"Placement of green troops within the ranks.." Topic

Hi Gents,

Just wondering if anyone would know of any policies/practices, official or not, of placement of new recruits in the ranks for any particular nation?

For example were they kept closer to an NCO, or perhaps started in the 2nd or 3rd rank rather than the 1st? Or would any or all of this be negated by formation evolutions, casualties, etc.. and render any meaningful placement pointless?

Thank you for any advice.

Cheers,
Bob

I know in Civil War reenacting we put them in the front rank so they don't accidently "shoot" some one. Muzzle and hammer placement is important for the guy in the rear rank. Its less things for the newbie to remember in all the excitement

Good Point LOL and let the new guy get killed first !!

Good Point LOL and let the new guy get killed first !!

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the armies did not have much of a replacement system. For the most part, the regiments were raised at full strength and then allowed to bleed to death over time. When they got too small they would be consolidated with other units or just disbanded. The only "replacements" were men coming back from the hospital and the rare recruiting party sent home by the regiment itself to try and scare up replacements. The Confederate army did make some efforts to supply replacements, the Northern army did not.

So, you would not have many 'green' replacements to deal with. Interestingly, as a reenactor I've noticed that if you stick a new recruit into the ranks with veterans all around, they will pick up the fundamentals amazingly fast. Usually just a single weekend will convert them from 'fresh fish' to functional soldier. I suspect that all the problems you read about with green regiments was caused by the fact that they were ALL green with no veterans to learn from.

The balance of veteran to green could prove the different between a Regiment standing and breaking, too high a ratio of new troops and the veterans might struggle to hold it all together?

The north tended to create new regiments and not fill them with replacements. As time went on the regiments became smaller and became veteran units. From your question's standpoint, where green troops were placed was not really an issue.

The south tended to fill the ranks with new personnel. Their regiments tended to be consistently about the same size, however, later in the war due to the lack of manpower and desertions, the regiments became smaller.

The CSA instituted conscription in '62, after which most "recruits" were inserted into existing units -- usually ones from their home state. The USA draft didn't really kick in until late '63, and it did the same, although some Union states continued to raise new units, with their recruits counting against their draft quotas. Also, some new units were composed almost entirely of veterans who had already served in older 3-year, 2-year or 9-months regiments.

After the Napoleonic wars, Max v. Busse, an officer in the Prussian 11. Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment summed up his experiences in training recruits in times of war with the following advice:

The recruits will receive their muskets already on the first day of training to start immediately with the first movements of charging arms. These will be continued the next days, and, being the main subject of exercise, will be continued daily, so that after 14 days the exercise can turn over to shooting first with blanks and afterwards at the practice target. For the instructon of the recruits in the other movement just a bit of time will be invested, and partly it will be left completey until they are sure in the movements of charging their arms. The instruction in skirmishing, including the signals, and the details of the daily service will also start on the first day, to be followed within the first 8 days by the instruction in the field serice. The training in marching, including the movements, are to be used only for a kind of change without investing much time in it, as for thios purpose the marching and rest days when the units are on their way to the army shall be used.

When the recruits which have been trained in such a hasty manner are to be put in rank and file, they have to be set in the middle files of the Sektionen, regardless of their height, and the flank files of the Sektionen and Züge shall be filled with men who have served for a longer time.

As many have said above, there was no system or regulation on how new recruits were placed in unit formations. It probably depended on where the regiment's Captain assigned them.

Dave
wargamingminiatures.com

Interesting post Oliver, seems marching they learned on the way to a parent unit?

Snag may well be very different systems between ACW and Napoleonic Era, let alone between different sides or nations.

"Green troops" were generally given rifles and put in positions of the greatest responsibility, to befit their elite status….

95th, 60th, 1st and 2nd Light KGL, Prussian Jaegers…….oh, but then Nassau and Hanoverians come along and spoil that.

On 2 June 1863, Grant wrote to Lincoln, forwarding a letter Sherman had written to him, concerning the wisdom of placing new men in old regiments. In part, Grant wrote:
our old regiments, all that remains of them, are veterans equaling regulars in discipline, and far superior to them in the material of which they are composed. A recruit added to them would become an old soldier, from the very contact, before he was aware of it. Company and regimental officers, camp and garrison equipage, transportation and everything are already provided. He would cost Government nothing but his pay and allowances, and would render efficient services from the start. Placed in a new organization all these things must be provided. Officers and men have to go through months of schooling, and, from ignorance of how to cook and provide for themselves, the ranks become depleted one-third before valuable services can be expected. Taken in economic point of view, one drafted man in an old regiment is worth three in a new one." OR Series III, volume 3, p. 386.

