Why cant we form 100 man companies?

[Rob Murray]

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?

Ok it's not Hardees', Scotts' or Caseys but "The National School of the Soldier" 1862 by Capt. W.W. Van Ness on pg. 14 paragraph 14 states " Q. How will the corporals be posted? A. In the front ranks, on the right and left of platoons and sections.

According to the muster roll of company F 1st Minn Vol. Infty. pgs 58-59 of "Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars", it had 18 corpls through out its 3 year term. They started with 8. The 1st Minnesota also started drilling using Scotts Tactics and changed to Hardees a short time later having to unlearn some things.

To throw another wrench in the works, the table on pg. 50 of Scotts Military Dictionary 1861, says a Company of Infantry consists of 1 Capt., 1 1st Lt., 1 2nd Lt., 4 sergts, 4 corpls, 2 musicians and 42 Privates. Total Commissioned 3. Total enlisted minimum strength 52, maximum strength 84. Aggregate minimum strength 55, aggregate maximum strength 87.

When Co. F 1st Minn left there camp at Alexandria for the Bull Run campaign, it went with 2 commissioned officers and 86 enlisted (5 sergt's and 8 corpls). 1 officer and 1 corp. were left as camp guards. pgs 48-49 "No more Gallant a Deed" by James Wright MHS Press

So I have been thinking, is a 100 man company a re-enactorism? How many companies actually had 100 men? Were they Regulars or Volunteers? And how long did they keep those 100 men in the ranks?

[Rob Weaver]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Good points - you're back to the central point I was making. Progressives for at least 10 years have been developing the market of small, extremely history-heavy events. Picket posts, LHs, etc. All of the advertising is based around networking, which is the slow and highly relational way of getting info out. And it's not just about information; this side of the movement is marketing an emotion as well: It's the notion of being the dedicated, take-it-up-a-notch-best-you-can-be. So the expertise, and philosophies have developed to support small events. Large events, with large event funding and marketing have largely been abandoned to the "mainstream." Now we're talking about either returning to that market, or developing that market again. That's harder than it looks. (For instance: In your hometown, when you're doing home repairs, you go to that little hardware store that has everything, including good advice. You know where everything is and the staff. You go to help your brother-in-law put in a deck in upper Michiakawaka. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing, so what do you do? Crack open the phone book looking for small hardware stores? Look in the paper for ads for local hardware stores? Google "hardware Michiakawaka?" No- you go to Lowes. They've spent a lot of time and effort convincing you that they'll have everything and you'll be able to get the help you need.) For this "Magic 100" event to take place, it's going to take more than the usual promotional effort. Cold contact with individuals and groups you don't even know exist, handing out flyers at the "big events" next season. In short, convincing people that the vision of 100 really authentic guys, performing a solid company mission is a worthy goal worth getting behind. Don't be fooled by the half dozen or so of us online who endorse the idea. We're the market already, the committed few. As I said before, this is really about marketing, not history. The history content needs to be shuffled to a highly knowledgeable sub-committee, and the marketing to another. (Content providers rarely make good marketers.)

[CARY MEADOWS]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,
These words of yours hit the bed rock of what is wrong with the hobbie.

.................................."but at least once a year I want to see the army as the soldiers really saw it"....."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"....."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. "....."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?"....."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 agains ourselves.".................................................. ...

They are direct and to the point, and I agree.
Cary Meadows

[john duffer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

Dear Charles
It actually is spelled out in Scott's, on re-reading, it seems to apply to 2 or 3 rank formations equally and really does makes those famous "slight transposings" for corporal placement even more fun. That doesn't mean it was done that way and so far photographic evidence seems to suggest otherwise but it is something in print that the aspiring officer or non-commissioned officer might well have studied up until the outbreak of hostilities, my copy is an 1861 reprint. I thought the color guard 3 or 2 rank, 8 or 5 corporals interesting and tossed it in also.

Paul
I'm having a little problem with photo resolutuion but so far I get the impression of the 1829 Abstract six corporal: front rank / left and right of platoons / one at each section break. I've got companies to scale in CADD and am going to tranfer placement from photos to see if the pattern is obvious.

SCOTT'S TACTICS 1835
15. Companies serving in battalion, and averaging seventy-two rank and file, or upwards, will habitually be formed into three ranks- occasionally into two. For an average strength of less than seventy-two rank and file per company, and for detached companies, two ranks will be the habitual, and three the occasional of depth or formation.

16. The primitive formation of the company into three or two ranks; or into files three or two deep, together with the manner of passing from the one to the other formation, will be given, Title III. - ( No. 425 below) - Files having been formed, as often as a front or centre rank man falls or steps out of his rank, he will be immediately replaced, for the time, by his coverer in the next rank.

