Did friendly fire rob the Confederacy of its best chance of victory?

Jackson
General ‘Stonewall’ Jackson’s so called ‘Chancellorsville’ portrait, taken less than two weeks before his mortal wounding at the Battle of Chancellorsville.

Some one hundred and fifty three years ago, on 2 May 1863, one of the most well known friendly fire incidents in history took place.  Its consequences have caused debate and discussion ever since and it is often argued that it had a profound impact on the outcome of the American Civil War.  The incident was the shooting of Confederate commander, Lieutenant General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson by Confederate troops during the Battle of Chancellorsville.

On 27 April 1863 Union troops under Joseph Hooker began crossing the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers above the town of Fredericksburg, where General Robert E. Lee and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia had been encamped since the latter part of 1862. Hooker concentrated his forces in the area of Chancellorsville, and Lee decided he needed to act. Leaving a small force in Fredericksburg he marched the rest of his Army west to meet Hooker.  As Lee approached, Hooker entrenched his force around Chancellorsville.  On finding out about the Union defensive position, Lee and Jackson came up with a daring and aggressive plan.

At 0730hrs on 2 May 1863 Jackson set off on one of the boldest flanking actions in military history.  He would take with him two thirds of the Confederate Army, an Army that only numbered some 43,000 compared to the Union Army of about 70,000, leaving Lee to pin the Union Army with the remaining third.  He would then lead this force on a twelve mile march that would, at 1530hrs that day, place the head of the column in battle positions on the right flank of the Union lines.

It would take almost two more hours before enough of the force was in place and ready to launch its attack.  The fighting was ferocious and confused with the two armies fighting in very close wooded terrain with thick undergrowth that slowed down the attack.  Whilst the assault was successful, the terrain and the added friction of dealing with increasing numbers of Union prisoners, who had to be chaperoned to the rear, began slowing things down.  By about 2030hrs darkness was falling over the battlefield and the attack was petering out.  Jackson ordered a halt to reorganise and await AP Hill’s division, which was still marching.  But assessing the situation, Jackson decided he needed to keep the momentum and that this would only be a pause because if he stopped the attack at this point he would be ceding the advantage to the Union forces. In order to understand what was in front of his position Jackson took a small group of his staff forward to conduct a reconnaissance.

1024px-Chancellorsville_May2
Jackson’s Flank March at the Battle of Chancellorsville, 2 May 1863, and showing where Jackson was wounded.  Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com

Riding out from the main Confederate position through the lines of the 18th North Carolina Infantry, the small party proceeded two hundred yards further stopping just behind a picket line that had been deployed ahead of the main Confederate line.  Here they listened for the Union forces, themselves barely a quarter of a mile away. In the distance Jackson could hear the sound of axes felling trees and shovels scraping the earth. The Union troops were putting up defensive positions, so he realised he would have to act quickly, and turned the party around to return to the Confederate lines.

At much the same time, a little further south, some Union troops had blundered into the Confederate line and been captured.  This had the effect of making the Confederates worried that other Union troops were approaching their lines.  As a result the men in the frontline began to get jumpy.  One Confederate soldier fired at a shadow and this in turn caused another to do likewise, and in seconds a wave of fire erupted from the Confederate position rolling northwards up the line just as Jackson and his reconnaissance party approached.

A volley of shots ripped into Jackson’s party.  Jackson himself was hit three times, once in the right hand and twice in his left arm.  One of his staff, his brother-in-law Joseph Morrison, called out for the troops to stop firing as they were shooting at their own men.  However, the 18th North Carolina were a seasoned unit and had heard that Union troops used such ruses, so continued to fire!  When they eventually did stop firing one member of the party was dead, and Jackson and another were both seriously wounded.  Members of his staff helped him from his horse and carried him to the rear where he was placed on a litter and evacuated.  The rearward journey itself was traumatic as he was thrown from the litter at least once, causing further injury!

the-stonewall-jackson-memorial
The Stonewall Jackson Memorial at Chancellorsville.  Dedicated in 1888, it commemorates Jackson’s wounding ©Civil War Trust

He was eventually taken to his doctor and the following day his left arm was amputated. For a few days it looked as though he would recover but then caught pneumonia, and on 10 May 1863 he died.  His body was taken to his hometown of Lexington, Virginia where his funeral was conducted and he was buried in the Presbyterian Cemetery, now known as the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Cemetery.

The impact of the loss of Jackson was immediate.  The day after he died, Lee issued the following General Order:

“Headquarters, Army of Northern Virginia,

11 May 1863

General Order No 61

With deep grief the commanding general announces to the army the death of Lieutenant-General T. J. Jackson, who expired on the 10th instant, at quarter past three P. M. The daring, skill & energy of this great & good soldier, by the decree of an all-wise Providence, are now lost to us. But while we mourn his death, we feel that his spirit still lives, & will inspire the whole army with his indomitable courage & unshaken confidence in God, as our hope & strength. Let his name be a watchword to his Corps, who have followed him to victory on so many fields. Let officers & soldiers emulate his invincible determination to do everything in the defense of our beloved Country.

R. E.  Lee

General”

His loss was both personal and professional to Lee.  Over the ten months they had worked together they had developed a personal and professional relationship that was very close and very effective.  Each knew how the other thought and behaved, and each trusted the other to play their respective parts on the prosecution of Confederate strategy.  They were exemplary exponents of what today is known as Mission Command.  The current US Army Mission Command Doctrine (ADRP 6-0 Mission Command) states:

“Mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations.”

What does this mean? Well in means trusting a subordinate to act under their own initiative to carry out an order and meet the intent the commander wants delivered.  This is exactly how Jackson and Lee operated.  In an age before radio, telephone and instantaneous communication this meant Lee giving some fairly broad brush orders, but with a clear outcome in mind.  This in turn allowed Jackson to be out of contact, sometimes for weeks at a time, but with Lee always confident that he would deliver, and by and large he did. The same US Army manual lists the principles that underpin Mission Command, the top two of which are:

– Build cohesive teams through mutual trust.
– Create shared understanding.

Even from a quick examination of the Lee/Jackson relationship it is clear that these principles ran through their relationship, like letters through a stick of rock. They trusted each other implicitly and had a clear shared understanding, resulting in Jackson knowing exactly what was needed, even as the tactical circumstances changed, without seeking additional orders from Lee.