In Napoleonic armies there was a canteen or squad/section or the Sektionen organization where recruits would be added to an experienced group rather than forming whole new sections. The Civil War armies were forced to start with untrained regiments, so it was different than the standing armies in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. The Union political practice of rewarding politicians and the influential with regimental commissions say the Union creating about 1/3 more regiments than the Confederates [from equal numbers of men]

A Napoleonic recruit had to be able to demonstrate several skills before being added to an existing regiment as Oliver's quote demonstrates. One of the first was being able to consistently walk a standard 'pace'. Dundas and other nations' regulation authors insist that a recruit shouldn't be allowed to train with other soldiers at all until they have mastered that "as the foundation of all other evolutions and maneuvers."

I think the best way to answer this question is to consider what a NCO would do and go from there. The drill book, what the officer thinks and policy from the elite who write books and publications don't count for squat. The NCO knows what works and that is what is going to happen. End of story.

Question: What is the most dangerous thing in a war?

Answer: A lieutenant with a compass and a map.

Another thing to keep in mind is that an ACW recruit had a whole lot less to learn than a 20th Century recruit. How to load and fire, how to stick to his spot in the ranks, how to survive in the field on campaign and that was about it. War wasn't like it was in WWI or WWII where you were in almost non-stop combat and if you didn't learn a lot of stuff fast you'd be killed or wounded before your squadmates even knew your name. Wasn't like that in the ACW.

The drill book, what the officer thinks and policy from the elite who write books and publications don't count for squat. The NCO knows what works and that is what is going to happen. End of story.

Question: What is the most dangerous thing in a war?

Answer: A lieutenant with a compass and a map.

Actually the most dangerous thing is two NCOs coordinating a mission using two different play books. During the Napoleonic Wars through the ACW, those NCOs' troops tended to be maneuvering together shoulder-to-shoulder out in the open. Kinda hard to hide any differences of opinion about 'what works.' Now, apply that to an entire brigade or division of NCOs, let alone any officer.

Apart from recruit training, a company was formed – as example French Army,

first you form one line, tallest soldiers to the right – smallest to the left, the sergent major would devide this line in three equal parts, the tallest were the first rank, the smallest the second rank and the middle height – the third rank, there exist even the orders in what way you can form from one line into three ranks.

Then the files would be numbered and then the left wing man of the first section and the right wing man of the second section were designated (and if possible those were caporals)

So – no regards of experience whatsoever, height alone and symmetrie in numbers was the deciding factor to form a company.

In training recruits, it would depend on the sheer numbers of it, if of small numbers – recruits had to share the bed with experienced soldiers (usually a bed was shared by two soldiers) who would show the recruit how the ropes were pulled

So – no regards of experience whatsoever, height alone and symmetrie in numbers was the deciding factor to form a company.

VW:
Are you speaking of forming a permanent company for administration? It sounds like you are talking about forming a 'company' [peloton] for combat. It sounds like you are describing the process of equalizing.

it is not only for combat but also for drill, or parade, or revue (when you would open ranks) – as for combat – all pelotons would be equalized as well, so that they had identical files for thw whole battalion.

I don't know if there was a need to form a company for adminstration reasons, and even if so, they would be either in one rank or as above

As a side note, I just read a regimental history where an NCO was demoted to trooper and as place of "shame" had to be on the left flank regardless of his hight

I don't know if there was a need to form a company for adminstration reasons, and even if so, they would be either in one rank or as above.

WV:
That was typical of the period right through to the ACW. The administrative organization dealt with supply, food, pay and all the rest of the things associated to running an army. Because of the changing make-up of a company and sections, the height requirements, file numbers and such, that adiminstrative organization was ignored and tactical companies were formed when maneuvering, training and combat, sometime even resuffled during battle.

From John Lynn's Book, Chapter 7 "The Ordinaire and Motivation", Bayonets of the Republic

The ordinaire, a mess group made up of individuals from the same combat squad or section, stands out as the obvious small group in the French army. As defined by regulations, the structures and practices of the ordinaire dated back at least to the mid-eighteenth century.

French regulations decreed that the soldier would live and fight surrounded by the primary group. As far as possible, the ordinaire was to be composed of men from the same squad or section, that is a half-company. The 24 June 1792 Reglement concernant le service interieur de l'infanterie set the ordinaire at fourteen or sixteen men, a size to be maintained in any circumstances.

Therefore, when battalions were at full strength, the ordinaire and the squad were identical. Attrition could be expected to bring some reshuffling of men to keep the ordinaires at full strength, but even if the squads were combined in the ordinaire they were still to come from the same section. In the infantry a corporal was to head both the ordinaire and the squad, and again, at full strength, there would be as many ordinaire and squads, as there were corporals.Soldiers were to procure, prepare, and eat their meals as an ordinaire. In garrisons, where troops received regular payments to purchase food, this function was administered through the ordinaire. In infantry ordinaires the duty of shopping fell to the corporal, who would also keep proper accounts.

In combat the infantry ordinaire became part of the section. For maneuver and combat each battalion was broken up into companies, the number of which varied according to the kind of battalion, the period of time in question, and the particular circumstances.

[Italics mine]