Gilham's "Fall In"

[Enfilade]

When looking at Gilham's Manual, Article IV. School Of The Company, there arose a question I cannot find. It is always a given that guys doing Gilham's Manual of Arms, would always form the company falling in at "Shoulder Arms" with fixed bayonet. But I draw your attention to #217. that notes the following:

217. *The Company being at ordered arms*, the ranks and file closers well aligned, when the instructor shall wish to cause the ranks to be opened, he will direct the left guide to place himself on the left of the front rank, which being executed, he will command:
1. Company. 2 Shoulder-ARMS. 3.To the rear, open order. 4.MARCH.

Does this not imply that when "falling in" under Gilham's Manual, that soldiers did NOT fall in at shoulder arms with fixed bayonets, but at order arms?

What is the correct way and why are units that do Gilham's Manual all the time adamant about falling in with fixed bayonet at shoulder arms? I admit I do Hardee's much more than Gilham's and need a little clarification if possible. Thanks in advance!

Mark Berrier
North State Rifles

http://www.northstaterifles.com

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

Gilhams is a derivitive of Scott's, which always had the men fall in with arms shouldered and bayonets affixed. I believe the statement you mention is if you happen to have the men at order arms for whatever reason, it draws your attention to make sure the men are ordered to shoulder, not that they would not fall in the ranks in this manner.

[CSchneider]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

Ross is right.

An understanding of Scott is necessary to fully understand Gilham and Hardee. I think this goes back to the discussion from a couple weeks ago: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ad.php?t=23300. A lack of a good reproduction of Scott seems to cause a lot of confusion. We often don't recognize that officers we presume were using Hardee's were likely familiar with Scott or Gilham, or even carried copies of them to reference. I've heard more than a few times that because Hardee didn't fully describe how to form a company, "they just did it" in some informal or reenactor-created manner. As that earlier thread described, it seems probable that troops using Hardee formed a company as per Scott and Gilham.

-Craig Schneider

[Enfilade]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

Gilhams is a derivitive of Scott's, which always had the men fall in with arms shouldered and bayonets affixed. I believe the statement you mention is if you happen to have the men at order arms for whatever reason, it draws your attention to make sure the men are ordered to shoulder, not that they would not fall in the ranks in this manner.

I understand that Scotts is the assumption. That being the case, let's assume that you are forming the company in Gilham's article #216 where it also has no order stating at where weapons should be held, just where exactly is the order to go to "Order Arms" from shoulder arms? It states in #217- The Company being at order arms".

Ross is right.

An understanding of Scott is necessary to fully understand Gilham and Hardee. I think this goes back to the discussion from a couple weeks ago: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ad.php?t=23300. A lack of a good reproduction of Scott seems to cause a lot of confusion. We often don't recognize that officers we presume were using Hardee's were likely familiar with Scott or Gilham, or even carried copies of them to reference. I've heard more than a few times that because Hardee didn't fully describe how to form a company, "they just did it" in some informal or reenactor-created manner. As that earlier thread described, it seems probable that troops using Hardee formed a company as per Scott and Gilham.

-Craig Schneider

Thanks Craig. I hadn't looked previously at other posts. But my specific question comes from "Where exactly is the order to go to order arms if the company fell in at shoulder?

That's my question.

Mark Berrier
North State Rifles

http://www.northstaterifles.com

[fytn5th]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

Another thought.... I don't think drill was handled cover to cover, page by page, sentence by sentence, word by word from the manual each and every time... As previously mentioned, this probably explains that to make this movement you should first be at the shoulder. Unfortunately, none of us were there, and each response is all individual interpretation, so however you do within the context of the manual can't be all wrong.

[Enfilade]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

So, are you saying that it is more correct to fall in under Gilham's Manual of Arms at "Order Arms" than it is at "Shoulder Arms" or just as correct or not correct at all? It specifically states in the manual The Company being at order arms.

There is no ambiguity when Gilham states this. The only ambiguity I have interpreted is that he never gives an order to fall in and then another order that makes the company go to order arms. My question remains, why not just fall in at "Order Arms"?

As you may can tell, I don't care too much for Gilham's Manual.

Mark Berrier/why even do Gilham's?:sarcastic

[Silas]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

As you may can tell, I don't care too much for Gilham's Manual.

You could always use the method as prescribed by Hardee or Casey assuming that either had included such in their manuals. In the alternative there is the method in Infantry Tactics for Schools, explained and illustrated for the use of teachers and scholars (New York, 1863). The illustration in the front's piece is great. The title is, "the boy soldier." Here's the direct link.

[CSchneider]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

The only ambiguity I have interpreted is that he never gives an order to fall in and then another order that makes the company go to order arms.

I see what you're talking about now. Here's how I look at it, and I think what Jaime was getting at as well:

What does the first sentence of section 217 have to do with section 216? Are we not talking about two different instructions entirely? As the title that begins the section notes, 217 describes how to open ranks. What does it have to do with forming the company? I think we're talking about apples and oranges. For example, if we read on just a bit, we'll note that the company is clearly at order arms at the end of 224. But at the beginning of 225, they immediately go to the position of ready. Did they go to the position of ready directly from order arms? When did they load? There is no order to shoulder arms (or load)simply because Gilham is talking about a different instruction, and there is no need to do so. They have nothing to do with one another--the description of take-arms (224) just happens to be next to fire by company (225), just like forming the company (216) happens to be next to To open ranks (217.)

-Craig Schneider
Has seen a copy of Gilham's owned by a company commander in Hardee's Corps

[Enfilade]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

-Craig Schneider
Has seen a copy of Gilham's owned by a company commander in Hardee's Corps[/QUOTE]

He just kept it around for laughs when guys brought up this question....:D

We are talking apples to oranges.

No, the point I was making is that even though this is from the beginning of Article IV- #216 and then #217, like you say, there is no continuity. I agree. I'm not disputing that fact. Neither am I questioning where it is necessary or not necessary to have a command. I'm not defending how Hardee's Manual was written either.

The point of the matter is that we assume in this case don't we? Rather than have written evidence of the Company being formed at Shoulder and then given an order to go to "Order Arms". So we must assume that the company was formed at the Shoulder?

Where is that stated in Gilham's Manual? Is it stated in Hardee's Manual?

Mark Berrier
North State Rifles

http://www.northstaterifles.com

[john duffer]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

I also think it's sort of a non-issue here. Look at 1855 Hardee - the first lesson in School of the Company is how to open ranks and begins with '.. being at order arms..". There's no indication it has to be immediaetly after forming the company. If anything there's an implied order to Order Arms as it's telling the Instructor to teach the lesson starting from Order Arms.

[41strifleman]

Re: Gilham's "Fall In"

When we talk manuals and how the manual says it is done; we never think about how the officer or NCO would have actually done it.
For those of us with military experience; you try to keep it as simple as you can. If there is no need to have the rifle shouldered; don't do it.
Sholdering a weapon is for when a movement of the person is needed; either to face or to march in a straight line.
If you merely need to form the company, they can do it at the order arms.
If you need to move the company a few feet for alignment you don't need to shoulder arms; just trail arms and move them.
Bob Gregory
79th NY
reenacting since the antedelulvian