Impressions Thoughts on dismounted cavalry?

[DixieRifles]

From what i had read some wheres that if a cavalry person lost their horse for whatever reason then they become dismounts. but they have something like 30 days to find another horse or they become infantry.

The Confederate soldier provided his own mount, so that was basically true for them. That is one reason I think the Confederate raids focused on capturing supplies, including horses. During Forrest's raids into Union occupied West Tennessee, he would allow his men leave to go home and obtain fresh mounts.

 

[3rdTennCo.C]

No "perhaps" to it. They did. So I think its perfectly fine to have Cavalry in an reenactment without having the horses. The audience may not understand that the horses would be held out of the line of fire.

Okmakes sense, thats what I figued but I feel ive met people who have a problem with those kinda of guys anyway

 

[Waterloo50]

No "perhaps" to it. They did. So I think its perfectly fine to have Cavalry in an reenactment without having the horses. The audience may not understand that the horses would be held out of the line of fire.

I've not been to a CW re-enactment, how do the audience know that they are watching dismounted cavalry!
Is there a commentary or are the audience expected to have a basic knowledge. I've always thought that cavalry looks impressive regardless of period, I've been to quite a few English civil war, medieval and roman warfare re-enactments and it's the cavalry that grabs everyone's attention. Perhaps it's just me but the cavalry even when they are dismounted should have their horses in view, mind you, I'm clearly no expert. I struggle to identify the difference between cavalry and mounted infantry, then of course we have things like the lightning brigade, arrive on horseback and fight as infantry, or cavalry that dismounts but fights as infantry using cavalry tactics and then of course there's dragoon's..yep, it's all very confusing.

 

[DixieRifles]

I've not been to a CW re-enactment, how do the audience know that they are watching dismounted cavalry!
. . . . Perhaps it's just me but the cavalry even when they are dismounted should have their horses in view, mind you, I'm clearly no expert. I struggle to identify the difference between cavalry and mounted infantry, then of course we have things like the lightning brigade, arrive on horseback and fight as infantry, or cavalry that dismounts but fights as infantry using cavalry tactics and then of course there's dragoon's..yep, it's all very confusing.

I guess that is what I am saying---the late war mounted infantry should not look much different than infantry except for backpacks. I'm still trying to determine what "uniform" would be worn by a Mississippi cavalryman.

This is what I usually see at re-enactments that screams "Cavalry!"---- a lot of Yellow on the uniform and Crossed sabers badges.

 

[3rdTennCo.C]

Is that a relatively accurate or inaccurate portrayal?

I guess that is what I am saying---the late war mounted infantry should not look much different than infantry except for backpacks. I'm still trying to determine what "uniform" would be worn by a Mississippi cavalryman.

This is what I usually see at re-enactments that screams "Cavalry!"---- a lot of Yellow on the uniform and Crossed sabers badges.

View attachment 322098

 

[James N.]

The question that I have: were there time periods and battles that cavalry, especially southern cavalry units, that would have been indistinguishable in appearance when compared to infantry units at that time/location?

Yes, but not as you would expect - At Brice's Crossroads, for example, Federal cavalry commander Benjamin Grierson - of Grierson's Raid fame - sent back word that he was fighting Rebel INFANTRY, when he had in fact run into Forrest's advance guard. Uniformed indifferently and not at all to any regulation and armed mainly with 3-band Enfields or other typical infantry arms and fighting on foot with their horses unseen, there was essentially no difference between Forrest's mounted infantry and regular infantry. The rub, though, is that these cavalry fighting dismounted looked and behaved like infantry, not the other way around!

Is that a relatively accurate or inaccurate portrayal?

See the above. The Henrys used by Santa Claus and his elf fall into the oft-heard category "Iffen they'da had 'em they'da USED 'em!"

 

[Old Breck]

There is nothing in that photo that is remotely close to what the Civil War looked like. Possibly the poison ivy...

 

[3rdTennCo.C]

There is nothing in that photo that is remotely close to what the Civil War looked like. Possibly the poison ivy...

If you have accurate, properly documented descriptions or photos of what they would have looked like, then Id like to see it. Ive heard that before but no one as of yet has come back with wjat they Did look like

 

[Old Breck]

If you have accurate, properly documented descriptions or photos of what they would have looked like, then Id like to see it. Ive heard that before but no one as of yet has come back with wjat they Did look like

Plenty have chimed in on what Confederate Cavalry looked like; they looked like infantry. Maybe that's not the answer you want, but it's the correct answer.

