Artillery short sword

[Danny]

Can we review, just one more time, why it is Artillery swords are such poor stepchildren in authentic reenactment? As in "don't do it - they weren't used"

I just can't get past the actual fact that they were being made, the 1832 pattern, until 1863 or so, and still issued until about 1873. And, if not useful, why is it the cash-and-material strapped Confederates felt they needed allocate resources to make and issue copies of that sword to their Artillery units? That is, if they weren't useful and not actually used.

I could also point out that there are several examples that have survived from the CW time frame and are collector pieces today. Most are not pristine, little-used items but items showing field use. Used for what?

I've also heard the assumption that if they were issued it was to heavy artillery only, stationed in Garrison, but that's never been more than that - an assumption based on a few period photos. The army intention for the weapon, as printed in spec, was that it be used in a scenario where enemy Cavalry breach the line and defending cannoneers use the swords to break the shins of the horses and afterwards perhaps dispatch the fallen rider. That is not a heavy artillery scenario.

Enlighten.

- Dan Wykes

[sedlakchristopher]

Can you imagine having to break the shins of a oncoming horse with a short sword!
My god....
I haven't seen any photographic evidence of them in field units, but i am VERY interested in what your thread reveals.
I have wondered about the same questions you have raised. Why were they around into 63 if there was no use for them.

Good luck...

Chris Sedlak
Iron City Guards aka
Battery G - 1st PA Light

[Jimmayo]

Albaugh's "Confedederate Swords" book has them listed and states that some have been dug at battle sites.

However, it never says how many were made or issued but the prevaling thought is that they were manufactured in early war prior to determining exactly what would be needed by the armies.

I have also read where they were very used for clearing brush around the artillery position. Perhaps that is where the dug relics came from.

As for breaking the legs of charging cavalry horses, the same nitwit in the war department probably came up with that use and in the next breath said repeating rifles were no good because the ammunition would be used up too quick.

There is already a thread discussing the carrying of sidearms by artillery on the forum. Do a search for artillery and sidearm. The result of this thread was that not many sidearms were carried and those that were carried were used for shooting wounded battery horses.

[Danny]

Good points.

It could also be said though that what nitwit would let cannoneers carry loaded pistols around the limber, let alone the tube, when powder charges or fused shells are being hastily forwarded to the piece.

Reenactment units today, the ones concerned with safety anyway, discourage pistoleers near the piece (though line officers typically have pistols in holster, and even gunners, corporals and sargeants. I assume that is an authentic practice, but maybe it should be challenged). I understand that in a typical Battery there were privates assigned to flank duty with rifles.

Today we feel that, obviously, pistols are more effective against carbine and pistol-armed enemy cavalry. But if you think about it short swords carry no risk of setting off a charge accidentally or prematurely, hence there was some reasoning that cannoneers carry short swords instead, at least the ones who don't have a rammer or other implement with which to defend at close quarters.

The damn things are heavy though and I'm not sure many cannoneers on the piece wanted to deal with them -- after all the primary defense against enemy cavalry is the big gun. One could reason then the the short swords were not on belts but leaning or laying nearby the limber in battle. Photos were not taken of actual battle but only of posed units in Battery, so the short swords weren't in evidence otherwise, hence we deduce they weren't used.

- Danny

[Dignann]

It could also be said though that what nitwit would let cannoneers carry loaded pistols around the limber, let alone the tube, when powder charges or fused shells are being hastily forwarded to the piece.

But if you think about it short swords carry no risk of setting off a charge accidentally or prematurely, hence there was some reasoning that cannoneers carry short swords instead, at least the ones who don't have a rammer or other implement with which to defend at close quarters.
True, perhaps for us today, but our ideas of safety are much different than theirs. With enemy shot and shell flying in and around a battery, or small arms fire should the enemy get close enough, I doubt very much that the potential danger of your own side arm setting off a charge was much of a consideration.

One place to check would be the National Archives. I know very little of artillery records, but if short swords were issued, would they not show up on ordnance returns and requistions? Has anyone seen short swords listed in these types of documents?

Eric

[boozie]

"The Complete Civil War" by Philip Katcher 1992

Artillery Weapons-Personal Weapons page 68

"The U.S. Army also obtained 2,152 foot artillery swords. These were designed to be carried by artillerymen who manned the large pices usually used in fortifications. The M 1832 foot artillery sword was probably the greatest waste of material and money of any weapon issued by either army - and both issued versions of this sword. It was desigined after a French version of the Roman short sword, with a 19 inch blade, 1 3/8 inches wide at the hilt. It had an all - brass hilt with grips moulded to look like eagle feathers, and a pommel stamped with an eagle and shield. The scabbard was of black leather with brass mountings.

Both types of this sword were designed to serve as personal defence weapons in case of the battery or fort being overrun. In fact, the revolver would be a superior weapon in thay event, and revolvers were widely carried by cannoneers on both sides. Sheath knives worn from the belt were useful, not only as personal defence weapons but for camp duties as well."


According to the "U.S. Ordnance Manual 1861", the following swords were regulation:

Cavalry saber 43.25 Overall length in scabbard
Light Cavalry saber 42.35
Light Artillery saber 38.6
FOOT ARTILLERY SWORD 26.0
Non-Com. Sword 38.75
Musician's sword 32.75

Artillery, Infantry, and Foot Rifleman, except the field officers-the sword of the pattern adopted by the War Department, Aprial 9, 1850.
The sword and sword-belt will be worn upon all occasions of duty, without exception.

[sigsaye]

For what it's worth, according the the book "Civil War Small Arms of the Navy and Marines", between 1862 and 1863, about 1000 of these swords were collected from the Artillery and turned over to the Navy to out fit the gunboats of the Mississippi Squadron, to make up for the shortage of standard Naval cutlass'. In the OR(N) somplace is a copy of an order from Rosecrans directing this to be done.

The Short Sword is the same design as the Navys Ames Model 1841 cutlass exept that the lower cross guard of the cutlass has been extended into a strap hand guard. I have several photos of Sailors on Gunboats wearing the Army short sword on watch. Interestingly enough, there were also a number of cavelry sabers turned over to the Navy for the same reason. Some pikes were also found and turned over.

Steve Hesson

[Fenianboy]

My quess is that these things drew more blood in the hands of John Brown's sons then in the entire War. Bud Scully 13th NJ and 69th NY

[dclarry]

Can we review, just one more time, why it is Artillery swords are such poor stepchildren in authentic reenactment? As in "don't do it - they weren't used"

- Dan Wykes

I think we have all heard people 'disrespecting' the artillery short sword, and saying that it doesn't belong in an authentic reenactment. It is hard to picture what the purpose of the short sword was, or what real utility it ever had, looking back on it from today. Even for clearing brush, the sword's usual stated purpose,there are better implements. And, as noted by other posters, a revolver is a far better personal sidearm. However, the sword was purchased and issued by the army well into the war, and remains a piece of history nonetheless.

How bad would it be to have one show up in a reenenactment? I think wearing one on one's person would be somehwhat odd, as we have no solid photographic evidence that they were actually worn. However, having one hanging from the limber may be OK, just there as an extra tool. It would just be a bit of history to round out the limber display. I think this would be appropriate for an LH or educational event particularly, where one fields questions from event attendees.

What's the thought here? Have I set off the Farb-O-Meter?

