Civil War Unit Organization | Regiments, Brigades, Divisions, Corps, Army | Order of Battle
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 01. 2022
- What is a regiment?
What is a brigade?
This presentation outlines unit structure during the American Civil War. Both the north and the south used the same organizational structure.
We will illustrate the organizational structure used in the civil war by example of the 1st Corps of the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg.
The most basic infantry unit in the civil war is a regiment. Regiments are named by a number and a state. When you hear the designation of a number and a state, like the 19th Indiana, you know that this is a regiment.
Regiments can vary in size. Some regiments have as many as 5 or 6 hundred men, while smaller regiments might be below 200 men. Regiments in the middle range are about 300 men. A colonel will often command a regiment, although when officers are wounded or killed, an officer of lower rank will be put in command. Colonel Samuel Williams commanded the 19th Indiana regiment at Gettysburg.
Regiments can be divided into smaller units called companies. Companies might typically have around 50 men, and they are often commanded by a captain or major. So, a regiment of 300 men may have 6 companies of about 50 men. It is rare for a civil war unit to be separated below company level.
The 19th Indiana is grouped with other regiments. Let's add four more regiments alongside the 19th Indiana. We have the 24th Michigan under Colonel Henry Morrow, the 2d Wisconsin under Colonel Lucius Fairchild, the 6th Wisconsin under Colonel Rufus Dawes, and the 7th Wisconsin under Colonel William Robinson. These five regiments make a brigade. A smaller brigade may have fewer regiments and a larger brigade may have more regiments.
The standard commander of a brigade is the appropriately named "brigadier general," but a colonel of one of its regiments may take command of a brigade if the brigadier general is wounded or killed. At Gettysburg, this particular brigade was under Brigadier General Solomon Meredith, and it was nicknamed the "iron brigade."
Depending on the size of the individual regiments, we may have a brigade force somewhere between 1,500 men to over 2,000 men. Just as regiments vary, so will brigades, because brigades are dependent on the number of men in those regiments.
In front of Meredith's brigade is a second brigade. This brigade is commanded by Brigadier General Lysander Cutler. Cutler's brigade is composed of 6 regiments, the 7th Indiana under Colonel Ira Grover, the 76th New York under Colonel Andrew Grover, the 84th New York under Colonel Edward Fowler, the 95th New York under Colonel George Biddle, the 147th New York under Colonel Francis Miller, and the 56th Pennsylvania under colonel William Hofmann.
We now have two brigades. Multiple brigades form a division. This division is under Brigadier General James Wadsworth. Divisions are large units that may have several thousand men. A brigadier general or a major general may command a division.
Let's add another division to the field. this second division is outlined here is commanded by Brigadier General John Robinson. This highlighted row here is composed of five regiments, which form a brigade under Brigadier General Gabriel Paul. the regiments in this brigade are the 16th Maine, the 13rd Massachusetts, the 94th New York, the 104th New York, and the 107th Pennsylvania.
The second row is another brigade in this division, formed by six regiments: the 12th Massachusetts, the 83rd New York, the 97th New York, the 11th Pennsylvania, the 88th Pennsylvania, and the 90th Pennsylvania.
A third division is shown here. This division is under Major General Abner Doubleday. We can see three rows in this division. The first row is a brigade under Colonel Biddle. He has four regiments in his brigade, one regiment from New York and three regiments from Pennsylvania. The next row is a second brigade, this one under Colonel Roy Stone. This brigade has three regiments from Pennsylvania. The third row is a brigade under Brigadier General George Stannard. This brigade is composed of 5 regiments from Vermont.
These three divisions, composed of a total of 7 brigades, in turn composed of many regiments, form a corps under Major General John Reynolds. A corps is a very large body of thousands of men. Multiple corps make up the Army of the Potomac.
The same unit organization is used for the Army of Northern Virginia.
Film by Jeffrey Meyer
Images from the Library of Congress
Satellite image from Google Maps
Thank you for the clear explanation. My great grandfather was in the 6th Wisconsin of the Iron Brigade. An immigrant from Prussia, he survived the war, returned to Wisconsin, built a business and raised a large family.
That is really a neat story. I have read that many first-generation Germans served in the Iron Brigade, and they sacrificed heavily on that first day at Gettysburg.
