Your Mom’s A Blog

Infantry tactics are living ideas in times of warfare.  In previous posts it has been suggested that linear warfare was the main type of warfare engaged in by the combatants during the Civil War.  This should be understood nominally.  In other terms, if a person considers all the land engagements that occurred during the Civil War, linear warfare will be the most prevalent tactical consideration in a general sense.  Many general officers went into combat planning to use linear warfare for either attack or defense.  In battle, however, it is common for plans to go awry suddenly and easily.  As a result linear warfare tactics may have been the intent at the beginning but circumstance either caused or otherwise necessitated a change mid-battle.  Similarly a different tactical plan might give way to linear warfare as when retreating troops were rallied to prevent a rout and possible reverse the fights fortunes.

The two major works on infantry tactics used by many commanders during the Civil War were Hardee’s Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics and later Casey’s Infantry Tactics.  For these books and others in their full length, click here.  Hardee and Casey both represent general ideas about moving men around on the field.  As previously indicated tactics generally meant putting men in a formation that would allow them to effectively attack or repulse the enemy.  To this end neither Hardee nor Casey, at least in their works on tactics spent much time explaining when and why to use a particular tactic, but focused mostly on the how.  To that end it is useful to explain the general construction and some important terminology associated with a Civil War era army.

In general (and it is important to remember that virtually nothing remains constant in combat) men were divided into companies.  A company was lead by a captain and had usually about 100 men divided into 2 platoons.  Each platoon had 2 sections and each section had 2 squads.  Some quick math reveals that a platoon had about 50 men, a section about 25, and a squad about 12.  A company usually had one captain, one 1^st lieutenant, one 2^nd lieutenant, one 1^st sergeant, four sergeants and eight corporals.  To save wordy descriptions a number of links are available to more thorough explanations as well as graphics.

The School of the Soldier is an excellent site.  It uses simple flash animation to show many of the maneuvers described in Hardee’s Tactics.

Formations and Ranks in Civil War Units contains a discussion of the various organizational principles, which have been distilled below.

A regiment was composed of 10 companies.  Some new northern regiments were made of two battalions of 8 regiments each.  A regiment was lead by a colonel and battalions, if they existed, were lead by lieutenant colonels.  Additionally a regiment had (in order of rank) a major, two surgeons (a major and a captain), an adjutant (1^st lieutenant), a quartermaster and commissary (both lieutenants), a sergeant-major and quartermaster sergeant.  A regiment also had a color guard that would carry the regimental colors (the flag specific to that regiment.)

A brigade was composed of 3 to 6 regiments.  Brigades were lead by brigadier generals.  A division was made of 2 to 6 brigades and was lead by a major general.  At the beginning of the war the corps system had yet to be introduced.  When it became apparent the war would not be the 90 day affair many people thought it would be, brigades were combined into corps.  Corps were organized under major generals in the north and lieutenant generals in the south.  Each corps usually had between 2 and 4 brigades.  Finally, corps were organized into armies.  An army generally encompassed a geographical theater of operation.  Thus some army names during the Civil War were the Army of Northern Virginia, the Army of the Potomac, the Army of the Cumberland, and the Army of Shenandoah.  Again, the north put major generals at the head of armies while the south used the simple designation general.

Armies of the Confederacy

Armies of the Union

When on the march or in the battlefield (again, in general) the various units were organized into ranks and files.  Based on the direction the unit was facing, the rank was the horizontal line of men while the file was the vertical line of men.  Additionally when face to face with a unit of men in formation, the distance they covered from left to right was known as the company’s frontage.

A company had a number of maneuvers it might execute during a march, or in battle, but there were two final configurations in which the men commonly ended a maneuver.  The first was to maneuver into a column.  In column of fours the company’s frontage was four men wide, each man standing close enough to the next man to easily touch him.  Thus the company had four files but a variable number of ranks depending on the current size of the company.  This was the common formation for march from location to location.  Other columns such as column of companies also existed depending on what was necessary for a particular situation.  The second configuration was to maneuver into a line.  In this configuration the men formed a line of two ranks.  The frontage was the length of half the company with half as many files as there were men.  This was the common configuration when going into battle.  Both these formations could be extended into something the size of regiment, though on occasion the better part of a whole army would be in a single line or column.

At a tactical level the general officers would order some portion of their command to do something.  The most common orders would be to attack some point, defend some point or feint toward some point.  At this point colonels and captains did most of the work.  They ordered their men forward, moved into columns to take advantage of road or moved into a line of battle in front of an enemy position, gave the order to charge, lie down, fire or attack with the bayonet.

