Confederate Cavalry Armaments

[GeraldTodd]

Reading Noseworthy's Bloody Crucible of Courage a point I've also come across in my other reading regards the usual armaments of the Confederate cavalry.

It is maintained by these historians, (Longacre, Noseworthy, & others), that majority of the Confederate cavalry was sabreless (including the associated drill and training in the use of the sabre), but the Federal cavalry tended to rely on the sabre, drilled in the use of the sabre, and had with much success with it - considering their opponants often had none. Often cited are CS officers lamenting their cavalry's lack of sabres putting them at a disadvantage and asking to get some.

Like the infantry's bayonet charge, the sabre charge often did not come to contact as either the defender seeing the the resolve of the oncoming foe would not wait around to receive it, or the attacker would loose that resolve under fire or some other circumstances. In the case of cavalry, charges were often met with counter charges, and Federal cavalry was even ordered to "never stand and receive a charge, but to meet it with a charge."

When the opponents actually did close to contact, it was a great crash and very soon, one side, the other, or both would feel they were getting the short end and would retire. The descriptions often describe these actions as sudden swirling storms that dissipate as quickly as they take place.

If these historians are to be believed, not only is the "sabre dance" utterly and completely wrong, but the majority of CS reenacting cavalry is incorrectly armed as their armament should be mostly long shotguns, rifles/muskets, and revolvers. Breechloading carbines were in short supply, with field units relying more on captured stock than the Southern government's ability to produce and supply such weapons in useful quantities.

Federal cavalry SOP was to use the carbine on foot, and the sabre in the saddle, often in combination - the fore-runners of mechanized warfare.

The Confederate cavalry appears to have used the long arm on foot, and the pistol in the saddle - rush in, shoot the hell out of everything, and if the enemy was still hanging around, get out of there quick. Sounds like the tactics used after the war by the likes of the James gang and such.

Obviously this is preaching to the choir and there's little reason to hope that the run-of-the-mill reenacting cavalry will forego their sabre-dance fun in favor of proper armaments and tactics, but the subject was interesting, and who knows, maybe the savings of not having to buy a carbine and sabre will entice a few to the "dark side." :eek:

[Tom Craig]

Jerry,

I certainly agree with the point behind your statement: the "dance" is wrong, and that Confederate cavalry should be armed as they were historically not just as the manual states.

The problem I have is that I think we mess with historical interpretation when we remove sabre combat entirely. Combat with edged weapons was relatively rare in comparison to other time periods, but in the cavalry it did still occour in both large and small unit actions. References to brief dashes and charges by patrols are common.

I think those of us in the "dark side" of the hobby tend to steer as far as we can from mainstream stuff so almost all of our impressions look like mounted infantry and leave out any representation of mounted action that occured. The "dance" is wrong, but is there some way that we can include this very common part of cavalry service without making it a farce?

Great discussion,
Tom Craig

[JDR]

i feel like gerald, preaching to the choir. the saber should be treated as any other piece of equipment, if they had'em, we need to have'em. if they didnt then we don't.

as far as a saber fight goes, i dont think there's anyway we can do that and not trample on safety, and authenticity. i'm willing to bet there's less than one percent of the cavalrymen in the entire hobby that could conduct a safe, authentic looking saber fight. even with those folks that are at that skill level both with the saber and as a horseman, there would still be injuries. i dont own a saber, and have never been to an event where a saber was part of the event guide lines. should i attend an event where a saber is a must have piece of equipment, i'll surely purchase one. i won't engage with my saber because i'm not in that less than one percent that are at the level i just mentioned.

as far as pistols go, i believe they were as scarce if not more so than sabers. the mounted pistol charge falls into the same category as saber fighting.

confederate cavalry is definitely the fore-father of the mechanized infantry. ride to the battle, not INto the battle. dismount in a covered and concealed area, and move a line of heavily armed soldiers into close quarter combat with the enemy. i beleive forrest said, and i'm paraprasing, "your big fat horses are merely transportation to the battle". can anyone clarify that?

"use speed, terrain, tactics, and firepower to close with the enemy and destroy him, or force him into surrender"-FM 7-7J, the mechanized infantry squad and platoon


good luck,
Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[KyCavMajor]

excuse me if I get this wrong as I am traveling and don't have access to my library,but this is how I remember these two fine Cavalry officers expressing their disdain for the saber...

I saw no use for it beyond roasting meat over the fire- Mosby
My men have none and desire none - Forrest

The CO A,1st KY CS, were issued sabers of the Enfield Pattern according to the Russelville KY DEmocrat Oct 1861. ED Porter Thompson in the Orphan Brigade book he authored says they were soon discarded, I mean "lost sarge"... :tounge_sm

Personaly any excuse to ditch the darn thing......

[RelicRoomGuy]

"My first order to the men is to have all the sabres sharpened, so we are preparing for work." -Wade Hampton III, May '63, in letter to sister Mary Fisher.

"There was nothing Hampton's Men liked so well in a fight as a chance to use their sabers." -Captain James Moore, 2nd SC Cavalry

Charles Calhoun of the 6th SC Cavalry, in "Liberty Dethroned", relates an incident in '65 when Wheeler's cavalry met Butler's in Columbia. One of Wheeler's troopers asked Calhoun what the "metal thing hanging from his saddle" was; Calhoun, just as scornfully, told him he should have retained his own sabre as the Carolinians had, for Hampton still used them. About 80 percent of Hampton's cavalry had sabres at that time, by the ordnance report - far more than had revolvers. (Calhoun didn't know that Wheeler had concentrated his sabres in particular units due to shortages...Wheeler's own manual featured standard sabre training and he put his guys through it when he could.)

Captain Rawlings Lowndes, one of Butler's officers, under flag of truce with Kilpatrick after Monroe's Crossroads, challenged the Yanks to a sabre contest - one thousand under Hampton to face fifteen hundred under Kilpatrick, "all to be armed with the sabre alone....That will settle the question which are the best men." (This bit of bravado was of course declined.)

Mounted sabre contests continued in the South Carolina militia all the way to the Spanish American War...

To offer an opinion which may quickly be shot down: it seems to me that, by the Later War period, Hampton at least preferred to get his men to sabre range when possible because the advantage of the repeating Spencer was not as significant in melee. Two other factors may have been that much of the South Carolina cavalry came from well-drilled prewar mounted militia units already accustomed to sabre skills - and that Hampton, unlike Mosby, was a really big, strong guy. Mosby began "packing heat" before the war after being beaten up, as I recall; he wasn't going to start relying on an edged weapon too heavy for him - and he had continuous access to captured revolvers behind Federal lines. The regular cavalry were less at liberty to discard an existing weapon system like the sabre when it wasn't nearly as convenient to replace it with the "multiple revolver" option.

[RelicRoomGuy]

"We had drilled some two months as dismounted troopers and had become quite good with the saber....How proud we were of our well-mounted men armed with carbines (breech-loading) and pistols with sabers." C.Y. Ford, Company G, 2D Missouri Regiment, Forrest's Cavalry - Confederate Veteran, 1922, p.290, "Fighting with Sabers".

He describes in some detail two 1862 saber fights in that article.

Was that Plain, Everyday, Common in the West? Some of you Westerners can comment on that much better than I can. It does seem that armament references to particular cavalry UNITS are much more valuable than generalizations East or West, perhaps especially among Confederates.

By the way, two months of dismounted saber drill would have been pretty excruciating...!

[GeraldTodd]

Much of the Federal cavalry that took the field in the Spring of 62 got sabres and pistols and no more. Some got a few carbines, some didn't even get the pistols. The sabre was considered the principle arm of the cavalry right into the end of the war - and right up to WWII. As a result, the men drilled with sabres. When that's all you've got, you make do.

On the other side, sabres were scarce. Some got them early on, some took a while longer, some never got them at all, and some didn't want them once they had them. It not being practicle to consider an arm you couldn't supply as your primary weapon, Confederate cavalry became, in essense, mounted infantry.

If the foe is bearing down on you despite your fire - do you stand and wait to be cut down? If the CS cavalry was caught mounted in the open, they were at a definate disadvantage unless some of the force was armed with sabres.

Aldie, Middleburg, Upperville are all examples of Confederate cavalry defending on the ground using walls and hedges and US cavalry charging in and either getting stopped, or running off the defenders - but seldom actually closing to contact and then only in the briefest fights. When the CS cavalry charged it was generally designed to break in or out of a situation.

I don't think a lack of sabre fights in reenacting could be considered a loss. There's plenty for cavalry to do, if done right, to keep us fully occupied and challenged. Our charge past the pickets, and back out again, at McDowell last year didn't involve a single tink of a sword, yet it was plenty exhilarating and quite typical of Federal cavalry. Who says history can't be a rush?

[ButtermilkRanger]

I'm going to side with Gerald on this one. I don't dispute that individual units did indeed have sabers. In his memoirs with Parson's 12th Texas Cavalry, one of the Orr brothers mentions very specifically that they were armed with sabers and shotguns sometime prior to the Battle of Mansfield in '64. He goes into detail about the length of time it took his men to learn to use the blade. If memory serves me correctly, they had nothing but the shotgun before '63. He even writes home telling his father that he's sending home his pistol. I assume that pistols were in relatively short supply in that unit and acquiring ammunition was too difficult to worry about. The shotgun was more practical.

Now, having said that, I still believe the over abundance of sabers in mainstream Confederate cavalry is a slap in the face to authenticity. I believe we are perpetuating a lie when we do the cha-cha in the dance of the saber fairies. Why? Well, first of all, look at the numbers. Exactly how many mounted men are at the average event? How much sense does it make for ten guys to charge ten other guys with sabers? Exactly what are we teaching the public about mounted conflict, anyway? That a handful of guys rode out into the middle of a field, walked their horses around in circles doing high fives and laughing while carrying on a conversation with the enemy? That's how most saber fights go.

