Attack and Die is an attempt to explain Southern tactics. What I didn't like about Attack and Die is the assertion that Celts are predisposed towards wild melee type charges throughout their history. While it worked until the Celts came up against the disciplined Roman Legions, the authors presume that that tradition continued into the New World. I don't recall any fatalistic charges by any patriot force during the American Revolution nor during the War of 1812. For the Civil War, it also ignores the training many officers received at military academies like West Point, VMI or The Citadel that instructed them in linear warfare as adopted by Hardee. It doesn't explain why Lee, who was of English descent, attacked at Malvern Hill or on the final day at Gettysburg. Nor does it explain Cold Harbor, Pickett's Mill, Fredericksburg (I) as attacks ordered by generals of non-Celtic descent. Old Pat Cleburne was of Celtic descent and he didn't squander the lives of his men if he could avoid it.
The value of this particular book to me is the insights it gave about the training at West Point. It's the first time I've seen in writing what NPS Park Ranger Don Pfanz told me about West Point. I was surprised to learn that unlike today, military history wasn't taught there back then.
Thoughts?
The value of this particular book to me is the insights it gave about the training at West Point. It's the first time I've seen in writing what NPS Park Ranger Don Pfanz told me about West Point. I was surprised to learn that unlike today, military history wasn't taught there back then.
Thoughts?
Comment