the war called themselves "Zouaves" and wore funny red uniforms. It seems that the uniforms, the training, and the tactics of Zouave units were patterned after the special units developed by the French for fighting their wars in Algeria. The uniforms were quickly discarded when it became clear that they made excellent targets in the open fields and woods of Northern Virginia, but Zouave training and tactics continued to influence American military thinking throughout the war, and continue to do so to some extent even today.

He explains the origin of the term "Napoleon" for the bronze 12 pounder field artillery piece favored by both sides. It was named after Napoleon III, not Bonaparte. He explains how the ballistic pattern of the Minie ball influenced battlefield tactics, why generals on both sides were reluctant to use field fortifications until the very end of the war, and the rationale for using wool uniforms winter and summer.

Interesting as such details are to students of the Civil War, Nosworthy's use of first-person accounts to illustrate his points is the most effective aspect of the book. Nosworthy's re-enacter experience serves him well in these sections. He is able to convey the actual experience of the soldier on the battlefield with terrifying effect. One marvels at the willingness and ability of men to undergo the experience of Civil War battle just once, let alone repeatedly, as the veterens did.

He places the Civil War in the context of European military thinking of the time. It is significant that the Crimean War and Napoleon III's invasion of Italy occurred just before the Civil War, since Napoleon's Zouaves made their reputation as "shock troops" in those wars, particularly at the battle of Solferino. French military science was of the highest prestige in that period, and French military manuals were translated and used at West Point. The French debacle in 1870 changed all that, of course. The outlines of this evolution are well-known, but Nosworthy relates these general developments to the specifics of weapons and tactics in a highly illuminating manner.

In spite of the many good, even great, things about this book, it has several serious flaws.

Nosworthy has insufficient control of his material. He often loses focus and becomes repetitious. There is a lack of discipline and logic in the book's organization. He is argumentative at times, assuming the unbecoming role of "debunker". He is especially obnoxious in the final chapter, which is a rant against his fellow military historians, as though he is in some kind of competition with them, rather than in a cooperative search for the truth.

He goes to great lengths to prove his thesis that Civil War battlefield tactics weren't much different from those of the smooth-bore period, but he does not succeed. Why, if that were the case, were the frontal assaults of Pickett's Charge, Kenesaw Mountain, Cold Harbor, and many others, such disasters? He says himself that as the war progressed, troops on both sides tended more and more to entrench their positions almost immediately at the start of a battle. Why was this, if not because of the increased lethality of the rifled musket and Minie ball at long range? Is there any doubt that had the Americans at Bunker Hill been armed with rifled muskets the British regular troops wouldn't have been able to form up their lines to begin with, let alone to eventually throw the colonials out of their trenches?

His prose rivals that of the best when describing the experiences of men in battle, but when expressing his personal opinions his language becomes pompous and verbose, as though he had read one too many 19th century memoir. The unevenness of his writing is the most noticeable symptom of his lack of professional training. A good editor could have helped him with this.

He tries to create a new term, the "rifle musket", using it repeatedly. George R. Stewart, Bruce Catton, and William McNeill were content with "rifled musket", in which "rifle" assumes the adjectival form with the "-ed" ending. Nosworthy himself writes of "rifled artillery", so why create a compound noun "rifle musket"? It's an unnecessary distraction.

He seems to think "nonplussed" means "unperturbed" or "stalwart", rather "perplexity", its true meaning. Again, a good editor could have saved him from this embarrassment.

Any Civil War "buff" will find this book, in spite of its flaws, well worth reading. It's a good book. A good editor could have helped make it a great book.

36 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A superlative study of Civil War combat, July 5, 2003

By 

Bruce Trinque (Amston, CT United States) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War (Hardcover)

I will start out by admitting a personal interest in Brent Nosworthy's "The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War". For several years I have aided Mr. Nosworthy in researching this book and by reading various drafts as it evolved. He delved deep into standard material such as personal memoirs and the Official Record's (CD-ROM searches in those 100,000-plus pages proved of immense value in the course of the research, allowing for a completeness of inquiry simply not possible before), and also into seldom-used sources such as "Scientific American" and the Fall River, Massachusetts, "Manufacturer and Farmer's Journal" for a mid-Ninteenth Century perspective as he examined weapons technology and tactical theory, implementation, and evolution.

It is no wonder that Joseph Bilby says: "This is a landmark work that establishes a new standard of excellence. No future Civil War campaign or battle study will be written without extensive reference to The Bloody Crucible of Courage." Gordon Rhea states it "deserves an honored place on the shelf of every Civil War scholar and buff." And Paddy Griffith writes;" The Bloody Crucible of Courage" is indeed the book we have long been waiting for! It is essential reading, not least for the wider European perspective that it casts upon a war that has too often in the past been viewed through very parochial spectacles. And beyond that refreshing historiographical perspective, this work also offers us a truly magnificent quarry of facts, explanations and pertinent interpretations that every student of the Civil War will surely want to keep constantly at hand." Often I take such dust jacket blurbs with a grain of salt, but this is one case where I will gladly support the opinions expressed.

This is not a dry, encyclopedic recounting of weapons specifications or tactical minutiae of how the third sergeant should move when a company changes from line of battle to a column of fours by the left flank. Rather, it is a highly readable work that ranges far and wide across infantry, artillery, cavalry and even naval forces, exploring how combat was really conducted and how that came about, looking at the roots of the weapons and tactical systems in Europe as well as in the US, and following the lengthy and often heated debates that were waged during the 1850's and well into the war over these matters. These discussions are illuminated by numerous battlefield examples of the use of these weapons and tactics, vividly described. Probably no such debate was more crucial than that over the best shoulder weapon to be issued to infantry: rifled versus smoothbore, muzzleloading versus breechloading. And contrary to modern assumptions, the choice was not at the time altogether straightforward and obvious, even given the experience of recent European wars. One of the intriguing elements that arises from Nosworthy's analysis of these matters is that he tentatively concludes that, for reasons still not entirely understood, in general American troops appeared to achieve better results (i.e., inflicted higher numbers of losses) than their European counterparts, whether using smoothbores or rifle-muskets.

This book has been a long time coming. The very first time I contacted Brent Nosworthy, whose name I knew from his excellent book on Napoleonic warfare, was to ask him whether some day he might write a similar one on American Civil War tactics. Little did I know where this simple question would eventually lead. "The Bloody Crucible of Courage" is a book I am proud to have helped in any fashion to come into being. There has never been a comparable work published about the Civil War, and I am confident that it will do much to shape our future perceptions and study of that conflict. It gets my highest recommendation.