Why cant we form 100 man companies?

[RJSamp]

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.)

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

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"

CAREFUL, you are falling into the same KAUTZ trap that Kevin O'Bierne (and most of us) has: The NEW ARMY is not during the American Civil War for the Volunteer Army. (It would be Regular Army ONLY).
This doesn't exist for Volunteer Infantry Regiments during the American Civil War:
"One Drum-Major, or Leader of the Band.
Two Principal Musicians. "
SEE: US I & RT from 1861, appended 1863; and GO #15 for Volunteer Regiments April 1861.

Paul: there are 101 in a Federal Company......2 Lt's (not 3) and the TEAMSTER/Wagoner is not in your diagram (like the musician's assume he's off the diagram on their swing horse).
"Each regiment consisted of 845 to 1,025 men divided into 10 companies. Within each company, there were various job divisions consisting of, 82 privates, 1 waggoner, 2 musicians, 8 corporals, 4 sergeants, 1 first sergeant, 1 second lieutenant, 1 first lieutenant and 1 captain. The regiment staff contained 2 principal musicians, 1 hospital steward, 1 commissary sergeant, 1 quartermaster sergeant, 1 sergeant major, 1 chaplain, 2 assistant surgeons, 1 surgeon (ranked as a major), 1 quartermaster, 1 adjutant, 1 major, 1 lieutenant colonel and 1 colonel."

To All:
You appoint a Color Sergeant and up to 8 Color Corporals/color bearers from the company's....what happens to the individual company formation? Is a Private promoted to take his place? So where is the hole in Paul's formation for this missing Private/Corporal?

[Altecfive]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

I can remember in 98 when the 12th NJ came out with 50 men in a company and its very impressive. Coming from the modern military it was a shock when I was a company commander of a hundred men and you go into a company that only has 10. Honestly the reason we aren't seeing as big of companies is three fold. First, There were so many people who believed they deserved to lead and so they broke off an existing company and formed their own. Not recruiting any new people all they did was split a big company into two smaller units. Second, the hobby as it has developed with people wanting more authentic events and standards and the ones that stayed mainstream has lowered company strengths. Finally, the hobby right now is not at the same size as it was in the late 90s. All those factories are leading up to the problem of a bunch of 8 and 10 man companies. Now Ft. Delaware we do guard for the field music school. We try our best to do it 100% by the book. Last year we field 40 men in the company and we are really looking to take it to the full company strength this year. It is the first weekend in June! We guard from Friday at 12 we start and end Sunday at 2.

[Altecfive]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I didnt see this posted but Don's book I believe breaks down a company.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Paul: there are 101 in a Federal Company......2 Lt's (not 3) and the TEAMSTER/Wagoner is not in your diagram (like the musician's assume he's off the diagram on their swing horse).
"Each regiment consisted of 845 to 1,025 men divided into 10 companies. Within each company, there were various job divisions consisting of, 82 privates, 1 waggoner, 2 musicians, 8 corporals, 4 sergeants, 1 first sergeant, 1 second lieutenant, 1 first lieutenant and 1 captain. The regiment staff contained 2 principal musicians, 1 hospital steward, 1 commissary sergeant, 1 quartermaster sergeant, 1 sergeant major, 1 chaplain, 2 assistant surgeons, 1 surgeon (ranked as a major), 1 quartermaster, 1 adjutant, 1 major, 1 lieutenant colonel and 1 colonel."

Thanks RJ - I'm having to dig all my Civil War books back out of the closet where they've been collecting dust for two years. :D Please do cite your source on that - was looking for that G.O. earlier.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I didnt see this posted but Don's book I believe breaks down a company.

Don who? I hope we're not quoting Heitman.

[john duffer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I'm hoping to publish DUFFER'S SIMPLIFIED HEITMAN"S this fall, reserve your copy now.

[Altecfive]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Don who? I hope we're not quoting Heitman.

No, Paul I was talking about Dominic J. Dal Bello. Its either in the Parade, Inspection and Basic Evolutions of the Infantry Battalion book or the Instructions for Guards and Pickets book.

