Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

[CJ Reisenbeck]

I am fairly new to reenacting. I have only been reenacting about one year but in this time I have really studied the loading procedures of muzzle loading artillery pieces. (Please note I do not claim to be an expert). I have carefully compared the original methods in the manual and the modern methods at artillery schools and on the field. There appears to be about 1000 variations from gun crew to gun crew. That in itself poses problems and safety issues but I just want to make note of the one that I personally find the most irksome. I absolutely hate to look at an article about a reenactment in the local paper or in a magazine about our hobby and see a picture of the No. 1 and No. 2 men hunkering with their ears covered and backs turned from the muzzle like there is a giant about to pummel them with a stick. The first problem there is they are not doing the job appointed to them, scanning their safety zones in front of the muzzle. Also from an authenticity standpoint, I have never seen a period photo of drill showing this cowardly, un-soldierly posture. All implements in hand are held at a 45 degree angle or horizontally with the men facing forward and upright in every period photo I have ever seen. No. 2 never has a worm in the photos either, but I’ll save that for someone else to rant about. There are accounts also of soldiers laying flat on the ground to escape incoming fire but that is a different matter. The folks that bother me are afraid of the noise created by their own guns. I am aware that cannons are loud , and the exploding charge causes a jarring in your bowels and a deafening ring in the unprotected ear but that is what flesh colored earplugs are for. They sell them in the pharmacy section of every Wal-Mart in the county. The men working the front of the gun also have to take extra care to listen and feel for remnants of foil and to make sure the vent is properly stopped, but the alternative to not wearing earplugs is to be totally deaf and to look like you’re scared of your own piece discharging. I am certain that the grizzled old vets whose job it was to feed canister into oncoming ranks of the enemy would not have cringed and hunkered in fear of their own gun. Their job was to spew death and violence at the oncoming waves of enemies. We do them and ourselves a disservice when we portray them in this wimpy fashion. If we could all make an effort at the next round of artillery schools to make a note of this ugly incorrect habit and the safety problems it causes maybe we can make an improvement in the soldierly posture of No. 1 and No. 2.
CJ Reisenbeck
Waters’ Battery
Byrnes Battery

[Silas]

Re: Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

It's easier to read posts and understand the primary reason for a post when folks include paragraphs breaks. Just sayin'.

[KPavia]

Re: Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

Also from an authenticity standpoint, I have never seen a period photo of drill showing this cowardly, un-soldierly posture.

Question- have you ever seen a period photo of an artillery crew as their gun fires for real? Seeing how they act when DRILLING is not necessarily how they act when live firing.

Being an artilleryman myself in real life, its not cowardly to protect your ears. I can't say what the gun crews of old used to do because I have read no descriptions of such behavior nor have I seen any photos of live firing.

[Jeffrey Cohen]

Re: Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

Boy oh boy, talk about flame bait! The men of the 1860's did not know of the subtle causes of hearing loss as we do. At the schools I have attended NCWAA and and one authentic school , both numbers one and two lean away from the gun. The men at the authentic school leaned towards the rear, like the picture in the books.
At most schools the number one and two all look towards the front field of fire with an intersecting view to watch out for posers (I hope I don't get sanctioned for using the P word.) as loaded cannon seems to attract them. As for leaning away, that's a unit thing. The one reason I heard was, that if the cannon barrel fails (G-d forbid), the cannoneer would instinctively bend away from the blast instead of towards it. This is why doing most misfire drills the number two man has his back to the barrel.
I would suggest checkout this website:

http://www.artillerymanmagazine.com/safety_rules.html

Also you should attend an artillery school or two, mainstream and or authentic and then you'll see what and why we do it. You should remember this, the drills in the red book are designed to kill the enemy. In a perfect world infantry and cavalry (at reenactments) would always assume our guns are loaded. Sadly, this is not the case.
Please do a little more research, talk to some cannoneers and ask them why they do what they do before making anymore grand pronouncements on how we should conduct ourselves.
Regards,
Jeffrey Cohen

[CJ Reisenbeck]

