Artillery short sword

[roundshot]

Re: Artillery short sword

You mean packin' heat like this #1 cannoneer from Knap's Battery?

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

Danny,

I think you summed up this thread pretty well in your well-written post. There may be some argument against having any rifles on-hand, but not from me. I find the idea suspect, but can't say anything with certainty. I still wonder what the men were armed with when told to stand watch on the horses, or some such, but I haven't found any definitive answer. There is an earlier thread (search 'artillery' and 'sidearms') which talks at length on what sidearms artillerymen might have had. There is certainly no doubt some men wore pistols, as in the photo from Knap's Battery , but probably not to the extent that we should consider wearing a pistol to be encouraged in an artillery inpression. Outside of the occasional officer or NCO, I would not like to see too many gunners packing heat. Moderation in all things, as they say - a whole battery of pistol-packing, short- sword-wielding gunners would look like the barbarians in the Capitol One commercial ( "What's in your wallet?") .

I think the best point you make is to document use of any implement, sword, rifle, etc. by your heritage battery. Hey, if you find some inventory list, etc. for your battery which lists short swords then you should have a short sword in your battery gear, but I wouldn't equip the whole outfit with them. Same with rifles, carbines, pistols, sabers, etc. Same with uniforms, too, of course.

[vamick]

Re: Artillery short sword

" I still wonder what the men were armed with when told to stand watch on the horses, or some such,"

Why of course! they stood guard with 'canister'! held in their hands with a match handy!!!!


"There is an earlier thread (search 'artillery' and 'sidearms') which talks at length on what sidearms artillerymen might have had. There is certainly no doubt some men wore pistols, as in the photo from Knap's Battery "

Ahh but there is !!! with a whole lotta 'modern re-enactors' so much so that I consider it a 're-enactorism'..as Ive said before ( on that other thread I believe) I WILL believe the words of the men themselves not wether its "PEC" NEC" "NYUK" or other such nonclature and as clearly stated in "Galloping Thunder" by the men themselves at least in horse arty, sabres AND/OR pistols werent a strange sight among enlisted men, non coms or drivers! full stop! a pistol sure beats a sharp stick on guard duty, a carbine or 'musketoon' would be even better! it was WAR gentlemen and any gentleman going to war had better think about floating his own boat if necessary, personally if I were a cook,horse holder, or latrine digger Id feel a whole lot better with a firearm stuck somewhere issued er not and if it came down to weight others things would get the heave ho ( better to have two canteens and double ammo than a full haversack and a rock) I dont think we can go wrong listening to the men themselves, and or unit issue specfics, altho that last one is sometimes unavailable

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

" I still wonder what the men were armed with when told to stand watch on the horses, or some such,"

Why of course! they stood guard with 'canister'! held in their hands with a match handy!!!!


"There is an earlier thread (search 'artillery' and 'sidearms') which talks at length on what sidearms artillerymen might have had. There is certainly no doubt some men wore pistols, as in the photo from Knap's Battery "

I hear you, loud and clear, no argument from me. I think the issue is not that some men had pistols, there is ample evidence to support that. Many men bought their own pistols, we know that. Of course, anyone would choose a revolver , over a just about anything, to protect oneself, or the horse, etc. I read the other thread and was citing the photo of Knap's battery only because it's in this thread and to acknowledge the poster. I think the question as a living historian/reenactor for artillery is about how prevelant sidearms should be in a unit impression. How many men should have pistols? Just NCOs? How many sabers? How many short swords, if any?

I'm only thinking of my own psyche here: I'd love a valid excuse to get a nice black powder revolver. Shoot, it's the only legal handgun in the District. I haven't been able to convince myself I need one yet, and I'm pretty easy compared to some folks when it comes to convincing.

What I don't want is to justify something because I want it. Let's think about how we can fit sidearms into an artillery impression, and get some feedback.

[marine05]

Re: Artillery short sword

Lawrence and all,

Not stating either way, soldiers carry some of the wierdest things if they believe them to be useful. A little historical perspective, not ACW, but WWII. A former Marine, was a Raider, did the Makin Island raid and was finally wounded on Iwo Jima, he stated that many Marines had picked up pistols, whether m1911, .38s or Japanese ones. They stuffed them into their packs, blouses or anywhere else they could carry them. He did state they never cleaned them so he was always a little wary of whether or not it would fire if he needed it. He was plenty pissed when he woke up on a hospital ship and some low-life had taken his pistol!

