How did companies arrange in line of battle?

As casualties mounted, wouldn't it make sense to keep your two weakest(by manpower) companies in reserve in order to maximize the number actually engaged? So those would then be different every battle, no?

Also at formation most units were green. No combat experience, so it went by date of muster to determine seniority. What if Company A proved to be prone to not being the most trustworthy of companies on the flank. Would it not make sense for the Colonel to then move them to the middle to decrease the chances of them breaking and running? I know it wasn't always easy to replace company officers, particularly in the CS Army where it was a democratic process to assign officers. Even in the Federal Army, wasn't it hard to withdraw someone's commission? Maybe they'd just move Company A's Captain to switch with a different company?
 
I've seen at least one reference to companies being equalized during battle, because the drill book relies on them being as close to equal as possible. That would mean transferring men around mid-battle to ensure that they had the same number of men.


"11. For maneuvering, the companies of a battalion will always be equalized, by transferring men from the strongest to the weakest companies." - Hardee's

"18. For manœuvres, the companies of a battalion will always be equalized, by transferring men from the strongest to the weakest companies." - Casey's

How to do it is in Scott (which Hardee and Casey supplemented), and later Upton (who made a single manual).



That's only a tactical thing, though, and men remained with the same administrative company. It's just part of the "assumed knowledge" of the time.
 
What if Company A proved to be prone to not being the most trustworthy of companies on the flank. Would it not make sense for the Colonel to then move them to the middle to decrease the chances of them breaking and running? I know it wasn't always easy to replace company officers, particularly in the CS Army where it was a democratic process to assign officers. Even in the Federal Army, wasn't it hard to withdraw someone's commission? Maybe they'd just move Company A's Captain to switch with a different company?


In Upton the order of priority for the tactical companies is given, and it's 1-10-5-3-7-2-9-6-4-8.
The battalion (the combat unit of the regiment) is formed according to instructions:



Interestingly it looks like the setup is that administrative companies are lettered, but tactical companies are numbered. So you could have things reshuffle so that the men of Company A happen to be in a company less likely to face flank trouble; no real mechanism for getting the officers into a company with a lower priority, though.
 
In Upton the order of priority for the tactical companies is given, and it's 1-10-5-3-7-2-9-6-4-8.
The battalion (the combat unit of the regiment) is formed according to instructions:



Interestingly it looks like the setup is that administrative companies are lettered, but tactical companies are numbered. So you could have things reshuffle so that the men of Company A happen to be in a company less likely to face flank trouble; no real mechanism for getting the officers into a company with a lower priority, though.
Upton's was written post war and possibly due to what was learned during the conflict. The 1861 and 1863 versions show the order of companies as, from right to left:
1-6-4-9-3-8-5-10-7-2 according to rank of captains (page 7) US Infantry Tactics......approved and adopted by Sec of War May 1, 1861 & 1863 by the US War Department. One of the reasons stated for this is so the senior captains may command a division, if necessary, meaning the left two and right two companies.
 
Upton's was written post war and possibly due to what was learned during the conflict. The 1861 and 1863 versions show the order of companies as, from right to left:
1-6-4-9-3-8-5-10-7-2 according to rank of captains (page 7) US Infantry Tactics......approved and adopted by Sec of War May 1, 1861 & 1863 by the US War Department. One of the reasons stated for this is so the senior captains may command a division, if necessary, meaning the left two and right two companies.

My understanding was partly that Upton was creating a single manual, as there's material in Scott about how to consolidate companies which wasn't in Hardee and Casey etc.
 
Upton's was written post war and possibly due to what was learned during the conflict. The 1861 and 1863 versions show the order of companies as, from right to left:
1-6-4-9-3-8-5-10-7-2 according to rank of captains (page 7) US Infantry Tactics......approved and adopted by Sec of War May 1, 1861 & 1863 by the US War Department. One of the reasons stated for this is so the senior captains may command a division, if necessary, meaning the left two and right two companies.

