Two Pistols

[paul9thky]

Re: Two Pistols

Paul,
I am pretty sure these are in fact props, perhaps the photographers, or perhaps another possibility is that two more troopers waiting to have their pictures taken handed their pards an extra weapon to pose with.
It is obvious tey have no practicle way to carry them.

Well as I stated they could very well be props but I was just throwing the pics in to contribute to the conversation and give some food for thought.

BTW Thanks for the defense and complements and yes I love my Starbuck Kepi.

[Mike Nickerson]

Re: Two Pistols

... but if they were then the photographer kept an awful lot of colts on hand for props.

Yes, they did and big ole 16" pig stickers too. How do we know this: 1) documented records vs. the "studio prop" count of colts, sabers and big d handle knives are out-of-wack by the power of 3 or 4; and 2) there are written accounts of photographer's exploits to lure in customers with their phony arsenals.

Patrick does have a point, how many times must we go down the same road. It is sometimes reminiscent of the "Groundhog Day" movie.

Mike Nickerson

[AZFarrier]

Re: Two Pistols

The difference between the origional picture and the ones shown later is that all the troopers are carrying their pistols in their waist belts, to show them off. But the origional trooper is just sporting 2 holsters. Could they be props, Mabe! I don't think so. He is also carying 2 cap pouches and the holsters are both right sided, probibly for easy access.

I just posted this picture to see how common carrying of 2 pistols were. My intention is not to become a Josie Wales. I think Carrying 2 pistols would be no different then having pummell holsters.

Andy Miller
1st CAL Cav
Arizona Rangers

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Two Pistols

From alot of the books I read about Trans Mississippi CS Cavalry there were quite a few of them that through away their sabers or just picked up an extra pistol or two and used them in stead.

One of the posts on the old Frontier Guard board took a long look at the ordnance returns for the Trans-MS cavalry units, and led to the conclusion that a rebel trooper was doing pretty well if he even had one pistol, much less two or more. In checking over there before posting, it seems that post has scrolled off the back end of the board, but I'll dig it out ofthe archives tonight and re-post it.

Stephen Oates' Confederate Cavalry West of the River is a good basic document for mounted service out here in the wild West.

[Mike Nickerson]

Re: Two Pistols

... He is also carying 2 cap pouches and the holsters are both right sided, probibly for easy access. Andy Miller
1st CAL Cav
Arizona Rangers

Two questions Andy:

Why would you need to carry an extra cap box, just because you had an extra revolver?

Do you think it's possible that both holsters were right sided (butt forward) because there weren't any left sided holsters issued?

Mike Nickerson

[AZReenactor]

Re: Two Pistols

The wagons were ordered to be packed; every man was supplied with ammunition and posted to the best advantage; proper attention was paid to my wounded sergeant ant the camp arranged in such a manner as to ensure a warm reception to a large body of savages. we remained on the qui vive until one o'clock a.m., when to my extreme surprise and sincere gratification we were joined by John Teal, who was supposed to have been killed, (the trooper was seperated the day before during a running scrp with Apaches). He brought with him his saddle, blanket, saber and pistols, having lost his horse and spurs.

Andy,
The mention of plural pistols in the John Teal account cought my attention, too. Considering that Carlton had such difficulties procurring enough revolvers to equip all his cavalry (some later companies ended up with dragoon revolvers and still others with single shot horse pistols), I think it was eather a typo or mistake on Creamony's part. Supporting this is Cremony's quote of Teal's own narrative he only indicates a single pistol.

"They knew that I also had a six-shooter and a saber, and seemed unwilling to try close quarters."

Nonetheless, the photo you posted is most unusual and curious. It would be interesting to try and uncover the story behind it.

[AZReenactor]

Re: Two Pistols

And on the CS side of things. The mainstream CS unit Andy mentioned as loading up with pistols was specifically depicting the 8th Texas cavalry, definitely not a typical PEC unit. The 8th Texas Cavalry was a Western Theater charging unit with a historic reputation for being exceedingly well armed and equipped. Even for them though, the carrying of multiple pistols was an oddity. From most accounts it was more common to carry a single pistol and as demonstrated by the units within their brigade, even one pistol was a rarity for many more western theater Confederate cavalry.

