Quick Question about Assemble

[8thILCavalry]

On Assembling the Men into line is it factual to line up by height??
Or is that a modern Reenactor way to do things? Just wondering.

And does your Unit do that too?






~

[Dave Myrick]

Brian,
I suggest you obtain copies of some of period drill manuals. Cooke's, McClellan's and Poinsett's are available on line. Pattens is not, however it is still in print.

Dave Myrick

[PMB1861]

On Assembling the Men into line is it factual to line up by height??

Yes, reference Title I, Paragraph 15 of Infantry Tactics for the Instruction, Exercise and Maneuvers of the Soldier, a Company, Line of Skirmishers, Battalion, Brigade or Corps D'Armee by BGen Silas Casey...

http://books.google.com/books?id=cmoDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1#PPA12,M1


Or is that a modern Reenactor way to do things?

No, its the right way according to Casey's

You can reference many other drill manuals, period references and some modern compliations from Silas Tackitt's website...

http://www.zipcon.net/~silas/links.htm

[50th VA Corporal]

On Assembling the Men into line is it factual to line up by height??
Or is that a modern Reenactor way to do things? Just wondering.

And does your Unit do that too?






~


An overview of any of the military manuals of the era support that troops were to be assembled by height; tallest to shortest with the taller ranks to the side of the colors. And yes, my unit does it that way too.

By arranging soldiers by height it puts the rank in the rear at a slight height advantage than those in the front rank.

Jas. T. Lemon
50th VA Corporal

[tompritchett]

On Assembling the Men into line is it factual to line up by height??
Or is that a modern Reenactor way to do things? Just wondering.

It was indeed factual. However, I believe that a modern reenactorism is that every company is formed with the tallest to the right closest to the 1SGT. I am fairly certain that I read in Hardee's that the direction was alternated by companies such that there would not be a break in heights singling to the enemy where the breaks were between companies. But then I am sure that others more intimately familiar with the manuals will correct me if my memory is incorrect (I am still at the office and do not have my manuals readily available.)

[bob 125th nysvi]

It was indeed factual. However, I believe that a modern reenactorism is that every company is formed with the tallest to the right closest to the 1SGT. I am fairly certain that I read in Hardee's that the direction was alternated by companies such that there would not be a break in heights singling to the enemy where the breaks were between companies. But then I am sure that others more intimately familiar with the manuals will correct me if my memory is incorrect (I am still at the office and do not have my manuals readily available.)

You are correct that in the real CW not all companies formed tallest to the right. The idea, when the regiment formed into a line, was that the lines should show an even appearance. Two companies in line were supposed to match either their tall or short men together so the line would flow up or down to the sides evenly. this only really works when the regiment or battalion is in a column of companies two abreast.

Quite honestly I don't think we do this as reenactors because our battalions don't drill enough as a battalion and it would confuse the dickens out of everyone.

[Silas]

The alternating of companies by height was suggested by Kautz.

Regarding the tall guys in the rear, something Tom suggested previously is what first came to mind when I saw this thread. The differences in height are not that great in actual units with significant numbers. Think about the hundred man company, the fifty man company, or even a twenty five. The more men, the less less difference there is going to be from man to man. However, in the eight or ten man reenacting company, the difference from one man in the rear to another in the front can be great.

Just for the sake of argument, there are folks who use Scott's, Chandler's or Baxter's manuals where the tallest guy is always in the rear. Might be worth a look. Then again, maybe not.

[sbl]

These photos of the 22nd New York Militia come to mind. They are in formation on rather than lined up and posed for the photo. They are on rolling ground but have a look...

http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=bd244e2586e64abc_large

http://www.nps.gov/archive/hafe/jpeg/hf-0002.jpg

[Spinster]

I am fairly certain that I read in Hardee's that the direction was alternated by companies such that there would not be a break in heights singling to the enemy where the breaks were between companies.

Not having a military mindset, I'd sure like to hear more about the disadvantages of the enemy discerning such information.

[RJSamp]

Brian,
I suggest you obtain copies of some of period drill manuals. Cooke's, McClellan's and Poinsett's are available on line. Pattens is not, however it is still in print.

Dave Myrick


If you don't know the answer, please don't nonanswer the question.

Why would an 8th Ill. Cavalry reenactor be worried about Cooke's, McClellan's or Patten's? Why would you steer him in the wrong directions?

As a cavalry trooper, one would assemble dismounted as you would assemble mounted.....less the horses.

Title I

"There is a size-roll of the squadron, and with some allow*ance for weight of man and horse, the tallest horses are assigned to the tallest men; the men are posted according to this roll, the tallest men to the right and left of the centre, the lowest at the flanks.

This invariable position of the soldiers is also important, for its encouragement to companionship and mutual assist*ance in the sets of fours, and to a feeling of responsibility of each to the others in conduct and bravery."

I take this to mean that dismounted, the position of the soldiers would be invariable as well....

So 1st company lines up from tallest on the Left.....shortest on the right. 2nd Company lines up tallest on the right, shortest to the left...and so on through all 6 squadrons/12 companies of the regiment.

[RJSamp]

The alternating of companies by height was suggested by Kautz.


It's in other manuals from the period as well.....the question was posed by a cavalry trooper....suggest we give him cavalry answers.....

Title I

"There is a size-roll of the squadron, and with some allow*ance for weight of man and horse, the tallest horses are assigned to the tallest men; the men are posted according to this roll, the tallest men to the right and left of the centre, the lowest at the flanks.

This invariable position of the soldiers is also important, for its encouragement to companionship and mutual assist*ance in the sets of fours, and to a feeling of responsibility of each to the others in conduct and bravery."

I take this to mean that dismounted, the position of the soldiers would be invariable as well....

So 1st company lines up from tallest on the Left.....shortest on the right. 2nd Company lines up tallest on the right, shortest to the left...and so on through all 6 squadrons/12 companies of the regiment.

[flattop32355]

Not having a military mindset, I'd sure like to hear more about the disadvantages of the enemy discerning such information.

The weakest links of a battle line are the joints (actually gaps between larger formations) where components are adjacent, due to a divided immediate command structure at the point of attack (hitting half of two companies, etc). It's similar to aiming for the linked arms in "Red Rover" instead of aiming at someone's body head on.

How often, in the heat and fog of battle, one side could actually determine with any accuracy where those joints were (gaps were easier to spot) is anyone's guess, but if you got lucky and hit at just the right spot at just the right time, the joint could splinter and fold back to both sides, leaving an undefended gap to exploit through (Longstreet at Chickamauga, for example, bursting through the gap left by an unfortunate movement of units in the Federal line).

[8thILCavalry]

Thanks, We do Pointsetts and it says Age might be a way of lining up too. I was just wondering if other manuals and units had the same way of doing the lineup. Being cavalry it just puzzled me why there was a difference being mounted. but I guess we do start on the ground and then get up on a mount. So I guess there is a reason for it.

I also wanted to know Infantry and artillery takes on it too, So Thats OK RJ.

The only way you learn is ask questions.
There are no Dumb Questions out there except for "is that a real fire?". LOL :D






.

[sbl]

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln -

Oops....I should have seen that you are talking about Cavalry.

[Tom Craig]

Title I

"There is a size-roll of the squadron, and with some allow*ance for weight of man and horse, the tallest horses are assigned to the tallest men; the men are posted according to this roll, the tallest men to the right and left of the centre, the lowest at the flanks.

I take this to mean that dismounted, the position of the soldiers would be invariable as well....

So 1st company lines up from tallest on the Left.....shortest on the right. 2nd Company lines up tallest on the right, shortest to the left...and so on through all 6 squadrons/12 companies of the regiment.

RJ,

Thanks for providing this quotation. Since there is no direct citation of the source, I am assuming it comes from Pointsett's? Dave mentioned Patten's also, which is essentially and abridged version of Pointsett's.

I think you might be a little off in your interpretation of saying that in the 1st Co. the tallest is on the right, and in the next the tallest is on the left. The way I read your quote, in a cavalry company, the tallest men in each company are to be formed at the center of the company, with the shortest on the flanks: "the tallest men to the right and left of the centre, the lowest at the flanks." What you suggested is what others have described for infantry, with each company alternating tallest to shortest, shortest to tallest.

I do believe that you are right in that men on foot formed up in the same places in the ranks that they took when mounted. I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

For the orginal poster: In an ideal world, the men would be well matched with their horses in terms of size, temperment and ability. In practice that was usually far from the case. But you'd want to have your biggest guys on your strongest mounts, for obvious reasons.

In the 1st Maine we have never worried about having men fall in based on height as there is never more than 20 of us at best, but we do have guys fall in to one place at the start of the event, and they remain there for the duration. It saves confusion as to where people belong, and it helps with safety and accountability, because each man knows who belongs next to him in the ranks, and can notice if he is missing.

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[Dave Myrick]

No Tom,
RJ's post is from Cooke's, Post of Officers and Non-commissioned Officers of a Squadron in Line.

RJ. I didnt post a definate response because it depends on which drill manual one is using. My 1855 dated copy of Poinsett's does not mention falling in height, or tallest to shortest or any variation of it.

Dave Myrick

[Poor Private]

What this all amounts too--- is the shortest guys get screwed while the tall guys get something to hide behind!

[bob 125th nysvi]

What this all amounts too--- is the shortest guys get screwed while the tall guys get something to hide behind!

well I hide depends on how tall the guy in front of me is. I like them at least tall enough to rest my rifle on their head.

[Parault]

well I hide depends on how tall the guy in front of me is. I like them at least tall enough to rest my rifle on their head.

If they are a little shorter you have a place to put your beer while you pull the trigger.:lol:

[Poor Private]

If they are a little shorter you have a place to put your beer while you pull the trigger.:lol:
Thats why Kepis have flat tops(crowns) for somewhere to store your beer while you fire.:lol:

[Poor Private]

Though of course there is are advantages for being short(er) and in the front rank:
1. Your always in the picture at a mainstream event. And your family can spot you.
2. You can see the hole and step over it while the guy you may not like behind you trips
3. You can step over that piece of cav. dropping thats coming up.
4. You can spot that lovely lady or girl in the spectator gallery before the guy behind you can.
5. You get volunteered for those interesting jobs like, canteen filing, and message delivering.
6. You get first chance of the ice from the orderlies.
7. The shorter you are the further you are from the first sarge, and less noteable for the dirty details.
8.If your the shortest you can make new friends with the guys in the next company.
9. You get the best spots to hide behide because you see them first.
10. Your the first one to scrounge ammo and other itemes from the dead opposing foes. (with thier permission)

4.

[bob 125th nysvi]

Though of course there is are advantages for being short(er) and in the front rank:
1. Your always in the picture at a mainstream event. And your family can spot you.
2. You can see the hole and step over it while the guy you may not like behind you trips
3. You can step over that piece of cav. dropping thats coming up.
4. You can spot that lovely lady or girl in the spectator gallery before the guy behind you can.
5. You get volunteered for those interesting jobs like, canteen filing, and message delivering.
6. You get first chance of the ice from the orderlies.
7. The shorter you are the further you are from the first sarge, and less noteable for the dirty details.
8.If your the shortest you can make new friends with the guys in the next company.
9. You get the best spots to hide behide because you see them first.
10. Your the first one to scrounge ammo and other itemes from the dead opposing foes. (with thier permission)

4.

