Tweet
Re: Help with tack piece
I cannot understand why this thread continues on and on. Did examples of the brass heart breast straps exist in the period? Evidence supports this, so the answer must be yes. Of that we can all agree. How widespread were they, and who used them? Those are the next questions and how does that parley into use in modern reenacting goes along with it.
We have to look at multiple sources of surviving evidence to try glean the answer. Photographic evidence does not purport widespread usage. Ordnance returns do not show that they were a counted item. Lets be clear, if the Army issued it, they expected it to be accounted for. Also, there is not an example in Danish Museum collection. In addition, there is little anecdotal evidence as well of their usage. All of this leads one to derrive that they were not an issue or widely used item. Since examples survive, and IF their provenance is upheld indicating that they are of wartime vintage, one can conclude that they came from another source. That source could be a local harness maker or even perhaps the company saddler. In eaither case, an outlay of money would be required on the trooper's part. A soldier is only going to spend his own hard earned dollars on a non-issued item if he feels that he needs it for his comfort, for his survival or for vanity reasons. Now lets think about this, if he had an item already in his kit that would serve the purpose, why would he go to the expense to purchase, maintain and expect to loose such an item?
As others have pointed out, the surcingle works fine for this. Myself and others can attest to that.
Officer's are another matter entirely. They had to equip themselves and it is not a stretch of the imagination to think an offier looking to convey the power of his office and role, would not opt for a flashy and possibly un-needed item such as the brass heart on a breast collar. Another part of the equation is that if the saddle. A properly made `59 McClellan doesnt move upon the horse a great deal. I can attest personally that in riding properly made McClellans on no less than 7 different horses, the need for a breast collar has been rare. Officer's would have had to provide their own saddle. Other saddle types of the period have a different shape to the bars which can lead to them moving back and hence the need for a breast collar to keep it place on the horse's back.
The long and the short of it is this, for everyday usage by the common Federal trooper, brass heart adorned breast collars are not correct. The historical evidence does not support this. If your particular horse's conformation lends to the saddle slipping back, then use a surcingle to keep it in place. If you are portraying a mounted officer, then use them to your heart's content.
Dave Myrick
I cannot understand why this thread continues on and on. Did examples of the brass heart breast straps exist in the period? Evidence supports this, so the answer must be yes. Of that we can all agree. How widespread were they, and who used them? Those are the next questions and how does that parley into use in modern reenacting goes along with it.
We have to look at multiple sources of surviving evidence to try glean the answer. Photographic evidence does not purport widespread usage. Ordnance returns do not show that they were a counted item. Lets be clear, if the Army issued it, they expected it to be accounted for. Also, there is not an example in Danish Museum collection. In addition, there is little anecdotal evidence as well of their usage. All of this leads one to derrive that they were not an issue or widely used item. Since examples survive, and IF their provenance is upheld indicating that they are of wartime vintage, one can conclude that they came from another source. That source could be a local harness maker or even perhaps the company saddler. In eaither case, an outlay of money would be required on the trooper's part. A soldier is only going to spend his own hard earned dollars on a non-issued item if he feels that he needs it for his comfort, for his survival or for vanity reasons. Now lets think about this, if he had an item already in his kit that would serve the purpose, why would he go to the expense to purchase, maintain and expect to loose such an item?
As others have pointed out, the surcingle works fine for this. Myself and others can attest to that.
Officer's are another matter entirely. They had to equip themselves and it is not a stretch of the imagination to think an offier looking to convey the power of his office and role, would not opt for a flashy and possibly un-needed item such as the brass heart on a breast collar. Another part of the equation is that if the saddle. A properly made `59 McClellan doesnt move upon the horse a great deal. I can attest personally that in riding properly made McClellans on no less than 7 different horses, the need for a breast collar has been rare. Officer's would have had to provide their own saddle. Other saddle types of the period have a different shape to the bars which can lead to them moving back and hence the need for a breast collar to keep it place on the horse's back.
The long and the short of it is this, for everyday usage by the common Federal trooper, brass heart adorned breast collars are not correct. The historical evidence does not support this. If your particular horse's conformation lends to the saddle slipping back, then use a surcingle to keep it in place. If you are portraying a mounted officer, then use them to your heart's content.
Dave Myrick
Comment