[Jimmayo]

However, having one hanging from the limber may be OK, just there as an extra tool. It would just be a bit of history to round out the limber display. I think this would be appropriate for an LH or educational event particularly, where one fields questions from event attendees.

What's the thought here? Have I set off the Farb-O-Meter?


Not at all. If they were used for clearing brush they would have been a tool and carried on the limber or in a battery wagon. I think it would make a good display and explenation of it's use to spectaters would be interesting.

[James Brenner]

If a discussion of the short sword is used in conjunction with a talk on coehorn mortars, then it would be okay to have a short sword nearby. If a short sword is used in a discussion of field/mounted/horse/flying artillery, then it's a stretch. Any supposition that it was used for "clearing brush" would beg the question: didn't the battery have axes in the travelling forge?

[Tom Ezell]

The obvious answer is that these things were issued because they were on the battery's TO&E, and the battery commander was signed for them, so the cannoneers damned well better keep track of them. When you've got a cannon, a copy of a Roman short sword ain't worth much.

When I was a battery commander in an M109A3 155mm battalion, they issued us bayonets for the same reason. We put them in a footlocker in the arms room, and unlocked it only for the quarterly inventories. I surmise that my counterparts of the 1860s may have done the same thing.

[James Brenner]

I did the same thing with the bayonets in my battery (M109A1).

The TO&E of a field artillery battery in the 1860s called for M1840 artillery sabers. The BC was pecuniarily liable for them. John Tidball's memoirs include a passage about battery commanders either securing the sabers in the limber chests to prevent them from getting lost or declaring them lost in action so they're relieved of responsibility. The point is that, in at least one regular army battery, the sabers were a useless encumberance.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Not hijacking the thread, too much, but...
Herr Jim! Are you still in Iraq these daze?

Curt

[Danny]

Re If a discussion of the short sword is used in conjunction with a talk on coehorn mortars, then it would be okay to have a short sword nearby. . .

Isn't a Coehorn a small (transported on wagon but four-man field carry) mortar used by infantry for siege purposes? My understanding it was not used by Artillery units in particular. Short swords were issued to Artillery, so if a discussion of the short sword is used in conjuction with a talk on Coehorn mortars, then it would NOT be okay to have a short sword nearby.

If you propose that the swords likely found their way around the rest of the Army as they were cast off by the Artillery I guess that makes it work.

Nobody yet has addressed why the Confederates went out of their way to make new short swords - copies of the Federal short sword - several months into the war when there were lots of other priorities. It was also a chance for the Reb suppliers to improve on what I keep hearing was such a "useless" design.

At least I'm getting the impression that no AC has a problem with seeing a short sword propped up near a limber, as if just pulled from the battery box (as with rifles etc). Does that mean we can at least kill the idea then that the short sword was only issued to heavy artillery? Or shall we just let the topic rest again for now?

- Dan Wykes

[Forquer]

Nobody yet has addressed why the Confederates went out of their way to make new short swords - copies of the Federal short sword - several months into the war when there were lots of other priorities. It was also a chance for the Reb suppliers to improve on what I keep hearing was such a "useless" design.

At least I'm getting the impression that no AC has a problem with seeing a short sword propped up near a limber, as if just pulled from the battery box (as with rifles etc). Does that mean we can at least kill the idea then that the short sword was only issued to heavy artillery? Or shall we just let the topic rest again for now?

- Dan Wykes

Not to cast aspersions or start a flame war, but it sounds like you are in possession of the foot artillery sword and are looking for justification for bringing it to events.

I can't speak to the use of the things by the C.S.A. light artillery. Is it POSSIBLE that some reb redleg picked one up and toted it around for whatever use? Absolutely. I don't know if you participate with a group that bases their impression on a specific unit. If that is the case, then try to track down the original unit returns to see if they were issued. If they weren't, then, while it doesn't provide indisputable proof that they weren't used, then it can at least give an indication as to whether they were an everyday, common item. You can draw your own conclusions from there.

Also, as far as pulling rifles from a battery box, I've not seen any indication that rifles were standard issue items to a battery. Artillery units would rely on infantry units and cavalry units for their security. The Redleg's primary arm was the piece. With everyone in the battery having a specific job once action commenced, no one can be spared for such duties. That's why supports were of the utmost importance.

[roundshot]

On page 387 of the "History of the 5th Massachusetts Battery" is a picture of one of these short swords. In the text is a comment by one Francis P. Washburn which states: "I send you the picture of the old sword picked up at Harrison's Landing. It was not carried by an officer but by a cannoneer. When we were equipped by the State of Massashusetts, the cannoneers were armed with swords like the one in the picture, and the drivers with sabres. Later in the war the drivers only carried side arms." For the record, Washburn was mustered in as a private in the 5th Mass. on October 3, 1861 and mustered out on the same day in 1864.

It looks as if any of these hefty weapons that may have been issued were done so by the states. The State of New York issued a distinctive two piece interlocking SNY belt plate copied off the US model for these short swords. Several have been recovered from CW sites. Additionally there are Confederate "CS" copies of these short sword plates (see Mullinax, plates # 13 & 14) that have been found in Virginia. Just what weapons these belts supported is conjecture. Here's a link to an SNY belt in the collection of the Sharpsburg Arsenal: http://www.sharpsburg-arsenal.com/Buckles___Plates/JS-245_2_piece_State_of_NY_Buc/js-245_2_piece_state_of_ny_buc.html

[dclarry]

Re


Nobody yet has addressed why the Confederates went out of their way to make new short swords - copies of the Federal short sword - several months into the war when there were lots of other priorities. It was also a chance for the Reb suppliers to improve on what I keep hearing was such a "useless" design.

At least I'm getting the impression that no AC has a problem with seeing a short sword propped up near a limber, as if just pulled from the battery box (as with rifles etc). Does that mean we can at least kill the idea then that the short sword was only issued to heavy artillery? Or shall we just let the topic rest again for now?

- Dan Wykes

Danny,

I don't think we've come up with a consensus yet on what utility the short sword ever had, and why they were still being made an issued when other priorities existed, especially by the Confederacy, as you mentioned. However, I don't know how much more can be added to this thread. My interest remains - I would like to know why these odd, but cool looking, swords continued to be made and issued. Probably standard Army-issue inertia.

As for having one of these babies show up on your limber, I'm not sure what all the consensus is. I think the comparison to artillery sabers or modern bayonets is sound - if you were issued it, you probably kept track of it. I think a short sword could show up now and then, but I'm not sure what to tell anyone who asks what it's for.

[Danny]

re: [QUOTE=Forquer;44758]Not to cast aspersions or start a flame war, but it sounds like you are in possession of the foot artillery sword and are looking for justification for bringing it to events... = QUOTE]

Thanks for the comments. Please don't take this the wrong way, but could it be rather that you don't have possession of a foot artillery sword and have somehow justified not bringing one to events? You have the common view on this minor topic, yet my question was why the common view is only based on what seems practical to us today, to spite the actual build and issue records. I personally don't bring my short sword to events because I don't want to defy common view. I do wear it in community street marches - the kids love it.

On that related matter, if our unit's research shows there were rifles in the Battery box, we can only conclude they were either for foraging (hunting) or perimeter defense (pickets) when not covered by Infantry, or both reasons and a couple more besides. How easy it would have been, how likely it would have been, how useful it would have been, to keep a few carbines in the Battery box.

