Confederate Cavalry Armaments

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

I've been trying to follow this thread, but it does get confusing. I wonder, when the smoke actually does clear, how much of our speculation is an East vs. West thing? I've been trying to research the mounted arm for more years than I care to admit anymore and I keep coming up with a couple of solid conclusions: There are no absolutes, and there WAS a difference in how the war was fought east of the Appalachians vs. how it was fought west of them, and even on how it was fought west of the Mississippi.

Even though we're comparing cavalry within one country, could it be we're actually comparing apples to oranges? I wonder if the real question should be whether there really was a such thing as WESTERN Confederate cavalry? The more I read, the more I'm convinced that our cav here in the west functioned more as mobile infantry and had little in common with cavalry in the common sense of the term... minus the less glorified duties of cavalry of course... we always did that.

Then again, there are no absolutes, so what do I know?

Larry Morgan
Buttermilk Rangers LHC

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Yes - lots of "East and West" here. And we're discussing some things that were in dispute at the time as well - so there are even fewer absolutes than usual...! Cavalry in the West had a different flavor than in the East, and cavalry in "doctrine" were different than cavalry in practice, too. And recon was primary and combat secondary - except when it wasn't.

When it's so hard to make generalizations, though - how do you derive PEC?! PEC seems to me to be unit and campaign-specific, maybe much more so than in other branches because of cavalry's drastically different interpretations and changing roles.

I've been trying to follow this thread, but it does get confusing. I wonder, when the smoke actually does clear, how much of our speculation is an East vs. West thing? I've been trying to research the mounted arm for more years than I care to admit anymore and I keep coming up with a couple of solid conclusions: There are no absolutes, and there WAS a difference in how the war was fought east of the Appalachians vs. how it was fought west of them, and even on how it was fought west of the Mississippi.

Even though we're comparing cavalry within one country, could it be we're actually comparing apples to oranges? I wonder if the real question should be whether there really was a such thing as WESTERN Confederate cavalry? The more I read, the more I'm convinced that our cav here in the west functioned more as mobile infantry and had little in common with cavalry in the common sense of the term... minus the less glorified duties of cavalry of course... we always did that.

Then again, there are no absolutes, so what do I know?

Larry Morgan
Buttermilk Rangers LHC

[JDR]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Joe,

what makes a formations more or less vunerable to artillery fire, aside from a covered and/or concealed position? how long does it take for a given size element to switch formations? how long does it take for artillery to shift it's fire so as not to commit fratracide? I don't think we can compare napolean's army to any given army of the civil war, south or north, west or east. the weapons of the civil war had TWICE the effective range of those used by napolean's army. the firepower of the mounted attack DIDN'T increase as did that of the infantry. this meant that the attacking mounted formation took fire twice as long as it did fifty years before.

the branch of arm insignia for the infantry during the civil war was a
horn. the insignia of a branch of arms does not a primary weapon make. i'm sorry if i bust anyone's chops with this, but, it sounds like we shouldn't even have muskets, rifles or carbines. the longarm far out-numbered the pistol or the saber. how can a saber be a primary weapon to a trooper if he doesnt even have one? how can a unit w/out pistols, w/out sabers make a saber or pistol charge? in regiments that were fromed into saber and rifle companies, what was supposed to happen, send two or three companies against a regiment, or a brigade? mean while the rifle companies are thinking how glad they are that they don't have a saber. the mounted attack was used only in the extreme, period. there's no documentation to support otherwise.

in fact, and in practice, the saber was not the primary weapon of the confederate cavalryman. saber charges do not represent the norm for day-to-day operations of the confederate cavalry, regardless of theater. the troopers that didn't have sabers, were they trained with the saber too? doubtful. the troopers that were issued sabers in the field, late in the war, were they trained with the saber? probably not, when would there have been time. we read so many period accounts of units being in operation twenty hours a day.

i received bayonet training in r-mee too. that accounted for about 10 hours of my basic combat training. however i fired thousands of rounds through my M-16A2, and tens of thousands of round through a bradley fighting vehicle main gun, and coax machine gun. the M-18 was in the bussle rack...somewhere.