These were the basic tactical considerations and they were taught by drill and practiced on the parade ground.  Though simple, the goal was to get men to act quickly without thinking too much about the activity.  As previously stated these were the maneuvers the men used but how, why and when to use a maneuver was something a bit more complex.  In further posts I will attempt to explain these considerations based on events that may have transpired during a battle.

So far the discussion has been predominantly about the domain of generals and perhaps some colonels bold enough to take the necessary initiative.  During the Civil War tactics proper, was usually the province of those below the level of general.  During the Civil War, if books are to be believed, tactics was mostly about getting the men to form themselves into certain shapes, usually some form of horizontal or vertical line, and to move or stay in position.  Despite the seeming simplicity of tactical considerations during the Civil War much ink was spilled on the subject.

In general the prevailing tactics of the day were a form of linear warfare, which, as its name implies, meant fighting in a line.  Before expounding further on this topic it is necessary to diverge for a time and discuss why linear warfare was the predominant form of warfare at the time.  The average person who tries to imagine what it might be like to fight during the Civil War or any number of early modern wars is usually struck by what appears to be the relative stupidity of standing in a line waiting for someone to shoot you.  Indeed a good argument can be made for the stupidity of this particular tactic in a certain sense, especially by the time of the Civil War.  However, linear warfare is a result of the necessities associated with fighting with muskets.

For many years warfare was a comparatively simple affair.  When two armies met they would essentially meet each other somewhere and try to kill one another with blunt or sharp instruments.  Over the years various technologies were used to improve or negate advantage.  Arrows could be used to kill at a distance, shields could protect from arrows and other enemy blows.  Men on horses would charge men, slashing, knocking them down, trampling, etc.  Men developed long spears that they anchored against the ground to stop the men on horses, etc.  Ultimately, by the end of the medieval period groups of soldiers were formed into squares for combat.  This provided a number of benefits.  It kept the men together so they could encourage one another and receive orders.  The square also provided a decent defense against cavalry if the men were armed with pole arms or pikes.  The men could thus maneuver toward some objective with relative safety until they broke so that all men could engage the enemy.

The advent of the musket changed this.  Muskets were very effective in the sense that they allowed a massed group of soldiers to effectively kill other soldiers at a distance.  Aside from breast works and fortification there was no practical form of armor that offered reasonable protection from musket fire except at great distance.  The musket ultimately put an end to the personal armor for quite some time since it became an expense that afforded little actual protection.  The musket did, however, have a few major drawbacks.  First, it was more difficult to use than hand held weapons.  Anyone who can lift a sword can be given a general idea of its use and will work as a passable soldier in a pinch.  Untrained soldiers might have luck with the musket as a club, but that somewhat abnegates its usefulness.  Second, the musket is slow.  For years a highly trained soldier who showed great grace under the pressures of battle might make three well placed shots a minute.  In close combat when the enemy is charging from a short distance the musket was much less useful until the advent of the bayonet.  Third, muskets are inaccurate.  A single man with a musket, even if he has been well trained may not be able to hit another man at long distances.  What he can likely hit is a dense mass of men somewhere between their head and feet at 100-300 yards, maybe.

With this information it is easy to begin to extrapolate why the musket necessitated linear warfare.  Ideally, a few well trained, calm, confident men behind breastworks or other fortifications would fire well aimed shots at a mass of men attacking.  This is roughly the situation in a fort, and without artillery to reduce the fort and plenty of supplies inside to sustain the defenders, this is the ideal situation.  However wars can’t be fought between forts as a general rule, eventually men must come out and fight one another.  The general idea in battle is to make the enemy go away, which is done by killing them or killing enough of them that fighting no longer feels like a good option.  Knowing the inherent inaccuracy of a musket a good commander knows that the more lead he throws downfield the more men will usually die downfield.  To the keen observer it might seem like a good idea for attackers to spread their men so that the whole presents less of a target.  This would be a good idea were it not for three main factors, smoke, noise and fear.

The early musket is a dangerous contraption in general.  The propellant used to push the ball out of the barrel and toward the enemy was a form of black powder.  Compared to modern propellants black powder makes a lot of noise and a lot of smoke when it explodes.  The result is that after a volley or two, particularly on a still day, smoke begins to obscure the enemy combatants.  For men in combat, they are well aware that their musket helps to keep them alive by reducing the number of people firing at them.  Once a battle begins, it is often possible to get the men to fire a well aimed, controlled volley or two.  Once their comrades begin dying, however, men tended to load and shoot as fast as possible.  The result was a constant booming from the muskets and constant smoke.  Under these conditions it is very difficult to give orders as most of the troops can neither see nor hear you.  Additionally the men may be inclined to retire from battle before an effective blow has been delivered.  To this end there are several men, usually Captains, Lieutenants and high ranking NCOs who yell encouragement and keep men from fleeing (called file closers.)  If the men are packed tightly together this may be possible, if they are spread apart it is not.