- Dan Wykes

[dclarry]

On that related matter, if our unit's research shows there were rifles in the Battery box, we can only conclude they were either for foraging (hunting) or perimeter defense (pickets) when not covered by Infantry, or both reasons and a couple more besides. How easy it would have been, how likely it would have been, how useful it would have been, to keep a few carbines in the Battery box.

- Dan Wykes

I've also wondered about guard duty and pickets for artillery camps. Would the artillerymen stand guard, and with what sidearm? Would there be some limited number of rifles issued to a battery for this purpose? If so, they probably wouldn't be in the limber, but I am no expert.

As for the short sword, I think it's like shoulder scales. Shoulder scales were produced and issued in quantity, and there is photographic evidence for their wear, but they are also not well-received today. There is some sense in this, as they serve little real purpose (like the short sword), and most soldiers (of all eras) discard useless equipment . So, scales were probably not seen more in posed photographs than in the field, or in fortress batteries, and maybe should not be heavily represented in artillery impressions. Still, scales too are a piece of history and you should see them once in awhile, or least see the attachment points. I'm not trying to hijack this thread into a shoulder scale discussion, but it concerns the same question - deciding to accept 'oddball' gear in an impression.

[PFLINT]

There are two pictures of Ohio batterys wearing the short sword and a similar uniform. In both picture the soldiers wear shakos (not the light artillery style) and overshirts with contrasting plackets, collars and cuffs. One is said to be the 1st Ohio Light Artillery and the other is the 8th Battery Light Artillery National Guard which saw guard duty on Johnson's Island in Sandusky Ohio 1864.
Patrick Flint

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

And then there is the discussion of the so-called "artillery models" of the M1855, M1861, and M1863 Rifle-Muskets with 33 inch barrels.

I cannot add much of anything to the artillery short sword discussion, other than:
1. IMHO, they were (as shared) a matter of inertia going forward from an earlier time
and
2. They fall under the PEC/NUG Rule meaning they were not very common and unless researched and documented to one's chosen impression's unit's time and place should fall under not being bothered with.

Others mileage may vary...

Curt

[Johan Steele]

Short sword, pistols, carbines... all arms attributed to Light Arty in this thread; how much of it is really PEC?

I've read of the short sword being used to cut brush machette style and of their use as a marker to position the hubs.

Pistols, for NCO to put down wounded horses... not to defend the battery. That's what canister was for.

Carbines, rifles... 1-2 in a limber chest to defend a battery? See above note on canister.

I can't say as I've read any account of arty defending their battery w/ short swords or w/ pistols for that matter. Pistols were in too short of supply to issue to the Arty; they were generally reserved for the cav. especially in CS service.

[dclarry]

I can't say as I've read any account of arty defending their battery w/ short swords or w/ pistols for that matter. Pistols were in too short of supply to issue to the Arty; they were generally reserved for the cav. especially in CS service.

I've read similar statements about pistols going first to cavalry, and that certianly makes sense. I would not consider that any sidearms the artillerymen had were really for defense of the battery, as Johan said that's what canister is for. I would think the men would have some small complement of arms for picket/sentry duty and for foraging/looting. The short sword looks ungainly even for use as a machete, at least the ones I've seen, so I'll chalk the short sword up to inertia. The photos of the Ohio batteries prove somebody wore it, and I personally would like to see one show up at a LH event or something, but it's a questionable piece of gear for general wear, for sure. I've seen the New York artillery belt with the SNY buckle, and a sword hanging from it would look cool, if not PEC. Wanting to look cool maybe part of the problem with oddball gear, musketoons, etc., - you'd like it to work out to be correct.

Still, what arms did the battery use for sentry duty? What were the 'artillery' models of the various muskets for?

[Tom Ezell]

I've also wondered about guard duty and pickets for artillery camps. Would the artillerymen stand guard, and with what sidearm? Would there be some limited number of rifles issued to a battery for this purpose? If so, they probably wouldn't be in the limber, but I am no expert.


E. Porter Alexander in Fighting for the Confederacy, notes that in his battalion in 1863 there were no sidearms other than the artillery sabers for performing camp guard or guarding prisoners.

Other Confederate units, such as Douglas' Texas Battery, record that there were no sidearms other than the battery commander's Colt revolver and the officers' sabres.

[James Brenner]

FWIW: In 1864, the 9th Ohio Battery turned in its guns and horses and drew Enfields. From then until the end of the war, the unit helped guard the Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad bridges. So, it's possible for light batteries to draw muskets.

One other point for clarification: coehorns were technically "heavy" artillery and were not an infantry weapon. Their role shouldn't be confused with later 3 and 4 inch Stokes mortars (WWI) which were designed for infantry support and manned by specially trained infantrymen.

Also, the only sentry duty I've ever read about in the various histories was along their own their picket line, watching the horses.

Finally, Curt: I'm back and sent you a PM.

[marine05]

I agree completely with Lawrence and Greg. As many of us can attest from the active duty side, soldiers don't carry stuff that has no purpose, unless it is personal items like a picture or something that reminds them of home.

Hunting on the east coast? I've heard tell of folks on this and other forums discussing that...hunt what? The white tail was almost entirely gone, plus with armies marching aroung the Northern VA area for a few years, what was left? So carbines/rifles in the battery box, who would use them and when? As has been stated defending the battery, cannister or spherical case, if the going really got bad and the "beetle stompers" were moving back, time to limber up and pull back, not shoot it out with infantry.

Hey, like has been said many times, an infantryman or cavalryman is each a weapons system, together with others like them the form a very powerful fighting element, a single cannoneer on the other hand is only a weapons system when forming a gun detachment and serving their piece.

Sounds like the Ohio battery referenced in one of the posts on this thread were serving, like many artillerymen are now in Iraq, as provisional infantry. Marine artillerymen are issued the service rifle, plus other smally arms primarily for perimeter defense of the battery, however, like their ACW brothers everybody in the battery has a specific job to do during fire missions and there's not a whole bunch of extra folks running around with rifles playing infantry.

Semper Fi and Happy New Year,

DJM

[roundshot]

A couple of nice excavated examples of short swords, both US and CS, can be seen in Howard Crouch's "Civil War Artifacts" on page 82. Locations unknown. Also Charles Harris's "Civil War Relics of the Western Campaigns" illustrates CS versions of these found at Shiloh '62 (p. 46), Chickamauga '63 (p. 163), and Macon, GA '64 (p. 247). Draw your own conclusions.

As far as battery weapons, Porter Alexander neglected to include in his unit's armament the smoothbore he personally carried for bird hunting jaunts. An avid sportsman, Alexander had his servant pound out and cut up minies to make shot for the weapon. This is also in the book Tom Ezell mentioned.

[Forquer]

There are two pictures of Ohio batterys wearing the short sword and a similar uniform. In both picture the soldiers wear shakos (not the light artillery style) and overshirts with contrasting plackets, collars and cuffs. One is said to be the 1st Ohio Light Artillery and the other is the 8th Battery Light Artillery National Guard which saw guard duty on Johnson's Island in Sandusky Ohio 1864.
Patrick Flint

Patrick -

Wondering if these images have been authenticated for date. Also, what is the possiblitiy that, like so many other images of the day, that they are wearing props provided by the photographer? Hey, folks were buying tons of surplus back in the day, as well.

