Why cant we form 100 man companies?

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

It seems my previous study of Hardees 1855 manual is where I recalled the position of the 3rd Lieutenant. From a the little bit of research I've done though, this appears to have been used almost exclusively by the CS.

The Federals didn't seem to occasion the term 3rd Lieutenant but they did have them or at least they were provided for by army regulation - they were called Brevet 2d Lieutenants.


From Hardee's:

ARTICLE FIRST. - Formation of a Regiment in order of battle, or in line.

POST OF COMPANY OFFICERS, SERGEANTS AND CORPORALS.

12. The company officers and sergeants are nine in number, and will be posted in the following manner:

18. The third lieutenant, opposite the center of the second platoon.

24. The corporals will be posted in the front rank, as prescribed No. 8.

25. Absent officers and sergeants will be replaced - officers by sergeants, and sergeants by corporals. The colonel may detach a first lieutenant from one company to command another, of which both the captain and first lieutenant are absent; but this authority will give no right to a lieutenant to demand to be detached.

From Kautz' Customs of Service for Officers:

11. THERE are three grades of Lieutenants, viz.: First, Second, and Brevet Second. There is no material difference in the duties they are required to perform; they differ only in rank. 12. Brevet Second Lieutenants are supernumerary officers commissioned from the graduates of the Military Academy, or from the non-commissioned officers of the Army found worthy of pro-motion where there are no vacancies. (Acts April 29, 1812, sec. 4, and August 4,1854, sec. 5, Reg. 22.) First and Second Lieutenants belong to the legal organization of companies, whilst Brevet Second Lieutenants are not necessarily attached to the company; in practice they are usually attached to such companies from which one or more of the Lieutenants are absent on permanent staff duty. Only one supernumerary officer to a company can be allowed under the law.

Sources:
Hardee's Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics (1855)

Kautz' Customs of Service for Officers of the Army (1864)

[john duffer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Back on the placement of those ghostly 5th - 8th corporals for a second:). Lest anyone think this is an assault on Dom, may I say up front that the more I study the more impressed I am by how much Dom has studied and I have numerous times run across cool things in obscure works and realized I saw it mentioned in P.I.E.. I consider P.I.E. to be the most bang-for-the-buck book for any reenacting officer or non-com. That being said, Dom encourages the student to read the originals and in this case I couldn’t find any mention of corporals at section breaks in any of the P.I.E. references. And on a side note the pace would seem to be incorrectly given as 30” with Viele as a reference. Viele, Hardee, et al use 28”. So the times you thought you were being marched to death in the AOP – you were ! An extra 125 yards per mile.

[Michael Comer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I'm still curious about those 8 corporals. If the manuals don't have them at the section breaks, then where are those extra 4 men going? There can only be so many detached for color guard and they're not in the rear rank serving at platoon breaks and they're not file closers, so where were they being placed? I would think they have to be in the line somewhere but I can't find anything on it.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I'm still curious about those 8 corporals. If the manuals don't have them at the section breaks, then where are those extra 4 men going? There can only be so many detached for color guard and they're not in the rear rank serving at platoon breaks and they're not file closers, so where were they being placed? I would think they have to be in the line somewhere but I can't find anything on it.

These photos show Corporals at platoon breaks but not marked as such at section breaks.

Washington, D.C. Company B, 10th Veteran Reserve Corps, at Washington Circle
1865 April.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...ammem_6sry:T22:

Also going to show Company I, 10th Veteran Reserve Corps. Same arrangement of Corporals.

[Jubilo]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Dear Sir ,
The almost 100 man company was attempted by Mark Hildebaugh ( a former captain of the old 12th Alabama Infantry , et. al. ) , at an event in Rockford , Illinois a number of years ago . The historic beauty of that many men performing company drill seemed lost on most or at best enjoyed as an anomaly . ( " Sure takes a long time to file into line !" ) . With officers there are other issues.
Other than at Corinth , where large numbers of men portrayed the 2nd Texas Infantry Regiment , I have never witnessed hundreds of men portraying one regiment . For the military appreciative , larger formations are quite the spectacle .
all for the old flag,
David Corbett

[Rmhisteach]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Pards & Comrades,

IMHO - The Large company idea gets in the way at many events of individuals desire for rank and power. I attended The Ft. Donelson event in 2006 as well as the Shiloh 2005. Both events had the same thing in common . Men from a variety of messes/units. checking their rank at the door so to speak. At Shiloh we had sections and working corporals and seargents. It was great ! MY belief is that to many in the mainstream and in the A/P end of things get too wrapped up being a COl. etc.

