Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

[RJSamp]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

Are you bringing an extra horse!?? I don't want to walk.....

[DaveGink]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

Ok, just a quick tally here, no promises of correctness. 10 reference to "dismounted cav"

in 2 cases they left spurs and sabers with horses
in one case they got captured
in one case they were "headed back to Louisville" for fresh mounts
in one case they were in a "provisional" assignment, s&s not mentioned
in one case the dismounted were on railroad cars
in 2 cases the dismounted were sent to the rear as guards, etc.

That's 7 out of 10 that seem to indicate dismounted cav did not fight with spurs and sabers, 1 inconclusive.
Do I see a trend here?

By the way, my old crippled broken a-- will be trying to avoid dismounting at all this weekend!

Actually, my references were in regards to these posts (which were really unnecessary in my view):

Geez RJ, the "discount cav" would hate to read that. That would mean leaving them at the car!

in this day and age, we must be careful when talking about groups of individuals. We must be P.C. So, keeping this in mind, please refer to this group as "Horseless Cavalry". After all, its hard to dismount if you have nothing to mount to begin with.

Thanks,

Mike

Mike,

I thought the correct rem was "Equine Challenged"?

Jim Butler

... And not to the original "spurs and sabres" post. No where did I see RJ state that his example somehow prooved that leaving spurs behind on the horse was widespread or common. (Though dismounting and fighting obviously was. As was being dismounted due to dead, sick, or injured mounts).

If anyone would like to see a good list of historical examples of dismounted cav see here: http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2572

[GeraldTodd]

Never-Been-Mounted-Cavalry

There are a great many cases of cavalry operating on foot for extended periods. For example, in an attempt to trap Mosby and his men, the 2nd Massachusetts Cavalry dismounted a battalion and marched it around Loudon county while a mounted battalion stood by to pounce. In such cases, these dismounted men were cavalrymen, normally mounted, temporarily dismounted for this particular operation however long it may have been.

The analogy here would be reenactors, normally mounted, doing an event without their mounts. They are cavalry, they are not what this hobby refers to as "dismounted cavalry" or the Never-Mounted, who have nothing to do with horses - nor care to. There once was a group of campaigner dismounted cavalry, but we have horses now.

Where this forum is concerned, no number of almost quotes by RJ are going to change the fact that the number of cavalry reenactors out there today, mounted or not, that can honestly call themselves "Authentic Campaigners" is near nil. That being the case, it's safe, I think, to forgo all the PC and simply call a spade a spade, or in this case FARB. That we are discussing farbs, and a lame attempt to justify dismounted farbs, seems to me to be defeating the stated purpose of the AC forums.

It's great to come to the AC to read and share ways to improve what we do. It doesn't bother me when the forums help someone thats finally getting over the 'play army' aspects and into the history - but that is not the case here. This is RJ trying to justify farbs - again.

[DaveGink]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

There are a great many cases of cavalry operating on foot for extended periods. For example, in an attempt to trap Mosby and his men, the 2nd Massachusetts Cavalry dismounted a battalion and marched it around Loudon county while a mounted battalion stood by to pounce. In such cases, these dismounted men were cavalrymen, normally mounted, temporarily dismounted for this particular operation however long it may have been.

The analogy here would be reenactors, normally mounted, doing an event without their mounts. They are cavalry, they are not what this hobby refers to as "dismounted cavalry" or the Never-Mounted, who have nothing to do with horses - nor care to. There once was a group of campaigner dismounted cavalry, but we have horses now.

Where this forum is concerned, no number of almost quotes by RJ are going to change the fact that the number of cavalry reenactors out there today, mounted or not, that can honestly call themselves "Authentic Campaigners" is near nil. That being the case, it's safe, I think, to forgo all the PC and simply call a spade a spade, or in this case FARB. That we are discussing farbs, and a lame attempt to justify dismounted farbs, seems to me to be defeating the stated purpose of the AC forums.

It's great to come to the AC to read and share ways to improve what we do. It doesn't bother me when the forums help someone thats finally getting over the 'play army' aspects and into the history - but that is not the case here.