Upton's manual was simply a recodification of elements of Scott, Hardee and Casey with a few modifications to adapt to breech-loading rifles (which had been accepted as the general purpose arm in the shape of the M1866) and changes in skirmishing drill. Upton actually decreased the dispersion of the skirmishers to reflect what had worked in the war, and a "four" occupied about the same frontage as pair of "comrades in battle" in Hardee's. He admonished the idea of taking cover; "The officers will observe that a too scrupulous regard for cover will make the men timid"...

Upton's abolished all tactical formations below the company (platoons and sections), and lobbied for the division to become the company (i.e. a battalion would have 4x companies of ca. 200), and what was the company to become the platoon. This was done in the 1891 regulations, wherein a battalion for 4 coys of ca. 150, each divided into two platoons.
 
Was it typical to put Company B on the left flank? I had family at Gettysburg. 148th PA Company B.

Yes-- it appears so-

According to the Regimental History of the 148th (pg. 145), ". . .the companies took position in the line according to the rank of the Captain; thus B Company was assigned the extreme left of the line, the second post of honor, and continued to hold its place until the promotion of Captain R.H. Foster of Co. A in December 1863, when it was transferred to the right of the line, and held that post until the close of the service."
 
Based on 46 examples that I have compiled of Union and Confederate regiments at Gettysburg in mid-1863 (with complete or partial data), about half retained (or appeared to retain) the standard company alignment (left to right): B – G – K – E – H – C – I – D – F – A.

The monument to the 69th PA at Gettysburg has markers linked by chains, indicating the order of their companies.

It's (from L to R), G-K-B-E-C-H-D-F-A-I

Anyone have any theories as to why they were in this order?
 
The monument to the 69th PA at Gettysburg has markers linked by chains, indicating the order of their companies.

It's (from L to R), G-K-B-E-C-H-D-F-A-I

Anyone have any theories as to why they were in this order?

I suppose because they were following the seniority system. Here are some others reported from the same battle:
7th Tennessee: B–G–K–E–H–F–C–I–D–A (although only F is out of position!)
140th Pennsylvania: A–E–H–B–I–K–D–G–F–C
4th Ohio (as of 6 June 1863): F–G–H–A–K–I–E–D–B–C
17th Maine: E–A–F–I–D–G–B–H–K–C
140th New York: G–A–E–H–F–B–D–C–I–K
20th Maine: B–G–C–H–A–F–D–K–I–E
2nd U.S. Sharpshooters: Left flank companies were D, H, F and B; right flank companies were A, E, G and C.

But then regiments that followed, or probably followed, the original "standard" alignment included:
24th Michigan: On July 3, the regiment reorganized into four battalions, A-F, D-I-C, H-E-K, G-B.
150th Pennsylvania: The three right companies were D, F and A.
111th New York: Companies A, F, D and C were in the right wing and H, E, K, G and B in the left wing.
105th Pennsylvania: Companies A, C, D, F and I deployed as skirmishers (corresponds to right wing).
124th New York: B–G–K–E–H–C–I–D–F–A
16th Vermont: A, F, D and I were the four right companies.

There are quite a number of additional examples indicating the placement of just one or two companies in the line that either could conform, or else clearly do not conform, to the standard alignment, and totaling everything up breaks down to roughly a 50-50 split between the two categories.
 
I think I can explain the 69th Pa. Here are the field officers and officers commanding coys at Gettysburg:

Col Dennis O'Kane - mustered as Lt Col
Lt Col Martin Tschudy - Adj
Maj James Duffy - promoted from Capt, A coy on 1 May 63
Adj William Whildey? - from 1Lt

