"Heavy Skirmish Lines"

[ScottWashburn]

On a wargaming forum I frequent there has been some discussion on the issue of the "Heavy Skirmish Line". It's something that shows up in the reports and memoirs all the time but so far we haven't found anything describing just what it is or how it is formed. There's nothing in any of the tactics manuals referring to it. All the manuals only refer to a standard skirmish line with the men at five paces apart. The groups of fours can expand or contract their intervals, but the minimum spacing between men is still five paces.

So what's a heavy skirmish line? I could see that you could form a skirmish line with only 2 or 3 (or even 1) pace between men if you wanted to. For instructional purposes I have done that just to create a more compact formation so it's easier for me to see what's going on and easier for the men to hear me. It works fine. But is this what the reports mean or are they referring to something else?

Has anyone here seen any first-hand report or memoir that describes a heavy skirmish line?

Thanks!

[flattop32355]

The traditional skirmish line seems to consist of 1-2 companies from a regiment, with a part of that being held in a reserve between the actual skirmish line and the main body.

From the readings I've seen that mention a heavy skirmish line, I've tended to take that to mean sending out a larger number of men, such as an entire regiment across a brigade front (assuming 3-4 regiments per brigade). This may, indeed, require that the men close interval from the manual's five paces, but I believe it means more the amount of men committed as skirmishers over a given width of front.

It could also mean committing more men to the line and fewer to the reserve, or a combination of both.

See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B1FFE3E5A1B7493CBAB1783D85F40 8684F9 for a general reference case.

[Pvt Schnapps]

If you give the command, "in one rank form company" you essentially come up with a "heavy skirmish line" which you can then order to fire by rank, as skirmishers, or by file.

I think that a slightly different example -- a different way of ending up with the same formation -- may come from Chamberlain's AAR for LRT: "I immediately stretched my regiment to the left, by taking intervals by the left flank..." Looking at the actual ground you realize that he deployed his men in one rank, but clearly didn't keep five pace intervals between men -- even if he'd had the room, that would have doomed his command to being overrun by the numbers attacking them.

[Jubilo]

Dear Sir,
Paddy Griffith's book "Battle Tactics of the Civil War ," mention a two rank battle line in combat being reduced to a "strong skirmish line. " He also addresses the open order attacks of the chasseurs 'a pied and the "Zouave rush."
A Federal account mentions the Rebs coming on with skirmishers three deep. It would seem a "strong skirmish line," is one that has strength in depth , one skirmish line behind another. If more reenactment battles were fought using skirmish order the twelve man companies would look less inappropriate.
all for the old flag,
David Corbett

[sbl]

"They will attack you in the morning and they will come booming - skirmishers three deep. You will have to fight like the devil until supports arrive."
-Brigadier General John Buford

I've wondered about this quote.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

"Skirmishers three deep". I've seen that reference before and have always wondered if it was a throwback to someone utilizing Scott's Tactics, which was known to had drill for three ranks.

[johnduffer]

I admit to not doing much study (yet, but I've recently started looking into how skirmishing was done pre 1845 Ordonnance/1855 Hardee) but my first reaction is that a "heavy" skirmish line, or the "clouds" of skirmishers oft mentioned in Napoleonic battles simply means more men - several companies or an entire battalion deployed as skirmishers and their reserve rather than a single company. German tactical doctrine immediately pre WW1 used only skirmish formations for infantry advances and heavier movements were either wider front or in waves.

I believe the three deep skirmishers most likely three units deployed as skirmishers one behind the other. Very similar to discussions we've all seen regarding a main body advancing in multiple lines and the consensus is usually three "lines" refers to three two rank line of battles and not three ranks.

The three rank formation in Scott's was copied from the 1831 Ordonnance but states in the preface it wasn't to be used by U.S. troops so shouldn't have any bearing.

[johnduffer]

A couple possible items of interest for the "heavy" and "three lines" questions:

In addition to having more men, when an entire battalion is deployed each company occupies a front of 100 paces, when only a company is deployed it covers the entire battalion front (roughly 40 paces per company depending on strength). Company reserves are 150 paces back (actually staggered 30 paces for clear fields of fire) and the main reserve is at 400 paces, not sure if this would be construed as three lines. If the three lines were actually three waves of battalion strength skirmish lines it would be a significant tactical innovation. I'm going through SHOCK TROOPS OF THE CONFEDERACY to see if it mentions this being the case.

John D

[RJSamp]

we never came up with a definitive answer to this, several crashes ago on various forums. Any one remember John Walsh's Skirmisher forum???

Anyway.....what 'we' came up with:

CSA tended to deploy a sharpshooter battalion out front (like Blackford's Alabama Battalion as Rodes' Division designated skirmishers) and the two battle lines (column of regiment's).

Not a great definition of a heavy skirmish line, come a boomin' 3 lines deep, Skirmish line + Reserves + infantry in line, or a Swarm\cloud of skirmishers.....

Several references to manuevering Federal Units as a Division, Brigade, Corps by the bugle with 'skirmish' drill. IV Corps (Woods) was one such cited. There are illustrations of the Regulars fighting at Chickamauga that are no longer the highly stylized lines of infantry shoulder to shoulder....or even with a light touch of the elbows....they are seperated by a step......

Anyway, I'm looking forward to some answers to this...have been since 1997.....

