This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

[KyCavMajor]

FWIW,
I dont think the center of a single rank column would withstand a charge by veteran troopers, regular or volunteer, in a double rank formation. It has more to do with the compactness of the formation. The looser formation will break every time.

Two things,
Many do not feel that single rank equals looser.Thinner? Perhaps but stirrup to stirrup is still stirrup to stirrup. The distances between horses is not increased in rank entire...

Given equal numbers, the single rank can equal the numbers in front of them, that can be brought to bearon a certain point and still allow a reserve.
When the second rank plows into the remains of it's own first rank and the single rank of its opponent, disorder seems pre ordained. Now the side using the single rank has a distinct advantage, an intact force to counter attack with.

Even in double rank on double rank charges, the looser formation always breaks, allowing the tighter formation to punch through and gain their opponents vulnerable rear. Double rank formations by there nature bring more bodies to the point of contact than a single rank formation and the formation is inherently more compact yielding a stronger punch. This has been a basic tenent of warfare since antiquity.

Once again, single rank does not equate to "looser" automatically. And often the counter punch is more important than the initial jab. Prince Henry found this out in the 13 Th century versus the Mongols at Liengnitz

It is true the two ranks will place more men in a smaller space, although I can do exactly the same in the single rank system if I think it is needed.
As to warfare and antiquity, those that don't adapt to changes... The whole point of the diminishing depth of formations was forced upon armies not so much by choice but by necessity. Nice deep formations make lovely targets, if you miss the guy in front, you have more behind him to hit.

It seems as though you think that there would be an appreciable time distance between when the 2nd rank of the formation impacts the line. In fact it is negligible. The horse in front, feels the pressure of the horse behind and moves away from that pressure. Since he cant move side to side, he moves in the only direction left open to him, forward. Again this adds to the weight of the charge not detracting from it.

That is the theory, but some, Captain Louis Nolan for example, felt in practice the two rank system, especially for volunteer cavalry caused more disorder in the ranks. McClellan after studying the Europeans felt the same.
Now as for the delay between ranks, I understand fully how quickly the second rank will plunge into the disorganized mass in front of it, and become disorganized its self, it is almost inevitable. The front rank will not sweep away the opponent cleanly, or perhaps at all. The second rank arriving even a split second later will find its self either slamming into the rank in front of it, or entangled in a mêlée.

In your assertion, you fail in my mind to take one extremely important thing into consideration and that is the horse. There is plenty of documetation where two veteran formations of roughly equal size go against each other and yet one formation always breaks. Its not the lack of will on the trooper's part, nor the lack of training or experience. To me the only thing left to throw into the equation is the horse.

Dave Myrick

I don't think I have failed to take the horse into consideration at all, but given that the horses, the men, and the training are all equal, the victory would most likely go to the formation with the most flexibility and the ability of their commander to use it.
I think a formation is only as strong as its weakest file, be it single or double rank. I also feel personally that there is more chance for a horse to become problematic in the two rank system, horses in the front ranks kicking at the rear for example...
But I think we both can agree, the day will always fall to the unit that is better trained and disiplined. A poorly trained double rank unit has no chnce against a solid single rank, and the opposite is true as well.

[KyCavMajor]

Todd, Dean
I hope you both are enjoying this discussion as much as I am! Although I am not sure anyone has convinced anyone of much, I can see Todd modified his belief some, as I have as well.
Just re reading some of the manuals in preparation has been enlightening!