Coys, in order of OC's seniority
K: Capt William Davis (from muster, 11 Sept 61)
H: Capt Thomas Kelley (from muster, 31 Oct 61)
F: Capt Geo. Thompson (from muster, 31 Oct 61)
D: Capt Patrick S. Tinen - 1Lt of D coy (to Capt D Coy, 7 Dec 62)
B: Capt John M'Hugh - 1Lt of A Coy (to Capt B Coy, 1 May 63)
I: Capt Michael Duffy - 1Sgt of I Coy (to Capt, 1 May 63)
E: 1Lt Thomas Wood (from muster)
G: 1Lt Hugh Boyle (1 May 63)
A: 1Lt Thomas P. Norman (1 Jul 63, from Sgt Maj)
C: 2Lt Chas. Fitzpatrick

If you pair them into divisions:

G-K: Division of Capt William Davis, senior captain
B-E: Division of Capt John M'Hugh, 4th captain
C-H: Division of Capt Thomas Kelley, 2nd captain
D-F: Division of Capt George Thompson, 3rd captain
A-I: Division of Capt Michael Duffy, 5th captain, but was division of Capt James Duffy, senior captain, until just before the battle.

Thus it seems that they'd followed the regulation pattern of the senior capts division on the right, left on the left, 3rd in the centre etc., but with the promotion of James Duffy to major they didn't rejig their order mid-campaign.

Edit: by divisions the order from the right to left should be: 1st, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 2nd, which is exactly what they had before Duffy was made major.
 
Last edited:
I suppose because they were following the seniority system. Here are some others reported from the same battle:
7th Tennessee: B–G–K–E–H–F–C–I–D–A (although only F is out of position!)
140th Pennsylvania: A–E–H–B–I–K–D–G–F–C
4th Ohio (as of 6 June 1863): F–G–H–A–K–I–E–D–B–C
17th Maine: E–A–F–I–D–G–B–H–K–C
140th New York: G–A–E–H–F–B–D–C–I–K
20th Maine: B–G–C–H–A–F–D–K–I–E
2nd U.S. Sharpshooters: Left flank companies were D, H, F and B; right flank companies were A, E, G and C.

But then regiments that followed, or probably followed, the original "standard" alignment included:
24th Michigan: On July 3, the regiment reorganized into four battalions, A-F, D-I-C, H-E-K, G-B.
150th Pennsylvania: The three right companies were D, F and A.
111th New York: Companies A, F, D and C were in the right wing and H, E, K, G and B in the left wing.
105th Pennsylvania: Companies A, C, D, F and I deployed as skirmishers (corresponds to right wing).
124th New York: B–G–K–E–H–C–I–D–F–A
16th Vermont: A, F, D and I were the four right companies.

There are quite a number of additional examples indicating the placement of just one or two companies in the line that either could conform, or else clearly do not conform, to the standard alignment, and totaling everything up breaks down to roughly a 50-50 split between the two categories.

So basically, we have alphabet soup!
 
I wonder if the move to numbered combat companies was because it got too confusing for lettered companies to be changing their sizes all the time (for equalizing the companies for tactical movement) while at the same time a soldier was semi-permanently assigned to a lettered company for administrative purposes.
 
I have read some of basic tactics and movement of troops (infantry and artillery anyway) and maybe I read it somewhere but if so I've forgotten:

why didn't infantry just align the companies right-to-left, A-K rather than, what seems to me, the rather complicated B – G – K – E – H – C – I – D – F – A placement ?

Seems my idea would have been easier to do and much easier to remember.

Help me once again to understand the nineteenth-century mind !
Generally, both sides used Hardy's book on tactics. The alignment Hardy's called for has the most experienced captains on the flanks, typically companies A and B. The final company, let us call it company F, would have the least experienced leader and would be in the middle of the line. Thus, the regiment or battalion might go into action, from the left: A-C-E-F-D-B or in the exact reverse. The idea was to keep the most experienced leadership on the flanks. I hope this helps.
 