So with the death of Jackson, Lee had lost a key lieutenant right at the time when he needed one the most.  Less than two months later his Army was engaged in the biggest battle of the American Civil War, Gettysburg, where it became clear that other subordinates were less able to act within a Mission Command framework and deliver Lee’s intent. For example on the first day of the battle, Richard Ewell commanding one of Lee’s three corps, was sent a discretionary order by Lee to take Cemetery Hill “if practicable.”  Many historians have postulated that had Jackson been the corps commander at that point he would undoubtedly have found it “practicable” and would have taken the initiative.  Its highly likely that such an action could have finished Gettysburg with a Confederate victory by the end of that first day of the battle.  In the same vein the following day Lee struggled with another Corps commander, Lieutenant General James Longstreet, whose somewhat sluggish deployment probably lost Lee the initiative he sought that day.  In short neither Ewell nor Longstreet, or for that matter Lee’s other subordinates of that period, were Jackson and they did not act with the intuition Lee had come to expect.

It is certainly possible that Jackson’s presence at Gettysburg, and later battles, could have brought about Confederate victories. The American military historian James I. Robertson, in his comprehensive biography of Jackson, sums up the impact of his loss very well:

“Jackson’s passing marked a line of demarcation in the annals of the Army of Northern Virginia.  In the ten months that Lee and Jackson were together, delegation of authority had been so lenient – orders permitting a wide latitude in execution so regular – as to create one of history’s great military partnerships.  Thereafter, starting at Gettysburg, the system failed Lee.  He had no executive officer of first-rate ability.  He tried to do it all himself.  It did not work.” (Stonewall Jackson, James I. Robertson, Macmillan, 1997)

Jackson and Lee
‘Tactics and Strategy’, Jackson and Lee at Chancellorsville, by Mort Kunstler. ©www.mortkunstler.com

Perhaps the best comment on the impact of the loss of Jackson comes from Lee himself who, on hearing of the amputation of Jackson’s arm, is reported to have said:

“Give General Jackson my affectionate regards, and say to him: he has lost his left arm but I my right.”

The implications of this statement are very clear.  Lee as the commander relied on Jackson.  As commander and subordinate they were ‘in each others minds’.  His loss deprived Lee of someone he could trust implicitly at a crucial time for the Confederacy, with the Confederate’s armies on the ascendancy. Had Jackson not been killed there is every indication that this duo could have led the Army of Northern Virginia to continued military success through Gettysburg and beyond, and perhaps even victory in the War.

The battle that began the shaping of modern Europe

Danish 8th Brigade at the Battle of Dybbøl 1864 V2
The Danish 8th Brigade about to charge at the Battle of Dybbøl 18 April 1864 by Vilhelm Rosenstand

One hundred and fifty two years ago this week a battle was fought that brought to an end a month-long siege, and ultimately led to the end of a short and brutal war, the consequences of which were to have a profound impact on the future of Europe.  Indeed it could be argued that consequences of this little war were still being felt a hundred years later at the height of the Cold War.  The war in question was the Second Schleswig War (or Danish-Prussian War) of 1864, and the siege that of Dybbøl (2 – 18 April 1864).

I only became aware of this little war and the siege of Dybbøl a couple of years ago when I was researching the Austro-Prussian War and the Battle of Koniggratz (3 July 1866) ahead of a visit to the Czech Republic. I read Quintin Barry’s excellent book The Road to Koniggratz: Helmuth Von Moltke and the Austro-Prussian War 1866 in which he covers both the Second Schleswig War and the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 in great detail. For a variety of reasons including the comparisons between these wars and my favourite period of military history, the American Civil War, I delved deeper and the more I looked the more I was intrigued.

The Second Schleswig War was the first of the three wars of German Unification, the others being the Austro-Prussian (or Seven Weeks War) of 1866 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. These together led to the formation of a strong and unified Germany in 1871.  A Germany which would then arguably become the central and dominant force in the shaping of modern Europe.

When the Second Schleswig War began in late 1863 to many it was just the latest episode in an ongoing issue known as the ‘Schleswig Holstein Question’. In his 1921 book Queen Victoria the British biographer Lytton Strachey referred to the situation as:

“…the dreadful Schleswig-Holstein question—the most complex in the whole diplomatic history of Europe…”

Whilst the great British statesman Lord Palmerston is alleged to have said:

“The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it.”

Jutland_Peninsula_map
The Jutland Peninsula showing the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, the Danevirke and Dybbøl. – commons.wikipedia.org

The spark for this episode came just after the accession of King Christian IX to the throne of Denmark and, as was custom, his simultaneously becoming Duke of Schleswig and Holstein. Shortly after acceding to the throne he was persuaded by the Danish Parliament to sign a new Danish constitution (the so called November Constitution) that stated that the Duchy of Schleswig was part of Denmark.  This put Denmark squarely in conflict with the German Confederation who saw this as a breach of the London Protocol of 1852 that decreed that the Kingdom of Denmark and the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein would remain separate entities. Despite diplomatic efforts to reverse the constitutional changes no progress was made and on the instructions of Prussian Minister President, Otto von Bismarck, a combined Prussian and Austrian force crossed the border into Schleswig on 1 February 1864 with the intent of occupying the duchy and restoring its separation from Denmark.

Ahead of the invasion the Danish Army had taken up defensive positions along an ancient earthwork called the Danevirke.

Danevirke
A period view of the Danevirke drawn in 1863 – ©Rigsarkivet – Danish National Archives

But this position was untenable and therefore on 5 February 1864, just before they were about to be outflanked by the German forces, the Danes withdraw to new positions further north.  The army split into two smaller forces with one deploying to the northern end of the Jutland, whilst the other was ordered east to occupy the defensive forts on the peninsula opposite Sønderborg in the area of Dybbøl. The withdrawal was a miserable affair conducted through February blizzards, but in four days the larger part of the Danish Army was in its new defensive line at Dybbøl.

09_ny_strategi
The Danish withdrawal from the Danevirke. ©1864.dk

It is worth highlighting at this point that the German Confederation Forces had a significant technological advantage.  The Prussian forces, but not the Austrians, had adopted the next generation of rifle.  The Dreyse needle gun, one of the first breech loading bolt-action rifles to be used in combat, was introduced to the Prussian Army from 1848. The rifle allowed a soldier to fire five or more shots a minute from the prone position and not have to stand up to reload, therefore reducing the exposure to enemy fire.  In contrast the Danes were armed with muzzle-loading rifle that had to be reloaded in a vulnerable standing position and could probably only manage two shots a minute.  The Prussian were also superior to the Danes in artillery.  The Danes used old smooth bore cannon, whilst the Prussians had rifled artillery capable of much greater range.  

