Artillery short sword

[Danny]

Can we review, just one more time, why it is Artillery swords are such poor stepchildren in authentic reenactment? As in "don't do it - they weren't used"

I just can't get past the actual fact that they were being made, the 1832 pattern, until 1863 or so, and still issued until about 1873. And, if not useful, why is it the cash-and-material strapped Confederates felt they needed allocate resources to make and issue copies of that sword to their Artillery units? That is, if they weren't useful and not actually used.

I could also point out that there are several examples that have survived from the CW time frame and are collector pieces today. Most are not pristine, little-used items but items showing field use. Used for what?

I've also heard the assumption that if they were issued it was to heavy artillery only, stationed in Garrison, but that's never been more than that - an assumption based on a few period photos. The army intention for the weapon, as printed in spec, was that it be used in a scenario where enemy Cavalry breach the line and defending cannoneers use the swords to break the shins of the horses and afterwards perhaps dispatch the fallen rider. That is not a heavy artillery scenario.

Enlighten.

- Dan Wykes

[sedlakchristopher]

Re: Artillery short sword

Can you imagine having to break the shins of a oncoming horse with a short sword!
My god....
I haven't seen any photographic evidence of them in field units, but i am VERY interested in what your thread reveals.
I have wondered about the same questions you have raised. Why were they around into 63 if there was no use for them.

Good luck...

Chris Sedlak
Iron City Guards aka
Battery G - 1st PA Light

[Jimmayo]

Re: Artillery short sword

Albaugh's "Confedederate Swords" book has them listed and states that some have been dug at battle sites.

However, it never says how many were made or issued but the prevaling thought is that they were manufactured in early war prior to determining exactly what would be needed by the armies.

I have also read where they were very used for clearing brush around the artillery position. Perhaps that is where the dug relics came from.

As for breaking the legs of charging cavalry horses, the same nitwit in the war department probably came up with that use and in the next breath said repeating rifles were no good because the ammunition would be used up too quick.

There is already a thread discussing the carrying of sidearms by artillery on the forum. Do a search for artillery and sidearm. The result of this thread was that not many sidearms were carried and those that were carried were used for shooting wounded battery horses.

[Danny]

Re: Artillery short sword

Good points.

It could also be said though that what nitwit would let cannoneers carry loaded pistols around the limber, let alone the tube, when powder charges or fused shells are being hastily forwarded to the piece.

Reenactment units today, the ones concerned with safety anyway, discourage pistoleers near the piece (though line officers typically have pistols in holster, and even gunners, corporals and sargeants. I assume that is an authentic practice, but maybe it should be challenged). I understand that in a typical Battery there were privates assigned to flank duty with rifles.

Today we feel that, obviously, pistols are more effective against carbine and pistol-armed enemy cavalry. But if you think about it short swords carry no risk of setting off a charge accidentally or prematurely, hence there was some reasoning that cannoneers carry short swords instead, at least the ones who don't have a rammer or other implement with which to defend at close quarters.

The damn things are heavy though and I'm not sure many cannoneers on the piece wanted to deal with them -- after all the primary defense against enemy cavalry is the big gun. One could reason then the the short swords were not on belts but leaning or laying nearby the limber in battle. Photos were not taken of actual battle but only of posed units in Battery, so the short swords weren't in evidence otherwise, hence we deduce they weren't used.

- Danny

[Dignann]

Re: Artillery short sword

It could also be said though that what nitwit would let cannoneers carry loaded pistols around the limber, let alone the tube, when powder charges or fused shells are being hastily forwarded to the piece.

But if you think about it short swords carry no risk of setting off a charge accidentally or prematurely, hence there was some reasoning that cannoneers carry short swords instead, at least the ones who don't have a rammer or other implement with which to defend at close quarters.

True, perhaps for us today, but our ideas of safety are much different than theirs. With enemy shot and shell flying in and around a battery, or small arms fire should the enemy get close enough, I doubt very much that the potential danger of your own side arm setting off a charge was much of a consideration.

One place to check would be the National Archives. I know very little of artillery records, but if short swords were issued, would they not show up on ordnance returns and requistions? Has anyone seen short swords listed in these types of documents?

Eric

[boozie]

Re: Artillery short sword

"The Complete Civil War" by Philip Katcher 1992

Artillery Weapons-Personal Weapons page 68

"The U.S. Army also obtained 2,152 foot artillery swords. These were designed to be carried by artillerymen who manned the large pices usually used in fortifications. The M 1832 foot artillery sword was probably the greatest waste of material and money of any weapon issued by either army - and both issued versions of this sword. It was desigined after a French version of the Roman short sword, with a 19 inch blade, 1 3/8 inches wide at the hilt. It had an all - brass hilt with grips moulded to look like eagle feathers, and a pommel stamped with an eagle and shield. The scabbard was of black leather with brass mountings.

Both types of this sword were designed to serve as personal defence weapons in case of the battery or fort being overrun. In fact, the revolver would be a superior weapon in thay event, and revolvers were widely carried by cannoneers on both sides. Sheath knives worn from the belt were useful, not only as personal defence weapons but for camp duties as well."