The infantry square was common and somewhat effective for its time, but it was much less effective for soldiers equipped with muskets.  If attacked by cavalry, men with pole arms in a square formation can defend themselves from virtually every angle.  More over since the enemy infantry might still be some ways off they can focus on one thing at a time, i.e., beating back the cavalry before moving toward the infantry again.  When armed with a musket a square doesn’t provide any of these benefits.  The enemy can now attack the formation at a distance.  Even a musket with a bayonet is not nearly as effective as a pole arm against a cavalry charge.  Additionally, once the soldier discharges his weapon it is very difficult to stay in formation, reload and potentially defend with his bayonet as well.  Additionally, since the musket is a ranged weapon if one square is attacked at its flank and fires at the enemy, they run the risk of hitting their comrades in the square toward their direction of fire.  The ultimate result was that if a group of men armed with muskets is flanked they usually aren’t capable of doing much besides retreating.  These factors lead to the rise of linear warfare.

Knowing the strategic objectives a general can begin to make a tactical plan.  Like strategy, tactics can be broken into two distinct portions referred to as tactics and grand tactics.  Grand tactics are the overall movements and actions of the portion of the military in the field involved in an action.  Grand tactics are usually determined by the generals and can be thought of in several distinct stages.  The first of these stages is the preparatory maneuver.  Two opposing generals may know that they are going to meet somewhere around Manassas Junction, Fort Donelson, Gettysburg etc.  A good general will attempt to seize the initiative and force the coming conflict to take place on his terms.  The Battle of Fredericksburg provides a good example of grand tactics as well as the hand played by myriad outside forces.

In late 1862 General Burnside planned to seize initiative from Lee.  Burnside’s troops would be concentrated at Warrenton.  He would make a feint to the west toward a number of potential targets.  His hope was that Lee, unsure of his plan would stay at his present position until he made a more definitive move.  While Lee was awaiting the attack, Burnside would swing quickly to the southeast, cross the Rappahannock at Fredericksburg and make a sudden assault on the Confederate capital via the rail lines linking the two cities.  If all went to plan Burnside would be able to attack Richmond while the lion’s share of the Confederate Army was located substantially to the north.  Thus, these grand tactics lead to the strategic objective of capturing Richmond.

Unfortunately all did not go according to plan for General Burnside.  As he moved toward Fredericksburg his pontoon bridges, needed to cross into the city with his army where not at the front as they should have been.  At this point General Burnside would have been well advised to make a tactical decision to maintain the initiative.  There were a number of fords where the army could have crossed, but the whole army could not cross together.  General Sumner recommended that he be allowed to cross the river, take control of Fredericksburg from the small Confederate garrison and secure the heights near the town.  General Burnside ultimately vetoed the plan based up the concern that if the rains picked up Sumner might be cutoff on the far side of the river and destroyed by a superior force.

The result of this decision was the Burnside waited some 9 days for the pontoon bridges to arrive.  In this time he lost the initiative to Lee who quickly used the opportunity to take up the high ground above Fredericksburg on the far side of the river from Burnside (Marye’s Heights.)  Lee then employed a common grand tactic used in linear warfare.  He anchored his line on the Rappahannock (this meant that the flanks of his line abutted the river.)  This prevented a force from moving around his flank and gaining the advantage (more on this later.)  He also moved his canon behind his defending infantry facing the upward slope any attackers would have to cross to attack his position.

To prevent Lee from occupying Fredericksburg or stopping his crossing of the Rappahannock, Burnside placed his artillery on the heights opposite the city on the eastern side of the river (Stafford Heights.)  This would allow Burnside to safely cross his army across the river; however Lee’s position on Marye’s Heights would be a formidable position to attempt to assault.  These constitute the preparatory maneuvers for the Battle of Fredericksburg.  The next phase of grand tactics is development and crisis.

Development and crisis refers to the generals’ plans for the parts of the army, to either attack or defend.  These plans fall on a continuum between very complex and very simple and may change as the battle develops.  During this phase of the battle a general must consider factors such as terrain, what the enemy may be planning, weather conditions, esprit de corps, etc.  For example, it might be better to attack a portion of the enemy line that is on level ground or exposed as opposed to attacking the high ground or someplace where the enemy has cover or taken advantage of breast works.  A general may make a feint toward one part of the line in hopes the enemy will commit troops there but then attack a different part of the line, robbing the enemy of reinforcements.  Cavalry and artillery could be used to weaken an enemy position before a general attack, with cavalry especially used for flanking the enemy of moving quickly to some location, dismounting and fighting as infantry.

