How many regiments were there?

[thomas aagaard]

@thomas aagaard You do realize that @Michael C. Hardy has literally written the book on what a Regiment is...

That don't stop him from mixing administrative units and tactically units. So counting apple and oranges.
A good example of this is the sharpshooter battalion used by the csa late in the war. They where entirely a tactical organization. The men still belonged to and lived with their regiments.

This mixing was obviously also done to some extent during the war with some smaller csa units that was called battalions, and was both a tactical and administrative unit. But that make the entire question problematic.
(and we got the US heavy artillery regiments organized in 3 battalions also messing things up)

So Are he asking how many administrative units there where, or how many combat units? or maybe how many units who had a clear identify and esprit de corps?

 

[Michael C. Hardy]

administrative units and tactically units.

We really don't have administrative units in either army during the 1860s. All regiments are raised to be tactical units. There are no supply companies, or transportation battalions, and while the field and staff might be considered a "headquarters company," it is really not the same as it's modern counterpart. Those regiments raised (on the Federal side), such as the heavy artillery regiments, or the USCT regiments, thinking they were going to defend Washington City or some railroad someplace, could, and often times were, shuffled into combat organizations.

 

[Saphroneth]

There were absolutely "tactical battalions" though, which were battlefield orgs formed out of smaller individual formations which were not large enough to use the drill book by themselves. My understanding is that below ~200 men you'd start consolidating into tactical battalions (and above 1,000 men you'd have a single regiment form multiple tactical battalions).

There are cases of regiments which were below 10 companies, though. For example the 16th VA dropped three companies after organizing to become batteries, so fought most of the war with 7 companies, and the 1st VA was down to six for most of the war.



More interesting to me is the concept of "regiments of all arms", which is basically converting all formations into standard 10-company regiments. As of mid-1862 the Confederacy had taken 577.7 regiments of all arms into service (i.e. 5,777 companies) and it would raise more later; the Union raised about 1,900 regiments of all arms over the course of the whole war as far as I can tell, though in mid-1862 they'd not raised much more than the CSA.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Did not know that about the word 'battalion'!....along the same lines: Platoon = Brigade, correct?

Did the concepts of platoons or squads exist in the ACW? They seem pretty meaningless in linear combat, except maybe for sharpshooters or an equivalent unit like artillery batteries and sections.

Men were usually recruited as a Company which were then combined into a Regiment, or if not enough then as a Battalion (i.e. Demi-Regiment, although I don't think anyone used that term). Then there was the occasional Independent Company.

To add confusion, US Regulars had Battalions as a level of organization between Company and Regiments.

Regiments and Battalions were grouped into Brigades. A small brigade (2 Regiments?) was a Demi-Brigade, though I'm not sure if that was a formal term.

Brigades made up Divisions, Divisions made up Corps.

Several battalions added companies to become a regiment, and many regiments, especially in the Western Theater were consolidated

Several Florida Battalions were consolidated into two new Regiments in early 1864 and added to the ANV Florida Brigade. The Battalions had been created in 1862 so I don't know what took them so long.

There are cases of regiments which were below 10 companies, though. For example the 16th VA dropped three companies after organizing to become batteries, so fought most of the war with 7 companies, and the 1st VA was down to six for most of the war.

There were also the Legions that started out as a mix of infantry and cavalry companies, plus an artillery battery. They started at Regiment size, but after being broken up some of the component pieces may have spent the rest of the war as Battalions.

 

[Saphroneth]

There were also the Legions that started out as a mix of infantry and cavalry companies, plus an artillery battery. They started at Regiment size, but after being broken up some of the component pieces may have spent the rest of the war as Battalions.

In some cases they were huge.


Holcombe Legion was 4 cavalry coys and 10 inf coys. The Wise Legion infantry was apparently seventeen companies during the Seven Days...

 

[Coonewah Creek]

The Wise Legion infantry was apparently seventeen companies during the Seven Days...

Apparently became the nucleus for the 46th, 59th, and 60th Virginia Infantry Regiments...

 

[Coonewah Creek]

Here's the "legions" I know of. Some units had the term "legion" associated with their names, but were only a single regiment or battalion, so I don't thinks those count in the traditional sense...

Alabama - Hilliard's Legion
Georgia - Cobb's Legion, Phillips' Legion, Smith's Legion
Louisiana- Miles' Legion
North Carolina - Thomas' Legion
South Carolina - Holcombe Legion, Hampton Legion, Pee Dee Legion
Tennessee - Rucker's Legion
Texas - Waul's Legion
Virginia - Wise's Legion

 

[PrivateBrooke]

The 23rd North Carolina was originally designated the 13th North Carolina State Troops. The PA reserve regiments were original designated as the 1st-15th Pennsylvania Reserves, but were later redesignated as the 30th-44th Pennsylvania Volunteers. The 15th/44th was also designated as 1st PA Cavalry. It can certainly get really hairy with all the reorganization and redesignation that happened during the war. Just something that needs to be watched out for when attempting an official count.

Plus there were a number of regiments who never were officially mustered or failed to organize, sometimes they pop up in the lists of regiments from that state, I know PA's list does contain a few failed to organize regiments. Also don't forget the regiments raised in one state, mustered in to service of another, and later redesignated as regiments of their home state...as happened with the California Brigade when they were redesignated as PA regiments.

That also brings up another hiccup, of regiments being redesignated, and then another regiment being formed WITH THE OLD DESIGNATION, as happened with the first few CA regiments. After the original CA Brigade, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th California Infantry Regiments, were renamed the "Philadelphia Brigade" and became the 69th, 71st, 72nd, and 106th PA Regiments, CA went ahead and organized new 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th CA Infantry Regiments. Those were separate and distinct units which SHOULD be counted twice...

 

[Michael C. Hardy]

The 23rd North Carolina was originally designated the 13th North Carolina State Troops.

Actually, the 23rd North Carolina Troops were originally designated the 13th North Carolina Volunteers. None of the regiments originally designated as "State Troops" in North Carolina were re-designated.

 

[PrivateBrooke]

Actually, the 23rd North Carolina Troops were originally designated the 13th North Carolina Volunteers. None of the regiments originally designated as "State Troops" in North Carolina were re-designated.

Yeah I got that backwards. lol. But my point still stands, they were redisignated.

 

[Saphroneth]

Here's the "legions" I know of. Some units had the term "legion" associated with their names, but were only a single regiment or battalion, so I don't thinks those count in the traditional sense...

In some cases some components failed to complete organization. For example the Holcombe legion aimed to be 10 inf 4 cav 1 art, but the art coy (bty) never completed organization.

 

[Saphroneth]

One of the things that I find sort of fascinating is that the organizational snarl of units with different designations could actually provide an advantage for the side which had it. One of the only ways to try and get a good handle on enemy strength was to try to work out how many regiments you were facing, and disentangling the lists of attested-to regiments can be very hard... if you've got a report that the 44th PA, 15th PA Reserves and 1st PA Cavalry have all joined your enemy, how much have they been reinforced?
What about if it's the 43rd PA, 13th PA Reserves and 13th PA Cavalry?

 

[Vadigger]

Great Grandfather. James Kinchen Long. 15th North Carolina infantry Co. A 1861-1865

 

[PrivateBrooke]

One of the things that I find sort of fascinating is that the organizational snarl of units with different designations could actually provide an advantage for the side which had it. One of the only ways to try and get a good handle on enemy strength was to try to work out how many regiments you were facing, and disentangling the lists of attested-to regiments can be very hard... if you've got a report that the 44th PA, 15th PA Reserves and 1st PA Cavalry have all joined your enemy, how much have they been reinforced?
What about if it's the 43rd PA, 13th PA Reserves and 13th PA Cavalry?

Yeah, that's definitely an eye opener. Did they get a whole brigade, or only a regiment....although at times there was little difference between a brigade and one full strength regiment.

 

[Saphroneth]

Yeah, that's definitely an eye opener. Did they get a whole brigade, or only a regiment....although at times there was little difference between a brigade and one full strength regiment.

This very thing affected strength estimates for the Seven Days, and is one of the major causes of the errors in the Union strength estimate (and the single largest one).

 

[PrivateBrooke]

This very thing affected strength estimates for the Seven Days, and is one of the major causes of the errors in the Union strength estimate (and the single largest one).

McClellan also had a habit of grossly exaggerating enemy strength, even in his own mind. No doubt the number of regiments with 2 or more designations contributed to the initial confusion. Then add the "McClellan buffer."

 

[Saphroneth]

McClellan also had a habit of grossly exaggerating enemy strength, even in his own mind. No doubt the number of regiments with 2 or more designations contributed to the initial confusion. Then add the "McClellan buffer."

He actually didn't. The whole of his overestimate can be explained by this issue or by other similar cases.