I was going to say "Cool! Ancestral brothers in arms!" But then I remembered that my great great great grandfather was in the 7th Wisconsin. XD
Immigrant from Norway. Survived the war, returned to Wisconsin, then moved out to Oregon to be a lumberjack. Buried in Bend with his brother and a decent number of his descendants.
@csil
What's the business' name, please? Is it still active?
@@Briselance The business was a lumber planing and millwork company. It operated for several decades, but no longer exists. Wisconsin had large forests of white pine in the late 1800’s and Chicago was a huge market for finished limber, so it was a good business at that time and location. Edit: also Madison and Milwaukee were markets for finished lumber.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian ... Would these regiments from Wisconsin have marched on foot all the way to Gettysburg?
As a long time civil war buff, I've known about the army organization for both sides for some time. Nice visual representation and good video. I'm also glad some people have pointed out the official paper strength of the regiment was actually set a 1000 men, with ten companies at 100 men. And yes, even early in the war were regiments rarely at full strength, this was due to several factors. Low recruitment numbers, high rates of disease, soldiers absent (with or without permission), and the aftermath of earlier battles.
Thank you for watching!
Were there ever any Infantry regiments that started out with a full compliment of 1000 men, and what were the size of Cavalry regiments, and Horse Artillery Batteries (paper and reality in the field) ? I was named after Robert E. Lee who built Ft.Carrol in Baltimore when he was a US Army Engineer, before the War of Northern Aggression.
@@robertrobert7924 To answer the first question, I would have to go back to original muster list of all the regiments formed in the early days of the war, or at least records that survived. So short answer is it was rare for some regiments to be regulation strength, most of the North's manpower was placed in half strength or near full strength regiments. As to the cavalry and artillery, they were considered the elite arms of the day, nearly along the lines of the special forces today, which the Marine Corps was the largest of them all. From what I remember, their unit strength was marginally smaller, manpower wise. In the cavalry, horse and rider were considered to be a team. Similarly in the artillery, six men operated one gun, and six guns made up a battery, but even that was rarely used as most things I've read recently spoke of four gun batteries. Sorry for being vague, I'm trying to remember all of the details from the time learning about civil war bordered on an unhealthy obsession, I tell people who want to argue with me about it, I've forgotten more about the time period than the vast majority ever learn. I may not recall off the top of my head, but I know where to look for information.
@@edwardcarson81 Thank you for your input. I have forgotten more than I remember also. I know the US has a history of greatly reduced military strength during interwar periods. I wonder if in the 1850's the few Regular Army Infantry Regiments where half or full strength? When I enlisted in the Army in 1968 my dog tags had an ID number that was not my SS# and started with RA (Regular Army) whereas draftees IDs did not. I think theirs started with US and then their SS#. I have no idea what they do now. I know the US ARMY has not given bayonet training for years.
Specifically, the paper strength of each infantry company was: 3 commissioned officers, i.e. 1 captain, 1 first lieutenant, 1 second lieutenant; 13 non-commissioned officers, i.e. 1 first sergeant, 4 sergeants, 8 corporals; 84 enlisted, i.e. 2 musicians and 82 privates. Usually, anyway. There's a bit of variation in the many different acts authorizing the raising of regiments, and the cavalry and artillery had a different system.
An undersized regiment (one so small as to not rate a Colonel or a full ten companies) was referred to as a "Battalion". The Irish Brigade had 4-5 "regiments" in it by Gettysburg, but had taken such losses that all but 2 were "battalions" (and its brigade fighting strength was 450 men, a slightly largish regiment).
Regiments were mustered in at a nominal 1000 men, but detachments, casualties and (especially) illness typically had most under half strength. Confederate recruiting tended to fill up regiments, while most Union recruiting raised new ones (Wisconsin was a notable exception, which is one reason why the "Iron" Brigade is so large despite being in several battles). This meant that while the Union typically had more soldiers, Confederate "Units" were larger. Pickett's Virginia "Division" was roughly the size of the Union III Corps (which only had two divisions). Post Gettysburg the Union amalgamated Corps (I combined with V for example), which reduced this a bit.
"Fortress" Infantry or "Heavy Artillery" or "Red-legged (red stripes for artillery on their pants not blue as normal) were special units mostly raised to hold the forts around Washington and had a nominal strength near 1,400 (to handle the extra guns). Since they didn't see much action, they kept their numbers near full. When several were pulled out of the forts to reinforce Grant's push to Richmond, the were mistaken for brigades or divisions.
Thanks for the information!
The 1st Massachusetts Heavy Artillery was one of these units that was pulled from Washington forts. When the commanding officer was asked how his men had performed when they got their first taste of action as an infantry unit at Spotsylvania, he said they "got a little mixed and didn't fight very tactically, but they fought confounded plucky."
When was "Battalion" adopted(?)/ made formal in the Army?
@@calguy3838
A fortress heavy-artillery regiment, formed, equipped, and trained as such, fighting as infantry? O_o
@@Briselance Yes.
I am reading through Stephen Sears books at the moment and as a newcomer to the Civil War this video is of tremendous help for me to visualise the action on the page. Thank you for your hard work Sir, much appreciated.
Thank you for watching! Enjoy Sears!
Whenever I watch video of Civil War units,
I can't help but be reminded of my old Confederate friend,
Colonel Angus.
Just discovered your videos and I’m in heaven. Thank you so much for the Gettysburg and civil war video, the visuals are great. I going back to my Gettysburg books and rereading the sections that coincide with the videos. Thank you!
Awesome! Thank you!
This is the BEST explanation of The Order Of Battle that I have seen so far.
I can show my wife and children what it all means.
This is helpful when we watch Films and Documentaries on the Civil War.
For Example when watching Ken Burn's 'The Civil War' or even bits of the film 'Lincoln'.
When my Father served in WWII and was deployed in the Pacific he use to try to explain his view of The Order of Battle.
My Father ended up being a Company Commander.
He told me on 'Paper' his company should of had at least 100 men.
He would laugh and tell me he has never seen his company with that many men.
He was lucky to have 2/3rds that strength.
I am sure the same was with the Civil War soldiers as well.
Thank you! Yes, what a unit "should" have is different than what it actually has, especially in units that were "warmly engaged," as they would have said during the Civil War.
Great, simple video! Perfect explanation!
Thank you!
Yes ! That was perfect breakdown for my meager brain cells 😆
Beautiful video. Thank you for visualizing it for us.
Thank you!
Brilliant presentation, thank you!
Thanks for the info. Great post.
Always appreciate your content. Thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks, so informative
I was not quite interested in the American Civil War, but your delivery made me invested! Thank you and greetings from Russia!
Thank you so much for watching!
Very clear explanation. Thanks
Thanks!
A footnote on Regular Army regiments and brigades was warranted, even if you chose a Corps without one.The dearth of Regular Army recognition in Civil War histories is quite notable, even exceptionable...
Yes, there are federal units, but most were state designated.
The Regular Army remained quite small during the war, and comprised a small fraction of the troops in the Union Army, so it's not that unusual that they wouldn't feature very prominently in the history books.
Regiments of the US Colored Troops were usually numbered, and didn't have state designations.
@@Grashan Good point. US Colored Troops were probably technically part of the Regular Army.
These videos are some of my favorite on CZcams bring more and no doubt glory will follow
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it.
Thanks a lot for this excellent explanation !!!
Thank you for watching!
I sorta knew this, but It's so nice to have somebody lay it out like this!
Thank you!
I’ve done a lot of reading about the Civil War and have watched many videos but am by no means an expert. In all of that, I have never heard platoons or squads mentioned. They seem to be so common in WW 2 and later wars but not in the Civil War. We’re they part of the military organization at that time. Very informative video. Thanks for posting it.
Yes, companies are really as small as the units will get. The thinking was that you needed to line up a long series of men to deliver a broad volley. The rifles though, were getting more accurate and in later conflicts you could successfully have enough firepower with smaller units.
I've heard of platoon firing drill during Napoleonic era, where only a platoon at a time will fire and gradually the entire regiment will fire in sequence rather than a massive volley or fire by rank. The advantage to platoon firing was that it kept a constant amount of grouped shots going towards the enemy, albeit it at a smaller volume than volley or fire by rank and a bit more grouped than fire at will by individual soldiers.
There were a lot more soldiers in the Army in WWII so the sizes if the individual units increased and were subdivided further. An infantry company in WWII was probably over 200 men divided into about 4 platoons of around 50 men. Another factor was that volley fire was a thing of the past. Volley fire limited the minimum effective size of a unit to the company. Longer ranged, higher powered individual weapons allowed the smaller platoon to be an effective unit. Same with the squad and even the fire team. A WWII squad could put out more and longer ranged aimed fire than a Civil War Company.