Cavalry had a function. It needed to be hostile, agile and mobile. We serve the public better to portray an authentic representation of what the mounted arm did: fighting on foot with the Infantry if the numbers aren't there, fighting on foot as a force to be reckoned with if the numbers are there, screening the movements of the army, scouting, patroling, guarding the flanks and weak spots, vidette duty, etc. The real cavalry (even the ones with sabers) had so much more to do than dance with their silver wands. Accurately portrayed, we have the same ammount of work to do. Who has time to worry about sabers anyway?

Like Darryl said, if the unit portrayed had sabers, then have a saber. If they didn't, then leave the thing at home.

I think the saber question is too trivial to worry about. What we need to do first is clean up the misconception that every cavalryman had four pistols and six extra cylinders. Then we can worry about the saber question.

Larry Morgan
Buttermilk Rangers LHC

[RelicRoomGuy]

I think the saber question is too trivial to worry about. What we need to do first is clean up the misconception that every cavalryman had four pistols and six extra cylinders. Then we can worry about the saber question.

Larry Morgan
Buttermilk Rangers LHC[/QUOTE]


Actually I think the question's a related one! The fact that massive repeating firepower in the form of multiple revolvers was NOT available, contributed significantly to the retention of the sabre; after all, you don't deliberately carry a knife (even a very long curved one) to a gunfight. But if the "gunfight" will be over after a few shots from your Colt Navy - or fewer from your shotgun or carbine - then the knife fight's on, particulary if you're trying to keep the initiative you gained with your (likely costly) assault.

The true brutal violence of a sabre charge is likely impossible to safely and believably simulate - but that's really a separate issue. The horses should be damaging the enemy, too, but I'm not personally volunteering to take a hoof or two for the cause! Anyway I'm surely prejudiced since I spend a lot of time with records related to a noted sabreur - but my impression is that it's unsafe to generalize about Confederate cavalry sabre use - perhaps a bit safer to generalize about ANV versus AOT troops. And I definitely see evidence for a strong South Carolina attachment to the sabre.

But I haven't read Noseworthy - looks like I need to!

[CJSchumacher]

Good discussion. Here is some more food for thought.

I think its a little broad brushed to say Federals had sabers and Confederates didn't. During the Maryland campaign in 1862, several companies of the 2nd VA cavalry had sabers, the rest being armed with pistols and long arms. I think "saber companies" is a good way to think about CS cav during the civil war...at least in the East. Unfortunatey, Longacre tends to make very broad generalizations in his writing.

Other than those already mentioned, there are many numerous accounts of men under Stuart's command using sabers. June 9, 1863...nearly 21,000 horsemen clashed at Brandy. What did they use?? Only carbines and pistols?? I don't think so.

Wiley C. Howard, formerly Lieutenant Commanding Co. C, Cobb Legion Cavalry under Hampton had this to say about the fighting at Brandy: We "mixed” with them…and soon their splendid line was all broken and each man of us was fencing and fighting for the time his individual foe.

Interestingly enough, he also said the following regarding an earlier action in 1862: At Dispatch Station we quickly attacked a body of the enemy, Major DeLoney leading, charging them and dispersing them. Our casualties were, Lieut. Early, wounded in the arm, and Bugler Fred Walters, scalp wound with saber, both of Company C, while private Sam Bailey, of the same company, was the first to draw blood with saber from an invader.

On July 2, 1863, Cobb’s Legion was near Gettysburg in Hunterstown, MD. Major DeLoney was unhorsed and assisted by his bugler. Bugler H. E. Jackson of Company C, Cobb Legion, who was coming up from the rear, spurred his horse to the fray and to DeLoney's aid, fencing with these darring assailants… Jackson's bugle, coat and shirt were cut through with saber blows and his sword, which I brought home for him from the surrender at Greensboro, N. C., has four or five distinct gashes along its edge made there by these valiant foes in that desperate rencounter.

Here’s something a little off-topic I found really cool. This has to do with Wiley Howard later being wounded and procuring a “yankee” horse. mounted my new Yankee horse with Simmons' aid. In spite of his entreaties to remain with him, as I was unfit to go to the front, on the fighting line, I rode rapidly towards the front, hoping in some way to find my lost horse and English tree-saddle and saddle bags, containing a new suit of jeans lately received from home.

Tobie talks of several confederates hacking away on a federal at Middleburg. That "wall" in Aldie where the 1st MA cav was obliterated was held specifically by sharpshooters who had dismounted. Those men were detailed to perform a specific duty, hence why they were there, but I don't think that should be the description of the general CS command. Here is a nice sketch by Edwin Forbes of Federal cavalry charging at Upperville in 1863. This isn’t the aforementioned action on the Snickersville Turnpike at Aldie.

http://civilwarcavalry.com/upperville_charge300.jpg

Regarding recreation of said charges...well, the fighting part...NO. It cannot be done. Can hand to hand combat be done with bayonets...no, it just looks bad. This said, I do think that riding in a larger formation and learning the skill it takes to conduct a proper charge is a valuable thing. Try having over 300 horses close on each other...now that's a rush and very specific to Brandy Station, which is why it is appropriate there. Its just the "fighting" part that is terrible.

I think that everyone should participate in a "mainstream" cav charge at least once to get a sense of what it is like. Its another part of being a cavalryman that you just have to experience to know what its like. Forget about the saber...your horse becomes your first and primary weapon!

Hopefully, this is of some interest.

[RJSamp]

Super stuff Chris, liked the quotes about Buglers and sabers!

You said: " Forget about the saber...your horse becomes your first and primary weapon! "

Chris, No.

The horse is a transportation device, a tactical suprise enabler (speed, mobility, rough terrain passage, flanking positions), and allows you to get out of Dodge fast if need be.

Weapon? No.

Primary Weapon? No.

Heavy Logistical Tail? Absolutely. On campaign there aren't enough grazing hours in the day to keep them from breaking down.

Covers about the same amount of ground per day on average as infantry? YES (how's that for a surprise answer, but that's what you get when you load 'em up and don't rest them properly).

Some tend to forget that the Tank is not the weapon, it's the protected gun systems on board.

Very few ACW soldiers were wounded or killed by deliberate manuevering of horses....and probably just as many friendly 'fire' or collateral damage (wounded horse, runaway caisson) casualties from horses than deliberately targetting an enemy soldier and using the horse as a weapon.

We cite surgeon's wound reports to show how few American Civil War soldiers are wounded or Killed by swords, bayonets, even less for knives and pistols. Kicking Horse hooves, biting teeth, equine versus man collision?

Time to get out the 20 sided dice and consult the attack hits table for an edged weapon versus no-armor class 1...sounds like Dungeons and Dragons fantasy war-gaming to me.

:wink_smil

RJ Samp

[Tom Craig]

Gents,

I think Chris may have struck upon an idea that makes sense. Can we safely portray a sabre engagement and do it justice, likely not. Can we practice the sabre charge sure. And to go back to how Jerry started this question, we can and I think should recreate some of the "dashes" and quick assaults of cavalry service without having to come to contact.

Small unit action is what we portray in cavalry. Small unit action by its very nature must be fast and fleeting. By evidence of countless period accounts there were a variety of times where "charges" were made but they often didn't make contact. For those that saw it, our action at McDowell with the picket post was an example of such a charge.

My point is that there is a trend in our side of things to shy away from portraying any sort of mounted combat action for fear of ending up in the sabre fairy swoiree. Yes cavalry was essentially mounted infantry for much of the war, but especially in the East we do a disservice to the history if we never portray any mounted engagement.

As a related side note, Henry Lee Higginson of the 1st Mass. cavalry was gravely wounded in the start of the fight at Aldie in '63. He had two or three sabre gashes and a pistol shot to his credit courtesy of the Rebs!

Take care,
Tom Craig

[CJSchumacher]

RJ,

The horse is a weapon as much as an attacking formation was generally meant to puncture and scatter its opposition. Another force would be sent to try and exploit. It takes horses to do this.

Tom,

I completely agree. The vast majority of "charges" I've read about, either side, seem to be smaller groups either hitting up outposts, raiding supplies, capturing prisoners, etc. Small unit tactics seem to be the most prevalent cavalry "battle" actions, followed by fewer amounts of dismounted fighting by larger forces, and even less amounts of mounted forces clashing in hand to hand combat.

Chris

[markj]

Greetings,

Take these for whatever they're worth:

(Entry for the Eighth Tennessee Cavalry by Colonel C. G. Dibrell from "Military Annals of Tennessee," published 1886, p. 652):

"[In the fall of 1862 when the 8th Tennessee Cavalry] reached Murfreesboro the regiment was only partly armed with shot-guns, rifles, and such arms as the soldiers could gather in the country, and at Murfreesboro drew four hundred flint-lock muskets and six hundred sabers, with a small quantity of ammunition--buckshot and ball-- and this was the only issue of arms ever made to this regiment by the Confederate Government."

(Same entry, p. 660, extract from Chickamauga AAR by Colonel C. G. Dibrell, 25 Sep 63):

"[After the battle the captured Federal] arms were gathered in wagons. The command armed itself completely with the Springfield and Enfield muskets."

(Entry for Fifteenth Tennessee Cavalry by Thomas H. Logwood from "Military Annals of Tennessee," p. 724):

"[At the battle of Belmont, Mo.,] there was only a narrow wagon-way through the felled timber by which we could reach the Federal cavalry. Col. Miller and myself formed our commands into a column of twos, and charged with pistol and saber, not using our carbines. We drove the Federal cavalry from the field, and we saw them no more...."

(Entry for Ninth Battalion, Tennessee Cavalry, "Military Annals....," p. 750)

"On one occasion [in 1863] the [Ninth] battalion surprised and captured the Fourteenth New York Metropolitan Cavalry, with all their arms, equipments, etc."

(Entry for "Forrest's Escort," "Military Annals....," p. 770):

"[At] Estenaula, Tenn., on Dec. 23, 1863,...Lieut. N. Boone, with forty men, routed two Federal regiments...[He] gave orders for his [men] to draw swords and charge, which was repeated by the entire command...[and the enemy left] Boone in possession of their entire camps...."

(Entry for the Twelfth "Faulkner's" Kentucky Cavalry," "Military Annals....," p. 776):

"[On March 24th, 1864]...Col. Duckworth...succeeded in capturing the entire Federal force of about four hundred and seventy-five men, with their arms, ammunition, horses, and all their equipments including the camp and garrison equipage."

There are also various references to "double-barrel shotguns," "pistols," "Colt's revolvers," as well as other mentions of "trading up" by capturing weapons from individual, and groups of, Federals. Obviously some units were better armed (with sabers or otherwise) than others....

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[GeraldTodd]

RJ, ever hear of Lipizzan horses? Dressage? What those horses are known for, while very pretty to watch, amounts to horse karate. Horses were trained to jump and kick as part of the fighting team of horse and rider.

The gun without the tank is a field piece and all the benefits of the combination are lost. The whole thing is a weapons system, like horse and rider.

Besides, having a 1,000 pound weapon between your legs can't help but be impressive. :)

[JDR]

cavalry's mission is fundementaly reconnasance, and to provide security. cavalry is used as an economy of force. allowing a commander the chance to fully utilize his combat power. a textbook deployment and employment of cavalry is buford's action at gettysburg. the cavalry when used properly defines when, where, and how the battle will be fought. thats the reason cavalry commanders of the era were so prized. they had to make on the spot decisions that affected the welfare of an entire army. buford screened, reconed, and defended until relieved. mostly cavalry is a defensive arm, tactically speaking. however, did a cavalry commander take a bunch of heartbreakers and lifetakers, utilize some personal initiative and attack, yes. by the time of the civil war the mounted cavalry charge had become obselete. only in situations of greater advantage, or desperation were they executed.

i dont think the aforementioned accounts make mounted cavalry charges the norm. i was under the impression we are trying to portray the common aspects of the civil war, not the exotica. if we're portraying brandy's station, sure a mounted cavalry charge would be the order of the day. but the typical event doesnt portray brandy's station. it portrays cavalry performing it's day-to-day mission. the day-to-day mission of the cavalry isn't saber and pistol charges, its to screen, recon, and defend.

lipazzaners were used in an age when firepower wasn't so great. ride a lipazzaner into a regiment of veteran infantry and see how long the horse karate lasts. an M-1 tank, even without its weapons sytem is still 60 tons of steel moving at 65 mph, that nothing on the battlefield can defeat, i'd say that constitutes a weapon in anybodies nightmare. but hey boys, let's not confuse armored units with cavalry units...two different animals (no pun intended). a 120mm gun depressed to 0 mils, and firing bee-hive rounds is still a weapon too. dressage is merely a training excercise used to teach troopers to ride.

a horse isnt a weapon, its a target. it's flesh has the same tolerance to bullets as ours. might be a little harder to kill, but it can be killed.

i think pistol and saber charges rate right up there with leapord skin pants. they don't exibit the norm. i don't think there's anyway that every documented cavalry charge that can possibly be found can account for everyday of the four years that the confederate cavalry, of any theater, spent in the field.

again, i dont have a problem with toten' a pistol or saber, if it's an impression requirement. i don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that they are representative of the arms that the average confederate cavalry soldier carried

good luck in whatever path you choose,
Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[GeraldTodd]

"the mounted cavalry charge had become obselete"

I don't agree, and niether does the record.

The massive cavalry charge as it was used in the Napoleonic Wars may have been obselete but it wasn't gone, it simply adapted. The trick for us is to separate the charge from the sabre fight in our minds, the same with the bayonet charge and the bayonet fight. The one doesn't mandate the other.

Charges were common place and often successful (bayonet and sabre), the fights, on the other hand, were rare in comparison. The weapon, be it the sabre, bayonet, or the horse itself has value not so much in it's actual ability to do damage, but it's psychological effect. A search of the ORs for "charged" will turn up a plethora of phrases like "We charged them and they scattered" and not just for cavalry.

The are so many accounts in the ORs of quick, spur-of-the-moment charges, often because two forces just happened upon each other and one of them "went for it;" or as a means of getting through to get at or away from something; or to simply run off a few guys that are being a pain in the butt. Again, if you want to see common place you have to look between the big battles and not just at them. The recon mission requires that you maintain momentum and initiative. Stopping for a firefight works in the enemy's favor and the longer you're there, the lower your odds of sucessfully completing that mission.

In the Eastern Federal cavalry, the sabre was considered the primary weapon of the mounted trooper. Officers reminded the men of this constantly right up to the end of the war. I think this may have grown out of the first year these regiments were in service with few, if any, carbines - they had to learn to be proficient with the sabre. Later, the carbine gave them a base of fire to augment the charge, and a defensive strength they didn't have before. Cavalry could actually take and hold ground which it couldn't even consider armed with only sabres. While it didn't have the numbers and resources to hold it indefinately - it could extract a high price from anyone wanting to argue the point.


It's true we do need to be careful of using the broad brush and making blanket statements - obviously Confederate cavalry had sabres, and carbines. But not as widespread as reenactors tend to portray (again, I'm preaching to the choir here). On that same note, most Federal cavalry before 1863 wouldn't have carbines!

[RelicRoomGuy]

In these discussions I always end up recommending "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill In War and Society" by Col. Grossman, available at your local public library.

Grossman contends and uses LOTS of historical examples (including 1860's) that "cold steel" close combat is rarely consumnated - "it is not the sharpness of the bayonet, but the gleam in the attackers' eye, that breaks the enemy line", as Patton said. In raw material calculus, the infantry has the advantage - but the sight of the blades and the awareness of the sheer mass and velocity of the animals goes beyond that...

At this point in history the mounted charge, like a lot of military tactics, is both effective AND prohibitively dangerous - like a haymaker punch, shattering if it's perfectly timed (or better yet launched by total surprise) but exposing the attacker to terrible punishment otherwise. But it's in the trained cavalryman's MIND as a primary tactic; it's the whole image of cavalry to the untrained recruit or the classically-trained (Napoleonic minded) cavalryman. Around here boys of what would be the cavalry-providing social classes, grew up on "Ivanhoe", on Revolutionary War stories of Wade Hampton I and "Light Horse Harry", and on fiction like "Charles O'Malley and the Irish Dragoons" (a book that inspired bitter joking among SC soldiers who'd been riding and fighting awhile) .

So...obsolete? Yes and no. It might have been Voltaire who said, "a 'rational' army WOULD run away"; the sabre charge made a lot less sense than it had a couple of weapon generations earlier - but it was effective just often enough to still be an option, and it was strongly ingrained in military tradition.

[JDR]

the cw went on for appoximately 1,460 days. in three major theaters of operation. subtract the cavalry charges, successful or not, from that number and see what we have. then subtract the charges you mentioned that aren't cavalry charges and see what we have then. as i say, the cavalry charge made for a small percentage of a confederate cavalrymans life in the army. of course under the right conditions, or out of shear desperation, a mounted charge woulda been the order to give. under more rational conditions, i think it would've been re-thought. lets exclude the times when twenty cavalrymen rushed ten scared, surprised, and disorganized infantrymen, i dont think that constitutes a cavalry charge.

the rifled musket had an affective range of 300-400 yards, within reason. that mounted cavalry unit would've been taking alotta fire before they reached the unit they were charging. the pistol, mounted at what ever pace had a range of MAYBE 20 yards. the saber had a range of what, three feet? maybe Gerald could get 4, he's a big man. the psycological value of the mounted charge would've been wasted on a veteran infantry unit. when you consider the shorter range of these two weapons, the diminished accuracy rate because of the unstable firing platform, and the more stable, and stationary firing platform the infantry would've had, and the infantry's greater range and accuracy. i think it's safe to say that the mounted cavalry charge during the civil war was obsolete. if it were such an affective weapon, i think they would've used it more than they did.

just because cavalry charges took place doesn't mean that it was a good idea. just because a cavalry charge was successful doesn't mean it was a good idea. had pickett's charge been successful it would've been considered the greatest move of the war, but it still woulda been a bad idea.

Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[CJSchumacher]

lets exclude the times when twenty cavalrymen rushed ten scared, surprised, and disorganized infantrymen, i dont think that constitutes a cavalry charge.

Darrly,

I think this type of "combat" action is what most of us are specifically referring to as some of the most common a cavalrymen may have found himself involved with...be it opposing infantry, other cavalry, etc.

I, too, believe that reconaissance was the most common "duty" performed by cavalry. I think the above mentioned action often happened intentionally and even unintentionally while performing this duty.

[Tom Craig]

To add on to what Chris said, we are recreating small unit actions. I have yet to see more than 20 authentically armed and equipped cavalry in any one place. So essentially we want to recreate the 10-20 man dashes or charges.

Take care,
Tom Craig

[JDR]

Chrsi,

the period accounts you posted didn't refer to this type of combat action. a unit that is on a reconnasance mission, avoids enemy contact, they don't invite it. if contact is unavoidable they break contact as soon as possible.

cavalry is a supporting arm. the cavalry, artillery, engineers, medical corps, logistics units exist to support the infantry's mission. the cavalry isn't the killing arm of an army. the infantry delivers the killing blow to the enemy. in the spirit of tactical doctrine cavalry wouldn't attack the enemy's main body in an attempt to cause a breech, or open a hole for the infantry to exploit. did it happen? sure it did. under extreme conditions. should we re-create those actions? to a point sure. should we portray the cavalry as a force that took the offensive in sight of the enemy? no. we should portray the cavalry performing its intended mission in non-specific scenarios...screen, recon, block, fain, secure, support.

any cavalry leader of the period with 10-20 troopers in his charge would think twice about conducting a mounted attack against 5-10 infantry soldiers. espeacially if they were known to be veteran infantrymen. they could seek a covered position and put some hurt on the 20 troopers. would you take 25% plus casualties killing or capturing 5 guys? if a leautinant in my company came back and had lost half his men over 5 guys wouldnt be a leautinant anymore. there were far more dismounted cavalry attacks than mounted cavalry attacks. i believe the record reflects that.

cavalry attacking cavalry mounted, at an event, should be avoided at all costs. wanna dismount and fight each other on foot? i'll be the first one to hit the ground. these guys weren't stupid, they saw the disadvantage of sitting 5 feet off the ground, on an 800 pound animal that had a mind of it's own. the highly unstable firing platform and greatly diminished marksmanship would be enough for me to dismount my men...never mind the getting shot part.

if we are reenacting brandy's station, yeah lets get boot-to-boot and surge forward and hit the enemy in the mouth with some steel. if we're portraying a garden variety cavalry operation, the sabers need to stay sheathed, pistols holstered,, link straps and lead ropes ready. if we portray a unit that didn't have sabers then we leave'em at the house. if we portray a unit that did, we bring the aggrevating damn things. same-same with pistols, and carbines, and muskets.

ces't tou finis, cha

Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[CJSchumacher]

the period accounts you posted didn't refer to this type of combat action.

