Forming Companies by Height

[bob 125th nysvi]

When I was information at drill last year my captain said he would like to form the company in reverse order (shortest to tallest) one day if he was in the right situtation.

He said that the right situation is when there is an positive number of companies the even numbered (or lettered) companies form shortest to tallest so when they are put into a two company abreast column, this gives the effect of a more pleasing geometric shape (which during the Age of Enlightenment would have made military sense). He said it was in the manual that it could be done.

Anybody ever heard of that before? Anybody ever done it?

[Rob Weaver]

As I understand it, companies are always formed with the tallest men on the right progressing to the shortest on the left. I think he has in mind the 1764 British drill in which the tallest men are on both ends, and the short guys are in the middle. This fits more with his Enlightenment rationale. When I do Rev War is the only time I'm ever in the middle of the line, or the rear rank. (I have spent my entire reenacting tenure withing 5 steps of the same spot. When I was a private I was the shortest private - left of the line. As a corporal, I was always the shortest corporal. A couple paces farther left. As a 2nd sergeant, gues where I am? 2 paces behind the shortest privates. On the occasions when I am Orderly Sergeant, it's like visiting the land of the giants. I feel like I'm walking in a trench.)

[bob 125th nysvi]

(I have spent my entire reenacting tenure withing 5 steps of the same spot. When I was a private I was the shortest private - left of the line. As a corporal, I was always the shortest corporal. A couple paces farther left. As a 2nd sergeant, gues where I am? 2 paces behind the shortest privates. On the occasions when I am Orderly Sergeant, it's like visiting the land of the giants. I feel like I'm walking in a trench.)

position as I have never been anything but the tallest guy in the unit. Even when I fall in with a strange unit. So I'm always right where the 1st Sgt and the Officer can hear my comments.

Makes for an interesting career

[Pvt Schnapps]

position as I have never been anything but the tallest guy in the unit. Even when I fall in with a strange unit. So I'm always right where the 1st Sgt and the Officer can hear my comments.

Makes for an interesting career

And the Tactics would seem to bear you out, at least as far as the intro sections of Casey's and a couple of others I have at hand.

But in Kautz's COS for NCOs & soldiers, para. 426, he states... "In all the odd-numbered companies the tallest men are placed on the right, diminishing in size to the left, and in the even-numbered companies the tallest should be on the left, diminishing to the right, -- the principle being that in each division the tallest men should be on the flanks, and the shortest in the center: the regimental front will thus present a level line, and there will be an apparent uniformity in size of the entire regiment."

This wouldn't be the first time Kautz reflected an earlier practice than that officially adopted during the war, but it also wouldn't be the only case of different practices being followed in active service, other examples being the form of parade-rest and where you stow your overcoat (on or in the knapsack).

Until Silas chimes in with the definitive call, hope this helps. :)

[flattop32355]

While most regiments used the US manuals of the time (though some still used Scotts instead of Hardee/Casey), which were based upon French practices, there were also units that used Prussian and possibly other nationality manuals as their guides.

Then one must account for mis-interpretations, etc. from untrained officers learning as they went, up to regimental commander level, who decided to do things their own way, or at least how they thought was the right way.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a positive number of companies", unless it means an even number and more than two.

Two companies working together is a division, with the senior captain in command of both.

[Silas]

Until Silas chimes in with the definitive call, hope this helps.

I was going to post the same thing you did. Original scanned copies of both Kautz books are on my links page.

[tompritchett]

But in Kautz's COS for NCOs & soldiers, para. 426, he states... "In all the odd-numbered companies the tallest men are placed on the right, diminishing in size to the left, and in the even-numbered companies the tallest should be on the left, diminishing to the right, -- the principle being that in each division the tallest men should be on the flanks, and the shortest in the center: the regimental front will thus present a level line, and there will be an apparent uniformity in size of the entire regiment."

I had remembered reading that when I saw this post but could not remember where as also remember going through Hardee's one or two years earlier looking for on another instance. Thanks finding it.

This does bring two other things to the forefront. First, I wonder what other modifications were made to the manuals's way of doing things during the war that never made into updates because the manuals essentially because obsolete when the war ended. Second, should reenacting battalions actually have their even companies form shortest to tallest in order to reproduce this practice that Kautz was referring to?

[bob 125th nysvi]

I'm not sure what you mean by "a positive number of companies", unless it means an even number and more than two.

Two companies working together is a division, with the senior captain in command of both.

Even had a brain cramp.

[Pvt Schnapps]

I had remembered reading that when I saw this post but could not remember where as also remember going through Hardee's one or two years earlier looking for on another instance. Thanks finding it.

This does bring two other things to the forefront. First, I wonder what other modifications were made to the manuals's way of doing things during the war that never made into updates because the manuals essentially because obsolete when the war ended. Second, should reenacting battalions actually have their even companies form shortest to tallest in order to reproduce this practice that Kautz was referring to?