Just my .02

RM

[john duffer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I'm still curious about those 8 corporals. If the manuals don't have them at the section breaks, then where are those extra 4 men going?

Michael

Per Scott's Tactics 1835 they are in the rear rank on the left and right of platoons and in the absence of other direction from later manuals I think that's a reasonably logical spot to place them. I wish one of the corporals in Paul's photo above had bent over or something so we could see the man behind him.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Well I think we have hit on a copule of reasons but we have also danced around the big reasons .....

Politics and Egos.

Many people have worked (hard) their way up to acquire the knowledge and skills of officers and senior NCOs but their "own" units are small maybe 30 rifles if they are lucky (and everyone shows up). They've put in the work so expect to able to portray the role they have worked hard to affect when they show up at an event.

If we want to field 'larger' companies (70+ men) a lot of people are going to have to put away the braid and the stripes to make it work. And privates are going to have to be willing to work under unfamiliar Officers and NCOs. This might work if everybody was given a fair chance to assume all roles at some point.

But now the leaders in the 'overhead' units or the event organizers have people they consider to be 'better' officers and NCOs. So the 'better' people ALWAYS get the jobs and those people who never get the opportunity (and their subordinates) say to blazes with this, I never get to do what I have worked to be able to do so I'm no longer going.

If we want this to work everybody is going to have to be willing to both step up and DOWN to allow everybody an opportunity to lead (who is qualified at an appropriate level).

As far as looking good on manuver is concerned, well that is a function of practice practice practice (just like the real army). So maybe we need to restructure our events so that more time is spent drilling. Take a two day event as an example. Drill one day (with maybe an evening tactical) and then "reenact" the battle the next. Or a three day event, spend the first day drilling and the next two battling.

A couple of other things might make this work. Leaders one year KNOW they are not going to be the leaders next year and a new group will get their shot at it. If you aren't willing to drill you aren't welcome to fight.

And then we need to scale down the scenarios with appropriate command structures. If the scenario calls for a 500 man brigade and we can get 500 men, then go for it, but lets stop pretending 500 men is a division (command and organizational structure wise).

[Charles Heath]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Paul,

On the drill field, the 3rd Lieutenant may not make a heck of a lot of sense, but expand the horizon to include the monotony of garrison life in a single company posted at a frontier fort somewhere, and the on-duty/off-duty schedule of having only 2 subalterns makes having another lieutenant around the place a useful practice. A question that would take a little research would be to see just how many of those slots were vacant at any given time, and in those instances were two or more companies were posted together, if the 3rd Lieutenants were needed at all. When we consider all the additional duties in the army, it was good to have another junior officer as a dumping ground for that myriad of busy work tasks in a peacetime army.

Admiral,

In a three rank system, the extra four corporals for the platoon break at the 2nd and 3rd ranks makes sense; however, if that is not spelled out in Scott's, is it in any of the other common contemporary or predecessor manuals? In any case, when corporals (and sergeants) get pulled for the color guard, and other duties, the situation gets interesting.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Is any of this stuff new?

Kevin,

Good point! This is definitely not new, but this is definitely is a cyclical quest. Some of the impetus this time around is a lingering desire to enjoy some of the large company goals and objectives that didn't materialize due to the cancellation of the Crabill House event. At this point, it may be useful to back up a bit and look at some numbers.

For those who remember such things, the old standard for a battalion element was typically 100 or 125 rifles, depending on which larger umbrella group one was with at the time. Granted, this was (and may still be) a mainstream guideline, but it colored our thought process as to what a small battalion would be. Fact is, some of those battalions that could burp out 385 rifles at major anniversary events in the '90s, are somewhat lucky to have 75 on the field these days at their max effort events.

To take this to the next level, what was once a brigade of 900-1,500 'toters, has been watered down to 65 or even 44 man brigades in some extreme instances. While the latter wasn't particulary documentable, the former certainly was, and the disbandment of said brigade is also in the historical record. If anyone wants to play the small numbers game, have at the formal reorganization of the CS forces post-Bentonville.

The term "company" hasn't always been a precise unit of measurement either. To remedy that problem, the term company meant "29+3" as far back as the mid-90s. That benchmark, like so many others was an AoP moment of clarity. Unfortunately, like the 100 or 125 man battalion from the mainstream days, this also colored our perception that one could have a company if they had the magic 32 warm bodies on paper (yes, reenactor math arises), and the circus takes off from there. I distinctly remember the input from one battalion commander that he was bringing "three companies" to an April 2000 event, and while that meant about 100 bodies by one commonly accepted unit of measurement, what that meant to him was "three captains and a little over a baker's dozen of men." Something similar happened in the CS realm for an October 2005 event.

A phenom that is both old and new is "every company commander a colonel," which popped back on the scene last year. This came out of the blue, well, actually gray, but the long held notion that many of the larger non-history oriented groups had about enough folks to make a company at alternative events morphed from "see if you can assemble a company from your battalion/brigade," to "come as you are." For some events, I guess this works. It sure cuts out the need to labor over battalion spreadsheets for months at a time. Would the rank and file rather see less companies, larger companies, and more activities appropriate for the company level? Good question.

Each event has its own design for the number of troops desired. So many times this number comes directly from the documentation, such as the magic numbers "262," "47," and "8," for an event within an event in 2008. Rather than a "d'oh" moment from pointing out the obvious, some efforts work well with a large company (Fort Donelson certainly was one of the best examples of in recent memory), other efforts that want to involve battalion and/or higher level headquarters activities need at least a pair of companies, and still other events (Outpost 2000 comes to mind) work darn well with a four company rotation. A point mentioned earlier in one of these large company threads is the company needs a purpose, rather than just being as if a jellyfish in wool to sit and discuss gear, WW2 tanks, movies, other reenacting genres, etc. Wasn't it Grumpy who coined the term, "SOYA Event?" ;)

So much for the anecdotal reenactor lore, but somewhere in these large company threads is the seedcorn for a good article intended for general distribution.

[unclefrank]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

The Medich Battalion is forming up as a company (20th Tenn.) for Mill Springs. With any luck, we should have close to 100 members.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I'll tell you what Charles, all you have to do is search for 3rd Lt or 3rd Leiutenant on Google and you come up with hundreds of hits on various genealogy sites, regimental history sites, diaries, etc. There were a lot of 3rd Lt's serving in the war, but again, they were mostly CS. If you plug in Brevet 2d Lt though, you also get some hits for Federals. So, yes, they were being used.

Now, on the ongoing subject of Corporals in the front rank, I submit the following for your consideration. I spent some time this evening at the Fort Wayne Library and happened upon some resources that I believe might help shed some light on this issue. Namely photographs.

I'm attaching a scan of a copy I made at the library. I wish the image was better but if any of you happen to have a flatbed scanner and can get a copy of the Photographic History of the Civil War, Review of Reviews Co., New York, 1911 you might be able to produce a better scan. The following image appears in Vol. 10 pg 153 and as the text indicates, its the 81st Ohio Infantry on the battlefield of Corinth. That puts this photo around Oct 62.

I've numbered the files so its easier for us to discuss. There are 29 files, making 58 Cpls and Pvts on line. Convention tells us that the platoon break has to be in the middle but first platoon must end on an even numbered file. This usually results in 1st platoon being a little larger than 2d platoon. My math would put that platoon break between files 15 and 16.

You'll note easily distinguishable Corporal stripes at files 6, 13 and 27.

What does this tell us? I'm not sure exactly, still trying to figure it out.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Am also attaching a scan of a copy I made from Photographic History of the Civil War, Review of Reviews Co., New York, 1911. Vol 8. pp 140-141.

These are Companies I and D of the 6th Vermont Infantry in 1861.

I'm also uploading a photo of the 13th Connecticut, shown here in Lousiana. This is from Vol. 10, pg 130.

[Michael Comer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Interesting but mysterious too. In the photo of Co. I the corporals are in files 14 and 15 which sure isn't a very good platoon break having 14 files in the first platoon and 9 in the second. Why are they not in files 12 and 13 instead?

Co. D appears to have the middle corporals in files 17 and 18 which would have the first platoon ending on an uneven file.

And in the 13th CT photo there appears to be a corporal in file 7 but not one in file 8. So is that a platoon break and perhaps file 8 just doesn't have chevrons or has been newly appointed? Could be I guess.

Still, in my mind there seems to be even more questions now than answers.
Gotta love this stuff!

[DougCooper]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

The 100 man company threads are hinting at the larger problem. The hobby is declining in total numbers and in event attendance, rapidly.

And IMHO we are mostly to blame.

Anybody out there miss the Army - you know the one where more than 200 men and 3-4 horses are present? The downside of EBUFU is our experience has been reduced to company vs company or at best small battalion vs small battalion slices of the war. It did not work that way in the real deal.