the confederate cavalry operated as dismounted infantry, that was it's offensive role. aside from that it provided rear and flank security. the rear security being important because the enemy would have been back there trying to reak havoc in the rear areas. friendly cavalry woulds been trying to do the same thing. they secured lines of supply, created and secured lines of communication. they performed route recon, screened the movement of the main body, and scouted enemy lines. they made raids upon enemy supply lines, and a raid shouldn't be confused with an attack...two different tacticals missions, with two different objectives. part of the mission that civil war cavalry performed is the same mission that MP's perform in the modern army, primarily the mission of rear security.

even with modern cavalry, with it's large volumes of firepower, it isnt' an offensive weapon. it performs the same tasks, and sub-tasks as the cavalry during the civil war. the modern mechanized infatry does NOT, i say again NOT attack mounted, those tall ass BFV's are taxi, and fire support only. the most dangerous weapon on the battelfield is the dis-mounted soldier and his rifle. that's been true for two hundred years.

ok, that's enuff for today, i'm going to mansfield, be back sunday night. everyone behave while i'm gone.

Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[GeraldTodd]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

"I don't think we can compare napolean's army to any given army of the civil war, south or north, west or east. the weapons of the civil war had TWICE the effective range of those used by napolean's army. the firepower of the mounted attack DIDN'T increase as did that of the infantry. this meant that the attacking mounted formation took fire twice as long as it did fifty years before."

Yet, the casualty rate was not that much higher in the CW than the NW it just took 40 or 50 fewer rounds to get a hit and fire combat took place, on average, within 200 yards.

While the accurate range of the musket increased with the advent of the rifled musket - so did the skill required to implement that range. There was not a corresponding effort to give the infantryman that skill. By the time of the war, the French had removed rear sights on rifled muskets and focused on the bayonet! This from those that started the rifled musket craze!

BTW: The "Napoleonic Tactics" oft referred to during the CW were those of Napoleon III and not his famous ancestor. Tactics that were considered cutting edge and emulated here in the 1860s.

The rifled musket has a lower muzzle velocity, ie: the ball drops sooner. It takes a fairly accurate range determination to drop the ball where the enemy is present. That's old news except to those of the "superior weapons, antiquated tactics" crowd. The same gang that keeps parrotting that "it takes 3 years to make a cavalryman" nonsense. Yet soldiers were not trained in that skill, and even those that had such skills had not used it standing shoulder-to-shoulder, under fire, with all the smoke and mahem of battle all around.

If you look at the fighting in the Civil War OVERALL you'll find combat casualty rates are much much lower than commonly believed. That's because "common belief" focuses on the big battles and the unusual events where there were many casualties in a short time. Cases where the fighting was relatively close in, tightly packed, and involved a lot of folks.

The Federal cavalry, despites it's lacking carbines, higher leadership, and proper organization, performed admirable feats and stood toe-to-toe with it's Southern opponants when on equal ground right from the start, long before their "3 years" was up - and it obviously had little to do with repeaters. Carbines and repeating carbines did not replace the sabre in the Federal cavalry - it enhanced it. It gave a base of fire from which slashing cuts could be made. By 1864 the cavalry had developed to the fullest it would ever be until the advent of the gasoline engine.

The "out-moded" sabre was issued and training in it's use given right through to WWII. The sabre was even redesigned and improved after the war with emphasis on the point, a straight blade, saddle carriage, and a guard and grip designed for wielding in the outstretched arm.

Cavalry obviously had it's weaknesses - almost always in leadership that tended to use it badly and waste it. But to this very day, equine transport has it's place and it's utility in war and police use.

You cannot understand cavalry in the Civil War without looking at where it came from AND where it went afterwards. The mindset during the war was formed from experience before, and the lessons learned and implemented after the war shed light on how they were learned.

There's plenty of works out there on the tactics, performance, and statistics of the war - some of them pretty darn good - worth their price for the bibliographies alone!