[johnduffer]

" Several references to manuevering Federal Units as a Division, Brigade, Corps by the bugle with 'skirmish' drill. IV Corps (Woods) was one such cited. There are illustrations of the Regulars fighting at Chickamauga that are no longer the highly stylized lines of infantry shoulder to shoulder....or even with a light touch of the elbows....they are seperated by a step...... "

RJ
Any chance you have fairly easy access to list some of these references? Note that I'm not trying to discount your info - I'm genuinely facinated and want to study furthur. As I mentioned this is major tactical innovation for the time. Mass versus firepower was a debating point from at least early 1800s forward and these type of formations would presage the most modern thinking folks of 1914. I'm somewhat surprised by the Corps level skirmishing by bugle as many of the commands are at a detail level that would be hard to oversee from a central point and not always appropriate for the immediate situation of every unit.

any help appreciated, thanks
John D

[flattop32355]

This is total speculation on my part, but is it possilbe that some variations occured when some (especially multiple) units were armed with repeating weapons?

Those that weren't may perhaps been more inclined to stick with the traditional, manual designated, formations, while those with lots of repeating weapons might be more likely to advance in a looser, but less staggered formation.

Has anyone thought to check the National Tribune or any of the various post-war journals for information? Some of those journals were used to answer questions such as this, over a broad range of issues.

[ScottWashburn]

Well, this is interesting! Nobody seems to know :) The only thing I've found since my original post was to take a look at Upton's post-war manual. In his instruction for skirmishers he notes that skirmishers are usually posted five paces apart (just as during the war) but that this interval "... may be diminished or extended according to the desired strength of the line."

Now this doesn't prove anything, of course, but since Upton based much of his manual on lessons learned during the war, it might tend to support the idea of skirmish lines that were denser than normal. A heavy skirmish line. Just a thought.

[R Beasly]

Has anyone here seen any first-hand report or memoir that describes a heavy skirmish line?


Try googling "heavy skirmish line". All kinds of hits come up.

Mr. Beasly

[RJSamp]

" Several references to manuevering Federal Units as a Division, Brigade, Corps by the bugle with 'skirmish' drill. IV Corps (Woods) was one such cited. There are illustrations of the Regulars fighting at Chickamauga that are no longer the highly stylized lines of infantry shoulder to shoulder....or even with a light touch of the elbows....they are seperated by a step...... "

RJ
Any chance you have fairly easy access to list some of these references? Note that I'm not trying to discount your info - I'm genuinely facinated and want to study furthur. As I mentioned this is major tactical innovation for the time. Mass versus firepower was a debating point from at least early 1800s forward and these type of formations would presage the most modern thinking folks of 1914. I'm somewhat surprised by the Corps level skirmishing by bugle as many of the commands are at a detail level that would be hard to oversee from a central point and not always appropriate for the immediate situation of every unit.

any help appreciated, thanks
John D

McClellan ordered Brigade and Division Drill by the bugle in October 1861. Not using Casey's signal of execution and not in skirmish order.

I'll start looking into my library. We know that some of the Assaults at Cold Harbor at the Corps level were initiated by the bugle (I thought that the bugler's name was Gracey)...as well as Jackson's Flank assault at Chancellorsville.

Here's a quote on a Division battle line being assembled by the bugle......and a heavy skirmish order deployment:
http://www.factasy.com/civil_war/2008/09/27/26th_regiment_connecticut_volunteers

I don't know how you could drill 10's of thousands at skirmish drill by the bugle (Corps Level) (it would have to be lots of bugles) and there wouldn't be enough room in the world to spread out in one skirmish line.....

Division level would be hard enough.....

One thing to know, the "Attention" when sounded out in the field means Forward March. (the ditty alludes to this: I know you are tired but still you must go, off to Atlanta to see the big show). This is right out of Casey's Corps d'Armees.
So I could see a bugler or buglers sounding Attention at Corps level or Division level....and the call being picked up by subordinate units. And not a column or route moving forward, but a 'skirmish' or battle line.

BTW I think I found the sea of canvas quote about the Gettysburg Campaign: VI Corps during the pursuit AFTER the battle of gettysburg. The Corps stopped for the night and a tent city was quickly erected to ward of the rain..'as always when on campaign' I recall owing you that quote from The Common Ground forum, so when I run across it again I'll write down the citation.

[bob 125th nysvi]

seeing a quote that I think belonged to Chamberlain where he mentions in the later part of the war how they'd throw out half the regiment as skirmishers in front of the rest of the regiment as opposed to the 10%-20% used earlier in the war.

If we carry that forward a Brigade commander is going to throw out half the brigade in front.

I don't see where packing them closer together would accomplish much, you might as well just go forward in battleline and be done with it.

I think the intention was deploy them at normal intervals but in multiple lines (maybe 10-20 paces behind one another). In lose formation they wouldn't present a good target (marksmanship not being taught in the American Army at that time) but if they encountered heavy enemy resistance a battleline could be formed very quickly allowing for the soldiers to resist an assault or to launch an assault without having to wait for the rest of the formation to come up.

Open order when advancing to contact seems to become more acceptable by war's end.

[ScottWashburn]

Bob,

I guess there are different ways to look at this. If you were sending skirmishers aggressively, i.e. in hopes of driving the enemy back, then you are going to want more firepower up front, so reducing the spacing would do that. If you wanted to harass the enemy for a lengthy period but not take a lot of casualties then multiple lines would make sense since they could relieve each other as needed.

The problem is that we're just speculating without any evidence to back us up. We need to find an account which describes exactly what a heavy skirmish line is.

[johnduffer]

" The problem is that we're just speculating without any evidence to back us up. We need to find an account which describes exactly what a heavy skirmish line is. "

I think opinions are the most likely scenario here and there's probably not going to be a definitive smoking gun but wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. I personally think a heavy skirmish line is one with 1,000 men instead of 100. What's the textbook definition of a heavy cannonade, being heavily assualted, heavy downpour, etc? We have specifics like heavy infantry or heavy artillery (heavy cav a few years earlier) but in this case "heavy" most likely means more than usual. This is admittedly a guess and I'm skimming through a few books in hope of something more.

