Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

[RJSamp]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

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"!

Mike, the original post was a cite (exact page number and quote provided by Hank Trent) that a Brigade attached their spurs and sabers to their saddle and fought dismounted. If that citation under American Civil War combat conditions doesn't belong on this forum, I don't know where it does. I made no reference to horseless reenactors.

"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."


I enjoyed meeting you as well!

[Mike Nickerson]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

RJ, true enough. Although the rest of the thread got hijacked from there, into a debate if dis-mounted Cav. belongs in an authentic event. I still feel the hijacked part belongs elsewhere! But that's just my $0.02 worth.

Mike Nickerson

[Slouch]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

RJ, true enough. Although the rest of the thread got hijacked from there, into a debate if dis-mounted Cav. belongs in an authentic event. I still feel the hijacked part belongs elsewhere! But that's just my $0.02 worth.

Mike Nickerson

you guys are right about the hijacking, and I apologize for getting caught up in it.

[GeraldTodd]

High Profiling

Sorry RJ, I judged the post based on your usual M.O. I guess I profiled you.

oh well, life's a bi+ch, and then your girth breaks.

[DaveGink]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I wasn't going to post anymore in this thread because as was rightly pointed out, it was hijacked early-on and I jumped right into the middle of that hijacking. But a couple of things that I had read after my last post had stuck in my head for the last day or so -- so I'm going to make one last post and then I will be done with it. Maybe I should start a new thread but I don't really want to start this all over again right now and I'd be too busy to follow it. ;)

Some have suggested that I am trying to "justify" Dismounted Cavalry. I just don't see it that way as I do not feel any justification needs to be done when there is so much historical documentation backing up their use. I could turn that around however and say that I feel it's possible that some are trying to justify their own biases about this subject. But that is just speculation and also natural as people tend to do that. And I mean no disrespect by it.

Someone said "I like Artillery but don't own a gun -- should I be able to reenact "gunless" artillery" or something to that effect. I say if you can show all the historical documentation where "gunless artillery" performed combat missions (like there is for dismounted cavalry) without their cannon, then I'd say "sure".

Some seem to keep automatically equating dismounted cavalry to equaling "farb" (yellow hat bands, etc). That isn't something I consider when discussing this because a "farb is a farb" -- regardless of their 'branch of service' impression. Mounted or not. So that's a non-issue to me.

Some have brought up that there are too few authentically minded Mounted Cavalry, much less Dismounted. This is true. but I wonder if that isn't because they do not feel welcome and are never considered (or welcomed) in the planning of authentic events (Just look at some of the initial posts of this thread)? So they stay "mainstream" and see no reason to look beyond that. I can see it being a catch 22. Maybe if dismounted felt that they were not banned from this community, they'd be more inclined to go authentic. It goes both ways.

In response to Dave Myrick; I really appreciate that you are able to see and consider my points on this. I can only speak for myself (as someone who cannot ride again until my back heals - hopefully by next season) but I would love to join up with a few other dismounted guys and set up camp near a road crossing, bridge, watering hole for an authentic weekend if there was a reasonable expectation that we would encounter the enemy at some point. Let's face it, during the Civil War troopers would not have been placed in those locations if they did not expect to encounter the enemy. The same could be done during the planning of a tactical weekend.

So, this all said, I understand that there are very few authentically-minded dismounted guys out there - but like I put forward a couple of paragraphs up, maybe the problem is on 'both sides of the isle' (so-to-speak). And what if, sadly, some of the mounted guys here loose their mounts. And if there is no loaner available - Are they no longer welcome? Even though historically this would have been accurate and they quite often would have still been used in combat roles?

Anyway, I know this discussion/debate is far from new, and I highly doubt I'll change any minds here ... but it's just some things I sincerely hope people consider.

Cheers,
Dave

[8thmocav]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I enjoyed reading all the posts in this thread. There are a lot of views expressed here. I thought I would add some documentation to the discussion. This is from James E. McGhee's book, Campaigning with Marmaduke, Narratives and Roster of the 8th Missouri Cavalry Regiment, CSA.

