Question on Cavalry, Mounted Rifles, Mounted Infantry, Please?

The Confederates had NO remount system? That's hard to imagine. I'm certain there was always a shortage of horses, but even Braxton Bragg had to know that horses got sick and killed in battle.
NO remount system. You had to provide your own. Towards the end of (his part in) the war, even Stuart was having a hard time replacing his horses, several of which had died or were unridable due to illness, lameness, and general attrition. There were no "government" horses supplied by contractors as there were in the Union.

On March 7th, 1864, Stuart wrote to his brother, "I have had very bad luck in horses, two of my best horses took the farcy, one has died, the other I have despaired of – another died in Augusta a day or two ago which I bought from Von Borcke, & sent there to recruit, another has recovered from the farcy, while another had all its hoofs to come off & is still unserviceable. During the enemy’s late movements I had to buy another & drew on you for the am’t $1500 which is the market value of a good horse now. A.G. Mathews of Pulaski sent Gen’l Lee a very fine large sorel as a present the other day."

(When he says he sent the horse to Augusta to recruit, he means it was sent there to recuperate from hard use or illness.)
 
Last edited:
A thing about horses. A gun would take twelve horses. A battery of six guns would take 72. Add to that the farrier's wagons and the commander and staff.
 
" I'm not sure which history you found. I skimmed the Samuel Bates regimental history of the 11th PVI's 3-month and 3-year service. Your GG granduncle is mentioned on page 295. I did not see any mention of a mounted company. However, I did not have time to read all of it. You may want to take a look. The 3-year service starts on page 247. "

Dilba, whoa, ( you should excuse the pun ) thanks hugely- that's a super resource, I appreciate it! I don't think I've come across the option on an ebook before where the drop down menu allows you to choose a page- VERY nice! I'm a huge fan of Google books, what a service, but will go blind one day tooling down he longgggg pages, looking for what's needed. And thanks for David's page- huge time save!

And yes, drat it, I can't remember what on earth source I read, either- that's the problem. I HAVE read enough to know by now, or think, that it was erroneous information regardless, so probably a waste of time to keep looking. There's a now-defunct lap top with a ton of information saved on it, pretty sure it's in there somewhere. Gives me a headache just thinking about beginning to sort that whole mess through. :smile:
 
A thing about horses. A gun would take twelve horses. A battery of six guns would take 72. Add to that the farrier's wagons and the commander and staff.

Just for the record: According to U.S. regulations, each cannon, pulled by its limber was drawn by SIX horses, with an additional six attached to a second limber pulling a caisson full of ammunition. In the horse-starved Confederacy, this was usually reduced to teams of FOUR horses each, unless they were operating in really poor terrain or pulling really large and heavy cannon like twenty-pounder Parrotts.
 
Just for the record: According to U.S. regulations, each cannon, pulled by its limber was drawn by SIX horses, with an additional six attached to a second limber pulling a caisson full of ammunition. In the horse-starved Confederacy, this was usually reduced to teams of FOUR horses each, unless they were operating in really poor terrain or pulling really large and heavy cannon like twenty-pounder Parrotts.
And that makes 12 per tube -- six on the gun and six on the limber/caisson combo. And using four horses to do the work of six contributed greatly to the lack of horses in the Confederacy.
 
NO remount system. You had to provide your own. Towards the end of (his part in) the war, even Stuart was having a hard time replacing his horses, several of which had died or were unridable due to illness, lameness, and general attrition. There were no "government" horses supplied by contractors as there were in the Union.
Wow. I can understand no horses just as there were no shoes and no blankets, but no planning or system at all to supply the army with horses? It sounds like the remounts were provided by foraging parties, even parties targeting horses. Government sanctioned horse and mule theft. I can see where horse foraging could gather from a wider area than the usual parties which drove wagons into which they loaded food and fodder. Requisitioned horses can move faster.

I know that troops that overran batteries and rear areas were encouraged to destroy the enemy horses they could not bring back with them.
 
Never gave this serious thought. It's eye-popping, TWELVE horses, per? Add to each the number of men then, it would require to help maintain that kind of team, and ever deal with driving harness? One of the reasons I had zero interest in that area would be what a huge pain in the neck all of it is, and nothing works correctly unless they're all harnessed correctly, too .And not just for show, keeping leather clean and oiled- cracks and breaks otherwise, you'd lose the whole gun with no harness to pull it. I realize the men involved would have other duties as well but still- it'd be a lot of manpower.

As Ole pointed out, horses are not tough animals, also mentally not really tough, they're kind of fruitloops mostly, yes exceptions to that, always are. It's just that with an army so dependent on them, boy, must have been a constant, constant drain replacing them- especially later, for the Confederate army. Those numbers on how many it took to pull guns are astonishing, times the number of guns, then alllll the wagons, then cavalry and infantry officers- wow.
 
Just for the record: According to U.S. regulations, each cannon, pulled by its limber was drawn by SIX horses, with an additional six attached to a second limber pulling a caisson full of ammunition. In the horse-starved Confederacy, this was usually reduced to teams of FOUR horses each, unless they were operating in really poor terrain or pulling really large and heavy cannon like twenty-pounder Parrotts.

I'm not sure about that... are you maybe confusing the reduction of CS batteries to 4 guns instead of 6? As I understand it that was done as much for lack of horseflesh as lack of guns. The Arty is not my forte, I don't know.
 
I'm not sure about that... are you maybe confusing the reduction of CS batteries to 4 guns instead of 6? As I understand it that was done as much for lack of horseflesh as lack of guns. The Arty is not my forte, I don't know.

Yes, I am ( sure, that is ); I spent several years as an artillery reenactor and read a lot about it in all it's aspects. ( I even got to "ride" into one battle with 2 other gunners atop an ORIGINAL limber chest behind a trotting team, pulling an original 3" ordnance rifle - quite a rush! ) The reduction of guns in a Confederate battery to 4 along with the reduction of the number horses in the teams from 6 to 4 were all part of the same problem. OF COURSE this didn't all happen at once or by the waving of a hand; a look at the number of guns ( and therefore men and horses ) in various batteries at particular battles will show quite a diversity, but the tendency was always DOWN.

Union batteries could have similar problems, especially when on campaign in remote areas like east Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi where replacement could be sporadic/erratic. Western batteries were never so "regular" or as well-equipped as those in the Army of the Potomac, near its supply bases and the huge Washington remount depot.

Throughout the Gettysburg campaign the search for sleek, fat Pennsylvania horses was another motivating factor for the Confederates. One reason Lee was hampered by lack of cavalry at the beginning of both the Chancellorsville and Wilderness campaigns was that his mounted troops had had to be dispersed west and south of the main army in order to find forage, thus allowing Hooker and later Grant to "steal a march" on him! So you can see the inter-relation of all these factors in something so apparantly simple as a campaign or "battle".
 
Forrest's men have been described as mounted infantry even though officially cavalry because their preferred way to fight was to detail every fourth man to hold the horses while the rest fought as infantry. Wheeler used the same tactics, but in both cases, they fought on horseback if the situation called for it.
 
Forrest's men have been described as mounted infantry even though officially cavalry because their preferred way to fight was to detail every fourth man to hold the horses while the rest fought as infantry. Wheeler used the same tactics, but in both cases, they fought on horseback if the situation called for it.

Of course that's standard cavalry tactics for fighting dismounted, from Buford at Gettysburg to Custer and Reno at Little Big Horn. A more important distinction in Forrest's case was that many of his mounted men were in fact armed with infantry rifles instead of the smaller and lighter short-range carbines associated with cavalry.
 
Of course that's standard cavalry tactics for fighting dismounted, from Buford at Gettysburg to Custer and Reno at Little Big Horn. A more important distinction in Forrest's case was that many of his mounted men were in fact armed with infantry rifles instead of the smaller and lighter short-range carbines associated with cavalry.
Absolutely. I'm always amazed at the variety of weapons I come across when researching CS cavalry units at Fold3.
 
The standard cavalry arm was the saber, augmented by a pistol or two. That meant fighting close up, usually mounted. Carbines had a short range, so if a mounted unit was armed with a long rifle, that meant it had the capability to fight dismounted as infantry. Forrest's men often carried Enfield's, but they also liked shorter versions, even sawing the barrels themselves. Earlier in the war, many CS cavalry units were armed with shotguns. Not sure if they kept them as better arms became available.
 
Appreciate the reply, it's something I wasn't aware of. I have a copy of the returns for the Washington Arty somewhere that lists the amounts of horses at various times throughout the war. and compares them to , IIRC, an Illinois battery.

It is instructive of just how destructive it was in one battle for a battery to lose over 90 horses to enemy fire and explains well how they were only able to get one gun away.

Yes, I am ( sure, that is ); I spent several years as an artillery reenactor and read a lot about it in all it's aspects. ( I even got to "ride" into one battle with 2 other gunners atop an ORIGINAL limber chest behind a trotting team, pulling an original 3" ordnance rifle - quite a rush! ) The reduction of guns in a Confederate battery to 4 along with the reduction of the number horses in the teams from 6 to 4 were all part of the same problem. OF COURSE this didn't all happen at once or by the waving of a hand; a look at the number of guns ( and therefore men and horses ) in various batteries at particular battles will show quite a diversity, but the tendency was always DOWN.

Union batteries could have similar problems, especially when on campaign in remote areas like east Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi where replacement could be sporadic/erratic. Western batteries were never so "regular" or as well-equipped as those in the Army of the Potomac, near its supply bases and the huge Washington remount depot.

Throughout the Gettysburg campaign the search for sleek, fat Pennsylvania horses was another motivating factor for the Confederates. One reason Lee was hampered by lack of cavalry at the beginning of both the Chancellorsville and Wilderness campaigns was that his mounted troops had had to be dispersed west and south of the main army in order to find forage, thus allowing Hooker and later Grant to "steal a march" on him! So you can see the inter-relation of all these factors in something so apparantly simple as a campaign or "battle".
 
Last edited:
A CS battery was supposed to have 84 horses w/ a 6 gun battery but they reduced that to 72 in Oct of 62 when they reduced he number of guns per battery to 4.

Each section (2 x guns, 2 x cassions & 2 x limbers) was supposed to have 24 horses.

I'm using Wise The Long Arm of Lee, but James N. does make my returns from the Washington Arty make more sense... just wish I knew where they were. IIRC they were copies from the time of Chacellorsville +/-.

Woodruff's TN Battery had 4 guns & 56 horses at roughly the same period.

Whereas a US battery at full strength was right around 100 horses w/ those of the train included which also included a ambulance, forge & 2-3 battery wagons.
 
Last edited:
A full strength US Cav Regt was supposed to be right around 900 men & horses... operative word being supposed. By the end of the war the 1st NJ Cav was just over 100 men.

An example of how many horses a Cav unit might go through would br the 4th IA Cav which used about 5000 horses through the war. By May of 64 they received 800 fresh remounts & had received 300 replacement Cav soldiers.

A CS Cav Regt was supposed to be about the same. 7th TN Cav never fielded more than 600 men, July 10 of 64 they unit mustered 595, a week later they mustered 433. They were mauled in the Nashville campaign.
 
Last edited:
The SeventhTennessee Cavalry by Young, Ride to War; 1st NJ Cav by Pyne are both good reads referencing Cav units of the tiem... if you can find them. I was able to read both from interlibrary loan when I was living in IL... my notes are likely less than complete.
 
The standard cavalry arm was the saber, augmented by a pistol or two. That meant fighting close up, usually mounted. Carbines had a short range, so if a mounted unit was armed with a long rifle, that meant it had the capability to fight dismounted as infantry. Forrest's men often carried Enfield's, but they also liked shorter versions, even sawing the barrels themselves. Earlier in the war, many CS cavalry units were armed with shotguns. Not sure if they kept them as better arms became available.

French Arms 016A.JPG


THESE are the progenitors of American cavalry weapons: The standard French so-called "musketoons" of the Napoleonic Wars. ( Not the top one - I have yet to figure out exactly what it is, though I've owned it longest. ) I included this to show the 1898 print of French dragoons, who are armed with dragoon-pattern sabres ( like the officer's model at left ) pistols in saddle holsters, an the distinctive dragon fusil like the one second from the top; notice how it's slung on the saddle of the trooper at center waving the captured Prussian flag.

Below are better pictures of the cavalry weapons photographed outside in better light; top is the dragoon musket. The shorter shoulder arms are NOT carbines in the strict sense of the term. The French wisely standardized ALL military arms at .69 for ease of ammunition supply, a practice also adopted by the U.S. when all were smoothbores like these. These 2 were carried in exactly the same manner as our Civil War carbines, suspended from a wide leather over-the-shoulder sling by a carbine hook. The strange-looking one at bottom is NOT cut down! It's made that way to make it as LIGHT as possible and was used to arm the so-called light cavalry whose function was scouting and skirmishing. The middle arm was the most common and used to arm a wide variety of troop types. Both are short-range and difficult to load while on horseback.

The top below dragoon musket is slightly shorter than the conventional infantry musket and points up the intended difference between cavalry and dragoons: Cavalry weapons ( sabres, lances, pistols, and musketoons ) were impractical for fighting enemy infantry while dismounted. Man, horse, and weapon were considered as one! Dragoons on the other hand were like what we're calling mounted infantry here; their weapons gave them parity with infantry when fighting dismounted. American Civil War dragoons or cavalry were NOT really intended for fighting this way originally; they were thought of as scouts or glorified couriers, and that's how commanders like McClellan used them. Stuart and Morgan were forward-thinking because of their raiding which was eventually widely copied. Buford's use of his cavalry at Gettysburg comes closest ( despite his armament ) to the French concept of dragoons as mobile infantry.

French Napoleonic Cavalry Arms 006.jpg


French Napoleonic Cavalry Arms 010.jpg


Below, the primary weapon of French light cavalry; the heavy sabre at top is an enlisted man's, at bottom is the lighter and more ornate officer's model with its blued-and-gilded steel blade:
French Napoleonic Cavalry Arms 024.jpg
 
Just for the record: According to U.S. regulations, each cannon, pulled by its limber was drawn by SIX horses, with an additional six attached to a second limber pulling a caisson full of ammunition. In the horse-starved Confederacy, this was usually reduced to teams of FOUR horses each, unless they were operating in really poor terrain or pulling really large and heavy cannon like twenty-pounder Parrotts.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/howitzers.14976/page-2#post-175850

Unfortunately the link is defunct however the various Artillery Manuals are amazing resources as far as detailed information goes, to include mountain artillery, mounted on one mule, the stand on another mule and by mule train move artillery from one area to another to include ammunition.

Just some thoughts.

M. E. Wolf
 
Back
Top