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

4289Re: Regimental numbers during the Maryland Campaign

Expand Messages
  • eighth_conn_inf
    Feb 13, 2008
      Tom,

      Thanks very much for the reminder! Using "hard" numbers for the cav
      is difficult as you point out since Union cavalry was arriving all
      through the campaign. I will have to use many caveats to explain
      numbers from 2 September to 20 September but have to base the numbers
      on what I have in Carman, ORs, regimental histories, etc.

      If Sid's numbers are anywhere near accurate (+/- 20%) then I will
      have much explaining to do re my estimates. I certainly don't have
      evidence to estimate Union numbers especially on a daily basis for
      that period unless Dean's researcher comes up with something. Conf.
      numbers as you know are always questionable in the best of
      circumstances and it is very unlikely IMO that they have daily
      reports for the cav. for this campaign. And as we know, numbers of
      men actually on their horses ready for duty is much smaller that
      numbers on the rolls, present for duty, etc. But even using Sid's
      numbers including horse artillery, Union 2976, Conf. 2724, the
      numbers are believable IMO for 17 September.

      Here is the data I have so far:

      Union
      4,320 on 17 September 1862 (OR, 19, pt. I, 67); 3,828 cavalry and
      artillery 492 (Carman, 459)

      4,543 present for duty on 20 and 30 September 1862; aggregate
      including absent: 7,686 (OR, 19, pt. II, 336,374)

      7,000 plus 600 horse artillery on 1 October 1862 (estimated) (OR, pt.
      I, 97)

      5,058 present for duty including horse artillery on 10 October 1862;
      aggregate including absent: 7,686(OR, pt. II, 410)

      8,391 on 1 November 1862 (including horse artillery) (OR, pt. I, 98)

      Confederate
      4,155 on 2 September 1862 (Sounding the Shallows, 139)

      4,500 on 17 September 1862 (Carman, 465, Sounding the Shallows, 201)

      If anyone has better data, please let me know.

      Thank you,
      Larry




      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Larry,
      > Don't forget that Carman's numbers are for Sept. 17 only. Much of
      the cav present by then was not present earlier in the campaign. It
      would be a gross mistake to call the cav divisions roughly equal in
      number before the 17th.
      >
      >
      > Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
      > Professor of History
      > Hagerstown Community College
      >
      >
      > >>> "eighth_conn_inf" <eighth_conn_inf@...> 02/13/08 7:47 AM >>>
      > Thanks Dean,
      >
      > The total cav numbers in Carman, OR, etc., are good but unit
      numbers
      > are lacking. It is unlikely I can research unit numbers at NARA so
      I
      > might have to come up with some estimates like Harsh did in STS
      page
      > 191-192.
      >
      > I have the CW Equipage book on the way so I can reference weapons.
      >
      > Cannon types/numbers are around but as you point out are incomplete
      > in some areas but I will use Trout, "Galloping Thunder" and
      > Johnson, "Artillery Hell" as follows: Trout, 8. At the Battle of
      > Antietam on 17 September, only Pelham's Battery was engaged with
      two,
      > three inch ordnance rifles; one, twelve pound Napoleon, and five
      > unidentified guns. It abandoned its howitzers for Ordnance rifles
      > captured on 27 August 1862 at Manassas Junction. Hart's Battery had
      > four, twelve pound Blakeley guns and Chew's Battery had two or
      three,
      > three inch Ordnance rifles, one Blakely Rifle and one, twelve pound
      > smoothbore howitzer, Curt Johnson and Richard C. Anderson, Jr.,
      > Artillery Hell: The Employment of Artillery at Antietam, (College
      > Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1995), 100-101. Union
      horse
      > artillery, Second U. S. Battery A, had six, twelve pound smooth
      bore
      > Napoleons, Second U. S. Batteries B and L had four, twelve pound
      > smooth bore Napoleons, and Battery M of the Second had six, three
      > inch Ordnance rifles. Batteries C and G of the Third U. S.
      Artillery
      > had six, three inch Ordnance rifles, Johnson, 35.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Larry
      >
      > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Dean Essig <dean_essig@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Cav numbers are pretty sketchy. Priest gives 4320 for
      > > the division. The park had nothing. So, my cav numbers
      > > are estimates at best... if you have anything harder,
      > > I'd love to see them.
      > >
      > > For weapons, (all data from Todd):
      > > 8 Ill, 3 Ind, 4 Penn, 1 NY, 12 Penn, 8 NY, 3 Penn, 1
      > > Maine all with Carbines of various types
      > >
      > > 1 Mass, 15 Penn are armed with pistols.
      > >
      > > (I listed all of the ones I had data on, it obviously
      > > includes some units that weren't in the battle.)
      > >
      > > The horse artillery is easier:
      > >
      > > A, 2 US--6x Napoleons
      > > B&L, 2 US--4x Napoleons
      > > M, 2 US--6x Rifles
      > > C&G, 3 US--6x Rifles
      > >
      > > These are all from the Paul Chiles B&G article.
      > >
      > > I have a scattering of weapon data for the various HQ
      > > guard units.
      > >
      > > The Rebel information is about the same level.
      > >
      > > 4500 total for the Cav division (Carmen)
      > >
      > > 1 NC, 1 VA, 3 VA, 4 VA, 5 VA, 2 VA, 12 VA with pistols
      > >
      > > 2 NC, 7 VA, Cobb Legion with rifles (2 NC also listed
      > > for pistols)
      > >
      > > Batteries (info from Anderson):
      > > Hart SC (4x rifles w/o ammo at Boteler's Ford)
      > > Pelham (8x guns, two 4-gun sections, various gun types
      > > nothing firm)
      > > Chew Va 3x Rifles, 1x Napoleon
      > >
      > > (There is a story to go with the Napoleon in Chew's
      > > Battery... something along the lines of they had it
      > > for a period of the war but found it to be too heavy
      > > to keep up with the cavalry and eventually (before
      > > Gettysburg?) got rid of it.)
      > >
      > > Hope that helps.
      > >
      > > Dean
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- eighth_conn_inf <eighth_conn_inf@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Dean,
      > > >
      > > > Thanks very much for this info! The units I'm
      > > > looking for are all cav
      > > > units on both sides and horse artillery. My paper is
      > > > on cav during
      > > > the Maryland Campaign.
      > > >
      > > > Larry
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      ______________________________________________________________________
      > ______________
      > > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
      > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
      > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?
      category=shopping
      > >
      >
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic