Rear Rank One in Stacking Arms

[john duffer]

Re: Rear Rank One in Stacking Arms

No real bearing on the war period but of interest (at least to me) - The 1873 version of Upton's adds a command "lay on loose pieces" at which point the front no. 2 takes the piece from the rear no. 1 like many reenactor units do. At take arms the front no. 2 also passes the piece back but there's no additional command.

[Citman05]

Re: To lift or lean in taking arms?

I have a question regarding the command itself. As in the modern military, are there prepatory commands?

Such as on the order of TAKE-, you would put your hands on the whepons, and when the comman is given ARMS, you lift and break the stack. It just seems now that the commander just says , "TAKE ARMS" real quick, and everyone then breaks there stacks etc. and it can be sloppy. It seems with prepatory commands you can get everone on more of a pace. I didnt know if in the manuals it gave any clue to this, or just says what the command is and what should happen.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: To lift or lean in taking arms?

I have a question regarding the command itself. As in the modern military, are there prepatory commands?

Such as on the order of TAKE-, you would put your hands on the whepons, and when the comman is given ARMS, you lift and break the stack. It just seems now that the commander just says , "TAKE ARMS" real quick, and everyone then breaks there stacks etc. and it can be sloppy. It seems with prepatory commands you can get everone on more of a pace. I didnt know if in the manuals it gave any clue to this, or just says what the command is and what should happen.

Yes, there are preparatory commands. In the case of "Take - ARMS", "Take" is the preparatory command and "ARMS" is the command of execution. And, yes, there should be a pause between the prepratory and the command of execution. A commander should not say "Taykarms" any more than he should say "Lefface".

Also...
No one should move until "ARMS". You don't touch your musket, you don't stick your hand out, nothing. Just wait for the command of execution.

[ajroscoe]

Re: To lift or lean in taking arms?

Brian,
The manuals are pretty good about stating when a movement is to be done on a prepatory command, such as the moving the rifle vertical when coming from the Trail position on the command "Shoulder Arms." It would stand to reason that one shouldn't be moving until the order of execution unless otherwise stated. Therefore, with "Take Arms," the rear rank No. 1 shouldn't take off his weapon until the command "Arms" is heard. That being said, in giving commands, a good Officer/NCO should have a certain cadence to his voice and should not rush the command into one slur. There should be a pause between the two to differentiate between the prepatory and the execution of the order.

[Silas]

Just to goof things up : an exception from a lesser source

As an exception to the general rule, here's what Duffield says in his battalion manual about unstacking arms. Note : this is the "swing" stack, not the Scott/Gilham/Casey stack.

24. Take - Arms.
One time and one motion.

At the first command, number two of the front rank will seize the odd piece and pass it to number one of the rear rank ; at the second command, number two of the front rank will seize his own piece with his left hand and the piece of number two of the rear rank with his right. Number one of the front rank will seize his own piece with his right hand ; number two of the front rank raises the stack, brings the butts together, and thus unlocks the stack, passes his right hand piece to number two rear rank, and changes his own piece from the left hand to the right. Each man will then take the position of ordered arms.

Go to page 236 after you've selected this link to Duffield's School of Brigade, and Evolutions of the Line (1862) http://books.google.com/books?id=_q5...page&q&f=false

This is really odd to me because Duffield uses the swing. So much for the idea that Federal soldiers aren't swingers. Further, none of the Big Three battalion manuals prescribe any detail about how weapons are stacked or unstacked. (You'll have to go to the respective School of the Soldier or Company for this kind of detail.) None of the Big Three have the front rank two assisting the rear rank one in receiving his weapon. None of the Big Three require any action on the prepatory command.

Duffield is mostly a footnote in history because his manual, published in May, 1862, is quickly made irrelevant by the publishing of Casey's three volume set before the Summer of '62 passes. Casey's set of manuals becomes the official manual for United States infantrymen by explicit order. Duffield is pretty much one of the many folks who created helpful manuals which supplement the works of the Big Three manuals published during the war. The Big Three are Hardee, Gilham, and Casey. I don't include Scott because his manual becomes obsolete in short order.

In some reenacting battalions - and even some companies - I have heard a prepatory command for unstacking weapons. The usual command is "Prepare to take arms" followed by "Take" and "Arms." Of course, the leaners are removed at the prepatory command of "Take." None of it is per the manuals, but reenactorisms are tougher to kill than cockroaches or bill collectors.

[john duffer]

Re: Just to goof things up : an exception from a lesser source

" I don't include Scott because his manual becomes obsolete in short order."

Silas

As regards Mr. Scott you may very well be correct and probably have scads of evidence backing up your opinion but my first impulse is this is little too sweeping and assumptive for such a definitive statement. My impression has been that HARDEE, U.S. TACTICS, GILHAM, et al, expected the reader to continuing using SCOTT for formations above the batallion level. At the lower levels, items like forming the company are either assumed to be carried over or repeated (Gilham's for example) and if everything carried over from SCOTT was omitted from the three books you mentioned you'd have some mighty thin manuals. I agree that use of SCOTT per se was probably fading but I wouldn't want to bet my life that no unit was using him even in 1865. My original is a late 1861 reprint and Mr. Casey - not approved until August, 1862 - says in his Preface:

" THE following volumes of Infantry Tactics are based upon the French ordonnances of 1831 and 1845, for the manoeuvres of heavy infantry and chasseurs à pied. Both of these systems have been in use in our service for some years; the former having been translated by Lieutenant-General Scott, and the latter by Lieutenant-Colonel Hardee. My attention, for many years given to the study of the manoeuvres of infantry, was more particularly directed to the subject while engaged, in 1854, as President of a Board assembled by the War Department, for the review, correction and emendation of the translation of Lieutenant-Colonel Hardee. Since the introduction into our service of this latter drill, in connection with the tactics of General Scott, I have seen the necessity of a uniform system for the manoeuvres of all the infantry arm of service. "

I'm sceptical that all officers immediately threw out their SCOTT's, especially Volume 3, and, unless adopting CASEY (or DUFFIELD) Southern formations would seem to have continued with SCOTT at Brigade and above level.

On a sidenote, with an admittally very thin sampling of photos I'm seeing more Federal "swing" stacks than the old SCOTT/GILHAM, et al version to my great surprise.

[Silas]

Re: Rear Rank One in Stacking Arms

I knew you'd step in, Duffer.

There is no updated comparable volume three on the gray side to Casey's volume three. My recollection is that Scott's ancient book of tactics on evolutions of the line continued to be the official text on the gray side for the upper levels of drill, meaning : manoeuvers for brigade, division and corps de armee. I have not done a line by line comparison between volume three of Casey verses Scott's Evolutions of The Line as I have done with Hardee, Gilham and Casey. I suspect if I did, I probably wouldn't find many differences between Casey and Scott. (I've done bits and pieces and have not noticed any substantial difference.) For all I know, Casey's volume three is, for all practical purposes, Scott's Evolutions of the Line with Casey's name on it.

However, for the lower schools - meaning : solder, company and battalion - Scott became obsolete. Where there was a conflict in the text about new drill verses old drill, such as doubling, then the new text controlled over the old. Where the new text was silent, but Scott had some comment about how something should be done, Scott was persuasive. (An example was something you cited recently about subalterns in the thread about On The Right By Company Into Line.)

Scott's manuals are cornerstone text for the Big Three. Each of the Big Three borrowed heavily from Scott. In 1861, he's still the man as you can find reprints of his manuals dated 1861. Baxter practically licks Scott's boots with the dedication he wrote in that tiny little booklet with all the great illustrations. However, by 1862, Scott is pushed out of the first tier and settles into being the biggest name in the second tier. It's newer manuals by Hardee, Gilham and Casey push him out of the first tier. Arguably, Gilham gets similarly pushed out in 1863.

Scott has value during the war, but his former high value before the war degrades quickly as the war progresses. That's my opiniion, and I'm sticking to it.

[john duffer]

Re: Rear Rank One in Stacking Arms

Your opinion is as valid as anyone's Silas, probably more so than many, I just objected to the definitive blanket statement as fact. I've researched the crap out of this stuff and would have a hard time proving in court by other than circumstancial evidence that no CW era units drilled with Von Steuben. I will point out that "Scott's ancient book of tactics " has roughly the same relationship to Casey's as 1983-2003 has to the present day (and things progress a bit faster now than then). What's old timey to us wasn't as old timey to them.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Rear Rank One in Stacking Arms

Silas,

I was basing my response on Hardee's 55/62. It doesn't specify actions to be taken at "Take".

Take-ARMS.

413. At this command the rear rank man of every odd numbered file will withdraw his piece from the stack.; the front rank man of every even file will seize his own piece with the left hand and that of the man on his right with his right hand, both above the lower band; the rear rank man of the even file will seize his piece with the right hand below the lower band; these two men will raise up the stack to loosen the rammers, the front rank man of every odd file will facilitate the disengagement of the rammers, if necessary, by drawing them out slightly with the left hand, and will receive his piece from the hand of the man next on his left; the four men will retake the position of the soldier at order arms.

[Silas]

Re: Rear Rank One in Stacking Arms

Wickett,

That was Duffield. I noted him only because he differed from what the Big Three - and even Scott - said. They are the rule. Duffield is the exception.

[10TnVI]

Re: Just to goof things up : an exception from a lesser source

John-here is a cite supporting your statement- it's from the book "The Rough side of War"-the Civil war journal of Chesley A. Mossman of the 59th Illinois

written Sept. 20, 1864 and referring to the 41st Ohio-
"That Regiment uses Scott's Manual of Arms. "Carry Arms" sounds queerly to one accostomed to Casey's manual"

[john duffer]

Re: Just to goof things up : an exception from a lesser source

Thanks Leland ! These kinds of statements on which drill is used are pretty much at the hens teeth level.

Thanks again