Armies size?

[archieclement]

I have a somewhat general question about armies on the move.

Like for example if read of army of say 10k, it seems to be based on strength of OOB units.

But would the OOB include or reflect its train. Such as supply wagons, forage wagons, medical wagons, ect?

 

[RedRover]

I have a somewhat general question about armies on the move.

Like for example if read of army of say 10k, it seems to be based on strength of OOB units.

But would the OOB include or reflect its train. Such as supply wagons, forage wagons, medical wagons, ect?

The US and CS services counted their aggregate numbers present somewhat differently. The US forces counted every man in an army, if present for duty, irrespective if he was in the rank and file of the battle lines, or otherwise detailed.

The Confederate army generally only counted its rank and file present for duty, "effective" or with musket in hand.

One reason for this apparently, the US service employed principally soldiers for all of the logistic duties. And detailed units to guard their lines of communications, etc. as they advanced.



Col. Thomas Livermore in his study of numbers and losses in the war observed...

Besides the men detailed, there were many more detailed on extra duty outside their regiments, as medical stewards, nurses, with the teamsters, quartermasters, etc. Grant noted of Shiloh...

Lt. Col. W.F. Fox of the 107th Pennsylvania relative to Antietam...

It was noted later that for dramatic purposes, authors chose to quote the total army numbers of the Union Armies, compared to their Confederate opponents, without calculating the significant differences between them... That if doing so, the Union Armies would have been shown as much smaller than often quoted if only effectives in the ranks were counted, and perhaps the Confederate ones somewhat larger if an aggregate was counted. General Badeau of Grant's staff noted...

By August 31, 1864, the aggregate strength of the Army of the Potomac was given at over 129,000, with just over 44,000 officers and men present for duty...

While the "effective/equipped" force of that army at that time was calculated to include about 37,000 of the above present for duty... And Grant's total at about 60,000 effectives between the Armies of the Potomac and the James...

In comparison, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia on August 31, 1864 was calculated to include 44,000 effectives... and an aggregate present of about 58,000...

 

[archieclement]

The US and CS services counted their aggregate numbers present somewhat differently. The US forces counted every man in an army, if present for duty, irrespective if he was in the rank and file of the battle lines, or otherwise detailed.

The Confederate army generally only counted its rank and file present for duty, "effective" or with musket in hand.

One reason for this apparently, the US service employed principally soldiers for all of the logistic duties. And detailed units to guard their lines of communications, etc. as they advanced.



Col. Thomas Livermore in his study of numbers and losses in the war observed...

View attachment 543838
View attachment 543839
View attachment 543840
View attachment 543841


Besides the men detailed, there were many more detailed on extra duty outside their regiments, as medical stewards, nurses, with the teamsters, quartermasters, etc. Grant noted of Shiloh...

View attachment 543825



Lt. Col. W.F. Fox of the 107th Pennsylvania relative to Antietam...

View attachment 543863
View attachment 543864
View attachment 543865


It was noted later that for dramatic purposes, authors chose to quote the total army numbers of the Union Armies, compared to their Confederate opponents, without calculating the significant differences between them... That if doing so, the Union Armies would have been shown as much smaller than often quoted if only effectives in the ranks were counted, and perhaps the Confederate ones somewhat larger if an aggregate was counted. General Badeau of Grant's staff noted...

View attachment 543843
View attachment 543844

By August 31, 1864, the aggregate strength of the Army of the Potomac was given at over 129,000, with just over 44,000 officers and men present for duty...

View attachment 543846

While the "effective/equipped" force of that army at that time was calculated to include about 37,000 of the above present for duty... And Grant's total at about 60,000 effectives between the Armies of the Potomac and the James...

View attachment 543848

In comparison, Lee's Army of Northern Virgi?nia on August 31, 1864 was calculated to include 44,000 effectives... and an aggregate present of about 58,000...

View attachment 543862

But as both armies relied heavily on civilian teamsters...are they reflected in either number?

I'm wondering what would be the size of an army with its train, which includes all civilian support for the army. From teamsters to sutlers, and any other civilian support that would go on the march with the army. Not counting followers or contrabands, but actual support roles to the armies.

 

[archieclement]

In terms of teeth to tail, the tail is always far larger to the combat component (teeth). But whether then or today, not all the tail is enlisted.

Read even army clerks were often civilian. "From the beginning, the army relied on civilians for tasks like being clerks and wagon drivers."

Which then leads to were all cooks, personal aides, laundry, butchers, blacksmiths, ect in other tail support roles, enlisted or civilian, or a mix?

 

[RedRover]

But on Union side OOB not seeing what would reflect supply or hospital corps?

In the Union army, each regiment, brigade, division, corps, and armies had its own Quartermaster and medical services as part of their headquarters. For example, regarding medical personnel in each regimental medical staff...

But Brigade, Division, and Army field hospitals, ambulance trains, etc., also had to draw enlisted men from the regiments of the line...

Same with Quartermasters. There were no specific Quartermaster or commissary units. The Quartermasters, Commissaries, Ordnance officers etc. generally made use of personnel detailed from the ranks.

Notice in the Army of the Potomac returns given in previous post, noting on August 31, 1864 there were a total of 129,771 aggregate present and absent, of whom 64,856 were present (the absent men being sick, furloughed, A.W.O.L., detached, etc.).
And of those present, (per the second table for that date) there were a total of 37,827 equipped/effective, as in ready for combat. The other 27,000 present, but not effective/equipped for action would have been acting variously as teamsters, medical stewards, nurses, with regimental, brigade, division, corps, or army headquarters duties, etc.

The casualties of that army in the previous months were principally from among the effective/equipped number on or near the front lines.


The Confederate armies apparently did not draw so many men from the ranks for medical and quartermaster or other logistic purposes as the Union Armies did. The Confederate military made use of large numbers of slave laborers for roadwork, fortifications, cooks, etc. where possible. It was noted each regiment in Lee's army had practically a company sized group of negro servants attached and employed in a support role. And at the army level, slaves could be collected to labor in the army's rear, keeping soldiers in the ranks...

 

[archieclement]

In the Union army, each regiment, brigade, division, corps, and armies had its own Quartermaster and medical services as part of their headquarters. For example, regarding medical personnel in each regimental medical staff...

View attachment 543874

But Brigade, Division, and Army field hospitals, ambulance trains, etc., also had to draw enlisted men from the regiments of the line...

View attachment 543875


Same with Quartermasters. There were no specific Quartermaster or commissary units. The Quartermasters, Commissaries, Ordnance officers etc. generally made use of personnel detailed from the ranks.

View attachment 543876

Notice in the Army of the Potomac returns given in previous post, noting on August 31, 1864 there were a total of 129,771 aggregate present and absent, of whom 64,856 were present (the absent men being sick, furloughed, A.W.O.L., detached, etc.).
And of those present, (per the second table for that date) there were a total of 37,827 equipped/effective, as in ready for combat. The other 27,000 present, but not effective/equipped for action would have been acting variously as teamsters, medical stewards, nurses, with regimental, brigade, division, corps, or army headquarters duties, etc.

The casualties of that army in the previous months were principally from among the effective/equipped number on or near the front lines.


The Confederate armies apparently did not draw so many men from the ranks for medical and quartermaster or other logistic purposes as the Union Armies did. The Confederate military made use of large numbers of slave laborers for roadwork, fortifications, cooks, etc. where possible. It was noted each regiment in Lee's army had practically a company sized group of negro servants attached and employed in a support role. And at the army level, slaves could be collected to labor in the army's rear, keeping soldiers in the ranks...

View attachment 543877

Another example i saw in teeth to tail, is really have 3 teeth for 1 tooth in field. It said generally want soldier preparing for deployment, as well one recovering from deployment for every one deployed.

That may be more recent doctrine then ACW. But non combat elements in field seem far less discussed as well non enlisted support.

 

[RedRover]

Another example i saw in teeth to tail, is really have 3 teeth for 1 tooth in field. It said generally want soldier preparing for deployment, as well one recovering from deployment for every one deployed.

That may be more recent doctrine then ACW. But non combat elements in field seem far less discussed as well non enlisted support.

They didn't have what ware more recently called Military Occupational Specialties. The soldiers from the ranks were detailed from their units for much of the medical, quartermaster, commissary, engineer, provost, security, and ordinance work as found necessary by the regimental, brigade, division, corps, and army commanders.

Here's another reference from 1863... estimating about 10,000 details for just quartermaster and commissary work (not including engineer, provost, or medical details, etc.)...

 

[archieclement]

In the Union army, each regiment, brigade, division, corps, and armies had its own Quartermaster and medical services as part of their headquarters. For example, regarding medical personnel in each regimental medical staff...

View attachment 543874

But Brigade, Division, and Army field hospitals, ambulance trains, etc., also had to draw enlisted men from the regiments of the line...

View attachment 543875


Same with Quartermasters. There were no specific Quartermaster or commissary units. The Quartermasters, Commissaries, Ordnance officers etc. generally made use of personnel detailed from the ranks.