Interestingly enough, the thread began as a question not so much of how we operate, but what we carry in that portrayal. I think we portray both sides too well armed, especially in pre-1863 scenarios.

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Daryl - enjoying the discussion. I may have overstated myself, though! Seems I gave a wrong impression -

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDR
Joe,

what makes a formations more or less vunerable to artillery fire, aside from a covered and/or concealed position? how long does it take for a given size element to switch formations? how long does it take for artillery to shift it's fire so as not to commit fratracide? I don't think we can compare napolean's army to any given army of the civil war, south or north, west or east. the weapons of the civil war had TWICE the effective range of those used by napolean's army. the firepower of the mounted attack DIDN'T increase as did that of the infantry. this meant that the attacking mounted formation took fire twice as long as it did fifty years before.

A formation like the British square, proof against cavalry, REALLY packs the men together so that a cannonball cuts a more horrible path of destruction than usual. More dispersed formations - less vulnerability.

You are correct, of course, that these Napoleonic concepts don't work anymore in the 1860's! The problem is, they were ingrained and were still used - more in the East, where traditions were stronger. Napoleonic infantry drill was getting the footsoldiers slaughtered, too.

Firepower for cavalry HAD increased, btw, though range hadn't. The Texas Rangers who cut up the Commanches so bad with their Colts proved that. I'm not contending, though, that the charge against infantry was a superior tactic - the factors you cite were very relevant and experienced leaders learned to take them into account.

the branch of arm insignia for the infantry during the civil war was a
horn. the insignia of a branch of arms does not a primary weapon make.

Touche!

i'm sorry if i bust anyone's chops with this, but, it sounds like we shouldn't even have muskets, rifles or carbines. the longarm far out-numbered the pistol or the saber.

This is where I must have overstated my case. In PRACTICE, especially after seeing the elephant - the longarm of course is the REAL primary weapon. But in doctrine the sabre still was. And it could be psychologically important, too.

how can a saber be a primary weapon to a trooper if he doesnt even have one? how can a unit w/out pistols, w/out sabers make a saber or pistol charge? in regiments that were fromed into saber and rifle companies, what was supposed to happen, send two or three companies against a regiment, or a brigade? mean while the rifle companies are thinking how glad they are that they don't have a saber. the mounted attack was used only in the extreme, period. there's no documentation to support otherwise.

Monroe's Crossroads, 1865. Cavalry are going to attack Kilpatrick's camp just before reveille. According to one account Wheeler approaches Hampton and says, "Shall I have the men dismount to make the capture more certain?" Hampton says, "As a cavalryman I prefer to make this capture on horseback." A trooper nearby notes that Hampton draws his sword before ordering the charge -

Would Wheeler's tactics have been preferable? Maybe - but the point is, the mounted attack was used because it had certain advantages which, to the commander on the field that day, outweighed the disadvantages. Wheeler has "charging regiments" and rifle regiments and Terry's 8th with many captured Spencers - very few sabres in his command. Butler's guys (the rest of Hampton's command" are sabre-heavy.
in fact, and in practice, the saber was not the primary weapon of the confederate cavalryman. saber charges do not represent the norm for day-to-day operations of the confederate cavalry, regardless of theater. the troopers that didn't have sabers, were they trained with the saber too? doubtful. the troopers that were issued sabers in the field, late in the war, were they trained with the saber? probably not, when would there have been time. we read so many period accounts of units being in operation twenty hours a day.

Absolutely - if they were never issued one, they were never trained with one - and look at Wheeler's guys: they had all those captured Spencers and STILL no sabres - so they didn't keep captured sabres - they didn't want them, looks like. The Westerners who'd been with him since the early war had been trained in them earlier - by now they were gone. Late war issue? If I was issued a weapon like that and not trained with it, I'd "lose" it, I think -

South Carolinian cavalry normally (that would be, MUCH more often than not) carried sabres - many more than had revolvers.

i received bayonet training in r-mee too. that accounted for about 10 hours of my basic combat training. however i fired thousands of rounds through my M-16A2, and tens of thousands of round through a bradley fighting vehicle main gun, and coax machine gun. the M-18 was in the bussle rack...somewhere.

