Post by John Graham on Apr 26, 2006 7:15:32 GMT -5
While reading The Battalion Web Site, I came up on this about Cpl's. Please read. IM SO CONFUSED !! LOL
General Discussion - Numbering of Corporals in the company Subscribe
From: rebel7458 Feb-7 12:52 pm
To: ALL (1 of 9)
214.1
Greetings members of the battalion, I have a question for the good Colonel, or staff, or help from our ranks of knowledgeable troops in the field, regarding the numbering of Cpls in the company.
Traditionally in our company, we've usually placed our most senior cpl as 1st cpl, the 2nd most senior at the left of the company, and 3rd and 4th in the center. I understand that technically it should be stricltly by height per the manuals. We've always designated them much the same manner as with the sergeants. The 1st Cpl covering the 1st Sgt, the 2nd Cpl on the left, 3rd in 1st platoon and 4th in second platoon.
I now believe this to be in error. I found a company diagram not long ago (forgive me for forgetting which manual) and it appeared that the cpls were merely numbered from the 1st (covering the 1st Sgt) straight through to the 4th on the left of the company. I have not been able to find reference in any of the manuals for the numbering of them, under the positions of the NCOs other than the physical placing of them. While perhaps a trivial matter, just another one of those "details" that's been bugging me. Thoughts, ideas?
Respectfully yours,
Greg Van Wey, Lt 5th Texas Co. A
Options Reply
From: EuclidShull Feb-8 10:00 am
To: rebel7458 (2 of 9)
214.2 in reply to 214.1
Hardee's, both 1855 and revised are virtually the same...
Hardee's Revised, article 1, Section 1 states:
8. The formation of a regiment is in two ranks; and each company will be formed into two ranks, in the following manner: the corporals will be posted in the front rank, and on the right and left of platoons, according to height; the tallest corporal and the tallest man will form the first file, the next two tallest men will form the second file, and so on to the last file, which will be composed of the shortest corporal and the shortest man.
24. The corporals will be posted in the front rank, as prescribed in No. 8.
-----
Gilham's goes into greater detail with forming in one rank according to height (privates and Corporals) and then facing, stepping up etc, but it is still done according to height, corporals being assigned during the formation of platoons, but still by height.
From what I've always come to understand, there are no manuals that prescribe the "numbering" of corporals, as you would find with the Sergeants (1st 2nd, etc). A corporal is a corporal is a corporal, and they would be arranged accorgingly by height.
The only time Hardee's mentions seniority regarding the Corporals is in the formation of the color guard, in which case the two "senior corporals" form on each side of the color bearer.
Like I said though, just my understanding of it...Im sure if I'm wrong, someone will be able to expound on the subject a little better.
Thanks,
Euclid Shull
MLK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/8/2006 10:14 am ET by EuclidShull
Options Reply
From: EuclidShull Feb-12 2:05 am
To: EuclidShull (3 of 9)
214.3 in reply to 214.2
Just a point that I semi-purposely left out of my original post in hopes that someone more knowledgable might have better information....this is kind of going out on a limb here. It makes sense to me, but I have no concrete evidence to back it up with.
If you look at various Adjutant Generals' Reports (amongst various other sources), companies certainly did recognize their corporals by number, designating them 1st Corporal, 2nd Corporal etc.
My previous post was merely concerning placement within the company. It only makes sense that the "senior" coproral would be first in line to be promoted in the case of a casualty amongst the Sgt's (hence a designation of "1st Corporal"). I do not, however, believe that this has any bearing on the position of the corporals in the company line. They would still be arranged according to height, as prescribed by the manuals.
On the opposite side of the coin, I suppose it would be possible that the "1st Corporal" was not necessarily the same thing as the "Senior Corporal" if they were numbered by position, which was determined according to height and not by seniority...
However, using the 9th Kentucky's Adjutant General's Report as a source (which I know is by no means "concrete evidence"), I would tend to think that it goes along with the notion that the senior Corporal could be found anywhere in the line, depending on how tall he was...that is of course provided companies subscribed to the manual when such a promotion took place.
