"Regiment vs battalion in the ACW " Topic
16 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleThe G Dog replicates a mortar schooner at Fort Jackson during the New Orleans campaign.
Featured Profile Article reeves lk updates us on progress at this Champion Hill landmark.
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Winston Smith | 27 Apr 2016 7:41 p.m. PST |
Rarely I read of a unit called a battalion in the Civil War. Was a battalion equivalent to a regiment in every way? And why was it called a battalion rather than a regiment? |
Rich Bliss | 27 Apr 2016 7:52 p.m. PST |
Most regiments were a single battalion in strength. I believe there were a few with 2 battalions but none come readily to mind. The regiment is the organizational and political unit. The battalion technically the tactical unit. |
coopman | 27 Apr 2016 8:02 p.m. PST |
I think that they are one and the same myself. |
79thPA | 27 Apr 2016 8:12 p.m. PST |
The first ten regiments of US regulars were single battalion regiments. The states organized their volunteers along the same one battalion regiment format. The 11th regulars on were supposed to be organized as three battalion (2 field, 1 depot)regiments with 8 companies per battalion. Most volunteers went into state units, so the regulars never got anywhere near authorized strength. Adding my edit that got deleted: It is not uncommon to find battalions consisting of four or so companies. In 1861 Ohio raised the 1st Independent Cavalry Battalion, which consisted of four companies. In 1863 four more companies were added to the 1st Independent Battalion and the unit became the 11th Ohio Cavalry Regiment. |
robert piepenbrink | 27 Apr 2016 8:22 p.m. PST |
I'd mostly agree with Rich and 79PA--some of the US regular infantry were multi-battalion or intended to be, and the cavalry regiments might even have battalions in different armies: I remember the 3rd Indiana in particular. But you also every now and then hit a smallish unit of maybe four or five companies raised as a battalion and called such, even though the ten company regiments also maneuvered as a single battalion. The military and political minds can be strange and terrible things. I sometimes tell people that in the English-speaking world, a regiment is often like a denomination--an expression of commonality, which has nothing to do with the number of congregations. Very different from the continent where the regiment is consistently a command level. |
gamertom | 27 Apr 2016 8:23 p.m. PST |
Depending upon which drill manual you choose, a battalion consisted of any grouping of 2 or more companies from a regiment and the term was then used in the drill manual to mean subsets of the regiments. Since a regiment was supposed to have 10 companies, drill manuals could refer to a regiment in line as having the left most 3 companies as the "left" battalion, the center 4 companies as the "center" battalion, and the right most 3 companies as the "right" battalion. Also, if a regiment detached some companies for extended duty, say to go back home for recruitment or to serve as the wagon train guard, you supposedly were left with a battalion rather than a regiment. And then there were the Southern states that termed some permanent units as battalions rather than regiments. I imagine this was every bit as confusing to them. |
vtsaogames | 27 Apr 2016 8:24 p.m. PST |
A detachment of several companies would be called a battalion. This usage was unofficial but frequent. |
raylev3 | 27 Apr 2016 8:46 p.m. PST |
During the ACW regiments were permanent units of approximately 10 companies. Battalions were ad hoc units put together from the regiment as the situation required, put this was rarely, rarely done. A regiment had one colonel, one lieutenant colonel, and one major. IF the regimental commander wanted to detach two or more companies, as the situation required, he would put them under one of his other officers. But the battalion was not a standard unit, and only temporary. Today, the US Army's basic unit is the battalion, and the regiment is honorary. Interesting change. Unlike the British army where a regiment could have multiple battalions, to include a depot battalion, the normal US/CSA regiment was the basic maneuver unit, and although it's paper strength could be about 1000, on the battlefield it wasn't unusual for a regiment to have 200 to 500 effectives, and they maneuvered as a single unit. As the war went on it wasn't unusual for Union regiments to consist of only 200 men or so since the US generally created new regiments rather than reinforcing existing ones as was generally done by the CSA. Of course there are exceptions, but that's what they are, exceptions. Once in a while some states formed battalions, but even this was rare. |
rmaker | 27 Apr 2016 8:51 p.m. PST |
There were also infantry units mustered in as battalions due to falling short of the statutory number of companies (10 for Volunteers in Federal service). Battalions were also created from the left-over recruits when volunteer regiments mustered out and there was no other regiment from their state in the theater to which they could be transferred. Case in point, the 1st Minnesota refused to veteranize in 1863 (evidently because the unpopular XO would have become Colonel if they had). There were enough recruits remaining to form two companies and there were no other Minnesota regiments in the Army of the Potomac, so they became the 1st Minnesota Battalion and were bolstered by the addition of the 1st and 2nd Minnesota Sharpshooter Companies which were also in AoP and had enlisted "for the War". The 1st SS had been A/2nd USSS, which regiment was being disbanded, while the 2nd had been raised as I/2nd USSS, but a decision had been made to limit that regiment to eight companies, so it had served attached to the 1st MNVI until that unit mustered out. The 1st Mn Bn continued to campaign with the Army of the Potomac. New recruits were raised at home and by 1865 the battalion was up to nine companies. |
Bill N | 27 Apr 2016 9:08 p.m. PST |
There were a number of "permanent" battalions in Confederate service. Usually these were infantry or cavalry units that did not contain a sufficient number of companies to constitute a regiment. Wheat's Tigers were one example. Some of these units were later brought up to the required number of companies and became regiments. |
ScottWashburn | 28 Apr 2016 4:37 a.m. PST |
The regulations defined a battalion as two or more companies operating as an independent body. So a regiment was a battalion, but a battalion was not necessarily a regiment :) As noted, the regiment can be thought of as the administrative formation, while the battalion is the tactical formation. This can be clearly seen by the fact that the tactics manuals are divided into sections titled: "School of the Soldier", "School of the Company", "School of the Battalion" and then "Evolutions of the Line" which discuss brigade, division and corps maneuvers. There is no 'School of the Regiment'. |
Okiegamer | 28 Apr 2016 8:38 a.m. PST |
The pre-war U.S. Regular Army attempted to copy the British system of having multi-battalion regiments. However, due to budgetary constraints during peacetime, most had only one battalion. The idea was that, once war broke out, officers and nco's from the existing battalion would be used to form the additional ones. However, the American system was different in that it included a long-standing system of state militias, and the president was also authorized to call upon the states to furnish volunteers. These were almost always organized as regiments, although in practice and size they were really battalions of about 1,000 men, at least on paper. Most were organized as ten companies of around 100 men each. There was no well-organized system for providing replacements for existing regiments, so instead they were allowed to dwindle down and down, so that the average for an experienced regiment after a year or more of service was around 300-400. The confusion is also increased in that, in the Union Army, cavalry regiments, which usually had twelve companies, were usually sub-divided into three four-company battalions. These were much more maneuverable, as the twelve company regiments were just too big! The Confederates never really had a "regular" army, although a few so-called "Confederate" regiments were organized. These were actually state organizations, or a few "national" ones organized to defend Richmond. But the vast majority of Confederate regiments were state volunteers, similar to those in the North. Their cavalry regiments had ten companies, the same as the infantry. Some Southern states organized volunteer battalions, Wheat's Tigers being a notable example. These usually had around five companies and, as might be expected, numbered about half the size of a ten-company regiment. They were few in number, however, and not the norm. The U.S. Regular artillery was organized as "companies," the term "battery" being ad hoc and not used officially until after the war. But it was common to call them batteries. The regular companies were part of a regiment, such as "Company B, 1st U.S. Light Artillery." although the companies of the same regiment were rarely grouped together in the field. The volunteer artillery of both sides were organized as batteries by state, with those of a given state forming a paper regimental organization, such as "Battery A, 1st Missouri Light Artillery." When the war started, most batteries were portioned out to infantry brigades, but later it was found that they were more effective if grouped into artillery "brigades" or "battalions" usually composed of around 12-24 guns. The bottom line is that, at least with regard to the infantry of both sides, the term "regiment" in the American Civil War may be assumed to be the equivalent of a Napoleonic battalion, although slightly smaller in numbers. And, when they maneuvered by Hardee's or Casey's Tactics, they did so by "battalion drill!" |
Old Contemptibles | 28 Apr 2016 12:07 p.m. PST |
Regiments only. The term battalion was used but it was just another word for regiment. If you look at all the wars the US was in up to probably WWI. The term Regiment was used much more often than battalion. The only time I ever heard the word battalion in regards to the ACW, was in the movie "Gettysburg." It was the Rebs forming up for Pickett's Charge, "Form your Battalions." It was just a carryover from bygone days. Everyone knew it meant regiments. |
ScottWashburn | 28 Apr 2016 2:25 p.m. PST |
Rallynow, the command given in the Gettysburg movie was exactly, by the book, correct. The preface for any command to a regimental/battalion-sized body of troops is always "Battalion". Battalion do this, battalion do that, battalion do the other thing. You would never preface a command with "Regiment". |
Old Contemptibles | 28 Apr 2016 2:43 p.m. PST |
No question it was absolutely correct. I totally agree that was the right order, by the book. |
KimRYoung | 29 Apr 2016 7:20 a.m. PST |
During the 1864 Overland Campaign, the Union Army included Heavy Artillery regiments (converted to infantry) with strengths around 1,500 to 1,700 men each. These regiments were usually sub-divided into 3 battalions to each regiment with a separate battalion commander. Some of the US Regular regiments were also formed into 2 battalions of the same regiment For the most part though as Scott says, a regiment consisted of a single infantry battalion, which is the tactical designation for maneuvering in the field. Kim |
|