| badger22 | 19 Nov 2009 2:46 p.m. PST |
Particularly his involvement in the Suffolk operations. I know very little about him or his brother. A friend of mine is writing something and asked me. Rather than appearing as ignorant as I really am, I have turned to TMP for help. |
| badger22 | 19 Nov 2009 3:34 p.m. PST |
And while I am at it, the Order of battle for the heavy division when he was in charge of that formation. About the only thing I have found was that he was in charge. I know thwe info is out there some where, but I am just not that knowledgeable about the ACW. |
| donlowry | 19 Nov 2009 4:42 p.m. PST |
Any decent library ought to have a copy of the Civil War Dictionary by Mark Boatner III, actually an encyclopedia of battles, generals, etc. |
| donlowry | 19 Nov 2009 4:46 p.m. PST |
If all else fails, Google sometimes comes thru: link |
 Doms Decals  | 19 Nov 2009 5:01 p.m. PST |
Yes it was Robert – Matt actually took over his brigade when he was promoted, having previously been a regimental commander under him. As for involvement in Suffolk, none that I know of – three division were transferred into the area of operations (Ransom, Pickett and Hood) but only Pickett's and Hood's were involved in the siege of Suffolk – given that two of Longstreet's main objectives of the campaign were protecting Richmond and gathering supplies, I'd surmise Ransom's division was occupied with one or both of those while Hood and Pickett went to Suffolk. Dom, and Google…. PS – I think it was Walker's old division (Walker was promoted and took over a Texan division) in which case it was just two brigades (maybe "heavy" was someone taking the  ….) of North Carolina troops:
link |
| badger22 | 19 Nov 2009 5:19 p.m. PST |
Don, I got the same bit from Wiki. I was hopeing for a bit more detail. Thanks though, always nicew to have something to show wiki is not totaly out to lunch again. Dom, it seems reasonable that he would take over Walkers division as that is the Division he was in at Antitieum. But why refer to it as the heavy division if it only had two BDE? I am not much of an ACW guy. A friend asked because of something he is putting togather for an upcomeing event. So I am hitting the best sites I know to see what I can find. |
| Doms Decals | 19 Nov 2009 5:28 p.m. PST |
There seem to be a few "heavy" divisions pop up in accounts (eg. Cleburne's) but I can't see any rhyme or reason to the designation. In this case I'm not being entirely facetious in saying someone might've been taking the – looking at the Army Of North Virginia's OOB, 4-5 brigades was usual for a division, and at Fredericksburg only two divisions weren't 4 or 5 strong – Ambrose Hill's "Light Division" with 6 brigades, and Ransom's Division with a piffling two. Dubbing it the heavy division would fit what often passes for military humour…. |
| zippyfusenet | 20 Nov 2009 8:13 a.m. PST |
I've run across a few references to 'heavy infantry' in an ACW context, usually early war and southern, i.e. 'Georgia Heavy Infantry' illustrated for the Confederate army at Manassass Junction in summer 1861. The authors seem to have meant by this troops who were armed with smoothbore muskets and were trained in traditional Napoleonic close-order tactics, instead of the newer 'light infantry' drill that was in fashion for all troops armed with rifle-muskets. Can't say whether this meaning applied to Ransom's division. |
| donlowry | 20 Nov 2009 2:20 p.m. PST |
Yep, it was probably a take-off on Hill's "Light Division." |
| DJCoaltrain | 20 Nov 2009 8:39 p.m. PST |
The Union had "heavy infantry," but it was heavy artillery units that had been converted to infantry units. They were "heavy" by virtue of the guns they used to man, and the higher number of personnel in the units (campaigning had not yet whittled them down). Some may have carried their artillery yellow regimental flags instead of the dark blue regimental flags. IIRC, Oft times the ACW volunteer troops misused colorful phrases to describe themselves and their units. |
bases them up.