On arriving in the Dybbøl positions, work was immediately undertaken to reinforce the existing fortifications which, as can be seen from the map below, were extensive and effectively sealed off the peninsula opposite Sønderborg.  Fortunately for the Danes their surprise withdrawal had caught the Prussians off-guard and their follow up was somewhat tardy. But by mid-March the Prussians had decided that the Dybbøl position was to be their main effort and siege artillery was moved forward to start the bombardment of the Danish positions. At the same time they started to invest the position by digging their own entrenchments.  At the end of March an ambitious amphibious operation was planned and prepared, with the aim of taking the Danish fortifications from the rear, but this was called off at the last moment due to storms. Instead at the start of April the Prussians began to use their superiority in artillery to bombard the Danish positions, and at the same time began to dig forward from their own lines towards the Danish forts.

Dybbol Large
The Battle of Dybbøl 18 April 1864 ©Rigsarkivet – Danish National Archives

This parallel set of activities continued for over two weeks until the Prussian trenches were as close as possible to the Danish lines and the Danish troops had been worn down by an almost constant bombardment, during which it is estimated that about 65,000 shells were fired at the fortifications.  On 16 April 1864 the Prussians had almost 40,000 troops in the lines opposite the Danish positions and 10,000 were readied to be the first assault wave of an attack scheduled for 18 April.

At about 4am on 18 April 1864 a massive and intense bombardment of the Danish forts was launched which lasted for six hours.  Then at 10am the bombardment ceased and assault troops who had been moved forward t0 the Prussian front line trenches charged towards the Danish lines, in an attack that presaged the First World War some fifty years later.

The Prussians outnumbered the Danish troops in the frontline trenches and redoubts by two to one, and by 10.22am the forts were captured.  British Special Correspondent Edward Dicey who was covering the war for the Daily Telegraph was in a position to watch the Prussians force the Danes out of the fortifications and in his book on the war he reported:

‘I took my post of observation on a ridge commanding a full view of Dybbøl Hill. The facts that I have mentioned were not known to me then. All I could tell was that things were going badly for the besieged. The brow of the hill was lined with dark masses of troops too close and too serried to belong to the Danes. With my fieldglass I could see the Prussian flag waving gaily from the heights; and it was clear, from the crowds of soldiers standing on the bastions of Fort No. 4, that there, at least, the fighting had ceased. Along the broad, bare, shelter less roads, leading from the brow of the hill to the bridges, dark lines of infantry were retreating hastily, and their columns were raked constantly by shells thrown from the field batteries, which the Prussians were bringing up with all speed to the line of Dybbøl . It looked to me, standing there, as if their own guns had been turned against the Danes, but this I believe was not the case, as very few of those guns were left in a state to fire at all, and those few were spiked before the Prussians could enter. Meanwhile, the scene itself, apart from the interest of the struggle, had about it a strange beauty.’ [Edward Dicey, The Schleswig Holstein War, London, 1864]

Sturm_auf_die_Düppeler_Schanze_1864
A German wood cut illustration of Prussian troops storming the fortifications at Dybbøl.

In a vain attempt to retake the position the Danish reserve, the 8th Brigade, was launched in a counter attack at about 10.30am but this was to no avail and a full scale Danish retreat ensued.  The demoralised Danes streamed east to bridges over the Alsen Sound and back into Sønderborg.  At the end of this short and sharp battle the Prussian casualties amounted to 257 killed and about 950 wounded, whilst Danish casualties were 671 dead, 987 wounded and 3,131 prisoners.  This was a decisive victory for the Austro-Prussian forces.  

The war continued on until July 1864 during which time the Prussians and Austrians eventually gained control over the whole of the Jutland peninsula.  At the same time a peace conference was convened in London and managed to broker a short-lived ceasefire in May 1864. Ultimately once the German Confederation troops occupied all of Jutland the Danes were forced to come back to the negotiating table.  The final outcome of the war was a clear victory for the combined armies of Prussia and Austria. The prize for the two countries was control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein which was agreed in the Treaty of Vienna, signed on 30 October 1864.

The details of how this war led inexorably to the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 is a story for another day.  Suffice to say that the occupation of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein by Prussian and Austrian forces was not a comfortable arrangement and enabled the arch manipulator, Bismarck, to engineer the second of the Wars of German Unification, and put in place the next step in the unification process.

For many years this little battle at Dybbøl, and indeed this small war, had been largely overlooked in the military history of Europe.  However, I suspect that the publication in 2015 of an English translation of Tom Buk-Swienty’s excellent book ‘1864: The forgotten war that shaped modern Europe‘ has gone some way renew interest in the subject. In addition the associated, and well produced, 2014 television series ‘1864’, which tells the story of the war through the eyes of some of its participants has also helped to make the story accessible to a wider audience.  I thoroughly recommend both the book and the series, and a trailer for this series is included below.

Today the forts are preserved and a museum has been built in one to tell the story of the  war and its battles.  I have to admit that I have not yet been able to visit but hope to do so at some point.  If there are any readers who have, perhaps you would like to comment below.

Düppeler_schanze_center
Dybbøl Museum and Memorial – ©Arne List

The Siege of Dybbøl, and the final battle to take it, are small in scale when compared to many other battles that dominate the military history of Europe.  However, as the crucial point in the Second Schleswig War, a war which started the process of German Unification and inexorably led to Germany playing a central position in the 20th Century’s bloody history, it deserves to be better known than it is.

The Men Who Made the Cemeteries

GRU Cpl
A Corporal from a Graves Registration Unit with an exhumed body. ©Jeremy Gordon-Smith, via IWM

I am sure that for anyone who has visited the battlefields of the First World War, in particular those of the Western Front in France and Belgium, one of the most vivid memories will be the war cemeteries.  These are looked after and maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and serve as a permanent and powerful reminder of the death and suffering that the Great War brought. But I suspect that fewer visitors really think about how the cemeteries came about and how they were developed.

The story starts soon after the start of the First World War and, in large part, is down to the work of one man, Fabian Ware.  He arrived in France in September 1914, too old to serve in the Army, instead he commanded a mobile Red Cross unit.  He soon identified that there was no official process for documenting or marking the location of the graves of those who had been killed.  To fill this void he and his mobile unit undertook the task.  Ware’s work was quickly given official recognition and the unit was transferred to the British Army as the Graves Registration Commission in 1915.  As the work of grave registration became known to the public at home, the Commission began receiving letters and requests from relatives for photographs of graves, which it duly began to provide.  As a result, in 1916, the Graves Registration Commission was renamed the Directorate of Graves Registration and Enquiries. Its remit was also extended beyond the Western Front and into other theatres of war including Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia.  As the war progressed Ware and others became concerned about the future of the graves after the war, which led to the formation of the Imperial War Graves Commission in 1917 (updated to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 1960s).