John D

[RJSamp]

I'm getting numerous on swarm, cloud, strong, heavy line of skirmishers....

Here's the quote on McClellan ordering division drill by the bugle (I'm sure he meant Division, but y'all know reporters....'trumpet' indeed....):

8 August 1861 Lafayette, Indiana "Daily Journal":

***
NEW ARMY REGULATIONS -- The correspondent of the Philadelphia Press,
writing from Washington, has the following interesting items:

Gen. McClellan, after consultation, has ordered brigadier generals
to have division drills by trumpet, weekly. The necessity of this
was severely felt on the battle-field [of Bull Run] July 21st
[1861], and the object now is to be prepared to meet the emergency
in the future. Now, the men do not know a single command by trumpet.

A reenactor fallacy is that the General Calls ONLY were used for line infantry....the Skirmisher Calls were used for Line Infantry as well (or how do you manuever a Brigade\Division by the bugle?).

I'm starting to find the manuever Division and Corps by bugle stuff....I have it saved as GIF and PDF files on my FTP site (ftp.rjsamp.com).....is there a way to place a link here? I'll add as attachments....
they're from the OR's.

[johnduffer]

A reference for a larger unit acting as skirmishers, Private Wilbur Fisk - 2nd Vermont:

"With a good general to lead, we can string the whole brigade of us, in a line five feet apart, or ten if they want; and advance straight ahead without pulling apart here, or crowding together there, keeping a straight line and going straight ahead;........"

[johnduffer]

" I don't see where packing them closer together would accomplish much, you might as well just go forward in battleline and be done with it. "

I agree with this. I haven't found a minimum distance specified but there's a practical point where they cease to be capable of functioning as skirmishers. All manuals I've seen specify using the ground and carrying weapons as desired, this plus very small intervals would seem to give too great a chance of friendly shootings.

" (marksmanship not being taught in the American Army at that time) "

I'm not sure I agree with this. I don't know if it happened in reality but it did on paper. GILHAM'S mentions it and SCOTT'S has a section as well:

" Practice in firing at a target being an essential part of infantry instruction, commanders of regiments and detached companies will exert themselves to render their officers and sergeants familiar with its theory.
In respect to theory, detailed instructions may be expected from the War Department.
Recruits will be exercised in target firing as soon as they shall have passed through the School of the Soldier.
In the beginning of this exercise, each man will be made to fire several rounds in succession, the instructor carefully rectifying the position of the body, and the piece, at each fire.
The second distance will not be taken till the men have learnt to fire with some accuracy at the first, and the same of the third, in respect to the second distance.
The corporals and men of the each company will be divided into three classes: the first class will consist of the most accurate marksmen; the second, the next in accuracy, and the third the most indifferent.
Commanders will employ all the means in their power to excite the desire of excellence in firing at the target; they will keep an exact register of the best shots, and note also the officers and sergeants who exhibit the most zeal and intelligence in this important branch of instruction.
At regimental head quarters, a field officer, when practicable, and if not, a captain, will always be present at these exercises, in order to stimulate zeal, and to cause a strict compliance with the theoretic principles which may be prescribed by the Department of War.
To preserve the habits of firing, the corporals and men will never discharge at a target, the same day, more than three to five rounds each; and. instead of expending in a single season the ammunition that may be authorized for the purpose, the exercise will be intermitted, and resumed at intervals of three or four weeks, throughout the year.
Ammunition allowed for target-firing will be unequally divided among the three classes of marksmen, and the largest portion set apart for the third class, and the smallest for the first. "

[R Beasly]

On a wargaming forum I frequent there has been some discussion on the issue of the "Heavy Skirmish Line". It's something that shows up in the reports and memoirs all the time but so far we haven't found anything describing just what it is or how it is formed. There's nothing in any of the tactics manuals referring to it. All the manuals only refer to a standard skirmish line with the men at five paces apart. The groups of fours can expand or contract their intervals, but the minimum spacing between men is still five paces.

So what's a heavy skirmish line? I could see that you could form a skirmish line with only 2 or 3 (or even 1) pace between men if you wanted to. For instructional purposes I have done that just to create a more compact formation so it's easier for me to see what's going on and easier for the men to hear me. It works fine. But is this what the reports mean or are they referring to something else?

Has anyone here seen any first-hand report or memoir that describes a heavy skirmish line?

Thanks!
Found this on google books Organization and Tactics by Capt. Aurtur L. Wagner (http://books.google.com/books?id=7IQ7AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=organization+and+tactics+arthur+wagner&source=bl&ots=mA98_RWFJ5&sig=wmG504MZKVQJfhChwdH3boyZ7VU&hl=en&ei=n9QgTYjAGsO7ngfTv4mUDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false")


Starts on page 95 and goes to pg.105

The War of Secession The War of Secession celebrated for its long duration its stubborn battles and its enormous loss of life is also remarkable as a turning point of tactics there being scarcely a feature of the tactics of the present day that did not have its germ its prototype or its development in that great contest The Union and Confederate armies were both armed with the rifle with an extreme range of 1,000 yards and a deadly range of half that distance and in the former the breech loader made its appearance before the end of the war The marksmanship and skill in handling fire arms were of a high order in both armies and the infantry fire was so deadly as to effect marked changes in tactical formations The principal tactical developments of the War of Secession were
I Attacks by rushes
II Attacks in successive deployed lines
III The use of heavy lines of skirmishers in place of the old line of battle
IV The use of hasty intrenchment

The first instance of attack by rushes was at the battleof Fort Donelson February 15 1862 General Morgan L Smith's brigade consisting of the Eighth Missouri and Eleventh Indiana was formed for attack with both regiments deployed the former in front and preceded by five of its companies as skirmishers at two paces interval Advancing up a bare slope the assailants came under a heavy fire the regiment in rear quickly formed on the left and abreast of the one in front the entire brigade lay down and the skirmishers plied the enemy with an effective fire When the enemy's fire slackened the brigade again rushed on absorbed the skirmishers and again lay down and opened fire Soon as the fury of the fire abated both regiments rose up and rushed on and in that way they at length closed upon the enemy falling when the volleys grew hottest dashing on when they slackened or ceased Meanwhile their own fire was constant and deadly By a series of such rushes the enemy's position was carried with but slight loss See Fig 14 This brilliant movement was far in advance of the tactics then generally in use On the same field Lauman's brigade to which an additional regiment had been attached was formed in column of battalions each consisting of five companies deployed in line four of the regiments composing the brigade thus forming a column of eight battalions or sixteen ranks while the fifth regiment was deployed as skirmishers on the flanks See Fig 15..........continues

Mr. Beasly

[Spinster]

is there a way to place a link here?
.

Yassir. See that little world globe looking thingie with the chain link on top of it right in the middle of all those icons that come up in the tool bar when you bring up the reply screen?

Hover your cursor over it. It might even say 'insert link' at that point. Click on it, and a little hyperlink screen will come up. Type in your link. Or copy and paste it into the box.



Good to see you on here Mr. Beasly. Its been a good while.

[Colonel Dave]

I suspect a "heavy skirmish line" was any skirmish line "heavier" then a single company or division (note the small "d"). There are lots of references that by the Atlanta campaign, entire brigades are sent out as skirmishers. The diary references to such large deployments seem to be amazed at brigade level skirmishing, thus leading me to think that any skirmish line that is more then light....... is heavy. There really is no definitive quantity that makes one skirmish line heavy and another light.

Keep in mind that the armies copied European armies. The English army was not known for their skirmishing (though they had light infantry) whereas the French army was known for it's advancing with "clouds of skirmishers". While each French regiment had a company of light infantry, there were regiments of light infantry as well as regiments of line infantry. Like the line infantry, the light infantry regiments had a company of light infantry. Sometimes, those companies of "light infantry/light infantry" companies were combined into a regiment which, true to the organization of the army, had a light infantry company. Now those guys must have been fast!! Their French name was voltigiers...note the root word of "volt".

RJ, there is a a "sea of canvas" reference in the diary of a 59th Illinois soldier when, in '64, the medical folks arrive outside of Atlanta.

[Pvt Schnapps]

John Jackman may have found a different way of describing a "heavy skirmish line" with closer intervals than five paces. In his letter of December 2, 1863, from Dalton (Diary of a Confederate Soldier, p. 95): "...we were again moved to the top of the hill, about noon, and formed in line, single file, a little to the left of the position we occupied in the morning."

[johnduffer]

" John Jackman may have found a different way of describing a "heavy skirmish line" with closer intervals than five paces. In his letter of December 2, 1863, from Dalton (Diary of a Confederate Soldier, p. 95): "...we were again moved to the top of the hill, about noon, and formed in line, single file, a little to the left of the position we occupied in the morning." "


Except Jackson doesn't mention anything at all about them acting as skirmishers here. Interestingly on page 96 he mentions a weak Federal attack in one line - a strong Federal attack in five lines - and somewjat later the Feds sending forward "two heavy lines of skirmishers". In these cases I think "line" means battle or skirmish line, not single rank.

UPTON'S has provisions to form in either one or two ranks and gives instruction on deploying as skirmishers from either formation so in 1867 a single rank doesn't seem to be considered a skirmish line.

[johnduffer]

Colonel Dave

What you're describing is mostly from the 1791 ORDONNANCE. By the time of the Civil War our manuals exactly match the French (except for the little detail of being written in English). Heavy Infantry is per the 1831 ORDONNANCE - our 1835 SCOTT'S - and Light Infantry is covered by the 1845 ORDONNANCE - our 1855 HARDEE'S - with 'tirailleurs' meaning skirmishers. French tactical doctrine in 1861 is the same as United States (at least on paper).

[Pvt Schnapps]

" John Jackman may have found a different way of describing a "heavy skirmish line" with closer intervals than five paces. In his letter of December 2, 1863, from Dalton (Diary of a Confederate Soldier, p. 95): "...we were again moved to the top of the hill, about noon, and formed in line, single file, a little to the left of the position we occupied in the morning." "


Except Jackson doesn't mention anything at all about them acting as skirmishers here. Interestingly on page 96 he mentions a weak Federal attack in one line - a strong Federal attack in five lines - and somewjat later the Feds sending forward "two heavy lines of skirmishers". In these cases I think "line" means battle or skirmish line, not single rank.

UPTON'S has provisions to form in either one or two ranks and gives instruction on deploying as skirmishers from either formation so in 1867 a single rank doesn't seem to be considered a skirmish line.

That's actually the point. I think Jackman and others are using the term "heavy skirmish line" to refer, in many cases, to a single-rank formation that later in the war, in practice, became the actual line of battle. In Sherman's "Memoirs" we get the passage (p. 885) "though our lines were deployed according to tactics, the men generally fought in strong skirmish-lines, taking advantage of the shape of the ground, and of every cover."

Du Picq, in Chapter II of "Battle Studies," puts it another way: "Arms are for use. The best disposition for material effect in attack or defense is that which permits the easiest and most deadly use of arms. This disposition is the scattered thin line. The whole of the science of combat lies then in the happy, proper combination, of the open order, scattered to secure destructive effect, and a good disposition of troops in formation as supports and reserves, so as to finish by moral effect the action of the advanced troops."

In the same chapter he offers a critique of the two-rank formation: "What is the use of fire by rank? By command? It is impracticable against the enemy, except in extraordinary cases. Any attempt at supervision of it is a joke! File firing? The first rank can shoot horizontally, the only thing required; the second rank can fire only into the air. It is useless to fire with our bulky knapsacks interfering so that our men raise the elbow higher than the shoulder. Learn what the field pack can be from the English, Prussians, Austrians, etc…. Could the pack not be thicker and less wide? Have the first rank open; let the second be checkerwise; and let firing against cavalry be the only firing to be executed in line.

"One line will be better than two, because it will not be hindered by the one behind it. One kind of fire is practicable and efficient, that of one rank. This is the fire of skirmishers in close formation."


The confusion over what a "heavy" or "strong" skirmish line largely disappears if we get past the semantics and realize that they're actually talking about a modification in the line of battle itself.

[johnduffer]

Mr Schnapps

I think we're looking at two seperate items - more open order formations being used late war doesn't seem to directly equate to heavy skirmish lines. Per example, your Du Picq reference mentions "thin seperate lines" which doesn't scream "heavy skirmish line" to me. I think I may not be grasping what your actual argument is - skirmish lines are all single rank, both those called "heavy" and those not. A single rank battle line is an elbow contact formation without file partners. Upton definitely uses single rank and skirmish line as different terms. Jackman uses "line, single file" and "heavy lines of skirmishers" as seperate terms. No semantics. Skirmishers are not skirmishers because of how close they stand to their neighbor but because they can lie down, use cover and generally fight on their own initiative. No doubt the less suicidal officers and men learned to get away from dense formations as the war progresses (though Franklin would do Malvern Hill proud). But I digress, I don't think "single rank" means "heavy skirmish line". I think "single line", "single rank", "skirmish line" & "heavy skirmish line" all mean different things to the CW era writer. Still, it's all just opinion.

[1stSgt45PVI]

I'm getting numerous on swarm, cloud, strong, heavy line of skirmishers.... I'm starting to find the manuever Division and Corps by bugle stuff....I have it saved as GIF and PDF files on my FTP site (ftp.rjsamp.com).....is there a way to place a link here? I'll add as attachments....
they're from the OR's.

May I have your permission to use some of this information on our website w/ credit to you Sir? This would be a great help to those who are not aware of this forum.

Best regards,
Zak

[Pvt Schnapps]

Mr Schnapps

I think we're looking at two seperate items - more open order formations being used late war doesn't seem to directly equate to heavy skirmish lines. Per example, your Du Picq reference mentions "thin seperate lines" which doesn't scream "heavy skirmish line" to me. I think I may not be grasping what your actual argument is - skirmish lines are all single rank, both those called "heavy" and those not. A single rank battle line is an elbow contact formation without file partners. Upton definitely uses single rank and skirmish line as different terms. Jackman uses "line, single file" and "heavy lines of skirmishers" as seperate terms. No semantics. Skirmishers are not skirmishers because of how close they stand to their neighbor but because they can lie down, use cover and generally fight on their own initiative. No doubt the less suicidal officers and men learned to get away from dense formations as the war progresses (though Franklin would do Malvern Hill proud). But I digress, I don't think "single rank" means "heavy skirmish line". I think "single line", "single rank", "skirmish line" & "heavy skirmish line" all mean different things to the CW era writer. Still, it's all just opinion.

My argument is that civil war infantry in combat developed the practice of fighting in one rank, generally with closer intervals than the manuals specified for skirmishing, but like skirmishers taking advantage of the ground where they could. Lacking a better term for it, various writers called this a "heavy" or "strong" "skirmish" line.

Du Picq observed the same tendency in Italy, hence his advocacy of a single rank.

As if to deliberately confuse us, they all still refer to skirmishers used in the conventional sense of the manuals. Although the line of battle itself had come to resemble skirmishers, it still attempted to fulfill the same function as when men stood shoulder to shoulder in two ranks. It's the limitations of the contemporary military vocabulary that lead to descriptions like the one I cited above from Chamberlain, or Rhodes' description of how he moved his regiment forward at Opequon to relieve the 37th Mass. What else do you call your main line of battle when it's strung out in a single rank with a little space between each man, or broken into clumps?

It makes me think of the Roman practice of mixing wine and water. That's not how they drank their wine; it's how they drank their water.

Anyway, you're right. It's just my interpretation of the term -- I have no reference that explicitly states that "after about June of '63 we just started fighting in one loose rank because we realized we were getting massacred -- to he// with the Tactics."

But maybe I should look a little closer -- I've never heard of manuevering corps by the bugle, either.

[RJSamp]

John, Michael. A Skirmish line doesn't have to be in a single rank! When you advance firing its automatically in two ranks....have any kinds of reserves and suddenly we're at 3 ranks\lines\a cloud or swarm of skirmishers. And nothing says that the reserves have to be in 2 ranks shoulder to shoulder......they could easily be in one rank a few paces apart. Especially if the front that has too be covered is a heavy skirmish line (which reduces the number of reserve skirmishers).

And don't forget the TEAM skirmishing employed by the CSA Sharpshooter battalions.....kind of like a sniper team in todays military.

Michael: "But maybe I should look a little closer -- I've never heard of manuevering corps by the bugle, either. " The OR's for the Atlanta campaign are full of quotes on manuevering Divisions, Brigades, from Corps level by the bugle. Their is the infamous RECALL bugle call at Missionary Ridge that stopped a Brigade in its trackes and they came back....only to be blown Forward and recapturing the same piece of real estate for an additional 600 casualties.

The Battle of Dallas quote that I thought was a Corps skirmish line turns out to be two IV Corps Divisions in an extended line being manuevered by the bugle with a strong line of skirmishers out front. So the extended order can either be putting reserve regiments\brigades or the 2nd Division on line and extend the Corps front, but the quote does NOT indicate a Corps manuevering in skirmish order (extending the line by increasing the paces between riflemen). My bad John and I stand corrected. At least it's a Corps level manuevering of its Divisions, preceded by a 'strong
skirmish line, by the bugle.

Don't forget that in 1862 Casey's adds the Signal of Execution for manuevering Brigades, Divisions, et al.....by the bugle. Corps d'Armees spells it out. The Cumberland Guard and Colonel Dave used this to great effect at GAC along with a bugle corps.

[RJSamp]

May I have your permission to use some of this information on our website w/ credit to you Sir? This would be a great help to those who are not aware of this forum.

Best regards,
Zak

Absolutely, that's why it's up there:
www.rjsamp.com
ftp://ftp.rjsamp.com

I use FTP Voyager to download volumes of stuff, slick program. for File Transfer Protocol.

[johnduffer]

Mr. Schaffner
" My argument is that civil war infantry in combat developed the practice of fighting in one rank, generally with closer intervals than the manuals specified for skirmishing, but like skirmishers taking advantage of the ground where they could. "


I think you probably correct that this happened at times and believe a strong case could be made.


" It's the limitations of the contemporary military vocabulary that lead to descriptions like the one I cited above from Chamberlain, or Rhodes' "


I don't have the Rhodes account but I didn't see "heavy skirmish line" mentioned by Chamberlain, does Rhodes use it?


" Lacking a better term for it, various writers called this a "heavy" or "strong" "skirmish" line. "


I see no logical inference supporting that as a definitive statement and it doesn't do much to explain what earlier war references to "heavy skirmish lines" may have meant or for that matter why Jackman used it as a seperate event description from an attack made earlier the same day. Certainly your theory could be correct but I can easily see "various writers" not meaning that at all.

John Duffer

[johnduffer]

RJ

" A Skirmish line doesn't have to be in a single rank! When you advance firing its automatically in two ranks.... "


It's true than while firing in advance or retreat file partners 'leapfrog' but depending on the ground it's likely not what you would call a two rank formation by any stretch and the normal condition of stationary skirmishers is on a single line.


"have any kinds of reserves and suddenly we're at 3 ranks\lines "


Instructions for deploying a battalion as skirmishers place company reserves 150 paces to the rear and the main reserve at 400 paces.


" And nothing says that the reserves have to be in 2 ranks shoulder to shoulder...... "


Well actually the manual does :), in fact the main reserve is to be in column by company at half distance.

[ScottWashburn]

Interesting replies, but it's still all specualtion. On the wargaming site I mentioned in my original post several people were contending that as the war went on the close order lines of battle started to 'spread out'. That there would be space between men and maybe just a single rank. But just like here no evidence was presented to support such a view.

I'm trying to look at this from a battalion commander's perspective. If I was trying to form a 'heavy skirmish line' how would I do it? What orders would I give? How would I control it? And if I wanted to let my men 'spread out' how would I do that? What if the regiments on either side of me wouldn't give way so I could spread out?

Lots of questions but no answers!

[Pvt Schnapps]

Mr. Schaffner
" My argument is that civil war infantry in combat developed the practice of fighting in one rank, generally with closer intervals than the manuals specified for skirmishing, but like skirmishers taking advantage of the ground where they could. "


I think you probably correct that this happened at times and believe a strong case could be made.


" It's the limitations of the contemporary military vocabulary that lead to descriptions like the one I cited above from Chamberlain, or Rhodes' "


I don't have the Rhodes account but I didn't see "heavy skirmish line" mentioned by Chamberlain, does Rhodes use it?


" Lacking a better term for it, various writers called this a "heavy" or "strong" "skirmish" line. "


I see no logical inference supporting that as a definitive statement and it doesn't do much to explain what earlier war references to "heavy skirmish lines" may have meant or for that matter why Jackman used it as a seperate event description from an attack made earlier the same day. Certainly your theory could be correct but I can easily see "various writers" not meaning that at all.

John Duffer

Sorry -- the Rhodes quote was from p. 176 of the Vintage paperback of "All For the Union." It's a bit lengthy but basically he describes deploying his regiment into skirmish formation in order to get to the actual line of battle without taking too many casualties. He then orders them to assemble on the flank creeping along the ground. It's not an example of a "heavy skirmish line" but of using the Tactics to do something not really covered in the Tactics -- sort of analogous to Sherman's comment about using the Tactics to get into action, then improvising from there.

I also apologize for inferring a definitive conclusion. I've always read "heavy skirmish line" to mean a single rank line of battle, but will gladly correct myself when I find out what the more correct interpretation is. To the extent I have any area of expertise, this isn't it.

[johnduffer]

Mr. Washburn

" I'm trying to look at this from a battalion commander's perspective. "

This really isn't meant to be all that tongue-in-cheek. As a battalion commander using the whole battalion is about as heavy as you can go and these are the tools you're given to do it with. May or may not be the answer but I believe it's a notch above specualtion.

" If I was trying to form a 'heavy skirmish line' how would I do it? What orders would I give? "

HARDEE, CASEY, GILHAM, et al all have pretty much the same wording on how and what orders to give, I'm using HARDEE here. Go to INSTRUCTION FOR SKIRMISHERS ARTICLE FIFTH. - To deploy a battalion as skirmishers, and to rally this battalion.

" How would I control it? "

10. The movements will be habitually indicated by the sounds of the bugle.

" And if I wanted to let my men 'spread out' how would I do that? "

ARTICLE FIRST, Paragraph 51. To extend intervals.

" What if the regiments on either side of me wouldn't give way so I could spread out? "

My first thought is friendly fire ;) but no definite answer from the manual here. Each company is to occupy a front of 100 paces, I'm going to work out in CAD how this translates and will hopefully have that info later this afternoon.

