Talk:III Corps (Union Army)

Untitled
Are III Corps, Army of the Ohio, and III Corps, Army of the Cumberland really separate formations, or one corps transferred between armies? They have the same commander and the dates dovetail. &mdash;wwoods 04:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they were the same soldiers, if that's what you mean. I suupose you could say there were actually three III Corps, but I don't know that the difference is important. Hal Jespersen 14:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To understand the difference between the two forms of an Army Corps you have to look at the original format laid down by the French Army under Napoleon. Making use of that system, each Army - both Union and Confederqate - used Corps the way we use Brigades. That is, as an Organic component of the Army. Under that system, it is certainly correct that there are multiple corps with the same designation within separate armies. The Army Corps we use today is nothing more than a Headquarters and an Artillery Brigade that coordinates the units that are placed underneath that headquarters. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 18:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently the Armies were the same formations, with a name change: "The army fought under the name Army of the Ohio until Major General William S. Rosecrans assumed command of the army and the Department of the Cumberland and changed the name of the combined entity to the Army of the Cumberland."
 * —wwoods 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)