Glory minus the 'l'

Overall the movie was great, but what really surprised me was the way the fought. I knew in the Civil War that the soldiers just stood and fired at each other straight on, but I thought that there would actually be tactics like flanking or taking the enemy from behind. In the scene at James Island, South Carolina where 54th Massachusetts fought their first battle, the South charged the Union soldiers straight on. That's not a smart thing to do if you're trying not to get shot. Also, didn't the 54th Massachusetts think of crouching? I know in the first part of the battle the first line was crouching, but later they all stood up. If they were crouching or laying down, there'd be much less of a chance of getting shot. What made me think was the way Robert Shaw collaborated with his soldiers as well as his officers to lead the regiment. For example, he asked Rawlings for advice on the soldiers. Rawlings replied by tell him that they needed shoes. Many people in that time, I think, would probably treat the soldiers poorly and not care about their opinions. Shaw worked with them to get the best results, and it was definitely a better outcome. I thought that the story was accurate, for the most part. They made the characters very accurate to the real thing. I went online and searched up a picture of the real Robert Shaw and compared it to the actor, and they had the same droopy moustache and the same small goatee. The soldiers and the 54th Massachusetts were treated lowly, the way black people were treated back then. The battles were graphic and censored no gore whatsoever. In all, I'd say the movie is as close as realistic as it can get.