Artillery short sword

[Forquer]

Re: Artillery short sword

Nobody yet has addressed why the Confederates went out of their way to make new short swords - copies of the Federal short sword - several months into the war when there were lots of other priorities. It was also a chance for the Reb suppliers to improve on what I keep hearing was such a "useless" design.

At least I'm getting the impression that no AC has a problem with seeing a short sword propped up near a limber, as if just pulled from the battery box (as with rifles etc). Does that mean we can at least kill the idea then that the short sword was only issued to heavy artillery? Or shall we just let the topic rest again for now?

- Dan Wykes

Not to cast aspersions or start a flame war, but it sounds like you are in possession of the foot artillery sword and are looking for justification for bringing it to events.

I can't speak to the use of the things by the C.S.A. light artillery. Is it POSSIBLE that some reb redleg picked one up and toted it around for whatever use? Absolutely. I don't know if you participate with a group that bases their impression on a specific unit. If that is the case, then try to track down the original unit returns to see if they were issued. If they weren't, then, while it doesn't provide indisputable proof that they weren't used, then it can at least give an indication as to whether they were an everyday, common item. You can draw your own conclusions from there.

Also, as far as pulling rifles from a battery box, I've not seen any indication that rifles were standard issue items to a battery. Artillery units would rely on infantry units and cavalry units for their security. The Redleg's primary arm was the piece. With everyone in the battery having a specific job once action commenced, no one can be spared for such duties. That's why supports were of the utmost importance.

[roundshot]

Re: Artillery short sword

On page 387 of the "History of the 5th Massachusetts Battery" is a picture of one of these short swords. In the text is a comment by one Francis P. Washburn which states: "I send you the picture of the old sword picked up at Harrison's Landing. It was not carried by an officer but by a cannoneer. When we were equipped by the State of Massashusetts, the cannoneers were armed with swords like the one in the picture, and the drivers with sabres. Later in the war the drivers only carried side arms." For the record, Washburn was mustered in as a private in the 5th Mass. on October 3, 1861 and mustered out on the same day in 1864.

It looks as if any of these hefty weapons that may have been issued were done so by the states. The State of New York issued a distinctive two piece interlocking SNY belt plate copied off the US model for these short swords. Several have been recovered from CW sites. Additionally there are Confederate "CS" copies of these short sword plates (see Mullinax, plates # 13 & 14) that have been found in Virginia. Just what weapons these belts supported is conjecture. Here's a link to an SNY belt in the collection of the Sharpsburg Arsenal: http://www.sharpsburg-arsenal.com/Bu...of_ny_buc.html

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

Re


Nobody yet has addressed why the Confederates went out of their way to make new short swords - copies of the Federal short sword - several months into the war when there were lots of other priorities. It was also a chance for the Reb suppliers to improve on what I keep hearing was such a "useless" design.

At least I'm getting the impression that no AC has a problem with seeing a short sword propped up near a limber, as if just pulled from the battery box (as with rifles etc). Does that mean we can at least kill the idea then that the short sword was only issued to heavy artillery? Or shall we just let the topic rest again for now?

- Dan Wykes

Danny,

I don't think we've come up with a consensus yet on what utility the short sword ever had, and why they were still being made an issued when other priorities existed, especially by the Confederacy, as you mentioned. However, I don't know how much more can be added to this thread. My interest remains - I would like to know why these odd, but cool looking, swords continued to be made and issued. Probably standard Army-issue inertia.

As for having one of these babies show up on your limber, I'm not sure what all the consensus is. I think the comparison to artillery sabers or modern bayonets is sound - if you were issued it, you probably kept track of it. I think a short sword could show up now and then, but I'm not sure what to tell anyone who asks what it's for.

[Danny]

Re: Artillery short sword

re: [QUOTE=Forquer;44758]Not to cast aspersions or start a flame war, but it sounds like you are in possession of the foot artillery sword and are looking for justification for bringing it to events... = QUOTE]

Thanks for the comments. Please don't take this the wrong way, but could it be rather that you don't have possession of a foot artillery sword and have somehow justified not bringing one to events? You have the common view on this minor topic, yet my question was why the common view is only based on what seems practical to us today, to spite the actual build and issue records. I personally don't bring my short sword to events because I don't want to defy common view. I do wear it in community street marches - the kids love it.

On that related matter, if our unit's research shows there were rifles in the Battery box, we can only conclude they were either for foraging (hunting) or perimeter defense (pickets) when not covered by Infantry, or both reasons and a couple more besides. How easy it would have been, how likely it would have been, how useful it would have been, to keep a few carbines in the Battery box.

- Dan Wykes

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

On that related matter, if our unit's research shows there were rifles in the Battery box, we can only conclude they were either for foraging (hunting) or perimeter defense (pickets) when not covered by Infantry, or both reasons and a couple more besides. How easy it would have been, how likely it would have been, how useful it would have been, to keep a few carbines in the Battery box.