Though there are many potential grand tactics that may be employed the simplest is the frontal assault.  This was roughly the plan used by Burnside at the Battle of Fredericksburg.  A frontal attack, as its name implies means forming a line facing the enemy and charging some point on the enemy line.  By the 1860’s the frontal assault as an infantry tactic was ill-considered at best and at worst a really terrible idea.  In Burnside’s case the latter is how history has remembered it.  Though Burnside did use other forces to demonstrate at other parts of the Confederate line to prevent too many resources from being committed against the main thrust of his attack, this was not enough to gain him victory.

During the development and crisis stage of battle a general should be prepared to alter his plans as the situation requires.  If the opponent’s line is broken a general should commit troops to the newly formed gap.  If the enemy shifts his line to prevent being flanked the general must decide to possibly commit more troops to continue the flanking maneuver or attack the line if it has moved to a weaker position.  Again in Burnside’s case he never developed a new plan but stuck with an ultimately doomed frontal assault.

The final phase of battle is withdrawal from combat.  This phase can be in victory or defeat.  A victorious general must decide if he should pursue the enemy or if it is even possible to pursue.  He may also choose to move toward some other strategic objective.  A defeated general must try and retreat in good order.  This might mean setting a rear guard or retiring to safer place to fight if the enemy pursues.  The losing general ultimately wants to prevent a rout.  In the Battle of First Bull Run, Union forces finally broke after a full day of fighting, much confusion and the appearance of fresh Confederate reinforcements.  This was one of the earliest battles in the war and for many troops it was their first time in combat.  Though many had received some level of training they did not retire well.  Though there was some semblance of order once the line began to break, panic seemed to grip some of the men and what began as an orderly retreat became a rout.  The army could not be rallied before it had made it all the way back to Washington.  Had Confederate forces been better trained it is possible that they could have pursued the Union forces all the way back to the capital.  In this instance, however, the Confederates were as disorderly in victory as were the Federals in retreat.

The American Civil War was the most costly war, in terms of human life, ever fought by the United States.  Some 600,000 Americans died on either side in defense of their beliefs.  One of the main reasons for the bloodiness of the Civil War is that it was fought entirely between Americans.  When every casualty is an American casualty the numbers grow very quickly.  Another reason for the large amount of bloodshed during this particularly internecine conflict was due to advances in technology and conservatism in tactical and strategic thought.  What follows is a series of blog posts on the technology, tactics and strategy employed by Union and Confederate forces during the Civil War.

It is necessary to begin by establishing a martial mindset similar to that of a military novice in mid 19^th century America.  To begin it is important to know the difference between tactics and strategy in the mind of a military leader.  Though these terms, like most terms, tend to change in meaning depending on a multitude of factors this document will generalize.

Strategy refers to an overall plan for the effective execution of war to bring about some end.  In general this end is victory over an opponent.   The aim of the Federal government was ending secession and returning the rebelling states to the Union.  This meant it would be necessary to achieve a traditional military victory.  The North would have to find a way to end the South’s ability to fight.  This might be achieved by so thoroughly defeating their army in combat that continuing to fight would be pointless and occupying Southern territory.  However, this was not the only option.  The same end could be achieved through multiple objectives alone or together.  Fighting a war in the mid 19^th century required gun powder, muskets, cannon, food and other supplies for the military etc., and money.  The Union could stop the flow of necessary supplies into the South or destroy their means of production.  Another common strategy employed for millennia was to capture an enemy capital.  Though this did not always guarantee victory, by 1860 it had a very positive track record.

The South had a different objective, namely independence from the United States.  The South also had fewer bases of production and was only lightly industrialized compared to their Northern counterparts.  Their economy and population were also smaller.  Conquest of the North to achieve their aim would not have been a viable strategy.  Instead the South needed to make the Federals believe that fighting the war was more costly than allowing the Southern States to secede permanently.  To this end the Confederacy could defeat the Union Army, making it impossible to achieve their aims.  This could best be achieved through a pitched victory of the Napoleonic style, a war of attrition or convincing other allies to pressure the United States to allow the Southern States to secede or actually intervene militarily on behalf of the Confederacy.  Given the proximity of the Federal capital, victory might also be achieved by capturing Washington.  These are all strategic considerations.