[billwatson]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

I'm handling the "unaffiliated" at September Storm, looks like 60 guys, and we're making it a company. So it's not dead yet.

Everyone is dancing around one of the reasons we have smaller companies: The various clubs out there all have too few members to field a 70-man company on their own, and a lot of clubs have leaders that expect to be leaders when they take the field. Not all. Fewer in the CPH end of things than in other slices of the hobby, but still, some. Maybe it's something left over from experiences in other units that we haven't, like the purple Barney jacket, left behind?

Everyone is also dancing around one of the other reasons we have smaller companies: A bigger company, and a battalion of bigger companies, is harder to maneuver in the sense that defects of execution become more apparent. The leadership skills required are greater, because the problem won't just sort itself out, it requires attention to all the things that matter, including corporals who will quietly assert themselves like they are supposed to up to lieutenants and captains who will get the noncoms doing their job rather than doing it for them. And getting folks together in large enough quantities to sort all this out, on a regular basis, is almost as hard as getting folks together for an event. Just developing the patience to let a big battalion of big companies complete the act of deploying into line before whooping them into an advance is an acquired skill that not everyone has acquired; it's like commanders attention deficit disorder or something.

The payoff for the aggravation is that when you have a big enough company, you get a better understanding of how things worked. A company big enough to lose men to guard mount and still function; a company big enough to have a reserve platoon while skirmishing; a company big enough for work details to work through the company without guys having to do details two and three times plus do guard mount. Those are worthwhile things to experience.

No easy solution here except general consensus that bigger companies offer a richer experience and we should make it happen. The minimum goal, to me, is 44 muskets plus sergeants and at least two officers (because like enough men, enough officers offer benefits in execution of both company and battalion evolutions and tasks). That's an "on paper" registration. Reenactor math takes a lesser toll in the history-heavy end of things than elsewhere, so you can realistically expect 36 muskets, and that's enough to do most things. I'm trying to make 44+ the goal for anything I'm asked to get involved with, with clubs getting together ahead of time to pool manpower and leadership skills to create companies with that critical mass. It isn't easy, and it may have hurt overall federal numbers at McDowell this time, but it still seems like a worthwhile thing to move out of the background and into the forefront in terms of "event expectations" for events aspiring to higher things. Joe Smotherman pointed at viable companies as a basic building block a while back, and folks who put on things like "Payne's Farm" and similar events tacitly try to go no lower than 40 for a company, but maybe it's time to put it on a banner and rally around it with a bit more hoopla.

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

I remember showing up to Saylor's Creek in 1996 with 73 privates, 4 corporals, 3 sgts and a lieutenant. We were told we couldn't fall in with any battalion unless we divided into 3 companies. So we split into three companies with the sgts as officers and the lt as a wing commander.

The largest company we put together was the one at Saylor's Creek, but we also put together scores of 60+ man companies back then. These companies were put together without forums, listserves, chatrooms and the internet. We used a thing called the telephone and a paper newsletter....yeah, I know, now I'm the crotchety ass.

First time I did one of those trendy 100-man company things was at a Michigan event in 1997.

Sixty-plus man companies were pretty common in the 1990s; my former mainstream group fielded a company that size about six times a year between about 1995 and 1998, and that was typically done simply with the group's regular newsletter.

My current group has fielded a 50+ or 60+ man company several times since 2001; the most recent time being in 2006.

Is any of this stuff new?

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

CAREFUL, you are falling into the same KAUTZ trap that Kevin O'Bierne (and most of us) has: The NEW ARMY is not during the American Civil War for the Volunteer Army. (It would be Regular Army ONLY).
This doesn't exist for Volunteer Infantry Regiments during the American Civil War:

RJ,

Two items,

1. I have no idea what the heck you're referring to above. Perhaps you're leaping to conclusions based on the fact that I often refer to not just the Army Regs of 1861 in discussions like this, but also the enabling laws that raised the regiments that fought in the Civil War; these laws typically specified how many of what rank was to be in these regiments. The laws are included in the "Official Records".

2. Please start spelling my last name correctly.

[billwatson]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

The question seems to be simply "how can we get more of it?" Probably more folks need to set their event expectations for company size as does your group, Kevin, and those who don't want companies with the right heft and feel need some moments of introspection to ask themselves "why not?" :-)

[Bushrod Carter]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Ok, here is my .02 cents worth...

The discussions to date have been the study of manuals and photographs.

If we want to be taken seriously by academics, we need to reference primary sources.

Someone needs to take a look at regimental returns and see EXACTLY how many Officers, NCOs, and Crpls. were used in different regiments. I would be willing to say that what would be found is exactly the same as we find when writing uniform guidelines: it may have been different from regiment to regiment (hypothesizing here). I think what may be found (from my own limited research into regimental records) is that companies - even as they decreased in size - continued to field a full compliment of Officers, NCOs, and Crpls. - ON PAPER and WITH commissions!

I’ve seen it quite a bit in CS regiments toward the end of the war. Now, that is not to say that EVERY company IN THE FIELD had a full roster of Officers, NCOs and Crpls. PRESENT for duty. There may be only one or two officers, two or three NCOs and a hand full of Crpls. with the company at any given time during a campaign

Just because they weren’t present doesn’t mean the slots were not filled, AND just because the numbers composing a company fell doesn’t mean they couldn’t fill empty command positions. Did I miss the paragraph in the manual that said “When the strength of a company falls below ___ X ___ the company is no longer allowed to fill the position of [enter rank here].”

Finally, all this discussion boils down to: is our portrayal a general representation of a section, platoon, company, or battalion; or are we trying to specifically represent a moment in time down to the last exact KNOWN detail?

Just my thoughts.

[Michael Comer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Ok, here you go:

21st Missouri Infantry (Federal) Mustered in for 3 years on Feb. 1, 1862

Co. A

1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2nd Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
4 Sgts.
8 Corporals
2 Musicians
1 Wagoneer
69 Pvts.

Co. B

1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2d Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
4 Sgts.
8 Corporals
2 Musicians
1 Wagoneer
79 Pvts.

Co. C

1 Capt.
1 1st lt.
1 2nd Lt.
no 1st Sgt. listed
4 Sgts.
8 Corporals
2 Musicians
1 Wagoneer
66 Pvts.

Co. D

1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2d Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
4 Sgts.
8 Corporals
2 Musicians
1 Wagoneer
82 Pvts.

Co. E

1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2d Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
4 Sgts.
8 Corporals
1 Musician
68 Pvts.

Co. F

1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2d Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
5 Sgts.
8 Corporals
2 Musicians
1 Wagoneer
77 Pvts.

Co. G

1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2nd Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
4 Sgts.
8 Corporals
2 Musicians
1 Wagoneer
80 Pvts.

Co. H
1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2nd Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
4 Sgts.
8 Corporals
3 Musicians
2 Wagoneers
79 Pvts.

Co. I

1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2nd Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
1 Sgt.
8 Corporals
1 Musician
69 Pvts.

Co. K Mustered in Feb. 5, 1862

1 Capt.
1 1st Lt.
1 2nd Lt.
1 1st Sgt.
4 Sgts.
8 Corporals
2 Drummers
1 Wagoneer
82 Pvts.

While there are numerous differences, one constant seems to be those 8 corporals in every company. Granted, this is one regiment at one particular time and it is early war, but the number of corporals is certainly consistent throughout. And what Patrick said about having a full complement of officers and NCO's was true in the case of the 21st since there are notations in the rosters I looked at of promotions etc to various leadership positions.