I am not talking about the NPS LH events, always a staple and always the most important to most of us, though we need to limit those as well to produce larger events. I am talking about the large scale events where tactical leadership is key and we experience the army at work, with horses, hospitals, supply, provost, engineers, arty/cav/infantry, etc. I am talking about the events that help build up the hobby, establish tactical expertise and leadership beyond the company level and make us better soldiers.

We gain nothing for the hobby and ultimately ourselves when we pit two companies against each other in the middle of the woods and call it authentic.

In the day, our larger companies made up battalions which made up brigades and even divisions. We remember 100+ cavalry shaking the ground and 50 guns lined up hub to hub. We did not sweat so much the farbs, because as the Lazy Jacks like to say, its all just CW wall paper. And as Dom likes to say, its the battalion that matters - create an authentc 200-300 man battalion in the midst of a brigade or division and that is the best education you can get about the real deal.

When was the last time anyone reading this was part of a 3-4 battalion brigade that was manuevered on the big field? We used to do it all the time.

When we left the big show, WE lost a lot, as did the folks we left behind. NPS LH and picket post/outpost events will always be with us, but at least once a year I want to see the army as the soldiers really saw it, instead of pretending there is another company or battalion to the right and left, or worse, not pretending and playing "tactical."

The decline of the hobby is no mystery - no matter how many BGR's and Outposts we have, as good as they are, what keeps folks in and recruits new folks are things like Culp's Hill 1993, or 130th Stone's River or Antietam or 125th Gettysburg or Franklin 1995. Adding Carpe Eventum stuff before (long marches) and after (battlefield tour) was just what we always did.

If you remember, most of us were recruited by those events, and it always amazes me that we can't figure out why attendance is down, sutlers are struggling, etc. Nobody sees us anymore, at least in the kinds of crowds that motivate history minded folks to make the leap into the hobby. Throw in a dose of internet craziness and we land here at our low ebb. The sutlers we depend on are struggling because they don't make money off small EBUFU events or impatient internet customers - they make it at big events. We aren't there anymore to lead other folks to the good stuff, like we used to. These guys cannot feed their families and most now have 2nd jobs, which ultimately hoses us!

And yet we still resist the idea of campaigner national events and consolidation in favor of a never ending expansion of company sized events while we guard pride of authorship like the Holy Grail.

Does it really make sense to have 20-25 Tier 1-2 EBUFU events in one year (go count em up)? If we really only have 500 or so folks who routinely attend such events, what the hell are we doing? We are aiding and abetting this by publishing lists of every possible event in the name of deconfliction and fair play. This ain't progress, its confusion and dilution.

Instead of counting up the stalwart few who make it to 4-5 events in a year - how bout we have two big EBUFU events and we ALL show up?

And yet we still work like dogs to put on events, our own events, and many of us resist getting other folks involved for political differences, perceived loss of control, past slights or authenticity "class differences." Many of us face serious burnout, great units are fading away (like the 83rd PVI just last week) and folks are just worn out. Go back to 1-2 big campaigner events per year and everyone would work less, enjoy it more and have free time to plan the next good event.

I am not saying we should abandon the small authentic event. We have to continue the NPS events. What I am saying is that it is time we abandon this false notion of the "two hobbies" that holds us back, get off our high horses and join the party. It is no advantage to be small, and then continually work against ourselves.

Solution:

1. Limit ourselves to one NPS or similar LH per month and 1-2 Opposed BGR/Outpost type events per year...and we all work together on them...east, west, etc.

2. Go to the [insert large organization here] and say: "Lets get the big band back together and work to bring the army back" and do one large event per year with the entire hobby. We did that every single year for 14 years, until we got it in our heads to leave and start what we like to think of as the authentic hobby - where soldiers look good, do company drill well and such...but where a sense of anything beyond a 150 man battalion is alien and only one in ten of us have ever done a "change front forward on the first company" or a column of divisions closed en masse, etc."

On #2, there is a great cast of characters in charge now in the NSA. When guys like Steve Dunfee and Mike Moore, who share a common vision to do it better, get together to plan, great things are possible.

So ideally you could attend a couple good NPS events, 1-2 EBUFU Campaigner events and one big one. 5-6 events is a lot anyway, but it would be great if we all showed up to that 5-6, rather than trying to figure out what to do across a slate of 20-25.

We should hope we figure out a way to get back what we have lost before the 150th.