Confederate Cavalry Armaments

[GeraldTodd]

Reading Noseworthy's Bloody Crucible of Courage a point I've also come across in my other reading regards the usual armaments of the Confederate cavalry.

It is maintained by these historians, (Longacre, Noseworthy, & others), that majority of the Confederate cavalry was sabreless (including the associated drill and training in the use of the sabre), but the Federal cavalry tended to rely on the sabre, drilled in the use of the sabre, and had with much success with it - considering their opponants often had none. Often cited are CS officers lamenting their cavalry's lack of sabres putting them at a disadvantage and asking to get some.

Like the infantry's bayonet charge, the sabre charge often did not come to contact as either the defender seeing the the resolve of the oncoming foe would not wait around to receive it, or the attacker would loose that resolve under fire or some other circumstances. In the case of cavalry, charges were often met with counter charges, and Federal cavalry was even ordered to "never stand and receive a charge, but to meet it with a charge."

When the opponents actually did close to contact, it was a great crash and very soon, one side, the other, or both would feel they were getting the short end and would retire. The descriptions often describe these actions as sudden swirling storms that dissipate as quickly as they take place.

If these historians are to be believed, not only is the "sabre dance" utterly and completely wrong, but the majority of CS reenacting cavalry is incorrectly armed as their armament should be mostly long shotguns, rifles/muskets, and revolvers. Breechloading carbines were in short supply, with field units relying more on captured stock than the Southern government's ability to produce and supply such weapons in useful quantities.

Federal cavalry SOP was to use the carbine on foot, and the sabre in the saddle, often in combination - the fore-runners of mechanized warfare.

The Confederate cavalry appears to have used the long arm on foot, and the pistol in the saddle - rush in, shoot the hell out of everything, and if the enemy was still hanging around, get out of there quick. Sounds like the tactics used after the war by the likes of the James gang and such.

Obviously this is preaching to the choir and there's little reason to hope that the run-of-the-mill reenacting cavalry will forego their sabre-dance fun in favor of proper armaments and tactics, but the subject was interesting, and who knows, maybe the savings of not having to buy a carbine and sabre will entice a few to the "dark side."

[Tom Craig]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Jerry,

I certainly agree with the point behind your statement: the "dance" is wrong, and that Confederate cavalry should be armed as they were historically not just as the manual states.

The problem I have is that I think we mess with historical interpretation when we remove sabre combat entirely. Combat with edged weapons was relatively rare in comparison to other time periods, but in the cavalry it did still occour in both large and small unit actions. References to brief dashes and charges by patrols are common.

I think those of us in the "dark side" of the hobby tend to steer as far as we can from mainstream stuff so almost all of our impressions look like mounted infantry and leave out any representation of mounted action that occured. The "dance" is wrong, but is there some way that we can include this very common part of cavalry service without making it a farce?

Great discussion,
Tom Craig

[JDR]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

i feel like gerald, preaching to the choir. the saber should be treated as any other piece of equipment, if they had'em, we need to have'em. if they didnt then we don't.

as far as a saber fight goes, i dont think there's anyway we can do that and not trample on safety, and authenticity. i'm willing to bet there's less than one percent of the cavalrymen in the entire hobby that could conduct a safe, authentic looking saber fight. even with those folks that are at that skill level both with the saber and as a horseman, there would still be injuries. i dont own a saber, and have never been to an event where a saber was part of the event guide lines. should i attend an event where a saber is a must have piece of equipment, i'll surely purchase one. i won't engage with my saber because i'm not in that less than one percent that are at the level i just mentioned.

as far as pistols go, i believe they were as scarce if not more so than sabers. the mounted pistol charge falls into the same category as saber fighting.

confederate cavalry is definitely the fore-father of the mechanized infantry. ride to the battle, not INto the battle. dismount in a covered and concealed area, and move a line of heavily armed soldiers into close quarter combat with the enemy. i beleive forrest said, and i'm paraprasing, "your big fat horses are merely transportation to the battle". can anyone clarify that?

"use speed, terrain, tactics, and firepower to close with the enemy and destroy him, or force him into surrender"-FM 7-7J, the mechanized infantry squad and platoon


good luck,
Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[KyCavMajor]

to paraphrase Forrest and Mosby....

excuse me if I get this wrong as I am traveling and don't have access to my library,but this is how I remember these two fine Cavalry officers expressing their disdain for the saber...