I can only speak of the areas I know, and I will be the first to admit the scope has been limited to the Western Theater. That narrow focus has been enough to keep me busy.
What I have discovered is, and this pertains to my interest, Morgan's Cavalry, and to narrow it further, the Ninth Kentucky Cavalry in particular.
Early war, under Morgan we know from Dukes words that fought in single rank, and we know they drilled in Maury's tactics. But we also know Maury's was not a complete manual either.
Wheeler later solved that by combining Maury's with Cookes to get "Wheeler's Tactics" so that gives us, as the Ninth a basis for after Jan 1864.
Now the Ninth was assigned to Wheeler after Morgan left all but one comapny behind on his summer tour of 1863 through Indiana and Ohio. Now we SUSPECT that Wheeler, who was commited to the Single Rank was probably using that system then.
The question I am still trying to answer is what the 9th woud have used in combination with the incomplete Maury's previous to being assigned to Wheeler.
I have no first hand account of any of Morgan's units using two ranks at any time or place. Nor do I have any account of any of Wheelers command using two ranks. So for now we drill in Wheeler's, which sounds like the manual it was plagarized from, Cookes, for the mounted part anyway, and Maury's for our dismounted drill.

[Dean West]

Hello,
This thread has gotten quiet. Too quiet. A couple cavalrymen were just getting wound-up in a conversation the relative "shock effect" of two-rank line, ala Poinsett's, impacting a one-rank line (called "rank entire" by the British, and is the formation used in Cooke's Tactics). I believe the following information will be relevant to this discussion.

It turns out that in the early 1830's, a lively debate on this subject occurred involving British generals such as Wellington, Lords Vivian and Russell, and other veterans of the Peninsular War in Spain (1808-1814). Their letters and articles on the subject are preserved in an Appendix to "Nolan's "Cavalry: Its History and Tactics", a theoretical work published in 1853 by Captain Louis Edward Nolan (Westholme Press edition, 2007). Nolan ended-up being the first man killed in the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava. However good your cavalry soldiers may be, but before that had been quite a rising star in the cavalry world, and wrote quite a good book.

Nolan was a strong advocate for retaining the two-rank line in the British cavalry service. His reasons were: "However good your cavalry soldiers may be, they are not ALL fit for t he front rank; neither are all horses fit to lead, though ALL will follow."

"Broken up in melee, the single ranks (men being equal) would be overpowered before they could get assistance, and the single-rank reserves would be again overmatched by the double-rank reserves." Nolan goes on to describe the defects of a single rank formation when pursuing a beaten foe, and then talks about a successful single-rank attack in a battle on the Spanish Peninsula. Nolan believed the same results would have obtained had the formation been in two-ranks.

Nolan believed "To add that great essential, rapidity, to the movement of cavcalry, keep the squadrons small (narrow-ED) and give them plenty of elbow-room, that is, sufficient intervals."

Then Nolan adds all the leeters and pamphlets written by those who advocated adopting the single-rank system. In the following I will in the interest of brevity delete much of the discussion and will try to focus onth e essentials. One can buy the book on the internet should one be interested in reading everything.

From the United Service Gazette, 12 March, 1853

...we noticed a a very interesting pamphlet...on the subject of the Constitution of a Yoemanry Force (Militia volunteers-ED)... in reference to the the organization of cavalry in "rank entire."

The subject of the pamphlet was how best to train volunteer "Yoemanry" cavalry. The author believed single-rank the best.

In the pamphlet was a letter written by Wellington in 1833.

"Cavalry is essentially an offensive arm, whose use depends on activity, combined with its steadiness and good order. I think the second rank of cavalry, at the usual distance of close order does not increase the ACTIVITY of cavalry. The rear rank of the cavalry does not strengthen the front rank, as the center and rear ranks do the front rank of the infantry. The rear rank of the cavalry can augment the activity or even the means of attack of the front rank only by a movement of disorder.

I find that it will take pages to try to qoute the mass of this info. Perhaps I could scan the pages from the book and send them in, but I am currently not authorized to send attachments. The discussion touches on how easy it is to train volunteer type cavalry quickly to the single-rank system; "Rank entire is particularly suitable for Yoemanry (volunteer) and all irregular and half-disciplined cavalry. Some would say this describes much of our cav in the Civil War, primarily because the armies had insufficient time too train them.

