This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

[KyCavMajor]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Todd et al
To summarize what I have found in the west, I have no idea about the East.

I have Duke stating flately that Morgan's command fought in Single rank using Maury's tactics. At no point does he mention fighting either mounted, or dismounted in two ranks, nor can I find any source that indicates they ever did so. What was left of Morgan''s command after the Indiana raid was assigned to Wheeler.

Wheler went so far as to copy Cookes verbatim, and I mean right to every last mis spelling, and add Muary's to it to cover the dismounted portion.
Offically adopted 17 Feb 1864., per the O.R., but it is very likely most of his units were already using the single rank system. He was telling his officers on 10 feb to make sure they were drilling in it.(see the second attachment)

Wheeler also states on 9 Feb 1865 while in SC that THAT Department should adopt his sytem as well, since the Army of TN had adopted it and the commanders loved it. See the First Attachment

On the Federal side...
We have a copy of Cookes given to a 1st IL officer
We also have the fact Wilson had to order the retraining of the units he was taking on his raid to use Poinsetts, 14 Jan, 1865. They had to have been using Cookes up tp that point in order for Wilson to think they needed retrained.

[T.Kern]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Todd et al
To summarize what I have found in the west, I have no idea about the East.

I have Duke stating flately that Morgan's command fought in Single rank using Maury's tactics. At no point does he mention fighting either mounted, or dismounted in two ranks, nor can I find any source that indicates they ever did so. What was left of Morgan''s command after the Indiana raid was assigned to Wheeler.

Wheeler went so far as to copy Cookes verbatim, and I mean right to every last mis spelling, and add Maury's to it to cover the dismounted portion.
Officially adopted 17 Feb 1864., per the O.R., but it is very likely most of his units were already using the single rank system. He was telling his officers on 10 feb to make sure they were drilling in it.(see the second attachment)

Wheeler also states on 9 Feb 1865 while in SC that THAT Department should adopt his system as well, since the Army of TN had adopted it and the commanders loved it. See the First Attachment

On the Federal side...
We have a copy of Cookes given to a 1st IL officer
We also have the fact Wilson had to order the retraining of the units he was taking on his raid to use Poinsetts, 14 Jan, 1865. They had to have been using Cookes up tp that point in order for Wilson to think they needed retrained.

As stated before nearly every manual throws out a skirmish line in single rank but for cooke's who does not include fighting on foot at all. So by your own accounts you should be using Maury's ( a much better manual by the way) to drill by.

You have no idea when the Ill. officer had or if he used that manual. Where do you get the idea they "had " to be using Cooke's. As stated before, there were lots of other manuals out there.

To sum up, my original statement was,"cookes, a manual which should be thrown on the trash heap of historical novelty items as it serves little if any purpose in historical interpretation and should just be forgotten." While this statement may have been alittle strong, I used to bait some of you, I still see little use for the manual being represented in the east but for a few rare examples. AND... are we not, as representative historians, supposed to present what was common rather than out of the norm! Otherwise, would we not all be wearing Jaguar trousers. So unless representing one un-notable unit at a specific un-notable period in time it serves little purpose to be using Cooke's for a historical program.

As for the west, I will give you that it is likely that some(not all) units used Cooke's but not without other manuals involved. I think there is still a lot of questions out there before Wheeler's manual. There are numbers of other manuals that could have been, and were, in use both single and double ranks. Fighting in a single rank, in a skirmish line, does not prove the use of Cooke's or even a single rank manual, as previously stated. By your data Maury's was often the manual being employed.
As for showing function in a historical program, it seems that Maury's held the meat and potatoes, so should be the manual being used for the presentation. Or Since Wheeler make his official late in the war, use Wheelers, the most useful part of it is Maury's anyway.

Lastly, Single verses Double, we have yet to really address tactical use and which was stronger. I believe, Poinsette's double ranks is a superior manual. Not only can you maneuver more troops into a specific area, Hence bring superior numbers to bear at the point of contact, but it can as well be deployed into a single rank when there is a need to present a larger front across a greater area. For mounted use, which is really all Cooke was concerned with, the old manual delivers more of a punch in a mounted charge, and that punch is what makes a charge successful. And well, to be a well rounded manual capable enough to keep pace with the evolution of what the American Civil War made cavalry into, without dismounted fighting Cooke's is obsolete.


Todd Kern

[KyCavMajor]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

As stated before nearly every manual throws out a skirmish line in single rank but for cooke's who does not include fighting on foot at all. So by your own accounts you should be using Maury's ( a much better manual by the way) to drill by.

We do in fact use Maury's as our dismount drill, practiced it last weekend in fact to brush up for the season.

You have no idea when the Ill. officer had or if he used that manual. Where do you get the idea they "had " to be using Cooke's. As stated before, there were lots of other manuals out there.

True enough, but Cookes was the one endorsed by the war department. Plus, the other manuals were pretty much based on either Cooke's or Poinsett's. I am re-reading Cooper's 1855 Manual and I think anyone trained in it would fit right into another unit using Poinsetts, it is probably a "Poinsets Readrs Digest" or "Light" version if you will. I doubt Federal Cavalry would have driiled with Maury's, at least under the name Maury, there may have been a manual under a different name, ie Cookes/ Wheelers and Poinsetts/ Pattons.

Remember too that a LOT of Western Fedral Cavalry was not accepted into service before Cooke's became widely available. Remember the "war is going to be over before cavalry could be trained" line of thought in the early days of the war.

To sum up, my original statement was,"cookes, a manual which should be thrown on the trash heap of historical novelty items as it serves little if any purpose in historical interpretation and should just be forgotten." While this statement may have been alittle strong, I used to bait some of you, I still see little use for the manual being represented in the east but for a few rare examples. AND... are we not, as representative historians, supposed to present what was common rather than out of the norm! Otherwise, would we not all be wearing Jaguar trousers. So unless representing one un-notable unit at a specific un-notable period in time it serves little purpose to be using Cooke's for a historical program.

Well I have to disagree, unless you call Wheeler's Division "one un-notable unit at a specific un-notable period in time". From 1864 onward it was the official Drill manual for his troops, and I highly suspect it was the standard long before that. Now it was "Wheeler's Tactics" technically, but if you can find a words difference in the books let me know. Until Larry Morgan allowed me to copy his Wheeler's, it was not much available to the average re-enactor, so using Cooke's in the absence of an available copy Wheeler’s still maneuvers the troops in an authentic manner using authentic command, at least mounted. And now we have Maury’s to add to our impression for the dismounted fights.

As stated before nearly every manual throws out a skirmish line in single rank but for cooke's who does not include fighting on foot at all. So by your own accounts you should be using Maury's ( a much better manual by the way) to drill by.

We do in fact use Maury's as our dismount drill, practiced it last weeken in fact to brush up for the season

You have no idea when the Ill. officer had or if he used that manual. Where do you get the idea they "had " to be using Cooke's. As stated before, there were lots of other manuals out there.

True enough, but Cookes was the one endorsed by the war department. Plus, the other manuals were pretty much based on either Cooke's or Poinsett's. I am re-reading Cooper's 1855 Manual and I think anyone trained in it would fit right into another unit using Poinsetts, it is probably a "Poinsets Readers Digest" or "Light" version if you will. I doubt Federal Cavalry would have driiled with Maury's, at least under the name Maury, there may have been a manual under a different name, ie Cookes/ Wheelers and Poinsetts/ Pattons.

Remeber too, that a LOT of Western Fedral Cavalry was not accepted into service before Cooke's became widley available. Remember the "war is going to be over before cavalry could be trained" line of thought in the early days of the war.

To sum up, my original statement was,"cookes, a manual which should be thrown on the trash heap of historical novelty items as it serves little if any purpose in historical interpretation and should just be forgotten." While this statement may have been alittle strong, I used to bait some of you, I still see little use for the manual being represented in the east but for a few rare examples. AND... are we not, as representative historians, supposed to present what was common rather than out of the norm! Otherwise, would we not all be wearing Jaguar trousers. So unless representing one un-notable unit at a specific un-notable period in time it serves little purpose to be using Cooke's for a historical program.

Well I have to disagree, unless you call Wheeler's Division "one un-notable unit at a specific un-notable period in time". From 1864 onward it was the official Drill manual for his troops, and I highly suspect it was the standard long before that. Now it was "Wheeler's Tactics" technically, but if you can find a words difference in the books let me know. Until Larry Morgan allowed me to copy his Wheeler's, it was not much available to the average re-enactor., So using Cooke's in abs

As for the west, I will give you that it is likely that some(not all) units used Cooke's but not without other manuals involved. I think there is still a lot of questions out there before Wheeler's manual. There are numbers of other manuals that could have been, and were, in use both single and double ranks. Fighting in a single rank, in a skirmish line, does not prove the use of Cooke's or even a single rank manual, as previously stated. By your data Maury's was often the manual being employed.
As for showing function in a historical program, it seems that Maury's held the meat and potatoes, so should be the manual being used for the presentation. Or Since Wheeler make his official late in the war, use Wheelers, the most useful part of it is Maury's anyway.

Ok, we will call our “Cooke’s drill “Wheeler’s” and combine it with Cooke’s, it is the same except in Title anyway, and combine it with Maury’s skirmish drill. Oh, wait, that is what we have been doing. Now, what other drill would you have us do for earlier in the war? I have never seen anything suggesting Wheeler, Morgan, or Forrest ever fought their cavalry in two ranks, there are no after action reports, no eyewitness accounts, no newspaper articles that I can find anywhere, not one. I would gladly consider adapting other Manuals if I were shown they would be more correct than our combination of Cooke’s and mu…, I mean Wheelers!

Lastly, Single verses Double, we have yet to really address tactical use and which was stronger. I believe, Poinsette's double ranks is a superior manual. Not only can you maneuver more troops into a specific area, Hence bring superior numbers to bear at the point of contact, but it can as well be deployed into a single rank when there is a need to present a larger front across a greater area. For mounted use, which is really all Cooke was concerned with, the old manual delivers more of a punch in a mounted charge, and that punch is what makes a charge successful. And well, to be a well rounded manual capable enough to keep pace with the evolution of what the American Civil War made cavalry into, without dismounted fighting Cooke's is obsolete.

I see no huge advantage, I personally am comfortable well drilled troops can use either doctrine to get from point A to point B. I think the “Sea change” was on the way however to the “Rank Entire” throughout the world, certainly the Europeans were starting to come around, I have attached a short blurb from Captain Nolan's book on
cavalry tactics, published in 1853 and reprinted. Nolan
was an influential and well-known British cavalryman who was killed in the Charge of the Light Brigade.
The book is full of great stuff, but especially interesting to us is
a lengthy discussion of the merits of one-rank vs. two rank lines.
These guys refer to the single rank formation as rank entire. On the
left below is just on page on the subject. The single-rank is regarded as especially good for "Yeoman Cavalry", which is less well-trained than the British regulars.

McClellan wrote in HIS manual published in 1861, after studying the Europeans at war on Page ten,

“The formation ought to be of one rank, as covering the greatest extent of ground, admitting the most rapid movements, and bringing every man to bear to the greatest advantage; suitable reserves sold always be held in hand.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=8Zjldkerd3kC&pg=PA9&dq=Mcclellan+cavalry#PPA10,M1

As for the west, I will give you that it is likely that some(not all) units used Cooke's but not without other manuals involved. I think there is still a lot of questions out there before Wheeler's manual. There are numbers of other manuals that could have been, and were, in use both single and double ranks. Fighting in a single rank, in a skirmish line, does not prove the use of Cooke's or even a single rank manual, as previously stated. By your data Maury's was often the manual being employed.
As for showing function in a historical program, it seems that Maury's held the meat and potatoes, so should be the manual being used for the presentation. Or Since Wheeler make his official late in the war, use Wheelers, the most useful part of it is Maury's anyway.

Lastly, Single verses Double, we have yet to really address tactical use and which was stronger. I believe, Poinsette's double ranks is a superior manual. Not only can you maneuver more troops into a specific area, Hence bring superior numbers to bear at the point of contact, but it can as well be deployed into a single rank when there is a need to present a larger front across a greater area. For mounted use, which is really all Cooke was concerned with, the old manual delivers more of a punch in a mounted charge, and that punch is what makes a charge successful. And well, to be a well rounded manual capable enough to keep pace with the evolution of what the American Civil War made cavalry into, without dismounted fighting Cooke's is obsolete.


Todd Kern

I disagree with the premise that Poinsett’s or ANY two rank system makes maneuvering troops easier by being more compact, I can, and have put as many as sixty troopers through all sorts of maneuvers in some very tight spots, and had no problem. Now sixty troopers is not a division but it extrapolates out to Division level. In fact, from what I have observed, Cooke’s, oops, I mean Wheeler’s, allows MORE flexibility, not less. I can charge in a column of platoons to equal the “Shock value” of a double rank formation. I can also deploy into a longer line enveloping the flanks of the same number of troopers in a double rank formation. I can stop the second Platoon or “rank” if you will and change its direction or even divert it to another task. I can double my ranks to meet a charge of a double rank formation while STILL having a longer line. I can hold the second platoon as a reserve to send in when the opposition is deranged from the impact of its charge.
Another consideration is the utilization of firearms while mounted. OK, I know it was a rare occurrence but it did happen. The 1st and 9th Kentucky were drawn up in front of Ringold Gap, and fired a volley, mounted, before retiring. Also, the same bunch did the same in front of Resaca, one 1st Kentuckian just about gelded Kilpatrick with his captured Spencer carbine. His horse moving spoiled his aim and he hit Killcavalry’s saddle driving splinters into Kilpatrick’s groin.
And finally, but nonetheless an important consideration, the “Rank Entire” is easier to teach and effective cavalry can be fielded in less time.
Even were the “weight of the charge” argument to go to the two rank system, and I am not conceding that, the other advantages the Single Rank system entail in my opinion outweigh it.

[T.Kern]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

We do in fact use Maury's as our dismount drill, practiced it last weekend in fact to brush up for the season.



True enough, but Cookes was the one endorsed by the war department. Plus, the other manuals were pretty much based on either Cooke's or Poinsett's. I am re-reading Cooper's 1855 Manual and I think anyone trained in it would fit right into another unit using Poinsetts, it is probably a "Poinsets Readrs Digest" or "Light" version if you will. I doubt Federal Cavalry would have driiled with Maury's, at least under the name Maury, there may have been a manual under a different name, ie Cookes/ Wheelers and Poinsetts/ Pattons.

Remember too that a LOT of Western Fedral Cavalry was not accepted into service before Cooke's became widely available. Remember the "war is going to be over before cavalry could be trained" line of thought in the early days of the war.




Well I have to disagree, unless you call Wheeler's Division "one un-notable unit at a specific un-notable period in time". From 1864 onward it was the official Drill manual for his troops, and I highly suspect it was the standard long before that. Now it was "Wheeler's Tactics" technically, but if you can find a words difference in the books let me know. Until Larry Morgan allowed me to copy his Wheeler's, it was not much available to the average re-enactor, so using Cooke's in the absence of an available copy Wheeler’s still maneuvers the troops in an authentic manner using authentic command, at least mounted. And now we have Maury’s to add to our impression for the dismounted fights.



We do in fact use Maury's as our dismount drill, practiced it last weeken in fact to brush up for the season



True enough, but Cookes was the one endorsed by the war department. Plus, the other manuals were pretty much based on either Cooke's or Poinsett's. I am re-reading Cooper's 1855 Manual and I think anyone trained in it would fit right into another unit using Poinsetts, it is probably a "Poinsets Readers Digest" or "Light" version if you will. I doubt Federal Cavalry would have driiled with Maury's, at least under the name Maury, there may have been a manual under a different name, ie Cookes/ Wheelers and Poinsetts/ Pattons.

Remeber too, that a LOT of Western Fedral Cavalry was not accepted into service before Cooke's became widley available. Remember the "war is going to be over before cavalry could be trained" line of thought in the early days of the war.




Well I have to disagree, unless you call Wheeler's Division "one un-notable unit at a specific un-notable period in time". From 1864 onward it was the official Drill manual for his troops, and I highly suspect it was the standard long before that. Now it was "Wheeler's Tactics" technically, but if you can find a words difference in the books let me know. Until Larry Morgan allowed me to copy his Wheeler's, it was not much available to the average re-enactor., So using Cooke's in abs



Ok, we will call our “Cooke’s drill “Wheeler’s” and combine it with Cooke’s, it is the same except in Title anyway, and combine it with Maury’s skirmish drill. Oh, wait, that is what we have been doing. Now, what other drill would you have us do for earlier in the war? I have never seen anything suggesting Wheeler, Morgan, or Forrest ever fought their cavalry in two ranks, there are no after action reports, no eyewitness accounts, no newspaper articles that I can find anywhere, not one. I would gladly consider adapting other Manuals if I were shown they would be more correct than our combination of Cooke’s and mu…, I mean Wheelers!




I see no huge advantage, I personally am comfortable well drilled troops can use either doctrine to get from point A to point B. I think the “Sea change” was on the way however to the “Rank Entire” throughout the world, certainly the Europeans were starting to come around, I have attached a short blurb from Captain Nolan's book on
cavalry tactics, published in 1853 and reprinted. Nolan
was an influential and well-known British cavalryman who was killed in the Charge of the Light Brigade.
The book is full of great stuff, but especially interesting to us is
a lengthy discussion of the merits of one-rank vs. two rank lines.
These guys refer to the single rank formation as rank entire. On the
left below is just on page on the subject. The single-rank is regarded as especially good for "Yeoman Cavalry", which is less well-trained than the British regulars.

McClellan wrote in HIS manual published in 1861, after studying the Europeans at war on Page ten,

“The formation ought to be of one rank, as covering the greatest extent of ground, admitting the most rapid movements, and bringing every man to bear to the greatest advantage; suitable reserves sold always be held in hand.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=8Zjldkerd3kC&pg=PA9&dq=Mcclellan+cavalry#PPA10,M1

I disagree with the premise that Poinsett’s or ANY two rank system makes maneuvering troops easier by being more compact, I can, and have put as many as sixty troopers through all sorts of maneuvers in some very tight spots, and had no problem. Now sixty troopers is not a division but it extrapolates out to Division level. In fact, from what I have observed, Cooke’s, oops, I mean Wheeler’s, allows MORE flexibility, not less. I can charge in a column of platoons to equal the “Shock value” of a double rank formation. I can also deploy into a longer line enveloping the flanks of the same number of troopers in a double rank formation. I can stop the second Platoon or “rank” if you will and change its direction or even divert it to another task. I can double my ranks to meet a charge of a double rank formation while STILL having a longer line. I can hold the second platoon as a reserve to send in when the opposition is deranged from the impact of its charge.
Another consideration is the utilization of firearms while mounted. OK, I know it was a rare occurrence but it did happen. The 1st and 9th Kentucky were drawn up in front of Ringold Gap, and fired a volley, mounted, before retiring. Also, the same bunch did the same in front of Resaca, one 1st Kentuckian just about gelded Kilpatrick with his captured Spencer carbine. His horse moving spoiled his aim and he hit Killcavalry’s saddle driving splinters into Kilpatrick’s groin.
And finally, but nonetheless an important consideration, the “Rank Entire” is easier to teach and effective cavalry can be fielded in less time.
Even were the “weight of the charge” argument to go to the two rank system, and I am not conceding that, the other advantages the Single Rank system entail in my opinion outweigh it.

My reply by paragraph;

I'm not sure what you mean endorsed by the war dept??? Poinsette's was the manual authorized by the war dept. Are you not aware that Cooke's was nearly immediately recalled. Cooke's endorsement was in Nov of 61 and within a month it was recalled. So, so much for that endorsement. So the those guys coming in late would or should not have been exposed to Cooke's, according to the war dept. Of course the Maury's manual was for federal troops! It was written pre-war and officially adopted for Mtd. Rifles April 9, 1859. By the way guess what reg your dear Wheeler was part of prior to the war.. Where do you think Linking of horses comes from! It ain't in Poinsette's and certainly not Cooke's.


As stated before, your are mistaken in this line of thought. Poinsette's is not just an early war manual.


Apparently you misunderstood what I stated, the un notables I spoke of was in regards to the east. But, You have still yet to prove Cooke's was the manual, prior to Wheelers, for a majority in the west. I have agreed it was used some.



As you said Morgan used Maury's not Cooke's. Forrest, well I have seen something about charging both ways but am not sure if this was by front and rear rank, I am not the Forrest scholar. The west is not my specialty. But you do not, either, have first hand accounts that all they used was Cooke's and as I said, use of a single rank does not make it Cooke's tactics. The debate here is over Cooke's specifically. I have conceded it was used to some extent in the west, how much is unclear!



I am well aware of Capt. Nolan and am quite frankly surprized any reenator is. And Mac's manual, while stating admiration for the rank entire , is a compilation of Poinsette's and Maury's, among others. And there is ample evidense in accounts and images for the use of double ranks in the east.



Well all that you state you can do, I can do with Poinsette's. When it comes to shock value, I can do it quicker without moving troops in and out of formations. I can deploy into a rank entire if needed. I can change direction or objective of the second rank. If you meet my charge with equal numbers but a longer line then I will punch throw your weak single rank center. Charges should always be done multiple platoons or squadrons, held and thrown in as needed, so I don't know where you get the idea that only Cooke's can hold a platoon in reserve. In modern programs, most of the time no one has sufficient numbers to do it all as it should be, and most do not even grasp the proper context.



I have no idea what point your trying to make with the last paragraph??? Do you still not understand that nearly every manual uses a mtd. skirmish line and that line is in a single row!!! Any regiment could have done what you describe and many did, east and west. AND it was not a rare occurrence!??
I think double ranks are easier to teach! All the new guy needs to know, when in the rear rank, is follow the your file leader!
The object of the charge was not the melee but a point to be taken or to turn an organized reg into a disorganized one. With repeated charges by double rank squadrons coming in steps, this would be easy. Charges were to be fluid, the first hits and rallys out as the next comes in and drives the opponent back while the first is reforming to come again, as the others are rallying out to form and come again. NOTHING like what is seen at most reenactments!
Again , this was about Cooke's tactics, those single ranks, which made no allowances for fighting on foot and hence was a weaker more inflexible manual because of it. As I said, Maury's is a good manual and it is single ranks. Cooke's is weak and that is why it was never adopted by the war dept and for the rest of his life Cooke tried to get it in. Poinsette's remains official into the Indian wars.

Todd Kern

[KyCavMajor]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

My reply by paragraph;

I'm not sure what you mean endorsed by the war dept??? Poinsette's was the manual authorized by the war dept. Are you not aware that Cooke's was nearly immediately recalled. Cooke's endorsement was in Nov of 61 and within a month it was recalled. So, so much for that endorsement. So the those guys coming in late would or should not have been exposed to Cooke's, according to the war dept. Of course the Maury's manual was for federal troops! It was written pre-war and officially adopted for Mtd. Rifles April 9, 1859. By the way guess what reg your dear Wheeler was part of prior to the war.. Where do you think Linking of horses comes from! It ain't in Poinsette's and certainly not Cooke's.

Perhaps there is more in Cooke's regarding fighting on foot than you remember....

Page 71, Cooke's Manual, School of the trooper Dismounted.

"The service of skimishers on foot is the most important;and theory can best be communicated, and in a great degree put in practice, with much facility than mounted."

I have to admit to some confusion in School of the Trooper, Mounted, on page 119 the form Cooke provides for target practice, it CLEARY has two sections, Dismounted and Mounted. Now the ranges listed for dismounted are 50 and 100 yards. Now he does not mention a long arm, but dismounted target practice at 100 yards with a revolver? He does however call for Skimishers to charge, DISMOUNTED with REVOLVERS in the School of the Squadron...

Now for the "Cookes has no linking provision...

School of the Platoon, Mounted, Page 163

"Prepare to fight-- on Foot!"

1.At the command all prepare to dismount except Nos. 4

2. Dismount, ecept Nos. 4 and form rank.

3. Nos 1,2 and 3 pass the reins with the right hand over the horses heads; Nos. 3 hand their reins to Nos. 4 to hold, and Nos. 1 and 2 tie their reins to the cheek pieces and nose bands of the halters and bridles of the horses of Nos. 2 and 3 by a tight slip knot, and with only about one foot of play...

As stated before, your are mistaken in this line of thought. Poinsette's is not just an early war manual.

I don't think I said that, I believe it was undoubtedly used throughout the war, and after. I don't have my Library handy, I am stranded in L.A. for a few more days, but I seem to recall in a unit history of the 7th Indiana Custer is unhappy with them because they aren't drilled in Poinsett's when he led them to Texas at the close of the war. They regarded him as a dandy, a showy fop, as well as a martinet. I will need to look that up when I get home.

Apparently you misunderstood what I stated, the un notables I spoke of was in regards to the east. But, You have still yet to prove Cooke's was the manual, prior to Wheelers, for a majority in the west. I have agreed it was used some.

I guess I did miss you meant the east, and I will concede any point made in that quarter, I am entirely ignorant of operations there, except real late war when Wheeler was in that theater, my appologies.

As you said Morgan used Maury's not Cooke's. Forrest, well I have seen something about charging both ways but am not sure if this was by front and rear rank, I am not the Forrest scholar. The west is not my specialty. But you do not, either, have first hand accounts that all they used was Cooke's and as I said, use of a single rank does not make it Cooke's tactics. The debate here is over Cooke's specifically. I have conceded it was used to some extent in the west, how much is unclear!

If I find Morgan, or Wheeler used two ranks prior to 1864 when we know they were ordered to use Wheeler's I will be the first to retrain my troops, but I have not seen a word of it. But I have not given up the search!

I am well aware of Capt. Nolan and am quite frankly surprized any reenator is. And Mac's manual, while stating admiration for the rank entire , is a compilation of Poinsette's and Maury's, among others. And there is ample evidense in accounts and images for the use of double ranks in the east.

Well to be honest, I am researching a book along with a much better writer, and published author, and have always been a "drill head". I have three separate versions of Cooke's now, Poinsetts, Patton's, Mac's, Cooper's and a couple others I have forgotten. The next step is obtaining the european manuals these where based on.. By the way, anyone using the little yellow paper back version of Cookes, it leaves out a LOT. There is a much more faithful hard back version available, the one Cooke revised and combined both Volumes into one book, taking it up another notch.
We plan a trip to the Kentucky Military Archives in Frankfurt, I have unearthed a lot of goosd stuff there in the past, but haven't been down there in the last few years.

The cool part is I have anywhere from 16 to 60 guys to practice on, we had 48 in to companies at Perryville last year,so if something doesn't make sense to me as I interpret 19th century Miltary-inese if you will, I can try it out on them. Our gear isn't always right, but we do drill a lot! I got the nickname "Captain Carbine" some years back as I insist everyone carry a long arm, and most do.

Well all that you state you can do, I can do with Poinsette's. When it comes to shock value, I can do it quicker without moving troops in and out of formations. I can deploy into a rank entire if needed. I can change direction or objective of the second rank. If you meet my charge with equal numbers but a longer line then I will punch throw your weak single rank center. Charges should always be done multiple platoons or squadrons, held and thrown in as needed, so I don't know where you get the idea that only Cooke's can hold a platoon in reserve. In modern programs, most of the time no one has sufficient numbers to do it all as it should be, and most do not even grasp the proper context.

I am sure every manual has a provision for a reserve, I perhaps was not clear, but I feel that your double rank punch will be disorganized as it hits my single rank, and now given equal number of troops, I have a counter punch in the form of a still massed body of troops. It is not an exact analogy, but think of the Zulu's "Horns of the Bull Tactics". Hold the center, attack the flanks. The double rank worked well for Sheridan I think in the Valley, but he had a huge advantage in numbers although I may be wholly mistaken on that point... I have not studied the est that much

As for Nolan and Mac, to be honest, I am in the very early preparatory phase of researching a book in coperation with a much better writer, and published author, and have always been a "drill head".
Back in 95 I was fortunate enough to command a platoon at Franklin under Cols Pettit and Parish of the old Western Brigade. They kind of took this Confederate under their wing so to speak, prior to that we were guilty of the most flagrant yahooism imaginable! They sort of pointed to a better way.

I have no idea what point your trying to make with the last paragraph??? Do you still not understand that nearly every manual uses a mtd. skirmish line and that line is in a single row!!!

I understand, but the Kentucky units were not in skirmish formation at Ringold Gap, the account I recall has them "stirrup to stirrup" and receiving a voley that way. One account (Ed Porter Thompson) has them thus, and never firing a shot, apparently no one told them to fire, or to retreat, so they just took a volley from infantry, ouch. Another account does not mention formation, but claims they fired one round before retiring. Several are buried in the small cematary behind the Holiday Inn Express at the Ringold Gap exit off I-75. At Resaca, They were drawn up to receive an anticipated charge from Kilpatrick, not in Skirmish order.


[QUOTE=T.Kern]Any regiment could have done what you describe and many did, east and west. AND it was not a rare occurrence!??[QUOTE]
Agreed!

[QUOTE=T.Kern]I think double ranks are easier to teach! All the new guy needs to know, when in the rear rank, is follow the your file leader!
The object of the charge was not the melee but a point to be taken or to turn an organized reg into a disorganized one. With repeated charges by double rank squadrons coming in steps, this would be easy. Charges were to be fluid, the first hits and rallys out as the next comes in and drives the opponent back while the first is reforming to come again, as the others are rallying out to form and come again. NOTHING like what is seen at most reenactments![QUOTE]

We often use "the wave" if you will, in Kentucky, albeit in single ranks. We have practiced it for 5-6 years now. We rally out to the flanks of the follow on platoons leaving their path open to the opponent. The opponents we face most often have begun to adapt it as well, they ran it pretty well in fact at Perryville.

Again , this was about Cooke's tactics, those single ranks, which made no allowances for fighting on foot and hence was a weaker more inflexible manual because of it. As I said, Maury's is a good manual and it is single ranks. Cooke's is weak and that is why it was never adopted by the war dept and for the rest of his life Cooke tried to get it in. Poinsette's remains official into the Indian wars.

Todd Kern

I did include some qoutes from Cookes that did in fact provide for dismounted fighting, I don't have my better version, the 1862 (?) re-issue with me, but I do recall in that version he explains how to sling the Carbine, and changed his skirmish drill from using ! (?)sabers to "Advance Carbine".

