Anderson's Artillery

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

I'm not an artilleryman, and I've only been on a gun two or three times, so I really know nothing about it. I am doing research on LaGrange Military Academy, trying to better understand the unit that I portray, and I ran across all of the manuals they used, which included "Anderson's Artillery". Digging into that a little further, I found it was referring to "Instructions for Field Artillery; Horse and Foot" (1839) written by then Captain Robert Anderson.

My question is this; how common would this particular artillery drill be in the Western Theater of the War? In addition; if the common manual for artillery used in the War is different, how different is it?

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

There are several manuals for use in the Civil War. There is an 1845 version of Instructions for Field Artillery: Horse and Foot, 1851 Instructions for Mountain Artillery if you have pack howitzer, and then 1860 Hunt, Barry and French did "Instructions for Artillery". There are also manuals used by militia like Pattens, which is essentially an abridged version of 1860 with illustrations. If you are Federal Artillery, you should most likely be using 1860 Instructions for Artillery unless you find documentation to the contrary, as it was adopted by the War Department in March of 1860. You also have John Gibbons "Artillerists Manual", but it doesn't really cover drill. Here are links to 1860, 1845, Roberts and Pattens manuals.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sr6CHiD2TEsC&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://archive.org/details/instructionforf02deptgoog

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/books/robertshandbookofartillery.htm

https://books.google.com/books?id=P7MVAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The other thing is to get the National Park Service Manual, which is based on 1860 IFA.

https://www.nps.gov/stri/upload/19th-Century-Artillery-Manual.pdf

Whatever you do, DO NOT use NCWAA or Loyal Train of Artillery drill or variations of them as references. They are not historical at all, they are made up drill.

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

Thank you. My understanding (from the very limited sources I have been able to find) seems to say the Anderson's '39 is very similar if not almost exactly the same as the '45 issue. I've only glanced at the two, so I'm not entirely sure how true that is. It also appears that they both used the French Artillery manual for a reference, and simply translated them.

I'm running/putting together a Living History/Instruction Program for "cadets" that would teach the manuals, and other things, that were taught at LaGrange Military Academy in 1857-1862, and want to make sure to do it just right. I also want to make sure that if I include this Artillery drill (after finding someone to help with it that is), that it won't be too far off from what is currently used in the hobby. My goal is to learn, and teach these cadets, every process of the three branches so they know what is going on even across the field.

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

I would also point you to the Facebook group "Authentic Civil War Artillery", and there is very active discussion there on artillery drill and lot's of expertise to share. And yes, the French were the model on artillery. The US Army sent Samuel Ringgold to study in Europe and he brought back the "flying artillery" concept from France that was adopted by the US Army for the Mexican War. If you're focusing on a period starting in 1857, then the 1845 drill may be appropriate.
What sort of gun would you use for the training and living history? That is also a factor.

If you look under the Cavalry forum, there is an Artillery discussion sub-forum, and recently I posted about the FA Museum here and our efforts to portray the 1860 drill, with annotations including the NPS drill.

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?45689-19th-Century-Artillery-drill-procedure-photo-set

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

I did see your post about the FA Museum, and even shared it with a few others. I loved it, very informative.

Would you know if the 45 Manual might still have been called "Anderson's", even though he was no longer associated with it?

Here's the bit in my source for LaGrange manuals;

"Fifth Year - First Class
Civil and Military Engineering: Mahan's Civil Engineering, Gillespie on Roads and Railroads, Mahan's Field Fortifications, Practical Instructions in Civil Engineering, Constructive Drawing.
Astronomy: Olmstead's.
Rhetoric and Ethics: Blair's Rhetoric, Wayland's Moral Philosophy and Upham's Mental Philosophy.
Mineralogy and Geology: Dana and Hitchcock.
Infantry and Artillery Tactics: Scott, Hardee and Anderson.
Infantry or Artillery Drill daily from 5 to 6 p.m., Saturday and Sundays excepted. Dress parade at sunset."

Wyeth, John A. "History of the La Grange Military Academy" The Brewer Press, New York, 1909

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

It looks like a good borrowing of USMA's curriculum with Mahan and Olmstead volumes. No the 1845 manual would not be referred to as Anderson's, as it is "compiled by a board of officers" none of whom are named, but Samuel Ringgold was involved and I believe the primary author. It is different as well because from the 1839 manual, the Army introduced the 1841 12 Pdr gun and the 1841 6 Pdr which are addressed in the 1845 manual.

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

Very good points. Would you say the '39 Anderson's might give at least a very basic understanding of artillery used at events? I'm wanting to keep everything as accurate as I can (I can't keep it too accurate, as the actual Academy burned down in '63, and there are some modern homes and structures on the site now), but I also want to make sure to train these cadets well enough to command on the field with a good understanding of the three main combat branches.

[NMVolunteer]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

Are you training cadets just for events at the Academy, or do you anticipate that they would move on to artillery events hosted on NPS sites? If the latter, you might want to throw in NPS drill as well.

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

Both actually. The intention is to train cadets from multiple units (anyone wishing to attend) in Infantry and Artillery tactics and command, while portraying the Cadets of the Academy from 1857 to 1862.

I'm already going to have to add some Infantry manuals other than Scott's and Hardee's '55, so adding the NPS drill also sounds like a necessity.

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

And the NPS Manual is included in the links listed in my first post, and yes, if you are doing any events, that is key.
As to training your cadets on the 39 manual used there, I just reviewed it and it is very different; No 2 helps No 1 ram in this drill, No 4 is essentially No 5 in this as opposed to 1860 drill where he fires the piece with the lanyard, and No 3 uses a portfire in this manual to fire the piece as opposed to stopping the vent, assisting in pointing and piercing the powder. The Gunner does No 3's pointing duties in the 39 manual. If you taught this drill, it wouldn't be something you could use at an event, the duties of the cannoneers are much different, so if you wanted to do events not related to the academy's training, they would have to learn 2 different drills.

[Matthew Joe Mallory]

Re: Anderson's Artillery

Thank you. I think that pretty much settles it then. As much as I want to keep the training to what they actually used at the Academy, I can't use that if I'm expecting these cadets to be able to get out there and do this at typical reenactments.

Again, thank you all for the help.