Why cant we form 100 man companies?

[csabugler]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Ok, why can't we? I have my personal notions, but would like to hear from people involved with the organization of such.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Ok, why can't we? I have my personal notions, but would like to hear from people involved with the organization of such.

I think there are a lot of reasons but it boils down to - we don't want to.

I think we need to change that and a few events that showcase the larger companies will reinforce the notion.

[JStiles]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

1). Most of the time very large companies /regiments were the exception rather than the norm. So, it seems that in most cases very large companies of 70-100 men would not be historically accurate. I realize there are exceptions.

2). In order to form your 100 man companies some folks who are used to or expecting to have a "command" may have to take a back seat. This won't sit well with a number of "leader" types..........Jerry Stiles

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Paul

I’m speaking from memory and will have to do some research tonight but two or three years ago I looked into having eight corporals and convinced myself there was much more of a case to have them posted in front & rear rank on left and right of platoons as per Scott’s 1835 rather than all front rank at section breaks.

Well, I figured out where I got the CPL's placement at section breaks or at least one source that I know I've studied in years past - that being Dom's PIE.

Figure 3 illustrates a detached company in line of battle (such as what I've illustrated above) and states, "Corporals post on the right and left of sections".

I'm going to crack Casey's tonite and get the info straight from the horses mouth but Dom's PIE has always been pretty reliable and therefore I'm not terribly hesitant to use it.

Where are your musicians on the diagram?

That's actually answered in the same illustration - Figure 3 from PIE. It states, "The music is posted 4 paces to the right of the company, the drummer on the right."

As a musician, you might find this erata of interest - August Kautz' Customs of Service provides the following detail relating to the company musicians in the chapter on Special Enlistments.

para. 234 MUSICIANS - Each company of infantry, artillery, and engineers is allowed two musicians, - a drummer and a fifer; and in cavalry, two trumpeters. These are independent of the musicians allowed to the band. They receive twelve dollars per month, except the trumpeter in cavalry, whose pay is thirteen dollars, and the clothing and rations of privates. They are instructed by the drum-major or principal musician.

para. 237 They take their turns at the guard-house for sounding the calls. When the companies of the regiment are together, the musicians of eah company are united for the purpose of instruction and exercise. When a company, however is detached, the musicians that belong to it go with it.


para. 238 ... [the musicians] are not under the first sergeant's orders, except when acting with the company.

Sources:

Customs of Service. August Kautz. 1864.

Parade, Inspection and Basic Evolutions of the Infantry Battalion, 4th Edition. Dom Dal Bello.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I'm going to crack Casey's tonite and get the info straight from the horses mouth

Ok, here we are in Casey's on the subject of the posts of Corporals in a company.

para. 15 - 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.

para. 31 - The corporals will be posted in the front rank as prescribed, No. 15.

Source:

Casey, Silas. INFANTRY TACTIcS FOR THE INSTRUCTION, EXERCISE, AND MAOEUVRES OF THE SOLIDER, A COMPANY, LINE OF SKIRMISHERS, BATTALION BRIGADE. Vol. I. 1862.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Hallo!

An interesting and frustrating historical thing, IMHO...

As shared, company and regimental strengths at say Gettysburg popped into my head- such as Company "A" of the 5th Texas that went in with 27 (26?) men and 6 officers and NCO's.

However, the cyncial and jaded side of me is thinking.... it sure messes up the apearance of a battalion's "To break to the right or left into column." when the various sized companies do their company wheels... and some are "longer" than others
;-) :-)

Seriously, IMHO, I believe there is a combination of "rank structure" and "fear" of sorts because the lack of battalion and brigade level drill experience seems to want to keep things at the "company" level (even when a "battalion" is just an event assembled collection of different and "independent" companies").
And sometimes, things are just rank (pun intended).

Curt

[coastaltrash]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

At Fort Donelson in 2006 we had 73 enlisted and officers, which according to 3 regimentals from the site I've read, was about spot on. The second largest company I was a part of was at Stones River a few years ago with SGLHA, WIG and the ONV. Great company of guys! Had a terrible Lt however.

[trippcor]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

I can only talk to events I have personally help put on. In most cases the research showed the companies we were portraying were much smaller than 100 men. Co. K of the 7th Ohio of instance only had 33 men During the Battle of Resaca and a third of those were Officers and NCOs. One of the Units that will be portrayed at next years Battle of New Hope Church, the 14th Louisiana Sharp Shooters Battalion consisted of only two companies with about 30 men each. Do we sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of making larger companies? Or do we need to pick different units to portray? To the first I say certainly not. To the second maybe.

[Andy Ackeret]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Here are pictures of the Stones River company that Pat is referring to. Two years later, I consider this the best group I've served in. Easterners, westerners, northerners and southerners all together.

*edit* links to the individual pictures only seem to work on my home computer. See gallery below*

The whole gallery:

http://www.kodakgallery.com/Slideshow.jsp?Uc=11ec6urx.d5hj5cd&Uy=zdrac&Upost_signin=Slideshow.jsp%3Fmode%3Dfromshare&Ux=0&mode=fromshare&conn_speed=1

Pictures and gallery courtesy of Todd Spagnoletti

[CJDaley]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Had a terrible Lt however.

Actually, I thought Dave Gerow did a fine job as LT.

It was the 2nd and 3rd Corporals who were trouble.

Uh oh, here I am straying off topic again...