Re: Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

Thank you to all who posted and all who may post remarks about my post. Also thanks for not being too hostile to the self appointed newbie. This website is a valuable resource for newbies to learn, and improve, and post our “grand pronouncements” and have more experienced members cut us to ribbons. This is a great way to learn. Additionally, a very good point about drill photos not being a positive proof of actual practice .In defense of my post however, drill is practice for battle, so I think we can assume that it is an indicator if not positive proof. My main concern was not people covering their ears while watching the muzzle, but people hunkering and turning their heads (not doing their jobs). That is a safety concern because a lot cavalry and infantry do not pay enough attention to the danger posed by artillery on the field. Thank you once again,
CJ Reisenbeck
Waters’ Battery
Byrnes Battery

[AZReenactor]

Re: Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

CJ,
While I appreciate your enthusiasm you might want to keep in mind that the AC has never been intended for the beginning reenactor nor a place where much time is spent discussing what the mainstream reenacting hobby does. Rather the focus here is on the authentic focused end of the hobby, how we can improve our impressions and craft, and get closer to a more historically accurate reenacting of history. This is a community for sharing with those already moving towards more authentic reenacting, not merely a place to boldly say the things you secretly want to say to your mainstream reenacting comrades.

In this forum grand pronouncements are expected to be well researched, backed up with verifiable support, and open to reinterpretation and revision if additional facts so indicate. Over in this end of the hobby folks like to focus on the reasons behind the grand pronouncement rather than the grand pronouncements about what the hobby should or should not do in general. Most in this forum have a lengthy list of what they wish the hobby as a whole did better so rather than turning this forum into the "Awful Complainer" the most fruitful discussions focus an the historic reasons for a notion, the methods of implementing it, and bring those things to a community of respected peers ready to have a conversation about it.

Better you had posted that it occurs to you that many reenactors performing the roles of no.1 or 2 do so in an inauthentic way, present your reasons and support for that conclusion, and then invite discussion (including criticism and counter argument) on the idea that it might be refined further.

I apologize for going off topic, but it seemed a lesson in the etiquette and expectations of the community were in order. Once the ground rules of the community are understood then I may decide to bring my 18 years of artillery reenacting experience, countless hours and research and reading, numerous examinations of photos and drawings, &c. &c. and share it in a conversation with you. Heck, if we can manage a thoughtful, insightful, challenging discussion then even some of the really knowledgeable and experienced members of this forum might even begin sharing their insights. ;-)

[CJ Reisenbeck]

Re: Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

It has come to my attention, in my very short reenacting career, that No.1 and No.2 in most artillery units do not display the posture described in Instructions for Field Artillery by The United States War Dept. William French, William Farquhar Barry, Henry Jackson Hunt.
On pg 112
“ 102. Ready. At this command, which is given as soon as the piece is loaded, or the firing is about to commence, No.1 breaks well off to his left with his left foot, bending the left knee, and straightening the right leg, drops the end of the sponge staff into the left hand, back of the hand down, and fixes his eyes on the muzzle.”
Also the famous Ringgold gap photo that is posted in its own string on this forum clearly shows No. 1 and No. 2 facing the muzzle in the ready position. They do not display the all too typical modern hunkering posture displayed by reenactors. I would greatly appreciate constructive discussion on this matter as I think I might learn something and make an improvement in our group’s authentic portrayal of civil war artillerymen. I would greatly appreciate more experienced members comments and opinions on this point.
Please note that this is not me being a smarta--. I sincerely would like to hear from experienced members. I am feeling a bit like a lobster that’s voluntarily jumped in the pot.
CJ Reisenbeck
Waters’ Battery
Byrnes Battery

[David Fox]

Re: Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

One will find the boys at the muzzle were expected to watch that muzzle closely: in the heat of battery fire, they could otherwise be fooled by a nearby discharge and undertake their reloading tasks before their piece fired, with regrettable results. I've certainly experienced this in blank fire where, of course, there is little recoil. The hunkered pose I believe was appropriate for seige and garrison guns.

[Busterbuttonboy]

Re: Soldierly Posture of No. 1 and No. 2

Here is the Ringold Battery drilling. Also two sketches (lets take them for what they are) of guns in "action." Lots of things here in the photo to supplement the other primary resources submitted thus far.

While, "...the drills in the red book are designed to kill the enemy." Manuals will also be written to keep a soldier intact. That being said we can see in the manuals of the time that there are multiple reasons for No 1 and 2 standing to their post and looking downrange.