Union Cavalry Comes of Age

[matthew mckeon]

I'm about halfway through "The Union Cavalry Comes of Age" by Eric Wittenberg. Good book that I would recommend. A few points that struck me.

1. The professionalism and efficiency of the Confederates during this period (1862-63), compared to the Union. It isn't "dash" or horsemanship, its knowing your job and being aggressive.

2. How small cavalry units were. A cavalry brigade had as many soldiers as an infantry regiment.

3. The poorly armed Union cavalry were, even in 1863. Horse soldiers often lacked carbines. Either entire units would have only the pistol and sabre, or only a fraction of an outfit would have carbines.

I liked that Wittenberg put his notes at the end of each chapter, by far the easiest way to review the sources and the extra information they only contain.

[larry_cockerham]

I posted earlier a reference to a history of Wilson's Cavalry, western theatre. He was appointed by Sherman to create a cavalry for Sherman's army, but was transferred to Thomas. Wilson almost started from scratch and with little actual field experience. His opponent was to be Joe Wheeler and later mostly Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest cleaned his clock in most early encounters. As time wore on, Wilson's experience and support grew exponentially. His 13-14,000 man force assembled in Waterloo-Gravelly Springs, Alabama in Feb-Mar 1865 became the largest cavalry of the war. By then he was somewhat un-opposed, the AOT had moved east. By then Forrest was but a remnant of his former strength. Wilson accepted Forrest's surrender before laying claim to Alabama and Georgia.

[SpartanGSG]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

I'm about halfway through "The Union Cavalry Comes of Age" by Eric Wittenberg. Good book that I would recommend. A few points that struck me.

1. The professionalism and efficiency of the Confederates during this period (1862-63), compared to the Union. It isn't "dash" or horsemanship, its knowing your job and being aggressive.

2. How small cavalry units were. A cavalry brigade had as many soldiers as an infantry regiment.

3. The poorly armed Union cavalry were, even in 1863. Horse soldiers often lacked carbines. Either entire units would have only the pistol and sabre, or only a fraction of an outfit would have carbines.

I liked that Wittenberg put his notes at the end of each chapter, by far the easiest way to review the sources and the extra information they only contain.

Matthew,
Let me know what you think after you have read the entire book, I've been kicking that one around picking up this book for quite awhile now - thanks.
Regards,
Spartan

[matthew mckeon]

Finished "Union Cavalry Comes of Age."

Wittenberg's main points:

In late 1862-to June of 1863, the Union Cavalry transformed itself from a amateurish, poorly drilled, armed and organized force, into a hard hitting organization ready to tangle with CS cavalry and play an effective part in the war.

1. The book covers only the Army of the Potomac's Cavalry Corps.

2. The first step in making the blue troopers into an effective force was reorganizing the horsemen into divisions and corps.

3. Many of the Union officers relentlessly drilled(esp. Buford), but the real training was in fighting Stuart's tough professional troopers.

4. There was a "chivalry" tone and vocabulary. Gallant charges and so forth. The fighting was fluid and less lethal then infantry combat, and the sabre was frequently employed, although sabre wounds were sickening.

5. After Gettysburg, Buford was to be transferred to the West to face Forrest. That classic duel was not to be when Buford died of disease.

6. What a crew some of the Union officers were. Brainless glory hound Judson Kilpatrick makes George Custer seem level headed. Caught in bed(with a woman) by a surprise attack by Wade Hampton on Kilpatrick's headquarters and he escapes by running away in his underwear. All he can think of is "there goes his promotion." During the surrender ceremony a few months later, he starts needling Hampton about losing the war. Hampton retort, "at least I never got chased out of camp in my stocking feet." Less funny are the good men killed by Kilpatrick's incompetence and headline hunting.

7. Pleasonton was a total tool. But at least he promoted aggressive commanders. But his only military skill seemed to be "a real talent for toadying."

I recommend the book, if you are interested in cavalry and a close study of cavalry operations.

[SpartanGSG]

Thanks for the comments Matthew, I'll have to give it a whirl. I also noted a very interesting component of your comments was the mention of a possible Buford-Forrest "showdown" in the west. Certainly a prime candidate for some engaging discussion over in the "What if" thread eh?
Regards,
Spartan

[custersluck13]

Matthew

Thanks for the word! My favourite study is of cavalry operations and units, blue and gray. I'll definitly pick it up. Thanks!...custersluck

[ole]

I also noted a very interesting component of your comments was the mention of a possible Buford-Forrest "showdown" in the west. Certainly a prime candidate for some engaging discussion over in the "What if" thread eh?

Buford vs. Forrest? Hmmm. Neither would know what to make of the other. History has inflated both to heroic proportions. Buford was obviously a solid commander whose 15 hours of fame appear in every one of the thousands of books published about Gettysburg.

Forrest is another whose feats have gained legendary proportions.

Just for grins, Buford would have been unable to catch Forrest and Forrest would have been wise enough to keep out of Buford's way. Nuff said?

ole