A midwar, April 1, 1863 Ordnance Report for 9 of the 10 companies in the regiment lists the following for Terry's Rangers:

245 Long Arms
405 pistols (103 army, 300 navy, 2 horse pistols)
173 cartridge boxes
554 cap boxes (apparently many of them were wearing two as well)
299 belts
0 slings

The other units in their brigade listed the following:
3rd Confederate Cavalry - 327 long arms, 52 pistols (12 navy, 40 horse pistols)
14th Alabama Cavalry - 186 long arms, 5 pistols (5 navy)
2nd Georgia Cavalry - 192 long arms, 6 pistols (6 horse pistols)

One pistol, two pistol, or no pistols. The key is to pick a unit, research it carefully and then portray it accurately.

[KyCavMajor]

Re: Two Pistols

And on the CS side of things. The mainstream CS unit Andy mentioned as loading up with pistols was specifically depicting the 8th Texas cavalry, definitely not a typical PEC unit. The 8th Texas Cavalry was a Western Theater charging unit with a historic reputation for being exceedingly well armed and equipped. Even for them though, the carrying of multiple pistols was an oddity. From most accounts it was more common to carry a single pistol and as demonstrated by the units within their brigade, even one pistol was a rarity for many more western theater Confederate cavalry.

A midwar, April 1, 1863 Ordnance Report for 9 of the 10 companies in the regiment lists the following for Terry's Rangers:

245 Long Arms
405 pistols (103 army, 300 navy, 2 horse pistols)
173 cartridge boxes
554 cap boxes (apparently many of them were wearing two as well)
299 belts
0 slings

The other units in their brigade listed the following:
3rd Confederate Cavalry - 327 long arms, 52 pistols (12 navy, 40 horse pistols)
14th Alabama Cavalry - 186 long arms, 5 pistols (5 navy)
2nd Georgia Cavalry - 192 long arms, 6 pistols (6 horse pistols)

One pistol, two pistol, or no pistols. The key is to pick a unit, research it carefully and then portray it accurately.

Exactly Sir, Exactly!
Are we afraid of the exception to the rule? Iknow there was most likely only one pair of Jaguar Pants ,thank Goodness, but there WERE whole Regiments that were the exceptions to the PEC.
In the West the differences between the equipage within a Regiment, let alone a Brigade could be huge!
The First Kentucky, CSA, according to the University of Cincinatti's History Department was ISSUED "Two Colt's Revolvers" and English Pattern Sabers when they mustered in October of 1861. They qoute a newspaper Article from the Russelville Democrat. By the way, they were also given "Short Gray Coatees, trimmed in Cavalry Gold, and Sky Blue Trousers trimmed in the same bright hue".
According to Ed Porter Thompson's History of the Orphan Brigade, they were never issued long arms, but other sores indicate they did in fact obtain them.
Now if someone was to portray the 1st at an early war event so dressed and armed in the Western Theater, they would be correct, provided the gear was not made of nylon and the clothes of polyester. However, they would be very much incorrect in Virginia around 1864...
Please don't misconstrue this, I am NOT advocating "Cavalrymen" wearing Jaguar pants astride herds of Appalossa horses carrying six revolvers apiece! I am just believe that discussing an issue is better than berating someone for asking a question. Heck, some of these guys wern't born with this discussion was first began. Give them the facts, they will figure it out, I have faith in our youth!

[KyCavMajor]

Re: Two Pistols

Yes, they did and big ole 16" pig stickers too. How do we know this: 1) documented records vs. the "studio prop" count of colts, sabers and big d handle knives are out-of-wack by the power of 3 or 4; and 2) there are written accounts of photographer's exploits to lure in customers with their phony arsenals.

Patrick does have a point, how many times must we go down the same road. It is sometimes reminiscent of the "Groundhog Day" movie.

Mike Nickerson

Mike,
Do you suppose the photographers folowed the armies early war and just picked them up? I imagine the roads were littered with those dang knives! TO small to fight with, to big for about anything else... And yet blacksmiths cranking them out by the hundreds, all well intentioned I am sure.

And to answer you question although it was probably rhetorical, As long as there are young people eager to learn.

[Mike Nickerson]

Re: Two Pistols

I ain't hardly knows what a "rhetorical question" be, but my question didn't have no "?" fer a reason. :tounge_sm

Mike Nickerson

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Two Pistols

For a diffrent perspective:

http://p197.ezboard.com/ffrontierguardfrm1.showMessage?topicID=872.topic

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: Two Pistols

You know, it just amazes me that people keep posting on this "authentic Forum" about multiple pistols and paint horses and such in spite of the countless ordnance reports and prior discussions contained here-in that lead someone who is interested in authenticity to discard such documents. Are there exceptions to the beliefs we embrace? Certainly! But when people post these "studio" pictures with Jaguar pants and multiple revolvers are they offering topics of discussion or looking for justification for their desired "Josey Wales" impressions?
A while back, I think befor the big crash, there was a discussion about the quality of this forum. To be honest, in my 17 years in the authentic side of the hobby, I am fairly new to this forum. Am I missing something here? What do you long term veterans of this site think?
Patrick

Pete,

I guess I'm one of those "long term veterans" of the site you mentioned. Though I just quietly lurk mostly these days. If you really want to know what I think, I think most of these types of threads are better off on another forum. We have a saying down here. "When the horse dies, get off". This horse died a very long time ago on another forum that is now dead and gone as well.

