A Dozen Inexpensive Ways to Improve Your Personal Impression (By Cal Kinzer)

[Millander]

A Civil War regiment of roughly 300 (average) men had 1

I dont mean to be rude but the way your writing your posts makes you seem like your trying to prove something.

[Millander]

Yes thats what I meant Dordak. 

. A reduction in men also meant a reduction in wagons devoted to the men. The wagons devoted exclusively  to the men in a regiment of five hundred  would be reduced from four wagons to two. A veteran regiment of two hundred fifty would be reduced to one wagon. That one wagon would be used for carrying food, and cooking utensils, medical supplies, and baggage for the regimental staff. This means that the Companies were left to fend for themselves, and carrying their gear

[Millander]

Thats a point I posted.

 The Armies of the Napoleonic Era were very different of the Armies of the Civil War.

Shame hooked got wrecked at Chancellorsville for it seems he did allot of good for the army on the administration side.

[Duuring]

If we are discussing rations:

Dutch soldiers were issued two loafs of bread, 2 packs of hardtacks (yes, the very same) and a pound of flour. This served as breakfast - (I think) dinner had to be bought yourself on campaign. I'm not 100% certain on what was given and what was to be (mandatory) purchased. Anyway, the soldier in question had to eat the two loafs in the first four days, then the hardtacks, and then the flour, to make pancakes or poultice. The soldier had to be able to eat about two weeks with this.

Sadly, as the flour was heaviest, they usually ate that first and after a few days the bread would have to be thrown away (it started to rot) - and when the hardtacks were eaten as well, they had to either purchase new food or be hungry.

They usually ate potatoes or soup for dinner, and as far as I know that was purchased personally.

[DeoVindice61]

They were lazy? huh?

Civil War Veterans are not lazy Duuring..... Have some respect. They had some gut to face volley in the face of enemies yet at same time, maintaining their line forward. Altough i'm not trying to be rude of make a big deal out of it but I just had to say that was straight out unnecessary to comment like that.

How would you like it if I went ahead saying the Dutch were straight out coward at Waterloo?  Altough I believe they weren't coward and they fought hard just as anyone. But Imagine a fellah coming from another period. Comparing two different era and insulting the Dutch at Waterloo.

That would be plain rude and ignorant. See what I mean Eh?

[Duuring]

They were lazy? huh?

Civil War Veterans are not lazy Duuring..... Have some respect. They had some gut to face volley in the face of enemies yet at same time, maintaining their line forward. Altough i'm not trying to be rude of make a big deal out of it but I just had to say that was straight out unnecessary to comment like that.

How would you like it if I went ahead saying the Dutch were straight out coward at Waterloo?  Altough I believe they weren't coward and they fought hard just as anyone. But Imagine a fellah coming from another period. Comparing two different era and insulting the Dutch at Waterloo.

That would be plain rude and ignorant. See what I mean Eh?

Right, I should have used the word 'self preservation' instead of laziness. Better?

[Millander]

If we are discussing rations:

but we arent

 Really duuring I mean no offence but the way your writing your posts really sounds like your trying to prove something.

[Duuring]

Well, more or less I am. I'm not, in any way, trying to prove Napoleonic soldiers were better people then the Americans in the ACW. They might be more disciplined soldiers, because they didn't drop their gear, but this has other explanation, such as punishment or having to pay for a replacement.
But as you can see by my point of the flour, when given liberty, Napoleonic soldiers did these kind of things too. Damn regulations and damn the heavy stuff.

I might be sounded a little confronting, that's just Dutchness.

[DeoVindice61]

Well, more or less I am. I'm not, in any way, trying to prove Napoleonic soldiers were better people then the Americans in the ACW. They might be more disciplined soldiers, because they didn't drop their gear, but this has other explanation, such as punishment or having to pay for a replacement.
But as you can see by my point of the flour, when given liberty, Napoleonic soldiers did these kind of things too. Damn regulations and damn the heavy stuff.

I might be sounded a little confronting, that's just Dutchness.

Pretty sure the American army was like that during the period, just not ACW. Where people actually gained some common sense.

[Duuring]

Once again, what might sound as common sense to us nowadays doesn't necessarily had to be common sense in those days.

It was common sense in those days to stand still while you are being shot at.

[Docm30]

It was common sense in those days to stand still while you are being shot at.

The hell it was. Common sense would have told them to run for the hills. It was desire to win the battle and fear of punishment that got men to stand still under fire. Couldn't have been common sense as that's not a very sensible thing to do.

They were lazy? huh?

Civil War Veterans are not lazy Duuring..... Have some respect. They had some gut to face volley in the face of enemies yet at same time, maintaining their line forward. Altough i'm not trying to be rude of make a big deal out of it but I just had to say that was straight out unnecessary to comment like that...

He's not wrong, though, is he? perhaps he could have said it more eloquently, but soldiers fighting in the US Civil War (and all wars) were above all else humans. Humans are lazy; they hate to carry heavy loads and they hate to walk long distances, and will always try their best to weasel out of doing it or try to make it easier to do. That's why kit was abandoned or destroyed.

Napoleonic soldiers carried an average load of 25-30 kilograms, so you can be sure they dispensed with as much of their gear as they could as soon as they could. By the end of the retreat to Corunna, for example, the British soldiers had almost none of their issued equipment left, save for their weapons and parts of their uniforms. Knapsacks and their unneeded contents were widely gotten rid of. I'm sure soldiers in the US Civil War did the same, but I just found it a bit hard to believe that they'd get rid of their kit at the beginning of a campaign under the watch of their superiors.

[König]

Just a thought, but if he's desperate enough to keep his pants clean/keep stuff out of his pants, or whatever, to stuff the ends in his socks, wouldn't it make sense to guess that he wished he hadn't thrown away his gaiters?

[Docm30]

It's not his pants he's trying to keep clean. It's his wooden leg, which he won in the war in nineteen forty four.

[König]

It's not his pants he's trying to keep clean. It's his wooden leg, which he won in the war in nineteen forty four.

Oh, of course, that makes perfect sense.

[munky-wunky]

that is what exactly i was saying STEAMLINE