I saw no use for it beyond roasting meat over the fire- Mosby
My men have none and desire none - Forrest

The CO A,1st KY CS, were issued sabers of the Enfield Pattern according to the Russelville KY DEmocrat Oct 1861. ED Porter Thompson in the Orphan Brigade book he authored says they were soon discarded, I mean "lost sarge"... :tounge_sm

Personaly any excuse to ditch the darn thing......

[RelicRoomGuy]

South Carolina Cavalry Armaments

"My first order to the men is to have all the sabres sharpened, so we are preparing for work." -Wade Hampton III, May '63, in letter to sister Mary Fisher.

"There was nothing Hampton's Men liked so well in a fight as a chance to use their sabers." -Captain James Moore, 2nd SC Cavalry

Charles Calhoun of the 6th SC Cavalry, in "Liberty Dethroned", relates an incident in '65 when Wheeler's cavalry met Butler's in Columbia. One of Wheeler's troopers asked Calhoun what the "metal thing hanging from his saddle" was; Calhoun, just as scornfully, told him he should have retained his own sabre as the Carolinians had, for Hampton still used them. About 80 percent of Hampton's cavalry had sabres at that time, by the ordnance report - far more than had revolvers. (Calhoun didn't know that Wheeler had concentrated his sabres in particular units due to shortages...Wheeler's own manual featured standard sabre training and he put his guys through it when he could.)

Captain Rawlings Lowndes, one of Butler's officers, under flag of truce with Kilpatrick after Monroe's Crossroads, challenged the Yanks to a sabre contest - one thousand under Hampton to face fifteen hundred under Kilpatrick, "all to be armed with the sabre alone....That will settle the question which are the best men." (This bit of bravado was of course declined.)

Mounted sabre contests continued in the South Carolina militia all the way to the Spanish American War...

To offer an opinion which may quickly be shot down: it seems to me that, by the Later War period, Hampton at least preferred to get his men to sabre range when possible because the advantage of the repeating Spencer was not as significant in melee. Two other factors may have been that much of the South Carolina cavalry came from well-drilled prewar mounted militia units already accustomed to sabre skills - and that Hampton, unlike Mosby, was a really big, strong guy. Mosby began "packing heat" before the war after being beaten up, as I recall; he wasn't going to start relying on an edged weapon too heavy for him - and he had continuous access to captured revolvers behind Federal lines. The regular cavalry were less at liberty to discard an existing weapon system like the sabre when it wasn't nearly as convenient to replace it with the "multiple revolver" option.

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

"We had drilled some two months as dismounted troopers and had become quite good with the saber....How proud we were of our well-mounted men armed with carbines (breech-loading) and pistols with sabers." C.Y. Ford, Company G, 2D Missouri Regiment, Forrest's Cavalry - Confederate Veteran, 1922, p.290, "Fighting with Sabers".

He describes in some detail two 1862 saber fights in that article.

Was that Plain, Everyday, Common in the West? Some of you Westerners can comment on that much better than I can. It does seem that armament references to particular cavalry UNITS are much more valuable than generalizations East or West, perhaps especially among Confederates.

By the way, two months of dismounted saber drill would have been pretty excruciating...!

[GeraldTodd]

CS Sabres

Much of the Federal cavalry that took the field in the Spring of 62 got sabres and pistols and no more. Some got a few carbines, some didn't even get the pistols. The sabre was considered the principle arm of the cavalry right into the end of the war - and right up to WWII. As a result, the men drilled with sabres. When that's all you've got, you make do.

On the other side, sabres were scarce. Some got them early on, some took a while longer, some never got them at all, and some didn't want them once they had them. It not being practicle to consider an arm you couldn't supply as your primary weapon, Confederate cavalry became, in essense, mounted infantry.

If the foe is bearing down on you despite your fire - do you stand and wait to be cut down? If the CS cavalry was caught mounted in the open, they were at a definate disadvantage unless some of the force was armed with sabres.

Aldie, Middleburg, Upperville are all examples of Confederate cavalry defending on the ground using walls and hedges and US cavalry charging in and either getting stopped, or running off the defenders - but seldom actually closing to contact and then only in the briefest fights. When the CS cavalry charged it was generally designed to break in or out of a situation.

I don't think a lack of sabre fights in reenacting could be considered a loss. There's plenty for cavalry to do, if done right, to keep us fully occupied and challenged. Our charge past the pickets, and back out again, at McDowell last year didn't involve a single tink of a sword, yet it was plenty exhilarating and quite typical of Federal cavalry. Who says history can't be a rush?

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: CS Sabres

I'm going to side with Gerald on this one. I don't dispute that individual units did indeed have sabers. In his memoirs with Parson's 12th Texas Cavalry, one of the Orr brothers mentions very specifically that they were armed with sabers and shotguns sometime prior to the Battle of Mansfield in '64. He goes into detail about the length of time it took his men to learn to use the blade. If memory serves me correctly, they had nothing but the shotgun before '63. He even writes home telling his father that he's sending home his pistol. I assume that pistols were in relatively short supply in that unit and acquiring ammunition was too difficult to worry about. The shotgun was more practical.

Now, having said that, I still believe the over abundance of sabers in mainstream Confederate cavalry is a slap in the face to authenticity. I believe we are perpetuating a lie when we do the cha-cha in the dance of the saber fairies. Why? Well, first of all, look at the numbers. Exactly how many mounted men are at the average event? How much sense does it make for ten guys to charge ten other guys with sabers? Exactly what are we teaching the public about mounted conflict, anyway? That a handful of guys rode out into the middle of a field, walked their horses around in circles doing high fives and laughing while carrying on a conversation with the enemy? That's how most saber fights go.

Cavalry had a function. It needed to be hostile, agile and mobile. We serve the public better to portray an authentic representation of what the mounted arm did: fighting on foot with the Infantry if the numbers aren't there, fighting on foot as a force to be reckoned with if the numbers are there, screening the movements of the army, scouting, patroling, guarding the flanks and weak spots, vidette duty, etc. The real cavalry (even the ones with sabers) had so much more to do than dance with their silver wands. Accurately portrayed, we have the same ammount of work to do. Who has time to worry about sabers anyway?

Like Darryl said, if the unit portrayed had sabers, then have a saber. If they didn't, then leave the thing at home.

I think the saber question is too trivial to worry about. What we need to do first is clean up the misconception that every cavalryman had four pistols and six extra cylinders. Then we can worry about the saber question.

Larry Morgan
Buttermilk Rangers LHC

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: CS Sabres

I think the saber question is too trivial to worry about. What we need to do first is clean up the misconception that every cavalryman had four pistols and six extra cylinders. Then we can worry about the saber question.

Larry Morgan
Buttermilk Rangers LHC[/QUOTE]


Actually I think the question's a related one! The fact that massive repeating firepower in the form of multiple revolvers was NOT available, contributed significantly to the retention of the sabre; after all, you don't deliberately carry a knife (even a very long curved one) to a gunfight. But if the "gunfight" will be over after a few shots from your Colt Navy - or fewer from your shotgun or carbine - then the knife fight's on, particulary if you're trying to keep the initiative you gained with your (likely costly) assault.

The true brutal violence of a sabre charge is likely impossible to safely and believably simulate - but that's really a separate issue. The horses should be damaging the enemy, too, but I'm not personally volunteering to take a hoof or two for the cause! Anyway I'm surely prejudiced since I spend a lot of time with records related to a noted sabreur - but my impression is that it's unsafe to generalize about Confederate cavalry sabre use - perhaps a bit safer to generalize about ANV versus AOT troops. And I definitely see evidence for a strong South Carolina attachment to the sabre.

But I haven't read Noseworthy - looks like I need to!

[CJSchumacher]

Re: CS Sabres

Good discussion. Here is some more food for thought.

I think its a little broad brushed to say Federals had sabers and Confederates didn't. During the Maryland campaign in 1862, several companies of the 2nd VA cavalry had sabers, the rest being armed with pistols and long arms. I think "saber companies" is a good way to think about CS cav during the civil war...at least in the East. Unfortunatey, Longacre tends to make very broad generalizations in his writing.

Other than those already mentioned, there are many numerous accounts of men under Stuart's command using sabers. June 9, 1863...nearly 21,000 horsemen clashed at Brandy. What did they use?? Only carbines and pistols?? I don't think so.

Wiley C. Howard, formerly Lieutenant Commanding Co. C, Cobb Legion Cavalry under Hampton had this to say about the fighting at Brandy:

We "mixed” with them…and soon their splendid line was all broken and each man of us was fencing and fighting for the time his individual foe.

Interestingly enough, he also said the following regarding an earlier action in 1862:

At Dispatch Station we quickly attacked a body of the enemy, Major DeLoney leading, charging them and dispersing them. Our casualties were, Lieut. Early, wounded in the arm, and Bugler Fred Walters, scalp wound with saber, both of Company C, while private Sam Bailey, of the same company, was the first to draw blood with saber from an invader.

On July 2, 1863, Cobb’s Legion was near Gettysburg in Hunterstown, MD. Major DeLoney was unhorsed and assisted by his bugler.

Bugler H. E. Jackson of Company C, Cobb Legion, who was coming up from the rear, spurred his horse to the fray and to DeLoney's aid, fencing with these darring assailants… Jackson's bugle, coat and shirt were cut through with saber blows and his sword, which I brought home for him from the surrender at Greensboro, N. C., has four or five distinct gashes along its edge made there by these valiant foes in that desperate rencounter.

Here’s something a little off-topic I found really cool. This has to do with Wiley Howard later being wounded and procuring a “yankee” horse.

mounted my new Yankee horse with Simmons' aid. In spite of his entreaties to remain with him, as I was unfit to go to the front, on the fighting line, I rode rapidly towards the front, hoping in some way to find my lost horse and English tree-saddle and saddle bags, containing a new suit of jeans lately received from home.

Tobie talks of several confederates hacking away on a federal at Middleburg. That "wall" in Aldie where the 1st MA cav was obliterated was held specifically by sharpshooters who had dismounted. Those men were detailed to perform a specific duty, hence why they were there, but I don't think that should be the description of the general CS command. Here is a nice sketch by Edwin Forbes of Federal cavalry charging at Upperville in 1863. This isn’t the aforementioned action on the Snickersville Turnpike at Aldie.



Regarding recreation of said charges...well, the fighting part...NO. It cannot be done. Can hand to hand combat be done with bayonets...no, it just looks bad. This said, I do think that riding in a larger formation and learning the skill it takes to conduct a proper charge is a valuable thing. Try having over 300 horses close on each other...now that's a rush and very specific to Brandy Station, which is why it is appropriate there. Its just the "fighting" part that is terrible.

I think that everyone should participate in a "mainstream" cav charge at least once to get a sense of what it is like. Its another part of being a cavalryman that you just have to experience to know what its like. Forget about the saber...your horse becomes your first and primary weapon!

Hopefully, this is of some interest.

[RJSamp]

Re: CS Sabres

Super stuff Chris, liked the quotes about Buglers and sabers!

You said: " Forget about the saber...your horse becomes your first and primary weapon! "

Chris, No.

The horse is a transportation device, a tactical suprise enabler (speed, mobility, rough terrain passage, flanking positions), and allows you to get out of Dodge fast if need be.

Weapon? No.

Primary Weapon? No.

Heavy Logistical Tail? Absolutely. On campaign there aren't enough grazing hours in the day to keep them from breaking down.

Covers about the same amount of ground per day on average as infantry? YES (how's that for a surprise answer, but that's what you get when you load 'em up and don't rest them properly).

Some tend to forget that the Tank is not the weapon, it's the protected gun systems on board.

Very few ACW soldiers were wounded or killed by deliberate manuevering of horses....and probably just as many friendly 'fire' or collateral damage (wounded horse, runaway caisson) casualties from horses than deliberately targetting an enemy soldier and using the horse as a weapon.

We cite surgeon's wound reports to show how few American Civil War soldiers are wounded or Killed by swords, bayonets, even less for knives and pistols. Kicking Horse hooves, biting teeth, equine versus man collision?

Time to get out the 20 sided dice and consult the attack hits table for an edged weapon versus no-armor class 1...sounds like Dungeons and Dragons fantasy war-gaming to me.

:wink_smil

RJ Samp

[Tom Craig]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Gents,

I think Chris may have struck upon an idea that makes sense. Can we safely portray a sabre engagement and do it justice, likely not. Can we practice the sabre charge sure. And to go back to how Jerry started this question, we can and I think should recreate some of the "dashes" and quick assaults of cavalry service without having to come to contact.