[billwatson]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

"Just because they weren’t present doesn’t mean the slots were not filled, AND just because the numbers composing a company fell doesn’t mean they couldn’t fill empty command positions. Did I miss the paragraph in the manual that said “When the strength of a company falls below ___ X ___ the company is no longer allowed to fill the position of [enter rank here].” "


Similarly, something that could use some more research is all the things that happened when regiments were consolidated, including what triggered the consolidations. It was obviously when they got too small to function as a regiment, in someone's mind, but was this just discretionary with a brigade commander or what? In 1864, for instance, the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th NJVI were rearranged, 5th into the 7th and 6th into the 8th, which were then apparently regularly referred to as the 7th and 8th battalions, rather than regiments as they had been earlier in the war. Was there what amounts to a "best practices" for deciding when this had to happen? Did the seniority of the regimental commander dictate which got folded and which designation got "kept?" No? Ditto consolidation of companies within a regiment; we know that happened, and sometimes it wasn't for lack of numbers. One company in the 7th NJVI was busted up and redistributed among the other companies in, I think, 1862, because it had somehow become a hotbed of slackers and mopery, more than its company commander could handle after watching his own son die in action. And that regiment seemed to have the opposite of too many officers, they were chronically short of company officers, never more so than at the tag end of the Peninsula Campaign when the regiment was under the command of its sergeant major because everyone else was dead, wounded, sick, had quit in a huff or had, it seems, run away. That was admittedly a time when they were under duress and folks were too busy just getting on with the war to worry about filling vacancies, but the experience seems to have been that actually promoting someone took an inordinately long time.
"Give it to them, Jersey Blues" by John Hayward (published by Longstreet House) has some of the types of regimental references Pat is talking about and is the source for what I just wrote. He did a lot of primary research. Staffing is not the focus of the work, but in passing you learn a lot: The 7th went off to war without a full complement of companies, and never had the "book" number as a regiment or within any company; they tried to remedy that by adding a company made up of loyal Virginians who couldn't recruit enough men for their own regiment; there were a lot of petty jealousies and incompetencies among the officers, almost a circling-the-drain litany of spite and cherished slights that makes you wonder how they could even march across a field with all that rancor in the background, especially with the levels of sickness that hit them, illnesses that required long recuperations in some cases.

That kind of picture-building requires access not just to regimental records, but regimental records in tandem with some private letters to add insight into what was going on that wasn't in the records. Exhaustive research and a good chunk of luck, too. But imagine being able to interpret not just the material culture, but the operational reality of a regiment for a specific battle. It's a heck of a goal.

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

It appears the 105th Ohio was mustered in to service with 8 Corporals in each company. The various returns are a little vague, owing to various promotions, injuries, etc. obsuring the appointment dates.

None could be more clear than the records of Co. B, 105th Ohio - all 8 Corporals were appointed on the same date in 1862:

Dickerman, James M.	Corporal	37	Aug. 12, 1862	3	Appointed Corporal Aug. 21, 1862; discharged Oct. 14, 1862, at Louisville, Ky. On Surgeon's certificate of disability.
Ramsdell, John B	Corporal	21	Aug. 10, 1862	3	Appointed Corporal Aug. 21, 1862; mustered out with company June 3, 1865.
Hess, Michael E.	Corporal	36	Aug. 12, 1862	3	Appointed Corporal Aug. 21, 1862; discharged Feb. 27, 1863, at Gallatin, Tenn., on Surgeon's certificate of disability.
Center, George F.	Corporal	34	Aug. 12, 1862	3	Appointed Corporal Aug. 21, 1862; discharged Oct. 16, 1862, at Lousiville, Ky., on Surgeon's certificate of disability.
Ewalt, John A.	Corporal	19	Aug. 11, 1862	3	Appointed Corporal Aug. 21, 1862; died July 8, 1863, at Louisville, Ky.
Cobb, Norval B.	Corporal	31	Aug. 12, 1862	3	Appointed Corporal Aug. 21, 1862; discharged Oct. 14,1862, at Louisville, Ky., on Surgeon's certificate of disability.
Lodwick, Daniel	Corporal	23	Aug. 3, 1862	3	Appointed Corporal Aug. 21, 1862; discharged Oct. 4,1862, at Columbus, Ohio., on Surgeon's certificate of disability.
Finney, Henry E.	Corporal	22	Aug. 4, 1862	3	Appointed Corporal Aug. 21, 1862; discharged June 30, 1865, at Cleveland, Ohio, on Surgeon's certificate of disability.