Saber on the Saddle...

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

Just realized it says "Age 27" on that saddle cloth. Definitely post war as I seem to remember the story of this "old warhorse". Just wish I had the link...

[moarkcav]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

Chris

I have no idea where I found it. It was in a folder on my computer from several years back that I was cleaning up. I will dig around and see if I can find anything else.

Chris Talburt

[csabugler]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

I blew that pic up as far as I could and still retain decent composition, it looks likes the standard saber straps (I forget the proper term) which would be used with an issue belt. And there is some sort of belt around the butt-stock of the carbine, but could be a sling.

Just my observations and thoughts, not that they mean much...

[volcav]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

This thought came to mind when I read this topic. If you wear your saber per regulation but hang it off the saddle for dismounted action, which makes sense, then the logical conclusion would seem to me to be take off the saber belt and hang the whole set up on the saddle when fighting dismounted. I can't think of a fast way to disconnect the saber from the belt and attach it to the saddle but speed would be important. With this in mind, that brings up the question of the pistol. I don't wear two belts. My pistol is on my saber belt. But it seems that dismounted skirmishers were to keep their pistols with them. Am I wrong for having my pistol on the saber belt? Otherwise, continuing this line of thought I'd be leaving my pistol behind too unless I stuck it in my pants. Hope you don't mind me bringing up this old thread but if this train of thought was covered I missed it.

[neocelt]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

Interesting discussion (including the tangents)...

Random thoughts, in no particular order:

"Running martingales are heavily documented to have been used."

"Heavily documented"? Used by enlisted troopers? Oh my, I'd very much like to see some of this documentation!

Sabers on the saddle:
McClellan saw many fascinating things while on his tour of Europe and the Crimea--loads of them where included in his voluminous and incredibly anal-retentive report to his superiors (which was published by the War Dept. for the enlightenment of the Congress). Little Mac later broke his report into smaller sections and had J.B. Lippincott of Phila. (his home town) publish them piecemeal. His report (and the subsequent unauthorized manual) offer many novel concepts, to include such practical suggestions as replacing the steel saber scabbard with one made of gutta percha. Just before the war, an ambitious young subaltern in the U.S. Cavalry--James Ewell Brown Stuart--patented a device to facilitate the detachment of the saber from the saber belt for rapid transfer to the saddle when skirmishing dismounted. In spite of the fact that the government actually purchased the rights to the device from Stuart, it was neither produced nor issued until the closing scene of our fratricidal drama. Stuart himself never encouraged his troopers to attach their sabers to the saddle. Plenty of great ideas never get off the drawing board for a whole host of reasons...

Still, there is sufficient primary evidence to suggest that some particular units adopted the practice of attaching their sabers to the saddle in some fashion or other (primarily Fed. cav. in the East in the last season of the conflict). Personally, I do not believe the practice was widespread, and my opinion is that it should only be done when representing an organization which is clearly documented (with redundant contemporary evidence, not post-war reminiscences) to have embraced this practice during the period being portrayed. Get it right. This kind of fine-tuning is what quality interpretive history is all about.

“The men finally learned to fasten the saber, scabbard and all, firmly to the near side of the saddle, nearly parallel to the horse’s body, and when mounted throw the leg over it. It was then ready to be drawn when mounted, and was not in the way of the dismounted soldier, who had quite enough to do to take care of himself and his carbine in the thicket into which he had so frequently to march when skirmishing. On foot a saber is seldom of use, and is dreadfully in the way.” (Crowninshield, 294-295)

My library is packed up, so I don't have access to my copy of Crowninshield at present, but if memory serves that volume is one of the better illustrated regimental histories. Loads of photos, to include studio portraits and shots taken of formations and small groups of men in the field. In most of the images the troopers clearly have their sabers attached to the slings on their belts, and there isn't a single one showing the saber attached to the saddle--a practice the author (writing many years after the war) implies was commonplace, if not ubiquitous. Strange. Not saying he made it up--just that this niggling little contradiction should be duly noted by the conscientious historian and interpreter before citing Crowninshield as a source to validate this practice.

My supposition is that since attaching the saber to the saddle did in fact become authorized practice shortly after the close of the war, veterans' tended to morph the idea (sensible as it may seem in 20-20 hindsight) into their less-than-perfect memories. Reminiscences are a species of literature whose verisimilitude must be weighed very carefully by historians. As the old saw goes, the only difference between a fairy tale and a war-story is that one starts out, "Once upon a time," while the other follows the proclamation, "Hell, I was there!" These war-stories stories were oft told and re-told, taking on a slightly different hue with each re-telling (ever played the parlor game where you attempt to pass a short story around a circle without altering it?). Whittaker's excellent little tome, Volunteer Cavalry: The Lessons of the Decade--which was, incidentally, published under a pseudonym--is a good example of interweaving how it was with how it should have been: In some instances, he discusses practices he claims were actually done, while in others he speaks more generally about how it should have been done--sometimes it's difficult to tell where one stops and the other begins... As is true of all writers, Whittaker had an agenda (to suggest improvements to his branch of service); his volume constitutes a military man's reflections, not the work of a trained historian. I wouldn't take any of his comments as being literally representative of actual practice without more substantial support documentation.

I've interviewed many WWII paratroopers about their experiences, and precious few can recall any details whatsoever about their gear or how they wore it--though if they are "reminded" of a certain practice, they frequently "suddenly recalled" that that is indeed exactly how they did it(!). In point of fact, it was just part of the stuff that was issued to them--they wore it however they were told to wear it (by their CO, squad leader or whomever), used it up, disposed of it or DX'ed it and drew a replacement and proceeded to wear that one out in its turn. Were there unit "fads"? Of course--these were kids, after all. Did some regimental commanders exercise their broad authority regarding such things? Sure. But these instances tend to be isolated anomalies rather than the norm. Again, it was just "stuff" to Joe Tentpeg--he didn't research it or buy it, and he didn't have to pay to have it replaced (usually) . It was not nearly as important to him as it is to us!

Regarding the need for a revolver whilst skirmishing dismounted:
The revolver is a personal defense weapon, and it is intended to be used at close quarters as a dernier resort. One does not skirmish with a revolver (the only reason Cooke referred to skirmishing with a revolver in his manual is that his tome was intended for the use of cavalry-proper, which he felt should be armed with the revolver and saber only--and supported by dragoons or mounted rifles, who would be carrying long arms). So I wouldn't worry much about not having my sidearm with me while skirmishing dismounted; I'd be more concerned about not having access to my carbine ammunition (assuming my carbine cartridge box was on my sword belt). But that's another discussion, ain't it?

Live Out Loud!
~Aden

[RJSamp]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

Robert Forse Scott's "Story of a Cavalry Regiment" is always a good read. Went to the Brice's Crossroads reenactment a few weeks ago and reread his passages on the battle and the Meridian campaign in preparation. The entire cavalry command dismounted, left their sabers and spurs with the led horses. The only two mounted cavalrymen near the firing line was the commanders. So even the officer's and senior buglers dismounted.

[csabugler]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

I suppose in reality they were not working on the small size of field we are and such, so maybe they had time to disconnect and attach their sabers and spurs to the saddle. I know that when we dismounted to fight in reenacting Coley would have been "unhappy" had we stopped to rig them. And we seldom ever had time to replace them when remounting, unless we just wanted the enemy to hold our horses for us while we climbed on.

IMHO, I just don't see it. Better to do without either.
But that's just my opinion, not a documented fact.

And let me throw out this question: if mounted and you tied off to the saddle and your mount was shot or went down, would you stop and collect your saber , or just leave it cause without the horse you're infanty now anyhow and don't need the saber anymore? Would the quarter master collect it after the fight?
I don't recall ever reading anything on that...

[volcav]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

RJ,
Did the book mention the method of securing the sabers to the saddle?

Walking and especially running with spurs on takes some getting used to. The bigger the spurs the more likely they are to get tangled in something.

[volcav]

Re: Saber on the Saddle...

And let me throw out this question: if mounted and you tied off to the saddle and your mount was shot or went down, would you stop and collect your saber , or just leave it cause without the horse you're infanty now anyhow and don't need the saber anymore? Would the quarter master collect it after the fight?
I don't recall ever reading anything on that...

I think the answer to that would most likely depend on the situation and the enthusiasm of the individual soldier. I'd be interested to see if anyone else has come across the topic in their research too. I've never seen anything on it either.