Good point.

the confederate cavalry operated as dismounted infantry, that was it's offensive role. aside from that it provided rear and flank security. the rear security being important because the enemy would have been back there trying to reak havoc in the rear areas. friendly cavalry woulds been trying to do the same thing. they secured lines of supply, created and secured lines of communication. they performed route recon, screened the movement of the main body, and scouted enemy lines. they made raids upon enemy supply lines, and a raid shouldn't be confused with an attack...two different tacticals missions, with two different objectives. part of the mission that civil war cavalry performed is the same mission that MP's perform in the modern army, primarily the mission of rear security.

But this mission was EVOLVING; you describe what cavalry was truly best at, and what experienced, wise commanders employed it for under normal conditions. There were inexperienced commanders, foolish commanders, extreme conditions, and a whole mythology of the Napoleonic rider - not to mention lots of merry songs and poems about gallant cavaliers

even with modern cavalry, with it's large volumes of firepower, it isnt' an offensive weapon. it performs the same tasks, and sub-tasks as the cavalry during the civil war. the modern mechanized infatry does NOT, i say again NOT attack mounted, those tall ass BFV's are taxi, and fire support only. the most dangerous weapon on the battelfield is the dis-mounted soldier and his rifle. that's been true for two hundred years.

But don't forget that other deadly force, the junior officer - and his ideas!

ok, that's enuff for today, i'm going to mansfield, be back sunday night. everyone behave while i'm gone.

Darryl Robertson
Buttermilk Rangers

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Gerald - great comments - I'm learning here...Napoleon III?! Really?

BTW George Patton's sabre manual is available online - forget where but there's always "Google." Someone's probably doing their 1860's training with it -

An irony: the story is that as a child Patton literally sat at the feet of Mosby (retired in DC) and soaked up his cavalry tales - but famously anti-sabre Mosby somehow didn't communicate that to his protoge, who was the one who did the final US Army redesign!

Can you recommend good sources on those casualty rate comparisons and on the range-of-first volley reference? Seems I may need to un-misinform myself somewhat!

[AZReenactor]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

While Terry's Rangers ought not be regarded as typical, since they've been mentioned a few times I thought I'd share a couple of the regiment's members own comments regarding sabers.

Terry's Texas Rangers
By Pvt. A. P. Harcourt, Company F 8th Texas Cavalry
The Southern Bivouac, Nov, 1882

Whatever differences of opinion may exist among military men as to which is the stronger arm of the service, cavalry or infantry, Terry's Rangers, opposed by an isolated regiment, never were repulsed, but in a fair match on one hundred fields perhaps made their adversaries bite the dust. But the rangers carried no clanging saber--that weapon of the centuries past, fit only to frighten women and hack unarmed footmen with--but bore arms they were accustomed to, rode lithe like Commanches, complete masters of the horse, and shot quick as sportsmen sure on the trigger. In brief, Terry's Rangers, known in reports of battles and on the muster-rolls as the "Eighth Texas Cavalry," constituted, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the only body of genuine cavalry in the Confederate service. They were horsemen to the saddle born. Hundreds of citizens of Nashville can recall the pleasant days of September, '61, when the rangers lay in camp at the Fair Grounds and the fashionables of the city rode out in throngs to witness these gay troopers in trappings quaint, ride at full tilt and pick up from the ground a handkerchief or glove and fifty cent pieces as fast as placed before them.

Reminiscences of the Terry Rangers
Pvt. (later served as an officer) J. K. P. Blackburn Company F 8th Texas Cavalry
Southwestern Historical Quarterly
Vol. 22, 1918, p38-77

We marched up the street in front of Colonel Ready's house, lined up prisoners, horses and spoils and guards across the street while Captain Morgan went in the house and invited his sweetheart and the balance of the family at home to come out on the veranda and see the fruit of his exploit. Flewellen and I were then relieved with thanks and we returned to our company, leaving the prisoners and spoils in the hands of Morgan and his three men he still had with him. Next day one of Morgan's men hunted me up and told me Captain Morgan wanted to see me at his office, so I went with him to the office. The captain greeted me most cordially and said he wanted to thank me over again for the valuable service I had rendered during the scout the day or two before. I told him I did the best I could with the matter I had in hand and did not deserve any special thanks more than others with me. But he seemed to look at the matter differently and said he wished to give me something to be kept as a souvenir of that hazardous venture. He then told me to select a sabre, the best of the captured lot he had and take it with me as a keepsake of the occasion. I did so and took the newest and brightest in the lot and went back to my company with it, and while we served in the same army I don't think now I ever saw him again.

