Me no likee

Why's that, Mr. history major?

It essentially boils down the civil war to rather meaningless political/territorial boundaries and battles-- it's a little bit of a juvenile version of history. Plus the music from the "Civil War" Kens Burns documentary adds an unnecessary and bombastic sentimentality to something that is essentially a fifth graders' dream of warfare nostalgia. It would be like setting Star/Warcraft to a sentimental ditty.

Maybe you'll appreciate the context:

http://www.lincolnlibraryandmuseum.com/m5.htm

Sorry, that doesn't impress me much either. The essential problem I have (among the others I mentioned) with this thing is that it gives a viewer no educational message other than, "wow, there were a lot of battles and a lot of people died." There's so much more that is important to the civil war than that. If you are into military history, then I guess it does what it seeks out to do pretty well. Speaking of military history, you've probably seen this before, but it's pretty famous:

http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/napoleon-map/

It graphically depicts Napoleon's march to Moscow and how it contributed to his downfall as he lost more and more soldiers.

Well, it impresses me. I would dare say it impresses a majority of people. It gets its simple message across and does it well. That's the point of it. It's not trying to show the complexity of the civil war, nor does it portend to.

i agree that the soundtrack could've been less sentimental, but i enjoyed this video for the fact that it gave me a grand picture of the progression of the Civil War. history lessons are too often devoid of context.

it was interesting to note that the borders remained almost static every january.

i agree that it was interesting to me, a non-history major, and someone who is about as ignorant of the civil war as a native-born and -raised american can be (sadly). It is impossible to present anything like a complete picture of something so vast and complicated as a war in a simple visualization in such a way as to be comprehendable. The napoleon march map has a lot of info but even though it's representing something like 4 or 5 data series, that's only a subset of the information about one single campaign in a big war. Here are some things I learned about the war from watching this that I didn't know before (that may or may not be correct...incorrect conclusions would indeed be a problem with the visualization, so please, slater or whoever, call me on mistakes):

1) there was an md-nc, mo-ok "corridor" of up-for-grabs territory at the beginning, which mostly got divided in half, with the wv-va line accounting for wv looking the way it does
2) there was a battle called "lexington" and it happened all the way up in MN but the ground gained by the south didn't last long.

3) The north seemed to concentrate a lot on blockading the MS river, blockading new orleans and then getting most of the ak-ms part, which probably made transportation in the western part of the confederacy really tough. I didn't even know there was a MS river blockade -- smart guy, that grant (or whoever).

4) The south seems to keep making inroads (like richmond and antietam) but it's not clear where they're heading. the north, meanwhile, seems to really be concentrating on blocking water routes.

5) vicksburg seems really really important, as it completes the north's hold on the MS river, opening up an important channel for them (maybe) but certainly dividing the southern territory.

6) however it still took a while to make a dent in the divided southern territory. the south stopped gaining after vicksburg, but the north didn't do much movement for a while

7) was atlanta revenge for washington? it sure looks that way. washington seems like a desperate move in context.

8) sherman's march pretty much seals it, separating the south into 3.

9) They kept fighting a bit in east texas after the war ended? I think I heard that somewhere...

New York Anthony, I would suggest that understanding why people died fighting is a more important outcome than simply knowing that people died. Thus you might view
the American civil war as tragic by the bulk of destruction and death, but not understand how it really
has shaped a lot of American history and how we live today.

The problematic thing about this also is that territorial placement of armies does not really imply that people supported the army being there. In fact, take for instance how Gettysburg is depicted in this short. It was one of the major turning points in the military side of the war, and there is no way to know that because the South's decline was gradual over the next two years. In fact, you see some expansion of territory by the South afterward, but this could just as easily be the various groups of soldiers retreating... Thus the implication that the war was give and take is quite misleading in some ways.

That being said though, I like military history despite my criticisms of it here. One only need to watch Ken Burns' "Civil War" to see that, in my opinion, this four minutes is not all that.

Jon, you might be right in there being some inaccuracies in the Napoleon diagram, but I still think it's better because at least it explains how the Moscow campaign was really Napoleon's key misjudgement. In the Civil War video you have no way of knowing how Pickett's charge at the Battle of Gettysburg was probably the watershed moment of that war (which is portrayed well in the movie based on the book, The Killer Angels).

Slater, I would suggest that this video—while a small, myopic viewpoint of the civil war—is intended as a way of piquing the interest of the average person. It's giving a small slice of info, which is does very well. Perhaps someone will watch this video and say, hey I want to know more about this war. I am certain the makers of it don't advertise it as the only thing you will ever need to see or read about the civil war. What is wrong with simplifying for the masses (which would include the copius amounts of children that see this video when they visit the musuem). That Napoleon diagram, while interesting, is not as effective at making me want to know more.

Fair enough New York Anthony. Good points.