Elennsar
Colonel
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Location
- California
I was going to post this in the thread on McClellan, but it would be throughly off topic:
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordView.cfm?Content=014/0604
HEADQUARTERS, June 17, 1862.
General D. H. HILL,
Commanding Division: GENERAL: According to my papers you now have eight North Carolina regiments, or two brigades. The one regiment (892 men) you speak of is as large as some of my brigades. This, with the other two regiments of 200 each, will go considerably above most of my brigades. Now, if you will give him one of your other regiments I think his brigade will be quite a respectable one. To call a brigade of 1,600 small - I think it quite respectable for these times. I cannot promise another regiment. I don't think that more than four should be in a brigade, unless they are exceedingly small.
Most respectfully,
JAMES LONGSTREET, Major-General, Commanding.
That there would be brigades at ~900 men, with 1300 being "considerably above" most of his brigades, is worrisome. Were this around Antietam or later, that would not surprise me - but not around the Seven Days.
There are only three possibilities:
1) Longstreet is lying. I find this doubtful, because there's no reason for him to do so. Nor would it be in character.
2) Longstreet is mistaken. Such things would not be overly surprising - the ~800 (?) man (each) 17th and 42nd North Carolina are later compared to the size of Ransom's whole brigade (by all I've learned, Ransom's brigade should be ~2,700-3,000 at that time) - though how such errors could be made is quite beyond me.
3) We're missing something and the brigades really are that small.
That being said, again from all I've read, sixteen hundred men is a pretty decent sized brigade. Not large, certainly, but not small - though I would expect a brigade that hasn't seen much action to be larger.
Anyone have any thoughts, either to add to this or to clarify?
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordView.cfm?Content=014/0604
HEADQUARTERS, June 17, 1862.
General D. H. HILL,
Commanding Division: GENERAL: According to my papers you now have eight North Carolina regiments, or two brigades. The one regiment (892 men) you speak of is as large as some of my brigades. This, with the other two regiments of 200 each, will go considerably above most of my brigades. Now, if you will give him one of your other regiments I think his brigade will be quite a respectable one. To call a brigade of 1,600 small - I think it quite respectable for these times. I cannot promise another regiment. I don't think that more than four should be in a brigade, unless they are exceedingly small.
Most respectfully,
JAMES LONGSTREET, Major-General, Commanding.
That there would be brigades at ~900 men, with 1300 being "considerably above" most of his brigades, is worrisome. Were this around Antietam or later, that would not surprise me - but not around the Seven Days.
There are only three possibilities:
1) Longstreet is lying. I find this doubtful, because there's no reason for him to do so. Nor would it be in character.
2) Longstreet is mistaken. Such things would not be overly surprising - the ~800 (?) man (each) 17th and 42nd North Carolina are later compared to the size of Ransom's whole brigade (by all I've learned, Ransom's brigade should be ~2,700-3,000 at that time) - though how such errors could be made is quite beyond me.
3) We're missing something and the brigades really are that small.
That being said, again from all I've read, sixteen hundred men is a pretty decent sized brigade. Not large, certainly, but not small - though I would expect a brigade that hasn't seen much action to be larger.
Anyone have any thoughts, either to add to this or to clarify?
...........)