Morgan was captain then, but soon his efficiency as a cavalry officer and raider was conceded on all sides and his promotion was rapid. He made many raids into the enemy's lines, even going one time into Ohio. Men flocked to his standard from Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and other sections. He became Brigadier and later Major-General, I think. He married Miss Ready; was finally killed in Greenville, East Tennessee, in one of his raids in that section. , S. B. It is her While I prized my sabre as a souvenir, I soon found it was an inconvenience to carry with my other equipments. I had a double barrelled shotgun, two six shooters, my blanket, oil cloth, clothing, haversack, etc., to carry and I could at once see that while it might prove a nice keepsake I had no other use for it. Later on I had a chance to leave it with a relative in middle Tennessee to be kept for me until the war was over or until I should call for it, and in this way it passed the war period; after the close of hostilities I went to see my kinsman (who had died in the meantime) and recovered my sabre from his family who had taken good care of it. It now hangs in the hall of my daughter's home in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 563 Union Ave.keepsake now, to be disposed of by her as she may desire.

And in another place.

Colonel Harrison by this time had so long escaped personal injury from shot and shell, his men dubbed him "Old Iron Sides," because as they said he was sheathed with iron and no bullet could penetrate his body. On the second day of this battle, Billy Sayers, his Adjutant, sat on his horse beside him under a heavy fire. Colonel Harrison leaned over to Sayers and whispered, "I am wounded, but don't say anything about it on account of the men." Billy wanted him off the field, but he refused to go. It proved to be a flesh wound in the hip, not very serious, and he stayed with and commanded the regiment throughout the battle. On another occasion the Colonel, while standing in front of his line ready to make or receive a charge as it might happen, was looking through his field glass at a body of cavalry some distance off. Suddenly he exclaimed, "Now boys, we will have some fun. There is a regiment out there preparing to charge us, armed with sabres. Let them come up nearly close enough to strike and then feed them on buckshot." So they came up with great noise and pretense, hoping to demoralize and scatter their opponents and then have a race in which they could use their sabres effectively. But as the Texans stood their ground the Yankees ran up to within a few steps and halted suddenly, giving our boys the chance they were wishing for. One volley from the shotguns into their ranks scattered these sabre men into useless fragments of a force. Many of them surrendered and our boys quizzed them with merciless questions. "Why did you stop?" "Are your sabres long ranged weapons?" "How far can you kill a man with those things?" After a conflict lasting two days with varying success and defeat for both armies, the Southern army withdrew to the south, leaving the other army with fresh reinforcements encamped not far from the last lines of battle the evening before.

In fairness, a search of my archives did reveal some references to where sabers were used to good effect by other units and by Hampton, in particular, during the Carolinas campaign.

One other incidental item worth mentioning regarding Terry's Rangers is that thier widespread use of Spencers near the end of the war is generally overstated. There were many captured but the lack of available ammunition seems to have severly limmited their use within the regiment.

[LWhite64]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Joe,
In regards to Napoleon III, there is a great new book that delves into that a bit, THE BLOODY CRUCIBLE OF COURAGE: FIGHTING METHODS AND COMBAT EXPERIENCE OF THE CIVIL WAR by Brent Nosworthy. It is a very interesting book.

Lee

[Charles Heath]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

It's probably difficult to do a really good job painting a window sash with an asphalt driveway sealer brush. Not that we don't try to do this in a figurative sense. Part of the "talking past each other" in this thread has to do more with how events are viewed, rather than the historic role of cavalry at specific engagements, as well as the simple soldiering time between engagements. Most of the comments here are either very generalized or point-in-time specific, so what is the right answer? Maybe there is no right multi-purpose answer that covers everything well all the time.