This thread, as fun as it may be to poke the farbs, and RJ in paticular, might as well be discussing the latest Renaissance Festival for all the value it has.

I agree with nearly everything you say but with a couple of different conclusions.

The focus should be on FARB cavalry PERIOD (whether mounted or dismounted ). Not 'authentic mounted' versus 'dismounted farbs'. Because as you rightly point out, there are plenty of farby mounted guys too. Unfortunately it always seems to ends up being a general attack on "dismounted" cavalry - as if somehow simply being dismounted is automatically farby. This is why you see the historical samples being posted - not as some "lame attempt to justify dismounted farbs" but to show it was historically accurate to see cavalry dismounted and on foot (to those who may not know better).

Most of our mounted guys started out dismounted. Many of our dismounted were mounted at one time (and will probably be again). I readily admit that we have a lot of farby guys in our group. But as I research and work on my own authentic impression I am seeing more and more guys (both mounted and dismounted) taking an interest in theirs. I simply am just not going to rip on any dismounted guys simply for not "having a horse" when a 'farb is a farb' dismounted or not.

I started off dismounted - went mounted - And now due to a back injury have been dismounted again for the last few events. The thing is, in my opinion, even reenactors who never rode or even have no desire to ride, can still be "authentic" and used in historically accurate dismounted cavalry roles (despite not "riding" to the battlefield). It's why I'm frankly tired of the cheap, overgeneralized shots at 'dismounted' like I saw in this thread.

Anyway, I really respect you, Dave, and the rest of your group. And I hope to ride with you guys someday. And as one who admits to being a "member of group of campaigner dismounted cavalry (but have horses now)" I hope you can see my points.

Cheers

Edit: I see you edited your post while I was typing - and added "This is RJ trying to justify farbs - again". I guess I didn't see it that way (or understand that others did), but only saw those jumping on the "attack dismounted" bandwagon. Which was why I posted what I did. And I actually thought his post was an intersting tidbit of information.

[Mike Nickerson]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

.... The thing is, in my opinion, even reenactors who never rode or even have no desire to ride, can still be "authentic" and used in historically accurate dismounted cavalry roles (despite not "riding" to the battlefield). ...

At what kind of event? As I see it, only at the Battle is at 1 p.m. and the ball is at 7 p.m. type events.

I too I'm on my way to Outpost and we will dismount and fight from foot many times this weekend..... but I fail to see how in the heck a dismounted squad would be able to march the 20 to 30 miles we will cover by horse between those engagements. There is just know way to tell them "wait here behind these trees and pop out when we ride up and dismount".

Please explain?

Mike Nickerson

[Slouch]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I agree with Mike. There is a difference between cavalry that dismounts, fights on foot, and remounts and guys wearing cavalry outfits that arrive and leave on foot with no horse in sight. There is no question that cavalry on both sides often dismounted, left their horses in the rear, and fought as skirmishers.

In order to be dismounted cavalry, one had to have had a horse to begin with. I think it is reasonable to say that cavalry units that lost their rides did not serve a typical cavalry role until they received fresh mounts.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I agree with the above two posters. Unless the cavalry would historically have no contact with their horses for the entire time being portrayed (Friday through Sunday morning or whatever), they're going to be just plain inaccurate during the times that they would have been riding or caring for their horses.

That means they'd either need to be not part of the main event and just involved in vignettes like wagonless teamsters/kabuki who magically appear, move things out of sight of others, and magically reappear with all the gear down the road. And is that really necessary if mounted cavalry is available? Or they'd need to have horses.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[DaveGink]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I guess it depends on where your "authentic" cut-off point is. I have no problem seeing horse-drawn artillery on the field without seeing them ride up to deploy their guns and their horses picketed to the rear. I do not question where the wagon trains, mule teams, railroad cars or steam boats are that would have moved the Army (Even cavalry shipped their men and horses by train and ferry). I can ignore the fact that automobiles and horse trailers brought the reenactors to the battlefield.

So, If I see dismounted cav protecting artillery, coming out of the woods to flank the enemy, holding a fence-line, or road intersection, etc...I do not need to see their horses being held or see them physically dismount - because in many, many cases you wouldn't have anyway (if you were observing the battlefield). To me, this "rule" that cav must have horses ON the field to be authentic is in my opinion something some people have made up in their own heads. And that's fine, they are entitled to that. I just don't see it that way. Especially given the historical examples of how often cav dismounted and left their horses waaayyyy back behind the actual battle out of sight (yes sometimes for days or longer) - or of dismounted troopers(horseless and on foot due to the death or injury of their mount) being used for missions such as; scouting, foraging, skirmishing, protecting bridges/roads/artillery/hospitals/supply depots, picket duty ... etc. Use them like that at an event and they would be used authentically.

There are many historical examples where the vast majority of a cavalry regiment's men would be horseless, yet this didn't stop the troopers from being used militarily. But somehow in reenacting that's automatically farby (regardless of the impression of the trooper). I just don't get it.

[DaveGink]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

... Unless the cavalry would historically have no contact with their horses for the entire time being portrayed (Friday through Sunday morning or whatever) ...

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

I agree that if a specific historical event is being portrayed and there was no dismounted cavalry documented, it would be inaccurate to use them. Like anything else.

However, if the event is a tactical, or "generic", there are many historical instances of Cavalry being away from their mounts for extended periods of times - or of "horseless" troopers being used militarily (go through the examples in the link I posted). So IMO they could be brought into the event in accurate ways. Set them up guarding a crossroads for the weekend, or a supply depot, or a water source, or a bridge... have them go out on foot scouting or foraging. Have them protect a telegraph tent, or a headquarters tent, or a hospital tent ......etc. This would all be "authentic".

[1st Maine Trooper]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

Dave,
You are on to something. Yes there are historically accurate situations for dismounted cavalry to be employed. The problem is this, how many would be willing to drive for x number of hours to stand guard at a bridge and have nothing happen?
Better yet, how many unmounted cavalry units even have good impressions, know the drill and can function tactically?
The other issue you are fighting is the stereotypical "cavalry" trooper, too much yellow trim, too many weapons and of the wrong type and not a clue of what to do.

Dave Myrick

[GeraldTodd]

Cavalry Operating Dismounted

I was not aware of any questions on the issue of cavalry operating dismounted. The concept of leaving equipment behind with the mounts isn't new either. It's pretty well known that is was done here and there. It goes with the attaching sabres to the saddle issue - it was done, here and there, but no one has shown evidence in the form of a general order or anything of that ilk to say it was prescribed or S.O.P.

It seems perfectly plausible to me that troopers dismounting into a situation, such as Buford's men at Gettysburg, who have time and a good idea of what's going to happen, would do such a thing. That some commands (units) would include spurs as well isn't far-fetched in my mind either. I read of the men even leaving their canteens - to their regret later - a situation that probably happened often enough to have Congdon make a point of stating in his compendium that the canteen is never to be attached to the saddle. Note: there is NO mention in Congdon's of leaving any equipment normally on the person, on the horse when operating dismounted.

The whole thing comes under the heading of "Field Expediency."

It does not serve as an excuse to legitimize the fact that Dismounted reenactors run about without sabres or spurs - which I believe is the reason behind RJ posting the thing in the first place.

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I admit that I've been away from this board from quite sometime, but I'm surprised that this thread is even happening here. The last time I checked, this forum was supposedly for the p/h/c, not those trying to make excuses for historically inaccurate impressions. Shouldn't this thread be over at one of the less "authentic" forums?

Anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of cavalry operations in the war knows that cavalry dismounted from their horses and fought (sometimes for extended periods) dismounted. They also know that horses get sick, get wounded, get used up, etc. and men are left horseless for a period of time. They aren't magically given yellow yarn hat cords, hip wader boots, and big ol' spurs and detailed to follow the infantry around and fire a bunch of rounds. They are more often than not, given some other task that cavalry is asked to perform until a mount can be either recovered or a new one secured. If none can be had after an extended period, those select individuals are usually detailed into a infantry company.