But I must add an interesting qoute from General Bacon, who commanded newly-raised cav formed in single-rank in Portugal and was heavily engaged, successfully:

"Many smart soldiers dislike being in the rear ranks, and feel themselves thrown in the background; they are apt to become careless, and merely follow their front rank files, without knowing or caring what is going on; where in rank-entire every man is under the eyes of the officers, and MUST be on "qui vive" and wide awake. Every man has an equal share int he attack, which is not the case with two ranks. Rank entire mat apear loose, and show more 'daylight' between the files, but is not in reality more loose; on the contrary, cavalry accustomed to work in rank entire will be found to be better closed together than in two..."

I hope this infroamtion is of interest.

Dean West

[Sccavtrooper]

well any photos you see on cavalry formation show them in a double rank formation. i think the single rank is more a product of hollywood that what was used

[1st Maine Trooper]

SCcavtrooper,
First of all you need to "sign" all of your posts with you first and last name here.
Secondly, there is more than an adaquate supply of anecdotal evidence to proove that single rank tactics were used by troops from both sides during the war.
Thirdly, there are no where near enough photos of troops in the field to be able to definatively say which tactical formation was used.

I am guessing by the number of posts you have made that you are fairly new around here. We like to documentation to support our statements.

Dave Myrick

[T.Kern]

This is old news to most studied cav historians, most know of the great debate in british history over single or double. Nolan was one of the great horsemen trying to move cavalry training beyond what it was at the time. It's good to see the book is being reprinted. Anyone interested in this period should read Nolan's books and anything from or about Baucher.
Todd Kern

Hello,
This thread has gotten quiet. Too quiet. A couple cavalrymen were just getting wound-up in a conversation the relative "shock effect" of two-rank line, ala Poinsett's, impacting a one-rank line (called "rank entire" by the British, and is the formation used in Cooke's Tactics). I believe the following information will be relevant to this discussion.

It turns out that in the early 1830's, a lively debate on this subject occurred involving British generals such as Wellington, Lords Vivian and Russell, and other veterans of the Peninsular War in Spain (1808-1814). Their letters and articles on the subject are preserved in an Appendix to "Nolan's "Cavalry: Its History and Tactics", a theoretical work published in 1853 by Captain Louis Edward Nolan (Westholme Press edition, 2007). Nolan ended-up being the first man killed in the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava. However good your cavalry soldiers may be, but before that had been quite a rising star in the cavalry world, and wrote quite a good book.

Nolan was a strong advocate for retaining the two-rank line in the British cavalry service. His reasons were: "However good your cavalry soldiers may be, they are not ALL fit for t he front rank; neither are all horses fit to lead, though ALL will follow."

"Broken up in melee, the single ranks (men being equal) would be overpowered before they could get assistance, and the single-rank reserves would be again overmatched by the double-rank reserves." Nolan goes on to describe the defects of a single rank formation when pursuing a beaten foe, and then talks about a successful single-rank attack in a battle on the Spanish Peninsula. Nolan believed the same results would have obtained had the formation been in two-ranks.

Nolan believed "To add that great essential, rapidity, to the movement of cavcalry, keep the squadrons small (narrow-ED) and give them plenty of elbow-room, that is, sufficient intervals."

Then Nolan adds all the leeters and pamphlets written by those who advocated adopting the single-rank system. In the following I will in the interest of brevity delete much of the discussion and will try to focus onth e essentials. One can buy the book on the internet should one be interested in reading everything.

From the United Service Gazette, 12 March, 1853

...we noticed a a very interesting pamphlet...on the subject of the Constitution of a Yoemanry Force (Militia volunteers-ED)... in reference to the the organization of cavalry in "rank entire."

The subject of the pamphlet was how best to train volunteer "Yoemanry" cavalry. The author believed single-rank the best.

In the pamphlet was a letter written by Wellington in 1833.

"Cavalry is essentially an offensive arm, whose use depends on activity, combined with its steadiness and good order. I think the second rank of cavalry, at the usual distance of close order does not increase the ACTIVITY of cavalry. The rear rank of the cavalry does not strengthen the front rank, as the center and rear ranks do the front rank of the infantry. The rear rank of the cavalry can augment the activity or even the means of attack of the front rank only by a movement of disorder.

I find that it will take pages to try to qoute the mass of this info. Perhaps I could scan the pages from the book and send them in, but I am currently not authorized to send attachments. The discussion touches on how easy it is to train volunteer type cavalry quickly to the single-rank system; "Rank entire is particularly suitable for Yoemanry (volunteer) and all irregular and half-disciplined cavalry. Some would say this describes much of our cav in the Civil War, primarily because the armies had insufficient time too train them.

But I must add an interesting qoute from General Bacon, who commanded newly-raised cav formed in single-rank in Portugal and was heavily engaged, successfully:

"Many smart soldiers dislike being in the rear ranks, and feel themselves thrown in the background; they are apt to become careless, and merely follow their front rank files, without knowing or caring what is going on; where in rank-entire every man is under the eyes of the officers, and MUST be on "qui vive" and wide awake. Every man has an equal share int he attack, which is not the case with two ranks. Rank entire mat apear loose, and show more 'daylight' between the files, but is not in reality more loose; on the contrary, cavalry accustomed to work in rank entire will be found to be better closed together than in two..."

I hope this infroamtion is of interest.

Dean West

[Cleaveland]

Anybody who has spent some time reading regamental historys of cav units that faught in the american civil war would know that the single rank formation was used , and with some effect by both sides.

The 4th Iowa reg history, states that the unit started out in double rank than a year later changed to cooke"s and was much like by the officers of that reg.

John Cleaveland

[T.Kern]

John, again, that is only one account by one reg. What happened to the western feds ordered to change from single to double under Wilson. Yes , It was used. It was not the norm in the east and unclear how common it was in the west but does seem more prevalent out there.
As for strength of one against the other, I will still disagree with Tod Lane. I feel there is no way a single rank charge could stand against double ranks, all things being equal. Here the old doctrine bears true , ...bring superior numbers to bear at the point of contact... In this day and age there is no way to prove it though, it is all a matter of debate.
SIncerely,
Todd Kern

[RJSamp]

Actually Tod, that's quote about a single regiment comes from a great book with a great quote in it: The preponderance of Western Federal Volunteer Cavalry drilled and manuevered to Cooke's. "The Story of a Cavalry Regiment" by William Forse Scott. Putnam's Son's New York (The Nickerbocker Press), 1893. It would behoove us to read this book first before offering opinion's without factual basis. Basically you've got the Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, most of the IL cavalry regiment's studying and fighting under Cooke's single ranks tactics both dismounted and mounted because it was "simple, and effective". Certainly Minty, his 4th US Cavalry Regiment, and his Brigade used Poinsett's tactics.....and used a double rank formation in over 100 documented saber charges during the ACW. Western Theatre.

You also have dozens of charges in 'column' with pistols, shotguns, and 'rifles' barking.....this would be in a By 4's To the Right formation....marching by the Right Flank (what most would call a column of 4's, including the writers of the time). That's what you get with narrow trails/fords/roads/fence lined lanes.

The great charge at Marais des Cygnes October 25, 1864 where Benteen's Brigade (actually Winslow but he had been wounded at Byram's Ford october 23 1864.) broke Marmaduke's and Fagan's line was made from single rank formation....of a column of Regiment's. 10th Mo, 4th Iowa, 3rd Iowa, and a mixed MO/IN mix. Cooke's tactics, 1100 mounted troopers, and a wild scramble across open prairie (that means 3-4 foot high sedge, grasses, tufts, et al). Column broke line (as rare as that occurs throughout history).

Some write that over 2500 horsed troopers charged in that battle, but Phillip's Brigade (who had taken over for a disgraced Brown at Byram's Ford) charged much later, after the Confederates had been routed. They too were in single rank formation, stacked in a column of regiments.

It must be stated that Winslow's Brigade (and other's) received their Spencer Carbines in the winter of 1863-1864. The quote from the same book is that they gave up their much hated heavy Dragoon style saber for the much lighter and easier to handle light cavalry saber. They also turned in their revolvers, the quick firing Spencer Carbine's doubling as both rifle and revolver. The weight saved by not carrying the revolver and 24 cartridges/balls was used to carry more rounds/tubes of carbine ammunition.
Take that you pistolero's and multi cylinder carrying reenactors.

So what happened when Wilson/Upton had them switch to Poinsett's in the winter of 1864-5 you ask? Well that specific subject receives a few pages in the book, it would be great for the hobby if you read up on it. Recall that the 4 Michigan Cavalry Brigades made the conversion a year earlier out east. They had used Cooke's single rank tactics in numerous saber/pistol fights and dismounted Sharps RIFLE actions, including at Brandy Station and "Go you Wolverines" at Rummel's Farm July 3rd 1863 Gettysburg. So the Michigan troopers were undoing old habits under the direction of young West Pointer's....and learned Poinsett's winter of 1864. (See Kyd's book, another must read for you Tod). So what happen's in May 1864 at Trevillian's Station on the first day when the 5th Michigan Cavalry Regiment captures the wagons and is immediately surrounded???? Yep, under duress they form a single rank oval facing outward, a circle the wagons what do we do next formation. Cooke's. And they make a desperate charge and escape, although losing nearly 200 troopers. old habits die hard.

And what of the other's that learned Poinsett's? Again from "the Story of a Cavalry Regiment"
1. Most of the fighting in the West was DISMOUNTED single ranks same as before learned in Cooke's (and Cooke's "doesn't" have any dismounted tactics in it yet over 50,000 troopers learned how to fight dismounted in a single rank....hmmm, Tod).
2. They had a few mounted charges in March/April 1865....some from road column.....a few in double ranks.
3. For the most part:They dismounted and fought with their Spencer's.....assaulted light field fortifications dismounted....Cavalry overcoming entrenched infantry and artillery.....
4. heck the war was practically over March - May 1865 which is when they could have employed the new double rank tactics.. They had fought since 1862 in single ranks: 1862, 1863, 1864. Three years and hundreds of cavalry fights and great Raid's using Cooke's tactics....mounted and dismounted.
5. Interesting that the double ranked tactic's are referred to as SCOTT's cavalry tactics.....both before going into combat in 1862, and when the relearned it March 1865. You see the 4th Iowa had initially trained in 2 rank evolutions at Camp Hardan when they weren't even a cavalry outfit.....and had neither horses nor equipment's. Then learned Cooke's on horseback, and then relearned two ranks in March 1865.

so there' your answers and your research projects Tod:
Western Cavalry fought largely in single ranked formations, mounted and dismounted. They fought in columns (as in going down a road) more than double ranked line....even after they had been taught the double ranked evolutions so as to allow for more effectiveness and efficiency in the woods and ravines out East. The single regiment cited above was in a Brigade, Division, and Corps that went through the same organizational changes and used the same tactics...and relearned the tactics and weaponry at about the same time. so it isn't ONE regiment Federal .....it's nearly 50 (including other Western Federal Volunteer Cavalry like the 4 Wisconsin regiments) that fought in single rank formations both mounted and dismounted.

and please stop poopooing the efforts of the 5 Eastern Cavalry units that used Cooke's Tactics from May 1862 to March 1864. Those Wolverines put a world of hurt on many an FFV trooper....using Cooke's Tactics.

Neither of us were there. Crack open a book and let me know where someone who was there, in combat, as an officer, is not authentic, doesn't know what he's writing about, didn't use Cooke's, and couldn't have been using Cooke's single rank dismounted.

Enough of the opinions. Factual evidence only please.

[KyCavMajor]

Actually Tod, .

By "Tod" i assume you meant "Todd?" Confusing I know. I am the good looking one.... You remember, big guy, white horse, long discussions at Conner Prarie over Kentucky Lemonaide..?