[Rob Weaver]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

I've been giving this question a lot of thought for a couple days. First of all, we all know that the majority of companies were not operating at full strength. We've cited several. I'd like to submit that fielding a full-strength company is a worthy goal, at least so that we can see what it looks and feels like.
The problem is not one of history but of marketing. The c/p/h slice of the hobby has dominated the niche of small events, emphasizing the high level of material and cultural accuracy. The corporate perception is "we few, we happy few." All of the expertise is in developing and implementing the kind of promotions that yield and support groups smaller than 100 man companies. Those of you who organize events: what volume of promotions do you have to do to reach 30 men for an event? Multiply it by 3, probably 4, and you can field 100 men. (Notice I haven't said a word about relaxing historical standards. If you think there are 100 men who would respond to the specific type of event you want to organize, then changing something that fundamental would be counterproductive.) I would also recommend that the event offer something besides fielding this by-the-book company. What are you going to do with it? March it somewhere interesting, drill it, shake it out in a skirmish line and bump into an enemy? I think that the biggest obstacle to performing this event, provided that the target audience is big enough, is changing the perception of the c/p/h market to view a "big" event as a good thing, a thing to rally around, THE thing to attend.

[CJDaley]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

The problem is not one of history but of marketing. .

I agree with that 100%.

I'll also make the case that it's important from an educational standpoint to show not only the public how a full strength company drilled, but to show reenactors that the manuals were designed for 100 man companies.

It's also great education for the officers. Once you wheel a 70 man company, a little platoon drill seems like cake.

[john duffer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

This is what I’ve found so far:

Scott’s Tactics 1835 (and L’ordonnance 1831) have 8 corporals in front and rear ranks (first and third ranks) at left and right of platoons. Scott’s Abstract 1829 was a two rank formation and had 6 corporals, front rank left and right of platoons and one at each section break.

Hardee 1855 & 1862, Casey, Gilham & U.S. Tactics all mention 4 corporals – front rank left and right of platoons. Oddly enough, L’ordonnance 1845 has 8 corporals in a two rank formation front rank, left and right of subdivisions (our sections) so the French manual matches Paul’s diagram but Hardee doesn't seem to follow.

So to leave facts behind and venture into conjecture – mid 1830s the three rank system needs 8 corporals, 1st and 3rd rank on left & right of platoons. As the two rank system becomes the norm the French put the “extra” corporals at section breaks, US manuals don’t seem to mention what to do with them. I’m thinking that a previous discussion on the A/C produced a number of references to CW companies having a full 8 corporals so they didn’t necessarily just drop all but four. Since Scott is the official manual from 1835 to 1855, and coexists with Hardee thereafter, I think logically front and rear as prescribed in the manual seems more likely for US usage. However, with the 1829 Abstract and the 1845 French usage of corporals at section breaks it would be hard to say that didn’t also happen.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

It's an interesting discussion John. Thanks for your comments.

Having looked at a lot of photos of detached infantry companies and having reviewed the returns of more than a few - I'd surmise that many companies, at some point, *probably* dispensed with the full allotment of 8 corporals and simply operated with four - and therefore the issue of where to put those 4 extra corporals became moot.

Perhaps an early cost saving measure? Early in the war privates were paid $11/mo and corporals $13. When the private's pay was raised to $13, corporals stayed at $13.

Your suggestion that the necessity of having 8 corporals waned when the formation went from three ranks to two, makes sense. It might be also noted, from records I've looked at over the years, prewar companies were often much larger. As many as 2,000 men would serve in a prewar regular infantry regiment and I believe they operated with 8 companies and not 10. Those larger companies likely had a greater need for additional officers and NCO's.

There are war-time photos on the Library of Congress website that would seem to support the conclusion that companies were operating with only four corporals. Images of NCOs messes generally feature 2 sgts and 4 corporals. Company photos suggest the same and its difficult (impossible) to make out Corporals at section breaks at the (free) low resolution.

[Bealeton, Va. Officers and noncommissioned officers of Co. D, 93d New York Infantry] by Timothy O'Sullivan. August 1863.
Link to the image

[Bealeton, Va. Company G, 93d New York Infantry] by Timothy O'Sullivan. August 1863.
Link to the image

[2ndva]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

According to Kautz's the "Old Army" NCO staff of a company had 4 corporals and the "New Army" consisted of 8. I guess the question would be what's the "Old Army" and what’s the "New"?

ORGANIZATION.

294.The non-commissioned officers of a regiment and company, allowed by law in the various arms and regiments of the army, are as follows, viz.:—

INFANTRY AND ARTILLERY

(Old Army.)

Non-Commissioned Staff

One Sergeant Major

One Quartermaster Sergeant.

Two Principal Musicians.

Each Company.

One First Sergeant.

Three Sergeants.

Four Corporals.


295. Volunteer regiments of infantry differ from the above in having one commissary sergeant and one hospital steward, and no principal musicians, in the non-commissioned staff and four sergeants and eight corporals in each company.

296. INFANTRY

(New Army.)

Non-Commissioned Staff

Three Battalion Sergeant Majors

Three Battalion Quartermaster Sergeants

Three Battalion Commissary Sergeants

Three Battalion Hospital Stewards

One Drum-Major, or Leader of the Band

Two Principal Musicians. .


Each Company.

One First Sergeant.

Four Sergeants.

Eight Corporals

Now that I read it again, the 8 corporals applies to "Volunteer Regiments"