Why "Officers and Men?"

[infomanpa]

Most descriptions of troop numbers are given in this unit, such as, "2,500 officers and men." My question is why not just use, "men?" The last I checked, officers in the Civil War were also men. What is the point of using separate terms? In any large group of troops, officers are sure to be included. Unless, they are implying that officers are a breed above men? Seems redundant to me.

 

[Jimklag]

Most descriptions of troop numbers are given in this unit, such as, "2,500 officers and men." My question is why not just use, "men?" The last I checked, officers in the Civil War were also men. What is the point of using separate terms? In any large group of troops, officers are sure to be included. Unless, they are implying that officers are a breed above men? Seems redundant to me.

It's always been officers and enlisted men or other ranks, but the two have always been separated. A class thing I guess.

 

[AndyHall]

It's an old class thing -- officers and (presumed) gentlemen on the one hand, and the rough, unwashed rabble in the ranks.

I don't know what effect these men will have on the enemy, but by God, they terrify me.

-- Att. Duke of Wellington​

 

[WJC]

There may have been a practical reason for the seperate accounting. Officers were harder to replace than enlsted men.
Beyond that, it is true that historically there have been two classes in military units based on leadership, training and responsibility.
Certainly in the 18th and 19th century British Army (whose organization, customs and practices were widely copied), social status played a huge part. Being an officer not only made one a gentleman, but his status was considered higher than that of other 'gentlemanly professions', such as the church, medicine or the law.
In the U. S. military, this social status has been most evident in the Navy.

 

[thomas aagaard]

It is pretty important to know how a count was made.

Take a danish infantry battalion in 1864.
It was made up of was 800men, split into 4 companies of 200men, split into 4 platoons of 50 men... split into 4 sections.
But that is actually "privates and under corporals". men standing in the ranks with a gun.
NCOs and officers are not included in this. So a company was actually 217 humans at full strength.

This do matter when the brigade commander (with 4 battalions), ask his officers "how many men do we have"?

If he want to know before going into combat the reply should be 3200 men (in line with a gun).

But if he is asking his supply officer then the reply would be that they got 3500 humans to feed.
(it is 3487 without the none combat staff. smiths doctor, scribes and a few others.)
And that force also have a total of 121 horses to feed.

For us reading about the war it is relevant when reading that a danish force of 1200 men faced a Prussian force of 600 men. Are the strength 2:1?
Only if the numbers for both sides are for men in the line.


When studying the civil war we got a similar issue.
The CSA armies usually counted effectives when giving their strength in their reports. That is men in the infantry with guns.
Officers, artillerymen and none combat jobs as driving wagons, helping at hospitals and similar was NOT included in the count.
(and then add the issue that the south also used slaves for much of this work)

The Army of Potomac did include them all in their counting until Burnside took command.

The result is that when comparing Lee's "effectives" at Antietam with McClellan "present for duty" we are comparing apples and oranges.

After Burnside took over, the AoP started using a count of "Present for Duty, Equipped", this make the counting more similar.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Oh, I actually forgot to add the 61 men who drove the wagons in the brigade.
So the brigade Effectives would still be 3200. But the PDF would be about 3550.
(if at fulls strength and no one is sick)

 

[rpkennedy]

Most descriptions of troop numbers are given in this unit, such as, "2,500 officers and men." My question is why not just use, "men?" The last I checked, officers in the Civil War were also men. What is the point of using separate terms? In any large group of troops, officers are sure to be included. Unless, they are implying that officers are a breed above men? Seems redundant to me.

Like @AndyHall said, it was a class thing with a long tradition.

Also, in the terminology of the time, when the word "men" is being used, it's usually talking about fighting men which is only going to count enlisted men. Officers were not counted among the fighting men since their job was to direct and lead, not fight.

Ryan

 

[rpkennedy]

As an addendum, IIRC, the armies used the term "effectives" to sometimes count their numbers and that count did not include officers. It was only counting fighting men or in other words, enlisted men.

Ryan

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

Like @AndyHall said, it was a class thing with a long tradition.

Also, in the terminology of the time, when the word "men" is being used, it's usually talking about fighting men which is only going to count enlisted men. Officers were not counted among the fighting men since their job was to direct and lead, not fight.

Ryan

Even among themselves, officers referred to the men in the ranks as "the men".

In a military organization, just like in the workplace, you have to separate those who lead from those who are led. Pure and simple.

 

[infomanpa]

Also, in the terminology of the time, when the word "men" is being used, it's usually talking about fighting men which is only going to count enlisted men. Officers were not counted among the fighting men since their job was to direct and lead, not fight.

That's really ironic, since we all know that officers also fought and many were killed or wounded.

 

[Batty67]

I think, in most basic terms, it was a class/tradition thing. Ladies before gentlemen, officers before men. Great points as noted above in term of true combatants in-line vs. leaders, staff, logistical folks, etc.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I think, in most basic terms, it was a class/tradition thing. Ladies before gentlemen, officers before men. Great points as noted above in term of true combatants in-line vs. leaders, staff, logistical folks, etc.

I remember the old formulation: Officers and their ladies, enlisted men and their wives.

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

I think, in most basic terms, it was a class/tradition thing. Ladies before gentlemen, officers before men. Great points as noted above in term of true combatants in-line vs. leaders, staff, logistical folks, etc.

Obviously it would be for another thread, but I always thought it funny that nurses referred to the "men" as "the boys".

 

[infomanpa]

Obviously it would be for another thread, but I always thought it funny that nurses referred to the "men" as "the boys".

I guess it's like women being called, "the girls."

 

[rpkennedy]

Obviously it would be for another thread, but I always thought it funny that nurses referred to the "men" as "the boys".

To be fair, most of the soldiers were boys.

Ryan

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

To be fair, most of the soldiers were boys.

Ryan

And yet, the officers called them "men"...

I know it's just a manner of reference, but watching "Mercy Street" (Man, Elizabeth Mary Winstead was hot in a hoop skirt...), I always found it a little odd.

What can I say? I'm a strange bird.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Another difference is that men in ranks enlisted for a set period of time - one year, three years, duration of the war, etc. Officers were commissioned and could resign at any time, or be dismissed.

As for enlisted men in an infantry regiment, roughly 15 percent held non-combat jobs, with only about half of the latter being teamsters (also called wagoners or drivers).

 

[Burning Billy]

This carries on into the modern era. Enlisted personnel are still commonly referred to as "the men" by officers. I agree with KeiBatty67 in that it was a class thing. The officers were gentlemen, enlisted were men.

The class divide between officers and enlisted has in large part long since fallen away, with most of both overwhelmingly coming from middle class backgrounds, but some of the traditions from the old military carry on and officers are still often treated or referred to as if from a higher social class.

 

[rpkennedy]

And yet, the officers called them "men"...

I know it's just a manner of reference, but watching "Mercy Street" (Man, Elizabeth Mary Winstead was hot in a hoop skirt...), I always found it a little odd.

What can I say? I'm a strange bird.

A lot of the officers were boys too.

Ryan

 

[rpkennedy]

Something I was pondering last night. Officially, a lot of the older officers called the soldiers men but considered them their boys. For example, Colonel Edward Cross' last words in a field hospital at Gettysburg: "I think the boys will miss me."

Ryan