The work continued through to the end of the war and on into the 1920s with the recovery of bodies, concentration of some of the smaller cemeteries into larger ones and the building of large permanent memorials such as the ones at Thiepval on the Somme and the Menin Gate in Ypres.

Graves Resistration Unit
A Graves Registration Unit in France or Belgium, probably after the end of the First World War ©Jeremy Gordon-Smith, via the IWM

This work was crucial in helping the grieving process for those hundreds of thousands of families who had lost loved ones.  Some years ago I came across a grave in Tyne Cot Cemetery in the Ypres Salient.  Unlike so many in that cemetery, this one had a name on it, Private James Weir, 31st Battalion, Australian Infantry, AIF.  It also had an intriguing epitaph ‘The Lord Gave And The Lord Hath Taken Away’.  So out of interest I decided to trace Private Weir and to see if I could find out more about him.  In doing so I uncovered a tragic tale, but one that probably mirrored many thousands more.

Private Weir was killed on 27 September 1917, during the bloody Third Battle of Ypres, and was buried in a battlefield cemetery somewhere in the area of Polygon Wood. However, the grave appears to have been lost and even as late as the summer of 1921 the family, in Australia, were writing to the authorities to find to where the grave was. Eventually the grave was located, the body exhumed and concentrated with many others in Tyne Cot Cemetery, and in October 1921 the family were sent photographs of the grave. Nonetheless it is hard in these days of instant communication and rapid travel to imagine the anguish his family went through for four years, not knowing where he was buried.

Weir Grave Register
The Graves Registration Unit’s notification that Private James Weir’s body had been exhumed and reburied in Tyne Cot Cemetery. ©National Archives of Australia.

This week I came across Lincolnshire resident and author Tim Atkinson who is writing a book about the men who stayed behind after the Armistice as part of the Graves Registration Units to search for and recover bodies on the battlefields. Entitled ‘The Glorious Dead‘ the marketing blurb for the book states the following:

‘The book promises to reveal what happened when the Great War ended and the guns fell silent, to tell the story of the battlefield clearances and creation of iconic war cemeteries and to explain why so many men who served – and survived – remained in Flanders amid the ruins of the war they’d fought.

The story follows one of these men – Jack Patterson – as he busies himself doing the Empire’s dirty work. Jack seems not to mind getting his hands dirty, digging graves, living among the death of devastation of the war he and others have just fought. But there’s a secret keeping Jack in Flanders – a secret that only emerges when a visitor to the cemeteries comes searching…. for Jack’s own grave!’

Intrigued by Tim’s (TA) approach I (HM) caught up with him and we had a chat.

HM:  “Tell me a bit about yourself.”

TA:  “I was a teacher for twenty years and then decided to give up full-time work to look after my youngest child, and at the same time start writing,  Since doing so I have had a number  of books published, and my latest venture is ‘The Glorious Dead’.”

HM: “I have read the blurb, but tell me more about the book.” 

TA:  “Well it’s been five years in the making and is the story of Jack Patterson and his comrades who stay behind on the Western Front after the end of the First World War to complete the harrowing and unpleasant task of recovering bodies from the battlefields for burial. The story covers the important years just after the end of the Great War when thousands of troops remained behind to complete this task. It also touches on those who eventually married local girls and became part of Anglo-Belgium and Anglo-French communities looking after the cemeteries through the inter-war period.”  

HM: “Why did you choose to address this subject through the medium of historical fiction rather than a factual narrative?”  

TA:  “The book is principally about the people involved with this undertaking rather than the process.  There are a number of good non-fiction books already published on the subject, including Philip Longworth’s The Unending Vigil and David Crane’s Empires of the Dead.  And I’m not an historian so didn’t want to cover the same ground less-well.  What I wanted to do was to understand the psychology of these men.  To understand what motivated them to stay behind and complete this task.  In the case of my chief protagonist there is a personal reason and a mystery about him that eventually comes to light but I won’t spoil the story. But the historical fiction approach gave me more scope to do this.”

Serre No3
Serre Road Cemetery Number 3, a battlefield cemetery on the Somme, on an atmospherically overcast day.

HM: “These cemeteries always have a profound effect on people visiting them.  Why do you think that is?”     

TA:  “From Tyne Cot, the largest cemetery, to the smallest battlefield cemetery on the Somme their design is consistent and perfect.  This was an inspired period, from the work of Fabian Ware to establish the Imperial War Graves Commission through to that of the architects such as Blomfield and Lutyens to establish the monuments.  I have been to many of the cemeteries on the Western Front and standing in them I think the overriding impression is of the simplicity of the design and the serenity of the places.  And I think it is this contrast with the horror of the battlefields that really has an impact on people.”

HM: “Your book is being published through Unbound. Why have you chosen this route?”

TA: “Well first it is a very successful model which has had some notable successes.  The one that immediately springs to mind is Philip Kingsnorth’s The Wake, which made it on to the Man Booker long list in 2014.  Secondly I enjoy the interaction with potential readers that this form of publishing allows.  Once subscribers have pledged their support they are given access to ‘the Shed’ an interactive area where they can receive updates from the author and leave comments and thoughts. As a writer it is unusual to connect with readers while engaged in the process of writing.  Unbound offers a great opportunity to open a dialogue with your readers and allow them to help shape your book.”

HM: “Tim, thank you for taking the time to talk with me today.  Good luck with completing the book and your quest for support.”      

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries of the Western Front, and elsewhere in the world, are an iconic and important part of the Remembrance of all wars that have involved military and civilian personnel from across the Commonwealth since 1914.  As we move through the Centenary commemorations of the First World War their power to connect us with that War does not seem to diminish, indeed in many respects they are even more powerful today than they ever have been.

Tyne Cot
Tyne Cot Cemetery today.

What I hope I have done in this blog post, and what Tim Atkinson is attempting to do in his book, is to highlight the effort made to ensure the memory and sacrifice of those who died in the First World War was not forgotten.  Initially this was through the efforts of Fabian Ware to institutionalise the burial and commemoration of the dead.  Then later through the physically hard and traumatic work of men, like Tim’s character Jack, to scour the battlefields searching for bodies, and hopefully help to close a chapter for many families such as those of Private James Weir.  As we remember the dead and the wounded throughout the Centenary of the First World War, we should also take our hats off to the men who completed the grisly, but very important, task of making the cemeteries.


