Union legions

[major bill]

Although the Confederacy had some 'legions' The Union Army seemed to mostly avoid these mixed arms units. What was the reason the Union avoided this style of mixed arms smaller units?

 

[Cdoug96]

It was probably because units that did not use mixed arms were easier to supply.

 

[major bill]

Early in the War Michigan raised Infantry regiments with artillery and engineer components but these were separated when the regiment left Michigan. Sometime I saw cavalry units being raised with Michigan Infantry regiments but do not think the intent was to have the mounted men stay with the infantry regiment.

 

[Specster]

It was probably because units that did not use mixed arms were easier to supply.

Although that may have been a contributing factor I think there were more weighty reasons.

 

[Carronade]

Most of the Confederate legions - Hampton's, Cobb's, Phillips' - were raised by wealthy individuals, while organized mobilization schemes on both sides raised complete regiments of each arm. We might compare the sponsor of a legion to the governor of a state or even the president/war department of a nation; they were each trying to provide a balanced force, but on different scales.

 

[leftyhunter]

Most of the Confederate legions - Hampton's, Cobb's, Phillips' - were raised by wealthy individuals, while organized mobilization schemes on both sides raised complete regiments of each arm. We might compare the sponsor of a legion to the governor of a state or even the president/war department of a nation; they were each trying to provide a balanced force, but on different scales.

The next question would be were legions militarily more effective then specialized regiments i.e. infantry,cavalry ,engineers etc. All I know about legions is the,Thomas Legion did a lot of counterinsurgency in North Carolina vs other parts of it did conventional duty with the A N V.
Would not a Civil War Legion compare to a modern combined arms unit of today?
Leftyhunter

 

[major bill]

The concept of "combined arms" is to mix units of different types in such a way that they enhance the combat power and produce more power than the units would be if deployed separately. The possibility exists that if mixed poorly a combined arms unit could have less combat power than the units would have separately.

 

[GELongstreet]

You´ll indeed find quite a number of regiments, especially in the west, that initially had an artillery company but those tended to be transferred away. Beside that you´ll find lots of units using the term Legion in their names without really being one (in the combined-arms way). I´d think that management of 2 or even all 3 mixed arms within a regiment could, especially with the very limited number (and often experience) of many staffs, be quite a burden. As would be keeping them together on march and using them effectively in battle.

A couple of legions with all 3 arms are there, too, though they were quickly broken up as well. Like the Purnell Legion from Maryland or the 10th Legion from New York.

 

[Carronade]

The next question would be were legions militarily more effective then specialized regiments i.e. infantry,cavalry ,engineers etc. All I know about legions is the,Thomas Legion did a lot of counterinsurgency in North Carolina vs other parts of it did conventional duty with the A N V.
Would not a Civil War Legion compare to a modern combined arms unit of today?
Leftyhunter

There certainly could be occasions when a regimental- or battalion-size combined arms force would be useful, but I expect that would be a small part of the overall war. There's also the question of whether it's better to have such units permanently organized or to assemble them as needed. Your example of counterinsurgency would be a case of an ongoing mission which might justify a standing combined arms force.

As I understand it, modern battle groups are usually formed from single-purpose units, for example, a company each from a tank and a mechanized infantry battalion, a platoon from an engineer battalion, etc. They are generally task-organized, although the assignments may become semi-permanent. Truly permanent combined-arms organizations are usually at brigade level and higher.

Getting back to the Civil War, it strikes me as unlikely that cavalry and infantry could operate effectively as a single unit; nor would there seem to be much need to since cavalry could and often did fight on foot. I could see a small unit of either arm having artillery attached for a particular mission.

And of course we know how CW legions were handled in real life. If one joined say the ANV, the infantry, cavalry, and artillery components were separated. Thus in an order of battle we might see for example Cobb's Legion in an infantry brigade and also in a cavalry brigade.

 

[FiremarshalBill]

Early in the War Michigan raised Infantry regiments with artillery and engineer components but these were separated when the regiment left Michigan

Could the 3rd Michigan Infantry regiment and the 1st Michigan Light Artillery have been initially raised together to make this connection?

 

[AUG]

The next question would be were legions militarily more effective then specialized regiments i.e. infantry,cavalry ,engineers etc. All I know about legions is the,Thomas Legion did a lot of counterinsurgency in North Carolina vs other parts of it did conventional duty with the A N V.
Would not a Civil War Legion compare to a modern combined arms unit of today?
Leftyhunter

I don't believe any legions in the ACW ever actually fought as a combined force. As mentioned, most were separated early in the war or never fought together in battle as intended. For instance, the infantry battalion of Hampton's Legion served in Hood's Texas Brigade, was later consolidated with another unit in late 1862 to form a full regiment and was mounted in 1864. IIRC, the the cavalry contingent was organized into the 2nd South Carolina Cavalry and the artillery served as a separate horse artillery battery.

As to Union legions, there was the 10th Legion, also known as the 56th New York Infantry, which contained eleven infantry companies, two light batteries, and two troops of cavalry. But, as usual, the infantry, cavalry and artillery were soon separated and organized into different units.

 

[major bill]

Could the 3rd Michigan Infantry regiment and the 1st Michigan Light Artillery have been initially raised together to make this connection?

I will have to look at my data base when I get home. The First Michigan Three Month Infantry had an artillery company that as intended to be part of the regiment. Also a couple early regiments had engineer companies that were not deployed with the infantry regiments

 

[leftyhunter]

I don't believe any legions in the ACW ever actually fought as a combined force. As mentioned, most were separated early in the war or never fought together in battle as intended. For instance, the infantry battalion of Hampton's Legion served in Hood's Texas Brigade, was later consolidated with another unit in late 1862 to form a full regiment and was mounted in 1864. IIRC, the the cavalry contingent was organized into the 2nd South Carolina Cavalry and the artillery served as a separate horse artillery battery.

As to Union legions, there was the 10th Legion, also known as the 56th New York Infantry, which contained eleven infantry companies, two light batteries, and two troops of cavalry. But, as usual, the infantry, cavalry and artillery were soon separated and organized into different units.

Interesting that both the Union and Confederacy had the same basic experience with legions. On paper it seems like a good idea.
Leftyhunter