- Dan Wykes

I've also wondered about guard duty and pickets for artillery camps. Would the artillerymen stand guard, and with what sidearm? Would there be some limited number of rifles issued to a battery for this purpose? If so, they probably wouldn't be in the limber, but I am no expert.

As for the short sword, I think it's like shoulder scales. Shoulder scales were produced and issued in quantity, and there is photographic evidence for their wear, but they are also not well-received today. There is some sense in this, as they serve little real purpose (like the short sword), and most soldiers (of all eras) discard useless equipment . So, scales were probably not seen more in posed photographs than in the field, or in fortress batteries, and maybe should not be heavily represented in artillery impressions. Still, scales too are a piece of history and you should see them once in awhile, or least see the attachment points. I'm not trying to hijack this thread into a shoulder scale discussion, but it concerns the same question - deciding to accept 'oddball' gear in an impression.

[PFLINT]

Re: Artillery short sword

There are two pictures of Ohio batterys wearing the short sword and a similar uniform. In both picture the soldiers wear shakos (not the light artillery style) and overshirts with contrasting plackets, collars and cuffs. One is said to be the 1st Ohio Light Artillery and the other is the 8th Battery Light Artillery National Guard which saw guard duty on Johnson's Island in Sandusky Ohio 1864.
Patrick Flint

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Artillery short sword

Hallo!

And then there is the discussion of the so-called "artillery models" of the M1855, M1861, and M1863 Rifle-Muskets with 33 inch barrels.

I cannot add much of anything to the artillery short sword discussion, other than:
1. IMHO, they were (as shared) a matter of inertia going forward from an earlier time
and
2. They fall under the PEC/NUG Rule meaning they were not very common and unless researched and documented to one's chosen impression's unit's time and place should fall under not being bothered with.

Others mileage may vary...

Curt

[Johan Steele]

Re: Artillery short sword

Short sword, pistols, carbines... all arms attributed to Light Arty in this thread; how much of it is really PEC?

I've read of the short sword being used to cut brush machette style and of their use as a marker to position the hubs.

Pistols, for NCO to put down wounded horses... not to defend the battery. That's what canister was for.

Carbines, rifles... 1-2 in a limber chest to defend a battery? See above note on canister.

I can't say as I've read any account of arty defending their battery w/ short swords or w/ pistols for that matter. Pistols were in too short of supply to issue to the Arty; they were generally reserved for the cav. especially in CS service.

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

I can't say as I've read any account of arty defending their battery w/ short swords or w/ pistols for that matter. Pistols were in too short of supply to issue to the Arty; they were generally reserved for the cav. especially in CS service.

I've read similar statements about pistols going first to cavalry, and that certianly makes sense. I would not consider that any sidearms the artillerymen had were really for defense of the battery, as Johan said that's what canister is for. I would think the men would have some small complement of arms for picket/sentry duty and for foraging/looting. The short sword looks ungainly even for use as a machete, at least the ones I've seen, so I'll chalk the short sword up to inertia. The photos of the Ohio batteries prove somebody wore it, and I personally would like to see one show up at a LH event or something, but it's a questionable piece of gear for general wear, for sure. I've seen the New York artillery belt with the SNY buckle, and a sword hanging from it would look cool, if not PEC. Wanting to look cool maybe part of the problem with oddball gear, musketoons, etc., - you'd like it to work out to be correct.

Still, what arms did the battery use for sentry duty? What were the 'artillery' models of the various muskets for?

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Artillery short sword

I've also wondered about guard duty and pickets for artillery camps. Would the artillerymen stand guard, and with what sidearm? Would there be some limited number of rifles issued to a battery for this purpose? If so, they probably wouldn't be in the limber, but I am no expert.

E. Porter Alexander in Fighting for the Confederacy, notes that in his battalion in 1863 there were no sidearms other than the artillery sabers for performing camp guard or guarding prisoners.

Other Confederate units, such as Douglas' Texas Battery, record that there were no sidearms other than the battery commander's Colt revolver and the officers' sabres.

[James Brenner]

Re: Artillery short sword

FWIW: In 1864, the 9th Ohio Battery turned in its guns and horses and drew Enfields. From then until the end of the war, the unit helped guard the Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad bridges. So, it's possible for light batteries to draw muskets.

One other point for clarification: coehorns were technically "heavy" artillery and were not an infantry weapon. Their role shouldn't be confused with later 3 and 4 inch Stokes mortars (WWI) which were designed for infantry support and manned by specially trained infantrymen.

Also, the only sentry duty I've ever read about in the various histories was along their own their picket line, watching the horses.

Finally, Curt: I'm back and sent you a PM.

[marine05]

Re: Artillery short sword

I agree completely with Lawrence and Greg. As many of us can attest from the active duty side, soldiers don't carry stuff that has no purpose, unless it is personal items like a picture or something that reminds them of home.

Hunting on the east coast? I've heard tell of folks on this and other forums discussing that...hunt what? The white tail was almost entirely gone, plus with armies marching aroung the Northern VA area for a few years, what was left? So carbines/rifles in the battery box, who would use them and when? As has been stated defending the battery, cannister or spherical case, if the going really got bad and the "beetle stompers" were moving back, time to limber up and pull back, not shoot it out with infantry.