37. Corporals, other than those selected as the colour-guard, the corporal of pioneers, and the one covering the sergeant on the left of the battalion, belong to the rank and file of their respective companies. They will be placed in the front and rear ranks, and on the right and left of platoons, according to their height.

5O. In each battalion, the colour-guard will composed of eight or five corporals, according as the battalion may be formed in three or two ranks, and be posted on the left of the right centre company, of which company (for the time being) the guard will make a part.

425. The rank and file being formed in files, three (or two) deep, the captain will cause the files to be numbered from right to left, the platoons to be marked, and the officers, sergeants, corporals, (the latter by slight transposings, see No. 37,) pioneer, and field music to be posted as prescribed, Title I.

[john duffer]

81st Ohio

While not spot on, the corporals at 13 & 6 can be reasonably considered to be at platoon break & section break respectively, the 27 is out to lunch, I have no idea why he'd be there. I noticed that the gentleman at 13 was obviously a corporal by his height as well as stripes, (all the short corporals must be with the color guard :)). But, once his height called attention to it what really struck me - is it my imagination or are they formed with tall men on flanks, short in center ? I also think the shortest half of the men are in the front rank, if true, then I would think this company was formed by the method in SCOTT'S ABSTRACT 1829 ?!

[paulcalloway]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

John - is it possible that 27 is actually a Sergeant? I know thats a stretch, but the more I look at 27, his stripes are wide - real wide.

Just some wild speculation here, but if the company was formed for a photo - a call might have gone out to others milling about "come get in the picture" and they fell in to the left of the company.

Maybe there's better explanations for a sergeant being there... but if that IS a Sergeant (and therefore the actual end of the line), that would put the platoon break at file 12 or 14 which is about where we see a set of Corporal stripes there at 13. It'd also suggest a section break at 6 which is right where see another set of stripes.

[john duffer]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

No 27 does look more like sergeant stripes. Assuming he's the second sergeant the two officers on his left don't seem to have swords and appear to have just jumped in the photo. I don't see any sergeants in the file closer rank so could also have moved to the left of the company to get in the picture.

[Bushrod Carter]

Re: 81st Ohio

[QUOTE=But, once his height called attention to it what really struck me - is it my imagination or are they formed with tall men on flanks, short in center ? I also think the shortest half of the men are in the front rank, if true, then I would think this company was formed by the method in SCOTT'S ABSTRACT 1829 ?![/QUOTE]


Ok, just throwing out food for thought AND playing devil's advocate here...

The scanned photo Paul posted say's it is the "81st Ohio at Corinth." However, it doesn't mention the company. We know it IS NOT the entire regiment. With the tall NCO at center and the flanks being the tallest with the shortest men in the center...


Does anyone else think that this photo may actually be of a Division?

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Well the way I see it, back in the mid 90's we got too caught up in saying "Oh Gahd look at those guys!" and we we lost the people that would join our ranks when they said "WOW look at those guys!"

[coastaltrash]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

I would rather be pressed with a hot brand then ever attempt to go to another NSA event after that sorry excuse I went to in 05. I take the idea of leadership within the WIG as being very truthful to the people that follow me, and if I said "Come to -blank- it will be great!" I would be a bold face liar. I bought that line in 04 and 05 and got burned twice.

The only reason I thought about going to Mill Springs was to do fed artillery with Chuck before he hangs up his boots and relegates himself to one or two a year. Why go? So we can get balked at? Hell mainstreamers discovered jean wool and they know it all now anyway, they are in fact- the bee's knees. The old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" and I personally got tired of dragging ole Nelly the glue stead down to the river. I marched at Gettysburg in 98, Chickamauga 99 and Second Raymond which is where I discovered a better hobby, thank God I got drug to Pickett's Mill several weekends after.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Doug,

As we enter into the 12th season of EBUFU (2009), I feel the need to clear up some misconceptions, and some seriously flawed logic.

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

Since the peak in July 1998, the hobby has been declining. On a macro scale, this reduction in numbers has more to do with the aging baby boomer generation, who made up the bulk of the CW reenacting hobby during the 1980s and 1990s. Simply put, the numbers just aren't there to refill the vacancies. (For those following a similar decline in participant numbers in the looming Social Security crisis, this is a good parallel.) In many places, the prices of motor fuel is up 200-250% from what it was a half decade ago, too. To some extent, the recent bleed off into WW1 and WW2 has provided an exit door, or at least competing weekends, and as we remind ourselves every day, we are a nation at war. For many, playing army is unsettling while young men and women are bleeding in a real shooting war. Other factors come into play in the drop from 20,000+ participant events to 10,000 to 2,000 (or less) participant events, and it is unfair to place the blame on the shoulders of Campaigners, Progressives, and Hardcores. To go one step further, without a cohort of 20-30 year olds suddenly appearing on the population horizon in time for the 150th anniversary series, the numbers for that cycle are going to remain flat at best.

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.

About twice each year, somebody comes along and suggests the hobby can be rebuilt from the top down. I'll spare the free world yet another lecture on the failure of missionary work, and the rationale behind the grass roots effort that has churned out so many successful events by us for us. Having the pagentry of an army versus eliminating much of the pure garbage surrounding the fielding of said army is a constant tradeoff. Campaigners, Progressives, and Hardcores have not been about numbers. Some other hobbies out there are about numbers and the "everyone come along" atmosphere makes it worth seeing the circus once in a while, but certainly not on a regular basis. What it boils down to is the quality vs quantity argument. One can grow quality, but pruning quantity is a heck of a lot tougher. I can't speak for everyone, but if performance over the past decade is any indicator, when given a choice a good number of people who support EBUFU appear to want small, quality, battalions over a huge dose of the circus in most cases.

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.

Some of that is good, as last year the fence sitters were complaining loudly about too many NPS events in the first tier. You do have a point about the number of NPS events, and recent discussions have mentioned how nice it would be to coordinate and consolidate some of the small group efforts into larger efforts. You know how it is where a half dozen good groups have a similar number of living histories at the same site, yet independent of each other. The downside to that is some NPS sites are limiting the number of participants, and some NPS sites make this idea work better on paper than in practice. To put a number on this, at a local battlefield the ball park figure for possible company (or larger) level living histories is right at 125. Yes, that would be a possible 125 living history programs on just one battlefield.

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.

Funny thing is these events happen on a regular basis, although not in the tens of thousands of troops, yet "hospitals, supply operations, engineers, and arty/cav/infantry have had roles." Additionally, reenacting a hospital in a period structure actually used as a CW hospital building happens from time to time, and we've all had an opportunity to participate in some really amazing engineering opportunities on actual ground. Five such engineering events come to mind right off the bat, and that number is probably low.

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.

I'll point out at this time we are not CW soldiers. While some of us were young and soldiers once, and we may enjoy soldiering, we aren't actually in the army. In terms of battalion commanders and associated staff officers, I'm happy to fall in with groups who seem to know what they are doing, and that includes a pretty darn good collection of on and off field leadership scattered around the country. Not to name names, but we'd be hard pressed to find another battalion of men willing to cheerfully stand in the rain awaiting the results of an election....well, that was last year's news. If you didn't go, then you don't know.

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.

If that's a strike against the Living History Guild's annual Death March, then that's a swing and a miss. For some reason these small events allow people to practice fieldcraft, and they are great for those areas, such as the Northeast, were in the combined territory of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusets, and New York, may have as many as 50 people with the skill set and are inclination to attend a campaign event. The great speckled bird of reenactor math isn't going to fly by and drop off a couple of 400 man battalions anytime soon.

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.

The latest trend in some circles is to put a colonel in charge of a platoon and call it a battalion in order to justify brigade rank. I'm glad that is part of some other hobby. The last time I saw a brigade drill worth a toot was at Mudloh in April 1997. I believe that was the Western Brigade. Doug, how is the Western Brigade faring within the N/SA these days? Do they field 3-4 battalions? You don't have to answer that one, as we already know.

When we left behind the circus events, and the carnival midway that went with them, and the scads of specialty impressions, we lost a lot. I agree with you, and losing that many boat anchors off the deck was a good thing. Do we need smoked turkey leg vendors, full service stockbrokers, a sutler mall, activity tents, 1/3 and 1/2 scale artillery, kettle korn, funnel cakes, ladies tea, "sair'dy night dances," fashion shows, civil war weddings, train props from GAG, bagpipers, firewood riots, BBQ stands, parking protests, skillet collections, kilts, dismounted cav in yellow jogging suits with a hint of gray trim, water shortages, and rejects from the off off Broadway version of Gone With Her Mamma's Portiers? Oh, and cover all that glory with the lilting strains of the soundtrack from Gettysburg/Killer Angels playing over a PA system ad nauseum. Let me say again: WE LOST A LOT.

When we left the big show, WE lost a lot, as did the folks we left behind.

Doug, the folks we left behind are happy where they are. If you think I'm jerking your chain, please, please, go read the Mill Springs thread on Szabo's. You'll notice another fellow by the name of Doug pretty much captures the essence of what it is like to be as happy as a porcine resident in a mass quantity of slops. Hey, I said that nicely. In all fairness, what you and I remember as a van, station wagon, or pickup truck load of farb, mainstream, and authenticist reenacting essentials has expanded into the addition of an enclosed tandem axle utility trailer not much smaller than a car hauler.

