What did US Civil War soldiers call 1,. ‘base’/HQ’ and if they had such a thing 2. ‘a general military hospital’ far behind the battlefield for more long-term convalescence? I wasn’t able to find any such terminology online.
“Base camp” may not apply to Civil War era military.
It refers to the main camp of the army, that they send units out to make attacks on the enemy, then to come back to base camp. From the history I’ve read, that doesn’t seem to be used much in military thinking at that time.
Instead the whole army packed up camp and marched to a battle location. After the battle, the losing side retreated, and the winning side often pursued them. *
So there may not have been much of a ‘base camp’ in those soldiers terminology.
- I’ve seen criticisms of Grant, saying that he failed to pursue Lee’s army after some battles. Though Grant may have felt his army was too badly hurt to risk a pursuit at that time.
Do you mean where they ‘mustered’ to train and get ready to march out to the front?
Perhaps this gives some insight
At the risk of assuming what others do to apply to the USA, many military units of this era will have a regimental headquarters, which services a more or less defined recruitment area. Successive replenishments of troops - from individuals to entire companies or battalions - would be assembled, equipped and trained there before being sent off to the campaign front. This would ideally be a permanent military base, maybe even a fortification in its own right.
Is this what you mean by a base / hq or do you mean something closer to the battlefront?
ISTM, it’s for a different type of warfare, such as in Vietnam or Afganistan.
Thanks Banksiaman. I was thinking along the lines of a base camp/base/HQ that would typically be several miles from the front/battlefield as opposed to a ‘mobile camp’ (if I can call it that) as Tim_T-Bonham.net
Mobile camps had some degree of variability. The encampment of a large unit was generally called a camp, but a fast-moving detachment would have a bivouac, a temporary open-air camp without pitched or emplaced camp equipment (like tents).
Thanks gnoitall.
The US Civil War isn’t entirely my area of expertise, so if anyone knows better than I do please feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that regiments would generally not receive replenishment but would steadily grow weaker until they were disbanded or consolidated, and there was no “regimental system” in the US of the kind used by Great Britain and other European nations until the US adopted a modified system similar to that after WWII. States would just raise new regiments successively numbered with no real relationship to the prior regiments other than having been raised by the same state.
A quick google search seems to bear this out. Infantry in the American Civil War - Organization:
The eventual fate of many regiments was to continue losing soldiers until they were deemed combat ineffective and either consolidated or disbanded.[6] Both armies made attempts to replenish regiments back to their full strength, but the process was haphazard and infrequent; nor was it helped by governors who preferred to meet their quotas by creating new regiments as a form of patronage. On the whole though, the Confederates put more effort into funneling replacements into existing regiments.
ETA: Quite a while after WWII, the U.S. Army Regimental System was created in 1981.
Thanks, that’s very interesting (and a good thing I began with the caveat).
I saw a list of infantry regiments from New York, and just assumed that they were built up in the same way as recruitment operated in Europe and the UK, drawing on their core geographic areas to supply the fighting portion of the regiment.
It helps to explain the perhaps high ethnic identity of fighting units, e.g. Irish, as they are drawing as much from social communities than defined areas.