Hey, like has been said many times, an infantryman or cavalryman is each a weapons system, together with others like them the form a very powerful fighting element, a single cannoneer on the other hand is only a weapons system when forming a gun detachment and serving their piece.

Sounds like the Ohio battery referenced in one of the posts on this thread were serving, like many artillerymen are now in Iraq, as provisional infantry. Marine artillerymen are issued the service rifle, plus other smally arms primarily for perimeter defense of the battery, however, like their ACW brothers everybody in the battery has a specific job to do during fire missions and there's not a whole bunch of extra folks running around with rifles playing infantry.

Semper Fi and Happy New Year,

DJM

[roundshot]

Re: Artillery short sword

A couple of nice excavated examples of short swords, both US and CS, can be seen in Howard Crouch's "Civil War Artifacts" on page 82. Locations unknown. Also Charles Harris's "Civil War Relics of the Western Campaigns" illustrates CS versions of these found at Shiloh '62 (p. 46), Chickamauga '63 (p. 163), and Macon, GA '64 (p. 247). Draw your own conclusions.

As far as battery weapons, Porter Alexander neglected to include in his unit's armament the smoothbore he personally carried for bird hunting jaunts. An avid sportsman, Alexander had his servant pound out and cut up minies to make shot for the weapon. This is also in the book Tom Ezell mentioned.

[Forquer]

Re: Artillery short sword

There are two pictures of Ohio batterys wearing the short sword and a similar uniform. In both picture the soldiers wear shakos (not the light artillery style) and overshirts with contrasting plackets, collars and cuffs. One is said to be the 1st Ohio Light Artillery and the other is the 8th Battery Light Artillery National Guard which saw guard duty on Johnson's Island in Sandusky Ohio 1864.
Patrick Flint

Patrick -

Wondering if these images have been authenticated for date. Also, what is the possiblitiy that, like so many other images of the day, that they are wearing props provided by the photographer? Hey, folks were buying tons of surplus back in the day, as well.

Dan (McLean) -

I'm reminded of the classic WWII cartoon by Bill Mauldin that has Willie and Joe on a road march, one admonishing the other to throw the jokers out of his deck of cards to lighten his weight.

Mr. Wykes -

No offense taken (unless I'm actually supposed to), however, anyone can rationalize anything to the point that it serves their desires. There was a unit up here in Ohio in the last few years who decided to do an impression of one of the 2 zouave regiments that was raised in the state. Some compadres and I had been doing an impression of the same regiment for a couple of years and had done some pretty intense research, uncovering quite a collection of images and making fairly steady improvement of the uniform. Some of the members of the other unit started to ask their commander why there was such a noticable difference between the two uniforms that were being used and his reply was, and I paraphrase, "just because we can't find any evidence of our uniform being worn, doesn't mean that it didn't exist."

I just know that out in the field I prefer not to bring a knife to a gunfight.

[Danny]

Re: Artillery short sword

Thanks all. We know a little more.

Some consensus:

That for our purposes today it's "leave the short swords out of campaign scenario" if you can't document their use with your heritage Battery. The occasional exception is to have one propped up near the limber or stuck in the grass nearby the piece. If your unit has a Battery wagon, you can justifiably keep a couple short swords and/or rifles in there. (Some prior posters mentioned guns stored in the limber! No! I'm sure they meant the battery wagon). It seems likely that if issued to other than heavy artillery, short swords were only kept on as inventory or reported lost.

Required consensus:

That quantities of Artillery short swords were built after 1861, ordered by both the Federal and Confederate Armies, and several dug examples have been found on both Eastern and Western Campaign battlefields. Though we consider them somewhat useless today, the swords were in fact issued up to 1873, well after final reports from the CW battlefield were submitted.

To be determined consensus:

There is little photographic evidence of their use beyond garrsioned artillery, perhaps because in the light or "flying" artillery they weren't worn as much as they were just kept around, out of posable camera view, perhaps in the Battery wagon or or in the high grass nearby. Apparently there are no accounts of the short sword being used for close-combat, though there are are accounts of implements being used that way.

One purpose of the tool is the Government-definition of breached-line defense against horse. We chuckle at that today on the basis of how futile that seems against armed Cavalry, but to be consistent we must also recognize that implements (rammers etc.) were of course equally futile against gun-toting attackers, and that Cavalry often breaches with only sword in hand at the final rush (after longer range ammunition is expended in the attack).

Other purposes put forward: that the swords were used to mark wheel position so that the cannon return to a pre-calculated position for consistent targeting, and the more common one - to clear brush in front of the piece. Apparently there is little actual evidence for either of these explanations.

An observation:

Why is it that, in reenactment, officers and non-coms don't want to acknowledge that there were swords intended for and issued to privates, or that privates servicing the piece in battle often carried sidearms if they could obtain them. Is the AC impression tainted by that view, or the other way around?

- Dan Wykes