Old men made more sense than young boys.

Kentucky Derby Cavalier.

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
If you've studed the Civil War for any amount of time you've proably heard the reference "old men and young boys." The aforementioned line refers to the fact that quite a few youngsters and men over 40 found their way into the ranks of either army (more so the Confederate army, but you get what I'm saying.) I want to examine something I found interesting about some of the age demographics during the conflict, and its mainly that I believe older men were under utilized where as young boys fighting was just a tragedy.

Imagine you're 65 years old, you figure you've seen the world and know what it's about, accomplished the things you've wanted to accomplish. At least you're not a 15 year old drummer boy. One day your country calls on you to serve do you turn it down, or do you answer the call? The first thing you'll proably be told is something like "you're not as fast as you used to be," but I would argue against that, I don't think the drop off for older men in strength and stamina is that great, at least at is applies to the Civil War. The biggest struggle I see would be marching at pace and with packs on, I still don't think that would be to big of deal though, and even if it was could'nt they put advanced age men in Artillery units where the load might not have been as heavy? I'd argue people back in 1860 might have been just as healthy or even healthier than we are today. Most of the employment of that era included tough manual labor that could where someone down over life time so I could see how that, that might be an issue. State forces and home guards could be a good fit for the elders, I know When John Morgan invaded Ohio there we're old men that in pursuit of his cavaly, the same thing happend against Sherman in the Atlanta compaign.

I'll give some examples of older dudes that fought in various conflicts through out history.

Famous Revolutionary war hero Samuel Whittemore Famously dispatched three Red Coats at the battle of Lexington and Concord. He was 78 at the time.
Samuel Whitmore.jpg


John Burns fought at Gettysburg, he was 69 at the time.

john burns.jpg


Nikolai Morozov fought at the siege of LeninGrad in 1942, he was in his early 80s at the time.


Nikolai Morozov.jpg

And just for fun I'll throw in a modern story of a man in his late 50s reenlisting in the army.


So, I tend to think that older men should've fought instead of younger men, It just makes more sense to me. At any rate, these are just passing thoughts I have, what do you think?

Thoughts?​
 
I could see older guys being better suited to naval duty than army-infantry ... there are a lot of tasks that can be done on ship which need experience but don't involve a lot of slogging through mud on tired legs ... carpenters, navigators, coopers, boatswains, pursers, etc.

Now I'm curious how common it was among the US or CS navies to have guys in their 50s or older serving. Anyone know?
 
Dorsey Weston of the 7th Wisconsin was in his 40s when he enlisted and served the entire War. There are occasional references in regimental paperwork to his being attached to quartermaster details. I suspect that might have been an accomodation for his age.
Very interesting, I know John Burns was a teamster before he fought a Gettysburg.
 
I could see older guys being better suited to naval duty than army-infantry ... there are a lot of tasks that can be done on ship which need experience but don't involve a lot of slogging through mud on tired legs ... carpenters, navigators, coopers, boatswains, pursers, etc.

Now I'm curious how common it was among the US or CS navies to have guys in their 50s or older serving. Anyone know?
Naval service might be a good idea, or maybe garrison duty.

Have you ever heard of the 37th Iowa? They were called the grey beard regiment for their old age.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/regiment-of-old-men-37th-iowa.117899/

https://www.historynet.com/george-w-kincaid-and-the-37th-iowa-infantry-in-americas-civil-war.htm
 
Not so sure about 40+ year olds being so healthy. There are exceptions to every statistical average, but between poor diet, lack of health care, and hard labor, the life is expectancy was not that great. I always think looking at CW photos that the men look at least 10 years older than they actually were.
That's a good point, 60 to them might actually be like 70.
 
Children make the best soldiers cause they are healthier and much easier to get to do really stupid stuff. I wouldn't want to be the 2nd LT. who tells a bunch of 60 year olds to fix bayonets and charge up the hill in the open.
Young do stupid things, it's true. My thing about it was the ethical implications.
 
I do not see older men making good infantrymen on campaign. Serving in fixed defensive works would be a much more appropriate function for them.
Agreed, question is how would you try to apply that conceptually. It worked During the Siege of Atlanta and Petersburg because those men could sit in a trench. Many men in the 37th Iowa did guard duty at Prisons and trains which made sense, But I've also thought that unit could've been used elsewhere if they needed it. If you speculate on units filled out with older men they could possibly be in a reserve type of siutation, but only as needed.
 
Back
Top