Small unit action is what we portray in cavalry. Small unit action by its very nature must be fast and fleeting. By evidence of countless period accounts there were a variety of times where "charges" were made but they often didn't make contact. For those that saw it, our action at McDowell with the picket post was an example of such a charge.

My point is that there is a trend in our side of things to shy away from portraying any sort of mounted combat action for fear of ending up in the sabre fairy swoiree. Yes cavalry was essentially mounted infantry for much of the war, but especially in the East we do a disservice to the history if we never portray any mounted engagement.

As a related side note, Henry Lee Higginson of the 1st Mass. cavalry was gravely wounded in the start of the fight at Aldie in '63. He had two or three sabre gashes and a pistol shot to his credit courtesy of the Rebs!

Take care,
Tom Craig

[CJSchumacher]

Re: CS Sabres

RJ,

The horse is a weapon as much as an attacking formation was generally meant to puncture and scatter its opposition. Another force would be sent to try and exploit. It takes horses to do this.

Tom,

I completely agree. The vast majority of "charges" I've read about, either side, seem to be smaller groups either hitting up outposts, raiding supplies, capturing prisoners, etc. Small unit tactics seem to be the most prevalent cavalry "battle" actions, followed by fewer amounts of dismounted fighting by larger forces, and even less amounts of mounted forces clashing in hand to hand combat.

Chris

[markj]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Greetings,

Take these for whatever they're worth:

(Entry for the Eighth Tennessee Cavalry by Colonel C. G. Dibrell from "Military Annals of Tennessee," published 1886, p. 652):

"[In the fall of 1862 when the 8th Tennessee Cavalry] reached Murfreesboro the regiment was only partly armed with shot-guns, rifles, and such arms as the soldiers could gather in the country, and at Murfreesboro drew four hundred flint-lock muskets and six hundred sabers, with a small quantity of ammunition--buckshot and ball-- and this was the only issue of arms ever made to this regiment by the Confederate Government."

(Same entry, p. 660, extract from Chickamauga AAR by Colonel C. G. Dibrell, 25 Sep 63):

"[After the battle the captured Federal] arms were gathered in wagons. The command armed itself completely with the Springfield and Enfield muskets."

(Entry for Fifteenth Tennessee Cavalry by Thomas H. Logwood from "Military Annals of Tennessee," p. 724):

"[At the battle of Belmont, Mo.,] there was only a narrow wagon-way through the felled timber by which we could reach the Federal cavalry. Col. Miller and myself formed our commands into a column of twos, and charged with pistol and saber, not using our carbines. We drove the Federal cavalry from the field, and we saw them no more...."

(Entry for Ninth Battalion, Tennessee Cavalry, "Military Annals....," p. 750)

"On one occasion [in 1863] the [Ninth] battalion surprised and captured the Fourteenth New York Metropolitan Cavalry, with all their arms, equipments, etc."

(Entry for "Forrest's Escort," "Military Annals....," p. 770):

"[At] Estenaula, Tenn., on Dec. 23, 1863,...Lieut. N. Boone, with forty men, routed two Federal regiments...[He] gave orders for his [men] to draw swords and charge, which was repeated by the entire command...[and the enemy left] Boone in possession of their entire camps...."

(Entry for the Twelfth "Faulkner's" Kentucky Cavalry," "Military Annals....," p. 776):

"[On March 24th, 1864]...Col. Duckworth...succeeded in capturing the entire Federal force of about four hundred and seventy-five men, with their arms, ammunition, horses, and all their equipments including the camp and garrison equipage."

There are also various references to "double-barrel shotguns," "pistols," "Colt's revolvers," as well as other mentions of "trading up" by capturing weapons from individual, and groups of, Federals. Obviously some units were better armed (with sabers or otherwise) than others....

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[GeraldTodd]

Re: CS Sabres

RJ, ever hear of Lipizzan horses? Dressage? What those horses are known for, while very pretty to watch, amounts to horse karate. Horses were trained to jump and kick as part of the fighting team of horse and rider.

The gun without the tank is a field piece and all the benefits of the combination are lost. The whole thing is a weapons system, like horse and rider.

Besides, having a 1,000 pound weapon between your legs can't help but be impressive. :)