Thanks
Euclid Shull
MLK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/17/2006 12:35 pm ET by EuclidShull
Options Reply
To: ALL Advertisement
Ads by Google
U.S. Uniforms and medals
Authentic USMC, Navy, Army & USAF uniforms, medals & more!
www.uniforms-4u.com
Five Civil War Cannons
Five new & used Reenactors cannons are available now. Super Deals!
bronzecannon.com
Sports Medals Online
Customizable Sports Medals. Free Engraving, Rush Ship. Order Today!
www.TrophyDepot.com
Plastic Toy Soldiers
Civil War, Alamo, Cannons, Mortars, Tanks, Am. Rev., Landing Crafts
www.besttoysoldiers.com
From: RagtagFed Feb-14 6:35 pm
To: EuclidShull (4 of 9)
214.4 in reply to 214.3
The only example I could find, though I would assume there are more out there somewhere, but this is all I could find, is how E. H. Rhodes (2nd Rhode Island) ends his diary entry for 30 May 1861:
"One evening the Captain came to me, and taking me by the arm, led me to the left of the company and putting me on the flank said: 'Rhodes, you are now Eight Corporal.' This made me feel all right towards the Captain, but just what an Eight Corporal had to do I did not know. And why I should be eight I did not at the time understand."
Rhodes was promoted 09 March 1862 to Sergeant Major. The interesting thing? Rhodes ends the 09 March entry with: "Corporal is played out."
He does not refer to himself as "Eight Corporal" when he was promoted to Sgt Maj....and talk about a jump!! Corporal to Sgt Major?! This guy was one smart cookie!
If you have not read this diary, I strongly encourage it! Especially for those of you with interest in getting Fed kits together!
Regards,
John White
MLK
Options Reply
From: RagtagFed Feb-14 6:45 pm
To: RagtagFed (5 of 9)
214.5 in reply to 214.4
From Casey's Infantry Tactics Article 1, #15
"15. The formation of a regiment is in two ranks; and each company will be formed into two ranks, in the following manner: the corporals will be posted in the front rank, and on the right and left of platoons, according to height; the tallest corporal and the tallest man will form the first file, the next two tallest men will form the second file, and so on to the last file, which will be composed of the shortest corporal and the shortest man."
This gives the best description of where the corporals should be that I have found.
Regards,
John White
MLK
Options Reply
From: 2Sgt. Sam Billingsley 4th Tx. Co. E (hapytral) Feb-17 10:02 am
To: rebel7458 (6 of 9)
214.6 in reply to 214.1
Ok, I guess I'll put my foot in it. I have been doing extensive reading and research of "Hood's Texas Brigade" and the 4th Texas Co. E. In my readings it has been pointed out several times that the "Lone Star Guard" numbered their corporals. There is no indication as to where they stood in the line. If you have the book "From Gaines Mill to Appomattox - McClennan County & Hood's Texas Brigade" by Harold Simpson you will see several qoutes and a list of the men and their ranks in Company E. This is also substanciated in Van C. Gile's diary and Poole"s "Letters to Charming Nelly" and his history "Hood's Texas Brigade". John C. West also talks about it in "A Texan in Search of A Fight".
I hope this helps,
2nd Sgt. Sam Billingsley
4th Texas Co. E
"Lone Star Guard"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/17/2006 10:05 am ET by 2Sgt. Sam Billingsley 4th Tx. Co. E (hapytral)
Options Reply
To: ALL Advertisement
Blogs with all the trimmings
Delphi now offers full-featured blogs with RSS, permalinks, trackbacks, easy photo-sharing tools and more. It's part of the new-and-improved DelphiPlus. Find out more...
From: colonel35 Feb-17 5:49 pm
To: 2Sgt. Sam Billingsley 4th Tx. Co. E (hapytral) (7 of 9)
214.7 in reply to 214.6
Well, well, well,
I am gone for a few days and everybody starts reading?
Good job on all of the research, and as you can see it all boils down to this: THE CORPORALS ARE NOT NUMBERED AS TO SENIORITY- PERIOD. In fact, they usually are not numbered at all, perhaps there were one or two organizations that took it upon themselves, either out of habit or necessity, to do so, but not because it was prescribed to do so.