Darrly,

Actually, that type of action was very much in the majority when it came to discussing confederate and union cavalry combat. While looking for quotes earlier, I kept looking for specific saber usage quotes, which I found. What I didn't post were the majority of instances where they said things like: "we charged the picket post, capturing 4 horses, 3 sets of horse equipments, three prisoners." Also, quotes like: "Private Smith and myself rode right into their camp and weren't known because we were wearing yankee overcoats. We captured two horses, three rifles, three tents, and six prisoners." I even read one where an officer stated his men nobally charged, dismounted...now that would have been a sight! Now that I think of it...that's exactly what happened at Trevillion Station.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm always the first one to hit the ground as well and for a long time I believed solely in that based on reading and I dare say the same "aversion" to mainstream reenacting, ie. anti-saber dance, as our infantry and artillery bretheren. I somewhat ignored the abundance of mounted references to smaller unit actions...at the squadron level and lower.

This past weekend at Five Forks, John Sweeney, John Nolan, The Elder and myself continued this discussion. We all agreed that in the ANV at least, sabers were definitely present and as I stated in my first post...often distributed to certain companies. Same goes for revolvers, longarms...etc. I think it was pretty apparent that cavalry fought dismounted a lot of the time. However, and all agreed on this...there was always a mounted reserve usually with either pistols, sabers, or both.

John Nolan summed it up pretty well when he said...cavalry's mission was in fact many times offensive. Cavalry was used and had the ability to take ground. You can take ground mounted...however, you can't hold it. Its at this point where you need to dismount troopers to dig in.

You mentioned something about not attacking infantry. I agree that this could be a bad move, but it did happen. Actually, Five Forks was a perfect example of a mounted cavalry charge against infantry. Custer rolled up Pickett's right flank and sent his division running...forcing Lee to abandon the line at Petersburg and utimately, Richmond.

I think our difference in thought probably stems more from eastern cav vs. western cav. I don't know a whole lot about western cav...I would defer to you on this.

Chris

[LWhite64]

Just to add a little to this discussion, in the Army of Tennessee by 1863 the Cav arm had developed Sabre Regiments, in every Brigade it seems that one unit was armed for close combat with all of the sabres and most of the pistols going to them, for instance in Tom Harrison's Brigade the Sabre or I should say close combat outfit in their case was the 8th Texas (Terry's Texas Rangers)(Note: They didnt have sabres put pistols), then in John T. Morgan's Brigade the Sabre Regiment was the 8th Confederate. The concept was that the rest of the brigade would deploy on foot and the Sabre Regiment would be held in reserve until an opportue moment, then they would charge.

Lee

[Linneus Ahearn]

This discussion has stayed very civil and is enjoyable to read, especially the sabre discussion. There are so many misconceptions on use of the sabre that much of the information given out at events, and even here, takes on the concept of being reenactorisms. Add to that the visual of the sabre charge as done at most mainstream events and you have even a more misconstrued idea that those of us who wish for a more correct portrayal shy away from and I think it colors our thinking.

Did Confederate cavalry do sabre charges against enemy cavalry and sometimes infantry, YES, (especially in the east). Did it happen for the whole war? YES. Can we portray these sabre charges? NO, unless we practice the use of the sabre and also practice with opposing forces. Will this happen? Probably not unless it's important to you to portray this right and that the unit you portray did have them.

If you want to do a realistic sabre action you might try what we are starting to do here in the NW. FIRST, know the sabre drill, and know how to handle your sabre safely. This practice is something you can do initially by yourself without others involved. Then practice on horseback all the moves of the exercises. Now you come to the safety aspect... the only somewhat safe and easily defended attack and defense moves you can make on horseback is to the ear and to the top of the head. Practice these moves with someone you will be meeting from the other side (prior to the event).
#1 Right Cut (defense will be In tierce - Parry)
#2 Front Cut (defense will be For the head - Parry)

The attacker calls the number he will be using. The defender knows what he will have to defend against. The horses meet, the attacker uses two or three cuts either circling round the defender who also circles or moving to the rear rank. They break moving back through the intervals of the enemy and reform on their old ground or whereever the commander designates. In sabre work, do not use muscle force to contact, only use the balance of the weapon. Defender MUST meet the offensive attack with a FLAT blade and not the sharp edge. No laughing!

Do the above to represent sabre action if you can. We have done it here and it works very well in individual action while others use pistols. It's NOT however, a common occurrance in every battle.

If you read of Trevilian Station you will note every concievable use of cavalry action against enemy cavalry troops in late war eastern theater action there possibly could be. Glory Enough for All by Eric Wittenberg is a good read with much documentation.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Just to add a little to this discussion, in the Army of Tennessee by 1863 the Cav arm had developed Sabre Regiments, in every Brigade it seems that one unit was armed for close combat with all of the sabres and most of the pistols going to them, for instance in Tom Harrison's Brigade the Sabre or I should say close combat outfit in their case was the 8th Texas (Terry's Texas Rangers)(Note: They didnt have sabres put pistols), then in John T. Morgan's Brigade the Sabre Regiment was the 8th Confederate. The concept was that the rest of the brigade would deploy on foot and the Sabre Regiment would be held in reserve until an opportue moment, then they would charge.

Lee

This was done similarly by the Michigan brigade in the east as well, with the 1st and 7th Michigans as the sabre regiments and the 5th and 6th Michigans as the rifle regiments. This is per Kidds Recollections of a Cavalryman in the Civil War.

[JDR]

Chrsi,

I never said that confederate forces didn't have sabers. Sure they did, pistols too. I don't believe it was to the extent that it would have put those two weapons in a primary position over the long arm, except in extreme circumstances. The mounted cavalry charge DID take place, but if we examine the tactical situation in which these charges were conducted we'll see that they had no other choice. If the charges were successful, it was pure luck. Think about it from this angle, if the mounted cavalry charge was so effective, then why did an infantry division charge at gettysburg, and not a cavalry division? i guess maybe there was more infantry on hand than cavalry... i know someone is going to say that so i'll beat'em to the punch. the fact still remains, and it is a fact, that the cavalry exists to support the infantry mission. the support arms are the legs of the tiger, the infantry is the head and the teeth. the legs catch and hold the prey, the head and the teeth kill it. why didnt buford surge forth and further develope the fight at gettysburg than what he did? yes he went on the offensive at first, but he didn't remain in an offensive posture long before he was on the defensive, to hold until he was relieved, and took heavy casualties doing it. the cavalry is the eyes and ears of the army. why would a commander want to risk wasteing that asset in a fool-hardy charge, that has a great chance of failure? he'd be wasting his screening and recon elements. again gettysburg show's us how important these elements are. if lee had had better intelligence of the whats and the wheres of the federal army, he may have been able to better plan his battle, or even not engage at all. doctrinely speaking cavalry isnt an offensive weapon. did/does the cavalry have to take offensive action? yes it does, but only to an extent, it can't hold the momentum it needs to develope a situation and to destroy the enemy in close quarter combat. it doesn't have the fire power and it doesnt have the command and control.

let's change gears for a moment. in referance to lin's post, what training would the confederate cavalryman have had in the use of the saber and/or the pistol? marksmanship training was rare at best, and the longarm was the primary weapon. if marksmanship training with the longarm was rare, then marksmanship training with the pistol was probably non-existent. the effectiveness of a trooper firing on a moving horse would have been very little. at a gallop how long would it take mounted soldiers to cover four-hundred yards, forty seconds? that's two full vollies from a defending infantry unit, maybe three. that's alotta steel hitting those cavalrymen as they gallop towards the enemy. when the defending infantry see's that they aren't being affected by the cavalry's fire, then the psycological aspect of the mounted attack is lost, and lost for good. not to mention, what exactly is the attacking cavalry going to do when they reach the enemy? kinda like a dog chasing a car...what's he gonna do when he catches it? i'll say this a second time, every period account that can possibly be found anywhere can not account for the time the average cavalryman, south or north spent in service during the civil war. if we dress up like the enemy and sneak in to their camp to make a raid, then we are portrying the exotic. however, i dare say that a covert mission would be more in tune to what cavalry was intended for, more than a mounted charge against enemy infantry.

there's exceptions to everything. i'd never say that the mounted attack didn't take place. even the most elementary student of the civil war know's this isn't true. i just dont believe that the mounted attack represents the norm. short of recreating a specific event, we should avoid the mounted saber/pistol charge at all cost. it cannot be portrayed accurately, and it's not representative of the day-to-day service of the civil war cavalryman, of any army, nor any theater.


Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[wavey1us]

The question of use or lack of use of the saber has really stirred the pot. A lot of good discussion backed by documentation. I went to my stack of books at home and came across "A Treatise on the Tactical use of the Three Arms: Infantry, Artillery, and Cavalry by Francis Lippitt." Basically this was an attempt of an action-after report of the Civil War. In his words: " The success of cavalry in battle depends on the impetuosity of its charge, and its use of the sabere. When deployed as skirmishers, mounted or dismounted, its proper weapon is the carbine or pistol; and in individual combats, these weapons may occasionally be useful. But when acting as cavalry proper, in any comapct formation, it must rely on the sabre. " Now, I wondering what the justification would be to "bring a knife to a gun fight", but Lippitt offers his rationalization of this mindset. "The aim with a pistol or carbine in the hands of a mounted man is so unsteady, that the fire of a line of cavalry is generally ineffective; and there are few occasion where it should be resorted to."
I am not siding with the above thoughts, but I thought it would add a little more color to the conversation.

[RelicRoomGuy]

in referance to lin's post, what training would the confederate cavalryman have had in the use of the saber and/or the pistol? marksmanship training was rare at best, and the longarm was the primary weapon. if marksmanship training with the longarm was rare, then marksmanship training with the pistol was probably non-existent. the effectiveness of a trooper firing on a moving horse would have been very little. at a gallop how long would it take mounted soldiers to cover four-hundred yards, forty seconds? that's two full vollies from a defending infantry unit, maybe three. that's alotta steel hitting those cavalrymen as they gallop towards the enemy. when the defending infantry see's that they aren't being affected by the cavalry's fire, then the psycological aspect of the mounted attack is lost, and lost for good.

A couple of points:

I'd be very interested in knowing about accounts of pistol marksmanship training...I suspect it WAS non-existent. With the sabre - even Western troopers were generally put through Wheeler's manual - and Wheeler's manual, actually WRITTEN during the war, does not slight the sabre at all. Now, the training didn't necessarily take, but it was administered.

I think I mentioned in an earlier post - here in South Carolina there was quite a bit of sabre training in the prewar militia; a former West Point sword instructor named M'Auley retired in Columbia and kept his manual in print for the "citizen cavalry of South Carolina" for decades - (thirties through fifties). The sabre was the "signature weapon" of the cavalry (after all, the cavalry device is not "crossed carbines" or "crossed shotguns") and, not insignificantly for the commander, training in the sabre does not use up precious ammunition - I would humble submit the Confederate cavalryman (depending on theater of war and year of enlistment) was likely to have more formal training with the sabre than with any of his other weapons!

(Doesn't necessarily translate to how likely the training was to really be employed - how many hours did I spend at Fort Benning doing bayonet training...? And what was the likelihood of EVER using it?)

On cavalry versus infantry: ever since the Swiss pikemen centuries earlier, disciplined, well-led infantry in the proper formation were more-or-less cavalry-proof. The trick is to charge them when they're not prepared to receive cavalry. During the Napoleonic Wars, if your infantry were set up to repel cavalry, they were sitting ducks for artillery; if they chose a formation less vulnerable to artillery, then the cavalry were more effective. So you wanted to show your enemy a cavalry THREAT, then hit 'em with arty - or vice versa. A "rock, paper, scissors" game. More accurate small arms changed the game, but the training was based on the older situation.
Of course, as the cav trooper, these decisions are way over your head: yours "not to reason why", as some other nineteenth-century troopers famously demonstrated.

(What do you do when you "get there"? Well, mostly you split heads with a curved blade twice as heavy as most swords of the Middle Ages! "Cossack and Russian reeled from the saber-stroke, shattered and sundered/ Then they rode back. But not - Not the Six Hundred.")

[RelicRoomGuy]

[I]" Now, I wondering what the justification would be to "bring a knife to a gun fight", but Lippitt offers his rationalization of this mindset. "The aim with a pistol or carbine in the hands of a mounted man is so unsteady, that the fire of a line of cavalry is generally ineffective; and there are few occasion where it should be resorted to."

And, of course, advantages gained with expensive charges have to be retained. Once you have the momentum, do you stop to reload your cap-and-ball revolver (if you've even got one)? Do you try to reload your carbine? Or do you cut down one of your remaining enemies while HE's reloading?

Too, the military establishment does not lightly discard precedent (witness all of the battleships built AFTER Billy Mitchell's airpower demontration). If Frederick the Great said the sabre was the prime weapon of cavalry in the flintlock era - would mere field experience be allowed to upset this paradigm in a later era? (In the field, usually; in the manuals...not nearly as quickly.) All the way through the Plains wars U.S. Cavalry wore the awkward butt-forward right-side holster - because doctrine said the sabre on the left hip was the PRIMARY weapon. I believe even T. Roosevelt, who chose not to even train his Rough Riders with the sabre, was equipped with these holsters in 1898!

[ButtermilkRanger]

I've been trying to follow this thread, but it does get confusing. I wonder, when the smoke actually does clear, how much of our speculation is an East vs. West thing? I've been trying to research the mounted arm for more years than I care to admit anymore and I keep coming up with a couple of solid conclusions: There are no absolutes, and there WAS a difference in how the war was fought east of the Appalachians vs. how it was fought west of them, and even on how it was fought west of the Mississippi.

Even though we're comparing cavalry within one country, could it be we're actually comparing apples to oranges? I wonder if the real question should be whether there really was a such thing as WESTERN Confederate cavalry? The more I read, the more I'm convinced that our cav here in the west functioned more as mobile infantry and had little in common with cavalry in the common sense of the term... minus the less glorified duties of cavalry of course... we always did that.

Then again, there are no absolutes, so what do I know?

Larry Morgan
Buttermilk Rangers LHC

[RelicRoomGuy]

Yes - lots of "East and West" here. And we're discussing some things that were in dispute at the time as well - so there are even fewer absolutes than usual...! Cavalry in the West had a different flavor than in the East, and cavalry in "doctrine" were different than cavalry in practice, too. And recon was primary and combat secondary - except when it wasn't.

When it's so hard to make generalizations, though - how do you derive PEC?! PEC seems to me to be unit and campaign-specific, maybe much more so than in other branches because of cavalry's drastically different interpretations and changing roles.



I've been trying to follow this thread, but it does get confusing. I wonder, when the smoke actually does clear, how much of our speculation is an East vs. West thing? I've been trying to research the mounted arm for more years than I care to admit anymore and I keep coming up with a couple of solid conclusions: There are no absolutes, and there WAS a difference in how the war was fought east of the Appalachians vs. how it was fought west of them, and even on how it was fought west of the Mississippi.

Even though we're comparing cavalry within one country, could it be we're actually comparing apples to oranges? I wonder if the real question should be whether there really was a such thing as WESTERN Confederate cavalry? The more I read, the more I'm convinced that our cav here in the west functioned more as mobile infantry and had little in common with cavalry in the common sense of the term... minus the less glorified duties of cavalry of course... we always did that.

Then again, there are no absolutes, so what do I know?

Larry Morgan
Buttermilk Rangers LHC

[JDR]

Joe,

what makes a formations more or less vunerable to artillery fire, aside from a covered and/or concealed position? how long does it take for a given size element to switch formations? how long does it take for artillery to shift it's fire so as not to commit fratracide? I don't think we can compare napolean's army to any given army of the civil war, south or north, west or east. the weapons of the civil war had TWICE the effective range of those used by napolean's army. the firepower of the mounted attack DIDN'T increase as did that of the infantry. this meant that the attacking mounted formation took fire twice as long as it did fifty years before.

the branch of arm insignia for the infantry during the civil war was a
horn. the insignia of a branch of arms does not a primary weapon make. i'm sorry if i bust anyone's chops with this, but, it sounds like we shouldn't even have muskets, rifles or carbines. the longarm far out-numbered the pistol or the saber. how can a saber be a primary weapon to a trooper if he doesnt even have one? how can a unit w/out pistols, w/out sabers make a saber or pistol charge? in regiments that were fromed into saber and rifle companies, what was supposed to happen, send two or three companies against a regiment, or a brigade? mean while the rifle companies are thinking how glad they are that they don't have a saber. the mounted attack was used only in the extreme, period. there's no documentation to support otherwise.

in fact, and in practice, the saber was not the primary weapon of the confederate cavalryman. saber charges do not represent the norm for day-to-day operations of the confederate cavalry, regardless of theater. the troopers that didn't have sabers, were they trained with the saber too? doubtful. the troopers that were issued sabers in the field, late in the war, were they trained with the saber? probably not, when would there have been time. we read so many period accounts of units being in operation twenty hours a day.

i received bayonet training in r-mee too. that accounted for about 10 hours of my basic combat training. however i fired thousands of rounds through my M-16A2, and tens of thousands of round through a bradley fighting vehicle main gun, and coax machine gun. the M-18 was in the bussle rack...somewhere.

the confederate cavalry operated as dismounted infantry, that was it's offensive role. aside from that it provided rear and flank security. the rear security being important because the enemy would have been back there trying to reak havoc in the rear areas. friendly cavalry woulds been trying to do the same thing. they secured lines of supply, created and secured lines of communication. they performed route recon, screened the movement of the main body, and scouted enemy lines. they made raids upon enemy supply lines, and a raid shouldn't be confused with an attack...two different tacticals missions, with two different objectives. part of the mission that civil war cavalry performed is the same mission that MP's perform in the modern army, primarily the mission of rear security.

even with modern cavalry, with it's large volumes of firepower, it isnt' an offensive weapon. it performs the same tasks, and sub-tasks as the cavalry during the civil war. the modern mechanized infatry does NOT, i say again NOT attack mounted, those tall ass BFV's are taxi, and fire support only. the most dangerous weapon on the battelfield is the dis-mounted soldier and his rifle. that's been true for two hundred years.

ok, that's enuff for today, i'm going to mansfield, be back sunday night. everyone behave while i'm gone.

Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[GeraldTodd]

"I don't think we can compare napolean's army to any given army of the civil war, south or north, west or east. the weapons of the civil war had TWICE the effective range of those used by napolean's army. the firepower of the mounted attack DIDN'T increase as did that of the infantry. this meant that the attacking mounted formation took fire twice as long as it did fifty years before."

Yet, the casualty rate was not that much higher in the CW than the NW it just took 40 or 50 fewer rounds to get a hit and fire combat took place, on average, within 200 yards.

While the accurate range of the musket increased with the advent of the rifled musket - so did the skill required to implement that range. There was not a corresponding effort to give the infantryman that skill. By the time of the war, the French had removed rear sights on rifled muskets and focused on the bayonet! This from those that started the rifled musket craze!

BTW: The "Napoleonic Tactics" oft referred to during the CW were those of Napoleon III and not his famous ancestor. Tactics that were considered cutting edge and emulated here in the 1860s.

The rifled musket has a lower muzzle velocity, ie: the ball drops sooner. It takes a fairly accurate range determination to drop the ball where the enemy is present. That's old news except to those of the "superior weapons, antiquated tactics" crowd. The same gang that keeps parrotting that "it takes 3 years to make a cavalryman" nonsense. Yet soldiers were not trained in that skill, and even those that had such skills had not used it standing shoulder-to-shoulder, under fire, with all the smoke and mahem of battle all around.

If you look at the fighting in the Civil War OVERALL you'll find combat casualty rates are much much lower than commonly believed. That's because "common belief" focuses on the big battles and the unusual events where there were many casualties in a short time. Cases where the fighting was relatively close in, tightly packed, and involved a lot of folks.

The Federal cavalry, despites it's lacking carbines, higher leadership, and proper organization, performed admirable feats and stood toe-to-toe with it's Southern opponants when on equal ground right from the start, long before their "3 years" was up - and it obviously had little to do with repeaters. Carbines and repeating carbines did not replace the sabre in the Federal cavalry - it enhanced it. It gave a base of fire from which slashing cuts could be made. By 1864 the cavalry had developed to the fullest it would ever be until the advent of the gasoline engine.

The "out-moded" sabre was issued and training in it's use given right through to WWII. The sabre was even redesigned and improved after the war with emphasis on the point, a straight blade, saddle carriage, and a guard and grip designed for wielding in the outstretched arm.

Cavalry obviously had it's weaknesses - almost always in leadership that tended to use it badly and waste it. But to this very day, equine transport has it's place and it's utility in war and police use.

You cannot understand cavalry in the Civil War without looking at where it came from AND where it went afterwards. The mindset during the war was formed from experience before, and the lessons learned and implemented after the war shed light on how they were learned.

There's plenty of works out there on the tactics, performance, and statistics of the war - some of them pretty darn good - worth their price for the bibliographies alone!


Interestingly enough, the thread began as a question not so much of how we operate, but what we carry in that portrayal. I think we portray both sides too well armed, especially in pre-1863 scenarios.

[RelicRoomGuy]

Daryl - enjoying the discussion. I may have overstated myself, though! Seems I gave a wrong impression -

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDR
Joe,

what makes a formations more or less vunerable to artillery fire, aside from a covered and/or concealed position? how long does it take for a given size element to switch formations? how long does it take for artillery to shift it's fire so as not to commit fratracide? I don't think we can compare napolean's army to any given army of the civil war, south or north, west or east. the weapons of the civil war had TWICE the effective range of those used by napolean's army. the firepower of the mounted attack DIDN'T increase as did that of the infantry. this meant that the attacking mounted formation took fire twice as long as it did fifty years before.

A formation like the British square, proof against cavalry, REALLY packs the men together so that a cannonball cuts a more horrible path of destruction than usual. More dispersed formations - less vulnerability.

You are correct, of course, that these Napoleonic concepts don't work anymore in the 1860's! The problem is, they were ingrained and were still used - more in the East, where traditions were stronger. Napoleonic infantry drill was getting the footsoldiers slaughtered, too.

Firepower for cavalry HAD increased, btw, though range hadn't. The Texas Rangers who cut up the Commanches so bad with their Colts proved that. I'm not contending, though, that the charge against infantry was a superior tactic - the factors you cite were very relevant and experienced leaders learned to take them into account.

the branch of arm insignia for the infantry during the civil war was a
horn. the insignia of a branch of arms does not a primary weapon make.

Touche!

i'm sorry if i bust anyone's chops with this, but, it sounds like we shouldn't even have muskets, rifles or carbines. the longarm far out-numbered the pistol or the saber.

This is where I must have overstated my case. In PRACTICE, especially after seeing the elephant - the longarm of course is the REAL primary weapon. But in doctrine the sabre still was. And it could be psychologically important, too.

how can a saber be a primary weapon to a trooper if he doesnt even have one? how can a unit w/out pistols, w/out sabers make a saber or pistol charge? in regiments that were fromed into saber and rifle companies, what was supposed to happen, send two or three companies against a regiment, or a brigade? mean while the rifle companies are thinking how glad they are that they don't have a saber. the mounted attack was used only in the extreme, period. there's no documentation to support otherwise.

Monroe's Crossroads, 1865. Cavalry are going to attack Kilpatrick's camp just before reveille. According to one account Wheeler approaches Hampton and says, "Shall I have the men dismount to make the capture more certain?" Hampton says, "As a cavalryman I prefer to make this capture on horseback." A trooper nearby notes that Hampton draws his sword before ordering the charge -

Would Wheeler's tactics have been preferable? Maybe - but the point is, the mounted attack was used because it had certain advantages which, to the commander on the field that day, outweighed the disadvantages. Wheeler has "charging regiments" and rifle regiments and Terry's 8th with many captured Spencers - very few sabres in his command. Butler's guys (the rest of Hampton's command" are sabre-heavy.
in fact, and in practice, the saber was not the primary weapon of the confederate cavalryman. saber charges do not represent the norm for day-to-day operations of the confederate cavalry, regardless of theater. the troopers that didn't have sabers, were they trained with the saber too? doubtful. the troopers that were issued sabers in the field, late in the war, were they trained with the saber? probably not, when would there have been time. we read so many period accounts of units being in operation twenty hours a day.

Absolutely - if they were never issued one, they were never trained with one - and look at Wheeler's guys: they had all those captured Spencers and STILL no sabres - so they didn't keep captured sabres - they didn't want them, looks like. The Westerners who'd been with him since the early war had been trained in them earlier - by now they were gone. Late war issue? If I was issued a weapon like that and not trained with it, I'd "lose" it, I think -

South Carolinian cavalry normally (that would be, MUCH more often than not) carried sabres - many more than had revolvers.

i received bayonet training in r-mee too. that accounted for about 10 hours of my basic combat training. however i fired thousands of rounds through my M-16A2, and tens of thousands of round through a bradley fighting vehicle main gun, and coax machine gun. the M-18 was in the bussle rack...somewhere.

Good point.

the confederate cavalry operated as dismounted infantry, that was it's offensive role. aside from that it provided rear and flank security. the rear security being important because the enemy would have been back there trying to reak havoc in the rear areas. friendly cavalry woulds been trying to do the same thing. they secured lines of supply, created and secured lines of communication. they performed route recon, screened the movement of the main body, and scouted enemy lines. they made raids upon enemy supply lines, and a raid shouldn't be confused with an attack...two different tacticals missions, with two different objectives. part of the mission that civil war cavalry performed is the same mission that MP's perform in the modern army, primarily the mission of rear security.

But this mission was EVOLVING; you describe what cavalry was truly best at, and what experienced, wise commanders employed it for under normal conditions. There were inexperienced commanders, foolish commanders, extreme conditions, and a whole mythology of the Napoleonic rider - not to mention lots of merry songs and poems about gallant cavaliers

even with modern cavalry, with it's large volumes of firepower, it isnt' an offensive weapon. it performs the same tasks, and sub-tasks as the cavalry during the civil war. the modern mechanized infatry does NOT, i say again NOT attack mounted, those tall ass BFV's are taxi, and fire support only. the most dangerous weapon on the battelfield is the dis-mounted soldier and his rifle. that's been true for two hundred years.

But don't forget that other deadly force, the junior officer - and his ideas!

ok, that's enuff for today, i'm going to mansfield, be back sunday night. everyone behave while i'm gone.

Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[RelicRoomGuy]

Gerald - great comments - I'm learning here...Napoleon III?! Really?

BTW George Patton's sabre manual is available online - forget where but there's always "Google." Someone's probably doing their 1860's training with it -

An irony: the story is that as a child Patton literally sat at the feet of Mosby (retired in DC) and soaked up his cavalry tales - but famously anti-sabre Mosby somehow didn't communicate that to his protoge, who was the one who did the final US Army redesign!

Can you recommend good sources on those casualty rate comparisons and on the range-of-first volley reference? Seems I may need to un-misinform myself somewhat!

[AZReenactor]

While Terry's Rangers ought not be regarded as typical, since they've been mentioned a few times I thought I'd share a couple of the regiment's members own comments regarding sabers.

Terry's Texas Rangers (http://www.terrystexasrangers.org/histories/southern_bivouac/v1n3.html)
By Pvt. A. P. Harcourt, Company F 8th Texas Cavalry
The Southern Bivouac, Nov, 1882

Whatever differences of opinion may exist among military men as to which is the stronger arm of the service, cavalry or infantry, Terry's Rangers, opposed by an isolated regiment, never were repulsed, but in a fair match on one hundred fields perhaps made their adversaries bite the dust. But the rangers carried no clanging saber--that weapon of the centuries past, fit only to frighten women and hack unarmed footmen with--but bore arms they were accustomed to, rode lithe like Commanches, complete masters of the horse, and shot quick as sportsmen sure on the trigger. In brief, Terry's Rangers, known in reports of battles and on the muster-rolls as the "Eighth Texas Cavalry," constituted, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the only body of genuine cavalry in the Confederate service. They were horsemen to the saddle born. Hundreds of citizens of Nashville can recall the pleasant days of September, '61, when the rangers lay in camp at the Fair Grounds and the fashionables of the city rode out in throngs to witness these gay troopers in trappings quaint, ride at full tilt and pick up from the ground a handkerchief or glove and fifty cent pieces as fast as placed before them.

Reminiscences of the Terry Rangers (http://www.terrystexasrangers.org/histories/southwestern_historical_quarterly/index.html)
Pvt. (later served as an officer) J. K. P. Blackburn Company F 8th Texas Cavalry
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
Vol. 22, 1918, p38-77

We marched up the street in front of Colonel Ready's house, lined up prisoners, horses and spoils and guards across the street while Captain Morgan went in the house and invited his sweetheart and the balance of the family at home to come out on the veranda and see the fruit of his exploit. Flewellen and I were then relieved with thanks and we returned to our company, leaving the prisoners and spoils in the hands of Morgan and his three men he still had with him. Next day one of Morgan's men hunted me up and told me Captain Morgan wanted to see me at his office, so I went with him to the office. The captain greeted me most cordially and said he wanted to thank me over again for the valuable service I had rendered during the scout the day or two before. I told him I did the best I could with the matter I had in hand and did not deserve any special thanks more than others with me. But he seemed to look at the matter differently and said he wished to give me something to be kept as a souvenir of that hazardous venture. He then told me to select a sabre, the best of the captured lot he had and take it with me as a keepsake of the occasion. I did so and took the newest and brightest in the lot and went back to my company with it, and while we served in the same army I don't think now I ever saw him again.

Morgan was captain then, but soon his efficiency as a cavalry officer and raider was conceded on all sides and his promotion was rapid. He made many raids into the enemy's lines, even going one time into Ohio. Men flocked to his standard from Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and other sections. He became Brigadier and later Major-General, I think. He married Miss Ready; was finally killed in Greenville, East Tennessee, in one of his raids in that section. , S. B. It is her While I prized my sabre as a souvenir, I soon found it was an inconvenience to carry with my other equipments. I had a double barrelled shotgun, two six shooters, my blanket, oil cloth, clothing, haversack, etc., to carry and I could at once see that while it might prove a nice keepsake I had no other use for it. Later on I had a chance to leave it with a relative in middle Tennessee to be kept for me until the war was over or until I should call for it, and in this way it passed the war period; after the close of hostilities I went to see my kinsman (who had died in the meantime) and recovered my sabre from his family who had taken good care of it. It now hangs in the hall of my daughter's home in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 563 Union Ave.keepsake now, to be disposed of by her as she may desire.

And in another place.

Colonel Harrison by this time had so long escaped personal injury from shot and shell, his men dubbed him "Old Iron Sides," because as they said he was sheathed with iron and no bullet could penetrate his body. On the second day of this battle, Billy Sayers, his Adjutant, sat on his horse beside him under a heavy fire. Colonel Harrison leaned over to Sayers and whispered, "I am wounded, but don't say anything about it on account of the men." Billy wanted him off the field, but he refused to go. It proved to be a flesh wound in the hip, not very serious, and he stayed with and commanded the regiment throughout the battle. On another occasion the Colonel, while standing in front of his line ready to make or receive a charge as it might happen, was looking through his field glass at a body of cavalry some distance off. Suddenly he exclaimed, "Now boys, we will have some fun. There is a regiment out there preparing to charge us, armed with sabres. Let them come up nearly close enough to strike and then feed them on buckshot." So they came up with great noise and pretense, hoping to demoralize and scatter their opponents and then have a race in which they could use their sabres effectively. But as the Texans stood their ground the Yankees ran up to within a few steps and halted suddenly, giving our boys the chance they were wishing for. One volley from the shotguns into their ranks scattered these sabre men into useless fragments of a force. Many of them surrendered and our boys quizzed them with merciless questions. "Why did you stop?" "Are your sabres long ranged weapons?" "How far can you kill a man with those things?" After a conflict lasting two days with varying success and defeat for both armies, the Southern army withdrew to the south, leaving the other army with fresh reinforcements encamped not far from the last lines of battle the evening before.

In fairness, a search of my archives did reveal some references to where sabers were used to good effect by other units and by Hampton, in particular, during the Carolinas campaign.

One other incidental item worth mentioning regarding Terry's Rangers is that thier widespread use of Spencers near the end of the war is generally overstated. There were many captured but the lack of available ammunition seems to have severly limmited their use within the regiment.

[LWhite64]

Joe,
In regards to Napoleon III, there is a great new book that delves into that a bit, THE BLOODY CRUCIBLE OF COURAGE: FIGHTING METHODS AND COMBAT EXPERIENCE OF THE CIVIL WAR by Brent Nosworthy. It is a very interesting book.

Lee

[Charles Heath]

It's probably difficult to do a really good job painting a window sash with an asphalt driveway sealer brush. Not that we don't try to do this in a figurative sense. Part of the "talking past each other" in this thread has to do more with how events are viewed, rather than the historic role of cavalry at specific engagements, as well as the simple soldiering time between engagements. Most of the comments here are either very generalized or point-in-time specific, so what is the right answer? Maybe there is no right multi-purpose answer that covers everything well all the time.

The good news is people to go to specific events, and the conversation here is not unlike that of the infantry from years past. If the deep digging research is accomplished for specific unit portrayals at events, then the focus is a little tighter. This assumes the research uncovers some useful factual and documentation that can be implemented in support of a specific event. Many times the information is not there or it is too vague to be of much use. In Swank's published 3rd Virginia Cavalry diary, there's one entry for issuing "Richmond carbines," another for "Sharps carbines," and one for "procuring ordnance stores." On the surface, two of the three seem somewhat specific, but are those Richmond first, second, or third pattern carbines, or carbines simply made in Richmond? And then, what kind of Sharps or Sharps copies?

Chris said, “ I think its a little broad brushed to say Federals had sabers and Confederates didn't.”

This hits the bullseye. By looking at event specific portrayals, or at least representations of a specific unit sub-unit, a few things may pop out of the woodwork in terms of what they were issued, what they had on hand (actually using), and how they operated for the 3-4 day window before, during, and after a specific event. For most of the fellows who have done infantry over the years, this is pretty much a fixed procedure. It's SOP these days, and we may find the tables turned where the CS cavalry elements were better off than the US troops, as in the case where the yet-to-be-horsed New York regiment guarding the C&O Canal in Maryland had clubs and a few scattered Hall carbines. Handle a Hall carbine a couple of times, and one may decide it doesn't inspire a heck of a lot of confidence. Probably won't see a large number of Halls in the ranks, as we probably won't see a substantial number of Henry Rifles in the CS ranks on the way back from some future Beefsteak Raid, or dismounted federal cavalry at the Crater (thank's RJ), but there's the reality - bizarre as it may seem.

That handy pre-event research is what really drives the impression guidelines, and the willingness to conform to those guidelines is what separates the men from the pine bark beetles and gypsy moths. Lin brings up a good point, “Add to that the visual of the sabre charge as done at most mainstream events and you have even a more misconstrued idea that those of us who wish for a more correct portrayal shy away from and I think it colors our thinking.” That mainstream averse psyche has driven a number of things into the darkness, and skewed perhaps uncommon practices to be more common than they were. Some of this is driven by numbers on the field, too. Simply put, it is difficult to portray a squadron with a section of cavalry, and I'll go out on a limb to suggest it is difficult to become proficient at platoon drill without a cavalry platoon. Think about that for a moment.

To grab another one of Chris' quotes: “The vast majority of "charges" I've read about, either side, seem to be smaller groups either hitting up outposts, raiding supplies, capturing prisoners, etc. Small unit tactics seem to be the most prevalent cavalry "battle" actions, followed by fewer amounts of dismounted fighting by larger forces, and even less amounts of mounted forces clashing in hand to hand combat.” Simply perusing Steve Hecker's daily CW history posts available on a few different listservers, one quickly notes just how many small unit actions were out there, and some of the real numbers of combatants involved are quite small. Tom moves to the logical conclusion for the next step, and adds, “To add on to what Chris said, we are recreating small unit actions. I have yet to see more than 20 authentically armed and equipped cavalry in any one place. So essentially we want to recreate the 10-20 man dashes or charges.”

Note the concept of reasonably scaled dashes and charges (movement to contact) rather than the contact or the not-so-admired in the history oriented wing of the hobby Dance of the Saber Fairies itself, which leads to Gerry's comment that started most of this discussion: “If these historians are to be believed, not only is the "sabre dance" utterly and completely wrong, but the majority of CS reenacting cavalry is incorrectly armed as their armament should be mostly long shotguns, rifles/muskets, and revolvers. Breechloading carbines were in short supply, with field units relying more on captured stock than the Southern government's ability to produce and supply such weapons in useful quantities.”

The key phrase may be "if these historians are to be believed." While the book may be great reading as a generalized history, if, and how does it apply to specific portrayals at future events? It may not. IMHO, it would be difficult to compare the service of the 3rd SC Cav with the 5th MO (US) with the 6th PA, 1st AZ, 7th TN, or 8th IL. All are different, and they may have more dissimilarities than commonalities at times. For example, one of the above units had lances for a good portion of the war. (I don't have a clue as to what the correct version of the Lance Dance would be, and I don't want to find out about what appears to be jousting first hand, either.) In some ways we are trying to mold a generic East-US, West-US, East-CS, West-CS, cavalryman from a load of bits and pieces, and don't forget the breaks the rules world of the Trans-Miss, Partisan Rangers, and home guard/ mounted militia.

Darryl, on his way to Mansfield, says, “I just dont believe that the mounted attack represents the norm. short of recreating a specific event, we should avoid the mounted saber/pistol charge at all cost. it cannot be portrayed accurately, and it's not representative of the day-to-day service of the civil war cavalryman, of any army, nor any theater.”

Sounds like this is coming from someone who maintained an armored vehicle on a regular basis. Day-to-day service is training aka "drill," maintenance, administration, escorting, patrols, and guard & picket duty. To go back to that 3rd Va. cavalry diary, the writer had a number of entires for putting squadrons on picket, and in a few days sending out their relief. That's the type of background for the battles which represent the highlights of history. It's that boredom to terror ration so often mentioned. Can a saber charge be properly portrayed at a battle reenactment? That's what Tom asks with this question:“The "dance" is wrong, but is there some way that we can include this very common part of cavalry service without making it a farce?”

The charge itself can be demonstrated at living histories, so there's a home for it, if no other home exists. That doesn't help much with the battle reenactments. References do exist for units on the receiving end of a saber charge to break and run (or leave in an organized fashion) without contact. Is that what happened at a specific event being reenacted? Maybe. Maybe not. That's the crux. Mosby, not known for liking the saber, had a good quote to the effect the first side to reorganize/reform in a saber clash and strike again is likely to be the victor. Such a reenactment where one platoon pushes through another platoon, reforms, and drives them from the field may take more choreographic skills with horses and lethal weapons than are currently available. Perhaps practice between opposing sides in a "team building" effort would help.

Examining the historical record for specific event documentation cannot be underestimated. In this case, as well as a lot of other instances, there isn't an easy answer, but changing the focus from broad brush to specific events may help.

Charles Heath

[GeraldTodd]

"Battle Tactics of the American Civil War" ~ Paddy Griffith
"The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experiences of the Civil War" ~ Brent Nosworthy
...are two that come to mind. I'm just getting to the end of Crucible which is very good. Noseworthy looks at the ORs, letters, periodicals, manuals, and starts you, in some cases, in the 1500s and brings you to the Civil War in technology, tactics, military mindset, experience, and cultural bias covering all the arms.

Longacre's got some good stuff, but there's oddities in his work when it comes to technical details, for instance in Lincoln's Cavalrymen he states the carbine had a ring so it could be "hung on the saddle" which, to me, sounds like he saw the term "saddle ring" and assumed that's what it meant, rather than "a ring for use when in the saddle." His stuff is more "here's what happened" and not so much why.

[RelicRoomGuy]

Many thanks. I had the privilege of speaking with an instructor from the Army Command and Staff College in Fort Leavenworth recently and you might be interested to know he recommended the same books! (Plus "Attack and Die", flawed but insightful). I have Nosworthy from the local interlibrary loan department and my wife will be cussing you this weekend as the "honey-do" list does NOT get done.

Have a fine Easter weekend.



"Battle Tactics of the American Civil War" ~ Paddy Griffith
"The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experiences of the Civil War" ~ Brent Nosworthy
...are two that come to mind. I'm just getting to the end of Crucible which is very good. Noseworthy looks at the ORs, letters, periodicals, manuals, and starts you, in some cases, in the 1500s and brings you to the Civil War in technology, tactics, military mindset, experience, and cultural bias covering all the arms.

Longacre's got some good stuff, but there's oddities in his work when it comes to technical details, for instance in Lincoln's Cavalrymen he states the carbine had a ring so it could be "hung on the saddle" which, to me, sounds like he saw the term "saddle ring" and assumed that's what it meant, rather than "a ring for use when in the saddle." His stuff is more "here's what happened" and not so much why.

[GeraldTodd]

You're gonna want to own Noseworthy's (it can be had for around $17 via Amazon)

[T.Kern]

At the risk of all this already being said (because I haven't read all the replies) I wish to add my two cents. Being mostly concerned with the east, I will just address that theater.
I think the historians you named are not seeing the whole picture and I might add other historians disagree with this thought. What I mean is, one has to be careful what report , memoir, or letter one is using for a source because they can often be counterbalanced by another. I have inspections, reports, issues, diaries, and memoirs that would disagree with the statement "the majority didn't have sabres". When one is using a letter from a certain unit and a trooper says we didn't have any sabres he is often speaking only of his company or platoon and may not know or speak for another reg. or co. Though at times, I have seen them make the statement that their whole reg or brig. didn't have them only to dig a little deeper and find first hand accounts of their use and issues in that reg.. Remember, one man's perspective is his whole world, A small fight may be the biggest to the man in it. What he and his pards had to live with often counts for everyone to them. Also, consider the time period he is speaking of, he may have only been there for a short time.
The South, and even the North at times, lacked in serviceable arms. To balance this out and create a serviceable tactical unit, both sides would divide their regimental companies into sabre and sharpshooter co.'s. This way they could fight mtd or dis-mtd. and when a co. was on the ground a mtd. co was to be in support (as every manual calls for). Having seen the inspection reports they were always deficient in long arms , sabres, and especially revolvers. Even regiments that were always considered Mtd. rifles had issues in fair numbers of sabres. Even some these Valley regiments that my great grand was in had them. (Those that Jubal Early complains of only being able to fight dis-mtd. being unequipped to fight mtd. I have seen no other officer of that rank have the same complaint. Ol Jube and his cav, well that's another story , but don't expect him to say they were ok.) No doubt some regs. were worse off than others ( valley cav vs. Lee's brig.) but if they don't have a sabre they are even less likely to have a revolver. For many the order of the day was make the best of their Enfields, while some in a sister co. had longarm, sabre, and pistol. Now , if a mtd charge comes at a sharpshooter co. while the sabre co. is on a different part of the field, or even the countryside, they may not have been able to fight mtd. and were routed because they had no sabres. Then recording this in his memoirs or a report it sometimes sounds as if the whole unit had none. Later one may find that same unit involved in a sabre charge. I guess what I'm saying is there are a lot of variables to consider before writing sabres off. As for pistols, well they are a prized possession to a trooper for they seem to be less common than sabres in number. The same goes for breech loaders, I have a letter from Stuart's chief ord officer complaining of the cart. boxes being too small for the caliber most used in the division, .58 cal.
I would also caution readers of modern cav. authors to be critical and not just take it all in as fact. Knowing quite a few, none of them are horsemen and often misinterpret the data when it comes to horses and tack. Also, because they are often not curators (their concern being with officers, politics, and campaigns) they sometimes misinterpret material culture, I.E. what and how this piece of equipment is and used.
Now , as to the sabre charge, it was common in mtd. combat, and there are too many first hand accounts of it to begin listing ( I assume someone else already has done that anyway. Though, a mainstream cav commander at Spotsy just told me they didn't ever do them! My response was you don't read much huh?). The charge was a punch! A shock force to drive back or through your opponent , to reach an objective. How it was done, was in series, one after the other. While one is coming in the other is rally out to reform and come again, this is where training and discipline come in- to reform and come quicker and tighter (or straightness of the line- line being double ranks for more punch) than your opponent and hence drive him off the field. Infantry could compare this to a superior rate of fire. So, no the dance of they sabre fairies is not accurate but at times as order broke down there were melees like that, just not so slow and stationary. More typical and a better portrayal would be to sail in, hit , and flow out to reform and come again. This should be done at distance not 20 yards.
Yes, there is little hope of reenactments portraying this well, I have tried in the past and met with nothing but resistance. All they want to do is their pistol charging, unaware that they could not hit a thing like that. Nor was it how the pistol was used.

Hallo Herr Todd! Welcome to the AC Forum. The rules of this Forum require that you sign your posts with your full name. You can use the auto-signature option to do this automatically for you. Thank you. Curt-Heinrich Schmidt, Moderator

[USDragoons]

Relic Room Guy

I have an unrelated question regarding S C records. Please email me at usdragoons@aol.com.

Thanks

David Michel

[Iron Scout]

David,

Why not just ask it here? We all might benefit from the question and response.

Neill Rose
PLHA

[1stMaine]

Comrade Kern,

The problem you are talking about is well described in John Keegan's book "The Face of Battle", and I heartily endorse it's reading by any who have not done so.
Keegan speaks of the small world that the individual soldier resides in, and how his view and thus his experience and remembrance of an event is shaped by the conical view he has from his position on the field. What he views, and under what circumstance may be entirely different from someone else within his own regiment, and yet both are accurately describing the same battle, the same situation, etc.
It's well worth the time to read this book, and reflecting upon what Keegan has to say will make you think even more about the individual accounts you will read, and what was really being said/described. etc.
respects,

[T.Kern]

Super stuff Chris, liked the quotes about Buglers and sabers!

You said: " Forget about the saber...your horse becomes your first and primary weapon! "

Chris, No.

The horse is a transportation device, a tactical suprise enabler (speed, mobility, rough terrain passage, flanking positions), and allows you to get out of Dodge fast if need be.

Weapon? No.

Primary Weapon? No.

Heavy Logistical Tail? Absolutely. On campaign there aren't enough grazing hours in the day to keep them from breaking down.

Covers about the same amount of ground per day on average as infantry? YES (how's that for a surprise answer, but that's what you get when you load 'em up and don't rest them properly).

Some tend to forget that the Tank is not the weapon, it's the protected gun systems on board.

Very few ACW soldiers were wounded or killed by deliberate manuevering of horses....and probably just as many friendly 'fire' or collateral damage (wounded horse, runaway caisson) casualties from horses than deliberately targetting an enemy soldier and using the horse as a weapon.

We cite surgeon's wound reports to show how few American Civil War soldiers are wounded or Killed by swords, bayonets, even less for knives and pistols. Kicking Horse hooves, biting teeth, equine versus man collision?

Time to get out the 20 sided dice and consult the attack hits table for an edged weapon versus no-armor class 1...sounds like Dungeons and Dragons fantasy war-gaming to me.

:wink_smil

RJ Samp

I disagree ! 100 horses in a straight line, front and rear rank, slamming into your objective is a weapon. The shock that drives the enemy back or scatters him may not be a physical wound but the loss of order and function is a wound to the enemy as a tactical unit. But they also had weapons, sometimes, so all things become tactical weapons including the horse.

Your humble and obedient servant,
I am , Sincerely,
Todd J. Kern

[1stMaine]

Comrade Kern,

You write:
---------
disagree ! 100 horses in a straight line, front and rear rank, slamming into your objective is a weapon. The shock that drives the enemy back or scatters him may not be a physical wound but the loss of order and function is a wound to the enemy as a tactical unit. But they also had weapons, sometimes, so all things become tactical weapons including the horse.

---------

I agree completely. Even the mere threat of a Cavalry assault can and did force a commander to alter his plans, or at least to take note of ity and thus counts as a strike against him. Whether a physical attack or a marale attack, if it forces the enemy to change his plans or to react in a manner of your choosing, then it is a weapon and must be considered as such.
respects,