"Although there was no combat on this day, the stage was set for the epic duel between Grant and Lee."

I took this quote from yesterday's "Looking Back To Today" folder.  How relative was the word "combat"?  Was it used in the way we use it today? Seems to me "fighting" was the word of the day back then. I know we have touched on this a little before, but really, isn't combat basically a 20th century term?

Hi Ken,

The word combat appears in the ORs about 610 times (providing I added correctly).  Two of the hits that I actually went to were very relevant (I didn't go to more than three or four of the hits),

"My boys are quite eager to meet the rebels in combat..."

"At 11:40 a.m. there had been fired eight volleys of musketry in quick successionon the right of General Hardee's line, which induced a general expectation that the combat was about to begin."

It sounds pretty similar to how we use the term today.  

The term I see less used today than it was 140+ years ago is regiment.  I know the term "unit" was used, but regiment or company seems to be used more often.  What have others found?

BTW, here's also a period song with the word combat used in it.

Here's a period song entitled Strike For the Right.
http://levysheetmusic.mse.jhu.edu/advancedsearch.html search for combat within "any tag" and the song will come up.

Quote :

Once more to the combat with rekindled zeal, Our flag to the breeze, and our hands to the steel! We strike for the right, and we ask no delay, We're ready and eager to rush to the fray.

Linda.  

--Last edited by Linda Trent on 2007-05-06 22:28:20 --

Quote :

Linda Trent wrote : Hi Ken, The term I see less used today than it was 140+ years ago is regiment.  I know the term "unit" was used, but regiment or company seems to be used more often.  What have others found? [/quote] Linda.

Linda,

The reason you don't see the word "regiment" much any more is because it's no longer part of the usual military organization.

Now days it's usually "squad, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, divison, corps, army".

There are still Regiments in the Army, but it's normally a ceremonial designation, just to keep the traditions alive.

Thanks Linda! I guess I was really wondering if the soldiers referred to action as "fighting" or "battle" instead of combat.  I can't recall a diary entry referring to "combat", but it isinteresting to learn that the term was relevant then.

Quote :

Bill wrote :  The reason you don't see the word "regiment" much any more is because it's no longer part of the usual military organization.

So you're saying that most reenactors say "unit" rather than regiment because regiment isn't in our usual modern military vocabulary?  Personally, I had a feeling that it had something to do with unit being the reenactor term used for his group, and it just gets difficult to break the habit, just like "guys" is a difficult term to eliminate without a conscious effort.

While I know that the term "unit" is period correct, it just rubs me the wrong way after hearing it for the umpteenth time at an event.  Mostly because during those umpteen times of hearing it, I never hear "regiment" used.

That's my pet peeve for the day.  

Oops, Ken, I haven't read enough letters or diaries of the military to know what terms they use. I know that fight and fighting were common, but whether or not, or how often, combat was used I don't know.

This is the definition as found in An American Dictionary of the English Language... By: Noah Webster, 1853.

Quote :

Combat, v.i. 1. To fight; to struggle or contend with an opposing force... 2.  To act in opposition. Combat, v.t. To fight with; to oppose by force... Combat, n. A fighting; a struggle to resist, overthrow or conquer; contest by force; engagement; battle; as, the combat of armies.

I hope this helps some!

Linda.  

--Last edited by Linda Trent on 2007-05-07 13:35:38 --

Again, thanks Linda.

You really have something there with your pet peeve.  I think I will discuss that with some of my Sixth Ohio friends.

Quote :

There are still Regiments in the Army, but it's normally a ceremonial designation, just to keep the traditions alive.

With the notable exception of the separate Armored Cavalry regiments.

Quote :

Linda Trent wrote : The term I see less used today than it was 140+ years ago is regiment.  I know the term "unit" was used, but regiment or company seems to be used more often.  What have others found?

Linda,

I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were asking why the word "regiment" isn't used as much today (real world) as it was used during the Civil War period.

Reenactors tend to talk about battalions rather than regiments, mainly because we can rarely get enough people together for a reasonably sized regiment.  

My guess is Civil War soldiers were no different that modern soldiers and would talk about their mess, their company, their regiment, their brigade, and their corps in that order.

Bill,

I meant that I hear the word "unit" used all the time.  "What unit are you with?" rather than "What company and regiment are you with?"  or any of the other numerous sized groups.