Strategy is broken into sub-groupings of strategy and grand strategy by some military historians.  A grand strategy is an overall plan which includes the previously listed considerations.  At the beginning of the Civil War, General Scott developed what was termed the Anaconda Plan.  This plan included a blockade of southern ports to prevent goods from coming or going and gaining total control of the Mississippi River so as to split the Confederacy in two and prevent one side from sending aid to the other.  This plan is necessarily simple as a grand strategy.  It outlines broad objectives that, if completed, would lead to a Union victory.  However the specifics of what to attack, when and where are considered to be simply strategy (as opposed to grand strategy.)  For example, to gain control of the Mississippi River it would be necessary to control all the bridges crossing it as well as being able to move friendly troops and supplies up and down the river safely and with relative impunity while preventing the same luxury to the enemy.  To this end it would be necessary to gain control of any bridges, cities and strongholds located on the river.  Some of the most notable of these were the cities of St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans.  As the Union nominally controlled St. Louis at the beginning of the conflict, all the rest became important strategic objectives to controlling the Mississippi.

(The following was added after the original posting to logically complete the post and make each part in the series stand alone.)

Thus a logical hierarchy develops as a result of strategy and grand strategy.  The grand strategy for the execution of the war is determined by those at the highest ranks of the military as it involves the operation of the whole military arm.  Generals, Admirals, Presidents and occasionally even members of the legislature (in the case of the United States) make sweeping plans to bring about victory.  At the strategic level a war is usually executed by generals in the field.  These generals have orders to accomplish some objective (such to secure the Mississippi River) or are given the leeway to act on their own initiative, as long as it is in accordance with the grand strategy or at least not very foolish.  In upcoming posts the role of the general will be explored and the difference between strategy and tactics explained and elaborated upon.

My previous post has been received with mixed emotion.  In case anyone was wondering, yes, that was tongue-in-cheek.  This post will be accurate to the best of my knowledge.  Once again I will be covering spirits.

Like many things as ubiquitous as liquor, the origins of distillation have disappeared into the mists of time.  The noticeable usage and consumption of spirits begins in the early medieval period.  Arab alchemists were, most likely, the first to perfect distillation.  The expansion of Islam into Europe and the subsequent growth and expansion of European trade brought scientific communities together.  The knowledge spread and soon thereafter the product of that knowledge was becoming widely available.

There were mixed reactions to spirits but the majority of people accepted the new beverage quite willingly.  The medicinal value of wine had long been extolled by the ancients.  Because spirits were a concentrated version of wine or beer it was considered to be just that much more beneficial.  The real boon for liquor came with the age of exploration.  Beer and wine survived longer than water without spoiling but spirits where potable almost indefinitely.  An equal amount of spirits could make water safe for consumption or make several times the number of sailors forget their troubles.

As a brief and anachronistic aside, the British fleet probably saw the greatest effects thanks to Admiral Edward Vernon, aka Old Grogram or Old Grog (Grogram was a type of cloth used to make coats of which Admiral Vernon was quite fond.)  Old Grog diluted sailor’s rum with water.  This made for a good balance between potable water reserves and jolliness.  A short time later, lemon or lime juice was added to help ward off scurvy.  Some historians suggest that Britain’s maritime supremacy has to do with healthier, happier sailors.

In the early days of liquor, whiskey and brandy where the most commonly available beverages (brandy from the anglo-germanic brandt-wein and brandy-winn literally meaning burnt wine.)  Wine fortified with additional alcohol (the first of note being Port Wine, from Portugal.  I’m guessing you know where its name originates,) was also popular.  These new drinks now made much longer oversea expeditions possible.  The main items that returned in the cargo holds of these far-voyaging ships were spices.

Europeans had, apparently, been eating bland foods for so long that the experience of spiciness drove the creation and expansion of overseas empires (never mind the land and precious metals, etc.)  One such “spice” that tickled a particular European tooth was sugar.  The search for sugar took Europeans into Africa where they paid much of their local help in brandy or whiskey.  Like the priests of old, distilled alcoholic beverages became an abundant, reproducible, easily divisible and storable form of currency.  Not long after discovering their love of sugar they decided it made more sense to grow it themselves.

It should be mentioned at this point that the European love of sugar and desire to produce it as cheaply and abundantly as possible contributed heavily to the advancement of the African slave trade.  Any history of western expansion is inexorably tied with these sad portions of human history and the development of rum, liquor made from the byproducts of the sugar production or molasses, made the slave trade even more lucrative.  Sugar was already a highly valuable commodity.  The additional value of cheap rum in high demand caused the sugar industry to grow ever more rapidly.  More sugar meant more need for slaves, more slaves meant more rum and sugar, more Rum and sugar meant more slaves.  One of the most interesting facts about liquor is that demand seemed limitless, no matter how much was produced or how cheaply it could be acquired; there was always a call for more.

