Forum
You have 0 bookmarked item(s)
Viewing Topic "Gettysburg of the west"
| Topic Description | |
|---|---|
| Posted by: MrHistory 2 |
Glorieta Pass fought in March 1862 is called the Gettysburg of the west and part of the Confederate invasion of New Mexico. I hope it gets the coverage it deserves!!
Posted on:
16/03/2013 17:46:00
|
| Post | |
|---|---|
|
Posted by: CMB Total Posts: 10 Joined Date: Monday, 15 March 2010 |
Also, Glorieta Pass shouldn't even be considered until after the publication of books on the Overland Campaign (1864), Stones River (1862), and Chattanooga (1863). And of course, Atlanta (1864)!
Posted on:
09/05/2013 21:24:00
|
|
Posted by: CMB Total Posts: 10 Joined Date: Monday, 15 March 2010 |
I like reading about the Trans-Mississippi Western campaigns of the Civil War. But I always felt "Gettysburg of the West" was a disservice to both Glorieta Pass and Gettysburg. Frankly, Wilson's Creek had more influence on the outcome of the war than the events in New Mexico. So let me make a counter offer: Wilson's Creek 1861: The Struggle for Missouri.
Posted on:
09/05/2013 21:20:00
|
|
Posted by: GI Gene Total Posts: 83 Joined Date: Saturday, 7 February 2009 |
I think a Campaign title about the entire 1862 New Mexico campaign covering the battles of Valverde, Glorieta Pass, and Picacho Peak (technically a small skirmish) would sell well.
Posted on:
17/03/2013 17:36:00
|
|
Posted by: formwiz Total Posts: 4 Joined Date: Sunday, 11 November 2012 |
The New Mexico campaign would be an interesting title, but you'd probably have to include all the fighting over 2 years (Valverde, etc) to have enough material. But, hey, you've got a series of campaigns that includes Kit Carson and John Chivington (there's an alpha and omega for you), so it does have something to offer.
Posted on:
16/03/2013 22:57:00
|
|
Posted by: Railok Total Posts: 19 Joined Date: Monday, 8 October 2012 |
If you had read your Wikipedia page just a little bit closer, you would have noticed that it is indeed dubbed that but only by some authors and, Wikipedia includes a great quote, that the term "serves the novelist better than the historian". It doesn't even specify why it was dubbed this way and it appears to pale in comparison to other important battles of the western theatre. Tell me, mrHistory - why exactly do you think it deserves coverage?
Posted on:
16/03/2013 18:31:00
|