Gettysburg : How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

I like Historical films, particularly when they're Historically accurate. On the other hand, although I don't mind, like, fictional characters performing fictional acts within actual events (such as the fictional Dirty Dozen within the real life WWII), I don't really care for "Historical" films that are like full of wild inaccuracies.

What would you guys say about how accurate or not towards actual Historic events and people Gettysburg really is?

Thanks in advance!

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

The only problem I have with Gettysburg is the overweight and over-age soldiers in the ranks, especially among the Confederates, but that was the price to pay to get enough troops together to make otherwise quite realistic battle scenes. Not explicitly gory in a Saving Private Ryan (which came out five years later) and later sense, but realistic. (The wagonload of amputated limbs outside the makeshift hospital where Longstreet visits Hood right after the intermission was sufficiently gory to get the point across that people get killed or hurt in very ugly ways in war, IMHO.) The most ridiculous scene was the one conspicuously obese Confederate limping away from the stone wall at Cemetery Ridge using his rifle for a crutch. I still can't watch that scene without chuckling to myself and, with his gray uniform, thinking "I've seen the elephant!"

Most of the historical inaccuracies are really just minor nitpicks, many done because of the inherent limitations of the film medium and for minor dramatic license. I remember reading the original historical novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara about three years before the movie came out and thinking, "As long as they don't take any more dramatic license than Shaara already did, this would make one helluva movie!" As it turns out, they corrected some of Shaara's dramatic license, and IMHO, it's still the most historically accurate fact-based drama movie ever made.

I have a website on real-life Medal of Honor recipients or nominees whose actions have been depicted in movies or TV miniseries, http://www.lylefrancispadilla.com/mohintro.html, which includes Gettysburg and a number of film and miniseries made afterward (to include Band of Brothers, Black Hawk Down, We Were Soldiers, The Lost Battalion, The Great Raid, The Pacific and Lone Survivor). I've been pleased that the trend has been toward more historical accuracy overall, but Gettysburg still tops the others.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Given the limitations of television (the original medium this film was intended for) and budget, the battle scenes are pretty darned realistic. From listening to Chamberlain's narrative of the battle as recorded in Ken Burn's The Civil War, the actual battle was a lot more disorganized and chaotic than in this movie, with the rebels actually overrunning the Union lines, the intermingling of soldiers, and more hand-to-hand combat, it's still pretty close to the facts.

The first days fighting and Pickett's Charge seem awfully close to what I've read in various sources.

As already mentioned by others, the characterization of the major players is the author's interpretation. If I remember correctly, Kilrain is the only major totally fictional character.



I only have one person on ignore, but I've had to ignore him 625 different times.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

The historical facts in the film are pretty spot on, but the personalities of the characters were Michael Schaara's interpretations. He was making more art than history. The way I see the book, Schaara was writing about how men react when they are trapped in a war and can't find a way out. The book and the film seem to be all about traps.

For instance, Hancock (who was not a big character in the book) and Armistead (who was) are not meant to be the actual men, but stand-ins for all the men in the war who had to fight someone close to them on the other side. Longstreet stands in for the men who had to carry out orders they did not agree with.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

It goes a little deeper than that. Shaara wrote The Killer Angels as a Greek or Shakespearean Tragedy. He found the tragic elements in history: friends going to war against each other, hubris (particularly Lee's) leading to one's downfall. You can even look upon the character of Kilrain as the Greek Chorus, only this would be the only Greek Tragedy where the Chorus is mortally wounded at the end of Act I and dies offstage at the beginning of Act II.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

As Hollywood recreations go, its decent. A things that come to mind though:

1. The portrayal of the Confederate leadership, apart from Longstreet, was very hacky in my opinion. Most of them were portrayed as loose cannons and lunatics, particularly Sheen with Lee. For instance General Garnett's scene with General Armistead was not really consistent with the real person. Garnett was portrayed as almost half nuts in this scene, most accounts I've read was he was no more optimistic about Pickett's charge succeeding than Longstreet.

2. I'm fairly confident Hancock's meeting with Chamberlain on the third day was fictional. Pretty sure Chamberlain and the twentieth Maine stayed on Big Round Top for the duration of the third day. Not only that, Chamberlain wouldn't have been reporting to Hancock , Chamberlain's regiment was in the fifth corps, Hancock was commander of the second corps. So if Chamberlain were reporting to a corps commander it would have been Sykes rather than Hancock, unless Chamberlain's corps was delegated directly to Hancock's control, which only General Meade could have done, and there is no historical indication this happened.

That's off the top of my head, there were likely a few other historical liberties taken here and there, but all in all it was fairly accurate.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?


1. The portrayal of the Confederate leadership, apart from Longstreet, was very hacky in my opinion. Most of them were portrayed as loose cannons and lunatics, particularly Sheen with Lee. For instance General Garnett's scene with General Armistead was not really consistent with the real person. Garnett was portrayed as almost half nuts in this scene, most accounts I've read was he was no more optimistic about Pickett's charge succeeding than Longstreet.


I thought there was an underlying tone of cynicism in Andrew Prine's last dialogue as Garnett with Armistead.


2. I'm fairly confident Hancock's meeting with Chamberlain on the third day was fictional. Pretty sure Chamberlain and the twentieth Maine stayed on Big Round Top for the duration of the third day. Not only that, Chamberlain wouldn't have been reporting to Hancock , Chamberlain's regiment was in the fifth corps, Hancock was commander of the second corps. So if Chamberlain were reporting to a corps commander it would have been Sykes rather than Hancock, unless Chamberlain's corps was delegated directly to Hancock's control, which only General Meade could have done, and there is no historical indication this happened.


This was one rare instance where the movie did take more dramatic license than the book. In the book, Chamberlain had the conversation with his own V Corps commanding general, George Sykes, so there was no dialogue referencing a book from antiquity about friends as close as brothers facing each other on the battlefield. (Also the 20th Maine was moved to the north slope of Little Round Top and still had a good but not as close view of Pickett's Charge.)

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Maxwell gave the film even a little more of the Shakespearean element. For instance, Armistead's "all Virginia was here" speech with Freemantle before Pickett's Charge is very like the "we happy few" speech in Henry V.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

I believe the biggest inaccuracy of Gettysburg is presenting the battle as the "apex" of the Civil War- i.e., that those three days in July 1863 truly determined the fate of America.

While there's no question that the battle of Gettysburg was significant, the best way to understand it is to look at how people viewed it at the time. It's pretty clear to me that the makers of this film want you to walk away with the idea that whoever wins the battle wins the war but do you think that Union victory was certain after this moment? Do you think Confederates really believed they would lose after Pickett's Charge? In the movie, Lee seems to think so. Before the second day's fighting, he confidently tells Longstreet "I want this to be the final battle." But in his last scene, you can hear the doubt and uncertainty in his voice ("Does it matter after all who wins?"). I don't believe Lee faced Meade in the Overland Campaign knowing Confederate defeat was inevitable.

http://chqdaily.com/2013/07/10/gallagher-gettysburg-vicksburg-are-flashy-but-clearly-not-civil-wars-turning-points/

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Gettysburg is seen, in fact, by many historians and non historians as the symbolic turning point in the war, not necessarily the actual one. Possibly because the CSA never had a major battle farther north. When did things really turn depends on how you look at it and who you ask. IMO, the Confederacy kept fighting and had a slim chance of winning all the way to late 1864, but the real turning point - looking at it with hindsight - was Antietam. After Antietam, there was no chance of European intervention, which the Confederacy had to have to succeed, and the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, which put the entire country - USA and CSA - on the road to total abolition of slavery. Fighting could continue, but after Antietam, the CSA's chances of success were very slim in the long run.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Hi mlbroberts (and great name, I'm a huge baseball fan, too),
I used to see Gettysburg as THE great turning point of the war; and coupled with Vicksburg, how could it not be? But the more I've learned about the Civil War, the more I've come to a different opinion.

First off, I think we have to define what "turning point" means. If it's the moment we, as historians, can determine if defeat or victory is certain, do the combatants who were involved at the time need to be aware of it? And According to historian Shelby Foote in PBS' The Civil War documentary, the turning point was at Fort Sumter because he said "the South never had a chance to win that war."

If the North really believed the Army of Northern Virginia was fatally wounded in July 1863, then it wasted a serious opportunity by not following up Lee and finishing him off after the battle. They tried to do that but it wasn't effective. The opportunity may have been missed due to combat fatigue and heat exhaustion, similar to the situation after First Bull Run in 1861 or after Antietam in 1862.

I think Gettysburg certainly proved Lee was not invincible. Certainly, being invaded was a real shocker for the North. Many people fled or hid in their basements until the shooting stopped. And no one knows for sure but perhaps as many as 250 Blacks, either free born or former slaves and living in Pennsylvania, were kidnapped by Lee's Confederates and sold into slavery.

As you may know, The Gettysburg Campaign is considered the war's second invasion of the North. However, it would not be the last. In Spring 1864, Lee divided his army again and sent General Jubal Early on a counteroffensive in the Shenandoah Valley. Early's successes in the Valley eventually led him to the third invasion of the North, including the Battles of Monocacy, near Frederick, MD; and Fort Stevens, in the District of Columbia, both in July 1864. The former was a Confederate victory but also a delaying action, which gave the North time to fortify the defenses of DC, including Fort Stevens.

I grew up just down the street from the remains of Fort Stevens. It's just a grass field now, though the earthworks can still be seen. It's a historic site managed by the National Park Service. It's surrounded by the neighborhood I grew up in. Washington City was a smaller place inside of the District of Columbia during the Civil War and in 1864, the fort was in the countryside. Anyway, the fort is about five miles from the Capitol and the White House. With an army larger than the size of Pickett's Charge, just imagine how Early and his Confederates must have felt about the possibility of doing what the British did 50 years before this- burning both of those buildings. Just imagine how they felt about the possibility of even kidnapping the President! In fact, both President and Mrs. Lincoln were present at the Battle of Fort Stevens (along with other cabinet members and congressmen) and Lincoln came under fire during the battle. But this moment would not be a Confederate victory. Just like after Gettysburg the year before, the retreating Confederates were not destroyed and lived to fight again.

Fort Stevens was not a battle of the size and scope of Gettysburg or Antietam. And I'm not sure why it's so little remembered by even some Civil War enthusiasts. But imagine for a minute if DC had been burned again and Lincoln had been captured or killed. Perhaps standing in view of the President is the real "High Water Mark" of the Confederacy.



Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

I do think Gettysburg was a turning point but the real blow to the confederacy besides that was Grant's victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi and winning control of the Mississippi River. After that the confederacy wasn't able to get the supplies to their armies as quickly. And of course the huge blow was when Grant was made Commander of the Union Army. Grant wasn't like the other Generals before him. He wouldn't back down from a fight. Had Grant been in charge at Gettysburg he would've attacked Lee's army as they fled Gettysburg.

I own a Civil War documentary that covers all the major battles between Lee's army and the Union. It says by Summer of 1864, Lee's army was starving, naked, and didn't even have shoes so their feet were all bruised and bleeding. It was around this time that Sherman destroyed every town and city in the South in what's called his March to the Sea.

It says by the time Appomattox happened Lee only had 25,000 men. And unlike the North they didn't have a big enough population to replace anyone who died.

Green Goblin is great!

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Rather than rely on the documentary, the best way to learn what condition Confederate soldiers were in by 1864-65 is to look at original photographs.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-prisoners-aot-in-chicago.88106/

See figure 15 in this link:

http://military-historians.org/company/journal/confederate/confederate-2.htm

This link contains an image of Confederate dead (disturbing image warning) at Spotsylvania May 1864.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/32900/32934v.jpg

Confederate POWs after Five Forks, April 1865.
http://s238.photobucket.com/user/olemisscub/media/forks1.jpg.html

Surrendered/paroled Confederates by the Washington Equestrian Monument, Richmond, April 14, 1865. Lincoln would be assassinated later that day.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/warfare-and-logistics/va-at-war/richmond-is-taken/washington-monument-739x600.jpg

Of course this is not everyone but I don't see many naked and shoeless men in these pictures.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Some of those pictures are so blurry you can't even tell if anybody's bare foot or has shoes.

Green Goblin is great!

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Sorry to hear you had trouble seeing them but again, the point is, check actual photographs and other primary sources rather than just rely on what someone says in a documentary. You may also want to get a copy of Cadet Gray and Butternut Brown by Tom Arliskas.

http://www.amazon.com/Cadet-Gray-Butternut-Brown-Confederate/dp/1577471229/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430904079&sr=1-1&keywords=cadet+gray+and+butternut+brown

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

bryanac625,
Your lengthy and detailed post is filled with historical half-trues and hindsight. Many at the time believed the colonists had no chance of beating the most powerful Empire in the world in the 1770's, yet they did. It was only in retrospect that it became obvious that the south didn't stand a chance. Many believed they did, if they could hold off the union earn foreign recognition.
Second, you comment about the Army of Northern Virginia being fatally wounded in July of 1863. I read numerous books about the Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg, but have never read anyone stating that the AoNV was anything but a superb fighting force. The Army had roughly 75,000 troops (infantry, cavalry, and artillery). It's fighting spirit were as high as it could be, coming off the fantastic victory at Chancellorsville. Yes, Jackson was dead, but by now, there was an underlying belief in Lee and that he would lead them to ultimate victory. They may have been short of supplies, but they always were and the Pennsylvania countryside help furnish them much food.
As for Fort Stevens, it's not remembered because it was nothing more than a minor skirmish. The rebels had no chance at taking Washington DC. By this time in 1864, Washington was the most fortified city in the world, surrounded by up to 30 forts and fortifications. Grant had sent reinforcements north, but they were not needed.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Hi jswhalen1,
You missed the point of my "lengthy and detailed" post. I agree with you about the strength of the ANV, although Chancellorsville was before Gettysburg. Anyway, I didn't say anywhere that I believed the ANV was fatally wounded after Gettysburg. I asked if the North in 1863 believed that, hence did they see the battle as the "turning point" so many today see it as. And I don't see anything in the post I wrote that suggests anywhere that I personally think Lee had no chance to win after Gettysburg. He still had the trust and confidence of the Confederate government, as he was left in command until the end of the war. And clearly, his army was still very strong in the spring and summer of 1864 and did a lot of damage to the AOtP during the Overland Campaign and at Petersburg. As I said, I USED TO believe Gettysburg was the turning point. But I don't subscribe to "Appomattox Syndrome" anymore.

Washington City, DC was defended by 68 forts and batteries during the war, not 30. And I said Fort Stevens wasn't a battle on the scale of Antietam or Gettysburg. But it was still a strike on the Capital that sent people into panic. The whole point of the invasion was to take the pressure of Richmond, which it did. Lincoln and Grant sure thought sending soldiers north was necessary. Did the Yankees know how many soldiers Early had? He actually won the race to DC but his soldiers were exhausted, no surprise in July. Before Wright's VI Corps arrived, the call went out for anyone- local militia, government clerks and even soldiers in the hospitals- to meet the Confederates. I agree that Early's chances were slim. But minor skirmish or not, being five miles from the Capitol and the White House was no small thing. And if Lincoln had been killed at Fort Stevens, just imagine the impact.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

I misread you point on the AoNV.

As for Fort Stevens, Lincoln had to be ordered to take cover because he was watching the battle and bullets and cannon explosions were very close. Early, in fact, lost the race to Washington DC when he won the Battle of Monocacy, delaying his march to Washington DC by a day.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?


As for Fort Stevens, Lincoln had to be ordered to take cover because he was watching the battle and bullets and cannon explosions were very close. Early, in fact, lost the race to Washington DC when he won the Battle of Monocacy, delaying his march to Washington DC by a day.


That's true, Monocacy was his victory but it held him up on getting to DC. Still, after Monocacy, he beat Wright's VI Corps to the scene but by the time he got there his men didn't have much left.