Quote :

Reenactors tend to talk about battalions rather than regiments, mainly because we can rarely get enough people together for a reasonably sized regiment.

True, but aren't we portraying soldiers who were part of the larger overall organization?  I just always figured that when I'm at a reenactment and I see a group of soldiers that the rest of the regiment is just on the other side of that hill.

Linda.

?I think Linda has hit on a very good "thought" here.  I brought this up informally at an event last weekend and it made for some small discussion.  The word "unit" can be used for so many different meanings, and one that I now think is more modernly used. Just my thoughts here.  

Oh how do we prove such things   .

Quote :

Ken Cornett wrote : ?I think Linda has hit on a very good "thought" here.  I brought this up informally at an event last weekend and it made for some small discussion.  The word "unit" can be used for so many different meanings, and one that I now think is more modernly used. Just my thoughts here.   Oh how do we prove such things   .

Letters home might be a way to see how they describe their company, regiment etc..
When discussing what they did or who they interacted with might tell us which was a more common phrase.

Quote :

Ken Cornett wrote : ?I think Linda has hit on a very good "thought" here.  I brought this up informally at an event last weekend and it made for some small discussion.  The word "unit" can be used for so many different meanings, and one that I now think is more modernly used. Just my thoughts here.   Oh how do we prove such things   .

Like Greg said, there are plenty of searchable databases of period writing.

If the question is, "What was the usual way Civil War soldiers spoke about their group?" it's easier because of course the most common ways will generally show up first, and just reading examples of soldiers talking about their fellow soldiers will indicate what words they usually used.

If the question is, "When and how was the word 'unit' used?" one can plug it into the search engines and see.

For example, here's just one site with some period diaries and letters on it. By using google advanced search, you can search for the word "regiment" with the search string: regiment site:http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/civil_war or "unit" with the search string unit site:http://www.rarebooks.nd.edu/digital/civil_war

The search for unit gives about a dozen hits, all from the modern introductions to the transcrïptions. The search for regiment gives dozens of hits, and after the first page, most are from the transcrïptions themselves.

Repeat the process for the ORs, at both Making of America sites, at Documenting the American South, the Valley of the Shadow, drill manual sites, and other collections of diaries and letters, and a pattern soon emerges. One could even look for a difference between official usage (in drill manuals and official battle reports) and colloquial usage (in diaries, letters and veterans reminiscenses).

For example, here's the first hit I got for "unit" in the ORS: "you may now consider the slave States a unit."

Another example from the ORs at random, from a battle report: "In their courage and earnest desire to clear the enemy from the hill by a double-quick charge, my officers and men were a unit."

Another at random from the ORs, is part of a complex descrïption of artillery commands and how sutlers should be apportioned among them: "The brigade of horse artillery in reserve is placed under the orders of the commander of reserve artillery when not serving with troops. The whole command constitutes what in other armies would be called the grand park of the artillery, to which the reserve artillery is usually attached. The horse artillery is relieved by brigades, so that each brigade constitutes a unit. The brigades of horse artillery in reserve sometimes furnish temporary re-enforcements of batteries to the brigades in the field or when ordered for other purposes; but as a rule the horse artillery serves and 33 detailed by brigades.
... My proposition, approved by you, as I understood, was to give to each unit of force 1 sutler,and but 1, viz: To each brigade attached to a corps, 1 sutler; to each brigade of horse artillery, 1 sutler; to the Sixth New York Foot Artillery..."

So even with those few examples, it's not hard to see a pattern emerge. The word "unit" seems to be used in its non-military sense of a group of united things, or in the latter example, as a generic word when the author is groping for something that includes brigades, batteries, etc. If one is curious to see how often his interesting phrase "unit of force," was used, one can then plug it into the search engines and explore it further (only twice more in the ORs, so not very common).

Those kind of things aren't really any harder to research than material culture or tactics.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Silas Casey adds to this in his first paragraph in Title 1, Article 1:

"In the formations of Infantry, a Brigade of the line will constitute the unit, and in every line of battle composed of more than one of these brigades, they will be posted from right to left, in the order of their numbers."

The italics are his.  I tend to agree with Ken that the reenactor use of the word "unit," much like a previous generation used the term "outfit," is modern. Just for fun, I looked up the Cold War maintenance hierarchy to refresh my memory if there was something between an operator's daily PMCS and organizational maintenance, but that was a false trail.