I do understand the point that was made about people being at different levels in the hobby and trying to progress, but "back in the day" this particular forum was for those who were already progressed and not still trying to find their way through the basics.

I agree with Tom, you, and the others who have said, in effect, "when in doubt, check the ORs". Quit relying on studio props to justify your position. Another thing that must be taken into account is not whether or not a particular unit or individual carried or wore something, but whether or not you can do that today and still be STATISTICALLY accurate considering the imbalance of numbers between today's hobby and the numbers of troops in the war.

I can provide documentation on one of Grierson's Lts. at the battle of Clinton, LA riding a spotted horse. One guy in a group of hundreds, maybe of thousands. How can I justify that one horse in a group of 6?

You be the judge.

[Coley Adair]

Re: Two Pistols

Folks,
The progressive portion of the mounted hobby is very small. We have made some small strides in what will be a long journey, we have some scouts out a little farther, but for the most part we are just getting started. I understand the frustration of both sides of this discussion, been on both sides at one time or the other. It seems to me that we tend to be our own worse enemy, if we all could learn that to disagree doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable that would be a huge step in the right direction. I think we can all agree that the event sets the impression, if you are doing the 8th Texas then look like the 8th Texas.
I think when guys like Pete and Larry, or just about all the progressive guys I know, see someone posting documentation about an impression that goes against the norm we assume that the poster is just trying to justify what he is already doing. One of the hardest and most important things I learned early on was that you must start with documentation to build an impression rather than the impression to try and document. A single impression unit/trooper will be very lonely. We can't ever stop learning or applying what we have learned, if we do then we are no longer being progressive.

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: Two Pistols

Well said, Coley. I guess we're trying to head in the same direction. Maybe the paths are just different. Since I'm all but retired from the hobby, I don't guess I have much credibility to offer anyway.

One problem, though, that I encountered early on in this hobby was I tried to build an impression to portray one particular unit. I think may of us do that. The problem is, we sometimes find ourselves still portraying that unit at events where:

1. That unit is not being portrayed at the overall event level.
2. That unit never participated in that particular scenario.
3. There are a total of six or eight guys portraying that one particular unit while another six or eight are portraying another, etc. The next thing you know, there are 5 different units being portrayed (albeit accurately) in a platoon size contingent.

In my opinion, we serve the hobby more if we put together a much more generic impression and then modify it to fit the event. The multiple pistol issue becomes a dead issue if the event scenario calls for the cavalry to portray a particular unit and EVERYONE abides by those guidelines. If the scenario calls for a portrayal of the 8th Texas Cavalry and everyone shows up with two pistols, a shotgun and red trimmed jackets, then there's your justification for the pistols. If the scenario calls for a portrayal of a different unit that had no such armament, then leave the pistols at home and carry that three-band Enfield.

I think we bring alot of problems on ourselves as progressive cavalrymen when we try to make the event fit our impressions instead of our impressions fit the event.

[AZReenactor]

Re: Two Pistols

I think we bring alot of problems on ourselves as progressive cavalrymen when we try to make the event fit our impressions instead of our impressions fit the event.

Larry,
I agree. Too too often people are willing to forsake history for convienience. Fourtunately as more of this wing of the hobby has moved away from the mainstream circus there has been a greater focus on scenario related impressions.

Out here in the Far West this is especially evident in smaller, lcation specific living histories and immersion events where a PEC depiction by a small number of individuals would certainly not be ideal for interpreting the site. (We've got room for quality Indians if you see any. ;) ) Even at large Civil Warbattle sites, depicting a well researched, but unusual, participant could contribute to appropriate interpretation if that unusual individual was actually present. While we may not want a dozen guys in Jaguar chaps there are certainly places where such an attired individual could do a fine job of interpreting some very specific history in the midst of the larger picture.

There is a helluva lot more to reenacting than the "big" sham battles that so many folks seem to focus on. In some of those eddies and creeks outside the mainstream there is a great deal of opportunity to put a well researched and recreated, but unusual, impression to use.