You can subscribe to Tim Atkinson’s book ‘The Glorious Dead’ at https://unbound.co.uk/books/the-glorious-dead

 

Rediscovering Richard III

Statue
This iconic statue of Richard III originally stood in the Castle Gardens in Leicester. It was commissioned in 1980 by the Richard III Society, but was moved in 2014 to stand in front of the Richard III Visitor Centre.

As someone who works in heritage but also loves to visit and enjoy it, my time off often has the feel of a busman’s holiday. This Easter was no exception.  As well as visiting a local museum and a National Trust property, I also took a trip to Leicester to visit the Richard III Visitor Centre and to see his new tomb in Leicester Cathedral.

Until the public announcement of the discovery of Richard’s body in early 2013, I had little knowledge or interest in him as an individual. Like many people I suspect my view of him was coloured by Shakespeare’s characterisation in his eponymous play, and particularly by Laurence Olivier’s somewhat odious, although absolutely brilliant, portrayal in the 1955 film of the play, a clip from which is below.

With an interest in battles and battlefields I had visited Bosworth (22 August 1485) and seen where Richard fought his final battle. Although the exact location of the battle is now a matter of dispute, so perhaps not – but I digress!  Nonetheless whilst being interested in the battle that led to his demise, my knowledge of him as a person was limited. However, the 2012 project to search for, and ultimately discover, his remains piqued my interest, and in April 2013 I made a trip to Leicester to visit the temporary visitor centre that had been created, very enterprisingly, to pick up on the excitement around the discovery.  This small display was well executed, particularly as it had been put together at short notice, and I came away feeling that there was more to Richard and his story than I first thought.

In 2015 I watched his re-interment in Leicester Cathedral with the splendid pomp and ceremony that accompanied it, and was surprised by the levels of public interest that the whole process seemed to attract. As a result I undertook to re-visit Leicester and the expanded, and permanent, visitor centre that had been opened in July 2014 ahead of the reburial.

This new visitor centre is located in the old Alderman Newton’s School, a Victorian building, which itself sits on the site of the old Grey Friars Church, in which Richard III’s body had laid buried for over 500 years. The entrance is an impressive new glass construction with a large portrait of Richard to welcome you, and friendly and helpful staff to greet you on arrival.

The visitor journey begins with a short overview film that sets Richard’s life in context. One then enters the museum proper, which is divided into two distinct parts.  The first, on the ground floor, introduces Richard the man, his rise to power and his crowning in July 1483.  At this point the rehabilitation of his reputation begins as the positive aspects of his reign are highlighted, which included legal reforms, the banning of restrictions on the printing and sale of books, and, on his orders, translation of the written Laws and Statutes from the traditional French into English.  At this point one is being persuaded that he wasn’t really all that bad!  The museum also addresses one of the more controversial issues surrounding him, the infamous deaths of the ‘Princes in the Tower’ and offers some plausible explanations. This part of the museum then includes coverage of the Wars of the Roses, a section on the Battle of Bosworth and the death of Richard in combat.  Finally it concludes with his, first, burial in Leicester.

Striking
One of a range of striking visual elements to the galleries.

The museum displays then continue on the upper floor of the building with a two part exhibition.  The first area looks at how Richard has been portrayed, particularly in popular culture, and especially how Shakespeare helped to shape his, rather poor, reputation.  The second half of this floor looks at the archaeological project that was started in September 2012 to discover and uncover the body.  This section is particularly impressive as it highlights the various stages and techniques involved in carrying out the search, the dig itself, the discovery and recovery of the body, and the identification and investigation of how he was killed.  Further displays look at how DNA fingerprinting was used to prove the skeleton was Richard III and how CT scans were used to help build a 3D facial reconstruction of Richard, which is now housed in the exhibition.   This part of the museum is fascinating and has content that appeals to a wide-ranging audience, both young and old, expert and amateur.

King's Armour
A copy of Richard III’s armour annotated with the various blows it received in battle, which correspond to injuries discovered on his skeleton.

The visit concludes back on the lower floor again where the actual grave site in which the skeleton was found can be seen under a glass floor. In all the story of both Richard himself and the discovery project are very well told, with understandable and engaging interpretation.  The content strikes a good balance between accessibility and detail, and there is a nice range of interactive elements both physical and digital.  And like any good modern museum, the centre has a cafe and a small, but well-stocked, shop.

Concluding the visit to the Visitor Centre does not however have to be the end to a Richard III themed trip to Leicester. A minute’s walk away across the road one can enter Leicester Cathedral and visit the tomb of Richard where he was re-interred on 26 March 2015.  As can be seen in the picture below, the tomb is very impressive.  The top is made from a single piece of Swaledale limestone from Yorkshire, whilst the base is Kilkenny marble and bears his coat of arms.

Richard III Tomb
Richard III’s new tomb in Leicester Cathedral.

But a visit to the cathedral is also not the end and there is more to see in the city. A Richard III walking trail has been developed to guide visitors around Leicester city centre, and to highlight a number of relevant sites such as the location of the famous Blue Boar Inn where it is said Richard stayed the night before the Battle of Bosworth.  The City of Leicester has clearly identified that this discovery has captured the public imagination and has done an excellent job of integrating the wider city into the overall Richard III experience.

So having visited this museum, and the city of Leicester, has my view of Richard III changed?  Well I think it has. I am afraid I can’t now accept at face value the Shakespeare (or Olivier) portrayal of Richard.  I am sure that he was no angel, but to be a ruler in the late Middle Ages must have required a high degree of ruthlessness and determination. On the other hand it is clear me that in his short reign he did make some efforts at reform, and had a genuine desire to improve the governance of England.  I would therefore encourage people to visit Leicester to draw their own conclusions about Richard.  Although I have to conclude by saying that for me, on the matter of ‘Princes in the Tower’, my jury’s still out!

 

Remembering Britain’s Forgotten Civil Wars

2016-03-24_153349560_C3CBB_iOS
The striking and very effective sign at the entrance to the National Civil War Centre’s Civil War Gallery.
I recently visited the National Civil War Centre located in Newark, Nottinghamshire.   According to its visitor guide its purpose is as follows:

“We aim to uncover this crucial yet under explored turning point on the history of the British Isles and world beyond, through human stories, fascinating objects and our programme of temporary exhibitions and events.”

The Museum is located in the old Magnus School, itself an historic building parts of which pre-date the Civil Wars.  It is spread over five floors, occupying both the old school building and a new section that links the museum to the town’s Palace Theatre.  The site houses both the National Civil War Centre and the Newark Town Museum, although as the name alludes, the core business here is to focus on the British Civil Wars.

National Civil War Centre
The National Civil War Centre located in the former Magnus School in Newark, Nottinghamshire.
The heart of the museum is the Civil War Gallery in which the story of the Civil Wars, and the story of Newark during those wars, are very cleverly interwoven. Newark, like many towns and cities during this period, spent time under siege.  In Newark’s case there were three, the first, and very short-lived, in February 1643, the second in February and March 1644, and the final and longest from November 1645 to May 1646.  As an aside, one of the legacies of these sieges is the Queen’s Sconce, a fortification on the south western outskirts of the town, which still exists today and gives a very good idea of what a Civil War fortification looked like.

Returning to the museum, the Civil War Gallery includes displays of uniforms, weapons and other artefacts, a range of interactive exhibits and games, a film show, and dressing up opportunities for children. The space is airy, nicely laid out and well lit.  The narrative thread is good and one comes away with a very clear idea of both the overarching story of the wars and Newark’s role therein.  As with any museum or heritage attraction a key component of a successful visit are the staff, and those here were both friendly and well informed.  The final component of a visit to this museum is the interesting and imaginative smartphone app that has been developed to work alongside the museum and a National Civil War Trail around Newark. The app takes visitors on a tour around Newark highlighting key locations, such as the Queen’s Sconce mentioned about, and includes augmented reality elements to bring the story to life.  This is a nice feature that extends the museum’s reach beyond its walls, as well as offering the visitor more from their visit.

2016-03-24_143245792_AAE91_iOS
The impressive Civil War Gallery at the National Civil War Centre.
This was my second visit to the museum since its opening in 2015 and it was plain to see that this is a dynamic place that is constantly developing and adapting to visitor feedback.  In the last ten months the buildings have been fully completed, some of the content upgraded, and as was pointed out on a sign, enhanced as a result of visitor feedback. Additionally the museum was hosting a second round of temporary exhibitions, more of which shortly.

Beyond the Civil War Gallery the museum includes elements of the original Tudor school that have been restored and are now available for viewing.  Two rooms are dedicated to the Newark Town Museum, and there are also four rooms dedicated to temporary gallery space.  The latter are currently housing an exhibition of Civil War medicine which, as well as looking at gruesome 17th Century surgical activities, also includes an examination of hospitals, medicine and military welfare.  This is a particularly well-put together exhibition with some lovely exhibits, including a wheelchair that belonged to Parliamentary Commander-in-Chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax.

Fairfax Wheelchair
Sir Thomas Fairfax’s wheelchair in the “Battle-Scarred” exhibition of Civil War surgery, medicine and military welfare, in the National Civil War Centre.
Overall this is a great museum that sheds a new and well-executed light on what is an oft overlooked and unappreciated part of British History.  And I make this point with some disappointment.  These wars were crucial in forming the Britain we have today.  The confirmation of the constitutional monarchy as the principle by which Britain would be governed was a fundamental outcome of these wars, an outcome that was subsequently affirmed in the Bill of Rights of 1689.  These were formative events for Britain; in the same way the America Civil War was for the United States, yet the knowledge of them pales into insignificance compared to the American Civil War.

Britain is full of sites of significance and relevance to the Civil Wars.  Many of which are neither marked nor remembered.  In some cases attempts to do so have fallen by the wayside, which makes the establishment of this museum even more impressive.  Some years ago attempts were made to develop a visitor centre at the battlefield of Naseby  (14 June 1645), unfortunately this did not get the traction and funding that it needed, and now somewhat less ambitious plans are being developed.  Now don’t get me wrong, I am not claiming that the British Civil Wars are completely ignored. Naseby does have some interpretation, with viewing stands and interpretive boards, but for such a major battle of the First Civil War, it really justifies more.  It was the battle at which the Parliamentarian New Model Army had its first full scale deployment, and came out successful, laying the foundations of the modern British Army.  Yet there is little to encourage people to visit the battlefield and engage with its significant story.  It is crying out, at the very least, for a visitor centre to enable that engagement.

There are of course places where the Civil Wars are marked. In the city of Worcester, itself the site of a siege and the last battle of the Civil Wars, the Commandery tells the story of the Civil Wars in Worcester. Likewise a number of Civil War battlefields are marked with memorials to the conflict, but in very few places are there detailed interpretation panels, museums or visitor centres, all of which are necessary to help visitors to connect these memorials and monuments to the action and explain their importance.   There are some resources available for the dedicated to access and learn more.  These include the Battlefield Trust’s excellent UK Battlefields Resource Centre, an online portal that has maps and information about most Civil War battles.  But despite these resources, and perhaps because many of the physical locations associated with the wars are not as well marked as they could be, I think the British Civil Wars are largely forgotten. Indeed I suspect that many a British citizen’s knowledge of these wars is at best superficial and at worst nothing!

Exhibition Case
Some of the beautifully presented artefacts on show at the National Civil War Centre in Newark.
Therefore against this backdrop of the relatively limited interpretation and recognition of the British Civil Wars amongst the heritage landscape of Britain, it is good to see a museum like the National Civil War Centre appearing, and helping to raise that profile. It does so in an engaging, interesting and entertaining manner, and through its app and trail, connects the museum and its visitors with the wider history and landscape of the town of Newark. I hope it continues to thrive and that its popularity grows, as it is making an important contribution to telling the story of this crucial and formative period of British History.

Preservation, restoration or recreation. 

Destruction of Gettysburg Visitor centre
The removal of the old 1920s Gettysburg Visitor Centre in 2009.  This was done as part of the rehabilitation programme at the Gettysburg National Military Park, which is returning the battlefield to how it looked in 1863. (Picture: The blog of the Gettysburg National Military Park)

Much work is undertaken these days to maintain, repair and restore heritage sites, locations and buildings.  Such work often causes debate, in particular related to how much work should be done, to what, and why.  A recent project to renovate London’s Alexandra Palace produced much controversy and discussion about the nature of the proposed work and its purpose. It strikes me that in any work undertaken upon heritage sites and buildings, the key questions should of course focus on what we should do to such places in order to keep them for the future, but also very importantly, on how to make them relevant to today’s users and visitors.

