Best Union Regiments at Shiloh?

[OldReliable1862]

Shiloh is known as a "soldier's battle," like Inkerman during the Crimean War, where privates, NCOs, and junior officers had as much (if not more) impact on the battle than the generals did. The generals, such as Grant, Sherman, Prentiss, William H. L. Wallace, and Hurlbut won the battle for the Union, but the soldiers won it as well.

Out of all the regiments in the Armies of the Tennessee and the Ohio, which ones stand out as fighting especially hard in the two-day battle?

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

I would be curious if you or the consensus could define what constitutes hard fighting. Inflicting casualties? Taking casualties? Inflicting them while taking them, or not? Length of march to battle, length of march during battle?

Is terrain a factor? Do regiments who defended tough terrain get docked, while those who advanced through it get bonus points?

This is an interesting question, especially given the context of being a soldier's battle. But I think it's a very difficult question to answer, and impossible without some sort of guidelines.

 

[Specster]

Id have to say The Iron Brigade....it was still early in the war and their fearless fighting tactics eventually dwindled their numbers. I would not want to be on the opposite side of them. They were back woodsmen when baically everyone was. But these men came from a harsh environment...cold, short growing season and if you couldnt shoot accurately you starved. They were out in the middle of no where with little if any support. They were not on the best terms with the indians so these men were tuff as nails for starters

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Will nominate one of those Union regiments as the 41st. Illinois Infantry, which possibly met several of the abovementioned criteria for being a 'hard-fighting' unit at Shiloh.

Below is a brief summary of this regiment's activities at Shiloh:-

...'It participated in the desperate battle of Shiloh, forming the left of what the Confederates called the "Hornets' Nest." In the first day's fight it was under fire fully 6 hours and lost about 200 in killed and wounded. It formed part of the last line of defense, assisted in repulsing the Confederate forces, driving them back beyond the reach of our gunboats, and thus closed its work on the first day at Shiloh. On the second day it made one charge and assisted in driving the enemy from his position on the right, but the loss of the regiment was severe in killed and wounded.'...
(Source- https://civilwarindex.com/armyil/41st_il_infantry.html )

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Id have to say The Iron Brigade....

Out of curiosity. What regiments composed the Union 'Iron Brigade' in the west, and specifically at Shiloh? (Am aware of the famous 'Iron Brigade', also known as 'the Black Hats', composed of five midwest regiments that operated exclusively in the eastern theater, and arguably was the best combat infantry brigade in the Union army).

 

[Hammons]

I would be curious if you or the consensus could define what constitutes hard fighting. Inflicting casualties? Taking casualties? Inflicting them while taking them, or not? Length of march to battle, length of march during battle?

Is terrain a factor? Do regiments who defended tough terrain get docked, while those who advanced through it get bonus points?

This is an interesting question, especially given the context of being a soldier's battle. But I think it's a very difficult question to answer, and impossible without some sort of guidelinesI a

I am in his corner on this. I say that because the question is very subjective in what you are looking for. Depends which part of the battlefield you want to look at, as goes with any other battle.

The who defines best or what ever else they decide today regarding Elite or Special. Both terms are mid 20th century (I feel old).

@Nathan Stuart .. I think he has not thought that far into the Iron Brigade ToW.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

@Nathan Stuart .. I think he has not thought that far into the Iron Brigade ToW.

Hammons, that's okay. Am aware there may have been other brigades, loosely called (or described as) 'Iron Brigades' because of their unbendable 'iron resolve' displayed in the field. Just inquiring whether he may have had one of these other brigades (unknown to me) in mind.

(In saying this, we also need to keep in mind that I think the OP is asking for the best individual Union regiments, not brigades, at Shiloh.)

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Out of all the regiments in the Armies of the Tennessee and the Ohio, which ones stand out as fighting especially hard in the two-day battle?

In an attempt to clarify what might be meant by the OP asking for the 'hardest fighting' Union regiments at Shiloh.

Being purely subjective. Would treat 'hardest fighting' as being distinct from either 'highest/severest casualties' or 'most effective/successful' in the engagement.

As such, 'hardest fighting' would mean those units involved for the longest periods in direct action/combat (not in retreat/withdrawal) during the battle.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

In an attempt to clarify what might be meant by the OP asking for the 'hardest fighting' Union regiments at Shiloh.

Being purely subjective. Would treat 'hardest fighting' as being distinct from either 'highest/severest casualties' or 'most effective/successful' in the engagement.

As such, 'hardest fighting' would mean those units involved for the longest periods in direct action/combat (not in retreat/withdrawal) during the battle.

In that case that would eliminate any regiment in the army of the Ohio, as they only participated in half the battle.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

In that case that would eliminate any regiment in the army of the Ohio, as they only participated in half the battle.

See your point. Thought 'hardest fighting' regiment was meant here as a relative term (i.e. when compared to other units); as distinct from a 'hard fighting' regiment in an absolute sense.

