- Reaction score
In the civil war, it was much easier to relate to both sides of the conflict. They had letters from soldiers all over the north and south at the same place, relating their experiences these battles. Some soldiers stories stop while another's continues along.MARS said:You are indeed in for a treat. It was the first Ken Burns show I watched.
And I agree with Altair - Civil War was even better, and I say that as someone with zero interest in the topic. I think perhaps its because Civil War doesn't have the benefit of tv footage to rely on for its story telling..only photographs and letters read aloud...something about that made it a little..haunting, I guess. Definitely worth checking out as well.
In the war, it was the classic, america versus evil that has been told a million times, and sadly, in much better ways the the war.
Vietnam returned to the soldiers on two sides, and did a remarkable job of showing the vietcon, south Vietnam, north Vietnam, and Americans, but this war was not so much a war on the ground as it was a series of presidents trying not to be seen as the one to lose the conflict, with no clear strategy on how to win it.
In short, the civil war was the most pure, a story of soldiers against other soldiers, with the perspective of both.
The war was pure, soldiers against soldiers, but the axis might as well have been a bunch of faceless, soulless ghouls.
The Vietnam war did a great job of soldiers against soldiers, but this was a war where you get the sense that nomatter what the soldiers did, this was a political war that was going to be won or loss in the white house, not the battlefield. Not pure in that sense, but still very very solid.