Gel'in

[mt155]

Time for another goofy "what if"

What if the south, say Jackson's foot cavalry, had a good solid pair of hiking boots (for everyone), and on top of that they were all gel'in with Dr. Scholls inserts. Assuming that they could march faster and longer what effect would this have if any.

Mike T.

[blue_zouave]

Wouldn't work, they'd all be to mellow to fight, and say "whatever," and go get some Starbucks.



Zou

[Elennsar]

Well, the marches in the Valley Campaign, which were brutally hard on his troops, would be easier. Thusly, he'd have more troops available. Would he accomplish more? I don't think so...but its possible.

After that, it depends on how the campaigns go.

Definately would make life a lot easier, but it alone might not be enough for a significant effect.

Too many other logistical problems for this alone to turn the war around.

Give me a specific scenario with it at work and I can give you a better answer.

[cw1865]

I actually saw this crazy show where a guy (fairly bright guy) basically opines that the human foot is ideally suited for walking and that shoes are counterproductive.

ASSUMING everything he says is true, then theoretically the barefoot soldiers in the Civil War were better off without them?

I doubt it.....but to answer this one, you would need to know the 'foot attrition' rate. How many men were out of action because they couldn't walk? How many men deserted because they were just fed up walking barefoot?

Difficult to answer those questions from 2008.

[timewalker]

Interesting that I was just reading today in Glatthaar's General Lee's Army that a significant portion of the attrition of the AoNV going into Maryland before Antietam was because the men had no shoes. A number of the troops had blisters on both the tops and bottoms of their feet: the bottoms from walking without shoes, the tops because without shoes the tops of their feet got sunburned. Speaking as someone who has actually had the top of his feet sunburned, it is very painful.

So perhaps with decent shoes, Lee has significantly more troops at Antietam.

[Elennsar]

Perhaps. Lee's logistical situation in general in that campaign was full of more holes than a slice of swiss cheese as of that campaign.

He had somewhere around at most sixty thousand men when he decided to march North.

He had forty thousand odd at Antietam. Not counting one brigade of under a thousand men (perhaps six hundred) at Harper's Ferry and artillery (perhaps six batteries, tops).

It is possible that he would have fifty thousand with good shoes, but given how bad the supply of food was...I don't think so.

I'm sure it would help. I just don't see it being enough to change things meaningfully.

The huge perk of better shoes is that that problem being solved frees up energy and trains and so on to handle the rest. That might lead to a meaningful boost.

Regarding the idea that the "human foot is ideally suited to walking"...I'll just put it this way. We invented shoes for a reason. I'm reasonably sure it was a good one.


Addition:

According to http://www.tngennet.org/civilwar/tncwindex.html these four regiments of Bushrod R. Johnston's brigade had a not inconsiderable number of men sent to the rear prio to the battle.

17th Tennessee: 371 men. The barefoot men (122 in number) were sent to the rear, thusly leaving only 249.

23rd Tennessee: 207 men. 26 barefoot men sent to the rear.

25th Tennessee: 145 men. No mention of barefoot men sent to the rear.

44th Tenneseee: 350 men. 56 barefoot men sent to the rear.

That means that out of 1073 men, 204 were sent to the rear. Nineteen percent of the brigade's strength. I do not know if this was typical, but if it was, this would mean all the men in his army having good shoes would add a considerable number of men to Bragg's army.

[5fish]

A note: Shaka Zulu trained his men in his army to march and fight in bare feet because the foot wear they had was worthless. My point being, the bottom of our feet will grow calluses thick enough to walk over anything almost. Think about our ancient forefathers, they did not have shoes only bare feet and they migrated all over the world.

If 19% of your army is shoeless would not many of them have grown calluses on the bottom of their feet.

My dad grew up with two brothers who always went bare feet once summer hit until winter and these two boys would grow these thick calluses on their feet. All they did along with my dad(Who wore shoes) was play in the mountains of PA.

I think bare feet may have been a big issue but mother nature has a solution.

[PvtClewell]

5fish makes a great point.

In another liftetime, I spent two summers of my high school years working at the community swimming pool. A lot of barefootin' goin' on. By the end of each summer, the bottoms of my feet were so calloused they were virtually impervious to stones, broken glass, weeds, asphalt, whatever.

I feel a little embarrassed that I've never taken my own personal experience in this and applied it to the civil war. Now I'm starting to think there's no big deal about barefoot confederates marching from the Rapidan to Harrisburg looking for a fight. Shoes, except in winter, might be overrated.

And a quest for shoes at Gettysburg? Sheds a whole new light on that ol' chestnut, doesn't it?

[mt155]

All very good points. Another argument for the feet growing thick skin are Jorge Posada and Moises Alou. They are two baseball players that do not wear batting gloves. Each year starting in pre season they use pickle juice and urine on their hands which hardens and thickens the skin on their hands, thus no need for batting gloves. I also recall an old WW2 GI telling the History Channel that the Army told them to urinate on their feet during showers while in the field. It is sterile, helps keep athletes foot away, and also will help the soles to become thicker. Who knew?

Mike T.

[Elennsar]

So...if all of this is true and valid and wonderful (and I'm not disputing it)...why would 19% of the men in this brigade be sent to the rear for being barefoot?

The brigade is withered down numerically badly enough as is. If it was possible to march and fight Just Fine without shoes...then why would they be sent to the rear?

Unless of course "barefoot" is a polite way of saying something else.

It might well be possible to compensate for being shoeless, but there'd be no point having shoes at all ever unless they were worth something. Waste of good leather.