For example, his estimate of enemy strength at Richmond itself was 150,000 Aggregate Present at 700 men AP per regiment, and his own force really was 700 men AP per regiment at that time; the list of regiments he got from his intel organization listed 241 regiments of all arms counting Jackson (for 180,000 AP counting Jackson) but this included 36 infantry regiments and one cavalry regiment which did not actually exist (they were created as a result of the above problem with disambiguating regiments, something that was Babcock's job).

In round figures, McClellan's intelligence told him there was ca. 241 "regiments of all arms" (i.e. combine irregular sized units batteries etc. into 10 coy regts) vs the real 204.7, exclusive of the garrison (8.6 regts) and Richmond militia (2.5 regts).

This is almost the whole of the error. McClellan's estimate results from these assumptions:

1) All the regiments we have identified do in fact exist. (This is a false assumption but no way to check it.)
2) Confederate regiments are the same size as Union ones. (Seems to be broadly true, and certainly he's got nothing else to base an estimate on!)
3) Beauregard is bringing a force east to join Lee, according to persistent rumors from escaped slaves among others. (False assumption, but again no way to be sure.)

If you remove the "wrong regiments", McClellan's estimate becomes correct except for the Beauregard issue.

 

[PrivateBrooke]

He actually didn't. The whole of his overestimate can be explained by this issue or by other similar cases.

For example, his estimate of enemy strength at Richmond itself was 150,000 Aggregate Present at 700 men AP per regiment, and his own force really was 700 men AP per regiment at that time; the list of regiments he got from his intel organization listed 241 regiments of all arms counting Jackson (for 180,000 AP counting Jackson) but this included 36 infantry regiments and one cavalry regiment which did not actually exist (they were created as a result of the above problem with disambiguating regiments, something that was Babcock's job).

In round figures, McClellan's intelligence told him there was ca. 241 "regiments of all arms" (i.e. combine irregular sized units batteries etc. into 10 coy regts) vs the real 204.7, exclusive of the garrison (8.6 regts) and Richmond militia (2.5 regts).

This is almost the whole of the error. McClellan's estimate results from these assumptions:

1) All the regiments we have identified do in fact exist. (This is a false assumption but no way to check it.)
2) Confederate regiments are the same size as Union ones. (Seems to be broadly true, and certainly he's got nothing else to base an estimate on!)
3) Beauregard is bringing a force east to join Lee, according to persistent rumors from escaped slaves among others. (False assumption, but again no way to be sure.)

If you remove the "wrong regiments", McClellan's estimate becomes correct except for the Beauregard issue.

That's a much better explanation than I've read most places, which is basically "because he was McClellan." Thank you.

 

[Lubliner]

I know there is an Index for the Official Records that records the names and alternate names of the organizational structure. How difficult it would be to count them properly is an unknown, but that is the main criteria to begin with.
Lubliner.

 

[Saphroneth]

That's a much better explanation than I've read most places, which is basically "because he was McClellan." Thank you.

Interestingly it seems like one of the reasons the administration started to think that McClellan was screwing up his risk assessments was that they did their own analysis (specifically Meigs did) and they used the same methods but got the regiment counts more wrong than Babcock did!

McClellan/Babcock est. regiment count, Seven Days: 252 (based on an order of battle which contained 37 false regimental organizations). This was multiplied by 700 to get ~180,000.
True regiment count in Seven Days: 215. (Multiply by 700 and you get ~150,000.)
Meigs est. regiment count, Seven Days: 152 (based on a puff piece in the Confederate newspapers where a member of Branch's brigade claimed that Carolina and Georgia contributed "full one-half the regiments engaged in the Richmond battles-from 36 to 40 each" - Meigs just added 36 to 40 and doubled it.) He then multiplied this by 700 to get ~105,000.

Actually looking at the Seven Days ORBATs, I count:
38 Georgia regiments (plus some batteries)
35 North Carolina regiments (plus batteries and one battalion I wasn't sure how to categorize)
16 SC regiments (plus some batteries)
Totalling 89. So it looks like the man from Branch's brigade may have conflated "NC and GA contributed 36-40 each" with "GA and the Carolinas contributed about half the regiments in the field army" and not counted Jackson? It's pretty clear Meigs was wrong to trust the newspaper report and his interpretation of it though.


Post Seven Days reinforcements for Lee (26.1 regiments) basically corrected the overcount, as McClellan appears not to have detected them.