View attachment 543876

Notice in the Army of the Potomac returns given in previous post, noting on August 31, 1864 there were a total of 129,771 aggregate present and absent, of whom 64,856 were present (the absent men being sick, furloughed, A.W.O.L., detached, etc.).
And of those present, (per the second table for that date) there were a total of 37,827 equipped/effective, as in ready for combat. The other 27,000 present, but not effective/equipped for action would have been acting variously as teamsters, medical stewards, nurses, with regimental, brigade, division, corps, or army headquarters duties, etc.

The casualties of that army in the previous months were principally from among the effective/equipped number on or near the front lines.


The Confederate armies apparently did not draw so many men from the ranks for medical and quartermaster or other logistic purposes as the Union Armies did. The Confederate military made use of large numbers of slave laborers for roadwork, fortifications, cooks, etc. where possible. It was noted each regiment in Lee's army had practically a company sized group of negro servants attached and employed in a support role. And at the army level, slaves could be collected to labor in the army's rear, keeping soldiers in the ranks...

View attachment 543877

Union army impressed slaves as well for fortifications, but not really including them, as field laborers on fortifications wouldn't have went with armies in the field.

Slave teamsters, aides, cooks, ect would have for Confederate army, and perhaps to some degree for Union before the EP.

 

[archieclement]

For example heres AI answer to did civil war armies use civilians....

"Yes, both Union and Confederate armies did use civilians for various roles, including as laborers, spies, and even in combat, and civilians were also impacted by the war in many ways, including property loss and conscription.
Here's a more detailed look at how civilians were involved in the Civil War:
Civilians in the Union Army:
Enslaved People:
Enslaved people who escaped to Union lines and worked in contraband camps and fortification projects played a crucial role in the Union war effort, ultimately leading to the Emancipation Proclamation and the enlistment of Black soldiers and sailors.
African Americans in the Union Army:
The Union army created black regiments, and Northern free blacks and newly freed slaves joined under the leadership of white officers to fight for the Union cause.
Women:
Women played vital roles in supporting the war effort, including nursing, cooking, cleaning, sewing, and doing laundry for military hospitals.
Spies:
Individuals like Pauline Cushman, an actress, used her skills to gather information and pass it to Union officials.
Labor:
Civilians were employed by the Union army for various tasks, including working as clerks and wagon drivers, and later as scientists, engineers, and administrative assistants. "

Then it goes on to detail Confederate use would been more extensive as some Union enlisted position would been civilian in it.....so would assume the armies size including tail would been rather proportional to Union overall. But as both utilized civilians as well, I was wondering how much that would add to American Civil War armies size in the field?

Certainly some of the AI answer of civilian use would applied to more to "in camp" then "in field".

Buts it's a topic I've never personally seen examined or detailed much in depth.

 

[RedRover]

For example heres AI answer to did civil war armies use civilians....

"Yes, both Union and Confederate armies did use civilians for various roles, including as laborers, spies, and even in combat, and civilians were also impacted by the war in many ways, including property loss and conscription.
Here's a more detailed look at how civilians were involved in the Civil War:
Civilians in the Union Army:
Enslaved People:
Enslaved people who escaped to Union lines and worked in contraband camps and fortification projects played a crucial role in the Union war effort, ultimately leading to the Emancipation Proclamation and the enlistment of Black soldiers and sailors.
African Americans in the Union Army:
The Union army created black regiments, and Northern free blacks and newly freed slaves joined under the leadership of white officers to fight for the Union cause.
Women:
Women played vital roles in supporting the war effort, including nursing, cooking, cleaning, sewing, and doing laundry for military hospitals.
Spies:
Individuals like Pauline Cushman, an actress, used her skills to gather information and pass it to Union officials.
Labor:
Civilians were employed by the Union army for various tasks, including working as clerks and wagon drivers, and later as scientists, engineers, and administrative assistants. "

Then it goes on to detail Confederate use would been more extensive as some Union enlisted position would been civilian in it.....so would assume the armies size including tail would been rather proportional to Union overall. But as both utilized civilians as well, I was wondering how much that would add to American Civil War armies size in the field?

Certainly some of the AI answer of civilian use would applied to more to "in camp" then "in field".

Buts it's a topic I've never personally seen examined or detailed much in depth.

The general number was ca. 100,000 civilian employees on the US side. A considerable number in the South...

Mark R. Wilson's interesting book, "The Business of the Civil War" (2006) notes approximately 160,000 employees of the US military and naval authorities by war's end...

The US Government's Military Telegraph service was principally civilian employees.

The Quartermaster's Department in both Kentucky and Arkansas employed approximately 2,000 civilians in each State by the close of the war. By the Battle of Nashville in December, 1865, there were 10,000 Quartermaster employees at Nashville alone, who Gen. Thomas organized as militia to aid in the city's defense.

Thomas put 5,000 of the Quartermaster employees, and a large number of other civilians to work entrenching and providing fortifications, etc.

There a number of other civilian Quartermaster employees were used as citizen volunteers to fill the ranks of some of the army units, particularly in the artillery...

The Confederate Government had many civilian employees too, though most of them were conscripted before the close of the war. Some, as Army personnel, were detailed to continue the work previously done by civilians. Others not in the army were to be exempt for some disability, etc. Especially after the February, 1864 expansion of the conscription acts...

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

The US and CS services counted their aggregate numbers present somewhat differently. The US forces counted every man in an army, if present for duty, irrespective if he was in the rank and file of the battle lines, or otherwise detailed.

The Confederate army generally only counted its rank and file present for duty, "effective" or with musket in hand.

One reason for this apparently, the US service employed principally soldiers for all of the logistic duties. And detailed units to guard their lines of communications, etc. as they advanced.



Col. Thomas Livermore in his study of numbers and losses in the war observed...

View attachment 543838
View attachment 543839
View attachment 543840
View attachment 543841


Besides the men detailed, there were many more detailed on extra duty outside their regiments, as medical stewards, nurses, with the teamsters, quartermasters, etc. Grant noted of Shiloh...

View attachment 543825



Lt. Col. W.F. Fox of the 107th Pennsylvania relative to Antietam...

View attachment 543863
View attachment 543864
View attachment 543865


It was noted later that for dramatic purposes, authors chose to quote the total army numbers of the Union Armies, compared to their Confederate opponents, without calculating the significant differences between them... That if doing so, the Union Armies would have been shown as much smaller than often quoted if only effectives in the ranks were counted, and perhaps the Confederate ones somewhat larger if an aggregate was counted. General Badeau of Grant's staff noted...

View attachment 543843
View attachment 543844

By August 31, 1864, the aggregate strength of the Army of the Potomac was given at over 129,000, with just over 44,000 officers and men present for duty...

View attachment 543846

While the "effective/equipped" force of that army at that time was calculated to include about 37,000 of the above present for duty... And Grant's total at about 60,000 effectives between the Armies of the Potomac and the James...

View attachment 543848

In comparison, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia on August 31, 1864 was calculated to include 44,000 effectives... and an aggregate present of about 58,000...

View attachment 543862

Excellent, appropriately detailed reply, @RedRover. Thanks for doing it!

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

For example heres AI answer to did civil war armies use civilians....

"Yes, both Union and Confederate armies did use civilians for various roles, including as laborers, spies, and even in combat, and civilians were also impacted by the war in many ways, including property loss and conscription.
Here's a more detailed look at how civilians were involved in the Civil War:
Civilians in the Union Army:
Enslaved People:
Enslaved people who escaped to Union lines and worked in contraband camps and fortification projects played a crucial role in the Union war effort, ultimately leading to the Emancipation Proclamation and the enlistment of Black soldiers and sailors.
African Americans in the Union Army:
The Union army created black regiments, and Northern free blacks and newly freed slaves joined under the leadership of white officers to fight for the Union cause.
Women:
Women played vital roles in supporting the war effort, including nursing, cooking, cleaning, sewing, and doing laundry for military hospitals.
Spies:
Individuals like Pauline Cushman, an actress, used her skills to gather information and pass it to Union officials.
Labor:
Civilians were employed by the Union army for various tasks, including working as clerks and wagon drivers, and later as scientists, engineers, and administrative assistants. "

Then it goes on to detail Confederate use would been more extensive as some Union enlisted position would been civilian in it.....so would assume the armies size including tail would been rather proportional to Union overall. But as both utilized civilians as well, I was wondering how much that would add to American Civil War armies size in the field?

Certainly some of the AI answer of civilian use would applied to more to "in camp" then "in field".

Buts it's a topic I've never personally seen examined or detailed much in depth.

You may not have examined it in depth, @archieclement, BUT you did make some excellent points.

 

[archieclement]

You may not have examined it in depth, @archieclement, BUT you did make some excellent points.

Haven't seen anything that really examined it in depth.

Besides govt employ/contracted civilians, there would been private employed by individuals or units collectively such as cooks, servants clerks ect. As well as self employed in cases of sutlers, reporters ect.

Trying to visualize total size of an army and its tail.

 

[danny]

Civil War stats like these were often distorted in favor of those telling the tale. And, as many have noted they were also quite often impossible to count.