I am also looking into possible links to Muary, Wheeler, and Cooke pre war in the Southwest. They were in roughly the same area, at roughly the same time and all officers in a small Army... It may very well be a dead end, but their systems seem so similar in philosphy, ie the single rank. Could Cooke have been writing the mounted part of the future manual while Maury was doing the dismounted part as a collaboration interupted by the war? If that were the case what you end up with is Wheeler's... An interesting thought, but it may well be impossible to prove even it were a fact.

Now I need a manual for the deployment of Mountain Howitzers...lol I have available two nice reproduction bullpups and the harness to to pull them. Since we do Morgan, they are correct for certian events, especially early, clear up through the Indiana Raid... I have plenty of accounts where they deployed them, what I lack is how they were moved, where they disassembled and packed around or where they pulled along on their carriages? We have certified mounted gunners, and we ASSUME (bad I know) they did the same routine as far as holding the horses goes, but much more research is needed...:confused_

[T.Kern]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Perhaps there is more to Cooke's fighting on foot than I remember, or could this be a later revised version? Cooke's still has no provisions for linking, if you read your own quote it says tieing reins and the quote you provide is an exact quote from Poinsette's. Did Cooke, finding the need, plagiarize Poinsette's later?

Charges; If you have equal men as me, and your line over laps mine because of your single rank, I will split your line and crash through because I bring superior numbers to bear at the point of contact. I will not sit there to be enveloped. You will not have the strength to hold the center.

As for Nolan, every reenactor should read his treatise on training cavalry horses! This, because most reenactors are completely inept horsemen boarding on abuse.

OK the Ky unit at the gap, why can not any manual do this very thing?? Obviously they can. I don't see any point made with this.

There was no collaboration between Cooke and maury. Maury's is a manual complete in it's self and, as stated, officially in use prior to the war.

The next manual to replace Poinsette's is Uptons, I believe in 1876.

Mtn. Howitzers huh, they were a rare or specific thing. I have seen war dept. instructions on there use and transportation.

Todd Kern

[KyCavMajor]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Perhaps there is more to Cooke's fighting on foot than I remember, or could this be a later revised version? Cooke's still has no provisions for linking, if you read your own quote it says tieing reins and the quote you provide is an exact quote from Poinsette's. Did Cooke, finding the need, plagiarize Poinsette's later?

That was from the 61 version, he may have very well plagiarized it though, it seems a common theme amongst the manual writers of the day to steal each others work, or perhaps they BOTH plagiarized another manual? True it doesn't use a "link strap" per SE, but the horses are "linked".
The early version lacks the instruction on how to place the carbine over the shoulder when mounting that is included in the later one.

Charges; If you have equal men as me, and your line over laps mine because of your single rank, I will split your line and crash through because I bring superior numbers to bear at the point of contact. I will not sit there to be enveloped. You will not have the strength to hold the center.

I think the center will hold long enough for an immediate counter strike. When the front rank of the two strikes the single line at some 30 mph closing speed, the shock will be tremendous, and for a moment, equal from both directions. Then the second rank hits the resulting train wreck. They have to push through their own deranged front rank and the opposition's line. To me the inevitable result is a pile of upset horses and riders entangled in a fur ball. The second rank will be weakened and you have shot your bolt, while I have another well controlled in hand and ready to counter stroke.
It is an interesting question, and a hard one to prove, I doubt we can find any reenactors willing to test the theory a full speed... Perhaps a computer model could be calculated, but how do you program the variables such as training and leadership?
I suspect a double rank of well trained Regulars would prevail over lesser trained Volunteer troops. However if you reverse the training levels,you will likely reverse the result. And ten there was Forrest, who violated every tenant of warfare at one point or another, but through sheer will managed to win a few.

As for Nolan, every reenactor should read his treatise on training cavalry horses! This, because most reenactors are completely inept horsemen boarding on abuse.

I was thrilled to see Nolan available again, and most "normal' horse owners could use a copy as well, I seen as much abuse at horse shows...or trail rides for that matter.

OK the Ky unit at the gap, why can not any manual do this very thing?? Obviously they can. I don't see any point made with this.

It was not a comparison between manuals, but two examples of long arms being used from horseback in regular ranks, something I have been told never happened. Did it happen often? I think fairly. Was it effective? My experiments into it lead me to doubt it!

There was no collaboration between Cooke and Maury. Maury's is a manual complete in it's self and, as stated, officially in use prior to the war.

The next manual to replace Poinsette's is Uptons, I believe in 1876.

Mtn. Howitzers huh, they were a rare or specific thing. I have seen war dept. instructions on there use and transportation.

Todd Kern

I can see the guys on this board cringing, but the Mountain guns were used more than you might imagine actually, even by Federals. Lilly's famous battery used them at Chicamuga for example.

A great page listing the actions involving Mt Howitzers

Confederate Brig. Gen. Basil Duke, wrote in praise of the mountain howitzer, "No gun is so well suited in all respects to the wants of cavalry, as these little guns." Duke acknowledged their short range, but felt they could shoot far enough for the kind of battles his cavalry engaged in. Duke found that the mountain howitzers had many useful qualities. The little guns could go anywhere a horse could. They were light enough that foot soldiers could push them along by hand as they fought their way close to the enemy lines. And they also made "a great deal more noise than one would expect from their size and appearance." Duke's men of the 2nd Kentucky Volunteer Cavalry (CSA) had a pair of mountain howitzers that they frequently took along on their raids, The men were quite fond of their little guns, and nicknamed them their "bull pups."
They fit our impression when we do early war Morgan stuff, both guns are "full scale" and decent reproductions.
We also have a six horse hitch when we need to use it as well. We find since the gunners are mounted, they can keep up well. My question is when did they break them own and put them on mules and when did they simple pull them behind a mule?
The biggest obstacle we have encountered is a prejudice against them at some events. I suppose the bias is do to oft seen small gun that seems to show up at every reenactment being manned by some of the worst artillerist ever to waste powder.
But there ARE instances of Bull Pups being used, and pretty regularly for our impression, many a stockade along the L&N surrendered when a shell was thrown their way.
But whilethey add a dimension to our impression, artillery usage by cavalry is a subject for another day!

[Dean West]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Hello,
This is my first post on the Authentic Campaigner, so I certainly do not wish to aggravate anybody by diving right in to this "rank entire" vs. double rank line (Poinsett's) cavalry discussion between, essentially, Mr. Kern and my friend Major Lane. Tod Lane is doing a good job dealing with this issue without my help.

I do, however, have an article coming out in Volume 10, #3 of North & South magazine in couple months that deals in an indirect way with this issue, and might shed some light on the tactical doctrine used. It could be of interest to those who are amateur historians and looking for the truth, rather than striving to adher to an opinion, regardless of new and compelling facts. I really have no axe to grind regarding the use of either drill, in fact, since I also research European horse and musket tactics from 1701 through 1865, if anything I am in pro-double rank line first implemented in Europe by Frederick the Great of Prussia. Previous to the coming of Frederick, cavalry usually fought in three rank line.

Anyway, careful analysis of how the Union cav fought in the West throughout most of the war suggests they were using single-rank line tactics. I apologize right up front for gaining this impression based on the research materials I have at my disposal.

My article is a description Morgan's Gallatin Raid, but the majority of the piece is a micro-study of the 21 August 1862 "Action on the Hartsville Road". Hartsville Road was a pure cav battle between equal forces. As I researched the piece, it became pretty obvious to me that the Yankee cavalry in this battle at least were using single-rank tactics (bns or sqdns from the 7th Pennsylvania, 4th and 5th Kentucky, 2nd Indiana).

Best Regards,

Dean West

[Dean West]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Gentlemen, would it help if I copied verbatim Wilson's Jan 28, 1865 order to retrain from Cooke's to Poinsett's and post it here? Now, it's true that knowledge seekers could go to the appropriate volume of the ORs and read it for themselves, but I am more than happy to be of service to those who may not have the ORs at their disposal.