The good news is people to go to specific events, and the conversation here is not unlike that of the infantry from years past. If the deep digging research is accomplished for specific unit portrayals at events, then the focus is a little tighter. This assumes the research uncovers some useful factual and documentation that can be implemented in support of a specific event. Many times the information is not there or it is too vague to be of much use. In Swank's published 3rd Virginia Cavalry diary, there's one entry for issuing "Richmond carbines," another for "Sharps carbines," and one for "procuring ordnance stores." On the surface, two of the three seem somewhat specific, but are those Richmond first, second, or third pattern carbines, or carbines simply made in Richmond? And then, what kind of Sharps or Sharps copies?

Chris said, “ I think its a little broad brushed to say Federals had sabers and Confederates didn't.”

This hits the bullseye. By looking at event specific portrayals, or at least representations of a specific unit sub-unit, a few things may pop out of the woodwork in terms of what they were issued, what they had on hand (actually using), and how they operated for the 3-4 day window before, during, and after a specific event. For most of the fellows who have done infantry over the years, this is pretty much a fixed procedure. It's SOP these days, and we may find the tables turned where the CS cavalry elements were better off than the US troops, as in the case where the yet-to-be-horsed New York regiment guarding the C&O Canal in Maryland had clubs and a few scattered Hall carbines. Handle a Hall carbine a couple of times, and one may decide it doesn't inspire a heck of a lot of confidence. Probably won't see a large number of Halls in the ranks, as we probably won't see a substantial number of Henry Rifles in the CS ranks on the way back from some future Beefsteak Raid, or dismounted federal cavalry at the Crater (thank's RJ), but there's the reality - bizarre as it may seem.

That handy pre-event research is what really drives the impression guidelines, and the willingness to conform to those guidelines is what separates the men from the pine bark beetles and gypsy moths. Lin brings up a good point, “Add to that the visual of the sabre charge as done at most mainstream events and you have even a more misconstrued idea that those of us who wish for a more correct portrayal shy away from and I think it colors our thinking.” That mainstream averse psyche has driven a number of things into the darkness, and skewed perhaps uncommon practices to be more common than they were. Some of this is driven by numbers on the field, too. Simply put, it is difficult to portray a squadron with a section of cavalry, and I'll go out on a limb to suggest it is difficult to become proficient at platoon drill without a cavalry platoon. Think about that for a moment.

To grab another one of Chris' quotes: “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.” Simply perusing Steve Hecker's daily CW history posts available on a few different listservers, one quickly notes just how many small unit actions were out there, and some of the real numbers of combatants involved are quite small. Tom moves to the logical conclusion for the next step, and adds, “To add on to what Chris said, we are recreating small unit actions. I have yet to see more than 20 authentically armed and equipped cavalry in any one place. So essentially we want to recreate the 10-20 man dashes or charges.”

Note the concept of reasonably scaled dashes and charges (movement to contact) rather than the contact or the not-so-admired in the history oriented wing of the hobby Dance of the Saber Fairies itself, which leads to Gerry's comment that started most of this discussion: “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.”

The key phrase may be "if these historians are to be believed." While the book may be great reading as a generalized history, if, and how does it apply to specific portrayals at future events? It may not. IMHO, it would be difficult to compare the service of the 3rd SC Cav with the 5th MO (US) with the 6th PA, 1st AZ, 7th TN, or 8th IL. All are different, and they may have more dissimilarities than commonalities at times. For example, one of the above units had lances for a good portion of the war. (I don't have a clue as to what the correct version of the Lance Dance would be, and I don't want to find out about what appears to be jousting first hand, either.) In some ways we are trying to mold a generic East-US, West-US, East-CS, West-CS, cavalryman from a load of bits and pieces, and don't forget the breaks the rules world of the Trans-Miss, Partisan Rangers, and home guard/ mounted militia.