Before I examine some examples, a few definitions.  For the purposes of this blog post I am going to talk about three processes that can be applied to heritage sites – restoration, preservation, and recreation.  There are a range of other terms that are used to cover similar ground, but to keep things simple I am going to use these three.

Restoration is essentially about taking something back to a former condition, such that it has an authentic appearance appropriate to the chosen period.

Preservation is about stopping an object, place, building etc. from deterioration or destruction, and preventing it from being altered or changed. These days this is often linked to the protection of architecture or the built environment. The key difference to restoration is that it is not the final appearance of the object, place or building that governs the process, but rather it is the retention of as much of the original fabric as possible, with minimal changes, that guides the final outcome.

Finally recreation is about replacing previously destroyed or removed objects, perhaps with a replica, or recreating fundamentally altered environments or settings, in order aid understanding.

Let me look at some examples.  The first is the American Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg which has undergone a programme of what has been termed rehabilitation. A look at the programme highlights that it includes elements of all the above categories. Restoration works has seen the removal of lots of 20th century intrusions such as buildings and car parks, as well as non-period vegetation that had encroached on the battlefield since the battle. Recreation sees the replanting of vegetation appropriate to the period, and alongside, preservation work has ensured that those authentic elements of the battlefield remain in place.

The underlying purpose of this project has been to:

‘…restore the Gettysburg Battlefield’s historic integrity, to enhance visitors’ understanding of and appreciation for what happened here, and to help create a sustainable environment by improving wetlands, water quality and wildlife habitat…’.

To guide what was required to make the battlefield more understandable, an analytical process called KOCOA has been used.  This means:

Key Terrain includes those areas that were seized, retained or controlled in battle.

Observation includes signal stations and fields of fire.

Cover and Concealment includes stone walls, woods, ridges and other features offering visual protection.

Obstacles include fences, buildings and field fortifications that affected military movement.

Avenues of Approach are the roads, farm lanes and open fields that led to the enemy.

By identifying these important locations on the battlefield the necessary action could then be taken to ensure the landscape presented to visitors was increasingly returned to, as near as possible, that present during the battle.  This allows the visitor to understand the all important impact of the terrain on the conduct of the battle and to ‘feel’ the battlefield. The images below are just one example of where this work has been completed.

Ohio Memorial Gettysburg (The Evening Sun)
This picture shows the memorial to G and I Companies of the 4th Ohio Infantry on the battlefield at Gettysburg.  On the left with the ‘Home Sweet Home’ motel, a 20th Century intrusion in the background, and on the right with the motel demolished and the terrain closer to resembling how it was at the time of the battle in July 1863. (Picture: The Evening Sun)

Gettysburg is not the only American Civil War battlefield going through this process and very recently similar plans have been implemented at the battlefield of Franklin (30 November 1864).

Another location that has been through a similar process in recent years, and one close to my heart, is Bletchley Park in Buckinghamshire, England.  The location of the Government Code and Cypher School in the Second World War, Bletchley Park produced vital intelligence, the value of which had a profound impact on the conduct of the Second World War.

Hut 6
Bletchley Park’s historically important Hut 6 prior to restoration.

The site has been through a major restoration project during which the wartime huts in which vital codebreaking work was conducted were restored to their wartime appearance, and the landscape around them returned to its 1940s feel. Prior to this project the huts were in an appalling state of repair and close to being lost. The rationale employed by the Bletchley Park Trust in restoring them was firstly to stop them falling down, and by all accounts this was very close to happening. But rather than just preserving crumbling wooden huts, they were restored and made accessible to the public with audio-visual interpretation and set dressing in order to allow visitors to understand and experience the rudimentary conditions under which the difficult cerebral work of Bletchey Park’s wartime codebreakers was conducted.

A similar logic was applied to the landscape of the site which had been encroached upon by modern car parks.  These were removed and the wartime landscape recreated, as can be seen in the pictures below, not only capturing the wartime feel but also providing much better space for visitors to enjoy.

BP MANSION
Bletchley Park in Buckinghamshire, England, the home of the Government Code and Cypher School in the Second World War.  The image on the left shows the site’s Mansion house surrounded by car parks before the restoration of the site in 2014, with the image on the right showing the same view post-restoration. 

The two examples I have cited above have been largely about the restoration of buildings and landscape in order to evoke a particular period.  There is of course equally strong merit in just preserving sites and buildings, be it for their architectural value or because the cost of doing anything more would be prohibitive.  Many a ruined castle would fall in this latter category where their reduction to ruins happened so long ago that the cost involved would be enormous. Equally in a ruined castle it is relatively easy to interpret the story and purpose of the building for a visitor, perhaps negating any more intrusive restoration.

Recreating lost buildings and places from scratch also has its place.  Obvious, and timely, examples are the replica trench systems that have been dug in a number of locations in the UK (and abroad) to tie up with the First World War Centenary.  These include the Coltman Trench at the Staffordshire Regiment Museum in Lichfield, and the Digging in project in Glasgow.  In these cases replica trench systems allow students and visitors to experience the physical surroundings of the trenches, which is difficult to do on the actual battlefields where most of the original trenches have long since disappeared.

Debates about the merits of preserving a heritage site versus the more radical approach of restoration, or rehabilitation as undertaken at Gettysburg, will, I have no doubt, continue to occur in many different guises in the future.  And the arguments either way are rarely likely to be clear-cut.  What I have tried to suggest above is that at some heritage sites the careful restoration, and in some cases selected recreation of spaces, places and buildings, can provide a greater insight into the importance of a place. In doing so the aim should always be to engage a visitor, and/or an inquiring mind.  If this can be achieved through careful and sympathetic restoration, then it is probably much better to follow this path than leaving derelict buildings preserved in aspic to attempt to talk for themselves!

 

 

 

Signs, guides and videotape…

Gettysburg Sign
One of the many interpretive signs that adorn American Civil War battlefields.

One of the challenges facing anyone running a heritage site is how to interpret, or explain, the site to visitors. The aim is alway to impart information in a manner that engages, educates and entertains them. I deliberatly use the term heritage site here, as I am primarily envisaging large spaces, usually outdoors, rather than the more controlled environment of an indoor museum, where technology, immersive audio-visual techniques, and traditional graphic panels can be used in large quantities. On such heritage sites the interpretation may have to bring to life a building, some ruins, archaeological remnants or an empty field that was once a bloody battlefield. In this blog post I want to explore some of the methods that can be, and are being, used to do this.

