MovieChat Forums > To Appomattox Discussion > No Joshua Chamberlain

No Joshua Chamberlain

posted 11 years ago by faesq
7 replies | jump to latest

Love the idea of the series. But as a civil war buff, I find it hard to fathom that an 8 part mini series about the war can be aired without any discussion of possibility the greatest hero of the entire war, Joshua Chamberlain. He was present at many of the most prominent battles of the war, was certainly one of the heroes of Gettysburg, was one of the most decorated soldiers and because of his service was specifically chosen by Grant to officially accept the surrender of Lee's army at Appomattox. A glaring oversight to me.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] faesq 11 years ago

Thanks for the update! I am glad that while he won't be a focus he will get his due, especially at Appomattox. Can't wait to hear who was cast, though in my heart it will always be Jeff Daniels who was superb in the Shaara adaptions Gods and Generals & Gettysburg.

[–] jdpetruzzi 11 years ago

Yes - Chamberlain is decently prominent in the final episode, particularly during the Appomattox Campaign and the surrender. I think you'll be very pleased! He is just not a major character as he was in Shaara's "Killer Angels" (and hence the Gettysburg movie) but he does get his due in the final scenes of this series.

[–] Traianus 11 years ago

I find it hard to fathom that an 8 part mini series about the war can be aired without any discussion of possibility the greatest hero of the entire war, Joshua Chamberlain.

No offense at all, but that's because you are - as you say - a civil war "buff" rather than a "historian."

Chamberlain was an amazing man and an incredible soldier, there is no question. He did some amazing things, and he was tough and courageous beyond almost imagining. He was a hero.

But so were lots of people in that war.

Quite frankly, he gets too much attention these days because of Shaara's book and the "Gettysburg" movie. That's not really a bad thing - and if his story gets people interested in the war and history generally, then all the better. But he was NOT that much more important to that war than lots of courageous colonels and brigadier generals who served in it. Yes, what he did at Gettysburg was amazing, but 1) so were the actions of lots of other people at Gettysburg, and 2) he was one guy and his regiment of 386 was but one of many in a battle involving some 160,000 men. There were lots of other leaders who - in terms of overall effect on the war - were every bit as important as he was. It's just the truth. Thus, any exclusion of him from a film on the Civil War is an "oversight" that's "glaring" only insofar as Chamberlain has become quite famous because of the effects of popular history over the last 40 years.

[–] faesq 9 years ago

Yet Grant thought him important enough to accept the surrender at Appomatox. At least in Grant's eyes he stood out from many of the other heroes and courageous officers that served.

[–] murad23 9 years ago

Yes but he had no contribution to any strategies employed by either side in the war.

And Grant, who was very good at PR was interested in promoting him.

Chamberlin was brave and intelligent, and he made one very good tactical decision. We still would have won.

Sure he gets a nod over equally brave people, but the idea that he belongs up there wit prominent strategists and leaders is not supported.

[–] KleeFan 10 years ago

Slight OT, but visually relevant: have you ever looked at photos of Chamberlain and Ralph Fiennes (especially when he was in his thirties) side by side? Kind of spooky how Fiennes resembles him.

There's a spider on your shoulder!
The Kids in the Hall