Artillery short sword

[Johan Steele]

Re: Artillery short sword

I was speaking to an NSSA gunner and he mentioned another use of the arty short sword was to be used in assisting to spike the guns if neccesarry. It did not click right away and I did not think to ask. How in the blue blazes would one use a short sword to assist in spiking guns?

[LWhite64]

Re: Artillery short sword

Just to add to the cases of the artillery short swords, I know of 1 that was found at Chickamauga, and then two from Missionary Ridge, one of which was a CS manufactured one. In regards to the spiking, I would imagine that it was used like a hammer.

Lee

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: Artillery short sword

Three CS made sword hilts have been found along the Cape Fear in recent years; two from Fisher, one from Sugar Loaf. Pictures of the later are forthcoming.

[sedlakchristopher]

Re: Artillery short sword

I hate to add to the plethora of posts, BUT
Just so happens I received the Photographic History of the Civil War for Christmas, the one from the 1980's edited by Bell I. Wiley...

Just happened to turn to a photo of two artillerymen in 1862 both wearing the short sword by the gun. I will get a page number asap, if some of you have it, it's about a third of the way in.

I'm not saying it was used to any extent, and agree that we all shouldn't go out and buy them tomorrow because of one picture.

[sedlakchristopher]

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."

Previous post by Patrick Flint



This is the same photo I just posted about that is in the "Photographic History of the Civil War"

[boozie]

Re: Artillery short sword

Just to add to the cases of the artillery short swords, I know of 1 that was found at Chickamauga, and then two from Missionary Ridge, one of which was a CS manufactured one. In regards to the spiking, I would imagine that it was used like a hammer.

Lee

Lee,

Just out of curiosity, upon examination of the three artifacts, were there any marks, nicks, etc. Just wondered if they showed any type of abuse by being used, or misused as a tool ? It does not matter to me either way, just wanted to know what the staffs notations were of the short swords that were found.

Thanks,

[roundshot]

Re: Artillery short sword

Good Lord. Here's a group violation of PEC by none other than the US Regular horse artillery. Count the sabers visible on all ranks in this photograph taken on the Peninsula in 1862.

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

Good Lord. Here's a group violation of PEC by none other than the US Regular horse artillery. Count the sabers visable on all ranks in this photograph taken on the Peninsula in 1862.

I've seen this photo before and did not notice the sabers on all ranks. It is noted that this is horse artillery. Previous posts have noted a possible difference in armament between horse artillery and light artillery.

What do we think, were horse artillery issued sabers at all ranks?

(Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question)

[Forquer]

Re: Artillery short sword

I've seen this photo before and did not notice the sabers on all ranks. It is noted that this is horse artillery. Previous posts have noted a possible difference in armament between horse artillery and light artillery.

What do we think, were horse artillery issued sabers at all ranks?

(Forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question)

Lawrence -

Horse Artillery and Mounted Artillery are both classified as Light Artillery. As I believe I stated way up the list, the 1840 Light Artillery Saber was the issue sidearm for the branch.

Officer's had to buy their own.

I've always loved this image. It shows a very heavy use of sack coats in the ranks (but that's another thread).

[Danny]

Re: Artillery short sword

... 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 jugular. As an artillery commander I would want my troops where they are most effective, not plinking away to little effect.

I understand the point, but this is the sort of reenactorism I referred to earlier; the tendency to establish a practice based on an "obvious" solution to a scenario we construct today. We're all guilty of it, it's hard not to do it. Yet "obvious" works both ways. It could be that: "As an Artillery commander I want to ensure my troops are adequately protected, so I equip and post my own guards as necessary."

As far as the "plinking away to little effect" comment; there's no reason to belittle that an Artillerist would be posted for guard duty. They would be as effective and in control as any other soldier posted for guard duty. They are there for initial challenge, armed exclusion, and to alert - that's not "little effect".

As I suggested earlier, it seems much effort goes into excluding swords and pistols from the ranks, a minor issue if there ever was one, and yet little effort to properly ratio officers to enlisted, a major reenactorism on par with fat and old.

- Dan Wykes

[Forquer]

Re: Artillery short sword

Mr. Wykes -

Don't think for a minute that I discount the importance of a camp guard. It's a poor excuse of a commander who doesn't see to the establishment of one.

Where the confusion (as I see it) is coming is the implication that has been made previously that light artillerymen armed and posted pickets, and posted flank security, etc. There's a world of difference between having the assets available to provide for security and the assets available to make for a defense.

According to Billings in the chapter titled "A Day in Camp," he says "The guard necessary in a single company of artillery was so small that the call with the bugle was rarely if ever sounded, at least in volunteer companies. A detail of cannoneers stood guard over guns night and day, and over the cook-houses and quartermaster's stores at night, and sometimes there was one posted in front of company headquarters. A detail of drivers, also, went on duty at night at the picket-rope, to assure that the horses were kept tied and not stolen by marauding cavalrymen." Sadly, Mr. Billings doesn't go into detail on how, or if, a guard detail was armed. There is an accompanying sketch (that I know is not reliable) that shows guards on the picket line carrying the light artillery saber.

I'm also in posession of the transcribed diary of a private in the 16th Ohio Battery, that served in Missouri. Unfortunately, the only mention of guard duty is when he writes "on guard duty." He cites on June 11, 1862 that he purchased a pistol. He cites on June 14th that he sold same. Can we surmise from this that he was issued a hogleg and just wanted to pack more heat, or that he wasn't issued a pistol and wanted to pack heat? Bottom line is we don't know. I believe the general concensus and conventional wisdom is that if you're going to err, err on the side of caution.

As to the problems of TBG's, overkill on rank, improper force ratios, bad galtroops, Irish harps, Masonic emblems, etc., we're all ears on how to cure the problems.

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

Lawrence -

Horse Artillery and Mounted Artillery are both classified as Light Artillery. As I believe I stated way up the list, the 1840 Light Artillery Saber was the issue sidearm for the branch.

Officer's had to buy their own.

I've always loved this image. It shows a very heavy use of sack coats in the ranks (but that's another thread).

Thanks, Greg.

I think what I wanted to do was draw the distinction between artillery that accompanied cavalry, all men mounted, and artillery which accompanied infantry, where drivers were mounted but the men rode in wagons, on limbers, etc. I think I should have said 'flying' artillery, instead of horse artillery. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe flying artillery was different with regard to sidearms in the ranks, I don't know. Feedback here would be welcome.

It was camp security, not defense, that I was talking about when I asked how artillerymen were armed when on guard duty. Your post of Billing's description of guard duty is what I was thinking about. I'm not sure much in the way of a sidearm is needed for such duty, but we don't really know what was done. I am with you on erring on the side of caution and simplicity.

Like a said in a previous post, I don't object to pistols and sidearms in artillery units, I just want to do it right. That's why I like this forum, we can try and decide what was right at least as far as as we can know. This has been a good discussion and this thread has over a thousand views, so it is also must be interesting to the general forum community, as well.

[James Brenner]

Re: Artillery short sword

You're right ... this is a good thread. If you've not read William Birkhimer's, Historical Sketch of the Organization, Administration, Materiel, and Tactics of the Artillery of the United States, I recommend that you do. It was reprinted several years ago, but is now out of print. A quick search of Abebooks showed a couple copies available, ranging in price between $65 and $165. It's also available through Interlibrary Loan.

Anyway, Birkhimer defines field or light artillery as of two types: mounted and dismounted. Mounted artillery is essentially horse artillery, in which everyone rode horses and the battery accompanied the cavalry. Flying artillery is a throwback to Ringgold's battery of the Mexican War. Even though the name suggests that all the cannoneers were mounted, they weren't. Ringgold's battery was really a dismounted battery since the cannonneers walked next to the pieces, except when the situation demanded that they ride on the chests. In the accounts of the battle at Palo Alto, Ringgold's battery seemed to be everywhere on the battlefield, showing up where they were most needed, as if they flew there. Without going into too much background, US field artillery up until that time did not have horses (too expensive). Secretary of War Poinsett ordered two batteries from each regiment mounted while the rest of the regiment served as seacoast/garrison artillery. This act gave the field artillery a degree of battlefield mobility that it hadn't had before.


Changing the subject, somewhere, I have a transcript of John Tidball's memoirs. It's rather lengthy, but one chapter goes into detail about who carried what sidearms and who didn't. Once I find it, I'll post that chapter. BTW, the original is in the Ft. Sill archives.

[dclarry]

Re: Artillery short sword

Thank you, James, for the book recommendation and possible future posts of the transcript of John Tidball's memoirs.

[Lazarus Driver]

Re: Artillery short sword

I have to disagree with how Birkhimer defines mounted and horse artilllery.
Looking at Andrews' Mounted Artillery Drill page nine he defines it as the following
"Horse Artillery, which is generally attached to and manoeuvers with cavalry, the cannoneers being mounted on horseback, and Mounted Artillery, which is generally attached to and manoeuvers with infantry, the cannoneers marching at the sides of their pieces, or, when necessary, mounting the ammunition chests."
Look on page one of Instruction for Field Artillery (French, Barry, Hunt) and you will read the same thing. I think I will go with how it is defined in the period manuals.

I will also add this to the discussion since sabers have been included.
Page 166 section 442 Instruction for Field Artillery
"In mounted batteries the cannoneers wear sabre belts only, the sabres being carried on the ammunition chests. The drivers, and in horse artillery, the cannoneers also, wear their sabres, unless special directions are given to the contrary."

Bill Thomas
Driver
Lazarus Battery