Why cant we form 100 man companies?

[DougCooper]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,

I say this with no malice. You need a reality check.

Reality existed for all of us 20 years ago - just as I describe. It was the norm.

[coastaltrash]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

If anyone wants to figure out why we can't field 100 people in one company turn to page one of this thread and re read the entire thing.

I agree with Daley.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

I think its pretty amusing that this thread has more views, more replies, and more participants than the thread it spun off from.

Sometimes I think we just like to fight. :sarcastic

One hundred man companies were a historical reality. Most Civil War soldiers would have experienced the 100 many company when they enlisted and so I think its a valuable exercise for us as well.

We can't do the 800 man battalion but we can certainly do the full size company.

As Chad said in 2001, #$@% gentlement, just #@$%.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Dang, Paul, who'd a thought something found on a slab of bacon wouldn't make it through the swear filter. :p

[Tudd Dean]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

The Iron Gray Mess has in the past 3 years formed a complete company at Gettysburg for the NPS. They loved it and so do we. We have between 60 and 75 each time and the rangers have asked that we try to do it each time because they rarely see it. We use Hardee's revised and we drill before we go and we have crash drills prior to going before the public. Having ncos that know their job is key. Our corporals and sgts. make the difference. It is also a good idea to have officers that have operated in a complete company before. Yes, wheels can be a little difficult, but that where a good nco staff comes in handy. You can wheel by platoon and by section( a great way to introduce the visitors to the complete company). We try to do a complete company at everything we attend. Yes, it means working with other groups. But that's the great part of doing a complete company. You will find others willing to learn how!

[guad42]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Posting to this thread is going to really illustrate how green I am, but here goes...

It seems like the fundamental issue is attendance, combined with a percieved lull in CW history. I have long been amazed and in awe of you fellows in the East who have managed a legacy of events wherein more than 200 are in attendance. I am disappointed to hear that there is some signs of decline.

The only events I have ever attended are in AZ and in CA, where even at the best of times there may be 100 and as you may already assume they represent the span of the unrepentant farb with his brace of revolvers, to some very well intentioned newcomers, to some really serious individuals. As such, many of us out West are jealous of you.

In recent years I made a temporary departure into the troubled world of WWII reenacting. I was amazed by the numbers and the equipment and all the toys. Like any hobby it had (and has) it's good people and it's flawed, but even in AZ and California where you cannot possible be any farther from Normandy, they came out in droves.

What I realized was that most of these folks came into the hobby in the wake of the rise of WWII in popular culture and memory (movies and that revealing talk with dad or grandpa) , sometimes for the wrong reasons (video gamers....sorry and extremists) and sometimes for the right ones.

However, it seems that many of these groups are very good in reaching out to the public for recruitment, even beyond the hobbyist websites, etc.

I recently attended a very farby CW event in Huntington Beach, CA. (about 30% of the Confederate Reenactors dress like Yosemite Sam, 30% are really authentic and the rest span the balance) but one thing amazed me. The public reaction. People loved it. It still seems that people are sometimes surprised that we do this hobby and many many were interested.

Maybe a little promotion by each unit and succesfully grabbing these lookyloos before they commit to dabbling in the hobby and getting roped in by the Yosemite Sam brigades might be helpful? I don't know, you folks are the pros. We in the west struggle to get 100 man brigades let alone 100 man companies.

Respectfully,

Sam Kilborn Dolan

[JimConley]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Because in the past, they were productive, successful, and great to be a part of. People would come out of the woodwork for these things, and authenticity levels were still very high.

Aaron,
It's too bad that I wasn't old enough to have experienced things like that. I really enjoy listening to you and Joe tell stories about the Mudsills and the 125ths, but as you said, they were great. I can't say first hand what has been lost in these kinds of events because I wasn't there, but the way fellows talk about the past, something has been missing at more recent big events. Think about how much you've told me things have changed in the last ten or even five years. That's ultimately what I'm talking about.

That was the norm back then - though many of you guys were too young to have been there. Well the same type leaders we have today on our side were commanding the big show back then.

As I said, I was too young. I've been hanging around these things for a little more than eleven years now, but it wasn't until around the 140ths that I was old enough to shoulder a musket. Again, I really do like hearing from people like Aaron how awesome the big events used to be, but after almost seven years out there, and a handful of big events later, I can't help but think they're consistently falling short. As far as the leaders, I would guess that many of them feel that they'd be sticking their necks out by taking their organization to a big event because the feedback might not be very positive and they might feel somewhat responsible.

