Yeah, but Bristol (VA and TN) and Bristow Station VA are about 300 miles apart. If you mistake one for the other, you are definitely going to be late…
Three Battles of Ypres, three Battles of the Aisne, three Battles of the Somme (depending on how you count). It’s amazing how much of same territory was simply ground up until it looked like a moonscape.
I agree. The only drawback was the two battles:
Park Ranger: “So here was where Jackson led his men…”
Visitor: "Was that the first or second battle?
Further, the lines and monuments criss-cross between battles.
The Union side called it the Battle of Bull Run, and the Confederates called it the Battle of Manassas, so in a way it was a fight over the name of the battle. 
And then you have idiots like me who consistently misspell Potomac, but then I’m an engineer and we’re not expected to be able to spell. :o
You also get to see Stonewall Jackson’s statue! Not many people know that Ahnuld was the model for both the general and the horse: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7154/6507393633_d6623da480_z.jpg
Be sure to ask:
“Why were so many Civil War battles fought in national parks?”
“Did the soldiers take cover behind all the monuments?”
“Did the Americans win this battle?”
I have been a tour guide.
We hated people like you. 
Fair point. I intended to include something along the lines of ‘if you only have 1 day to spend, focus on 1st Manassas, if you have 2 days, then concentrate on a separate battle each day’. The second was just a whole lot less historically significant.
But on reflection, I’d probably suggest that someone visiting the area wanting to more than a day visiting battlefields should consider spending the second day at Fredericksburg or The Wilderness. They’re not too far away, and more significant than 2nd Manassas.
Fredericksburg is interesting because it’s a lesson in how not to attack (piecemeal), and the Wilderness is interesting because of how different it is from all the other battlefields (few open areas, lots of dense forest, much more confusion than normal).
The Union named the battles after the local body of water, the CS named them after the local town. I never could keep straight which was which (and taking your word for the names), so I just switch between the names, and tell myself it’s the sign of a flexible mind.
Hehe. Although as irritating as some of those people can be, at least they are on the battlefield attempting to learn about history and I don’t fault them for that.
The ones that really grind my gears are the know-it-alls that “ask questions” simply to show off their superior knowledge to the rest of the tour group.
Park Ranger: This is the area where Jackson got the nickname Stonewall as General Bee attempted to rally his own troops by saying, “Look men, there stands Jackson like a stone wall.”
Know-it-all Visitor: Excuse me, sir. Yes, thank you. Is there any truth to the claim made by noted Civil War historian Shelby Foote, that Bee, who tragically died the next day from the wounds he received on this very field, was being sarcastic and was attempting to impugn Jackson’s reputation for not bringing his men up sooner? Or do you agree with the conventional history?
Add to this the fact that the first mountain ridge in Virginia is just a few miles to the west of Manassas. So the whole geography acts to funnel armies through that spot. Similar geography, as noted above, resulted in multiple battles in and around Fredricksburg.
For me, a good battlefield involves both explanation via on-site establishments, and open viewing of the site, so you can easily see what was going on during the battle. Manassas National Battlefield Park has both. I was similarly impressed by Battle, England’s treatment of the Battle of Hastings; it’s easy to understand exactly what happened there from the information they have and the viewing available. By comparison, the site of the Battle of Chancellorsville is no where near as easy to comprehend, because it’s mostly woodland, with occasional openings.
The actions of Col. John Mosby, for example.
I’ve heard this before, but was it really the case? Aside of Bull Run and Antietam, most of the Civil War battles I can name off the top of my head were named after towns – Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, etc. Did these battles have different names in the North? And if so, why did the confederate usage win out?
That’s true about the Confederate raids into Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. But the Confederates hoped that their campaigns into Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and the New Mexico Territory (modern day Arizona and New Mexico) would lead to local uprisings and bring those states into the CSA. In fact, the New Mexico campaign was intended as just the first part of a plan that envisioned the capture of California and the Utah Territory (modern day Colorado, Nevada, and Utah). Which shows how confident the Confederates were feeling in 1862.
Stones River/Murfreesboro.
Antietam/Sharpsburg
Pittsburgh Landing/Shiloh
Pea Ridge/Elkhorn Tavern
Sometimes the North won out in the nomenclature war; sometimes the South.
I’ve seen Gettysburg, Antietam, Wilderness/Chancellorsville, and Fredericksburg for the Civil War and Saratoga and Bennington from the Revolution. Bennington was the most impressive, even though there’s little there; the terrain alone makes it amazing that the Continentals were able to win it.
For more standard, Gettysburg was the most impressive. We took the audio tour and it was well worth it.
The Manassas Battlefield Visitor’s Center has great visual aids for the battle, including a wall-sized map with lighted pinpoints that reflect how the various forces moved positions as the battle progressed.
I thought the names differed because the Union hadn’t been the area before, and named by the map location, whereas the Confederates were familiar with the areas and used local place names.
Battles of Verdun in 1792 and 1916, Battles of Yorktown in both the Revolution and Civil War … Yeah, geography dictates strategy.
Wasn’t the idea that the Southern farm boys thought towns and manmade structures were more notable and named battles for them, while natural features made more of an impression on the Northern city slickers?
It might be safer to assume that there WAS no “idea”, that people named battles according to whatever stuck in their mind or what they had heard, and that that was that.
(Your idea sounds like potentially a useful strategy for taking tests on battle names, but not so much for coming up with a name in the first place.)