Nick
Options Reply
From: RagtagFed Feb-21 1:01 pm
To: colonel35 (8 of 9)
214.8 in reply to 214.7
Sir,
I have to disagree on this one. In trying to research this question further I have been unable to find out “why” the corporals were numbered. However, the simple fact is:
2nd Corporal Nathaniel Green Rieves, H Company, 1st Tennessee
4th Corporal John J. Hollis, H Company, 24th South Carolina
1st Corporal Robert A Bomar, Hampton Legion
1st Corporal W.L. Stapleton, C Company, 15th CS Cavalry
2nd Corporal A.J. Steadham “ “
3rd Corporal J.H. Wheeler “ “
4th Corporal W.L. Williams “ “
5th Corporal William J. Whitthorne, H Company, 1st Tennessee
2nd Corporal James L. Griggs; B Company, 1st Georgia Infantry USA
8th Corporal Elisha Hunt Rhodes, D Company, 2nd Rhode Island USA
6th Corporal George W. Healey, E Troop, 5th Iowa Cavalry USA
Every company of the 93rd Penna Inf, www.angelfire.com/pa/Stump44/roster.html
I have to believe that it was a commonly used practice to number the corporals. I don’t believe this had anything to do with seniority. Elisha Rhodes went from 8th corporal to Sgt Maj., seniority be d**ned. However, I don’t think this was a rare practice. I believe once the company was formed and at a front, with the tallest corporal and the tallest man on the right, forming to the shortest corporal and shortest man on the left, the corporals would have been numbered 1-8 respectively right to left.
I would like to find out, however, why they were numbered, and wouldn’t it be great to actually know how they were designated.
Respectfully,
John White
MLK
Options Reply
From: colonel35 Feb-27 10:37 pm
To: RagtagFed (9 of 9)
214.9 in reply to 214.8
I agree that they were numbered once they were in line, just as the privates were numbered from right to left as well (from inside looking out, not from the officer facing the company), just as the 2nd company in a battalion battleline is not 2nd in seniority, just in location. But the bottom line is, not even in the 'customs of the service' book/manual do they make any reference to numbering the corporals. So, perhaps the men that you mentioned were numbered as to their location in their company, and in that way they were remembered by the men as to WHERE they were located in the company to give them a visual? Don't know for sure, have not read that book.
Nick
General Discussion - Numbering of Corporals in the company Subscribe
From: rebel7458 Feb-7 12:52 pm
To: ALL (1 of 9)
214.1
Greetings members of the battalion, I have a question for the good Colonel, or staff, or help from our ranks of knowledgeable troops in the field, regarding the numbering of Cpls in the company.
Traditionally in our company, we've usually placed our most senior cpl as 1st cpl, the 2nd most senior at the left of the company, and 3rd and 4th in the center. I understand that technically it should be stricltly by height per the manuals. We've always designated them much the same manner as with the sergeants. The 1st Cpl covering the 1st Sgt, the 2nd Cpl on the left, 3rd in 1st platoon and 4th in second platoon.
I now believe this to be in error. I found a company diagram not long ago (forgive me for forgetting which manual) and it appeared that the cpls were merely numbered from the 1st (covering the 1st Sgt) straight through to the 4th on the left of the company. I have not been able to find reference in any of the manuals for the numbering of them, under the positions of the NCOs other than the physical placing of them. While perhaps a trivial matter, just another one of those "details" that's been bugging me. Thoughts, ideas?
Respectfully yours,
Greg Van Wey, Lt 5th Texas Co. A
Options Reply
From: EuclidShull Feb-8 10:00 am
To: rebel7458 (2 of 9)
214.2 in reply to 214.1
Hardee's, both 1855 and revised are virtually the same...
Hardee's Revised, article 1, Section 1 states:
8. The formation of a regiment is in two ranks; and each company will be formed into two ranks, in the following manner: the corporals will be posted in the front rank, and on the right and left of platoons, according to height; the tallest corporal and the tallest man will form the first file, the next two tallest men will form the second file, and so on to the last file, which will be composed of the shortest corporal and the shortest man.
24. The corporals will be posted in the front rank, as prescribed in No. 8.
-----
Gilham's goes into greater detail with forming in one rank according to height (privates and Corporals) and then facing, stepping up etc, but it is still done according to height, corporals being assigned during the formation of platoons, but still by height.
From what I've always come to understand, there are no manuals that prescribe the "numbering" of corporals, as you would find with the Sergeants (1st 2nd, etc). A corporal is a corporal is a corporal, and they would be arranged accorgingly by height.
The only time Hardee's mentions seniority regarding the Corporals is in the formation of the color guard, in which case the two "senior corporals" form on each side of the color bearer.
Like I said though, just my understanding of it...Im sure if I'm wrong, someone will be able to expound on the subject a little better.
Thanks,
Euclid Shull
MLK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/8/2006 10:14 am ET by EuclidShull
Options Reply
From: EuclidShull Feb-12 2:05 am
To: EuclidShull (3 of 9)
214.3 in reply to 214.2
Just a point that I semi-purposely left out of my original post in hopes that someone more knowledgable might have better information....this is kind of going out on a limb here. It makes sense to me, but I have no concrete evidence to back it up with.
If you look at various Adjutant Generals' Reports (amongst various other sources), companies certainly did recognize their corporals by number, designating them 1st Corporal, 2nd Corporal etc.
My previous post was merely concerning placement within the company. It only makes sense that the "senior" coproral would be first in line to be promoted in the case of a casualty amongst the Sgt's (hence a designation of "1st Corporal"). I do not, however, believe that this has any bearing on the position of the corporals in the company line. They would still be arranged according to height, as prescribed by the manuals.
On the opposite side of the coin, I suppose it would be possible that the "1st Corporal" was not necessarily the same thing as the "Senior Corporal" if they were numbered by position, which was determined according to height and not by seniority...
However, using the 9th Kentucky's Adjutant General's Report as a source (which I know is by no means "concrete evidence"), I would tend to think that it goes along with the notion that the senior Corporal could be found anywhere in the line, depending on how tall he was...that is of course provided companies subscribed to the manual when such a promotion took place.
Thanks
Euclid Shull
MLK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/17/2006 12:35 pm ET by EuclidShull
Options Reply
To: ALL Advertisement
Ads by Google
U.S. Uniforms and medals
Authentic USMC, Navy, Army & USAF uniforms, medals & more!
www.uniforms-4u.com
Five Civil War Cannons
Five new & used Reenactors cannons are available now. Super Deals!
bronzecannon.com
Sports Medals Online
Customizable Sports Medals. Free Engraving, Rush Ship. Order Today!
www.TrophyDepot.com
Plastic Toy Soldiers
Civil War, Alamo, Cannons, Mortars, Tanks, Am. Rev., Landing Crafts
www.besttoysoldiers.com
From: RagtagFed Feb-14 6:35 pm
To: EuclidShull (4 of 9)
214.4 in reply to 214.3
The only example I could find, though I would assume there are more out there somewhere, but this is all I could find, is how E. H. Rhodes (2nd Rhode Island) ends his diary entry for 30 May 1861:
"One evening the Captain came to me, and taking me by the arm, led me to the left of the company and putting me on the flank said: 'Rhodes, you are now Eight Corporal.' This made me feel all right towards the Captain, but just what an Eight Corporal had to do I did not know. And why I should be eight I did not at the time understand."
Rhodes was promoted 09 March 1862 to Sergeant Major. The interesting thing? Rhodes ends the 09 March entry with: "Corporal is played out."
He does not refer to himself as "Eight Corporal" when he was promoted to Sgt Maj....and talk about a jump!! Corporal to Sgt Major?! This guy was one smart cookie!
If you have not read this diary, I strongly encourage it! Especially for those of you with interest in getting Fed kits together!
Regards,
John White
MLK
Options Reply
From: RagtagFed Feb-14 6:45 pm
To: RagtagFed (5 of 9)
214.5 in reply to 214.4
From Casey's Infantry Tactics Article 1, #15
"15. The formation of a regiment is in two ranks; and each company will be formed into two ranks, in the following manner: the corporals will be posted in the front rank, and on the right and left of platoons, according to height; the tallest corporal and the tallest man will form the first file, the next two tallest men will form the second file, and so on to the last file, which will be composed of the shortest corporal and the shortest man."
This gives the best description of where the corporals should be that I have found.