Generally, both sides used Hardy's book on tactics. The alignment Hardy's called for has the most experienced captains on the flanks, typically companies A and B. The final company, let us call it company F, would have the least experienced leader and would be in the middle of the line. Thus, the regiment or battalion might go into action, from the left: A-C-E-F-D-B or in the exact reverse. The idea was to keep the most experienced leadership on the flanks. I hope this helps.
As referenced above, that held true for the beginning of the war, but as leadership fell or was promoted, the more experienced captains maintained their company and were moved to where they were needed. I do see experienced lts. moving to captain other companies as attrition made transfers necessary. I'm also sure that there were exceptions to this, as favorites might be elevated, over seniority.
 
As referenced above, that held true for the beginning of the war, but as leadership fell or was promoted, the more experienced captains maintained their company and were moved to where they were needed. I do see experienced lts. moving to captain other companies as attrition made transfers necessary. I'm also sure that there were exceptions to this, as favorites might be elevated, over seniority.
Proper spelling is Hardee's, pardon my error.
 
So, if I'm reading this right, command of companies wasn't just a random thing - i.e. the most senior officer would always command Co. A and so on ? If that's correct, then it seems that commanders would have to be shifted fairly often as men got killed and such. I've always thought company commanders remained with their companies. Help again.
I am no expert in this, but I do not believe that the Company Letter Designation was related in any way to either its posting in the Regimental Line of Battle nor the Seniority of the Company Commanders. The Companies were posted in the Regimental Line of Battle as per the Seniority of their Commanders. Thus, by the manuals of the day, they were posted, Left To Right:
2nd Most Sr - 7th Most Sr - 10th Most Sr - 5th Most Sr - 8th Most Sr - 3rd Most Sr - 9th Most Sr - 4th Most Sr - 6th Most Sr - 1st Most Sr
After this, the Companies were then given numerical designations, perhaps as a way in order to distinguish their postings in the Regimental Line of Battle, from Left To Right:
10th Co - 9th Co - 8th Co - 7th Co - 6th Co - 5th Co - 4th Co - 3rd Co - 2nd Co - 1st Co
Thus, the 2nd Most Senior Company Commander commands 10th Company, and so on to the right, where the 1st Most Senior Commander commands 1st Company.
The Skirmish Companies, two per Regiment, were the Companies that were posted on the flanks of the Regiment. Appropriately enough, these units were commanded by the two Most Senior Commanders. So, 10th Company, under the 2nd Most Senior Commander, and 1st Company, under the 1st Most Senior Commander, were the Skirmish Companies.
The Letter Designations of the Companies (A through I, and then K, for a standard Regiment of ten Companies) is never mentioned in the manuals, so they seem to be irrelevant. 1st Company COULD be Company A, but could also be I, or D, etcetera. Likewise, the Most Senior Commander COULD be the Commander of Company A, but just as easily could be the Commander of Company K, or G, etcetera. Again, Company Letter Designations seem not to be relevant to their postings nor to the Seniority of Commanders.
As an example, the Living History Organization to which I belong is Company H, 119th Regiment, New York Volunteers. This Company was one of the Skirmish Companies of the Regiment, which signifies that the Company Commander was the 1st or 2nd Most Senior Commander, and that this Company was posted on one of the two flanks of the Regiment (dependent on which order of Seniority was the Commander). So Company H, being neither A nor B, as a Flank Company indicates that Company Letter Designations were not given any particular consideration of anything in the postings within the Regiment.
 
Last edited:
As casualties mounted, wouldn't it make sense to keep your two weakest(by manpower) companies in reserve in order to maximize the number actually engaged? So those would then be different every battle, no?

Also at formation most units were green. No combat experience, so it went by date of muster to determine seniority. What if Company A proved to be prone to not being the most trustworthy of companies on the flank. Would it not make sense for the Colonel to then move them to the middle to decrease the chances of them breaking and running? I know it wasn't always easy to replace company officers, particularly in the CS Army where it was a democratic process to assign officers. Even in the Federal Army, wasn't it hard to withdraw someone's commission? Maybe they'd just move Company A's Captain to switch with a different company?
The tactics required battalion/regiment commanders to "equalize" the number of men in each company before forming for maneuver, by assigning men from the stronger to the weaker companies. Consequently, the companies were all to be of equal strength on the battlefield no matter the strength of the regiment.
 