In the Americas in particular, daily life was awash in hard liquor.  The adversities of daily life in the colonies, particularly on the frontiers drove most people to distraction.  Even after the dissolution of British rule rum and various types of whiskey were widely and heavily consumed by the lower classes (which was almost everyone.)  So strong was the American love of whiskey that when Alexander Hamilton proposed a tax on whiskey by the gallon there was an all out rebellion.  Naturally the rebels didn’t do much because their goal was to be three sheets to the wind as often as possible.  It just goes to show that when the government drives through a levy that makes a county dry, good ol’ boys who were drinking whiskey and rye, start singing “This’ll be the day that I die.”

Having written about beer and wine, it seems only fitting (especially because it follows the chronology of the book where I am getting most of this information,) to write about spirits.  Not the evil kind, though their history has had little in the way of positive effect on human history.  No I mean heavily alcoholic beverages, the kinds that require distillation.  Because of the numerous different types I will focus on one in this particular post, namely brandy.

The history of brandy is not very long in the grand scheme of human history.  It begins in 1969 with the formation of the band Looking Glass.  Lead guitarist Elliot Lurie had an undisclosed “relationship” with a girl (her name is unfortunately lost to history forever.)  In order to lightly disguise that a song he was writing was about her, he changed the name of the song’s protagonist to Brandy (the girl’s actual name was reportedly similar.)  In 1972, Epic Records signed Looking Glass and produced their first album.  That album contained the run away hit Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl.) The rest is a roller coaster ride of meteoric rise to fame and tragedy.

The same year that Brandy was released it topped the charts for 3 weeks and went gold later that year.  Looking Glass, the struggling artists became overnight sensations.  Unfortunately their polished studio sound conflicted with their hard edge from previous years.  Fans were made and lost overnight.  What followed was a downward spiral into the depths of depression for all the band members except for drummer Jeff Grob.

Grob had long been a connoisseur of fine whiskey and scotch.  His contribution had been to recommend the addition of this line:

And there’s a girl, in this harbor town
And she works, laying whiskey down
They say “Brandy, fetch another round”
She serves them whiskey and wine

Grob and Lurie had been arguing about the merits of whiskey and wine respectively for years.  In an attempt to reach a middle ground and potentially prop up the bands teetering finances, Grob set out to make whiskey from wine.  His initial creation, a distillation of wine with the delicacy of wine, but the kick of a good scotch, was an immediate success.

The next hurdle was what to name the amazing new beverage.  Many ideas were proposed including Wineskey (derived from blending wine and whiskey) and Grolurskyval (derived from blending portions of all the band members last names.)  Finally it came to them, Brandy.  The drink would bear the name of the forlorn girl from the song.  It was perfect.

Unfortunately the band was denied both patent and copyright when it was discovered that the name Brandy conflicted, not only with Epic Records copyright of the song, but also with a similar beverage by the same name that had been discovered several thousand years earlier and was already widely produced and distributed.  The band never recovered from this final blow.  The next year Elliot Lurie died in a terrible gardening accident that has gone unsolved to this day.  A short time later, Jeff Grob became the first rock star to die by spontaneous human combustion.

The remaining two members of the band (whose names are sadly also lost to history) were left stunned by the deaths of Grob and Lurie became deeply spiritual.  After a long period out of the public eye they formed the Christian Brothers Distillery which makes fine brandy to this day.  Their memoirs were later purchased by Rob Reiner and adapted for screen.  The final product This Is Spinal Tap was a runaway success despite numerous libel and slander suits from Def Leppard.

Wine is nearly as old as beer.  To make wine really possible humans had to develop a better container.  Beer will ferment in anything that will hold water; wine requires something a little more genteel, in this instance pottery.  Once pottery was discovered (aside from the fact that it made it much easier to keep water out of things,) it allowed men to hold and ferment grape juice.

The grapes found throughout Europe and Asia are not the grapes American’s would general snack on (known as table grapes.)  Wine grapes that make the varietals we know today (pinot, merlot, etc.) are vitus vinifera.

In ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt grains were more widely cultivated so beer was more widely available.  As Mesopotamian empires grew in wealth and expanded, areas ideal for viticulture (growing of vines) came under their control or influence. 

The earliest viticulture was very different from the viticulture of today.  The farmer would grow an orchard of some sort of fruit tree then cultivate the grape vines on the tree.  (To grow and cultivate grapes the vines need to climb something.  Today we build artificial trellises, in the past they used trees.)  Wine is more temperamental than beer.  It takes less grain to make X amount of beer than it takes to make the same amount of wine.  Wine needs to be stored more carefully and in ancient times an acre of land could yield more grain because vines had to grow on trees which were separated by greater distances.  Because grapes are less hearty than grain, they can only be grown under certain climactic conditions so transportation becomes an issue.  As a result of all these factors wine in Mesopotamia and Egypt was generally much more expensive.

