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

6044Re: re Carman and designations of troops

Expand Messages
  • joseph_pierro
    Jan 7, 2010
      Lol! This question seems to come up again every six months or so.

      Those "color" designmations, as have been explained by others here, were the addition of the GAME DESIGNER. They do not come from Carman.

      This whole Table of Organization exercise provides a useful lesson in historical research. If you look in several sources and they all say the same thing, it's probably the correct answer, right?

      Well . . . not necessarily. It could be that everyone is simply QUOTING from one another -- or all from the same, initial, FLAWED source.

      The ToO in the back of Carman's manuscript -- as is the case with nearly EVERY ToO in EVERY Antietam book, is simply reprinted from the Antietam volume of the OR. (In fact, if you go through Carman's original manuscript, a few of the ToO pages therein aren't even in his handwriting. They're printed pages torn out of a copy of the OR itself.

      The ToOs in the OR are not contemporary documents (such as the reports and dispatches). Those were drafetd by the EDITORS decades after the fact. For a battle like Antietam, where the AoP was receiving units as fast as Halleck and the War Department could ship them to meet up with McCellan, the final composition is a bit difficult to pin down on a particular day. Federal cavalry units that arrived in the aftermath of the battle were "counted" as part of the AoP Order of Battle.

      --joseph pierro
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic