"Road Column Length" Topic

I'm in the early stages of setting up a campaign and am interested to know the approximate length of a unit in road column.

I'm assuming: an average road in fair condition; a unit of 800 men; and marching four abreast. They should fit in a length of road of approximately 400 yards (i.e. 800 men divided by four abreast equals 200 then multiply by two yards each would result in 400 yards length for that unit). This would mean that I should comfortably fit 4,000 men in 1,600 yards of road but let's say 4,000 men per road mile (which allows a bit extra for stragglers, berry-pickers and the like). Does this sound about right, or am I way off? [It'll be useful to know for 'stacking' purposes on the campaign map, especially for the larger Union formations.]

In his book "Battle in the Civil War," Paddy Griffith says that 1,000 men in column of fours should take up about 250 yards of road according to the drill book. But once you allow for, as you say, stragglers, berry-pickers and the like the distance would extend to 500 to 700 yards. This distance, however, does not allow for attached staff, baggage, cattle and camp followers according to Griffith.

On the same page Griffith has a table showing the road distances occupied by different units, but his chart is by unit and doesn't give troop numbers or state whether his example units are Union or Confederate units. As Union units were generally larger, they should occupy more road length than Confederate units at the same command level. Anyway, Griffith's road column lengths in miles are:

Infantry Brigade 0.6 w/o baggage, 0.8 w/ baggage; infantry division 2.5 w/o baggage, 4 w/ baggage; infantry corp. 8 w/o baggage, 14 w/ baggage; cavalry brigade 1 w/o baggage, 1.5 w/ baggage; cavalry division 4 w/o baggage, 6 w/ baggage; artillery battery 0.2 w/o baggage, 0.3 w/ baggage; army hq & staff 3 miles; army parks, reserve ammo, etc. 15 miles but very variable.

I recommend getting a copy of Griffith's book.

I have Griffith's Battle Tactics of the Civil War and looked through the 'Drill' chapter before posting here but couldn't find anything on road columns. I've just scanned through the that book again and can't find any table showing road distances occupied by different units. Where in the book does he discuss these matters?

Should I fail to find these things in his book, what sort of Brigade size is he talking about?

Not 'Battle Tactics of the Civil War' – different book: 'Battle in the Civil War' (ISBN 9781869871000)

The latter is a large format paperback, illustrated by Peter Dennis. The relevant tables/figures are on p.8.

Brigade size – is variable but based on the figures in the book and the post by Dennis – c1,000.

c250 yards by the drill book, c600 in practice. Expand from there – so a big brigade – 2.5k say 1 mile?

Not ACW I know but:
in 1866 a Prussian Corps of 42k men, 14k horses 90 guns and 1385 carriages occupied 27 miles of road – 18 miles for the combatants and 9 miles for the train.

in 1914 a British division of 18k men, 5.5k horse 100 guns and 1169 vehicles occupied 15 miles of road, 8 for the combatant portion.

Obviously a bit of wiggle room, but going with c2,000-2,500 per mile looks reasonable.

(The latter two examples from Hamley's 'The Operations of War' 1923 edition)

Gwydion has it right, the book I was citing was Griffith's "Battle in the Civil War," not "Battle Tactics of the Civil War."

Unit size-as Griffith started with drill book specifications for his hypothetical 1,000-man unit, it was probably intended to refer to the theoretical full strength regiment which under US Army regulations would consist of ten companies of 100 men each (3 officers and 97 enlisted men) and a handful of regimental officers and men. Although some regiments during the war may have temporarily been near their 1,000-man theoretical strength, that would have been very rare. More common would have been a strength of less than than half that.

In his "Arms and Equipment of the Civil War," (also a useful book to have) Jack Coggins says (p. 21) "The average Union regiment in the spring of '63 could muster some 425 effectives." He does not provide a strength for the average Confederate regiment, but simply notes that the South made a greater effort than the North to keep regiments up to strength by feeding in new recruits.

In his "A Short History of the Civil War, Ordeal By Fire," Fletcher Pratt agrees with Coggins about the relative strengths of Union and Confederate regiments and the reasons the strengths differed for the two sides (not particularly surprising as Coggins lists Pratt's book in his bibliography). According to Pratt, Union brigades were usually smaller than their Confederate counterparts in the proportion of about 5 to 8 because Confederate regiments were usually larger and Confederate brigades usually had more regiments than Union brigades.

BTW, Coggins' and Pratt's books are more than 50 years old, so there is probably more recent (and possibly better researched) information available elsewhere. Griffith (Battle, not Battle Tactics) was published in 1986, and so is nearly 35 years old. I used these books because I had them close to hand and I find them useful for technical details and numbers.

Back to Coggins. On p. 23 he says:

"On the march, a brigade of four regiments of six hundred men each would take up close to one thousand yards of road."

He continues:

"There was always a certain 'tailing out' of a column, depending to a great extent on the discipline and morale of the troops. This 'snowballed' as the size of the unit increased. Enlongation of a regiment might amount to ten per cent, that of a division fifteen per cent--and an army corps. twenty per cent."

Comparing Coggins and Griffith and taking Coggins later reference to "tailing out" into account, it seems an infantry brigade of 2,000 to 3,000 men would occupy 1,200 to 2,000 yards of road, so-in rough accord with what Gwydion said-roughly a mile to a mile and a half for a 3,000 man infantry brigade.

A source you may want to look art is "Appendix II: Space and Time Requirements in Formations and Marches" on pages 462 to 468 of Arthur Wagner, Organization and Tactics. It can be viewed on-line at:

link

Although published in 1895 the frontages and depth of infantry formations had not changed appreciably since the Civil War, but note that the Wagner's cavalry frontages are those for cavalry in a single rank.

Wagner provides a quick summery on page 466 that may be of direct interest to you:

"In marching, the depth of a column is always greater than in the corresponding formations at drill. The amount of elongation or ‘tailing-out' of a column depends upon the state of the weather and roads, and upon the discipline, morale, and national characteristics of the troops. It often varies from one-fourth to one-half of the total length of the column. As a general rule the allowance for elongation is 10 per cent for a battalion, 15 per cent for a division, and 20 per cent for an army corps.
A rough rule for estimating the depth of a column, is to allow one yard for every two infantry soldiers, one yard for every trooper, and twenty yards for each gun and caisson."

I don't see how Griffith came up with a 250 yard depth for a 1000 man unit. An infantry unit marching by the flank (i.e. in a column of four) will have a depth equal to its frontage when it is in line. One thousand men in two ranks with each file having a regulation frontage of 28 inches gives a total frontage of 388 yards.

Coggin's brigade of four regiments of 600 men each would take up almost 1000 yards if marching in formation. But when ordered to go to "Route Step" the column would tend to open up – although this was something the officers and file closers would be watching for. Wagner's "rough rule" of one yard for every two infantry soldiers would result in a column 1200 yards long, well within his "one-fourth to one-half of the total length of the column".

Thanks for all the advice. Looks like I was well out in my calculations which is good to know at this early stage.

I think I'll settle on 2,500 per mile as a general rule. If I can build in a fatigue factor, I'll start out a good unit in good order at 3,000 per mile and decrease that amount depending on circumstances.

Following data taken from the book "They Fought for the Union", by Francis A Lord, PhD.

RATES OF MARCH
The distances to be covered in a day can not be as long in the presence of the enemy as when no hostile action is anticipated. It is considered very good work, if a considerable corps travels ten or twelve miles a day. If it attempts more it loses many men, and forced marches soon become as murderous as a battle, especially with young troops. A column of infantry marched about 2.5 miles an hour at route step, including halts; a column of cavalry alternating walking and trotting would make about 6 miles an hour. In route marching the interval between the ranks of infantry and cavalry and between pieces and carriages, would be about 1 yard.

MARCH DISTANCES
A division of infantry of 12 regiments of 700 to 800 men each, marching in close column by company and at route step, occupied a road-space of about 700-800 yards. Two batteries of artillery, with caissons, marching in double-column, occupied 350-400 yards. A corps of 25,000 men in similar order occupied a road-space of about 2.5 miles and would need a little over 1 hour to deploy by either flank and about a half-hour to deploy on the center. A division of cavalry of 24 squadrons of 48 files each, marching by platoons, made a column 1300 yards long. This division could deploy by either flank in 8 minutes, at a trot; in 4 minutes on the center if the ground was free from obstacles.

FWIW.

B

I'm not sure Lord's "March Distances" are applicable here. The formations he describes would be used when maneuvering on the field of battle, but all of them occupy too great a frontage to make use of any road.

Hi Ryan,
You make a good point. We cannot be looking at route-march road-spacing. I wonder if it is a typo that perhaps escaped final edit (where "700-800" is repeated as both number of men per regiment and road-space in yards).

For comparative purposes, I took a peek into my 1949 Staff Officer's Field Manual for a comparison of number of marching men versus road-space requirement -

An infantry battalion of 685 men marching on foot in column of threes would occupy a road-space of 0.5 miles (about 900 yards). My semi-educated guess is that the same number of men marching in column of fours would occupy about 750 yards or so, with a division of 8-9,000 men in column of fours (no baggage) taking up perhaps four or five miles.

…. which suggests that perhaps a "0" needs to be added to the cited road-space yardage figures.

B

No, Lord has his numbers right. But looking at his infantry figures note that he is talking about a close column by company. Each regiment of 10 companies is ployed with a frontage of one company. A company is formed in two ranks; thus each company has a frontage of 38 men. A close column is specified to have an interval of 6 paces (a pace is given to be 28 inches) between companies. If we add the 2 paces for each company's two ranks plus the 6 pace interval between companies we get 8 paces depth per company. Ten companies gives each regiment a depth of about 80 paces or 62 yards. Twelve regiments would result in a total depth of 750 yards.

The catch is the frontage of 38 men. That works out to a frontage of 30 yards. You can't be using a road in 19th Century rural America with that kind of frontage.

But marching by the flank (column of fours) the length of the column is roughly equal to the frontage when deployed in line. A division of 9000 men (750 x 12) would have a frontage of 3500 yards, so in column on a road it would stretch 3500 yards. Add Wagner's 15% and you end up with 4000 yards. That's getting close to Wagner's rough guide of 1 yard per 2 soldiers, or 4500 yards, once you start dealing with fatigue, straggling and baggage.

I think the main thing is that road march columns are always a lot longer than Wargamers think they are!

Since a 'road column' for a battalion of infantry is formed by the unit in line of battle simply making a right or left face and 'doubling' to go from twos to fours, a road column will always start out the same length as the battalion in line was wide. Once it starts to move there will inevitably be a certain amount of lengthening. Add in wagons and staff and it gets longer yet.

In 1880, just 15 years after the war ended, "Strategos", an American Kriegspiel was published. was published
The lengths given for a column of route are as follows. A Division, marching as an integral part of a Corps occupies about 720 yards per 1000 men, including " the natural stretching out". This is without baggage.
it also quotes Lord Wolsley as saying Col. Colley's estimate of 1/2 yard for every infantryman, 1 yard for every cavalryman and 20 yards for every wagon of any description gives close results.
In several of the schemes offered baggage occupies 30% of the total column length.

I think people here have provided enough sources for a practical answer, especially as you appear to be talking about distances while marching on campaign. However, theoretically speaking -- it's the same as the frontage! (Ignoring of course, baggage etc.)

Marching by fours was common, but usually only over trails or narrow roads, wider roads would allow a regiment to march ina column of companies (or column of platoons, or sections as the road narrowed). However, wheeling distance was to be maintained so the regiment could be formed in line, simply by the companies, or platoons, wheeling into position. In theory they could "close" up, but then they would have to stretch out again in they wanted to form line to a flank.

The 1861 US Tactics manual, states that a "column in route" should have about the same depth as its frontage (in the School of the Battalion). It's also clear that it should be in a column of companies if possible, narrowing down as necessary. Marching the battalion "by the flank" (column of fours) only to be done when a narrow "defile" requires it.

Perhaps I should have mentioned it earlier, I'm looking at running the campaign in the Shenandoah Valley in 1862. The roads weren't that great so marching in fours seems the most logical deployment for that general situation.

Most accounts I've read indicate columns of four ("Marching by the Flank") was the typical way of doing long marches. Columns of company were used at times (Longstreet's Corps moving into position on July 2 at Gettysburg used them) but would have been really fatiguing for the troops over very long distances. In a column of fours you just follow along and the officers can put you at 'route step' where you don't have to stay in step and can carry your arms at will. In a column of companies you'd have to be constantly worrying about the dress of the lines and maintaining proper distances and such. Much more wearing.