All the previously mentioned factors helped make wine a more “civilized” beverage and marker of wealth and status in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.  As trade spread around the Mediterranean other cultures, specifically the Greeks, came into contact with other wine drinking cultures.  The Greeks thought themselves superior indeed and began distinguishing themselves from the “barbarians” by their wine drinking habits.  (They were distinct in many other ways, thought, dress, manner, etc., but wine and beer drinking were universal and offered the Greeks a way to distinguish themselves on ground held in common with all other cultures.)

The Greeks had a very distinctive culture.  They were fond of intellectual pursuits such as philosophy and rhetoric.  They were also fond of drinking parties called symposia.  The Greeks had a love hate relationship with wine.  They thought it was a tasty and safe drink, but they believed over indulgence could cause insanity.  For this reason the Greeks generally mixed water with their wine, anywhere from 2 parts water to 1 part wine all the way up to 20 parts water to one part wine (this was for their concentrated wines.)  Wine mixed 1:1 with water was still thought of as strong wine and should be avoided.

As the Greeks expanded their colonies across the Mediterranean they spread wine culture with them.  For the first time wines became known for their region of production (the wine from Lesbos was particularly popular.)  After the Romans came to power Greek wine culture became ubiquitous.  The primary difference was that the availability of wine made good wine a status symbol.  Roman culture became stratified by the type of wine consumed.  More over, the expansionist nature of the Romans brought wine culture as far north as Britain, south into Saharan Africa and east to the Indus valley in India.  Retired soldiers, politicians, merchants and almost anyone else dreamed of cultivating vineyards for the production of wine.  Even after the western portion of the Roman Empire fell to the “barbarians” the new kingdoms that arose maintained the vineyards and expanded where they could.

The spread of Christianity and the development of the concept of Christendom solidified the importance of wine in Euro-Christian culture, especially as a way of drawing a distinction between Christians and Muslims.  Wine played a central role in the traditions of the Catholic Church as being one half of the Eucharist.  Christ’s first miracle of turning water into wine, as well as repeated references to wine in the New Testament made wine a point of religious pride.  In contrast wine and beer were, if not expressly forbidden, strongly discouraged in Islam.  Though the particular warning says nothing of beverages made from anything beside grapes and grains, a general prohibition was established for all Islam (even if it wasn’t widely enforced as it was Arab scientists who perfected the distillation of wine into brandy.)

Wine continued to grow and thrive throughout Europe with the notable exception of the British Isles.  When colonization of the New World began, England tried to establish viticulture in their colonies.  Unfortunately vitus vinifera would not thrive in such a harsh climate as Virginia and northward.  Furthermore, native American vines, vitus lubrusca, did not (and many still think so) produce palatable wine.  By a strange twist however, vitus lubrusca saved vitus vinifera wine in the 19^th century.  An outbreak of phylloxera decimated European vineyards.  A hybrid with vitus lubrusca root stock (which is naturally phylloxera resistant) was grafted onto the roots of vitus vinifera all over Europe to save the wine industry there.

Though there has always been a wine industry in the United States, the best wine producing regions (save for a few good New England locations) weren’t sufficiently settled until the 1850’s through the 1890’s.  Even then it took along time before the American wine making industry came into its own and was well regarded by the rest of the world.  Not until the early 1970’s did west coast wine makers start producing wines that were considered excellent on the world stage.  Today all 50 states (including Alaska apparently) produce wine.  Within the last decade or so, the preference for wine has matched or started to outpace the preference for beer and spirits.  This has a few major benefits:  More wine of a high quality will be produced locally which will be cheaper and easier to acquire.  The health benefits of wine (in moderation) have been proven, especially in helping to prevent heart disease.

The history of western civilization is a history closely related to beer.  What?

While there are no written documents chronicling the discovery of beer, it was highly significant to the creation of western society as we know it.  So here is a quick history of beer in hopefully less than a page, no fluff, just facts.

Pre-literate humans were probably hunter-gathers for the majority of their history.  In Mesopotamia they followed wild game and harvested wild fruits, nuts and grains that grew abundantly in the Fertile Crescent.  Grains have the happy property that when they are dried they can be stored for a long time (years.)  For the average person to successfully eat and process grain it needs to be ground down.  Some people harvested grain and between harvest and drying the grain got wet and began to sprout.  What they discovered after drying grain that had sprouted was that the grain was sweeter than before.  This is because a diastase enzyme is released that breaks up the complex carbohydrates in grain into simple sugars.  (This process is still necessary to make beer today from whole grain.)  It wasn’t long before people were making a sort of gruel or porridge from the grain.  Adding more water and boiling heat has several benefits.  Virtually all bacteria will die after 4 minutes boil.  Boiled grains are easier to consume because they get softer (easier on the teeth.)  Boiling breaks down even more of the complex carbohydrates into simple sugars.  This process is the basis of all beer.