I must have been absent the day you guys pulled the sword from the stone. A little humility among the chosen few would go along way. Geez fellas, this is only a hobby and you guys act as if those who don't share your thoughts have the plague.

I've had my experiences at the big events, and had fun at a couple of them. But, I put a lot of effort into my impression and still never feel that I am where I want to be with it. So, yes, I prefer to participate with groups and individuals that care as much as I do and strive for the same experiences at an event that I do. And when I run across an old friend from the big events, I've always offered to get them some loaner gear and invite them out to some better events.

One hundred man companies were a historical reality. Most Civil War soldiers would have experienced the 100 many company when they enlisted and so I think its a valuable exercise for us as well.

I hope that my statement earlier did not sound as if I made the claim that a 100-man company was non-existent. Rather, what I meant (and I believe Tripp meant) is that the majority of our unit impressions had weakened in numbers by the point that we choose to portray. I'd love to see a 100-man company at a good event if statistics show a company of such size to be appropriate.

[PvtSchultz]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

"One hundred man companies were a historical reality. Most Civil War soldiers would have experienced the 100 many company when they enlisted and so I think its a valuable exercise for us as well.

We can't do the 800 man battalion but we can certainly do the full size company."- Paul Calloway

So I am jumping into this discussion a bit late but I think we need to refocus and look back at the original question posed at the start of this thread. "Why can't we form 100 man companies? I have a few ideas why we have been unable to do this and I plan on sharing them, but alas I am no so sure we are ready to listen to them. What I have to say applies not only to campaigner type events but all types (good, bad & the ugly).

The part of the country where I hail from (northern New Jersey) we have what is called "home rule." Perhaps some of you have heard of this concept but simply put, home rule is where local leaders & politicians retain control over their domain and refuse any attempts of merging srevices because it would mean a lose of power and the ability to dole out patronage. Even if the merger of services would be a benefit to the community, subscribers of hime rule will fight until dead rather than give up power. Sound familiar? I think if we look within the community, we have our own version of "home rule." Units led by individuals or groups who would rather stay independent than merge with another for the sake of forming a realistic, historically accurate CW unit. Now imagine an event, large or small, where the individual events merged together and by doing so they were able to field a historically accurate CW unit based on the historic facts of the battle being portrayed...Imagine how the parade would look in November if we all banded together and formed historically correct unit sizes before marching through the streets of Gettysburg. How nice would it be to see "100 man" companies of Federal, Confederate, Zuove and other units marching through the streets and making that final turn into the park? I think part of our problem in forming companies this size is pure politics, but this is just my humble opinion.

Another reason I feel we will not pull this off is due to the animosity between the various living history groups (ranging from mainstream to campaigner) and the disdain many have for working with each other. We are not all right in our few points here. I have sat back and listened to many an argument, read many of the historical researched members have posted to bolster their argument and in my opinion some of what has been said or written is on the mark and some has not. For those who do not know me, I hold a BA in History (concentrated in 18th & 19th c US history/ graduated with honors) and have long held an interest in US History.

I think when we are able to put aside our personal differences, when we are able to acknowledge that there maybe someone else besides ourselves who may know a thing or two, when we are able to get rid of the politics and "home rule" mentality and finally when we are able to apply historic fact to the scenerio we are attempting to portray, then and only then will we be able to "form 100 man companies," but we shold only do that when the situation calls for it! Look at unit histories and you will find not every battle involved fully staffed units. So perhaps we need to focus on how we can form units of sufficient size to reflect the scenerio we are looking to protray be that 100 man companies or 40 man companies.

This is just my humble opinion and like everything else I have posted, you may take it for what it is worth.

Respectively Yours,
Pvt Rich Schultz
6th NHV, Co. C

[cpinkhaminsc]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

You go Chris! The best events of my life were with 1) big, company sized groups; 2) where ego's took a back seat and the emphasis was getting along, trying your best, and focusing on being part of a "whole" vice an individual. The leaders were knowledgable and HUMBLE- Steve Osman and Dom Dal Bello, and spent tons of time organizing. Things were kept on a positive note, and the cooperation was great. Met some guys whose impressions weren't top shelf, but they were great guys and open to gentle, tactful guidance.
To quote my son's soccer coach in Spain: "We play as a team, we play for fun, gooooo (your unit name here)!
Charles Pinkham
Company D, Minnesota First

[sauguszouave]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Thanks for those details Paul. That really clears up some muddy-water. It's been awhile since I've gone through Mahan's and it was a borrowed copy at that. I'm gonna pay a visit to Amazon.

Thanks again.

Paul,

Unfortunately the 1862 edition of "Out-Post" is not available in reprint. Mahan first published "Out-Post" in 1847 and it stayed in print until after the war, but most people don't know that he updated it with the tables of organization of the volunteers (plus a bunch of other stuff) in December of 1862. I went back and checked it last night and was astounded to discover that he lists 8 corporals in all three of the infantry companies (old regular, new regular, and volunteers). This contradicts my other period sources like the 1861 edition and the 1864 edition of Henry Lee Scott's "Military Dictionary." Go figure.

At any rate, Scott's, Hardee's, the 1861, and Casey's tactics all call for the corporals to be on the right and left flanks of their platoons. That would make sense with 4 corporals per company. I have a 1862 non-regulation tactics manual by N.W. Taylor Root that explains in detail how to position eight corporals on the right and left of each section. I also have a non-regulation 1864 tactics manual by a volunteer officer named Norris that says the eight corporals were placed at equal distance apart in the front rank.

The unit I belong to recreates a volunteer militia company from Massachusetts that only served for 90 days. They only had two corporals. Fortunately for us, one of those corporals kept a diary that survives, so we know, for example, that he got chosen as the right general guide for the regiment and so frequently didn't drill with his company. (This also contradicts other sources that I have which specify that the general guides should be sergeants.) We also know that that company had 69 enlisted men and four commissioned officers.

Take you pick.

Regards,

Paul

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I was in luck, I got a copy of the 1862 Edition on Amazon yesterday.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811700674/002-5348514-0878411

Paul, you need to sign your full name to your posts.

Regards,

[Hank Trent]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Posting to this thread is going to really illustrate how green I am, but here goes...

Same here, but what the heck.

I've attended a few events as military, and if I recall correctly, at all the c/p/h ones, the infantry on each side was portraying the same regiment but different companies, and there were certainly close to 100 or more in attendance per side.

There didn't seem to be any problem with expecting everyone to be in one particular regiment. I'm not sure how the officers were selected, probably assigned by the event staff, but the rank and number were chosen as appropriate for a single regiment.

Why can't an event ask everyone be in one particular company instead, and choose officers as appropriate for a single company? Instead of a colonel in charge, you have a captain, and so on. If you have 100 men on a side, instead of every private being in one of the companies of the XXth Pennsyltucky Infantry, you have every private be in the xxth Pennsyltucky Infantry, Co. A only.

It's got to be more complicated than that, but I'm too naive to understand why.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[paulcalloway]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Thats exactly how to do it Hank. A lot of say we dont care about rank but when it gets right down to it, some still do.

At Camp Morton next year, we are going to get past the rank. Because the highest ranking officer at the event will be a Captain - even if we turn out 300-400.

In Camp Morton's case, it's correct to the scenario and thats the best reason to do it.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Enlistments and Re-enlistements.
para 277. The Company may be kept up to the maximum strength by enlistments and re-enlistments in the company but the maximum cannot be exceeded. In infantry the maximum is 98 enlisted men, in cavlary 100, and in a battery of artillery 147. The following are the organizations as allowed by existing laws (see Gen. Orders No. 126, 1862, and Act March 3, 1863, sec 37):-

Company of Infantry
1 Captain,
1 First Lieutenant,
1 Second Lieutenant,
1 First Sergeant,
4 Sergeants,
8 Corpoarals,
2 Musicians,
1 Wagoner,

And {64 Privates - minimum,
{82 Privates - maximum.

Company or Troop of Cavalry.
1 Captain,
1 First Lieutenant,
1 Second Lieutenant,
5 Sergeants,
8 Corporals,
2 Trumpeters,
1 First Sergeant,
1 Quartermaster Sergeant,
1 Commisasary Sergeant,
2 Farriers or Blacksmiths,
1 Saddler,
1 Wagoner, and
78 Privates.

Battery of Artillery.
1 Captain,
1 First Lieutenant,
1 Second Lieutenant,
1 First Sergeant,
1 Quartermaster Sergeant,
4 Sergeants,
8 Corporals,
2 Musicians,
2 Artificers,
1 Wagoner, and
122 Privates.

Source:
Kautz, August, The Company Clerk, Lippincott & Co. Philadephia, 1863. pp 131-132.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

FYI - This is copied from my OCR'd version of the Official Records so there's some misspellings here. I'll attempt to clean this up a little later.