"Perhaps I should have mentioned it earlier, I'm looking at running the campaign in the Shenandoah Valley in 1862. The roads weren't that great so marching in fours seems the most logical deployment for that general situation."

Hi Quaama,
When you lay out your campaign map, the Valley Pike should be considered a first-class roadway.

See – link

FWIW,

B

Thanks Blutarski. Presumably, places like Thornton's Gap and Swift Run Gap were relatively skinny trails.

I'm hoping that in a couple of weeks my regular boardgame opponent (he doesn't play miniatures) can bring over his copies of the boardgames boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/26697/shenandoah-jacksons-valley-campaign and boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4214/stonewall-valley. I'm hoping those games can help me minimise some research time.

ScottWashburn -- from what I can tell you can absolutely march at the "route step" in a column of companies, the manuals specifically mention doing so. Again, they refer to the formation as a "column in route". As to how common it was to march long distances in a column of companies, versus by the flank, I'll admit I don't know. My assumption was, based on the manuals, that over most major roads, it was practiced.

The column of companies had multiple styles: in the presence of the enemy they were supposed to close up to "half-distance", and then they could close completely if desired. A column of companies marching at "route step" was supposed to be extended to "full distance" -- i.e. the distance between each company is sufficient for it to wheel into line to the flank -- but no more.

Again, I'm only reporting what the manuals say. In Casey's infantry tactics, the first remark on "column in route" is that it's an important lesson to learn, because if done badly the troops at the rear have a tendency to fall behind, and then must run to catch up. Perhaps many regiments didn't learn the lesson?

EDIT -- Or perhaps, most roads simply didn't allow them to march in much more than 4 abreast.

OK, having become curious, I consulted an expert, and he said that basically they marched long distances "by the flank" (i.e. column of fours), until they were close to the enemy, then moved into a column of companies to make it easier to deploy. Although he admitted there's not many references, as most soldiers would simply write that they "marched in column."

The terrain was usually rougher than in Europe (the ultimate source for many of the manuals), which of itself could make marching in a column of companies more difficult. The roads tended to be narrower too, so those two factors make it likely they mostly marched in column of fours.

So you are correct -- for strategic purposes assume marching in a column of fours. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

cplcampisi, not at all. I'm impressed that you have made the effort to actually read the manuals. So few people--including historians--do. As a reenactment battalion commander for 25 years, I know them backward and forwards and have actually executed nearly every maneuver in them. That gives you a perspective on things you can't get just by reading general histories.

One thing to keep in mind about the manuals: they were written with the assumptions that the units would be at nearly full strength, 100 man companies and 1000 man regiments/battalions. As we all know, most regiments in the field were nowhere near that size. And when you get down to around 300 men (average size for mid-war) the difference between 'full distance', 'half distance', and 'closed in mass' for columns of companies usually amounts just a couple of paces. :) When you get under 200 men (not an uncommon thing during the war) you can have a situation where 'closed in mass' is actually a wider spacing than 'full distance'. When regiments got that small they would often consolidate their companies into larger formations (for drill; and battle, administratively they'd keep all ten). Fun stuff :)

Try finding them in the original) nowadays. I'm fortunate enough to have both Hardee (2 volumes) and Casey (3 volumes).

You're also quite right in pointing out the influence of diminished regimental strengths. Most infantry regiments in the field ran somewhere between one-third and one-half official TO&E number.

B

Like Scott I too spent a good number of year re-enacting, my duties included having to worry about things like how much room was needed for 12,000 re-enactors. I can state from experience that a road column of 12,000 men will stretch out to take over 1.5 miles. When a battalion from column (as pointed out by Scott and others) their depth is same as was their frontage, until the order march is given. At the point the column begins to stretch out. The manuals stat that distance maintained by individual soldiers is not the same as in line. For a single battalion I would use a spacing of one yard per rank, plus 2 yards between companies, as well as 6 yards between command staff and first company. For a division add another 6 to 10 yards between battalions. The longer the march the greater the distance between elements.

Thanks for the support Scott. In fairness I'm now company commander of my reenactment unit, although I live in a location where battalion drill is almost never practiced due to low numbers. I bow to your experience and knowledge. :-)