Army Strong vs 1861

[hescomouse]

Sorry, Army Strong

I will stick my neck out and guess that the current Army is far more uniform in it's drill and general conduct then the US Army of 1861, due to current school system for enlisted soldiers and NCOs. It would appear that most instruction in the 1860's Army was done via a book in one hand held by the person elected in charge. I understand the pre war regulars would be different, but the officer would still have all the drill education since no training system existed for enlisted (No Basic Training, or NCO schools).

My question is how nonmilitary do you have to be to represent a infantry soldier from the 1860's?

robert simon

[Marine Mike]

Re: Army Strong vs 1861

This needs to be parsed apart a little. Union regulars went to barracks and under went training by regulars which generally lasted about 4 weeks by which time they were usually regarded as ready to turn out which means they could take a rotation in sentry duty or assigned to an active unit. Their training would continue in the receiving unit until it was regarded as up to standard for that unit. I doubt there was much quality variance from 1861 to 1865.
Volunteers and Militia training was a reflection of who was head of the unit. Many years regular officer (Grant and Sherman), some time as regular officer full time politician (Burnside) or full time politician (Banks and Butler) would have influence of what manual (Hardee/Casey v. Ellsworth) would be used and to what detail. Some units rose to the level of Regulars. There was much variance from the 90-day volunteers of 1861 (do what looks impressive to the locals) to the second round of volunteers after Bull Run (this is serious) and that would continue to change until 1865 as units began to drill beside Regular units as the war progressed. In one of my many readings, volunteers asked some recently arrived Regulars 'where'd they get the new muskets?' and were astounded to find that the muskets were a couple of years old and maintained to Army standards. This would be a standard that the volunteers would realize they would need to rise to.
More formalizing of recruit training would occur between the Spanish-American War and WWI. Recruit training would vary from as little as 8-weeks to as long as 13 depending on time (what decade) and service (Army or Marine).
The question is more of what in particular do you want to portray? Young man not wanting to miss the show?, veteran joined for Union, a Regular that accepts that there is only one way to do the job? Early war, mid-war? or some other variation.

[hescomouse]

Re: Army Strong vs 1861

I guess the difference would be say a Eastern based unit vs a frontier unit. It would be interesting if their was some record as to how training/tactics changed due to the reality of the battlefield. I can't recall the title, but I remember a book form a IL volunteer who was told by a Frontier Regular to seek cover before challenging people coming towards his post. I could see troops trained for speed in execution, and for lack of a better term not being trained to have snap(No clicking the heels as it were).
Basic training for the Army starts with the National Army in WW1, and then is disbanded I thin in 1919, and is restarted in 42.

Robert Simon

[AndrewGrim]

Re: Army Strong vs 1861

In the early part of the war West Point and other Military Academy graduates were sought to organize new units. Enlisted regulars were likewise offered commissions, after arranging a discharge. Oddly I have only seen that with the Union. The 7th New York Militia seemed to have produced a lot of volunteer officers as well.

After the creation of the new three battalion regiments keep two battalions in the field, and one in garrison. The garrison battalion was supposed to be recruiting and getting ready to return to the field.