On the score of position of companies generally, the Army regulations (US or CS) and the Infantry tactics explain. As previously noted, when a regiment was formed, the companies were assigned their permanent letter designations by the seniority of the captains, A to K. Where that was not obvious drawing lots, etc. was employed to determine.

In line of battle the companies were drawn up by the seniority of the captains, in a particular order. This placed Co. A on the right, Co. B on the left, and Co. C (right center) as the color company. As was previously noted, this order was:

By seniority of captains: 2 7 10 5 8 3 9 4 6 1
Consequently by companies: B G K E H C I D F A

The above is about every regiment's primitive order on formation. However, when any other than the junior captain of a regiment was replaced, the regiment was (per the regulations) supposed to reorder the position of companies by the seniority of captains as shown above. It is evident a large number of regiments during the war retained the above primitive order throughout their service, no matter the seniority of captains. Other units reordered the positions as per the regulations...

Now, for manuevering in line of battle, the companies (no matter how organized per the above) were "numbered" from right to left, 1 to 10:

Companies in line for maneuver: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

So a regiment's first company, was whichever was on its right, and the second company next to it, etc. to the left, to the tenth company on the left flank.
 
Last edited:
It is evident a large number of regiments during the war retained the above primitive order throughout their service, no matter the seniority of captains. Other units reordered the positions as per the regulations...
Similar to the positions of regiments within a brigade? Colonel Bryan became accustomed to having Colonel McMillan on his right and Colonel Glenn on the left. And the men of those regiments became comfortable relying upon one another. They had experienced fighting alongside; were able to predict reactions; knew what to expect; developed reputations; and gained confidence in knowing who was next to them.

Turns out, these regiments I used as an example above? Their positions within the brigade remained exactly the same throughout nearly the entire war ---- all the way through Sailor's Creek. Even though the Colonels changed and other regiments came and went.
By seniority of captains: 2 7 10 5 8 3 9 4 6 1
Consequently by companies: B G K E H C I D F A

The above is about every regiment's primitive order on formation.
I figure similar feelings of consistency, comfort, and co-reliance as described above developed among Companies in a Regiment. Captain Reynolds got used to having his buddy and neighbor from the same County, Capt. Thompson, always on his right. And Captain Thompson and his men got used to having Capt. Boyd and his men on their right --- and so on.

Soldiers who are comfortable with, and have complete confidence in, the guys they are fighting alongside --- well seems like they would always be more confident and ultimately more successful.
 
Similar to the positions of regiments within a brigade? Colonel Bryan became accustomed to having Colonel McMillan on his right and Colonel Glenn on the left. And the men of those regiments became comfortable relying upon one another. They had experienced fighting alongside; were able to predict reactions; knew what to expect; developed reputations; and gained confidence in knowing who was next to them.

Turns out, these regiments I used as an example above? Their positions within the brigade remained exactly the same throughout nearly the entire war ---- all the way through Sailor's Creek. Even though the Colonels changed and other regiments came and went.

I figure similar feelings of consistency, comfort, and co-reliance as described above developed among Companies in a Regiment. Captain Reynolds got used to having his buddy and neighbor from the same County, Capt. Thompson, always on his right. And Captain Thompson and his men got used to having Capt. Boyd and his men on their right --- and so on.

Soldiers who are comfortable with, and have complete confidence in, the guys they are fighting alongside --- well seems like they would always be more confident and ultimately more successful.
This comfortable trust would possibly appear after much training and a few battles. What I ask is how these developments were suggested to the organizers of the Battalion. Did the Majors authorize it by the advice of the captains; or did the Majors advise the Lt. Col. and Colonels of these desires. The final configuration would not have come by haphazard account, I am sure. Who did the planning?
Lubliner.
 
Back
Top