Dean West

[T.Kern]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

I can not type fast enough to answer your condescending post!
First you failed to understand the basis of this debate. It is not about single vs. double but my original statement was a slam of Cooke's manual and those farbs, especially, here in the east that use it. But let me clarify for you.
First, I am mainly familiar with the eastern theatre, so that is what I speak of usually. There is ample amount of photographic, drawings, first hand accounts, and other primary source material that double ranks was, mainly Poinsette's, the primary tactics used. Would it help if I posted the quotes for you, but I'm sure if you're a professional you have seen them? I even went so far as to recognize that some few units used Cooke's for various short periods but that was the abnormal and not the norm. Being a historian I'm sure you'll recognize not to base a thesis or generalization on the exception to the rule. If this wasn't true we could say troopers all wore Jaguar trousers.
I was baiting a little bit, as every farb I see out there, especially here in the east, uses Cooke's. And well,... they are just embarrassing. So I wanted to get this talked about.
Next, As for Your man's debate he's done ok, but has yet to prove his point. By his own words and data Morgan's men, which you write of, were not using Cooke's but were using Maury's! A manual entirely superior to Cooke's though still single rank. So you of all people should recognize that they were not using Cooke's manual. I have even acknowledged that it is clear by some O.R.'s that Cooke's was being used to some extent in the west with federals. However it is also clear that Maury's was often being used in conjunction with Cooke's. It is still unclear the extent that CS troopers in the west used Cooke's and if it was alone or with another manual. In fact, from his arguments, it seems more evidence points to Maury's being used than Cooke's. But I will concede that Cooke's was being used some we just don't know how much.
I may also note the new and compelling facts that most people don't see when looking at the pub. date in the front of Cooke's manual, that the Government recalled it with in a month of it's adoption! You may have over looked that before, as well as the fact that the next manual adopted for cavalry in the U.S. was Upton's not Cooke's. It seems Poinsette's was used well into the Indian wars. Also, the fact that several O.R.s direct troopers to retrain in the double rank system, so it seems somebody in the west was using Poinsette's. Now that doesn't mean much, but it seems to me that a blanket statement such as Cooke's was the manual being used by federals in the west throughout most of the war has some holes in it. Oh I know, you did not name Cooke's manual specifically, but it was the manual that started the debate. I certainly recognize other single rank manuals were being used, such as Maury's. I will also, concede that my statement that Cooke's should be throw on the trash heap of novelty items may have some holes in it when it comes to the west, but not the east. For the most part I would say there is no universal yes or no answer here, but degrees of.
Lastly, What exactly defines an amateur historian as compared to a professional? As many of us here, like myself, have been University trained in critical thinking in the history field, have worked as salaried historians, and have been published by monthly's hungry for fodder. I don't mean to aggravate anyone but it seems that unless you're a published author on the level of Bud Robertson, we all must be amateurs. Though many of us have been published in magazines or paid for our knowledge, which one would think qualifies as professional, but apparently not. We all have access to research materials.

Your humble servant,
Todd Kern

Hello,
This is my first post on the Authentic Campaigner, so I certainly do not wish to aggravate anybody by diving right in to this "rank entire" vs. double rank line (Poinsett's) cavalry discussion between, essentially, Mr. Kern and my friend Major Lane. Tod Lane is doing a good job dealing with this issue without my help.

I do, however, have an article coming out in Volume 10, #3 of North & South magazine in couple months that deals in an indirect way with this issue, and might shed some light on the tactical doctrine used. It could be of interest to those who are amateur historians and looking for the truth, rather than striving to adher to an opinion, regardless of new and compelling facts. I really have no axe to grind regarding the use of either drill, in fact, since I also research European horse and musket tactics from 1701 through 1865, if anything I am in pro-double rank line first implemented in Europe by Frederick the Great of Prussia. Previous to the coming of Frederick, cavalry usually fought in three rank line.

Anyway, careful analysis of how the Union cav fought in the West throughout most of the war suggests they were using single-rank line tactics. I apologize right up front for gaining this impression based on the research materials I have at my disposal.

My article is a description Morgan's Gallatin Raid, but the majority of the piece is a micro-study of the 21 August 1862 "Action on the Hartsville Road". Hartsville Road was a pure cav battle between equal forces. As I researched the piece, it became pretty obvious to me that the Yankee cavalry in this battle at least were using single-rank tactics (bns or sqdns from the 7th Pennsylvania, 4th and 5th Kentucky, 2nd Indiana).

Best Regards,

Dean West

[Dean West]

Re: This deserves a new thread Single rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Mr. Kern,
My goodness. Relax. For the record, Tod Lane is not "my man." I am, if anything, his man. But really, do you suppose we could perhaps dispense with the personal attacks and simply try to have a respectful dialogue about Western cav tactics, understanding that none of us has all the answers?
I'm sorry if it sounds condescending, but true historians, amateur or otherwise, should be searching for truth, and should not become forted-up in an opinion if new evidence or scholarship suggests one's own finely-honed opinions are, sadly, incorrect or at least in need of revission. The best of these folks encourage new ideas and do not browbeat those who have the temerity to question perceived wisdom. I have been dead wrong many times, but, thankfully, was able to get over myself, admit I was wrong, and grew through the process. I am sorry you found my post condescending, but, in rereading your posts on this stream, I can certainly understand why you may have felt "nicked" by my opinion in this regard, even though I in no way meant it as a reflection on you (but if the shoe fits...).

I guess I did conclude from reading the previous posts and talking to Tod that this thread was a discussion of the cavalry tactics used in the Western Theatre. Certainly, it has long been settled that both sides in the Eastern Theatre used Poinsett's. Custer's Brigade used Cooke's according to Longacre and others, but this was, apparently, the exception that proves the general rule. One historian seems to believe the eastern Confederates also used "Gilham's Tactics", but I've never seen a primary source reference to the use of these, though that does not necessarily mean they were not used. I guess Gilham was a VMI prof.

I have noticed that those amateur or professional historians who focus on the East often assume the Westerners followed right along with procedures used in the east, which is an altogether incorrect assumption. In fact, mixing-up of the fronts in discussion or when writing (which is very common), often serves only to create more confusion and misunderstanding.

I do believe you are on to something regarding Maury's. In fact, we hold the same view. Tod and I begin to believe Maury's had much more influence than has thus far been recognized by historians, and both Tod and I are trying to find evidence to support this theory (In an earlier post you browbeat Tod because he has a theory that cav officers on the frontier in the '50s –Cooke, Maury, Wheeler, etc.–must have collaborated and thus knew about the projects of others to develop tactics more amenable to the use of firearms while mounted or dismounted. This THEORY would seem to agree with your opinion in your last post, so I am confused why you felt a need to "firehose" Tod's opinion?)

Tod and I theorize that there must have been some sort of "underground" movement IN THE WEST toward developing more utilitarian cav tactics; those more suited to the strengths of the American soldier. It is perhaps interesting that according to Maury's "Recollections", in the 1850's, when John Floyd (later Confederate general) was Sec. of War, he recommended that Maury's be adopted as a regulation cav drill manual, but it never was. That was long before Cooke's was rejected. But as an aside, Cooke's tactics were offered for sale to the general public in the 12/28/1861 edition of Harper's Weekly. Is it stupid, then, to theorize that some officers struggling to train new regiments, without any help from the U.S. Regular Army in that regard, may have ordered it from Harper's and used it as a training tool? I think the actual examples of cavalry fighting IN THE WEST actually supports that that is exactly what happened. Further, it is inaccurate to say that once a volunteer cavalary regiment was mustered into service that it was immediately retrained. That may have occurred in the East, but to the best of my knowledge that did not occur int he West.