You may all ask what does this have to do with the thread, point is you will not find much, if any, official documentation about Marine riflemen carrying pistols, but if you listen to many of the veterans they did. So in the ACW were artillerymen issued swords, and firearms, in some cases yes, especially drivers, NCOs and officers. Is there potential that cannoneers picked them up too? Check. But let me share something else, in the Gulf, as an officer I was issued a sidearm, when out on the roads I checked out a M-16. The pistol is considered a personal defense weapon, my belief as a former infantryman was if I have to use a pistol as a personal defense weapon we're in a world of hurt. I wanted to reach out and touch them first. I would imagine it was much the same with artillerymen and officers, if they have to use their sidearms then there is "danger close" and time for the battery to limber up. A smattering of small arms in a battery are no match for an infantry line of battle. If I saw that in front of me I'd say "Its been nice knowin' you fellas" just prior to firing a dose of double cannister in the infantry's faces!

Too bad we can't talk to some of those vets that we seek to emulate, the same as we can still talk to a few WWI vets, what they could tell us.

Ah the smell of gunpowder in the morning especially as the smoke rolls back over you!!! I like it better than the smell of coffee!

s/f

DJM

[Johan Steele]

Re: Artillery short sword

Show me a pic, sketch or written reference to men of the Lt Arty carrying, Arty short sword, sabre, pistol, carbine etc and mayhaps my opinion of some on the modern Inf wannabes in the Lt Arty will be changed.

Short sword... any reference to a unit defending their guns w/them?

Pistols... references where a battery was defended w/ them?

Carbines... those are inventoried items; they are listed on battery inventory. 1-2 per battery. References of them being used to defend the battery? The gun was the main weapon of the Lt arty.

Pvt w/ a pistol defending the horses when a line of inf comes through the trees... a sharp stick or canister w/ a match might just be more useful than a colt... discretion is the better part of valor.

Research, not by gosh and by golly please.

On the note of WWII. This summer I had the pleasure of speaking w/ a WWII veteran at a Living History. I was quite pleased to hear him say ..."you look like soldiers and not actors." He then mentioned his disgust at going to an event where the men were portraying his unit and a battle in which he had received the bronze star. He offered to show the men portraying his unit how to wear some of their gear as he and his men had. He was rebuffed by a man telling him how it was actually worn.

CDV's, the words of the men, official reports. They are out there and yes I've even seen an account where a man in the arty was carrying a pistol. An NSSA man showed me a CDV w/ two arty short swords... one stuck in the ground on each side of the gun as a marker of some sort.

Yes there are references out there but I do not believe them to be Period Everyday Correct. Specific impression of a specific unit with specific documentation; yes.

[vamick]

Re: Artillery short sword

Try "Galloping Thunder" by James Trout, its a great study of the Stuart horse artillery in the ANV and is chock full of first person accounts/letters/diarys of the cannoneers. I referenced it freely in a former thread dealing with this subject that appears lost now on my third reading I started pulling out quotes dealing with privates/noncoms ect armed with pistols/sabres ect, and if memory serves there were 6/7 book wide dealing specifically with pistols and sabres, and a few more dealing with cannoneers joining in cavalry charges ect...now...sometimes there were specifics that a pistol was a battlefield pickup ( one that I remember where a gunsargent 'aquired' a couple of brand new navy colts at a Shenandoah river ford picket action) you'll have to read the book, and an excellant book it is with so much personal info I had to read it mulitiple times..and this is also dealing with horse artillery, which was basically cavalry guns..and not 'field' or 'light' artillery...but to me the slippery slope is our modern day adamant 'knowing' that such and such 'never' occured in numbers...tho I think we're safe in assuming that about Jaguar breeches!
now..onward

"discretion is the better part of valor."