1) The dwarf in the picture that everybody looks at you and says to the guy behind you, "Just how tall are you?"
2) That's what happens when you have little feet you have to step over the mouse hole. We're stumbling from not trying to step on your heels with those tiny little steps you take.
3) Only CITY kids are too prissy to step in horse droppings. You do know your CW ancestors are looking down laughing at the "dandy" in the family don't you.
4) And catch her eyes as she looks OVER you to the real man.
5) Gee and I always thought I got the canteen detail because I could lug more canteens than a little guy (Although it may have something to do with my verbal skills).
6) First chance at ice? We big guys don't need no stinking ice!
7) Oh I don't know about that. My NCOs are equal opportunity abusers.
8 ) Tall guys don't need to make new friends. People come look us up to be our friends.
9) We don't need spots to hide behind, we have you.
10) You actually bend over in front of a guy in your rear rank? From what I've heard about your unit I wouldn't do that. You're a brave man my friend.

:)

[Artyman]

Size mattered, except for Phil Sheridan! :D

Harry

[hiplainsyank]

Only CITY kids are too prissy to step in horse droppings. You do know your CW ancestors are looking down laughing at the "dandy" in the family don't you.
4:)

Grew up with sheep, chickens, goats, dogs, etc. And I try to avoid stepping in manure if I can help it--always have.

As far as Civil War folk, you think that Mother would've let those farm boys set foot in the house with manure all over their shoes, or when they were kids, with manure all over their bare feet? I suspect it would've been the country boys who would've kept an eye on the ground, and avoided the poop just because it was a long-standing habit dating to childhood.

Just because folks had animals all around, doesn't mean they didn't triy to keep their houses clean. ;)

[hanktrent]

I suspect it would've been the country boys who would've kept an eye on the ground, and avoided the poop just because it was a long-standing habit dating to childhood.

That reminds me of something I noticed when we had a variety of people walking down our private road a few years ago when we first moved here, everything from construction workers to city insurance agents to vets and farriers. There was, naturally, horse manure in the road. Everyone stepped around it, but you could tell the difference in the country people and city people.

The country people stepped around it so naturally you hardly noticed they were doing it. The city people looked at it like a horse looking at a white piece of paper and shied around it. It was funny to watch the difference.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[bob 125th nysvi]

to watch so guy try to create elbow room to get around the stuff when he's in the middle of the column.

Did people try to keep their house clean, sure did, but just in case anybody hasn't noticed for the most part we aren't living in houses.

I've worked with horses about 26 years now and do I look to step in it? No I don't but I also know that 'manure happens' and that it ain't going to kill you. And another funny thing walk far enough and it rubs off the ole shoes.

People who are used to horses get used to getting manure on them and people in the 1860s were used to horses. And they were used to handling it all the time on the farms, fertilizer and occasionally fuel were uses for it.

I find it interesting how we work to get in their minds, think like they think, act like they acted and a little thing like stepping in manure throws major willys into some people.

[Pvt.Sam.Dile]

Don't know but just a thought, maybe we need a strictly Cavalry forum? Then us foot sloggers won't have to step in it and get the saddle tramps all worked up into a lather, we do tend to get curb bits and cruppers confused :D

[Artyman]

My wife got her 65 Simca stuck in horse crap once. :lol: She wouldn't get out of the car, and sat there for two hours while a friend and I walked back home to get the Jeep to pull her out. Went to the car wash from there.

Long story!

Harry

[bob 125th nysvi]

My wife got her 65 Simca stuck in horse crap once. :lol: She wouldn't get out of the car, and sat there for two hours while a friend and I walked back home to get the Jeep to pull her out. Went to the car wash from there.

Long story!

Harry

I don't think my three drafts combined could produce a pile big enough to get a car stuck in it.

Although there has been a few times in the spring when I wonder just what is the tractor sinking into as it digs those big ruts.

[Pete K]

My uncle gave me the lessons on driving a manual tranny on an early sixtys Simca. It got stuck in Pennsylvania potholes and had a hard time going over speed bumps, I could see it getting stuck in horse apples.

[Artyman]

If you can drive a Simca you can drive anything!

Harry