As far as modifications, I'd like someday soon to spend some time with Morris's tactics (I think Silas has a link to it), because that was supposed to reflect how Casey's et al had been modified in actual practice. Apparently he had more battalion maneuvers breaking off from marching by the flank because that's what the terrain and level of training dictated. Certainly seems worth a look, anyway.

As far as sizing reenacting battalions, reenacting companies vary so much by size (i.e., number of men) that I doubt this would contribute much of anything. I also suspect the physical size of people in the companies varies much more than in the case of the originals. A better practice to follow -- if we're going out of our way to do something period, that is :) -- might be to regularize the number and size of companies in a battalion before going into action. For example, take a reenactor battalion with seven companies of nine to twenty-five rifles each, and form it into four companies of fifteen each. That might leave some supernumerary officers and first sergeants, but I suspect they'd be so taken with the novelty of the idea, they might be willing to flex for a battle or two.

Just a wild thought.

[Thad Gallagher]

I know this subject has has been breached many times, but I have never uderstood forming by height, only to double ranks and have the shorter guys in the rear.

[tompritchett]

I know this subject has has been breached many times, but I have never uderstood forming by height, only to double ranks and have the shorter guys in the rear.

That is because whoever initially formed up the company did not know who to form it in such a way that the taller of the file partners was in the rear. I have seen a couple of ways that a company can be formed to avoid the problem but I am rusty on the actual commands used so I will let some of our more accomplished drill guru's post their solutions to this problem. Once they have posted, I would suggest that one print out one or more solutions and then forward them to your battalion commander to be incorporated into this coming year's pre-season drills or school of the soldier.

[tompritchett]

For example, take a reenactor battalion with seven companies of nine to twenty-five rifles each, and form it into four companies of fifteen each. That might leave some supernumerary officers and first sergeants, but I suspect they'd be so taken with the novelty of the idea, they might be willing to flex for a battle or two.

Or just move men around to balance the number of men in the companies - my understanding a very period practice. However there is also nothing wrong with consolidating companies, a practice our battalion uses repeatedly, and there is nothing wrong with the supernumerary officers and first sergeants donning a private's jacket and toting a musket for a day, again a practice our battalion uses repeatedly. It gives the officers and SGTs a chance to refresh themselves both on drill and what it means to be a musket toting private. I am willing to bet though that, after they start totting the occasion musket, you will see them start ordering more shifts in the carrying positions for the musket and less frequent times that they keep their men at the position of attention when an "In Place Rest" would be more appropriate.

[flattop32355]

I know this subject has has been breached many times, but I have never understood forming by height, only to double ranks and have the shorter guys in the rear.

I don't think the goal was to insure that each file had the absolutely taller man behind, but to insure that any dramatic differences in height were avoided.

If the rear rank man is only one or two inches shorter than his file partner, he can generally get by in firing through the interval with minimal problems. If he's five or six inches shorter, it becomes more problematic.

This may be case of us reenactors actually over reacting/over reaching/over thinking a more basic solution that the originals used to solve a problem.

[bob 125th nysvi]

I know this subject has has been breached many times, but I have never uderstood forming by height, only to double ranks and have the shorter guys in the rear.

do a left face instead of a rigth face. That solves the problem.

Then you insert the corporals!

[bob 125th nysvi]

is sometime done and sometimes not. I know in the MG we have balanced companies (at least in my wing) because many times we have moved men to other companies around us to balance out the formation.

However this can lead to a number of problems that have nothing to do with rank.

First there is a difference in drill quality. This is especially true if the company is made up of independents or under newer Offciers/NCOs. There is also differences in interpetation of the correct way to conduct a stance. For example, we had men added to our company at an event and when we formed a square to repel cavalry they still had their bayonets pointed way too high. Their drill instructor had interpeted "at eye level" as at the riders eye level not the infantryman's. Support arms, is it straight up or at an angle and if so how much of an angle? Depends on who taught you and mixed up it can look silly sometimes.

Also there might be a difference in a level of commitment. Some units take their drill real seriously and some are more relaxed. This can lead to friction between the majority and minority. Ditto for progressive (whomever that is) and mainstream (whomever that is) in camping styles.

The 'giving' unit might send their worst soldiers instead of a mix (oh no that NEVER happens in real life). Or just send off a couple of sections maybe from the left of the company meaning the receiving unit might be disproportionally short (or tall).

The best method would be for the re-enforcing soldiers to be with their new unit through out the weekend so they can integrate, become familiar with their superiors and not be late for forming up. The issue here is that this is as much a social event as a military one and guys like to hang with their pards and work under their own Officers/NCOs.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. Just it shouldn't be done haphazardly as it can cause problems.

[TheQM]

In regard to lining up by height. I have often wondered if this was an issue in veteran units. Or, what came first the chicken or the egg. You read account after account of where a man's pard was next to him in a line of battle. Were messes and pards a factor of height or did the messes and pards fall in together, regardless of how tall the men were?

It strikes me, that this is one of those things where a smart officer wouldn't pay much attention to the regulations. If guys are comfortable with their pards, who cares how tall they are?