Dan (McLean) -

I'm reminded of the classic WWII cartoon by Bill Mauldin that has Willie and Joe on a road march, one admonishing the other to throw the jokers out of his deck of cards to lighten his weight.

Mr. Wykes -

No offense taken (unless I'm actually supposed to), however, anyone can rationalize anything to the point that it serves their desires. There was a unit up here in Ohio in the last few years who decided to do an impression of one of the 2 zouave regiments that was raised in the state. Some compadres and I had been doing an impression of the same regiment for a couple of years and had done some pretty intense research, uncovering quite a collection of images and making fairly steady improvement of the uniform. Some of the members of the other unit started to ask their commander why there was such a noticable difference between the two uniforms that were being used and his reply was, and I paraphrase, "just because we can't find any evidence of our uniform being worn, doesn't mean that it didn't exist."

I just know that out in the field I prefer not to bring a knife to a gunfight.

[Danny]

Thanks all. We know a little more.

Some consensus:

That for our purposes today it's "leave the short swords out of campaign scenario" if you can't document their use with your heritage Battery. The occasional exception is to have one propped up near the limber or stuck in the grass nearby the piece. If your unit has a Battery wagon, you can justifiably keep a couple short swords and/or rifles in there. (Some prior posters mentioned guns stored in the limber! No! I'm sure they meant the battery wagon). It seems likely that if issued to other than heavy artillery, short swords were only kept on as inventory or reported lost.

Required consensus:

That quantities of Artillery short swords were built after 1861, ordered by both the Federal and Confederate Armies, and several dug examples have been found on both Eastern and Western Campaign battlefields. Though we consider them somewhat useless today, the swords were in fact issued up to 1873, well after final reports from the CW battlefield were submitted.

To be determined consensus:

There is little photographic evidence of their use beyond garrsioned artillery, perhaps because in the light or "flying" artillery they weren't worn as much as they were just kept around, out of posable camera view, perhaps in the Battery wagon or or in the high grass nearby. Apparently there are no accounts of the short sword being used for close-combat, though there are are accounts of implements being used that way.

One purpose of the tool is the Government-definition of breached-line defense against horse. We chuckle at that today on the basis of how futile that seems against armed Cavalry, but to be consistent we must also recognize that implements (rammers etc.) were of course equally futile against gun-toting attackers, and that Cavalry often breaches with only sword in hand at the final rush (after longer range ammunition is expended in the attack).

Other purposes put forward: that the swords were used to mark wheel position so that the cannon return to a pre-calculated position for consistent targeting, and the more common one - to clear brush in front of the piece. Apparently there is little actual evidence for either of these explanations.

An observation:

Why is it that, in reenactment, officers and non-coms don't want to acknowledge that there were swords intended for and issued to privates, or that privates servicing the piece in battle often carried sidearms if they could obtain them. Is the AC impression tainted by that view, or the other way around?

- Dan Wykes

[roundshot]

You mean packin' heat like this #1 cannoneer from Knap's Battery?

[dclarry]

Danny,

I think you summed up this thread pretty well in your well-written post. There may be some argument against having any rifles on-hand, but not from me. I find the idea suspect, but can't say anything with certainty. I still wonder what the men were armed with when told to stand watch on the horses, or some such, but I haven't found any definitive answer. There is an earlier thread (search 'artillery' and 'sidearms') which talks at length on what sidearms artillerymen might have had. There is certainly no doubt some men wore pistols, as in the photo from Knap's Battery , but probably not to the extent that we should consider wearing a pistol to be encouraged in an artillery inpression. Outside of the occasional officer or NCO, I would not like to see too many gunners packing heat. Moderation in all things, as they say - a whole battery of pistol-packing, short- sword-wielding gunners would look like the barbarians in the Capitol One commercial ( "What's in your wallet?") .

I think the best point you make is to document use of any implement, sword, rifle, etc. by your heritage battery. Hey, if you find some inventory list, etc. for your battery which lists short swords then you should have a short sword in your battery gear, but I wouldn't equip the whole outfit with them. Same with rifles, carbines, pistols, sabers, etc. Same with uniforms, too, of course.

[vamick]

" I still wonder what the men were armed with when told to stand watch on the horses, or some such,"

Why of course! they stood guard with 'canister'! held in their hands with a match handy!!!!


"There is an earlier thread (search 'artillery' and 'sidearms') which talks at length on what sidearms artillerymen might have had. There is certainly no doubt some men wore pistols, as in the photo from Knap's Battery "

Ahh but there is !!! with a whole lotta 'modern re-enactors' so much so that I consider it a 're-enactorism'..as Ive said before ( on that other thread I believe) I WILL believe the words of the men themselves not wether its "PEC" NEC" "NYUK" or other such nonclature and as clearly stated in "Galloping Thunder" by the men themselves at least in horse arty, sabres AND/OR pistols werent a strange sight among enlisted men, non coms or drivers! full stop! a pistol sure beats a sharp stick on guard duty, a carbine or 'musketoon' would be even better! it was WAR gentlemen and any gentleman going to war had better think about floating his own boat if necessary, personally if I were a cook,horse holder, or latrine digger Id feel a whole lot better with a firearm stuck somewhere issued er not and if it came down to weight others things would get the heave ho ( better to have two canteens and double ammo than a full haversack and a rock) I dont think we can go wrong listening to the men themselves, and or unit issue specfics, altho that last one is sometimes unavailable

[dclarry]

" I still wonder what the men were armed with when told to stand watch on the horses, or some such,"

Why of course! they stood guard with 'canister'! held in their hands with a match handy!!!!


"There is an earlier thread (search 'artillery' and 'sidearms') which talks at length on what sidearms artillerymen might have had. There is certainly no doubt some men wore pistols, as in the photo from Knap's Battery "



I hear you, loud and clear, no argument from me. I think the issue is not that some men had pistols, there is ample evidence to support that. Many men bought their own pistols, we know that. Of course, anyone would choose a revolver , over a just about anything, to protect oneself, or the horse, etc. I read the other thread and was citing the photo of Knap's battery only because it's in this thread and to acknowledge the poster. I think the question as a living historian/reenactor for artillery is about how prevelant sidearms should be in a unit impression. How many men should have pistols? Just NCOs? How many sabers? How many short swords, if any?

I'm only thinking of my own psyche here: I'd love a valid excuse to get a nice black powder revolver. Shoot, it's the only legal handgun in the District. I haven't been able to convince myself I need one yet, and I'm pretty easy compared to some folks when it comes to convincing.

What I don't want is to justify something because I want it. Let's think about how we can fit sidearms into an artillery impression, and get some feedback.

[marine05]

Lawrence and all,

Not stating either way, soldiers carry some of the wierdest things if they believe them to be useful. A little historical perspective, not ACW, but WWII. A former Marine, was a Raider, did the Makin Island raid and was finally wounded on Iwo Jima, he stated that many Marines had picked up pistols, whether m1911, .38s or Japanese ones. They stuffed them into their packs, blouses or anywhere else they could carry them. He did state they never cleaned them so he was always a little wary of whether or not it would fire if he needed it. He was plenty pissed when he woke up on a hospital ship and some low-life had taken his pistol!