The key to any such interpretation is to present a balanced blend of accurate historical facts, an understanding of the place being interpreted and engaging storytelling. These days there is a range of ways in which this can be done that go well beyond the humble, but still much loved, guidebook.

For many years the tried and trusted interpretive board has been a good start. The image below shows one of a set located on the English Civil War battlefield of Naseby (14 June 1645) in Northamptonshire. This board has all the essentials. A couple of maps to show the course of the battle, some images to show the sort of troops fighting the battle, a narrative and in this case a very useful panoramic photograph to help the viewer relate to the ground they are observing.   Indeed this board, and its compatriots elsewhere on the site, do an extremely good job in providing the visitor with an understanding of the battlefield.  They are also supplemented by some resources on the Naseby website to help orientate the visitor before they arrive.

Naseby Board Image
A good example of an informative and engaging battlefield interpretation board.

The image below is an interpretive board at Bletchley Park that has to do a little less in the way of interpretation than the Naseby one, as it is sited in an already well-interpreted heritage site. But through the use of wartime pictures and quotes from veterans, an empty space within the site can be brought to life for the visitor.

BP Sign
An interpretive sign at Bletchley Park showing what activities happened on the ground in front of the board during the Second World War, using period photographs and quotes from veterans.

Such interpretive panels of course have their limitations. They are inanimate, they can be damaged and they can’t answer questions posed by the visitor!  Therefore for the many people there is probably nothing that beats a human interaction to bring a place to life. Indeed the less physical interpretation there is on a site the more this will tend to be so. A human guide has some obvious advantages over a static board.  She/he can interact with the audience, understand their needs, answer their questions and provide a more bespoke experience. Today human guides are employed in a raft of heritage sites and by numerous organisations.  These range from stately homes and heritage sites that have their own teams, to peripatetic battlefield guides taking groups of visitors on tours to sites around the world.

Guiding Monocacy
The author in full flow conducting a guided tour of the American Civil War battlefield of Monocacy (9 July 1864).

But is all cases the key to delivering high quality guiding is to have a good and effective training or development programme.  Most sites using guides have their own and organisations such as Britain’s ‘Blue Badge Guides‘ provide training programmes for multi-site guides, whilst the International Guild of Battlefield Guides provides a validation process to set a quality standard for battlefield guides.

One of the best guide training programmes I have come across is the Gettyburg Licensed Battlefield Guides training programme. Why is this? Well first of all it has a very demanding four-stage selection process. A Written Examination is followed by a Panel Interview, then a Mandatory Information and Orientation Programme, and finally an Oral Battlefield Examination. Quite a few hoops to jump through before becoming qualified, and the end result is a high quality cadre of well-respected guides.  But to me the most interesting thing about this programme is the underlying philosophy.  Even before entering its selection process candidates are asked to answer a very important question.  Is guiding for you?  In particular they are asked to consider a set of more detailed questions:

Do you love to teach?  Are you a storyteller?  Are you an extemporaneous speaker?  Are you a simplifier?  Do you love people?  Are you comfortable speaking to groups?  Are you flexible? Are you patient? Are you humble?

A very quick analysis of this list will reveal that, and it should come as no surprise to any high quality guide, the key attribute needed is to place ones audience at the centre of things. Unfortunately this sort of focus is not always evident in some guides.  Standing in front of an audience and interpreting a place or a battlefield requires self-confidence and a strong element of showmanship, traits that can be at odds with the humility and visitor focus outlined above. Sometimes the ego takes over and the guide becomes the end in itself, rather than a vehicle to interpret the place for the visitor.

Another challenge with human guides is quality control.  The guide has to walk a fine line between being an historian and a storyteller. No one is going to stand for a hour on guided tour if the guide is not engaging and entertaining.  But this should not mean that the guide lets the truth get in the way of telling a good story!  I have been to guided tours in more than one location where myths have been more prevalent than reality.  This therefore requires that the training programme must have a validation or quality control element to it.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti human guides – far from it I’m one myself!  But the limitations and issues highlighted above must be considered when they are used. And there is one other significant limitation to a human guide and that is that they are not always available! But these days technology is on hand to help with this particular problem.

Today, with a smartphone in many pockets, there has been a huge growth in app technology to assist the heritage visitor.  These come in a variety of shapes and guises, but all have some overarching benefits to those trying to understand a price of heritage or those trying to interpret it. These benefits are principally the ability to provide consistent, accurate, high-quality and repeatable content.  As a user you can be delivered hours of quality material on a handheld device which can be explored at ones own pace, both at the site being visited, or at leisure in ones hotel room or at home. For the interpreter, visitors can be provided with a whole raft of content, using a range of media and with a consistent standard of delivery to every visitor, so quality control is never an issue.

Battle App Overview
A screenshot from the Civil War Trust’s Bull Run Battle App® Guide

By way of a very good example of this genre, I would highlight the United States’ Civil War Trust’s Battle Apps® Guides series of guides to some of the key battles of the American Civil War. The screenshot above is taken from the app for the First Battle of Bull Run (21 July 1861).  As can be seen the quality of the mapping is excellent and activating buttons marking stops and places additional content is exposed, as cab be seen in the screenshot below.

Battle App Detail
Another screenshot from the Civil War Trust Bull Run Battle App® Guide showing some of the more detailed content.

As mentioned earlier this technology also allows the embedding of a whole range of static and dynamic media, from contemporary photographs and maps, to sound clips and video.  The example below, taken from the Bull Run app and featuring Civil War Trust’s Director of History and Education Garry Adelmen, demonstrates how a visitor can almost have the best of both worlds.  A human guide recorded talking about a location, with the flexibility of having the information to take away on their own portable device!

This technological approach is of course not without its limitations too.  At the moment it can’t answer a question from a visitor in the way a human guide can.  There are also technical issues in the form of battery life and the need to download some content which might be difficult on a remote site without data connectivity.  But as a mass method of providing interpretation there is much benefit in this approach. In the future I suspect that other technologies will emerge to enhance this form of interpretation.  For example the potential to use wearable technology, such as a Google Glass style device, integrated with interpretation.   There are teething problems to resolve in this area, but the possibilities are very exciting.

To conclude I have looked at a number of different methods of interpreting heritage sites. None should be looked at in isolation and there is great value to the visitor of a heritage site in having a layered approach that uses some or all of the methods highlighted. This gives the visitor choice and variety, and a range of opportunities for them to engage with the site, be educated by it, and have an entertaining day out.