Darryl, on his way to Mansfield, says, “I just dont believe that the mounted attack represents the norm. short of recreating a specific event, we should avoid the mounted saber/pistol charge at all cost. it cannot be portrayed accurately, and it's not representative of the day-to-day service of the civil war cavalryman, of any army, nor any theater.”

Sounds like this is coming from someone who maintained an armored vehicle on a regular basis. Day-to-day service is training aka "drill," maintenance, administration, escorting, patrols, and guard & picket duty. To go back to that 3rd Va. cavalry diary, the writer had a number of entires for putting squadrons on picket, and in a few days sending out their relief. That's the type of background for the battles which represent the highlights of history. It's that boredom to terror ration so often mentioned. Can a saber charge be properly portrayed at a battle reenactment? That's what Tom asks with this question:“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?”

The charge itself can be demonstrated at living histories, so there's a home for it, if no other home exists. That doesn't help much with the battle reenactments. References do exist for units on the receiving end of a saber charge to break and run (or leave in an organized fashion) without contact. Is that what happened at a specific event being reenacted? Maybe. Maybe not. That's the crux. Mosby, not known for liking the saber, had a good quote to the effect the first side to reorganize/reform in a saber clash and strike again is likely to be the victor. Such a reenactment where one platoon pushes through another platoon, reforms, and drives them from the field may take more choreographic skills with horses and lethal weapons than are currently available. Perhaps practice between opposing sides in a "team building" effort would help.

Examining the historical record for specific event documentation cannot be underestimated. In this case, as well as a lot of other instances, there isn't an easy answer, but changing the focus from broad brush to specific events may help.

Charles Heath

[GeraldTodd]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

"Battle Tactics of the American Civil War" ~ Paddy Griffith
"The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experiences of the Civil War" ~ Brent Nosworthy
...are two that come to mind. I'm just getting to the end of Crucible which is very good. Noseworthy looks at the ORs, letters, periodicals, manuals, and starts you, in some cases, in the 1500s and brings you to the Civil War in technology, tactics, military mindset, experience, and cultural bias covering all the arms.

Longacre's got some good stuff, but there's oddities in his work when it comes to technical details, for instance in Lincoln's Cavalrymen he states the carbine had a ring so it could be "hung on the saddle" which, to me, sounds like he saw the term "saddle ring" and assumed that's what it meant, rather than "a ring for use when in the saddle." His stuff is more "here's what happened" and not so much why.

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

Many thanks. I had the privilege of speaking with an instructor from the Army Command and Staff College in Fort Leavenworth recently and you might be interested to know he recommended the same books! (Plus "Attack and Die", flawed but insightful). I have Nosworthy from the local interlibrary loan department and my wife will be cussing you this weekend as the "honey-do" list does NOT get done.

Have a fine Easter weekend.

"Battle Tactics of the American Civil War" ~ Paddy Griffith
"The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experiences of the Civil War" ~ Brent Nosworthy
...are two that come to mind. I'm just getting to the end of Crucible which is very good. Noseworthy looks at the ORs, letters, periodicals, manuals, and starts you, in some cases, in the 1500s and brings you to the Civil War in technology, tactics, military mindset, experience, and cultural bias covering all the arms.

Longacre's got some good stuff, but there's oddities in his work when it comes to technical details, for instance in Lincoln's Cavalrymen he states the carbine had a ring so it could be "hung on the saddle" which, to me, sounds like he saw the term "saddle ring" and assumed that's what it meant, rather than "a ring for use when in the saddle." His stuff is more "here's what happened" and not so much why.