@@goldleader6074 Yep, firing by designated groups was a thing in this era, for the reason you state; got to keep Johnny Reb's head down while guys are reloading.
Actual tactical doctrine and training for these smaller levels don't exist yet for regular infantry, though. The ACW was one of several wars fought around this time where strategy was being outstripped by the weapons in use.
The modern platoon has the ability of killing adversaries ten times its own size thanks to machine gun fire, grenades and mortars. It can seize a place where it can’t be taken away without heavy weapon or artillery support if it has the ammo. It was already visible during the Civil war but the firepower got totally deadly during WW1. In the civil war, exhaustion, ammo, misfiring etc. was possibly preventing the leaders to send detachments less large than regiments to influence a battle situation. Chamberlain achieved such a feat on Little Round Top by having the rest of his regiment act in two groups. Tactical warfare got more important since then.
I've always wondered about these terms and what was bigger than what and what made up what. This was awesome to watch thank you. 👍
Thank you for watching!
another great video! thanks!
Thanks!
Excellent. Thanks.
Thanks!
Brilliant explanation… the similarities between the structure of the Union and Confederate armies with the British Army structure is strikingly similar…🇺🇸🇬🇧👏👏👍
Thank you that was interesting.
Thanks for watching!
Very Good information as always.!!
Thank you!
I always come away more knowledgeable after viewing one of your videos...
Excellent!
Having read Foote’s and Catton’s narratives many times over, it has always struck me when the actual numbers of combat-ready soldiers in any given field or expedition versus normal organization compliment is related. At times it seems that it was very difficult to approach and maintain even 70% of full capacity on either side when the going got tough.
Yes, units got ground down. Divisions could look like brigades.
You know what would make this neat from a presentation stand point is to produce a graphic of their encampments, and as you add new units in the new encampments pop up, along with logistics areas, artillery, etc. to give the viewer a sense of how much space one unit of X size would take up or potentially be responsible for, as that is something that has been a major change over time.
That is a great idea. I will look into that.
To give some idea, the second-largest 'city' in the Confederacy was wherever the Army of the Potomac was camped that night (assuming they were in the Confederacy, of course).
@@fieryweasel especially true on the Peninsula and months after Fredericksburg
@@JeffreytheLibrarian I don't have my copy on hand to confirm this, but you can find printed copies of Baron Von Steubens "Blue Book" as well as copies of Civil War training manuals that go into encampment logistics and layout. Not sure that would have what you need.
I do know that Gettysburg National Park does have some or all of the bivouac areas mapped out, maybe they could point you in the right direction?
If I'm reading the badges on the 110th Pennsylvania photo (about 0:43) correctly, this photo would date to somewhere between September of 1862, and June of 1863 (note the emblems on the kepis) when they would have been in 3rd Division, III Corps.
Under the relevant military manuals, an infantry company consisted of 82 privates, 8 corporals, 5 sergeants (including one first, aka orderly sergeant), 1 second lieutenant, 1 first lieutenant, and 1 captain (commanding). That gave a full strength company a base of fire consisting of about 90 rife-muskets (The sergeants were not deployed on the firing line but instead were several paces to the rear.) There were supposed to be 10 such companies in a volunteer regiment. Of course, these numbers were almost never maintained once in service. A regiment/battalion’s combat staff consisted of a sergeant major, adjutant, major, lieutenant colonel, colonel (commanding), and color guard of 8 men.
About ten minutes in a Civil War battle would drastically change the number of available men filling these units.
Very interesting. Would love to see information about battlefield communications during an engagement
That would be a great video, and I will have to pursue that in a future film.
Lots of couriers for messages between units, bugle calls for specific units, signalmen for cross-battle area messages, telegraph for long-range (like back to Washington).
According to doctrine, and Hardee's Manuals (1862), a *_full_* regiment was 1000 men. It consisted of 2 battalions, 500 men each, and each battalion had 5 companies of 100 men each. A regiment was commanded by a colonel, and in line, the 2nd battalion would be commanded by the regimental XO, a lt col. And each company was commanded by a captain. Sometimes a major would take the 2nd battalion, or a lt col the 1st, or whatever too. And a brigade, commanded by a brigadier general was 2 or more regiments, up to 5, and a corps was several brigades. An army was several corps.
Yes, a textbook regiment was 1,000 men. But on an actual field, where ranks were wracked with casualties and sickness, any regiment larger than 500 men was pretty rare.
So according to the manual, in a regiment, what was the number and role of the Major rank? Seems like they are above company command (Captain) and below executive officer level (Lt. Col)?
so where did Artillery and Calvary come in? where they organized in Brigades as part of a division or attached at the corps level?
Thank you for the great videos! love watching your Civil War videos. I have an ancestor that served in the 16th PA Vol as part of the original 6000 volunteers at the start of the war, then after his 3 months were up, reenlisted and served with the 76th Pa Vol (Keystone Zouaves). They campaigned mainly in South Carolina. Amazingly he survived the war (wounded once) and returned to PA where he became a tin smith.
Nicely done!!!
Thank you!
@@JeffreytheLibrarian YQW
Well done, though I wish it could have touched on the platoon, which did exist. Platoons on standard would have been the pre determined number of men to fire per volley.
thanks great vid
Thank you!
Perfect timing.
Thanks!
My 9th great grandfather fought in the Pequot war. He was a founder of Norwich. Every man in my direct succession from this ancestor, has served in every war that Europeans have ever participated in America. This 9th great grandfather named his first daughter, Mary. Mary was the wife of the first John Reynolds. They were the progenitors of the line from which Major John Reynolds was from. My 7th great grandfather and my 6th great grandfathers (father and son) were both in the Civil War. They would have been something like 1st and 2nd cousin to Major Reynolds.
A Civil War era regiment was 1,000 to 1,200 men at full strength. 800 to 900 men was common shortly after the regiment was formed due to illness and other factors. After a year or two of campaigning a regiment often had 500 to 600 men. By the end of the war many regiments had 100 to 300 men. A Brigade was usually 3 regiments with a strength of 3,000 to 3,600 men at full strength. A usual brigade was 1,300 to 1,500 men by the middle of the war. Near the end a typical brigade would be 1,000 to 1,200 men. Confederate units were usually smaller than Union units.
It's interesting to see how in more modern warfare that brigades is a larger organization that a regiment. Both rely on battalions bellow them but a brigade will have more battalions than regiments, usually.
Fascinating. Where do artillery units fit in? Logistics and supply units? Thx.
Nice
Thank you!
A regulation regiment in the civil war was 1000 men and officers organized into 10 companies.
I think 1,000 men in a regiment is a paper definition. A regiment of more than 450 is pretty huge. On the field, these regiments were much leaner than 1,000, especially after casualties, sickness, etc. Companies on paper have 100 men, but when I check markers, they usually mention 40 or so men.
That’s true. That is the “organization” of a regiment in the Civil War at time of original muster. After initial muster, units rarely were at full strength.
nice! new subscriber
Thank you!
I got to organize all this to better understand
Is There any Regulations or Complete publications on this subject as well as Organization Structures for Army and Naval Forces including Marines during the Civil War?
solomon meredith is buried in my home town of Cambridge city indiana. apparently he was not well liked by other senior generals like Gibbons and doubleday because of his political appointment
one very small clarification or correction a regiment isn't always followed by a state and a number for federal troops or marine units that goes out the window but it still follows 1st US, 2nd US ect ect. and marine units are usually a battalion which was like 500 men at most in their limited combat this confused me when I was younger and reading about actions where marines were used
So in an ideal situation, a company would be 100 men, a regiment 1,000 men, a brigade would be 4,000 men, a division would have 12,000 men, and a corps would have 38,000 men. This would give the corps a strength similar to most classical armies -- it gets very difficult to control or supply a larger force. And a brigade would be similar in size to a Roman legion.
Ideally yes although there was a constant ebb and flow of casualties leaving and replacements arriving so these numbers were always fluctuating
It should be noted that while the terminology is the same for ANV generally that army had larger brigades and divisions. A division in Lee's army may consist of as many as six brigades, and some brigades were composed of as many as seven regiments. At the corps level, three divisions were typical, as the federal army. Interestingly, the Confederate army was not organized into corps until after the Peninsular Campaign of early 1862.
Thanks for the details!
Confederate corps were also significantly larger than Union corps.
It was a good idea to use an actual satellite map. Very clear
Thanks!
Is it correct to assume that the reason a brigade was made up of many different states was to prevent the wiping out of a specific region of communities if the brigade was decimated?
Would like to know the difference then between the two armies at Gettysburg...as the Union army had about 7 Corp there against only 3 Corp for the Confederates. However, there was only approx. 20,000 men difference. So it would appear that a Confederate Corps was much larger than a Union Corps.
I see that some brigades have regiments from different states. Like 3 NY and 2 PA and another brigade have also regiments from the same states. Was there a policy of mixing regiments from different states instead of making more homogeneous brigades?
Brigades were refilled with regiments as new ones came available, so brigades were often mixtures of many states. The Civil War is such a meat grinder that both sides just needed men on the field. Regiments could be decimated by casualties or sickness, so fresh ones from different states would be assigned to a brigade.
did corps originate or pre-date Napoleon? I don't recall divisions mentioned Napoleonic battles?
The purpose of corps was to form a complete fighting unit (infantry, cavalry and artillery) to help search and fix the enemy location, allowing other corps to then converge? I suppose the corps size is one that can march along a single (wagon) road without being overly stretched out?
The French had divisions. For example, at Waterloo the 2nd Corp under Ney had 4 infantry and 1 calvary divisions plus attached artillery. Wellington's Army also had Corps and Divisions. The Prussian Army had Corps with Brigades, with no division organization between.
The thought behind the concept was in before Napoleon but he it was that developed and implemented it during the peace of Amiens 1802 - 1805. Of course, following his astounding success surrounding and capturing General Mack at Ulm and then defeating the third coalition at Austerlitz, the system was copied by every other continental army.
How were artillery/engineers and other more specialised units organized/attached to the corps?
Artillery was attached to each corps, and the engineers were a separate brigade in the Army of the Potomac.
How would artillery/cav addons be handled? I assume they are attached at the corps level, but how much?
Or did artillery and cav operate as separate corps?
Great question. There was a separate Cavalry Corps, and artillery was its own brigade within each division.
Would you be able to compare/contrast the Civil War-era Union Army with the modern US Army?
One criticism is that the modern military is too "top heavy" -- but that's with Platoons numbering 40 or so, Companies around 120, Battalions in the several hundred, and Regiments/Brigades in the few thousand.
With Civil War-era units about half that size (or even smaller), were they, too, "top-heavy"?
Good question. At least with the Civil War, I would say that the officer ratio wasn't "top heavy," because orders had to be given out by voice and drum amidst much confusion, and also officers had to be replaced when they themselves became casualties.
Thank you this was very informative. Were arrangements made prior to battle of the succession of command when a commanding officer weather a Company, Regiment or Brigade was "removed from battle"? Also was senoirity a factor and understood of all players involved.
Yes, the command structure was very rigid. This person follows this person, then this person. It was very common for officers to fall, so first, second, third, fourth in command was established and well known. It's the military, and an officer who attempted to usurp this would probably be arrested.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian Probably easy to move up in rank during some battles.
@@billmasters385 French sculptor Felix Agnus enlisted as a private in the 5th NY Volunteer Infantry in 1861 and by the end of the war rose to the rank of brevet brigadier-general.
@@azarisLP Incredible!
very nice presentation ... but, like the comment below, regiments were authorized to have ten companies with a 1,000 men total ... and that's typically about the number they started with ... ... casualties, disease and desertion reduced the units to the much smaller numbers in your comments ... i seem to recall that Confederate brigades, divisions and corps where much larger.
Also, some states sent regiments to federal armies without 1,000 men enlisted.
Thanks. I was illustrating more of the figures you would see on the field. More than 450 men in a regiment is a big regiment.
I know this is an old video, but my question is , when they got into battle line, was it just one long line? Or was it a couple lines deep. That painting looked like the battle lines were a few lines deep. Like Picketts charge, was that just one single line coming across the field?
Yes, a regiment can be "three lines deep" as they would say. There are a number of factors. How stretched are they? A regiment may need to widen its position to fill gaps, which may make it only one line deep. Or, it might be part of a concentrated attack, where it could be three lines deep. Classically, a unit would have two lines. One line is firing, the other line is loading. This would create a near continuous stream of fire.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian interesting, thanks for clearing that up.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian That was my thinking as well.
If you ever watched the film 'Zulu' (with Michael Caine) you can see this on a smaller scale.
Men lined up 3 rows deep and keep up a 'Continuous Field of Fire'.
what happened to the Battalion? Those are commanded by a Lt Col. Full Colonels commanded regiments. The brigade commander is the Brigadier General.
How long does it take for the regiment to go from full strength (1k men) down to these lower numbers?
At a battle like Antietam, it can take 15 minutes. No exaggeration.
Did New York raise that many regiments, or were regiments sequentially numbered overall and not by state?
That's a good question. New York did employ the most men on the field of any state. I image a few hundred thousand New Yorkers were in the Union Army throughout the war, so it is possible that they are actually numbered in order.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian I suppose the numbers aren't that far-fetched if there are on average 500 men in each regiment, and if new regiments were raised rather than fill the gaps in existing regiments.
Did either side have official chaplains? What echelon of command were they assigned to?
Yes, the Irish Brigade in the Army of the Potomac famously had priests on the front line with the brigade.
Congress recognized chaplains in 1775, shortly after the initial formation of the army.
Naive question, sorry (ACW isn’t my period). At what level were cavalry and artillery integrated?
Great question. Artillery was attached to each infantry corps, but cavalry was in its own corps.
Jeffrey, so was the Artillery commanded and directed at the Corps level? Or were they allocated to each Division to be directed at that level? I know there were differences between the Union and Confederate sides concerning structure and allocation of artillery units… may I humbly request a video illustrating this? Thanks!
How were artillery and cavalry organized? were they organized the same or is this only for infantry
Artillery was assigned to infantry corps. They are organized by batteries and sections. Cavalry have their own corps, and they are similar except they can divide into "squadrons," smaller units that can scout wide areas.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian thank you.
Both sides altered artillery and cavalry as the war progressed.
How was supporting troops - e.g artillery attached to a Corps or Division?
I almost threw in some artillery, but I decided to keep it to infantry. A corps would have assigned artillery. The cavalry was its own corps.
There were changes to both sides as they figured out how best to utilize artillery; it wasn't the same throughout the war.
A Regiment of only 300 men. That is something my head needs to adjust to
And after a battle, that regiment of 300 may have only 200 men, which would be a typical casualty loss for a "warmly engaged" regiment during the Civil War.
How were bands and medical units assigned? Were bandsmen used as medics the way they are in the modern army?
Great questions. Drummers were sometimes young boys. Sometimes what we would call "conscientious objectors" today volunteered as orderlies. Walt Whitman did this--his brother was wounded at Fredericksburg. Nurses like Clara Barton (who founded the American Red Cross during the war) tended to the wounded and recorded the Union dead. The Union dead are more well documented because of the Red Cross.
Not every unit had a band, and it wasn't until part-way through the war that there was something even resembling what we would think of as a combat medical unit. Field hospitals, ambulance corps, and most aspects of medical care changed as the war progressed and organizations like the US Sanitary Commission got involved. Doctors were mainly concerned with treating injuries to the limbs; if you were wounded seriously in the trunk it was generally the thought that you would either survive or not, but there wasn't much a doctor could do for you.
@@fieryweasel Did the Army have any way to train its own doctors/surgeons, or were they all volunteers from the private sector? How would someone have become a career army surgeon in the regular army?
I wonder if the attitude about abdominal wounds was still around for World War I? We knew more about anesthesia and controlling germs by then, but I doubt that surgical techniques had changed much.
In the army of northern Virginia, was not a corps usually commanded by a lieutenant general?
This would be the textbook officer for a unit that size, but in the field, major generals or sometimes even brigadier generals would be promoted if there were casualties.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian Ok, thank you very much for getting back to me. Interesting, take care.
I was in the Army for 11 years.... they are constantly changing the size and composition of units.... they often rename them as well... it was confusing as fuck to keep up with it all... by design to confuse our adversaries I'd always assumed.
Would not having units with differing numbers make it more awkward for planning purposes ?
So Battalions came later I guess?
Officially a Regiment is a group of men up to 1000 men and 10 companies.
Yes, those are the textbook numbers. However, a regiment on the field in the Civil War is much smaller. A 500-man regiment was GIANT.
Didn't the varying size of regiments cause commanders to assume they had sufficient troops to field, when often they had less than they thought? If you think you have 500 men per regiment but actually only half as much, that's going to lead to serious problems attacking.
They did daily roll calls, so the regiment, brigade, and division commanders had an updated list of men. This is also how they would calculate casualties the day after a battle. The difference in men at roll call the day after a battle versus the day before gave you the casualty count.
OK,……. Who is on second base and who’s on first?
I think it would have been better to have explored the table of organization first, and then illustrated variations necessitated by practicalities. And, what of battalions?
A battalion is a regiment with less then ten companies.
I thought about doing a table tree, but I thought it would be neat to illustrate the units arranged on a field. Battalions did exist in the Civil War, but the vast majority of units at that level are designated as regiments.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian I preferred your way. I've seen table after table and it never stuck. Thanks. great content.
@@JeffreytheLibrarian Actually, my reference to a table of organization was meant to refer to the military's doctrinal organization, as opposed to what may actually have been on the field.
So a regiment in the civil army is the same size as a british or european battalion
I think Napoleonic era in Europe used battalions, and over in America it was regiments.
I enjoyed this a lot. Didn't the Confederates make use of battalions though here and there?
not to muddy the waters :D
Yes, both sides had battalions here and there, but regiments were the normal unit size.
The use of battalions, where they were utilized, tended to align with detached and independent commands. They were not commonly included in larger army formations. Defending fixed defenses and strategic infrastructure such as bridges and railroads, and also guarding supply lines were the type of duty typically assigned to battalion level commands. In the western theater, independent cavalry battalion commands operating in remote regions was more common than in the east.
He should have added that the paper strength of a regiment is 1,000 men divided into 10 companies of 100 men.
Very rare to have a regiment in the Civil War with more than 500 men. You're more likely to have a brigade with a 1,000 men than a regiment.
I thought the 20th maine was part of this corp
you did not cover Detachments that were smaller than a companies of around ten men and Battalions and the battalion were in the all U.S. Regualar Infiantry with it working like this 8 companies form a battalion and 3 battalions forming a Regiment. I.E. 1st U.S. infantry,
I have always been confused about this, thanks for sharing. Why aren't brigades made of regiments from the same state, why the mix? Also, did all regiments start as the 1st and go up to 105th for example? Thank you.
Units would be reorganized and reassigned. They needed to fill the ranks. The casualties and sickness were so high in the Civil War that organization was very fluid. A giant regiment could be cut in half after a terrible battle or a terrible camp sickness.
States generated units at different rates. Population, willingness of citizens to enlist pre-draft, quota/effect of threat of draft, bounty amount (in American states), ability to fund/equip them, etc. New York, for example, could generate regiments faster than Maine simply due to population alone. There were larger units made up of elements from a single state, though. Pickett's DIVISION, pre-Gettysburg, was made up entirely of Virginia units.
Thanks for your help.
Oh, it’s the American Civil War, might have been worth mentioning that within the title…
The title says civil war unit organization
I don't think listing all the regiment designations and commanders added anything to this discussion and slowed it down a bit. It got quite repetitious. Otherwise, it was a decent presentation.
Thanks for the feedback. I thought giving a real-life example might be helpful.
Was there any rule behind the numbering of regiments? Did NY really 147 regiments at the same time? I mean with 300+ people per regiment this would be an enormous number of combatants just for NY.
Or was it just to make the number of fighting men look more?
Iron Brigade there.
Yes, the Iron Brigade is there!
RIP John Reynolds.
Reynolds was a man of action.
@Jeffrey the Librarian I'm proud to say that I just laid a rose at his grave yesterday. (It's all i can afford.)
I expected to clean it up as well, but I'm happy to say that the Lancaster Cemetery has maintained his final resting place very well.
You left out skirmishers.
Skirmishers were soldiers from whichever unit was nearby and/or tasked with it. They weren't their own separate units, in that sense. A regiment might assign one or more companies to act as skirmishers but it's a role, not a unit size.
Iowa, the greatest state in the union.
It's a good one!
As much as i like this breakdown for units, iam a tad annoyed with the need to a) continously name the subunits involved and b) name the commanders of each subunit as well. If i want to learn to about unit organization i really dont need a repeat of how a brigade is formed, once a second brigade is introduced. Similarly i HATE it when their commanders are put in the spotlight time and time again. Commanding officers get way too much credit for their actions anyway, considering that 99% of the work is done by other people in their unit. Iam not disputing the necessity of officiers, but i am disputing that it delivers the recognition appropiatly if you always name the commanding officer first. Come on: Its the unit that did the job, not the commanding officer. The officers give more or less good orders, but its the unit that does the job. Similarly to any day job: Your manager may be nice and good at this job, but it is the workers who actually do the work and deserve probably even more credit for a job well/badly done then heir superior.
Thank you for your comments. I wanted to name the subunits for a few reasons: to drill in that regiments make up brigades, and also to show that a brigade can have regiments from different states. I named the officers because that illustrates the ranks involved in these units.