Sizing the men of the company when forming ranks

[Silas]

While working on my latest booklet, I stumbled upon something I don't recall seeing elsewhere about how to size the men when forming company :

The height of shoulders will be the point to measure by. [ ] Where the shoulders are of equal height, the tallest man, measuring from heels to head, will take precedence ; and where there is an equality in both these points, the senior member will take the right.

Link : http://books.google.com/books?id=nK_...page&q&f=false

Baxter's entire method of forming the company is pretty bizarre, but his selection about sorting individual men has merit. All too often, we look to the height of the heads which becomes rather complicated when Hardee and other tall hats are worn. Matching by shoulders makes perfect sense. And that when two men are of equal size, the more senior one moves to the right is an interesting feature.

[john duffer]

Re: Sizing the men of the company when forming ranks

Also interesting he mentions plaing corporals by height rather than their "rank", implying that the 2nd corporal is above the 3rd, etc.

[Silas]

Re: Sizing the men of the company when forming ranks

From Hardee's Revised comes this :

8. The formation of a regiment is in two ranks ; and each company will be formed into two ranks, in the following manner : the corporals will be posted in the front rank, and on the right and left of platoons, according to height ; the tallest corporal and the tallest man will form the first file, the next two tallest men will form the second file, and so on to the last file, which will be composed of the shortest corporal and the shortest man.

I haven't looked for similar language in Scott, but it is also found in Gilham, Casey and original Hardee.

[john duffer]

Re: Sizing the men of the company when forming ranks

I knew they were typically placed by height Silas, I was saying I thought corporals were more or less equals and Baxter is implying otherwise.

[Silas]

Re: Sizing the men of the company when forming ranks

The vacancy for fourth corporal noted in Sam Watkins always made me wonder about some degree of seniority between corporals. If they're number is only based upon the randomness of height and where they happen to fall in line, then they are all co-equals. However, there may have been some degree of higher status between supposed co-equals in the manner of "four legs good ; two legs better" when it came to performing duties outside of drill/battle.

[Arch Campbell]

Re: Sizing the men of the company when forming ranks

I can't speak for other states, but if you peruse the Iowa rosters you'll very commonly see notations of promotions such as "promoted from 8th corporal to 7th corporal. " Not only does this indicate having 8 corporals (as the regulations dictate) instead of 4 (as the drill manuals call for,) but also that the army did NOT see all corporals as equal.

How did this impact the placement of the corporals within the company front? An excellent question that I have wondered about for 30+ years.

Signed,

An eternal 4th corporal :)

[thomas aagaard]

Re: Sizing the men of the company when forming ranks

The "old army" structure(10 companies pr. regiment) used by the regular army had In each company:
One First Sergeant.
Three Sergeants.
Four Corporals

from Krautz CUSTOMS OF SERVICE FOR NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS:

295. Volunteer regiments of infantry differ from the above in having (...) four
sergeants and eight corporals in each company.

So the Volunteer regiments had the same number of corporals as the "new army" 3 battalion regiments.(with 8 companies pr. battalion)

[john duffer]

Re: Sizing the men of the company when forming ranks

"How did this impact the placement of the corporals within the company front? An excellent question that I have wondered about for 30+ years."

Per 1835 SCOTTS:

" They will be placed in the front and rear ranks, and on the right and left of platoons, according to their height."