A cavalryman with no horse is like an infantryman with no legs. It simply ain't gonna work. A horse to a cavalryman is more than just transportation. Modern reenactor dismounted cavalry know nothing (or little) about picket lines, picket pins, to grain or to graze, pulling horse guard, getting thrown, getting kicked, getting stepped on, runaway mounts and horse fights in the middle of the night. They don't contend with colic, a lack of a water source at a critcal moment, or being cut off from their mounts by an enemy force. They don't wake up to a cold backed horse deciding to pitch before deciding to go into formation.

Horses for a cavalryman are not transportation, nor are they pets. They ARE cavalrymen. They are intricately a part of our everyday lives. A MAJOR part of our everyday lives and those experiences I mentioned can not be imagined or unrealistically duplicated. They are ingrained into everything we do and they can never be taught. They must be lived.

The horse is the reason why dismounted cavalry units are by nature farby. Not because of the lack of authentic clothing, weaponry, or even attitude, but by the lack of EXPERIENCE. The kind of experience that can not be taught, but must be learned.

'nuff said.

[Slouch]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I love artillery, but I dont own a gun. Artillery batteries often lost guns cpatured by the enemy. This does not mean I should start a "gunless artillery" unit.

I really like the idea of leg-less infantry though

[Mike Nickerson]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

.... ", but I'm surprised that this thread is even happening here. The last time I checked, this forum was supposedly for the p/h/c,"

Well said, and exactly to the point! Dave included a link to a "place" where this issue belongs.

No offense intended Dave or RJ, but vist the AC Event page and try to find a single event (past, current or future) that would allow a dismounted Cav impression to even register. I think the answer is there isn't any.

Mike Nickerson

PS: RJ it was a pleasure to meet you at Outpost III, you sure know how to blow that horn! You have to admit that Coley made a good analogy about "would a reenactor with a computerized bugle, be an authentic and non-offensive portrayal of a bugler". I think your answer was: "no that would p____ me off"!

[RJSamp]

Re: Cavalry Operating Dismounted

I was not aware of any questions on the issue of cavalry operating dismounted. The concept of leaving equipment behind with the mounts isn't new either. It's pretty well known that is was done here and there. It goes with the attaching sabres to the saddle issue - it was done, here and there, but no one has shown evidence in the form of a general order or anything of that ilk to say it was prescribed or S.O.P.
The whole thing comes under the heading of "Field Expediency."

It does not serve as an excuse to legitimize the fact that Dismounted reenactors run about without sabres or spurs - which I believe is the reason behind RJ posting the thing in the first place.

And you are ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG about why I posted this.

This isn't an us vs them or farb vs authentic or horseless vs real cavalry argument.

This is a Federal Brigade which got down off of their horses to fight with their carbines.....and left their sabers and spurs behind. DOCUMENTED. Plain, Everyday, Common. We have time, place, reason, numbers, the fact that they were mounted before hand, etc. By the way, this WAS SOP in this Brigade.....I would encourage all of us to read this book. the quote on getting rid of their pistols when they were issued Spencer's is worth putting into memory by all. (Sorry Paul, don't have the book with me). Obviously another regiment/company/individual trooper at another time may have done it differently....but I don't need anyone of us to go spouting about how the dismounted cavalrymen clanked around in the brush with their sabres hiked up....lying prone in a muddy creek bottom and getting their sabers all muddy and tangled in the privet or orange locust or abatis or chevaux de frise..... that's YOUR decision.....mine is to leave that stuff behind if I have any time at all.

PS: I always carry haversack, canteen on me.....and brogans not boots. No need to change into my 'slippers' as Colonel Phillips did before the dismounted cavalry assault of the Battle of the Big Blue River (Byram's Ford) October 23, 1864 near KCMO.

Gerry, I don't need you to do any speculating or thinking for me, Thanks anyway.

Here is MY original post on this thread.

"Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

Robert Forse Scott's "The Story of a Cavalry Regiment" (specifically the 4th Iowa) has a nice quote about Brice's Crossroads......they dismounted the Brigade and the boys left their sabers AND spurs behind on the led horses."