[tompritchett]

In regard to lining up by height. I have often wondered if this was an issue in veteran units. Or, what came first the chicken or the egg. You read account after account of where a man's pard was next to him in a line of battle. Were messes and pards a factor of height or did the messes and pards fall in together, regardless of how tall the men were?

Another issue is the relative sizes of a reenacting company versus most of the Civil War companies (except some towards the end of the war). If there is a range in heights of 12 -18 inches in a 50 - 60 man company, it is likely that most of the men on either side of a soldier will usually be within an inch of him. However, when you only have 10 to 20 men in a company, it is much more likely that there will be a fairly significant height difference between one of the men around you. Therefore, I would expect that it was not as a much of a safety issue back then as it is today.

[Robert A Mosher]

I read some time ago that von Steuben introduced the idea of placing the taller men in the rear rank and the shorter men in the front rank - apparently an innovation at the time. European armies did pay attention to the placement of taller and shorter men along the company front and would not obviously place a shorter man behind a taller man, but they did not accomplish this in the same way we do in Civil War drills - that was reportdly von Steuben's doing. What I have not yet tracked down whether he came up with this on his own or borrowed it from some European drill manual. I have it on my list of things to do to explore his papers at the New York Historical Society and some related material at the library of the Society of Cincinnatti in Washington DC.

Robert A. Mosher

[Thad Gallagher]

That's a good point Tom. The height differences would not be so extreme with a larger number of troops.

[Regular3]

I read some time ago that von Steuben introduced the idea of placing the taller men in the rear rank and the shorter men in the front rank - apparently an innovation at the time. European armies did pay attention to the placement of taller and shorter men along the company front and would not obviously place a shorter man behind a taller man, but they did not accomplish this in the same way we do in Civil War drills - that was reportdly von Steuben's doing. What I have not yet tracked down whether he came up with this on his own or borrowed it from some European drill manual. I have it on my list of things to do to explore his papers at the New York Historical Society and some related material at the library of the Society of Cincinnatti in Washington DC.

Robert A. MosherVon Steuben had been a staff officer in the army of Frederick the Great during the Seven Years' War. While his actual rank got misinterpreted - or deliberately exaggerated - as lieutenant-general (he was in fact a "lieutenant" on the "general staff") he did have something no American officer had, and that was wartime organizaitonal experience.

So no doubt, if von Steuben didn't bring a Prussian manual with him (if such a thing even existed) he certainly understood what it took to put together an effective fighting force. And the "Blue Book" - the drill manual he wrote - was the US Army drill manual for almost 40 years until Winfield Scott updated it after the War of 1812.

Also, a lot of other things that became SOP in the US Army, such as camp layout and sanitation, and noncommissioned officers as primary trainers, were instituted by von Steuben.

If you can find it, read "The Army of Frederick the Great" and you'll see that many of the battlefield manuevers executed by generals on both sides of the Civil War were either based upon or direct copies of maneuvers Frederick pulled, including Jackson's flank march at Chancellorsville. We give a lot of credit to Napoleon, but Napoleon himself idolized Frederick and studied his battles.

[Robert A Mosher]

Von Steuben had been a staff officer in the army of Frederick the Great during the Seven Years' War. While his actual rank got misinterpreted - or deliberately exaggerated - as lieutenant-general (he was in fact a "lieutenant" on the "general staff") he did have something no American officer had, and that was wartime organizaitonal experience.

So no doubt, if von Steuben didn't bring a Prussian manual with him (if such a thing even existed) he certainly understood what it took to put together an effective fighting force. And the "Blue Book" - the drill manual he wrote - was the US Army drill manual for almost 40 years until Winfield Scott updated it after the War of 1812.

Also, a lot of other things that became SOP in the US Army, such as camp layout and sanitation, and noncommissioned officers as primary trainers, were instituted by von Steuben.

If you can find it, read "The Army of Frederick the Great" and you'll see that many of the battlefield manuevers executed by generals on both sides of the Civil War were either based upon or direct copies of maneuvers Frederick pulled, including Jackson's flank march at Chancellorsville. We give a lot of credit to Napoleon, but Napoleon himself idolized Frederick and studied his battles.

Darrell -
I was already fully aware of this and much more, but I thank you on behalf of those to whom it is new information. I've also got a pretty good little library of 18th and 19th Century drill manuals primarily in French and English (nicht deutsch). Tracing the ideas from one drill manual to another over the years is an interesting study and better researchers than I have already shown that von Stueben borrowed from almost all the leading drill manuals of the day seeking to put together something that his Yankee pupils would understand, accept, and follow.

Robert A. Mosher

[Pvt Schnapps]

Robert and Darrell, I think this would make a most excellent discussion on a future outing of the Loudon-Hampshire Mess :-) Anyone else have the Dover edition of von Steuben? I wonder if Kautz was partial to him.

[Robert A Mosher]

Schnapps -
I do have that one as well as an edition published in Colonial Williamsburg and a couple of PDF versions of his regulations as adopted by other states.

Robert A. Mosher