Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

196Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: US Civil War Factbook

Expand Messages
  • James Rose
    Jun 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't think that our numbers are really very different. It just takes
      some explaining. You might call my research the quick and dirty kind.
      Hartwig was talking about the men, while I was simply talking about
      regiments without reference to how many men were present for duty from
      each regiment. It stands to reason that the unblooded regiments will
      have more men present than the veteran units. I would not be surprised
      if a full 25% of the men at Antietam were under one month service. The
      following is how I came up with my numbers.

      I had to do the research on this by myself. Harsh did a good job with
      the ANV, but he has yet to do the AotP. So I did my research using the
      criteria in "Sounding the Shallows" for what constitutes major battles.
      What I did was use the table in "Gleam of Bayonets" for my list of what
      regiments were in the AotP at the time (from what I understand it is not
      a perfect list, but it was the best I had). Then using that list I went
      through Dyer's and created a spreadsheet of the 217 infantry regiments
      (that is what I was concerned with at the time). The tables were:
      branch (all infantry), state, regiment #, muster in date, terms of
      service, corps assign, division assign, brigade assign, previous combat
      (I included skirmishes for this), and major battles (using Harsh's
      definitions). It took a really long time to put all this information
      together, so I wouldn't be surprised if I made any mistakes.

      Of the 217 regiments in the AotP at this time there were 23 absent from
      Antietam (Forth corps and Humphrey's division). Of the 194 remaining,
      17 were mustered in less than one month before (8.8%); 26 had no
      previous combat experience (13.4%); 40 had never fought a major battle
      (20.6%); 35 had fought one major battle (18%); 92 had fought two major
      battles (47.4%); 25 had fought three major battles (12.9%); and 2 had
      fought 4 major battles (1%).

      Note that I did not put numbers of men to each regiment. That was
      beyond the scope of the research I was doing at the time (not to mention
      that would probably take a year, and I only had a few days). I will say
      that the absolute most that the new men could make up would be about 22%
      of the total men in the army in the "effectives" group. It was probably
      fairly close to this percentage.

      Jim Rose

      Anthony W. Turner wrote:

      >
      > Your 13% figure differs, Jim, from the "one quarter" (or 25%) D. Scott
      > Hartwig uses in his essay, "Who Would Not Be a Soldier?" within Gary
      > Gallagher's _The Antietam Campaign_. I'm not the scholar here, and not
      > about to dispute either figure, but feel two such disparate numbers
      > deserve further discussion.
      >
      > Hartwig writes of the AoP: "The field army had an effective strength of
      > approximately 60,000 men. On September 6-7, McClellan assigned
      > twenty-four new regiments to his field army, distributing them equally
      > among his corps, with the Second, Ninth, and Twelfth recieving the
      > largest number. Only eighteen regiments, numbering about 15,000-16,000
      > men, actually accompanied the army, the others being unable to join
      > their assigned brigades before the army moved. In addition, several
      > thousand volunteers who had been recruited for veteran regiments joined
      > their assigned brigades before the army marched, raising the number of
      > recruits in the field to approximately 20,000. This meant nearly
      > one-quarter of McClellan's infantry had undergone little or no
      > training."
      >
      > Comments, Jim and others?
      >
      > Tony Turner
      >
      >
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic