Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
US Civil War - Eastern Theater Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Legions
longrifle    1/30/2006 10:53:45 PM
When the war began a number of "legions" were fielded. These were combined arms units, usually of regimental size but in some cases battalion size, of infantry, cavalry, and artillery. This seems to have been an idea that was ahead of it't time, since most were later disbanded with the individual components re-assigned at higher levels. What was it that made the "combat team" approach unworkable at lower levels? Was just the size and scope of the linear battlefield just too big at the time? That seems like an obvious answer so am I missing something?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Carl S    RE:Legions   1/31/2006 10:04:21 PM
I'm not sure at all. What you describe was not ahead of its time. From the 1600s up to the Napoleonic era 'regimental' cannon were common. They persisted in some armys into the 1800s. For the indian wars east of the Mississippi between 1790 & 1859 the typical 'army' was much like you describe. The bulk would be infantry (mostly milita), some mounted as a dragoon or cavalry force, and a handful of light cannon. Education in those days included a lot of classics, so most of the leaders of that era were familar with the Roman Legion. Perhaps it was a common habit to call the formations legions. Our terms of battalion, regiment, brigade were not so ingrained and a number of other terms like Tercio have vanished. My best guess is these legions were some sort of holdover from the frontier era & perhaps vanished when the North & South armys ballooned to the size of European armys.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle    RE:Legions   1/31/2006 11:26:44 PM
As an example, Wade Hampton's Legion started the war with six companies of infantry, four troops of cavalry, and one battery of artillery. Later, in 1862 I think, the legion was broken up and the components re-assigned to higher headquarters by branch. I think the infantry retained the name "Hampton's Legion" though.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Legions   2/1/2006 8:07:45 AM
Flipping back through a history of the Indiana state militas & National Guard I see the term Legion used occasionally in the pre civil war era. There is another book 'The American Way of War' That analyzes how North American culture, US politics, economics that probably has something to say about your question. It will take me a couple days to dig it out and find any relevant text. From a variety of sources I recall the us Armys organization through 1859 primarily reflected pre Napoleonic ideas. ie Scott, who ran the US Army through the 1940 & 1850s drew his ideas from French military texts of the 1700s and British practice of the early 1800s. The younger generation who replaced Scott were a little more knowledgeable about Napoleonic era tactics & operational ideas. It looks as if they were trying to do the combined arms thing at the corps & army level. I also recall that small groups operating independantly were still often 'combined arms'. Bedford Forrests raid force had some artillery, the remainder of his forces were usually mounted, but part tended to dismount for combat as if dragoons, so I guess they would count as infantry.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Legions   2/1/2006 11:56:49 AM
They proved to be unwieldy, especially when raised by nonprofessionals. And as the war went along, artillery was centralized, and cavalry was found to be better employed enmasse. Logistically it also made sense (a briagde QM and Ordnance officer dealing with 1 caliber of ammo, etc) And in CSA service, cavalrymen had to supply their own horses. They became impractical as part of the main armies. They still worked out ont eh periphery but not in the main armies.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics