Would Artillery be Armed? part II

[Danny]

Despite prior discussion, and concession to those that seemed to be knowledgeable on the topic, apparently some light artillerymen, privates, were quite familiar with, and had use of, personal weapons while on campaign (if not specifically issued to them). Anyway, far from "looking silly" if it really happened, eh?

These being merely casual references from one regimental history of a light artillery unit from my state: Behind The Guns - History of Battery I, 2nd Regiment Illinois Light Artillery - 1965, from original transcript by Thaddeus C.S. Brown with Samuel J. Murphy and William G. Putney (Putney was bugler for the unit):

pg. 50

“Captain Barnett mounted about fifty men belonging to the battery on the horses of the battery, and armed them with sabres and revolvers. The detachment had quite the appearance of cavalry as they marched out of camp...”

Pg. 53

“When near Huntsville, Ala., Sergeant Murphy, in command of some scouts, saw two horsemen come out of the brush in front of them, and gave chase after them. They gained rapidly, and one of the rebels surrendered, but the other one being better mounted, escaped. The prisoner who was about six feet, for inches in height, after looking at his captors, said, ‘Well, I’ll be d - - d, if I hav’nt been captured by a lot of d - - d artillery men!’ He said that the Yankee cavalry had been after him, nearly two years, but could not catch him...”

Pg. 132

“One morning Sergeant Ed. Smith started out before dawn at the head of a foraging party to collect supplies for the battery. He had a guard of about fifteen men armed with carbines, detailed for the purpose...”

There are more references to personal weapons and the enlisted men in the book, but etc. etc. - - just to point out these weren't exceptional instances to the writers, the soldiers, in that unit at the time, never the main point of the accounts.

So where did all those pistols, sabres, carbines come from...? I believe the battery wagon (battery box), which is where we should find such today in reenactment, not with front-line cannoneers servicing the primary weapon, the cannon, during a battle scenario.

Dan Wykes

[CSengineer]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

I began reenacting as artillery, and after a time became bored with it and wanted dearly to carry a musket, carbine, or pistol onto the field. To his credit, the battery commander told me that if I could find period documentation for it, I could do it. I scoured every conceivable source and turned up nothing, and only reinforced the rule of thumb that artillery, in general, were not issued small arms. Having happily transitioned to an excellent engineer company, I now have my musket.

McCarthy's Detailed Minutiae speaks at length of his experiences, as a member of the Richmond Howitzers, being issued muskets as "improvised infantry". He devotes an entire chapter to it. In this case it was during the Appomattox campaign, and he remarks they were "armed as infantry, but without the usual equipage", which must mean that they were given a musket and ammunition but not much more. It is interesting to note that the Second Company Richmond Howitzers still had their artillery pieces at this time, and it wasn't until later that, forced to abandon their guns, they were compelled to become infantry.

His only other mention of artillerymen being armed is that they started out with sabers but, after marching for a while, got sick of carrying them and stuck them into the mud. Never mind that the manuals, including the U.S. Ordnance Department's Instruction for Field Artillery as late as 1864, gave great attention to saber drill. He called revolvers "useless". When the artillerists found a pig that "needed shooting", McCarthy mentions that they had to find an infantryman to do it (p. 66).

Davidson's History of Battery A: First Regiment of Ohio Vol. Light Artillery records that, because of Confederate guerillas, the battery commander "drew an Enfield rifle for each man... The order of exercises after the new muskets were drawn was two daily drills of the company in infantry tactics" (p.137). This was very late in the war (after Lee's surrender) and the likelihood of engaging a disciplined Confederate force in the field was practically nil, and the only threat was from annoying guerillas. The artillery were therefore armed, but not with the intent that they carry these arms alongside their guns.

I've read through the previous topic on armed artillerists, and the relevant sources cited there, and others, seems to suggest that in general, when the artillery had small arms, it was under unusual circumstances. There is documentation mentioning artillerists with small arms, but usually for some detached duty as piquets or related function.

[volcav]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

I started reenacting in Artillery also. I found that carrying anything I didn't have to interfered with working the gun.

[vamick]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

I scoured every conceivable source and turned up nothing,
.

read Galloping Thunder by Robert Trout so far on my third reading Ive come up with a dozen plus instances where Confederate at least ( horse artillery) carried arms and even joined in cav charges before their guns came up, seems it did happen but varied widely

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

I started reenacting in Artillery also. I found that carrying anything I didn't have to interfered with working the gun.

Jerry -

Can't find that anyone ever suggested that, keeping in mind even the things you do need to have -- canteen, jacket, whatever -- interfere with working the gun at some level. So too pistols and carbines while trying to ride a horse.

Dan Wykes

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

... in general, when the artillery had small arms, it was under unusual circumstances. There is documentation mentioning artillerists with small arms, but usually for some detached duty as piquets or related function.

Brett -

I can't conclude from my readings that detached duty as picket, forager, scout etc. was an unusual circumstance for any man in the Army, or even a sailor on the river campaign, let alone artilleryman. In these accounts the drawing of the weapons was not the main point of the account, but merely a supporting reference.

Anyway, it seems carbines, sabres were readily available in quantity and on spur of the moment for those "unusual" and infrequent circumstances. How to account for that?

Devil's advocate; from a realistic, practical and authentic viewpoint should we not rather have quantities of such weapons available in our battery? And should we not use them occasionally as required in any particular scenario? If not, what are the excuses for not having a collection of small arms available in the battery? No better than the reasons for not having horses.

Dan Wykes

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

Brett -

I'll disagree. By accounts detached duty as picket, forager, scout etc. was not an unusual circumstances for any man in the Army, even a sailor on the river campaign, let alone artilleryman. Otherwise the drawing of the weapons itself would have been the big deal in such accounts of their use, instead of merely a supporting reference.

Anyway, it seems carbines, sabres were readily available in quantity and on spur of the moment, for those "unusual" and infrequent circumstances. How to account for that?

May I propose that from a realistic, practical and authentic viewpoint should we not have quantities of such weapons available in our battery? And shall we not use them as frequently as would be required in scenario? If not, what are the excuses for not doing so, given the half dozen or so accounts we do have? Many practices in the AC are based on no more account than that.

Dan Wykes

I would think that if you were interested in what's right for a given portrayal you would want to go on something besides anecdotal accounts from one regiment's history. You could, for example, look at ordnance returns from the unit you portray. These ought to tell how many pistols, sabres, &c. the battery had on hand and when.

In the cases cited, the commanders made a special detail of troops for a specific purpose other than serving as an artillery unit. It doesn't say where those weapons came from or went back to. Elisha Hunt Rhodes similarly writes of a time in which a detachment of his regiment did some work with Spencers, but he tells us they borrowed them from their sister regiment, the 37th Massachusetts, and returned them afterward. Your account leaves out these kinds of details, so it seems like a thin basis for an impression -- the primary basis still seems that you just want to do it.

Also, in the third example cited, it even seems unclear whether the escort came from the battery itself or some other unit nearby.

If you can document the use of small arms and sabers you would still want to tailor your impression according to the scenario. Thus, if you want to pretend you're artillery specially armed and sent on detached service as cavalry, then that's what you are. But if you want to say you're artillery serving guns, then that's something else. If you want to say you're artillery serving guns but you have a lot of small arms in the battery wagon to defend the battery with, then it would be nice to see documentation of that, rather than extrapolation from a different situation altogether.

The reason I continue to harp on this is because your argument still seems to reflect a casual approach to some subjects that are reasonably easy to research. Why wouldn't every artillery unit have an arsenal in the battery wagon with which to defend the piece? Some of the reasons include the fact that it may have been intended for other ordnance stores, and the fact that the U.S. government was already straining itself to equip cavalry with carbines and pistols (at $25 to $35 each) and artillery already had guns.

Eric Mink posted on this site a very informative list of all the ordnance reported on hand in the Army of the Potomac at Fredericksburg. You might find it enlightening to look it up and see what kind of weapons were issued to the artillery and cavalry. You might then revisit your comment about the quantity of weapons on hand at any given occasion.

From the simple perspective of what would be fun to do, I can sympathize with you. I belong to a sharp shooter unit and we like our fancy target rifles and Sharps. But most of the time we carry rifle-muskets because we don't always get to play sharp shooter.

I suppose we could say that a soldier could buy target rifles and Sharps commercially, and some units private-purchased Henry's, so we could in theory have any weapon we want at any given reenactment. But on the whole we think that would just be silly.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

Mod Comment:
Let's stick to documented information, not supposition and conjecture. If folks would like to justify a practice, I would recommend stating what it is you want to justify (who can/did/should carry what and under what circumstances) and give/find some documentation that backs it up.

What I am seeing so far looks like folks are trying to massage the data to yield a desired outcome.

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

Mod Comment:
Let's stick to documented information, not supposition and conjecture. If folks would like to justify a practice, I would recommend stating what it is you want to justify (who can/did/should carry what and under what circumstances) and give/find some documentation that backs it up.

What I am seeing so far looks like folks are trying to massage the data to yield a desired outcome.

John -

To be honest about it, it seems the desired outcome is to thwart any notion that artillerymen in the ACW commonly had access to and used small arms. To that end, it's important to bring up these first-person accounts, even several of them, so we can in detail disassemble them with our non-biased appraisals in order to discredit them.

My vote let's not bring it up again until we have more first-person accounts to reference, 6, or 12, whatever the magic no. is.

Dan Wykes

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

Hallo!

IMHO, the question or issue is not that field artillery had access to small arms for use in functions not related to the servicing of the pieces such as
(when and where necessary) artillery park or camp guard, temporarily dealing with POWS, dispatching wounded horses, or special duties not directly related
such as when they had to do their own foraging, scouting, or security on the move or in camp from enemy infantry or cavalry action or querilla type harassment, etc.

The question or issue is whether gun (FA) crews NUG carried long arms, carbines, sabres, or revolvers in the "routine" servicing of the guns and using special duties not directly related- such as when they had to do their own (when and where necessary) artillery park or camp guard, dispatching wounded horses, cutting KIA/WIA horses from the harnessing, foraging, scouting, or security on the move or in camp from enemy infantry or cavalry action or querrilla type harassment, temporarily dealing with POWS, etc., as rationalization or even justification for (undocumented and uncontextual) crewmen being armed and "blasting away."

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

... IMHO, the question or issue is not that field artillery had access to small arms for use in functions not related to the servicing of the pieces... Curt

Thanks, Curt, exactly on point in IMHO as well. Not many would support the use of, or want for themselves, or be able to produce reference on, wearing pistol or sabre or handling carbine while servicing the piece. Has anyone pushed for that here? Certainly no artillerist that takes safety and authenticity seriously.

Let's agree then there is no issue that field artillery had access to small arms for use in functions not related to the servicing of the piece -- it just appears to have been the case, don't know what all the fuss is about. But we need more than just a few accounts before we can move this from speculation into supposition, as some soldiers were just plain liars.

Dan Wykes

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]... seems like a thin basis for an impression -- the primary basis still seems that you just want to do it...You might find it enlightening to look it up and see what kind of weapons were issued to the artillery

Pvt. Schnapps -

I don't want to do it. I have no need to parade a sidearm in my impression. My unit already has provenance that some carbines were kept in the battery box because of course we researched to see what kind of weapons our heritage unit was issued, or had obtained on campaign (more to the point). We already know how to read and look stuff up, but hey thanks for your suggestions anyway.

Dan Wykes

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

Danny, I don't mind being proven wrong if I learn something from it. Nor am I personally above focusing a line of research based on what initially is little more than speculation -- apricots and rocker blotters are two of my current grails. But I don't present something as likely or as good as proven without solid support. Especially not here on the Authentic Campaigner forum. Take a look at the research papers here. These guys are serious. If you want to just BS about something, you should probably pick another Forum. I know I do. But if you want to be taken seriously, you have to put in the work.

Your latest statements raise some more questions. If you "have provenance" of carbines in the battery box, why don't you just share it? If you feel they were "obtained on campaign (more to the point)" why not tell us how, other than issued? Did they pick them up after the enemy dropped them? Steal them? Buy them? How did they get their ammo and spare parts?

What I hear you saying is, essentially, all artillery units had copious supplies of small arms or access to such, despite what the rest of us may have read about the purpose of artillery, or how they conducted themselves when in close proximity to the enemy.

I admit to being biased by my readings of the AARs of Captain Dilger, but if his experience was atypical, then the AARs of your heritage unit ought to demonstrate such. Have you looked them up in the ORs? Here's a link: http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html

Until you come up with some sources, I'll continue to believe that you don't provide much of a basis for your conclusions. When you do come through with something, I'll try to be the first person to say thanks.

[hta1970]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

Are there any invoices or purchase records to support the claim that a battery was in possession of small arms? Any invoices for small arms ammunition?

There are a lot of federal records which survive and it would be nice to see something more than the statements of an individual to support the claims that a battery was in possession of small arms.

Otherwise this thread seems to be making as much forward progress as the thread which was closed on this subject.

[Danny]

Re: Would Artillery be Armed? part II

Are there any invoices or purchase records to support the claim that a battery was in possession of small arms? Any invoices for small arms ammunition?There are a lot of federal records which survive...blah...blah...Otherwise this thread seems to be making as much forward progress as the thread which was closed on this subject.

Harry - this is not a big topic, just a small one. Only ever said enlisted men in the batteries apparently had access to small arms (never said they were issued) and some evidence by account they used them on campaign. Actually three soldiers authored the one account I furnished, but who knows, all three could have made it up -- why they would have is another question, but that's speculation and has no place here.

btw some campaigners base their impression on one period photo...

But I agree, let's stop treating this like an internet forum and put a lid on it until the dissertation is finished.

Dan Wykes