I wouldnt try telling that to NB Forrest! nor..James Breathed for that matter:D

"Carbines... those are inventoried items; they are listed on battery inventory. 1-2 per battery. References of them being used to defend the battery? The gun was the main weapon of the Lt arty."

inventories that often are not extant today, and also its imnportant to point out that I am speaking of Southern horse artillery and ANV

"Pistols... references where a battery was defended w/ them?"

as has been stated previously by our Marine gunner, and especially with horse arty, if the 'battery' is 'defended' with pistols, yer in a world of hurt, and like those 500 Spartans, I raise my glass to you...'defending a battery' with small arms isnt really the point, its defending ones person, plus guard activities, if a 'line of infantry' came thru the trees I'd much rather have a 'private' armed with a pistol pecking away at them ( while making a not so orderly withdrawl no doubt:D ) than just giving them my guns!, maybe that "private" with his audacity could buy the time needed to turn and load ..no double load a gun and save the day! audacity whilst scared ****less has done that before, maybe that private needs a promotion, and he can "drink from my canteed anyday"

short swords?...cant help ya there
no by gosh and by golly here...and no foregone modernday deskjet conclusions either...research on going! read that book..but it doesnt matter any way 're-enactorisms' are hard to die...wouldnt tha ole bhoys be amused at us??:p

no infantry wannabee here..nor "wannabee" anything
I AM..by all means continue to believe and act as you will,
the sight of dozens of men running around all armed with 2 er 3 pistols each is only a lil more un authenic, as that same sight without even a penknife available....and when yer 'primary weapon' disappears when some valorous 'non discrectionary' gentleman pokes a smokewagon in yer ear
you can consider yerself..a prisoner:D

[dclarry]

Artillery short sword, sabers, pistols, etc.

Dan and Johan,

I have to apologize for probably dragging this thread out longer than it may have needed to be. This topic has been covered in detail before (see "Sidearms and Cannoneers" thread), and starter of this thread (Mr. Wykes) noted he was revisiting the topic when he brought up the artillery short sword. I know the conventional wisdom is that sidearms generally do not belong in an authentic artillery impression. This is because sidearms are not known to be common in artillery units, based on writings, photos, or battery inventories/turn-in lists. In particular, sidearms were not common among the lower ranks, although known to be worn by some NCOs and officers. Pistols, carbines, etc. were definitely not issued to artillery lower ranks. I could have let this go by just quoting the conventional wisdom and moved on.

So why didn't I? This was me trying to be "inclusive", perhaps as a result of recent "sensitivity" training. Afterall, my nickname at the office is "Dr. No" for always saying something is out of the question. :) I wanted to leave open the idea that there was some way one could include an artillery short sword in one's impression in an authentic manner. I was trying not to just say "No" , but instead open up discussion. Also, pistols and swords are cool.

In the end, the consensus of this thread matches the older thread and recapitulates the conventional wisdom: sidearms do not belong in a generic authentic artillery impression, with the possible exception of officers and NCOs. Portrayal of specific units with sidearms depends on the supporting documentation.

Well, except for the swords worn by the officers, there is not a single sidearm of any kind in the photos of original Battery F members in the unit history. So, I guess I can't justify that black powder revolver afterall. The District will have one less gun.

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

My last post must have crossed with Gary's.

I've got read that book!

[vamick]

Re: Artillery short sword

"He then mentioned his disgust at going to an event where the men were portraying his unit and a battle in which he had received the bronze star. He offered to show the men portraying his unit how to wear some of their gear as he and his men had. He was rebuffed by a man telling him how it was actually worn."


VIOLLA!....my point exactly, can you see how that might happen ( given twisted laws of time and space of course:D )
with us modern day yanks and rebs??....research can only be done on researchable material, so much is gone...especially on the Southern side that there are 'grey areas' (pun intended) so we shoot for the middle position.
the arty short sword is just one such area, an unweildy weapon to be sure, how, where was it really used?..we just arent sure! I think of that when I look on the wall at my 1864 ames sabre, was it used by feds er CONfeds?, when was the last time it tasted blood?, whos'? there are slight file marks still visable near the tip.."but they didnt sharpen their sabres" ( I call BS!:D ) thers so many lil details we may never know, until that day we may get to compare notes with the men themselves.

[vamick]

Re: Artillery short sword, sabers, pistols, etc.

"Well, except for the swords worn by the officers, there is not a single sidearm of any kind in the photos of original Battery F members in the unit history. So, I guess I can't justify that black powder revolver afterall. The District will have one less gun."[/QUOTE]

awww get it anyway, hide it in yer bedroll, and dream of promotion!:D .....ya might just stall tha devil with it and save yer pieces one dark night!

and you've got all winter long to defarb it too!:)

[Danny]

Re: Artillery short sword

Good discussion, but just note the "reenactorisms" on both sides in this case.