You may all ask what does this have to do with the thread, point is you will not find much, if any, official documentation about Marine riflemen carrying pistols, but if you listen to many of the veterans they did. So in the ACW were artillerymen issued swords, and firearms, in some cases yes, especially drivers, NCOs and officers. Is there potential that cannoneers picked them up too? Check. But let me share something else, in the Gulf, as an officer I was issued a sidearm, when out on the roads I checked out a M-16. The pistol is considered a personal defense weapon, my belief as a former infantryman was if I have to use a pistol as a personal defense weapon we're in a world of hurt. I wanted to reach out and touch them first. I would imagine it was much the same with artillerymen and officers, if they have to use their sidearms then there is "danger close" and time for the battery to limber up. A smattering of small arms in a battery are no match for an infantry line of battle. If I saw that in front of me I'd say "Its been nice knowin' you fellas" just prior to firing a dose of double cannister in the infantry's faces!

Too bad we can't talk to some of those vets that we seek to emulate, the same as we can still talk to a few WWI vets, what they could tell us.

Ah the smell of gunpowder in the morning especially as the smoke rolls back over you!!! I like it better than the smell of coffee!

s/f

DJM

[Johan Steele]

Show me a pic, sketch or written reference to men of the Lt Arty carrying, Arty short sword, sabre, pistol, carbine etc and mayhaps my opinion of some on the modern Inf wannabes in the Lt Arty will be changed.

Short sword... any reference to a unit defending their guns w/them?

Pistols... references where a battery was defended w/ them?

Carbines... those are inventoried items; they are listed on battery inventory. 1-2 per battery. References of them being used to defend the battery? The gun was the main weapon of the Lt arty.

Pvt w/ a pistol defending the horses when a line of inf comes through the trees... a sharp stick or canister w/ a match might just be more useful than a colt... discretion is the better part of valor.

Research, not by gosh and by golly please.

On the note of WWII. This summer I had the pleasure of speaking w/ a WWII veteran at a Living History. I was quite pleased to hear him say ..."you look like soldiers and not actors." He then mentioned his disgust at going to an event where the men were portraying his unit and a battle in which he had received the bronze star. He offered to show the men portraying his unit how to wear some of their gear as he and his men had. He was rebuffed by a man telling him how it was actually worn.

CDV's, the words of the men, official reports. They are out there and yes I've even seen an account where a man in the arty was carrying a pistol. An NSSA man showed me a CDV w/ two arty short swords... one stuck in the ground on each side of the gun as a marker of some sort.

Yes there are references out there but I do not believe them to be Period Everyday Correct. Specific impression of a specific unit with specific documentation; yes.

[vamick]

Try "Galloping Thunder" by James Trout, its a great study of the Stuart horse artillery in the ANV and is chock full of first person accounts/letters/diarys of the cannoneers. I referenced it freely in a former thread dealing with this subject that appears lost now on my third reading I started pulling out quotes dealing with privates/noncoms ect armed with pistols/sabres ect, and if memory serves there were 6/7 book wide dealing specifically with pistols and sabres, and a few more dealing with cannoneers joining in cavalry charges ect...now...sometimes there were specifics that a pistol was a battlefield pickup ( one that I remember where a gunsargent 'aquired' a couple of brand new navy colts at a Shenandoah river ford picket action) you'll have to read the book, and an excellant book it is with so much personal info I had to read it mulitiple times..and this is also dealing with horse artillery, which was basically cavalry guns..and not 'field' or 'light' artillery...but to me the slippery slope is our modern day adamant 'knowing' that such and such 'never' occured in numbers...tho I think we're safe in assuming that about Jaguar breeches!
now..onward

"discretion is the better part of valor."

I wouldnt try telling that to NB Forrest! nor..James Breathed for that matter:D

"Carbines... those are inventoried items; they are listed on battery inventory. 1-2 per battery. References of them being used to defend the battery? The gun was the main weapon of the Lt arty."

inventories that often are not extant today, and also its imnportant to point out that I am speaking of Southern horse artillery and ANV

"Pistols... references where a battery was defended w/ them?"

as has been stated previously by our Marine gunner, and especially with horse arty, if the 'battery' is 'defended' with pistols, yer in a world of hurt, and like those 500 Spartans, I raise my glass to you...'defending a battery' with small arms isnt really the point, its defending ones person, plus guard activities, if a 'line of infantry' came thru the trees I'd much rather have a 'private' armed with a pistol pecking away at them ( while making a not so orderly withdrawl no doubt:D ) than just giving them my guns!, maybe that "private" with his audacity could buy the time needed to turn and load ..no double load a gun and save the day! audacity whilst scared ****less has done that before, maybe that private needs a promotion, and he can "drink from my canteed anyday"

short swords?...cant help ya there
no by gosh and by golly here...and no foregone modernday deskjet conclusions either...research on going! read that book..but it doesnt matter any way 're-enactorisms' are hard to die...wouldnt tha ole bhoys be amused at us??:p

no infantry wannabee here..nor "wannabee" anything
I AM..by all means continue to believe and act as you will,
the sight of dozens of men running around all armed with 2 er 3 pistols each is only a lil more un authenic, as that same sight without even a penknife available....and when yer 'primary weapon' disappears when some valorous 'non discrectionary' gentleman pokes a smokewagon in yer ear
you can consider yerself..a prisoner:D

[dclarry]

Dan and Johan,

I have to apologize for probably dragging this thread out longer than it may have needed to be. This topic has been covered in detail before (see "Sidearms and Cannoneers" thread), and starter of this thread (Mr. Wykes) noted he was revisiting the topic when he brought up the artillery short sword. I know the conventional wisdom is that sidearms generally do not belong in an authentic artillery impression. This is because sidearms are not known to be common in artillery units, based on writings, photos, or battery inventories/turn-in lists. In particular, sidearms were not common among the lower ranks, although known to be worn by some NCOs and officers. Pistols, carbines, etc. were definitely not issued to artillery lower ranks. I could have let this go by just quoting the conventional wisdom and moved on.

So why didn't I? This was me trying to be "inclusive", perhaps as a result of recent "sensitivity" training. Afterall, my nickname at the office is "Dr. No" for always saying something is out of the question. :) I wanted to leave open the idea that there was some way one could include an artillery short sword in one's impression in an authentic manner. I was trying not to just say "No" , but instead open up discussion. Also, pistols and swords are cool.

In the end, the consensus of this thread matches the older thread and recapitulates the conventional wisdom: sidearms do not belong in a generic authentic artillery impression, with the possible exception of officers and NCOs. Portrayal of specific units with sidearms depends on the supporting documentation.

Well, except for the swords worn by the officers, there is not a single sidearm of any kind in the photos of original Battery F members in the unit history. So, I guess I can't justify that black powder revolver afterall. The District will have one less gun.

[dclarry]

My last post must have crossed with Gary's.

I've got read that book!

[vamick]

"He then mentioned his disgust at going to an event where the men were portraying his unit and a battle in which he had received the bronze star. He offered to show the men portraying his unit how to wear some of their gear as he and his men had. He was rebuffed by a man telling him how it was actually worn."


VIOLLA!....my point exactly, can you see how that might happen ( given twisted laws of time and space of course:D )
with us modern day yanks and rebs??....research can only be done on researchable material, so much is gone...especially on the Southern side that there are 'grey areas' (pun intended) so we shoot for the middle position.
the arty short sword is just one such area, an unweildy weapon to be sure, how, where was it really used?..we just arent sure! I think of that when I look on the wall at my 1864 ames sabre, was it used by feds er CONfeds?, when was the last time it tasted blood?, whos'? there are slight file marks still visable near the tip.."but they didnt sharpen their sabres" ( I call BS!:D ) thers so many lil details we may never know, until that day we may get to compare notes with the men themselves.

[vamick]

"Well, except for the swords worn by the officers, there is not a single sidearm of any kind in the photos of original Battery F members in the unit history. So, I guess I can't justify that black powder revolver afterall. The District will have one less gun."[/QUOTE]

awww get it anyway, hide it in yer bedroll, and dream of promotion!:D .....ya might just stall tha devil with it and save yer pieces one dark night!:eek:

and you've got all winter long to defarb it too!:)

[Danny]

Good discussion, but just note the "reenactorisms" on both sides in this case.

I realize it's awkward for us today but it can't be helped that artillery short swords were manufactured until mid-war and were standard issue even up to 1873. Even the Southerns went out of their way to make their own exact copies and issue them. All this for (what we think today) a useless item that we guess only filled the inventory register. The swords are today dug from battlefield sites Eastern, Western and Southern, and are not particularly rare. (A dug pistol or carbine brings a much higher price today, as if they were more rare).

It's quite clear from the discussion then, that barring actual evidence that short swords, pistols and carbines were NOT used, it's just as valid to use them occasionally in Battery. I don't want to justify anything - I don't bring my short sword to the field - but I think it's a reenactorism to try so hard to keep them off the field. To put it in perspective, isn't the ratio of officers to enlisted a bigger reenactorism? Yet addressing that, with the actual evidence we have to back it up, would greatly improve the impression.

As an aside, the reliance on a photographic record to establish if an item was in use or non-use during battle is shakey, because no photo was taken during combat. They were posed before or after.

I think the comment about a man protecting Battery resources behind the line with canister and a match a good point, once you get past the humor of it.

- Dan Wykes

[roundshot]

Just for pure deviltry, here's a cameo of ANOTHER #1 from Knap's Battery that seems to be carrying. And the master photo of Knap's Battery at Antietam is as good a pic as we have of a Federal Battery in the field. Why only the #1's? Go figure.

[vamick]

Good discussion, but just note the "reenactorisms" on both sides in this case.

"I realize it's awkward for us today but it can't be helped that artillery short swords were manufactured until mid-war and were standard issue even up to 1873. Even the Southerns went out of their way to make their own exact copies and issue them. All this for (what we think today) a useless item that we guess only filled the inventory register."

AMEN..it IS interesting isnt it?..why in tha wide world of sports would Southern armories, even in those early heady days bother turning out a 'useless' weapon...no photographic evidence of dinosaurs either!..till their bones were dug

"It's quite clear from the discussion then, that barring actual evidence that short swords, pistols and carbines were NOT used, it's just as valid to use them occasionally in Battery."

yes 'ocasionally' I agree, depending on unit ect. it might even be an envelope pushing *gasp* daring thing to do!:D



"I don't want to justify anything - I don't bring my short sword to the field - but I think it's a reenactorism to try so hard to keep them off the field. To put it in perspective, isn't the ratio of officers to enlisted a bigger reenactorism? "

boy thats tha truth nothing like a major commanding a section with two first sargents on tha front and 1st and second lieutants manning #s 3 and 4!:p


"As an aside, the reliance on a photographic record to establish if an item was in use or non-use during battle is shakey, because no photo was taken during combat. They were posed before or after.

I think the comment about a man protecting Battery resources behind the line with canister and a match a good point, once you get past the humor of it."

- Dan Wykes

and lets think about that last one..I'll grant ya that the average battery wasnt a powerhouse of small arms..BUT NEITHER were they naked!....if a picket on artillery is overwhelmed by a vast force of infantry, or even ( but more understandable because of their speed of movement) cav...then those guns were picketed wrong!..those pickets, videttes, what have you arent within sight of the campfires sitting astride their pieces, they should be a closer to a half mile to mile down the road...but maybe theres a use for that canister and match...sure would keep one vigilant on a dark rainy night making sure yer guns AND yer cajonies didnt end up a trophy for yer enemies wouldnt it?...now wheres that holler log I saw 'fore dark?..Im gonna whip up a "CW field expediant laws rocket"!!:wink_smil

[Forquer]

I think the emphasis on security of an artillery camp is being misplaced. If you look through the manuals, there is nothing printed about artillery pickets. The 1862 Army Officer addresses the situation thus in Article 53, pages 123 & 124:

"The artillery is encamped near the troops to which it is attached, so as to be protected from attack, and to contribute to the defence of the camp. Sentinels for the park are furnished by the artillery, and, when necessary, by other troops."

Note that the passage says "sentinels for the PARK." Nothing is said about perimeter security or pickets. Point is, the artillery is camped with folks who have small arms (at least they'd better be) and can do their job long enough to allow the artillerymen to get things together and do their jobs. That would be either support an active defense or get their pieces ready to bug out. A battery of artillery has too many men who have other jobs to do. Does this mean that there were no smalll arms drawn for the rank and file in an artillery unit? No. But in a battery of 100-120 men, a few carbines or rifles, or pistols would be like trying to put a small band-aid on a slit juggular. As an artillery commander I would want my troops where they are most effective, not plinking away to little effect.

[Johan Steele]

I was speaking to an NSSA gunner and he mentioned another use of the arty short sword was to be used in assisting to spike the guns if neccesarry. It did not click right away and I did not think to ask. How in the blue blazes would one use a short sword to assist in spiking guns?

[LWhite64]

Just to add to the cases of the artillery short swords, I know of 1 that was found at Chickamauga, and then two from Missionary Ridge, one of which was a CS manufactured one. In regards to the spiking, I would imagine that it was used like a hammer.

Lee

[Vuhginyuh]

Three CS made sword hilts have been found along the Cape Fear in recent years; two from Fisher, one from Sugar Loaf. Pictures of the later are forthcoming.

[sedlakchristopher]

I hate to add to the plethora of posts, BUT
Just so happens I received the Photographic History of the Civil War for Christmas, the one from the 1980's edited by Bell I. Wiley...

Just happened to turn to a photo of two artillerymen in 1862 both wearing the short sword by the gun. I will get a page number asap, if some of you have it, it's about a third of the way in.

I'm not saying it was used to any extent, and agree that we all shouldn't go out and buy them tomorrow because of one picture.

[sedlakchristopher]

"There are two pictures of Ohio batterys wearing the short sword and a similar uniform. In both picture the soldiers wear shakos (not the light artillery style) and overshirts with contrasting plackets, collars and cuffs. One is said to be the 1st Ohio Light Artillery and the other is the 8th Battery Light Artillery National Guard which saw guard duty on Johnson's Island in Sandusky Ohio 1864."

Previous post by Patrick Flint



This is the same photo I just posted about that is in the "Photographic History of the Civil War"

[boozie]

Just to add to the cases of the artillery short swords, I know of 1 that was found at Chickamauga, and then two from Missionary Ridge, one of which was a CS manufactured one. In regards to the spiking, I would imagine that it was used like a hammer.

Lee

Lee,

Just out of curiosity, upon examination of the three artifacts, were there any marks, nicks, etc. Just wondered if they showed any type of abuse by being used, or misused as a tool ? It does not matter to me either way, just wanted to know what the staffs notations were of the short swords that were found.

Thanks,

[roundshot]

Good Lord. Here's a group violation of PEC by none other than the US Regular horse artillery. Count the sabers visible on all ranks in this photograph taken on the Peninsula in 1862.

[dclarry]

Good Lord. Here's a group violation of PEC by none other than the US Regular horse artillery. Count the sabers visable on all ranks in this photograph taken on the Peninsula in 1862.

I've seen this photo before and did not notice the sabers on all ranks. It is noted that this is horse artillery. Previous posts have noted a possible difference in armament between horse artillery and light artillery.

What do we think, were horse artillery issued sabers at all ranks?

(Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question)

[Forquer]

I've seen this photo before and did not notice the sabers on all ranks. It is noted that this is horse artillery. Previous posts have noted a possible difference in armament between horse artillery and light artillery.

What do we think, were horse artillery issued sabers at all ranks?

(Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question)

Lawrence -

Horse Artillery and Mounted Artillery are both classified as Light Artillery. As I believe I stated way up the list, the 1840 Light Artillery Saber was the issue sidearm for the branch.

Officer's had to buy their own.

I've always loved this image. It shows a very heavy use of sack coats in the ranks (but that's another thread).

[Danny]

... in a battery of 100-120 men, a few carbines or rifles, or pistols would be like trying to put a small band-aid on a slit jugular. As an artillery commander I would want my troops where they are most effective, not plinking away to little effect.

I understand the point, but this is the sort of reenactorism I referred to earlier; the tendency to establish a practice based on an "obvious" solution to a scenario we construct today. We're all guilty of it, it's hard not to do it. Yet "obvious" works both ways. It could be that: "As an Artillery commander I want to ensure my troops are adequately protected, so I equip and post my own guards as necessary."

As far as the "plinking away to little effect" comment; there's no reason to belittle that an Artillerist would be posted for guard duty. They would be as effective and in control as any other soldier posted for guard duty. They are there for initial challenge, armed exclusion, and to alert - that's not "little effect".

As I suggested earlier, it seems much effort goes into excluding swords and pistols from the ranks, a minor issue if there ever was one, and yet little effort to properly ratio officers to enlisted, a major reenactorism on par with fat and old.

- Dan Wykes

[Forquer]

Mr. Wykes -

Don't think for a minute that I discount the importance of a camp guard. It's a poor excuse of a commander who doesn't see to the establishment of one.

Where the confusion (as I see it) is coming is the implication that has been made previously that light artillerymen armed and posted pickets, and posted flank security, etc. There's a world of difference between having the assets available to provide for security and the assets available to make for a defense.

According to Billings in the chapter titled "A Day in Camp," he says "The guard necessary in a single company of artillery was so small that the call with the bugle was rarely if ever sounded, at least in volunteer companies. A detail of cannoneers stood guard over guns night and day, and over the cook-houses and quartermaster's stores at night, and sometimes there was one posted in front of company headquarters. A detail of drivers, also, went on duty at night at the picket-rope, to assure that the horses were kept tied and not stolen by marauding cavalrymen." Sadly, Mr. Billings doesn't go into detail on how, or if, a guard detail was armed. There is an accompanying sketch (that I know is not reliable) that shows guards on the picket line carrying the light artillery saber.

I'm also in posession of the transcribed diary of a private in the 16th Ohio Battery, that served in Missouri. Unfortunately, the only mention of guard duty is when he writes "on guard duty." He cites on June 11, 1862 that he purchased a pistol. He cites on June 14th that he sold same. Can we surmise from this that he was issued a hogleg and just wanted to pack more heat, or that he wasn't issued a pistol and wanted to pack heat? Bottom line is we don't know. I believe the general concensus and conventional wisdom is that if you're going to err, err on the side of caution.

As to the problems of TBG's, overkill on rank, improper force ratios, bad galtroops, Irish harps, Masonic emblems, etc., we're all ears on how to cure the problems.

[dclarry]

Lawrence -

Horse Artillery and Mounted Artillery are both classified as Light Artillery. As I believe I stated way up the list, the 1840 Light Artillery Saber was the issue sidearm for the branch.

Officer's had to buy their own.

I've always loved this image. It shows a very heavy use of sack coats in the ranks (but that's another thread).

Thanks, Greg.

I think what I wanted to do was draw the distinction between artillery that accompanied cavalry, all men mounted, and artillery which accompanied infantry, where drivers were mounted but the men rode in wagons, on limbers, etc. I think I should have said 'flying' artillery, instead of horse artillery. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe flying artillery was different with regard to sidearms in the ranks, I don't know. Feedback here would be welcome.

It was camp security, not defense, that I was talking about when I asked how artillerymen were armed when on guard duty. Your post of Billing's description of guard duty is what I was thinking about. I'm not sure much in the way of a sidearm is needed for such duty, but we don't really know what was done. I am with you on erring on the side of caution and simplicity.

Like a said in a previous post, I don't object to pistols and sidearms in artillery units, I just want to do it right. That's why I like this forum, we can try and decide what was right at least as far as as we can know. This has been a good discussion and this thread has over a thousand views, so it is also must be interesting to the general forum community, as well.

[James Brenner]

You're right ... this is a good thread. If you've not read William Birkhimer's, Historical Sketch of the Organization, Administration, Materiel, and Tactics of the Artillery of the United States, I recommend that you do. It was reprinted several years ago, but is now out of print. A quick search of Abebooks showed a couple copies available, ranging in price between $65 and $165. It's also available through Interlibrary Loan.

Anyway, Birkhimer defines field or light artillery as of two types: mounted and dismounted. Mounted artillery is essentially horse artillery, in which everyone rode horses and the battery accompanied the cavalry. Flying artillery is a throwback to Ringgold's battery of the Mexican War. Even though the name suggests that all the cannoneers were mounted, they weren't. Ringgold's battery was really a dismounted battery since the cannonneers walked next to the pieces, except when the situation demanded that they ride on the chests. In the accounts of the battle at Palo Alto, Ringgold's battery seemed to be everywhere on the battlefield, showing up where they were most needed, as if they flew there. Without going into too much background, US field artillery up until that time did not have horses (too expensive). Secretary of War Poinsett ordered two batteries from each regiment mounted while the rest of the regiment served as seacoast/garrison artillery. This act gave the field artillery a degree of battlefield mobility that it hadn't had before.


Changing the subject, somewhere, I have a transcript of John Tidball's memoirs. It's rather lengthy, but one chapter goes into detail about who carried what sidearms and who didn't. Once I find it, I'll post that chapter. BTW, the original is in the Ft. Sill archives.

[dclarry]

Thank you, James, for the book recommendation and possible future posts of the transcript of John Tidball's memoirs.

[Lazarus Driver]

I have to disagree with how Birkhimer defines mounted and horse artilllery.
Looking at Andrews' Mounted Artillery Drill page nine he defines it as the following
"Horse Artillery, which is generally attached to and manoeuvers with cavalry, the cannoneers being mounted on horseback, and Mounted Artillery, which is generally attached to and manoeuvers with infantry, the cannoneers marching at the sides of their pieces, or, when necessary, mounting the ammunition chests."
Look on page one of Instruction for Field Artillery (French, Barry, Hunt) and you will read the same thing. I think I will go with how it is defined in the period manuals.

I will also add this to the discussion since sabers have been included.
Page 166 section 442 Instruction for Field Artillery
"In mounted batteries the cannoneers wear sabre belts only, the sabres being carried on the ammunition chests. The drivers, and in horse artillery, the cannoneers also, wear their sabres, unless special directions are given to the contrary."

Bill Thomas
Driver
Lazarus Battery

[marine05]

I was speaking to an NSSA gunner and he mentioned another use of the arty short sword was to be used in assisting to spike the guns if neccesarry. It did not click right away and I did not think to ask. How in the blue blazes would one use a short sword to assist in spiking guns?


Good question, won't fit the vent and for field peices won't fit down the tube. Only use I can see is as a hammer, but another handy spiking device is the priming wire, insert into the vent, use the rammer to bend it inside the tube. Not impossible to get out, but will take the folks a little while to unspike.

s/f

DJM

[vamick]

Good question, won't fit the vent and for field peices won't fit down the tube. Only use I can see is as a hammer, but another handy spiking device is the priming wire, insert into the vent, use the rammer to bend it inside the tube. Not impossible to get out, but will take the folks a little while to unspike.

s/f

DJM

Ive also heard of this method /but with the priming wire thru the worm then bent. Not un fixable, but real unhandy for the enemy

[Danny]

Don't think for a minute that I discount the importance of a camp guard. It's a poor excuse of a commander who doesn't see to the establishment of one...

...There's a world of difference between having the assets available to provide for security and the assets available to make for a defense...

...According to Billings in the chapter titled "A Day in Camp," ... A detail of cannoneers stood guard over guns night and day... Sadly, Mr. Billings doesn't go into detail on how, or if, a guard detail was armed...

Mr. Forquer -

Please understand how we might think that you earlier post seemed to discount the importance of a camp guard.

Your differentiating between security and defense is a good point, as we typically would think these merely two levels of the same entity.

As to the the point that Billings didn't specify "...if, a guard detail was armed.." well the mystery can end right here - they were armed. Is there really any doubt about that?

Before we close the thread, I found in further research that the short artillery sword, besides being standard issue to the U.S. Artillery, was apparently also issued to U.S. Infantry as a stopgap measure before the war. I also found that when the French had the sword designed originally, it was specifically designed to be used by their field Artillery (Napoleanic era) for breach defense - the same intended purpose of the U.S. Army. (I guess it and the kepi came to be used in the U.S. Army essentially unchanged from French service!). And again, if the short sword was such an anachronism by CW time you wonder why it was newly minted right up to 1862, without a single significant modification from the original French pattern (only tang rivets added).

- Dan Wykes

[Danny]

[QUOTE=Johan Steele;45288]Show me a pic, sketch or written reference to men of the Lt Arty carrying (personal weapons) and mayhaps my opinion of some on the modern Inf wannabes in the Lt Arty will be changed.[QUOTE]

Johan -

Artillerists as Infantry wannabes? You're kidding, right?

LOL

- Dan Wykes

[PFLINT]

This is the same photo I just posted about that is in the "Photographic History of the Civil War"[/QUOTE]

The 8th Ohio National Guard photo is in the fourth volume of Photographic History of the Civil War in the section on prison camps and the photo of the '1st Ohio Light Artillery' in similar uniform is in the Time Life book First Blood.
Patrick Flint

[Forquer]

Patrick -

Do you know if that image has been authenticated for when it was taken? I know that in the volume that was edited by Bell Whiley it claims that the image was taken at Johnson's. Just seems a little suspect. I'm thinking it's a pre-war image.

[PFLINT]

Patrick -

Do you know if that image has been authenticated for when it was taken? I know that in the volume that was edited by Bell Whiley it claims that the image was taken at Johnson's. Just seems a little suspect. I'm thinking it's a pre-war image.

Yeah, I'm not sure if there is any more information on that picture. The 8th Ohio Battery National Guard served at Johnson's Island only during 1864 but if the picture is misslabeled-??? The pictures I mentioned have very similar backgrounds and the soldiers wear very similar uniforms, seemingly suggesting that they were taken around the same time or place which is somewhat disheartening when one is labeled as being taken in 1861and the other 1864.
Patrick Flint

[sedlakchristopher]

The book I was referring to is "Civil War Album - Complete Photographic History of the Civil War" edited by William C. Davis and Bell I. Wiley.

The photo of the Ohio National Guard - 8th Light Artillery at Johnson's Island is on page 597 wearing the elusive short sword beside what looks to be an old 6 pdr?

[sedlakchristopher]

Greg and Patrick,

My apologies for not checking the recent posts before re-posting the title of the book edited by Wiley.
Just back from vacation and wanted to make sure the title got posted since I didn't have it in front of me when I orginally posted.

As for my 2 cents....
The picture is screaming pre or early war...
1. The Shako's
2. The militia "battle shirts" of contrasting colors
3. Sure does look like a 6 pdr

I'm not saying these things preclude it from happening after 1861, BUT the resonable person would sure want to point to that time frame.

Chris Sedlak

[dclarry]

Chris,

You have a lot of experience starting up and recruiting for a unit, Battery G. Would you like to see pistols and swords in your unit impression, and if so, with what prevelance? Is it something you thought of when organizing Battery G?

[Union Navy]

Just to stick the Navy's nose in, according to McAulay, 500 model 1832 artillery swords were sent to the Mississippi Squadron in October of 1861 and 300 in February of 1862. It took a while for the 1861 model cutlasses to be sent westward, so the only "cutlasses" in the Mississippi Squadron were these artillery, short or "Roman" swords.

[Vuhginyuh]

With Bob's post in mind;

Three CS made sword hilts have been found along the Cape Fear in recent years; two from Fisher, one from Sugar Loaf. Pictures of the later are forthcoming.

Examples were found with the hull of the USS Cairo. Can someone in the Vicksburg area run by the exhibit and confirm the patterns? http://www.nps.gov/archive/vick/cairo/weapons.htm

[ArtilleryNick]

I've found this post to be rather interesting to read and at times rather informative. Personally, I've not come across anything that would suggest to me that I go out and buy one of the short swords. Number 1 because I've not seen anything that says it would be correct and number 2, there's no point in wearing something while working the cannon that'd only serve to get in your way. So far as marking cannon positions once you have that perfect shot lined up on target, that might just look pretty nifty. Personally, if I were on the rear of the cannon and about to be over run, I'd say the trailspike might just be a good weapon instead of the short sword.
And finally, with regards to the comment about artillery wanting to be infantry... ive seen infantry running away more times at reenactments than I have artillery :D

[Danny]

....because I've not seen anything that says it would be correct... D

Nick -

And your take on the things that do say they were correct? i.e. They were made under Union contract until 1863, were standard issue up to 1873, exact copies were contracted by the financially-strapped Confederate states and issued to their ranks, they have been found as dug objects in CW battlefields East, West and South, and of course there is photographic evidence, if only scant, showing their use in light artillery.

Personally I can't make those things go away. If it weren't that our officers today are so bothered by it I feel it is rather appropriate to have a couple in camp or posed near the piece in battle. At least that's for up to mid-war scenarios, by which time everbody here feels there's some evidence the swords were considered "useless".

I do think they pose a hazard to wear them while servicing the piece during battle.

- Dan Wykes