 

[Stryker65]

16th Wisconsin. Don't know much about them, but what I do know is that they took heavy losses at Shiloh while simultaneously being one of the few regiments of Prentiss's division to escape mostly intact.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Found a comprehensive table shown of Union regimental casualty rates at Shiloh in the OP of the below earlier created thread:-

'Regimental Casualty Rates at Shiloh' (posted by HeroPrentiss on May 8, 2023).

If one accepts the Union regiments that suffered high casualty rates of 'killed and wounded' (excluding 'missing') reflected the hardest fighting units present there, then the 9th. Illinois Infantry would have been one of these regiments. At the start of the battle, the aggregate strength of the 9th. IL was reportedly 600 officers and men. (See 'OR': Vol. 10, Part 1, @ p. 155). The casualty returns of 'killed and wounded' for this same regiment after the battle showed:-

Killed (1 officer + 60 enlisted men) = 61
Wounded (19 officers + 281 enlisted men) = 300
TOTAL Killed & Wounded 361

(See 'OR': Vol. 10, Part 1, @ p. 101)

Believe the 9th. IL Infantry experienced, mainly on the first day, the highest casualties rate (@ around 60%) of 'killed and wounded' of any Federal regiment at Shiloh. (Such casualties rates are certainly indicative of fighting an intense, if not a prolonged, battlefield engagement).

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Out of all the regiments in the Armies of the Tennessee and the Ohio, which ones stand out as fighting especially hard in the two-day battle?

Since the replies indicate some uncertainty about the definition of "hard fighting" perhaps it would be better to phrase the question thus: which Union regiment, which fought on both days of the battle (so excluding Lew Wallace's division and nearly all of the Army of the Ohio), delivered the best battlefield performance?

I think it's an interesting question to ask because of how green much of the AotT was at this point. I think only the units that had been at Fort Donelson (and Belmont?) had battle experience - about half of Grant's army? And about half of the units at Donelson, though they had been under fire, did not see much actual fighting; only those that faced the attempted Confederate breakout.

 

[Stryker65]

I think it's an interesting question to ask because of how green much of the AotT was at this point. I think only the units that had been at Fort Donelson (and Belmont?) had battle experience - about half of Grant's army? And about half of the units at Donelson, though they had been under fire, did not see much actual fighting; only those that faced the attempted Confederate breakout.

Then could the original question be rephrased as "which green regiment performed the best in their first battle (Shiloh)?"

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Then could the original question be rephrased as "which green regiment performed the best in their first battle (Shiloh)?"

The 'green' bit looks more definable, but the meaning of 'performed the best' might still be problematic - i.e. 'best' in terms of what?

 

[Stryker65]

The 'green' bit looks more definable, but the meaning of 'performed the best' might still be problematic - i.e. 'best' in terms of what?

I would suppose in terms of Behaving Like Veterans, since that was the main compliment that green regiments would receive from veteran commanders.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I would suppose in terms of Behaving Like Veterans, since that was the main compliment that green regiments would receive from veteran commanders.

In that case, perhaps one could review and compare the various post-battle official reports compiled by the different regimental commanders to find out which units were described in the most glowing of terms.

 

[CSuniforms]

Well interesting question. Who was the best and toughest? On the Union side, what folks miss is the fact, when the Confederates attacked that morning there was no Real Command in place. Sherman was in his Camp and Grant was in Savannah. There was no Field Commander giving orders to the Troops. It was a soldier's fight. It was the Division Commanders, the Colonels and the Captains that gave the orders to hold and fight back-- Grant came up at 10 AM and began to give orders after he inspected his lines. The Battle had been waging for 5 hours already! Any Federal Regiment that stood and fought and not retreated to the Landing, thousands of them, were the Heroes of Shiloh. The Hornet's Nest defenders were the last to leave until surrounded-- FACT! On the CS side anyone again who stayed in the fight were the best the South had to offer. Trabue's Kentuckians were a fighting outfit! The 19th Tennessee another. The 4th Tennessee were fighters but suffered terrible losses. Of course the Wisconsin Regiments get the highest honors!!!

 

[CSuniforms]

Old Post but good. Many suggest high casualty rates dictate how tough and brave, "The Fighters" are. True in some cases, but not all. Every Regiment North or South had a story to tell and part of that was the amount of killed, wounded and missing they suffered. Being wiped out in a charge-- 6th Tennessee-- is sad and to point courageous but was not a part of a winning outcome. I, [my opinion] is that those Regiments who suffered high losses and stayed and continued to fight, the remnants, deserve the praise given. There were in the Hornet's Nest some Regiments-- the 2nd Iowa is one-- whose casualties were light considering- but they held-- and because they did not have massive casualties in killed and wounded under cover-- are subject to review by Historians as not that hotly engaged. AMEN.

 

[Radar14]

I'm not sure there's a fair way to answer the question—if they stood and fought, they fought hard.

My answer: 13th Iowa
Explanation: for no particular reason, except that my 4x great-grandfather fought and was wounded in action with the 13th Iowa at Shiloh—and like so many countless others, they patched him up and he just kept going for the rest of the war.