According to the "U.S. Ordnance Manual 1861", the following swords were regulation:

Cavalry saber 43.25 Overall length in scabbard
Light Cavalry saber 42.35
Light Artillery saber 38.6
FOOT ARTILLERY SWORD 26.0
Non-Com. Sword 38.75
Musician's sword 32.75

Artillery, Infantry, and Foot Rifleman, except the field officers-the sword of the pattern adopted by the War Department, Aprial 9, 1850.
The sword and sword-belt will be worn upon all occasions of duty, without exception.

[sigsaye]

Re: Artillery short sword

For what it's worth, according the the book "Civil War Small Arms of the Navy and Marines", between 1862 and 1863, about 1000 of these swords were collected from the Artillery and turned over to the Navy to out fit the gunboats of the Mississippi Squadron, to make up for the shortage of standard Naval cutlass'. In the OR(N) somplace is a copy of an order from Rosecrans directing this to be done.

The Short Sword is the same design as the Navys Ames Model 1841 cutlass exept that the lower cross guard of the cutlass has been extended into a strap hand guard. I have several photos of Sailors on Gunboats wearing the Army short sword on watch. Interestingly enough, there were also a number of cavelry sabers turned over to the Navy for the same reason. Some pikes were also found and turned over.

Steve Hesson

[Fenianboy]

Re: Artillery short sword

My quess is that these things drew more blood in the hands of John Brown's sons then in the entire War. Bud Scully 13th NJ and 69th NY

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

Can we review, just one more time, why it is Artillery swords are such poor stepchildren in authentic reenactment? As in "don't do it - they weren't used"

- Dan Wykes

I think we have all heard people 'disrespecting' the artillery short sword, and saying that it doesn't belong in an authentic reenactment. It is hard to picture what the purpose of the short sword was, or what real utility it ever had, looking back on it from today. Even for clearing brush, the sword's usual stated purpose,there are better implements. And, as noted by other posters, a revolver is a far better personal sidearm. However, the sword was purchased and issued by the army well into the war, and remains a piece of history nonetheless.

How bad would it be to have one show up in a reenenactment? I think wearing one on one's person would be somehwhat odd, as we have no solid photographic evidence that they were actually worn. However, having one hanging from the limber may be OK, just there as an extra tool. It would just be a bit of history to round out the limber display. I think this would be appropriate for an LH or educational event particularly, where one fields questions from event attendees.

What's the thought here? Have I set off the Farb-O-Meter?

[Jimmayo]

Re: Artillery short sword

However, having one hanging from the limber may be OK, just there as an extra tool. It would just be a bit of history to round out the limber display. I think this would be appropriate for an LH or educational event particularly, where one fields questions from event attendees.

What's the thought here? Have I set off the Farb-O-Meter?

Not at all. If they were used for clearing brush they would have been a tool and carried on the limber or in a battery wagon. I think it would make a good display and explenation of it's use to spectaters would be interesting.

[James Brenner]

Re: Artillery short sword

If a discussion of the short sword is used in conjunction with a talk on coehorn mortars, then it would be okay to have a short sword nearby. If a short sword is used in a discussion of field/mounted/horse/flying artillery, then it's a stretch. Any supposition that it was used for "clearing brush" would beg the question: didn't the battery have axes in the travelling forge?

[Tom Ezell]

Re: Artillery short sword

The obvious answer is that these things were issued because they were on the battery's TO&E, and the battery commander was signed for them, so the cannoneers damned well better keep track of them. When you've got a cannon, a copy of a Roman short sword ain't worth much.

When I was a battery commander in an M109A3 155mm battalion, they issued us bayonets for the same reason. We put them in a footlocker in the arms room, and unlocked it only for the quarterly inventories. I surmise that my counterparts of the 1860s may have done the same thing.

[James Brenner]

Re: Artillery short sword

I did the same thing with the bayonets in my battery (M109A1).

The TO&E of a field artillery battery in the 1860s called for M1840 artillery sabers. The BC was pecuniarily liable for them. John Tidball's memoirs include a passage about battery commanders either securing the sabers in the limber chests to prevent them from getting lost or declaring them lost in action so they're relieved of responsibility. The point is that, in at least one regular army battery, the sabers were a useless encumberance.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Artillery short sword

Hallo!

Not hijacking the thread, too much, but...
Herr Jim! Are you still in Iraq these daze?

Curt

[Danny]

Re: Artillery short sword

Re

If a discussion of the short sword is used in conjunction with a talk on coehorn mortars, then it would be okay to have a short sword nearby. . .

Isn't a Coehorn a small (transported on wagon but four-man field carry) mortar used by infantry for siege purposes? My understanding it was not used by Artillery units in particular. Short swords were issued to Artillery, so if a discussion of the short sword is used in conjuction with a talk on Coehorn mortars, then it would NOT be okay to have a short sword nearby.

If you propose that the swords likely found their way around the rest of the Army as they were cast off by the Artillery I guess that makes it work.

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