Tweet
Finally, I got my hands on an English language reprint of the book THE GREAT CAVALRY BATTLE OF BRANDY STATION, June 1863 by Heros von Borcke and Justus Scheibert. Von Borcke and Scheibert were Prussians who witnessed the battle- Von Borcke as a participant in the fighting and Scheibert as an observer. The book was originally published in German language in 1893 and difficult to find until it was reprinted in 1976 by Palaemon Press Ltd, Winston Salem NC. It provides an accurate, lively and interesting account of the battle with excellent biographical sketches of the principals that has been often quoted in important historical works. Perhaps of equal interest (at least to us here ) yet rarely examined are two other items from its content. First, a brief depiction of the ANV cavalryman and second, the sketches used to illustrate the book. I present both here for your observations and comment.
1. While the book goes into lengthy (and very interesting) detail about the kind of men that rode under Stuart, my comments will be limited to the arms, equipment, clothing and horses of the ANV cavalryman as observed and written by von Borcke and Scheibert. The views on cavalry found in the volume appear to be those of Scheibert with Borcke's approval. However, these are worthy of consideration due to the detail and perspective these two Prussian soldiers bring to their intended readers- Prussian or other Europeans rather than American. I believe, they offer us a very good education through their salient points.
(QUOTE) “Their saddles and bridles were very light and simple: a Mexican saddle (Ed.: Not truly Mexican as we know it but meaning the method of rawhide covered tree which was unusual to Europeans at the time) of tough wood, open over the horse’s back to allow the circulation of air, a wool saddle blanket and stirrups of heat-curved hickory, fitted in front with an open leather shoe (Ed.: stirrups hoods. Again, unusual as European armies generally used metal stirrups) to protect the rider’s feet against wet and dirt. The pack which was fastened to the saddle consisted mostly of a rolled-up rubber blanket, a leather pouch (Ed; saddle bags) for extra horseshoes, and one for the rider’s personal necessities. They used bits, sometimes just a bridle, but never both together. (ed. :The Europeans of the time generally used the bit and bradoon hence their strange descriptive and understanding) The bit, which could usually be unhooked, was fastened directly to the halter (Ed.: the CS combination “halter-bridle”.) In addition, there was a long, flat leather halter strap tied to one of the rings on the front of the saddle. With it the trooper, while dismounted during long breaks, lets his horse gras over a relatively large are on the plentiful grass.
The cavalryman carried a slightly curved sabre which, as a rule, was fastened under the upper saddle girth below the soldier’s left leg (Ed.: OH, Oh! Not this again! More contemporary evidence!), a revolver (Colt) in a holster fastened to his sword belt, and a rather long carbine slung over his back.
The regulation uniform was supposed to consist of a light gray jacket with a yellow collar, light gray trousers with yellow stripes, high riding boots and a French style kepi. But, as the war progressed, of course many variations sprang up, so that one could hardly speak of a proper uniform. The kepi in particular was replaced by a light round felt hat with a broad brim turned up on one side. Those who could afford the luxury decorated the hat with plumes or other feathers (Ed. all more evidence of a look not seen enough on reenactors). This felt hat proved to be the best headgear for the soldier. It protected him against the sun and rain, and, with a cloth tucked inside, offered as certain protection against the bare sword as the best helmet......
At the beginning and during the first two years of the war the Southern states had quite an abundant supply of horses. For a number of years Southerners had been breeding horses very scientifically. Without regard for expense, valuable studs had been imported from England, two of which had even won the English Derby. The horses were of medium size, very elegant in form, and extraordinarily efficient. They wee also characterized by great docility and a very gentle nature. In bivouacs there were often several thousand horses, including no small percentage of stallions. Once seldom heard a sound from them, there was no biting, kicking or loud whinnying as is usual in European armies, even with small numbers of horses.
The horses had one drawback in particular. Their hooves were soft, probably due to the fact that most of them had been ridden unshod before the war. This defect was not very noticeable when riding on soft ground, but it became more apparent in mountains and on rocky terrain. There, the horseshoes, which held only slightly in the soft hooves, were easily and often lost. The hoof soon wore down to the quick, and the horse, which rider had not learned to shoe his horse immediately with a reserve horseshoe, had to be left behind, This caused many an otherwise gallant trooper to fall into enemy hands.” (End Quote)
What do you think?
2. Another important aspect of the book are the illustrations in the book. While somewhat faulty due to their biased European understanding they provide some very interesting points for consideration and discussion. Please note that these illustrations offer a unique sense of realism as they (As quoted from the author’s forward) ....“were drawn by C. Sellmer, an outstanding artist and painter of battle scenes. They are based on sketches of different incidents during the engagement, which Scheibert made on the spot, and can be regarded as depictions of actual events, not just imaginative illustrations.” (end quote)
What interesting points or perhaps conclusions (?) do you folks note about these illustrations?
Ken R Knopp
1. While the book goes into lengthy (and very interesting) detail about the kind of men that rode under Stuart, my comments will be limited to the arms, equipment, clothing and horses of the ANV cavalryman as observed and written by von Borcke and Scheibert. The views on cavalry found in the volume appear to be those of Scheibert with Borcke's approval. However, these are worthy of consideration due to the detail and perspective these two Prussian soldiers bring to their intended readers- Prussian or other Europeans rather than American. I believe, they offer us a very good education through their salient points.
(QUOTE) “Their saddles and bridles were very light and simple: a Mexican saddle (Ed.: Not truly Mexican as we know it but meaning the method of rawhide covered tree which was unusual to Europeans at the time) of tough wood, open over the horse’s back to allow the circulation of air, a wool saddle blanket and stirrups of heat-curved hickory, fitted in front with an open leather shoe (Ed.: stirrups hoods. Again, unusual as European armies generally used metal stirrups) to protect the rider’s feet against wet and dirt. The pack which was fastened to the saddle consisted mostly of a rolled-up rubber blanket, a leather pouch (Ed; saddle bags) for extra horseshoes, and one for the rider’s personal necessities. They used bits, sometimes just a bridle, but never both together. (ed. :The Europeans of the time generally used the bit and bradoon hence their strange descriptive and understanding) The bit, which could usually be unhooked, was fastened directly to the halter (Ed.: the CS combination “halter-bridle”.) In addition, there was a long, flat leather halter strap tied to one of the rings on the front of the saddle. With it the trooper, while dismounted during long breaks, lets his horse gras over a relatively large are on the plentiful grass.
The cavalryman carried a slightly curved sabre which, as a rule, was fastened under the upper saddle girth below the soldier’s left leg (Ed.: OH, Oh! Not this again! More contemporary evidence!), a revolver (Colt) in a holster fastened to his sword belt, and a rather long carbine slung over his back.
The regulation uniform was supposed to consist of a light gray jacket with a yellow collar, light gray trousers with yellow stripes, high riding boots and a French style kepi. But, as the war progressed, of course many variations sprang up, so that one could hardly speak of a proper uniform. The kepi in particular was replaced by a light round felt hat with a broad brim turned up on one side. Those who could afford the luxury decorated the hat with plumes or other feathers (Ed. all more evidence of a look not seen enough on reenactors). This felt hat proved to be the best headgear for the soldier. It protected him against the sun and rain, and, with a cloth tucked inside, offered as certain protection against the bare sword as the best helmet......
At the beginning and during the first two years of the war the Southern states had quite an abundant supply of horses. For a number of years Southerners had been breeding horses very scientifically. Without regard for expense, valuable studs had been imported from England, two of which had even won the English Derby. The horses were of medium size, very elegant in form, and extraordinarily efficient. They wee also characterized by great docility and a very gentle nature. In bivouacs there were often several thousand horses, including no small percentage of stallions. Once seldom heard a sound from them, there was no biting, kicking or loud whinnying as is usual in European armies, even with small numbers of horses.
The horses had one drawback in particular. Their hooves were soft, probably due to the fact that most of them had been ridden unshod before the war. This defect was not very noticeable when riding on soft ground, but it became more apparent in mountains and on rocky terrain. There, the horseshoes, which held only slightly in the soft hooves, were easily and often lost. The hoof soon wore down to the quick, and the horse, which rider had not learned to shoe his horse immediately with a reserve horseshoe, had to be left behind, This caused many an otherwise gallant trooper to fall into enemy hands.” (End Quote)
What do you think?
2. Another important aspect of the book are the illustrations in the book. While somewhat faulty due to their biased European understanding they provide some very interesting points for consideration and discussion. Please note that these illustrations offer a unique sense of realism as they (As quoted from the author’s forward) ....“were drawn by C. Sellmer, an outstanding artist and painter of battle scenes. They are based on sketches of different incidents during the engagement, which Scheibert made on the spot, and can be regarded as depictions of actual events, not just imaginative illustrations.” (end quote)
What interesting points or perhaps conclusions (?) do you folks note about these illustrations?
Ken R Knopp
Attached Files
Blasphemy!!) about the cause of the soft hooves. Too much moisture yes. Inadequate nutrition yes. Rocky or hard ground...um... not in my experience or anyone else that I know who spends alot of time with horses.
Comment