Regards,
John White
MLK
Options Reply
From: 2Sgt. Sam Billingsley 4th Tx. Co. E (hapytral) Feb-17 10:02 am
To: rebel7458 (6 of 9)
214.6 in reply to 214.1
Ok, I guess I'll put my foot in it. I have been doing extensive reading and research of "Hood's Texas Brigade" and the 4th Texas Co. E. In my readings it has been pointed out several times that the "Lone Star Guard" numbered their corporals. There is no indication as to where they stood in the line. If you have the book "From Gaines Mill to Appomattox - McClennan County & Hood's Texas Brigade" by Harold Simpson you will see several qoutes and a list of the men and their ranks in Company E. This is also substanciated in Van C. Gile's diary and Poole"s "Letters to Charming Nelly" and his history "Hood's Texas Brigade". John C. West also talks about it in "A Texan in Search of A Fight".
I hope this helps,
2nd Sgt. Sam Billingsley
4th Texas Co. E
"Lone Star Guard"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 2/17/2006 10:05 am ET by 2Sgt. Sam Billingsley 4th Tx. Co. E (hapytral)
Options Reply
To: ALL Advertisement
Blogs with all the trimmings
Delphi now offers full-featured blogs with RSS, permalinks, trackbacks, easy photo-sharing tools and more. It's part of the new-and-improved DelphiPlus. Find out more...
From: colonel35 Feb-17 5:49 pm
To: 2Sgt. Sam Billingsley 4th Tx. Co. E (hapytral) (7 of 9)
214.7 in reply to 214.6
Well, well, well,
I am gone for a few days and everybody starts reading?
Good job on all of the research, and as you can see it all boils down to this: THE CORPORALS ARE NOT NUMBERED AS TO SENIORITY- PERIOD. In fact, they usually are not numbered at all, perhaps there were one or two organizations that took it upon themselves, either out of habit or necessity, to do so, but not because it was prescribed to do so.
Nick
Options Reply
From: RagtagFed Feb-21 1:01 pm
To: colonel35 (8 of 9)
214.8 in reply to 214.7
Sir,
I have to disagree on this one. In trying to research this question further I have been unable to find out “why” the corporals were numbered. However, the simple fact is:
2nd Corporal Nathaniel Green Rieves, H Company, 1st Tennessee
4th Corporal John J. Hollis, H Company, 24th South Carolina
1st Corporal Robert A Bomar, Hampton Legion
1st Corporal W.L. Stapleton, C Company, 15th CS Cavalry
2nd Corporal A.J. Steadham “ “
3rd Corporal J.H. Wheeler “ “
4th Corporal W.L. Williams “ “
5th Corporal William J. Whitthorne, H Company, 1st Tennessee
2nd Corporal James L. Griggs; B Company, 1st Georgia Infantry USA
8th Corporal Elisha Hunt Rhodes, D Company, 2nd Rhode Island USA
6th Corporal George W. Healey, E Troop, 5th Iowa Cavalry USA
Every company of the 93rd Penna Inf, www.angelfire.com/pa/Stump44/roster.html
I have to believe that it was a commonly used practice to number the corporals. I don’t believe this had anything to do with seniority. Elisha Rhodes went from 8th corporal to Sgt Maj., seniority be d**ned. However, I don’t think this was a rare practice. I believe once the company was formed and at a front, with the tallest corporal and the tallest man on the right, forming to the shortest corporal and shortest man on the left, the corporals would have been numbered 1-8 respectively right to left.
I would like to find out, however, why they were numbered, and wouldn’t it be great to actually know how they were designated.
Respectfully,
John White
MLK
Options Reply
From: colonel35 Feb-27 10:37 pm
To: RagtagFed (9 of 9)
214.9 in reply to 214.8
I agree that they were numbered once they were in line, just as the privates were numbered from right to left as well (from inside looking out, not from the officer facing the company), just as the 2nd company in a battalion battleline is not 2nd in seniority, just in location. But the bottom line is, not even in the 'customs of the service' book/manual do they make any reference to numbering the corporals. So, perhaps the men that you mentioned were numbered as to their location in their company, and in that way they were remembered by the men as to WHERE they were located in the company to give them a visual? Don't know for sure, have not read that book.
Nick