[ScottWashburn]

John,

Sorry, but that's still just speculation. And yes, I'm quite familiar with the regulations for forming a by-the-book "normal" skirmish line with a a company or several companies or with a battalion. But the assumption here is that the "heavy" skirmish line that we see in all these reports and memoirs was something different than a "normal" skirmish line (otherwise why call it a heavy skirmish line and not just a skirmish line?). So what I want to know is HOW was it different?

And until we find a report somewhere that explicitly states how it was different, we still don't have a definitive answer.

Perhaps we never will.

[johnduffer]

Scott

" Sorry, but that's still just speculation. And yes, I'm quite familiar with the regulations for forming a by-the-book "normal" skirmish line with a a company or several companies or with a battalion. But the assumption here is that the "heavy" skirmish line that we see in all these reports and memoirs was something different than a "normal" skirmish line (otherwise why call it a heavy skirmish line and not just a skirmish line?). So what I want to know is HOW was it different?

And until we find a report somewhere that explicitly states how it was different, we still don't have a definitive answer.

Perhaps we never will. "



14. In the first four articles, it is supposed that the movements are executed by a company deployed as skirmishers, on a front equal to that of the battilion in order of battle. In the fifth article, it is supposed that each company of the battalion, being deployed as skirmishers, occupies a front of one hundred paces.

You're exactly right, the manuals hold no clue and are mere speculation. There's no way we can assume someone might have perceived five or six companies as heavier than one when deployed in the same amount of space. Similar to the heavy downpour where we can never know if it was raining really hard or something very unusual was taking place or the heavy skirmish line where something other than the bugle was employed to "control it" since it was a heavy line. :D

[ScottWashburn]

In Article V the one hundred pace interval is just a convenient distance before the company deploys. In Paragraph 179 the guide of the company is instructed to: "direct themselves toward the outer man of the neighboring company already deployed as skirmishers;" In other words, if the neighboring company, once deployed as skirmishers (with the normal 5 paces between men) takes up 150 paces rather than just a hundred (or only 75), the next company will move outward (or inward) so that it links up with the flank of that company. So even when a whole battalion is deployed as skirmishers, it still has the same 'density' (men per yard of front) as a single platoon or company. The instructions do not call for each company to occupy a one hundred pace front.

[johnduffer]

Scott

Not sure which manual you might be refering to, my paragraph number of 14 works for1855 HARDEE, 1861 HARDEE, CASEY & U.S. TACTICS and definitely states:

14. In the first four articles, it is supposed that the movements are executed by a company deployed as skirmishers, on a front equal to that of the battilion in order of battle. In the fifth article, it is supposed that each company of the battalion, being deployed as skirmishers, occupies a front of one hundred paces. From these two examples, rules may be deduced for all cases, whatever may be the numerical strength of the skirmishers, and the rxtent of ground they ought to occupy.


You state: " In Paragraph 179 the guide of the company is instructed to: "direct themselves toward the outer man of the neighboring company already deployed as skirmishers "


Well that's paragraph 185 in the manuals mentioned above but in any case, I think you may have overlooked where it states right before this:

Paragraph 184. "... The fourth company will take an interval of one hundred paces coming from the left of the fifth...."
"... The seventh and eigth companies will each take an interval of one hundred paces..."

We can all certainly disagree (and often do) on interpretation of the manuals but the actual text is pretty much set.

[ScottWashburn]

But the one hundred pace interval is taken BEFORE the companies deploy as skirmishers. They are marching by the flank in close order. Once the deployment as skirmishers begins the guide of the company marches toward the flank of the adjacent company--wherever that might be. You seem to be interpreting the battalion deployment to mean that each platoon (or company) will occupy a one hundred pace frontage after deploying no matter how many or few soldiers are involved. My interpretation is that the skirmishers will take the standard five paces between men interval and occupy whatever front their numbers allow. As I read this the one hundred pace interval is simply to give each company the elbow room it needs to carry out its deployment.

[johnduffer]

Scott

I'm taking the manual's statement:

" it is supposed that each company of the battalion, being deployed as skirmishers, occupies a front of one hundred paces. "

as meaning they occupy a front of one hundred paces, doesn't seem at all vague to me but you may have some insight into what they probably really meant that I'm not seeing. I doubt not that 100 paces may have been 50 or 150 as circumstances dictated or numbers varied but, again, I'm just saying what was written in the manual and what officers and men were trained to do baring some other evidence. Since they're only putting a platoon of each company in line then normal non-skirmish formation (assuming an 80 man company rank & file strength) would be about 17 paces wide. Once deployed they'd be at about 2 1/2 pace intervals.

[bob 125th nysvi]

Interesting replies, but it's still all specualtion. On the wargaming site I mentioned in my original post several people were contending that as the war went on the close order lines of battle started to 'spread out'. That there would be space between men and maybe just a single rank. But just like here no evidence was presented to support such a view.

I'm trying to look at this from a battalion commander's perspective. If I was trying to form a 'heavy skirmish line' how would I do it? What orders would I give? How would I control it? And if I wanted to let my men 'spread out' how would I do that? What if the regiments on either side of me wouldn't give way so I could spread out?

Lots of questions but no answers!

As to battle lines "spreading out" or not I can't say but I have seen references made by soldiers as to running and trying to stay as low as possible while maneuvering around the battlefield instead of marching in neat ranks and only 'forming up' when they had reached their desired location or to deliver or repel an attack close range.

As to forming a heavy skirmish line I think that conceptually you (as battalion Commander) would need to discuss this before hand after you had received your orders from higher up. Once you knew your approximate role you'd discuss with your subordinates how you'd want the "heavy" skirmish line to be initially formed.

For example 'X' number of companies (and which ones) to deploy, frontage of each company, how much (and how far back) you want reserves and how far forward you want the skirmishers to initially deploy. When the time was right you'd give the command to deploy.