You're right, Lincoln did climb atop the parapet and expose himself to enemy fire. Personally, I think he did this because he had been ridiculed in the press as a coward for arriving in Washington City in 1861 wearing a cloak (but it was winter). 1864 was an election year and maybe he was concerned about his image. And perhaps after so many soldiers had died, he felt he owed it to someone to stand before the enemy, even if for a moment. Anyway, Surgeon Cornelius C. V. Crawford of the 102nd Pennsylvania was standing next to Lincoln and was hit in the leg by a sharpshooter and wounded. After Crawford's wounding, the President came down.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/LincolnUnderFireatFortStevensMarker.jpg

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Lol, it wasn't too good for the president's ego to have a private yell at him, "get down you damn fool!" either. That was Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who yelled at him, so it's not some apocryphal story.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

Yes, there are plenty of minor nitpicks, but, by and large, you will be hard-pressed to find another historical drama that puts as much effort into at least trying to get the facts right.

As for the discussion of Gettysburg as the "turning point" of the Civil War, I would say that, in most ways, it is overblown. The true turning point was the Fall of 1862. At that point, not only were Confederate armies advancing into Northern Territory in both the East and the West, but the Brits were actually thinking about recognizing the Confederacy (which in turn would have led to the French, who were only waiting on the Brits, to recognize as well). That would have led to the British navy breaking up the Union blockade and, perhaps, even war between the Union and the Brits. Fortunately, Lee's invasion was turned back at Antietam, which cooled the Brits ardor quite a bit. Then, in the aftermath of the battle, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which cooled the Brits ardor even more (it would have been nearly impossible politically for the Brits to fight "on the side of slavery"). Soon after that, the Confederate invasion of Eastern Kentucky also collapsed.

I will say this about Gettysburg as a turning, it was probably the last time in the war where the Confederacy could even semi-realistically hope to win the war on the battlefield. Yes, it would have been a ridiculous long shot, but, if you try hard enough and suspend disbelief in large enough quantity, you can see a path to it happening: On the second day, Longstreet's attack manages to unhinge the Union line and the Union army is destroyed; after taking tens of thousands of prisoners and large stores of ammo, Lee quickly marches on Washington before Grant or any other Union troops can make it there and assist in its defense; he overwhelms the defenses of Washington and essentially takes Lincoln hostage; At the same time, the draft riots in New York City spread throughout the Union because, among other things, there are insufficient organized Union troops near enough to assist in putting them down; Between civil unrest, unwillingness of additional men to enlist (or submit to the draft) and Washington occupied, the Union cause collapses and they sue for peace on the basis of separation.

Once Pickett's charge collapsed, the Confederacy no longer had a realistic hope of winning a battle (or series of battles) that could "win the war" by themselves. Sure, there was always potential for a political victory brought about indirectly by the actions on the battlefield. For example, if they could have held Sherman out of Atlanta for a few more months, perhaps, sufficient number of Americans would have voted for McClellan who ran on a peace platform in the election of 1864. And, who knows, maybe if Early actually makes it into the streets of Washington and, say, burns down the Capitol in 1864 or if Hood destroys Schofield's Army at Spring Hill in November 1864 and then takes Nashville a week later before raiding into Kentucky, maybe war weariness takes hold in the north or draft riots start up again and maybe that, in turn, gives the Brits some impetus to finally join in on the Confederate side. The thing is that all of these were not only comically unlikely but they would required a series of outside forces (the Brits, the American voters, draft rioters) over which the Confederates had no direct control to enter the equation.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

The question I had was what could Lee/Longstreet/Pickett have done differently that would have allowed Pickett's Charge to succeed, i.e., actually overrun the center of the Union forces and split the Union army? Or did Hancock have sufficient reserves that even if the charge had initially succeeded the reserve would have been able to push it back.

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

This is mostly just from watching the movie but it seems to me Lee thought he could take out most of the union troops with his canons from miles away. Then have his own men charge up the hilly ground towards what was left of the union and take them out. It sounds like a pretty ludicrous plan and Lee should've listened to Longstreet.

Green Goblin is great!

Re: How Historically Accurate is 'Gettysburg' [1993]?

I agree in general, but would quibble on one detail. I don't think Lee thought he could take out most of the Union troops with his canon, but that he could take out or at least push out of place most or all of the Union artillery with his own canon. Once that was done he trusted he could get most of his men to the wall and they would beat the Union troops in close fighting, or even better, the Union troops would run and Stuart would get them as they came his direction.
Top