Basil Duke and Grenfell trained the 2nd Kentucky at Chattanooga and Knoxville in early summer 1862 in Maury's, but as Duke explains in his History of Morgan's Cavalry, Maury's was for small elements only, it was not a comprehensive drill manual. He and Grenfell had to develop additional drill tactics and maneuvers for any formation larger than a company (or perhaps a squadron), all the way up to the multi-regiment brigade. We can only wonder if perhaps Duke used Cooke's as a blueprint for the more expansive tactical manual he developed based on Maury's small unti tactics, but no one knows for sure.

I have only been a reenactor for seven years (started cav reenacting when I was 53), but was a student of horse and musket military history long before that– a total of around 50 years. When I finally got in to cavalry reenacting I became aware of this "tempest in a teapot" argument about the use of Poinsett's or Cooke's, though really, in essence, these manuals are more similar than different in their theoretical base. Both are "saber" manuals, for one thing. The words "carbine", or "rifle" do not appear in Cooke's at all, or at least these words do not appear up through "School of the Squadron." I have not gone through every single page of Poinsett's looking for those words as I have Cooke's, but since Poinsett's is nearly a verbatim translation of the French 1831 cav manual (which I am familair with), I do know that French tactics in 1831 were almost identical to French Napoleonic tactics, and those tactics were to altogether opposed to the use of firearms from horseback, except, of course, in the "Petit Guerre." Cooke's, up through the School of the Squadron, has exactly 2 pages regarding use of firearms (pistols), but contains over 30 pages regarding proper employment of the saber. Same goes for the French manual of 1831, but more so. Nevertheless, if one reads the AARs in the ORs, we find numerous examples of Union cav (in the Western Theatre) using their carbines in action, in mass, while mounted. My piece in North & South on the Hartsville Road fight describes such action in detail (it is a micro-study), and is based on the reports of Colonel George Wyncoop, 7th Pennsylvania, and Lt. Colonel Robert Stewart, 2nd Indiana. I also include a quote from Captain Joseph Vale, 7th Pennsylvania Cav, from his memoir, "Minty and the Cavalry", describing the 4th Kentucky using single-rank tactics and firing their Colt repeating rifles from horseback, in formation, during the May 1862 fight with Morgan at Lebanon, Tennessee. So where did they learn this tactic? Vale also mentions that the 7th was using "single rank" tactics during the Atlanta campaign, and there is another reference in "Minty and the Cavalry" of the 7th using "The New System of Cavalry Tactics." This term "New System..." is probably a better way to describe the single-rank tactical methods that flourished in the West, rather than to use the term "Cooke's" or "Maury's."

Your Servant,

Dean

[T.Kern]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

"Mr. Kern,
My goodness. Relax. For the record, Tod Lane is not "my man." I am, if anything, his man. But really, do you suppose we could perhaps dispense with the personal attacks and simply try to have a respectful dialogue about Western cav tactics, understanding that none of us has all the answers? "

That would be nice , considering your innuendos were quite insulting.

"I'm sorry if it sounds condescending, but true historians, amateur or otherwise, should be searching for truth, and should not become forted-up in an opinion if new evidence or scholarship suggests one's own finely-honed opinions are, sadly, incorrect or at least in need of revision. The best of these folks encourage new ideas and do not browbeat those who have the temerity to question perceived wisdom. I have been dead wrong many times, but, thankfully, was able to get over myself, admit I was wrong, and grew through the process. I am sorry you found my post condescending, but, in rereading your posts on this stream, I can certainly understand why you may have felt "nicked" by my opinion in this regard, even though I in no way meant it as a reflection on you (but if the shoe fits...)."

If you have not been listening, my opinions are not incorrect though when it comes to the west could need some revision in regards to the use of Cooke's. Ya'lls opinion on Cooke's are not yet clearly proved. I'm really not sure what "new information" you speak of. As far as I can tell Tod Lane and yourself are "forted up" as me when it comes to manuals. We have clearly pointed out the use of other manuals in the west, not just Cooke's, including Poinsette's and Maury's. Also, pointed out the use of Poinsette's in a single rank, I.E. skirmish order. A mistake many make, that if the' re in a single line they must be using Cooke's.

"I guess I did conclude from reading the previous posts and talking to Tod that this thread was a discussion of the cavalry tactics used in the Western Theatre. Certainly, it has long been settled that both sides in the Eastern Theatre used Poinsett's. Custer's Brigade used Cooke's according to Longacre and others, but this was, apparently, the exception that proves the general rule. One historian seems to believe the eastern Confederates also used "Gilham's Tactics", but I've never seen a primary source reference to the use of these, though that does not necessarily mean they were not used. I guess Gilham was a VMI prof. "

As usual an author is wrong, imagine that! I can't tell you the number of times I've had to tell authors who write about horses but never have ridden of their misconceptions. This, when I was doing a lot of battlefield tours with these noted authors, as part of the "historian" staff. Though I don't remember any with Longacre. Yes, the Mich. brig did use it for a short while but when they came east and were attached to the AoP they had to retrain in Poinsette's. Does he leave that point out? As I stated there are other Vols who had to retrain. Eastern Confederates, well I'm sure at some point some Vols. were drilled in Gilhams, as many Virginia troops were. There is some evidence that Lucian Davis' manual becomes official, but it is really a compilation of Poinsette's and Maury's among others.

"I have noticed that those amateur or professional historians who focus on the East often assume the Westerners followed right along with procedures used in the east, which is an altogether incorrect assumption. In fact, mixing-up of the fronts in discussion or when writing (which is very common), often serves only to create more confusion and misunderstanding."

There was no assumption on my part, only that it is clear that Cooke's was not the only manual used and therefore should not always be the first one off anyone's lips speaking about the west.

"I do believe you are on to something regarding Maury's. In fact, we hold the same view. Tod and I begin to believe Maury's had much more influence than has thus far been recognized by historians, and both Tod and I are trying to find evidence to support this theory (In an earlier post you browbeat Tod because he has a theory that cav officers on the frontier in the '50s –Cooke, Maury, Wheeler, etc.–must have collaborated and thus knew about the projects of others to develop tactics more amenable to the use of firearms while mounted or dismounted. This THEORY would seem to agree with your opinion in your last post, so I am confused why you felt a need to "firehose" Tod's opinion?) "

I did not "brow beat" him, it seems clear to me regarding the date of development of manuals and being in different parts of the country that it is doubtful there was any collaboration. I'm not even sure they knew each other-Cooke and Maury that is. What I do think is possible is at the start of the war, as manuals came into need, Different Vols. used different manuals and as needed they picked up and used worth while parts of others. Here some compilation may have taken place. Oh, and Poinsette's is amenable to the use of firearms, mtd. or on foot.
.
"Tod and I theorize that there must have been some sort of "underground" movement IN THE WEST toward developing more utilitarian cav tactics; those more suited to the strengths of the American soldier. It is perhaps interesting that according to Maury's "Recollections", in the 1850's, when John Floyd (later Confederate general) was Sec. of War, he recommended that Maury's be adopted as a regulation cav drill manual, but it never was. That was long before Cooke's was rejected. But as an aside, Cooke's tactics were offered for sale to the general public in the 12/28/1861 edition of Harper's Weekly. Is it stupid, then, to theorize that some officers struggling to train new regiments, without any help from the U.S. Regular Army in that regard, may have ordered it from Harper's and used it as a training tool? I think the actual examples of cavalry fighting IN THE WEST actually supports that that is exactly what happened. Further, it is inaccurate to say that once a volunteer cavalry regiment was mustered into service that it was immediately retrained. That may have occurred in the East, but to the best of my knowledge that did not occur in he West."

I really don't think there was an underground movement prior to the war, just climbers who wanted to show European "advances". Maury's was made official for Mtd rifles prior to the war and on the southern side is compiled into Davis'. Sure, I think ordering Cooke's is possible, but a great leap when it comes to supported historical thesis. Do you have a primary account of this thing happening as described? Sure Cooke's was available and put to use by some, but theories are not proven by could haves. They are proven by primary sources and yes, you hand primary accounts of it's use just not how it was aquired. I did not claim all in the west were retrained from Cooke's, for one we don't even know Cooke's was the primary manual being used for all. We DO know that many were retrained, according to your order from Wilson, though maybe not upon mustering in.

"Basil Duke and Grenfell trained the 2nd Kentucky at Chattanooga and Knoxville in early summer 1862 in Maury's, but as Duke explains in his History of Morgan's Cavalry, Maury's was for small elements only, it was not a comprehensive drill manual. He and Grenfell had to develop additional drill tactics and maneuvers for any formation larger than a company (or perhaps a squadron), all the way up to the multi-regiment brigade. We can only wonder if perhaps Duke used Cooke's as a blueprint for the more expansive tactical manual he developed based on Maury's small unti tactics, but no one knows for sure."

Apparently no one knows as of yet what larger more comprehensive manual was used. It is just as easy to theories the additional tactics developed came from Poinsette's... or Davis' or Gilham's, or Cooper's.... no reason to immediate jump to Cooke's!

"I have only been a reenactor for seven years (started cav reenacting when I was 53), but was a student of horse and musket military history long before that– a total of around 50 years. When I finally got in to cavalry reenacting I became aware of this "tempest in a teapot" argument about the use of Poinsett's or Cooke's, though really, in essence, these manuals are more similar than different in their theoretical base. Both are "saber" manuals, for one thing. The words "carbine", or "rifle" do not appear in Cooke's at all, or at least these words do not appear up through "School of the Squadron." I have not gone through every single page of Poinsett's looking for those words as I have Cooke's, but since Poinsett's is nearly a verbatim translation of the French 1831 cav manual (which I am familiar with), I do know that French tactics in 1831 were almost identical to French Napoleonic tactics, and those tactics were to altogether opposed to the use of firearms from horseback, except, of course, in the "Petit Guerre." Cooke's, up through the School of the Squadron, has exactly 2 pages regarding use of firearms (pistols), but contains over 30 pages regarding proper employment of the saber. Same goes for the French manual of 1831, but more so. Nevertheless, if one reads the AARs in the ORs, we find numerous examples of Union cav (in the Western Theatre) using their carbines in action, in mass, while mounted. My piece in North & South on the Hartsville Road fight describes such action in detail (it is a micro-study), and is based on the reports of Colonel George Wyncoop, 7th Pennsylvania, and Lt. Colonel Robert Stewart, 2nd Indiana. I also include a quote from Captain Joseph Vale, 7th Pennsylvania Cav, from his memoir, "Minty and the Cavalry", describing the 4th Kentucky using single-rank tactics and firing their Colt repeating rifles from horseback, in formation, during the May 1862 fight with Morgan at Lebanon, Tennessee. So where did they learn this tactic? Vale also mentions that the 7th was using "single rank" tactics during the Atlanta campaign, and there is another reference in "Minty and the Cavalry" of the 7th using "The New System of Cavalry Tactics." This term "New System..." is probably a better way to describe the single-rank tactical methods that flourished in the West, rather than to use the term "Cooke's" or "Maury's.""

Well, Poinsette's does go into the use of firearms extensively and speaks to carbines, both when Mtd. and on foot. What you speak of above, the lack of this in Cooke's, that is the weakness I speak of as a manual. Even more so since much of the western cavalry, many in the east as well, fight as mtd. rifles- a tactic Cooke's is lacking in.
The use of long arms mtd. or on foot is well documented in both theatres. This tactic was not unknown as many manuals are used as such, just not Cooke's.
This new system could refer to McClellan's or some compilation or even Maury's. Actually any system he was not familiar with he could have called "new".

Regards, Todd Kern

[Dean West]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Dear Todd,
Whew. Just got in from working with my horses and, God help me, thinking about this discussion. It appears your interest is high as well. Your latest much more –sounds like you still have a problem with me–but at least we're "talking." Your comment about professional historians being wrong is so true. I am driven to distraction regularly by stuff on the History Channel. I'd say that some of the best historical writers out there are not PHDs in history. My favorite is Gordon Rhea, a lawyer. His four books on the Overland Campaign are terrific, and he always covers cav operations in detail. Several other non-credentialized but nevertheless excellent historians are, in my opinion, Larry Daniel, Peter Cozzens, Steven Starr and Scot Bowden.

What is so informative about Duke's book is that he describes in some detail the tactics Morgan's men were trained to use. So for him, these tactics were the "new system"; but "new system" seems to be a commonly used slang term for tactics other than Poinsett's, which as we all know were the regulation tactics throughout the Civil War, and were, therefore, the "Old Tactics." It is interesting, however, and I believe significant, that the next regulation tactical manual adopted by the army was the "1873 Tactics" (Upton's) you referred to earlier. Upton's features single rank formations and has a chapter on fighting with the carbine. The introduction to the "1873 Tactics" indicates these tactics were based on "best practices" developed during the war. So it looks like single-rank tactics won out in the end. Although there was quite a lively discussion within the British army during the 1830's regarding the superiority of single-rank tactics, which they refered to as "Rank Entire." However, the main topic seems to be whether or not the second rank was at all necessary to assure the success of a saber or lancer charge, so they were, like Cooke was, still focused on shock tactics, not fire tactics.

Best Regards,

Dean

[paulcalloway]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

Dean -
We need to get that full named tagged on to every post... otherwise my inbox fills up with people noticing. Rules is rules is rules.

Thanks

[1st Maine Trooper]

Re: This deserves a new thread Sigle rank Vs Double Rank Formations

[QUOTE=KyCavMajor;58637]
I think the center will hold long enough for an immediate counter strike. When the front rank of the two strikes the single line at some 30 mph closing speed, the shock will be tremendous, and for a moment, equal from both directions. Then the second rank hits the resulting train wreck. They have to push through their own deranged front rank and the opposition's line. To me the inevitable result is a pile of upset horses and riders entangled in a fur ball. The second rank will be weakened and you have shot your bolt, while I have another well controlled in hand and ready to counter stroke.
It is an interesting question, and a hard one to prove, I doubt we can find any reenactors willing to test the theory a full speed... Perhaps a computer model could be calculated, but how do you program the variables such as training and leadership?
I suspect a double rank of well trained Regulars would prevail over lesser trained Volunteer troops. However if you reverse the training levels,you will likely reverse the result. And ten there was Forrest, who violated every tenant of warfare at one point or another, but through sheer will managed to win a few.

[QUOTE]

FWIW,
I dont think the center of a single rank column would withstand a charge by veteran troopers, regular or volunteer, in a double rank formation. It has more to do with the compactness of the formation. The looser formation will break every time. Even in double rank on double rank charges, the looser formation always breaks, allowing the tighter formation to punch through and gain their opponents vulnerable rear. Double rank formations by there nature bring more bodies to the point of contact than a single rank formation and the formation is inherantly more compact yielding a stronger punch. This has been a basic tenent of warfare since antiquity.
It seems as though you think that there would be an appreciable time distance between when the 2nd rank of the formation impacts the line. In fact it is negligable. The horse in front, feels the pressure of the horse behind and moves away from that pressure. Since he cant move side to side, he moves in the only direction left open to him, forward. Again this adds to the weight of the charge not detracting from it.

In your assertion, you fail in my mind to take one extremely important thing into consideration and that is the horse. There is plenty of documetation where two veteran formations of roughly equal size go against each other and yet one formation always breaks. Its not the lack of will on the trooper's part, nor the lack of training or experience. To me the only thing left to throw into the equation is the horse.

Dave Myrick