Since 'no battleplan survives contact' from that point forward the officers in command of the skirmish line would have to use their judgment for 'local' decisions and you'd use your bugler to control the skirmish line asking them to advance, hold, retreat, reform as necessary.

I think that once you contact significant enemy resistance you are going to reform the battalion (as will the rest of the forces you are working with) and not stay in "heavy" skirmish when there is real work to be done.

Just a thought. But heck, I'm just a Pvt, sometimes Cpl when things get desperate, what do I know?

[Pvt Schnapps]

Interesting replies, but it's still all specualtion. On the wargaming site I mentioned in my original post several people were contending that as the war went on the close order lines of battle started to 'spread out'. That there would be space between men and maybe just a single rank. But just like here no evidence was presented to support such a view.

I'm trying to look at this from a battalion commander's perspective. If I was trying to form a 'heavy skirmish line' how would I do it? What orders would I give? How would I control it? And if I wanted to let my men 'spread out' how would I do that? What if the regiments on either side of me wouldn't give way so I could spread out?

Lots of questions but no answers!

Scott, perhaps for your wargaming group you can use an answer from period wargamers. This comes from "Strategos," printed by the War Department in 1880 (see p. 139):


The Front occupied by

1,000 men in Line of Battle (2 Ranks, @ 22" per man) = 11,000", or 306 yards.

"Heavy Firing line (1 Rank, @ 22" per man) = 22,000", or 612 yards.
"Thin Firing line (1 Rank, © 44" per man) = 44,000", or 1,224 yards.
"Heavy Skirmish line (1 Rank, @ 88" per man) = 88,000", or 2,448 yards.
"Thin Skirmish line (1 Rank, @ 176", say 5 yards, per man) = 15,000', or
6,000 yards.


http://books.google.com/books?id=0XIKAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22heavy%20skirmish%20line%22&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=%22heavy%20skirmish%20line%22&f=false

As to how you could form a "heavy skirmish line" at the battalion level, I'd suggest looking at Morris's tactics on Silas's website, or this lecture given to the Royal United Service Institute on lessons learned during the war: http://books.google.com/books?id=suKRk0ibBvcC&dq=%22ON%20THE%20BEST%20METHOD%20OF%20ARMING%2C%20 EQUIPPING%2C%20AND%20%22&pg=PA209#v=onepage&q=%22ON%20THE%20BEST%20METHOD%20OF%20ARMING,%20EQU IPPING,%20AND%20%22&f=false

Basically, you march the companies by the right flank to the new line and deploy by company into line or by files on the right. Once on the new line each can deploy one platoon as skirmishers, the intervals being "heavy" or "light" depending on the space each has to cover. Admittedly Morris, in his lecture, describes only the way of forming a new line of battle, not of skirmishers, but it's easy enough to figure out how they got there.

On the other hand, if you believe Du Picq, you won't have to worry: once you come under fire half or more of your men will go to ground or run away and the rest will very quickly shake themselves into the most effective formation for firing back whether you give any commands or not.

[johnduffer]

That's actually a pretty cool find Mr. Schaffner. Whether or not it's the ultimate smoking gun it's still at least an attempt to officially quantify the term. It gives a shade over 3 paces for a typical interval, the manual gives a shade over two for a full strength company (quite rare I'd imagine much beyond a month into it).

thanks
John D

[RJSamp]

Careful with the math (the last two entries are wrong....see attached Excel spreadsheet) and 22" for an 1863 skinny private with a bedroll and 5 days rations and a cartridge box seems awful narrow for a 'light touch of the elbows', even subtracting one man + the offset for the end person.

But this is definitely on the right track! Does Upton's say anything about this?

[johnduffer]

RJ
" 22" for an 1863 skinny private with a bedroll and 5 days rations and a cartridge box seems awful narrow for a 'light touch of the elbows', even subtracting one man + the offset for the end person.
But this is definitely on the right track! Does Upton's say anything about this? "



English manuals, at least from 1805ish to CW period, mention 24" per man. UPTON'S has been mentioned several times in this thread, a recap (1867 version) -

"640. Skirmishers will habitually be deployed at five paces' interval; this may be diminished or extended according to the desired strength of the line."

No seperate distances are given for when the entire battalion deploys.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Careful with the math (the last two entries are wrong....see attached Excel spreadsheet) and 22" for an 1863 skinny private with a bedroll and 5 days rations and a cartridge box seems awful narrow for a 'light touch of the elbows', even subtracting one man + the offset for the end person.

But this is definitely on the right track! Does Upton's say anything about this?

The calculations are off, but only by 4 yds in the penultimate entry and 20% in the last, leading me to think that, for the purposes of the game, the authors assumed more or less extra room for light and heavy skirmish lines.

Duane and James' military dictionaries, from the first decade of the 19th century, give 22" a man, as does Cuninghame's tactics of 1804.

Scott's Military Dictionary, under "Working Power" assumes that a man in the ranks will occupy a front of only 20" and a depth of 13" without the knapsack. It assumes the man to weigh 150 lbs.

However, under the entry for "File" Scott's gives 21" a man.

Sir Garnet Wolsley assumes 24" per man (p. 229 in "The Soldier's Pocket-Book").

Knight's English Cyclopaedia (1859) assumes 21" in its entry for "Battalion."

Other references stick in the same general range, though several that give 21" a man assume 30" a file for the frontage of the overall unit.

I don't know any of this, I just took a quick look through my bookshelves and Google Books. On the whole, I find it comforting that there's plenty of historical precedent for our debating these details.

[Rob Murray]

Go to Appendix I, pg. 499 in Wagners book, that Mr. Beasly so kindly linked to on page 3 of this thread if you want to see some frontages, distances and spacings.

ROB