The gruel or porridge would have been stored in woven baskets or animal skins.  If allowed to stand open, wild yeasts (which are practically omnipresent in temperate environs) will infiltrate the gruel.  In a few days the gruel will become frothy and pleasantly intoxicating.  (Suspensions of yeast are also one of the best sources for Vitamin B in the Neolithic period.)  Over time, using the same vessels to make beer improved the quality.  This made people believe that there was something magical about beer.  In reality heartier yeasts survived and multiplied in the vessel and got stuck in cracks, nooks, crannies etc.  The next time liquid was added these yeasts would colonize the beer first preventing too many wild yeasts from imparting an off taste.  So that is how beer was discovered.  What is its significance to society?

In Mesopotamia and Egypt, settled agriculture led to the development of cities.  For the first time some people did not have to be involved in food production, which allowed for the rise of a class of priests who took payments to appease the gods in the form of bread and beer.  The priests started public works projects and paid the workers in bread and beer.  The need to maintain records of who was paid and how much was one of the key factors in the development of writing.  Water supplies usually became fouled very quickly near human settlements, beer it generally much safer to drink.  In Egypt and Mesopotamia bread and beer were euphemisms for good health, wealth and happiness.  In the Epic of Gilgamesh (one of the oldest pieces of recorded literature) the warrior Enkidu was not considered a man (though he could speak and was formed like a really hairy man) until he’d had sex and drank beer and eaten bread.  Once he had done those things he “became” a man in the eyes of the Mesopotamians.  In Egypt, Osiris saved mankind from the wrath of Hathor by getting her drunk and making her forget her mission to destroy all mankind.

Hooray Beer!

Source:  Mostly from the first two chapters of A History of the World in Six Glasses, by Tom Standage

Many people who are products (victims) of the United States’ compulsory education system have had a similar experience. When asked “What was your high school history teacher’s name?” A lot of people reply with the same answer. “Coach.” I’m not certain what draws athletics and history together in the public school system, but I suspect it is a profound misunderstanding of history as a scholarly pursuit. What follows is a clear, and hopefully concise, explanation of the study of history for those who are or were disinclined toward this particular art.

It is helpful to briefly say what history is not. History is not the memorization of dates, significant events, and famous people. Knowing these facts is useful but more accurately belong to historiography (The principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation.)

History is the study of primary sources for the purpose of understanding how, when and why something happened. For those unfamiliar with the study of history, a primary source is something (usually in written form, but pictures, music, objects d’art and other medium are acceptable for study) created by a person with firsthand knowledge of the events being studied. There are also secondary sources. Secondary sources are what seem to be studied most often in high school. A secondary sources is something created by a person with indirect knowledge of an event. The most common example is a history text book. These are written and compiled by historians who did not witness the actual events, but instead studied the events and presented a synopsis.

Given the previous definition, a good study of history can’t be accomplished without the corresponding primary sources. It is possible to gain an understanding of the events, but a true study of history is impossible. This is not to say that an understanding of the events is bad. A good historian should know the current scholarship on any period or event he might be studying. It is also important to understand that nothing happens in a vacuum. Secondary source information can be used to gain an understanding of the socio-political/cultural milieu.

Here are some examples of primary source documents that might be interesting in general. Carlo Levi’s Christ Stopped at Eboli, is the account of a communist sympathizer sent into “internal exile” in southern Italy during the rise of the fascists. Julius Caesar’s The Conquest of Gaul, is Caesar’s account of his successful campaigns against the Gauls. Jack Kerouac’s On the Road. Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s The Motorcycle Diaries. These are all narratives and should be easier to read. For the braver souls consider the following: The Federalist Papers, The Long Telegram, Magna Charta and Summa Theologica.

Of course there are some great secondary sources that present both the facts and the authors’ interpretation. Here are some of the classics. Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is an epic whose name says it all. I don’t recommend reading this from cover to cover but it is great as a reference or for random Roman tidbits. Tom Standage’s The History of the World in 6 Glasses, recounts world history and how it was changed by the discovery/invention of beer, wine, spirits, coffee, tea, and cola.

One final note; there are more and less scholarly works. Good scholarly works will cite sources and usually contain footnotes/endnotes and a bibliography. Scholarly work should focus on objective realities as opposed to subjectively judging people, events, cultures, etc.