I realize it's awkward for us today but it can't be helped that artillery short swords were manufactured until mid-war and were standard issue even up to 1873. Even the Southerns went out of their way to make their own exact copies and issue them. All this for (what we think today) a useless item that we guess only filled the inventory register. The swords are today dug from battlefield sites Eastern, Western and Southern, and are not particularly rare. (A dug pistol or carbine brings a much higher price today, as if they were more rare).

It's quite clear from the discussion then, that barring actual evidence that short swords, pistols and carbines were NOT used, it's just as valid to use them occasionally in Battery. I don't want to justify anything - I don't bring my short sword to the field - but I think it's a reenactorism to try so hard to keep them off the field. To put it in perspective, isn't the ratio of officers to enlisted a bigger reenactorism? Yet addressing that, with the actual evidence we have to back it up, would greatly improve the impression.

As an aside, the reliance on a photographic record to establish if an item was in use or non-use during battle is shakey, because no photo was taken during combat. They were posed before or after.

I think the comment about a man protecting Battery resources behind the line with canister and a match a good point, once you get past the humor of it.

- Dan Wykes

[roundshot]

Re: Artillery short sword

Just for pure deviltry, here's a cameo of ANOTHER #1 from Knap's Battery that seems to be carrying. And the master photo of Knap's Battery at Antietam is as good a pic as we have of a Federal Battery in the field. Why only the #1's? Go figure.

[vamick]

Re: Artillery short sword

Good discussion, but just note the "reenactorisms" on both sides in this case.

"I realize it's awkward for us today but it can't be helped that artillery short swords were manufactured until mid-war and were standard issue even up to 1873. Even the Southerns went out of their way to make their own exact copies and issue them. All this for (what we think today) a useless item that we guess only filled the inventory register."

AMEN..it IS interesting isnt it?..why in tha wide world of sports would Southern armories, even in those early heady days bother turning out a 'useless' weapon...no photographic evidence of dinosaurs either!..till their bones were dug

"It's quite clear from the discussion then, that barring actual evidence that short swords, pistols and carbines were NOT used, it's just as valid to use them occasionally in Battery."

yes 'ocasionally' I agree, depending on unit ect. it might even be an envelope pushing *gasp* daring thing to do!:D



"I don't want to justify anything - I don't bring my short sword to the field - but I think it's a reenactorism to try so hard to keep them off the field. To put it in perspective, isn't the ratio of officers to enlisted a bigger reenactorism? "

boy thats tha truth nothing like a major commanding a section with two first sargents on tha front and 1st and second lieutants manning #s 3 and 4!:p


"As an aside, the reliance on a photographic record to establish if an item was in use or non-use during battle is shakey, because no photo was taken during combat. They were posed before or after.

I think the comment about a man protecting Battery resources behind the line with canister and a match a good point, once you get past the humor of it."

- Dan Wykes

and lets think about that last one..I'll grant ya that the average battery wasnt a powerhouse of small arms..BUT NEITHER were they naked!....if a picket on artillery is overwhelmed by a vast force of infantry, or even ( but more understandable because of their speed of movement) cav...then those guns were picketed wrong!..those pickets, videttes, what have you arent within sight of the campfires sitting astride their pieces, they should be a closer to a half mile to mile down the road...but maybe theres a use for that canister and match...sure would keep one vigilant on a dark rainy night making sure yer guns AND yer cajonies didnt end up a trophy for yer enemies wouldnt it?...now wheres that holler log I saw 'fore dark?..Im gonna whip up a "CW field expediant laws rocket"!!:wink_smil

[Forquer]

Re: Artillery short sword

I think the emphasis on security of an artillery camp is being misplaced. If you look through the manuals, there is nothing printed about artillery pickets. The 1862 Army Officer addresses the situation thus in Article 53, pages 123 & 124:

"The artillery is encamped near the troops to which it is attached, so as to be protected from attack, and to contribute to the defence of the camp. Sentinels for the park are furnished by the artillery, and, when necessary, by other troops."

Note that the passage says "sentinels for the PARK." Nothing is said about perimeter security or pickets. Point is, the artillery is camped with folks who have small arms (at least they'd better be) and can do their job long enough to allow the artillerymen to get things together and do their jobs. That would be either support an active defense or get their pieces ready to bug out. A battery of artillery has too many men who have other jobs to do. Does this mean that there were no smalll arms drawn for the rank and file in an artillery unit? No. But in a battery of 100-120 men, a few carbines or rifles, or pistols would be like trying to put a small band-aid on a slit juggular. As an artillery commander I would want my troops where they are most effective, not plinking away to little effect.