Comments on: Those Pesky (and Just Plain Wrong?) Roman Numerals

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:10:42 +0000

Well, let’s put it this way – can you think of any comtemporary use of Roman numerals? I can’t.

By: Craig Swain

Craig Swain — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:44:18 +0000

Sorry, didn’t catch the response earlier.

Not so sure I would concur. Instinct tells me the “OR” convention and the others we encounter today (even, hum, Coddington) are functions of stylistic license taken long after the Civil War.

The stance I take on this is, like with other historical details – simple prevalence of something is not enough to call it beyond-doubt-fact. Military organizations being what they are, preponderance of evidence might well be overthrown by regulatory policy! Until a document is produced that states it was US Army policy to use a particular format for the designation of Corps during the Civil War, none of us have the final word.

By: Corey Meyer

Corey Meyer — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:50 +0000

I am not sure, but the first clock in the article is a nice example of the Victorian “4″…”IIII” not “IV”…sorry that that does not help with your question on Corps, but that’s all I’ve got right now.

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:46:17 +0000

I have no reason to doubt you. To avoid confusion, however, you are drawing a distinction between the use of a numeral (2nd) versus a word (Second). I have seen contemporary uses of the number (for instance, I own a circular headed “Head Quarters 2d Div 3d Corps, Camp near Falmouth, Jany 18, 1863″), and the compilers of the OR used the word in their headings. But I’ve never seen any contemporary references to corps using Roman numerals. Do you concur?

By: Craig Swain

Craig Swain — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:15:53 +0000

I still contend that the Arabic is Span-Am. War vintage, in terms of official use, because the veterans were all upset. The old GAR members didn’t want the “War Child” to be in line to command the Fifth Corps, so the War Dept. renamed it the 5th Corps. Nor was Fitz Lee allowed to command the Seventh Corps, which they renamed as the 7th Corps.

By: Joel Manuel

Joel Manuel — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:46:40 +0000

Yes, except perhaps on maps.

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:44:29 +0000

So, Joel, are you suggesting that use of the Arabic numeral has more impact, and sets the writing apart from the crowd? Add to that the fact that it’s more correct, and it sounds like a winning formula!

By: Joel Manuel

Joel Manuel — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:21:50 +0000

I don’t know when the “Roman” corps designations started, but they’re so prevalent in current CW literature that I’m kind of taken aback when I see it written “1st” or “2nd” etc.

Joel M.
Baton Rouge LA

By: Ken Noe

Ken Noe — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:55:28 +0000

Amen on “a history.” And don’t get me started in people who say ‘umble.’

By: Craig Swain

Craig Swain — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:31:05 +0000

Arguably any designation can be offered as accurate. Monuments and memorials use “spelled out” as well as Arabic numbers. But I would suspect that has more to do with pricing of the inscription than regulations. I recall at least one Roman numeral at a monument at Vicksburg, but could be wrong.

During the Spanish-American war, Union Veterans weighed in on the matter. After all you can’t have one of those Southern militia regiments serving in some famous Union Corps, can you?

I know that the “modern” Corps trace honors (or are only supposed to trace honors) back to WWI. For example the lineage and honors for HHC, I Corps: http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/army/001cp.htm

I’m not a WWI guy, so I don’t know the primary sources to back this up. But I’ve been told that the Roman numerals were adopted to conform with European standards. Those designations continued through WW II and into the modern time frame.