GENERAL ORDERS, WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL’S OFFICE,
No. 126. Washington, September 6, 1862.
I. The following is the organization of regiments and companies
of the Volunteer Army of the United States:
1. Regiment of infantry (ten cornpanies).—One coronel, 1 lieutenant-
colonel, 1 major, 1 adjutant (an extra lieutenant), I quartermaster
(an extra lieutenant), 1 surgeon, 2 assistant surgeons, 1 chaplain, 1
sergeant-major, 1 regimental quartermaster-sergeant, 1 regimental
commissary-sergeant, 1 hospital steward.
Company of infantry.—One captain, 1 first lieutenant, 1 second
lieutenant, 1 first sergeant, 4 sergeants, 8 corporals, 2 musicians, 1
wagoner, and 64 privates minimum, 82 privates maximum.
2. Regiment of cavalry (twelve companies or troops).—One colonel,
1 lieutenant-colonel, 3 majors, 1 surgeon, 1 assistant surgeon, 1 regimental Company or troop of Cavalry.—One captain, 1 first lieutenant, 1
second lieutenant, 1 first sergeant, 1 quartermaster-sergeant, 1 commissary-
sergeant, 5 sergeants, 8 corporals, 2 teamsters, 2 farriers or
blacksmiths, 1 saddler, 1 wagoner, and 78 privates.
There being no bands now allowed, the chief trumpeter authorized
by law will not be mustered into service. If any have been so mustered
they will upon receipt of this order be mustered out.
The law does not authorize musicians for companies. To remedy
this defect two musicians may be enlisted for each company. They
will be rated and paid as privates.

3. Regiment of artillery (twelve batteries). One colonel, 1 lieutenant-
colonel, 1 major for every four batteries, 1 adjutant (not
an extra lieutenant), 1 quartermaster (not an extra lieutenant), 1
adjutant (an extra lieutenant), 1 regimental quartermaster
(an extra lieutenant), 1 regimental comiuissary (an extra lieutenant),
1 chaplain, 1 sergeant-major, 1 quartermaster-sergeant, 1 commissarysergeant,
2 hospital stewards, 1 saddler-sergeant, 1 chief farrier or
blacksmith.

chaplain, 1 sergeant-major, 1 quartermaster-sergeant, 1 commissarysergeant,
1 hospital steward.
Battery of artillery.—1 captain, 1 first lieutenant, 1 second lieutenant,
1 first sergeant, 1 quartermaster-sergeant, 4 sergeants, 8 corporals,
2 musicians, 2 artificers, 1 wagoner, and 122 privates.
To the above organization of a battery, one first and one second
lieutenant, two sergeants, and four corporals may be added, at the
President’s discretion.
The field officers, chaplain, and regimental staff—commissioned
and non-commissioned—will not be mustered or received into service
without special authority from the War Department. As a general
rule, artillery will be called for and received by batteries, thus rendering
the field and staff unnecessary.
II. Chaplains must meet the requirements of section 8 of the act of
July 17, 1862, as follows:
No person shall be appointed a chaplain in the United States Army who is not a
regularly ordained minister of some religious denomination, and who does not present
testimonials of his present good standing as such minister, with a recommendation
for his appointment as an army chaplain from some authorized ecclesiastical body,
or not less than live accredited ministers belonging to said religions denomination.
After chaplains are appointed, under section 9 of the act of July
22, 1861, they must be mustered into service by an officer of the Regular
Army, and thereafter borne on the field and staff roll of the regiment.
Mustering officers before mustering chaplains into service will
require from them a copy of the proceedings on which the appointinent
is based. The said copy, if found conformable to the requirements
of the law, will be indorsed by the mustering officer, and by
him forwarded to the Adjutant-General’s Office for file with the musterin
roll.
III. The foregoing organization must be strictly adhered to by all
concerned. Commanding officers of departments, armies, and army
corps will, without delay, direct an inspection to be made of their
commands to ascertain if the regiments and units thereof conform to
this organization, and all deviation from it will be promptly corrected.
Supernumerary officers, if any, will be mustered out of service from
the date of receipt of this order. Reports of the inspection will be
forwarded to the Adjutant-General of the Army.
No commissioned officer or enlisted man of any grade in excess of
the legal organization will be recognized. And any commander who
may acknowledge or receive as in service any such officer or enlisted
man, will be brought to trial for neglect of duty and disobedience of
orders. No person acting in the capacity of a supernumerary will
under any circumstances bc permitted to rcccivc pay and allowances
from the Government, and paymasters making payment to such supernumeraries
will be held individually accountable for amounts so paid.
By order of the Secretary of War:
L. THOMAS,
Adjutant- General.

Source:
The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. / Series 3 - Volume 2: Correspondence, Orders, etc., from April 1, 1862, to December 31, 1862. Series III, Vol. II, pp. 519-520.