Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3474[TalkAntietam] Re: Question

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Clemens
    May 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I couldn't agree more! The P&H map is the base map of the Carman/Cope maps, but they do indeed leave out the elevation markings. Great if you want to know crops types, fences, etc. but not good for understanding the battle. Preist used this map, but the whole thing never appears in the book so if you don't know the field to begin with, you'll be lost like a hiccup in a hurricane. Also he used some odd symbols for artillery, etc.
      Tom Clemen

      Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
      Professor of History
      Hagerstown Community College

      >>> "T. R. Livesey" <tlivesey@...> 05/30/07 1:36 PM >>>


      In Murfin's introduction, he states that the maps are the work of
      James D. Bowlby, the result of 10 years of field surveys, a revision
      of the Cope maps. The base map looks a lot like the Cope maps, but
      use terrain symbols much more suitable for smaller-scale reproduction.
      There are a few differences: one shows a corn field where the other
      shows clover, etc. Inexplicably, the elevation contour lines have
      been removed in Murphin's, seriously compromising their usefulness.

      Priest uses the "Parks and History Association" map as his base, which
      I think more closely follows the Cope maps. It uses symbols that are
      similar, but not identical to the Cope maps. I don't know the history
      of this map. It too lacks elevation markings.

      From my experience, including elevation markings is always a
      challenge, especially if you want to zoom out and show a broader
      expanse of area. The downside, of course, is that you end up with
      maps that look like the way Sears' text reads: there is no way to
      really understand how the terrain affects the situation. For example,
      in the maps of all three of these books, the reader cannot appreciate
      the situation in the 40 acre cornfield: how can the 4RI get `lost'?
      How can A.P. Hill come up out of nowhere on Burnside's left? I think
      a serious argument can be made that the elevation information is more
      important than the ground cover information (woods vs. corn vs.
      clover, etc.). But ground cover maps are more aesthetically pleasing
      to look at and readers are drawn to them.

      The obvious solution to the `busying-up' effect of contour lines is to
      use contours of greater intervals: 50 ft. instead of 20 ft. or
      whatever. Curiously, the version of the Parks and History Association
      map sold at the Antietam bookstore is plenty large for contour
      makings, but they are nonetheless omitted. I think somehow the authors
      of these maps have simply decided that elevation markings are not
      necessary. This is why the Cope maps are far more useful than any of
      these others.


      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...> wrote:
      > Dear Todd,
      > IIRC Murfin used the Cope maps for his book....
      > Yr. Obt. Svt.
      > G E "Gerry" Mayers
      > To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even
      > on one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the
      > Union, a passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from
      > the Almighty God. --Anonymous
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "T. R. Livesey" <tlivesey@...>
      > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:40 PM
      > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Question
      > I agree with Gerry: Murfin's maps are better than Sears'.
      > Priest's
      > maps are better than Sears'.
      > The Carman-Cope "Atlas of the battlefield of Antietam", of
      > course, is
      > in a class of its own.
      > TRL


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic