Parade Rest Help

[john duffer]

Re: Parade Rest Help

“ you are of course free to expand on your criticism as far as it's relevant to the question raised “

Thanks Michael, but while I appreciate your permission to reply (as long, of course, as I meet your guidelines) it won’t be necessary. Your bringing to light of startling new documented facts:

“ The position in the Regs is the older one, designed for a musket that is somewhat longer than a rifle. The position in the Tactics was developed for the new, shorter weapon. “

Has convinced me you’re right – the French specifically addressed the parade rest position in 1845 to update the 1861 U.S. REGULATIONS and CASEY’S 1862 work. Nice catch.

[Cyclesmith]

Re: Parade Rest Help

A few photos I found on my HD

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Parade Rest Help

“ you are of course free to expand on your criticism as far as it's relevant to the question raised “

Thanks Michael, but while I appreciate your permission to reply (as long, of course, as I meet your guidelines) it won’t be necessary. Your bringing to light of startling new documented facts:

“ The position in the Regs is the older one, designed for a musket that is somewhat longer than a rifle. The position in the Tactics was developed for the new, shorter weapon. “

Has convinced me you’re right – the French specifically addressed the parade rest position in 1845 to update the 1861 U.S. REGULATIONS and CASEY’S 1862 work. Nice catch.

I'm saying there's a connection between the weapon used and the position in the manual of arms. I don't see how your statement contradicts that, or addresses the man's question.

[john duffer]

Re: Parade Rest Help

" I'm saying there's a connection between the weapon used and the position in the manual of arms "

Which is your theory and may be dead on but it's still your theory. My problem is you made statements of theory and implied they were documented facts. - "The position in the Tactics was developed for the new, shorter weapon.“ Someone else may feel the change is related to dark blue versus sky blue trousers - "The position in the Tactics was developed for the new, skyblue trousers.“ How is this different from just putting up a poll? As for the probable answer to the original question the answer is across the body seems the most likely, but, like many drill questions there doesn't seem to be an iron clad solution. Across the body is not more likely because of weapon, trousers, opionion polls, et al, but because that's what is found in the training manuals the majority would have been exposed to after 1855.

I might also note that the U.S. Regulations acknowledge both muskets and rifles but only have the one parade rest.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Parade Rest Help

" I'm saying there's a connection between the weapon used and the position in the manual of arms "

Which is your theory and may be dead on but it's still your theory. My problem is you made statements of theory and implied they were documented facts. - "The position in the Tactics was developed for the new, shorter weapon.“ Someone else may feel the change is related to dark blue versus sky blue trousers - "The position in the Tactics was developed for the new, skyblue trousers.“ How is this different from just putting up a poll? As for the probable answer to the original question the answer is across the body seems the most likely, but, like many drill questions there doesn't seem to be an iron clad solution. Across the body is not more likely because of weapon, trousers, opionion polls, et al, but because that's what is found in the training manuals the majority would have been exposed to after 1855.

I might also note that the U.S. Regulations acknowledge both muskets and rifles but only have the one parade rest.

So in opposition to my theory that the change in position followed a change in weaponry, you propose that it just as likely resulted from whim? You see no more connection between positions in the manual of arms and the arms, than between the positions and the color of trousers? OK, I literally cannot argue with that line of reasoning. I guess those VRC guys in Washington Circle just flipped a coin.

[john duffer]

Re: Parade Rest help.

GENERAL REGULATIONS for the MILITARY FORCES OF THE STATE of NEW-YORK, 1858 muddies the water (or at least does little to clear it) by making a case both for and against using both methods.

Under “FORMS OF PARADE” it specifies the U.S. REGULATIONS method and states:

“On all parades of ceremony, such as reviews, guard-mounting, at troop or retreat parades, instead of the word “Rest,” which allows the men to move or change the position of their bodies, the command will be “Parade—Rest!”

Under “PARADES, ETC.” it states:

“The manual of arms for sergeants, corporals, for relieving sentinels, of the sword or saber for officers, for color salute, will be found in 1st Vol. Scott’s Tactics, pp 179-189; 1st Vol. Hardee’s Tactics, pp 214-216."

It acknowledges muskets, rifles, rifle muskets, flint, percussion & Maynard primer.

Two tidbits of interest – at least to me –are:

“A rind of fresh pork, without salt, is better than oil for greasing the metallic parts of the musket.”

The manual of arms given for light infantry when using the musket or rifle musket appears to be the same as Hardee uses in his Goetzel version.

[markj]

Re: Parade Rest help.

Can't add much to the above discussion other than the debate is nothing new. Viz:

United States Army & Navy Journal, 15 September 1866:

REVISED REGULATIONS.

To the Editor of the Army and Navy Journal:

SIR : --Armies do not spontaneously arise at whatever time or point they may be required. Having been once created, they are to be preserved for the emergency. They consist of the personnel and materiel, which require rules for the preservation of each as distinct as the components themselves.
The Articles of War should properly preserve the one and the Regulations the other. And Tactics should detail the most approved principles under which any unit of the Army should move, whether in the presence or out of the reach of the enemy.
Our Articles of War, abstracted mostly from the English Mutiny Act and Articles of War, never met the wants of the Army, nor were they well adapted to our institutions.
We might have expected that after a five years’ war, during which the defects of the Articles became so manifest, there would already have been some effort to revise a code so replete with want. However, there is an effort being made to get a code of tactics embracing the experience of the war; and section 37 of the new Army bill contemplates the improved code of regulations for the government of the Army.
As this code is to be submitted to the next Congress, it may not be amiss to present a few thoughts through your valuable journal.
Each new code, as they have in the past [been] successively issued, has contained some improvements, but retained many of the worst features, and even introduced new [problems] instead of expunging all existing bad ones.
Should the Board of Officers appointed to revise the old [regulations] or get up a new code, embrace, as it should, not only any officer of experience and military intelligence, without crotchets, from each arm; but from each and every department and corps of the service, they will undoubtedly bear in mind the paramount necessity of a well-defined line between the Regulations, Tactics, and Articles of War.
If the Articles of War are to remain so imperfect as they are, the Regulations must necessarily partly supply the deficiency. But what necessity is there for its encroachment on Tactics, much less such frequent conflict?
We may expect the new code not only to embrace (synoptically) the new laws and orders applicable to our present circumstances, but if a revision is contemplated, we may expect to see expunged from the old all redundancy and errors which has stealthily crept in from time to time.
The present code was introduced after adopting the Tactics known in the Army as Hardee’s; but the Regulations, in the most important particulars, failed to recognize this change. So, to-day, we have the anomaly, disastrous, in the extreme to unity or harmony, that, under the authorized Tactics, “march” moves a body of men in quick time, whereas in common time under the Regulations. The Regulations (392, 394 and 420) provide for a salute by “carry arms,” whereas the manual of arms of the Tactics contains no such movement of the piece; and officers not conversant with Scott’s Tactics would be entirely at a loss to know how to execute it. En passant, we may state that there appears, however, to be no good reason why this movement was excluded from the manual of arms in our present Tactics, unless it be that it interferes with one of the first essentials which now apparently govern the efficiency of the Army—a half-cocked hat. The “Parade—rest,” “Front—face,” etc. are not in harmony with the present Tactics. Should they not be? Harmony (uniformity) and unity are as essential to a healthy discipline and robust morale as a boiler and condenser are to the steam, which they preserve and generate.
If as at present the Regulations must continue to encroach on Tactics, let all branches of the service be represented in the Board, recollecting that each knows its own wants best, and that now there is a greater difference between cavalry and infantry than (B---‘s) “turning the toes in and turning them out.”
Above all means, let there be harmony between the Regulations, Tactics and Articles of War. REFORM.

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[usmcskipper]

Re: Parade Rest help.

Original photos prove rather interesting as well. While I have seen photos of units executing parade rest in one form or another, it wasn't until re-reading this thread that I noticed a picture in the Union EOG that shows one unit doing parade rest both ways. On page 11, the photo shows a company in front at shoulder arms per Hardees etc., while there are two companies behind it that are clearly visible. The company on the right as you look at the photo is using the across the body form of parade rest while the company to that one's right is using the parade rest with the musket back against the right arm and both hands are crossed in front of the body. If the caption is correct, it is a photo of the 1st Michigan Volunteers receiving its colors in May 1861 and was taken by Jex Bardwell.