Pg. 39
Regimental Horse Supply - 1863 (I deleted the company breakdown for ease of posting...)
Jan 465
May 354
Jul 304
Sep 326

"The table shows the company forage requisitions for four months during 1863, a period that included Marmaduke's two raids into Missouri, the battle at Helena, and the several engagements in which the 8th Missouri Cavalry participated in the defense of Little Rock. The numbers have been extracted from the Compiled Service Records on the file in the National Archives at Washington D.C." .....

"Such information, while not definitive, clearly reveals the serious problems connected with maintaining an effective cavalry unit when the rigors of campaigning, and every day usage, deprived the troops of useable mounts. As an example, Colonel Colton Greene, the usual commander of Marmaduke's Brigade, reported on June 11, 1863, the 8th Missouri Cavalry Regiment had 621 men on its rolls, and it is apparent from the above, that only about half possessed horses. Additionally, when horses were unavailable, the soldier was normally required to find a replacement himself or risk being transferred to the infantry, a fate worse than death to many, with the result that desertion rates soared. In Jeffer's Regiment, as an example, no less than forty-seven men deserted during late July and early August 1863, when the dearth of horses caused many to be transferred to Col. Robert B. Lawther's Temporary Dismounted Cavalry Regiment. While some few of the troopers located a mount and returned the regiment, most did not.

It is highly unlikely that the 8th MO Cavalry Reg., or any other mounted command on either side for that matter, ever possessed sufficient horses to mount an entire regiment after the initial muster of troops. Consequently, the number of cavalrymen on regimental rolls can be very deceiving, for a trooper without a horse was obviously useless to a commander and in some regards a liability rather than an asset to his unit."

I added the bold highlights for talking points. Most of the previous posts bear out some of these points from McGhee's book. I draw a conclusion simply as this...while fighting dismounted surely occurred, the main idea for cavalry was to operate on horseback. Otherwise, one might as well be infantry.

I do feel that dismounted cavalry should be portrayed at events. But realistically, in most cases, they should re-mount their horses and ride to the next planned point of engagement. Otherwise, they should fall in with the infantry in one form or another.

Brent Harty

[frankstevanus]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

If there is documentation for a specific unit during a specific action being "dismounted" doing a specific thing during that action, and some unit wants to portray that specific action, then maybe it might be authentic.
But what I have seen done in the time I reenacted were these guys saying "some one some where was dismounted, so I can portray a dismounted cavalry guy at any event I attend".
No offense to anyone, really, but as I read these posts, it seems Gerald Todd has the most accurate grasp on this issue so far. The horse IS just as much the cavalry as the guy! It is an attempt, by the the guys who portray "dismounted" to 'justify' their impression. I have met some really great guys doing the dismounted thing. So I am not jabbing at them. And this is not an excuse for those guys with horses who don't do accurate stuff either.
But, bottom line is this:
You may not nesessarily be "authentic" just because you have a horse. But you darn sure aren't if you don't!
It is just another excuse to justify a historically inaccurate impression!
No offense!

[8thmocav]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I agree with Frank Stevanus and Gerald Todd. Why portray dismounted at all? Why not fall in with an infantry outfit? As has been said before in several places on AC, there are all sorts of levels to the accuracy of the reenactor. I think it boils down to the intent of the individual.

And maybe this is the observed gripe towards a vast majority of dismounted cavalry...They are more interested in satisfying their own interests instead of seeking for the historical relevance to deliver that impression to the public.

Oh well, it is a hobby after all. And hopefully those that are new to the hobby will be fortunate enough to fall in with groups that encourage personal research to develop their impression. Isn't that the bottom line in just about all the efforts of the reenactor - to learn more of the Civil War?

Brent Harty

[Alabama Yankee]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

Has anyone thought about the role of "Dismounted" cavalry brigade during Sherman's march?

Look up the Union order of battle for the Monroe's Crossroads. There were 3 mounted brigades and a 4th Brigade that was a provisional, dismounted brigade. It was set up like this as Sherman left Atlanta. 4th Brigade was made of 3 Regiments. If you were a trooper in the 3rd brigade and you lost your mount, you were transferred to 4th brigade, 3rd regiment until you could be remounted. You didn't trade in your arms and learn to fight as infantry, and you were expected to fight the same way you always had. They marched together as one body, usually away from the infantry body, with some exceptions. But of course, there wasn't much fighting along the march to the sea...

I'll have to look up my maps again, but I think that Hampton hit 4th brigade first on his dawn attack.

Just wanted to give you something else to think about.

-Ryan Dupree

[7thNJcoA]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I see this turning into Mouted vs Dismounted rivalry..... I am not a Cav person Regularly but do fall in at times with a Friends Unit mainly because I dont have a Horse yet. I dont see the problem with people fighting dismounted during tacticals and non history related skirmishes, but if you are doing the first day of G-Burg you should have a Horse to the rear.... As per leaving sabres and spurs behind when I do fall in with the Cav unit if we are going to be dismounted for a long period of time the clanky extras stay with the mount.

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

I would love to see an Authentic Dismounted Cavalry Unit in action.

Break

I use to work with horses, Working Cow Horse, Cutting...having spurs, well one should know how to use them...and one should know that you don't need them when you aren't on the horse....they are dangerous and will trip you up every time.

When I was in the 1ST CAV Division, I had a sword that I wore to Dinning Outs, etc...I kept bumping into things with it...then I realized that on y the LTs wore the sword....:)

[RJSamp]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

Just reread your tag line Dale, I like it! My in laws were NJ Italian.....it'sa [red] gravy, not [spaghetti] sauce....

[csabugler]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

Dale, we dismount and fight with long arms on foot at most events we attend, not sure why you have never seen that, unless we play in different theaters.

I'm gonna stay off the "discount cavalry" arguement, I think my position is pretty clear, but regarding the spurs and sabers left on the saddle:

1) we seldom carry sabers doing confederate, and a good part of our federal impression events we portray mounted infantry, so the saber issue does not come up that often.

2) I generally don't wear spurs, a lot of us don't. So the spurs are not really an issue.

3) When we dismount to fight, it is usually to cover retreating infantry or to hold a position until they arrive. Frequently when we go to remount we are close enough to the advancing "enemy" that we can hear them cussing us by name. We do not have the luxury of "recoutering".

Now this might be due to the nature of reenacting, as opposed to the real war where if you win the skirmish, there might not be any "enemy" alive to shoot at you while you remount. Hundreds or thousands of men instead of dozens. Trained, full-time, disciplined troopers, not us.
Buford's cav dismounted and went into the line at GB to hold or die trying. They didn't know the "scenario" that says they refuse 2 assaults and then remount and fall back.
Stopping to rehang sabers and put on spurs might be fun , tho, we could talk to our pards on the other side while we did it...

Anyhow, history shows it was done in the war, but in MY OPINION it's awkward and not of much use in reenacting.
Sorta like some other things that I won't mention ;)

[Tom Craig]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

Gents,

This thread has been hijacked worse than a TWA flight in the '80's! The original question/thought was posted by RJ about mounted cavalry dismounting, and leaving gear (specifically sabres and spurs) behind on their horses.

While there has been a great deal of back and forth here about mounted and dismounted impressions, there has been precious little citation of period sources about whether guys left gear on their mounts or not.

Sidney Morris Davis in his book Common Soldier, Uncommon War talks about being envious of the volunteer cavalry for their ability to have their sabres strapped to their saddles all the time. A pard of mine in doing some extensive research has uncovered what seems to be the indication that among volunteers attaching your sabre to your saddle was the norm in the East from 1864 on.

The question that would should be asking here on the AC is not "what do you think" but rather "what does the documentation say?" I've never seen a period source reference leaving spurs behind, but then I've seen precious little period reference to troopers use of spurs. I know they were issued, but they aren't talked about...

Let's return this discussion to a discussion of the historical facts supported by citation and fact as opposed to the same old lame rehash of the pros and cons of dismounted or mounted cavalry.

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[Elliott'sSprout]

Re: Sabers and Spurs left behind: Dismounted Cavalry

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

Don't be hating on dismounted cav please.