[GeraldTodd]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

You're gonna want to own Noseworthy's (it can be had for around $17 via Amazon)

[T.Kern]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

At the risk of all this already being said (because I haven't read all the replies) I wish to add my two cents. Being mostly concerned with the east, I will just address that theater.
I think the historians you named are not seeing the whole picture and I might add other historians disagree with this thought. What I mean is, one has to be careful what report , memoir, or letter one is using for a source because they can often be counterbalanced by another. I have inspections, reports, issues, diaries, and memoirs that would disagree with the statement "the majority didn't have sabres". When one is using a letter from a certain unit and a trooper says we didn't have any sabres he is often speaking only of his company or platoon and may not know or speak for another reg. or co. Though at times, I have seen them make the statement that their whole reg or brig. didn't have them only to dig a little deeper and find first hand accounts of their use and issues in that reg.. Remember, one man's perspective is his whole world, A small fight may be the biggest to the man in it. What he and his pards had to live with often counts for everyone to them. Also, consider the time period he is speaking of, he may have only been there for a short time.
The South, and even the North at times, lacked in serviceable arms. To balance this out and create a serviceable tactical unit, both sides would divide their regimental companies into sabre and sharpshooter co.'s. This way they could fight mtd or dis-mtd. and when a co. was on the ground a mtd. co was to be in support (as every manual calls for). Having seen the inspection reports they were always deficient in long arms , sabres, and especially revolvers. Even regiments that were always considered Mtd. rifles had issues in fair numbers of sabres. Even some these Valley regiments that my great grand was in had them. (Those that Jubal Early complains of only being able to fight dis-mtd. being unequipped to fight mtd. I have seen no other officer of that rank have the same complaint. Ol Jube and his cav, well that's another story , but don't expect him to say they were ok.) No doubt some regs. were worse off than others ( valley cav vs. Lee's brig.) but if they don't have a sabre they are even less likely to have a revolver. For many the order of the day was make the best of their Enfields, while some in a sister co. had longarm, sabre, and pistol. Now , if a mtd charge comes at a sharpshooter co. while the sabre co. is on a different part of the field, or even the countryside, they may not have been able to fight mtd. and were routed because they had no sabres. Then recording this in his memoirs or a report it sometimes sounds as if the whole unit had none. Later one may find that same unit involved in a sabre charge. I guess what I'm saying is there are a lot of variables to consider before writing sabres off. As for pistols, well they are a prized possession to a trooper for they seem to be less common than sabres in number. The same goes for breech loaders, I have a letter from Stuart's chief ord officer complaining of the cart. boxes being too small for the caliber most used in the division, .58 cal.
I would also caution readers of modern cav. authors to be critical and not just take it all in as fact. Knowing quite a few, none of them are horsemen and often misinterpret the data when it comes to horses and tack. Also, because they are often not curators (their concern being with officers, politics, and campaigns) they sometimes misinterpret material culture, I.E. what and how this piece of equipment is and used.
Now , as to the sabre charge, it was common in mtd. combat, and there are too many first hand accounts of it to begin listing ( I assume someone else already has done that anyway. Though, a mainstream cav commander at Spotsy just told me they didn't ever do them! My response was you don't read much huh?). The charge was a punch! A shock force to drive back or through your opponent , to reach an objective. How it was done, was in series, one after the other. While one is coming in the other is rally out to reform and come again, this is where training and discipline come in- to reform and come quicker and tighter (or straightness of the line- line being double ranks for more punch) than your opponent and hence drive him off the field. Infantry could compare this to a superior rate of fire. So, no the dance of they sabre fairies is not accurate but at times as order broke down there were melees like that, just not so slow and stationary. More typical and a better portrayal would be to sail in, hit , and flow out to reform and come again. This should be done at distance not 20 yards.
Yes, there is little hope of reenactments portraying this well, I have tried in the past and met with nothing but resistance. All they want to do is their pistol charging, unaware that they could not hit a thing like that. Nor was it how the pistol was used.

Hallo Herr Todd! Welcome to the AC Forum. The rules of this Forum require that you sign your posts with your full name. You can use the auto-signature option to do this automatically for you. Thank you. Curt-Heinrich Schmidt, Moderator

[USDragoons]

Re: South Carolina Cavalry Armaments

Relic Room Guy

I have an unrelated question regarding S C records. Please email me at usdragoons@aol.com.

Thanks

David Michel

[Iron Scout]

Re: Confederate Cavalry Armaments

David,

Why not just ask it here? We all might benefit from the question and response.

Neill Rose
PLHA