Large men...

[Guy Gane III]

I thought this was of interest....

Turn Them Out To Die Like a Mule: The Civil War letters of Hospital Steward John N. Henry, 49th New York 1861-1865 Edited By John Michael Priest


[Headquarters] 49th [Regt.] N.Y.V.
[Camp] Advance, Va. [Co.] I
[Thursday, October 3, 1861]

Page 6:

...The discipline of the camp is very strict & is in my opinion of decided benefit to unruly boys. If you hear [of] any serious complaint about the fare & service of our men put it down in nine cases out of ten as coming from the unruly and lazy. Our large boys do not endure service as well as the small ones. Charles [N.] Boorn, James [M.] Conroe & [Thomas] Hutchinson [all from Company I] fell out on Sunday [September 29]. Perry Johnson [Company I] of Sheridan(N.Y.?) has failed nearly every day of hard service. On the other hand Denny [G.] Mack [Company I], [Samuel] McKelvey [Company I] & others perform all their duties properly & without complaining so far as I know. Tell Denny's Mother that her boy makes a first rate Soldier. He told me yesterday that he had rather be here than at home....

J.N. Henry

[Guy Gane III]

Re: Large men...

BTW, John Henry served as a Private during the above period before becoming an Hospital Steward...

:D

[Gary of CA]

Re: Large men...

Forgot which Spanish Peninsula Campaign book I read it in, but one British soldier made the same exact observation. Given the same or inadeqate rations, a smaller soldier can go farther than a bigger soldier. Bigger soldiers were dropping out or dying whereas the littler fellers kept going on.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Large men...

Fox's Regimental Losses says the same thing, or something similar:

But tall men proved to be poor material for a long, toilsome campaign. When, after a hard, forced march, the captain looked over his company at nightfall to see how many men he had with him, the "ponies" who trudged along at the tail of the company were generally all there; it was the head end of the company that was thinned out.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/chapt7.htm

I wonder if by "large men" they mean tall? muscular? fat? any combination thereof?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Guy Gane III]

Re: Large men...

I will have to delve into finding out the size (if at all possible) of the aforementioned men listed as "large".

My personal analysis, based on my own experience and the lack of info at moment, leads me to think that "large" may be a combo of both tall and/or wide.

For example... I went on a hike with a few friends (who I kitted out, since they aren't reenactors) with each blanket carrying one extra shirt, 2 pair of socks, one pair of drawers rolled inside of a gum blanket and a each had a Jones or Woodburn blanket. Each carty box held 4 rolls of quarters (two on top and two in bottom - I was lacking rolled live rounds... ). The four of us marched approximately 9 miles (with the use of GPS - just in case) on wooded, flat to hilly ground. Friend 1 is 6'3", 185lbs, Friend 2 is 5'9", 155lbs, Friend 3 is 5'6", 130lbs and myself being 6'1", 140lbs.

I was beat up after the first 3 miles. Friend 1 was pushing himself to the limit until he finally gave in at about 4 1/2 miles. Of course Friends 2 & 3 thought they could go on for another 6 or so miles. :angry_smi Biggest complaint from me and Friend 1..... hips and back were sore. :cry_smile haha

Being lanky and tall isn't all it's cracked up to be! :confused_

As reenactors, we all can't be in the (roughly) same condition that the OG boys were. As was mentioned in Troiani's book, "Regiments and Uniforms...", most of the boys would be in a Runner's condition. (Or something to that effect). But I would have to say that would be more likely after 3 months of disciplined service or if the soldier, in his civilian life was used to physical work/labor.

Maybe, one day, I'll be motivated to get into that great of shape!

[mtvernon]

Re: Large men...

There should be a 'reenactor's workout' series, where we do calisthenics in place while swinging muskets around, all the while listening to reels. Talk about Sweating to the Oldies!

Seriously, of all the guilt I feel for being large, it's mostly from the thought that my appearance is farby no matter how good my kit is. It's probably the cheapest thing to do in order to bring about authenticity but the hardest to will.

Man.

[CeeBeeRebel]

Re: Large men...

There should be a 'reenactor's workout' series, where we do calisthenics in place while swinging muskets around, all the while listening to reels. Talk about Sweating to the Oldies!

A feller named McClellan put together a manual on just such a subject. It can be found here: http://www.usregulars.com/Bayonet_files/bayonet01.html

[DougCooper]

Re: Large men...

Since neither rations amounts nor canteen size were based on the size of the soldier, it only makes sense that smaller men should have on average better endurance.

Drill WAS the calithenics of the army back then. Do 30 mins of bayonet drill or an hour of school of the company or battalion and it all makes sense. One Iowa soldier pronounced it "harder work the farming." Marching however, was the exercise most responsible for getting the men "in fighting trim."

[Chad Teasley]

Re: Large men...