Adding Carpe Eventum stuff before (long marches) and after (battlefield tour) was just what we always did.

Just a technical point, but a carpe eventum is an event within an event, such as an interpretive area, while an event march is a campaigner adjunct. A battlefield tour is still a battlefield tour, and something rather often on the schedule.

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.

Okay, you lost me with the "one dash two." If you mean lumping the Tier 1 and Tier 2 events together, well, that dog won't hunt. Matter of fact, that hound won't even get off the porch. Looking at Season 2008, we have 7 events with fairly good temporal and geographic distribution, in addition to diversity:

1. Winter 1864 - February 20-24

2. Pea Ridge NPS Living History - March 7-9

3. Glendale-Malvern Hill - April 18-20

4. Pickett's Mill - May 30 - June 1

5. Marmaduke's Raid - September 27-28

6. Camp Morton Prison Camp Scenario - Oct 10-12

7. After the Battle: Fredericksburg - 14-16 Nov

If you go back to 2007, you'll see this represents a significant reduction in Tier 1 events, and it is entirely possible 1 or 2 of these events may slide into Tier 2 before all is said and done. With the way the season worked out for Fort Wayne and After The Battle, I'm glad 2007 had a little more depth than normal. This reminds me to update some of the 2008 event info, since folks have been pretty good about sending in updates over the past week.

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.

History doesn't bear this out entirely. For those who weren't paying attention a few years ago, it seemed nearly every time an EBUFU national was in place, a certain group of folks would do their best to come up with an intentionally conflicting event within the same timeframe. I remember one event that tried to screw TAG, A2003, and a longstanding NPS LH, and that event did so poorly they had to blame "boo birds" for the failure. Truth is, they placed it on top of the big eastern fall farbfest, and the bulk of their troops went there. That's just one example.

As far as consolidating and hoping folks play nice, both Payne's Farm 2005 and Rich Mountain 2006 had a large number of unexplained absences from well known easterners. Dusty had a comment about people who lived within a few hours of Payne's Farm who should have been there. The most comical of all are the people who refused to attend 2nd Kernstown because of the water supplier. You want cooperation? There it is. Far too much in the way of petit politics out there to overcome before "we ALL show up?" The good news is 2009 is looking like 4 or 5 events in the primary circuit aka Tier 1.

Quite a few people have quietly been leading by example, and in many cases those individuals have been cranking out events that have been the best the hobby has ever offered -- in terms of quality. What we have is working, and while not without flaws, this just keeps getting better and better each year.

If people want bigger events where anything goes then they can read the schedule of Camp Chase Gazette or check out the mainstream offerings on Szabo's, and have at it.

[LWhite64]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Well, here is my POV for what it is worth. The last few years we have seen a heavy decline in visitation at Chickamauga, as have many of the other tourist sites in the Chattanooga area, I have to attribute a lot of that to gas prices, I know personally that I have drastically reduced the amount of travel that I do, I used to go on research trips at least twice a month, but now its been over a year since I made a day trip for that. Thank goodness for the internet. Anyway, other things that have been mentioned are playing against attendence too, the War, and many of the 20-30 year olds in the army both in and out of the hobby. Also interest in our period cycles, the last surge most of us remembered was due to a huge surge due to Ken Burns, the 125ths, and Glory. I think (and hope) that the upcomeing 150s will bring a new surge, like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers did for WW2.

Lee

[JimKindred]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

Charles,

Thank you for that post. It has to be the best I have read on the AC in a number of years.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Anatomy of a 100 man company

To throw another wrench in the works, the table on pg. 50 of Scotts Military Dictionary 1861, says a Company of Infantry consists of 1 Capt., 1 1st Lt., 1 2nd Lt., 4 sergts, 4 corpls, 2 musicians and 42 Privates.

It's good to point out from time to time that would be H.L. Scott's Military Dictionary, an incredibly useful work in its own right (and an MOA document), and not Winnie Scott's Tactics.

[Darrell Cochran]

Re: Why cant we form 100 man companies?

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.

Exactly. So here's a thought ... Why would we pine for numbers that were not PEC when we emphasize so much else that is?

A company of 100 men was never more than some Army bean counter's ideal. Reality in both armies (Regular and volunteer) was way less than that: Sixty to 80 would be great for 1861 to the Peninsula; half that number or less after Shiloh, Second Bull Run and Antietam and keep going down from there. The only place you'd see a company of anywhere near 100 men after Lookout Mountain would be a 100-day battalion or a regiment of Heavies converted to infantry.