Re: re Carman and designations of troops
- Trying to find numbers of troopers in their saddles isn't easy so I decided to discount the numbers based on numbers mentioned during the campaign.
It has become clear to me why the cav on both sides simply could not do more than it was doing--it lacked the numbers. Both Lee and Mac expected more from their horsemen but I believed they understood why it couldn't do more. Still, I expected more from Stuart than Pleasonton.
--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Dean Essig <d.essig@...> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Thomas Clemens wrote:
> > Those five cavalry brigades, as Larry F can tell you, are a joke.
> By trail and error (using the Supplemental OR) I came to the same
> conclusion. Once cut down to the units available and less the ones
> being used as provost, you end up with essentially one brigade under
> Pleasonton. It is shown that way in my game.
> I think the OR/Carmen/everywhere 5-bde organization is the October
> one, not the one in place at the battle.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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.
- Actually, I should amend what I said before.
Carman used the OR ToO as the BASIS of the one in his manuscript, but he did make a few corrections. The units are nearly identical, but Carman did take exception to the ORs assigment of one or two regiments (and whether one or two CS batteries should be designated as part of an infantry brigade).
In addition, in a few cases he gave different commanding officers for units than what the OR ToO had.
So in sum, Carman's ToO is merely a slight tweaking of what was published in the OR. He didn't craft it from scratch. He started with what the OR provided and then made a few corrections whenever he came across something that contradicted what the OR stated, but he never made a comprehensive effort to "proofread" or "factcheck" the OR ToO. Carman's ToO is not THE definitive accounting (if in fact the truth of every unit -- particularly in the AoP -- can ever be known). If the OR ToO contained an error, there's a chance it was carried over into Carman's version. As is true of those in Murfin, Sears, etc. (Sears in particular states quite candidly that he took his ToO from the OR.)
That, btw, is the standard practice in most every ToO you find in the back of a modern study of a Civil War battle. With rare exceptions (Harsh comes to mind) the author isn't starting from scratch; they're just copying straight from the OR.
So just because your favorite book on a particular CW battle has a ToO that matches the OR ToO exactly, that DOESN'T necessarily mean that teh information is 100% accurate. It just means your book copied it from the OR.
- Dear Jake,
All that makes sense. But what does ToO mean? I gather it means
the same as OOB but what do the initials stand for?
Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers
To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even
on one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the
Union, a passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from
the Almighty God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "joseph_pierro" <joseph_pierro@...>
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 3:22 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: re Carman and designations of troops
<snip>In addition, in a few cases he gave different commanding
officers for units than what the OR ToO had.
- Table of Organization
--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...> wrote:
> Dear Jake,
> All that makes sense. But what does ToO mean? I gather it means
> the same as OOB but what do the initials stand for?
> Yr. Obt. Svt.
> G E "Gerry" Mayers
> To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even
> on one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the
> Union, a passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from
> the Almighty God. --Anonymous
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joseph_pierro" <joseph_pierro@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 3:22 PM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: re Carman and designations of troops
> <snip>In addition, in a few cases he gave different commanding
> officers for units than what the OR ToO had.