I don't have the reference at hand, but it seems I recall Bruce Catton quoting Phil Sheridan as saying essentially the same thing. He greatly preferred small, wiry fellows over big ones, as their endurance was much greater. I believe he was talking specifically about cavalrymen (I'm sure the horses preferred smaller soldiers, also :) ), but I suspect the same thought process would apply to infantry.

Interestingly, I don't think things are that much different today. Serving with a Marine infantry battalion in Iraq, I've noted what a large percentage of the Grunts are slight of build. That is, at first glance. Then when you look more closely it becomes apparent how wiry they are. They're muscular, alright...It's just a "ropey" sort of muscle tone instead of "boulder"-like. Not much body-fat, either. Doing a couple of 3 hour dismounted patrols a day, wearing full battle rattle in 115 degree heat, tends to keep the blubber off. (Rather the same theory as marching 25 miles a day wearing wool and toting a musket.) It's pretty much the same thing with the Navy Spec Ops guys. Some of the SEALs are body-builders, but the majority of them are lean and wiry, with little to no body-fat.

I suppose that in the final analysis, the nature of infantrymen hasn't really changed all that much. I suspect that the Greek hoplites were a wiry and thin sort of breed, too...

[Rob Weaver]

Re: Large men...

John McElroy, in his Andersonville memoir, observed that the big, husky farm boys didn't hold up as well in confinement as the wiry little punks, either. Being one of those little guys myself, my companions are often surprised at how much I can take, and how quickly I recover after a few minutes off my feet. Takes longer the older I get, though :) . Hardee's recommends marching, with and without packs, to strengthen the men, and running. Instructions are given on how to carry your hands. (I'd love to take a company out for a morning run!) Bayonet exercise is certainly a great upper body/cardiovascular exercise as well. I know when I put my boys through Exercises 10 and 11 in the manual, we break a sweat. The military has a unique challenge in needing to condition large numbers of men quickly, while simultaneously instilling in them confidence in themselves and their equipment. Formation running/marching and bayonet exercise fit this to a tee, and each soldier brings his own equipment with him, requiring nothing else.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Large men...

Since neither rations amounts nor canteen size were based on the size of the soldier, it only makes sense that smaller men should have on average better endurance.

On the other hand, you could say that since equipment wasn't based on the soldier size either, 25 lbs. of gear and musket might be almost 20% of a small soldier's bodyweight, but closer to 10% of a larger soldier.

The whole question is an interesting combination of factors.

I wonder how many calories were in a daily ration, and would it be enough for a small man but too little for a large man? Does the issue have more to do with how a person is genetically programmed to put on muscle--runner's physique vs. weightlifter's physique?

Does it depend on psychological effects. If small men have always felt they needed to prove themselves in physical competitions, are they more ready psychologically for endurance?

Is height a disadvantage regardless of weight, conditioning, nutrition or bodytype (might be able to compare heights and finish times in marathons)?

And then there's also observer bias--you notice the little guys are still doing well because you don't expect it, and same for the strong-looking guys who aren't.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Guy Gane III]

Re: Large men...

page 38:

Charles N. Boorn, age 19, enlistged on August 18, 1861 at Forestville to serve three years. He mustered in as a private in Company I on August 28, 1861. He was promoted to corporal on August 15, 1863. He reenlisted as a veteran on December 16, 1863 and was mortally wounded on May 5, 1864 at the Wilderness, Virginia. Transferred to Company D on September 17, 1864 he died from his wound on November 22, 1864.

James M. Conroe, age 19, enlisted on August 8, 1861 at Forestville for three years. He mustered in as a private in Company I on August 28, 1861 and was discharged for a disability on January 21, 1863 in Washington, D. C.

Thomas Hutchinson, age 19 enlisted on August 20, 1861 at Forestville for three years and mustered in as a private in Company I on August 28, 1861. Promoted to corporal, he deserted sometime during the war. :angry_smi

Perry Johnson, age 26, enlisted on August 26, 1861 at Forestville to serve three years. He musted in as a private in Company I on August 28, 1861. He received a dishonorable discharge sometime before the war ended. (I will look more into this. I would like to know what he was discharged for.)

Denny G. Mack, age 18, enlisted on August 8, 1861 at Forestville to serve three years. He mustered in as a corporal in Company I on August 28, 1861. He transferred to the Veteran Reserve Corps on January 15, 1864.

Samuel McKelvey, age 30, enlisted on August 13, 1861 at Forestville to serve three years. He musted in as a private in Company I on August 28, 1861. He was promoted to corporal on the same day. He became a sergeant on November 26, 1862 and was reduced to the ranks on August 15, 1863. He reenlisted as a veteran on December 16, 1863. He was transferred to Company D on September 17, 1864 and was listed as absent, sick as of April 23, 1865.

Now, how many of you thought these guys that are considered "large", thought they were over the age of 25, as I did?? :tounge_sm

I will have to see if I can find the descriptive roll that has their weight/height.