I'd recommend starting with this article

Basics of Confederate Uniforms

Basics about Confederate Uniforms Fred Adolphus, May 10, 2014, (Updated 17 June 2024) Over the years, I have collected data about the origins and characteristics of the Confederate uniform, and I...

adolphusconfederateuniforms.com

 

[Waterloo50]

The rub, though, is that these cavalry fighting dismounted looked and behaved like infantry, not the other way around!

That's exactly what I keep finding, dismounted cavalry fighting as infantry although there was that situation at Gettysburg where cavalry under Buford dismounted and fought like infantry, I'm not sure how it works or even if it makes sense but I have read that his dismounted men acted like infantry but used cavalry tactics. Can anyone enlighten me as to how Bufords dismounted cavalry would have used cavalry tactics when on foot, everything that I've read so far about Buford's men holding the line and defending their position sounds like typical infantry behaviour.

 

[James N.]

That's exactly what I keep finding, dismounted cavalry fighting as infantry although there was that situation at Gettysburg where cavalry under Buford dismounted and fought like infantry, I'm not sure how it works or even if it makes sense but I have read that his dismounted men acted like infantry but used cavalry tactics. Can anyone enlighten me as to how Bufords dismounted cavalry would have used cavalry tactics when on foot, everything that I've read so far about Buford's men holding the line and defending their position sounds like typical infantry behaviour.

The main difference is that cavalry fighting dismounted had their own specific way of doing so, wherein companies (later termed troops) were divided into groups of four men - the same as the four riding abreast in a normal road column - and every fourth man would act as horse-holder for the other three. (That also means whenever you're considering unit strengths for engagements you have to deduct one-forth of the numbers of the unit fighting dismounted from the battle line.) Since cavalry like Buford's were usually armed with carbines, their effective range when firing was shorter than infantry rifles - a main reason they often gave way when fighting infantry. Since they were still a mounted force, the normal tactic - as employed by Buford - was to call up the mounts held by the fourth men from the safe distance in the rear, mount up, and withdraw to the next defensible position, and repeat. Major James Kidd commanding the Fifth Michigan Cavalry in Custer's brigade described how two of the four regiments were "saber regiments" and two were "skirmishing regiments", meaning two of the four regiments in the brigade had received more training in this tactic, while the other two were usually employed in mounted charges using sabers as the primary weapon. (Though in actuality, all the regiments were at least capable of fighting mounted or dismounted.) Below, Frederick Remington portrays the fourth troopers leading the mounts of the other three to safety in the rear, supervised by one of the lieutenants at right, while the main body forms as a skirmish line in the background.

 

[Waterloo50]

The main difference is that cavalry fighting dismounted had their own specific way of doing so, wherein companies (later termed troops) were divided into groups of four men - the same as the four riding abreast in a normal road column - and every fourth man would act as horse-holder for the other three. That means whenever you're considering unit strengths for engagements you have to deduct one-forth of the numbers of the unit fighting dismounted from the battle line. Since cavalry like Buford's were usually armed with carbines, their effective range when firing was shorter than infantry rifles - a main reason they often gave way when fighting infantry. Since they were still a mounted force, the normal tactic - as employed by Buford - was to call up the mounts held by the fourth men from the safe distance in the rear, mount up, and withdraw to the next defensible position, and repeat. Major James Kidd commanding the Fifth Michigan Cavalry in Custer's brigade described how two of the four regiments were "saber regiments" and two were "skirmishing regiments", meaning two of the four regiments in the brigade had received more training in this tactic, while the other two were usually employed in mounted charges using sabers as the prime weapon. (Though in actuality, all the regiments were at least capable of fighting mounted or dismounted.)

James, as always I learn from your posts...many thanks.

 

[3rdTennCo.C]

Ill take a look at that source for uniforms

 

[archieclement]

My dad, brothers and I are all in a reenacting group portraying Forrests 3rd tennessee cav. Some of our guys have horses and they use them, but the rest of us dont, so we portray dismounted cav while the others are on horseback. We keep everything as accurate as possible a far as uniforms, equiptment, arms and maneuvers (as much as humanly possible). What do other people think of dismounted cav at events? I know some look at them like if there not on horses they shouldnt be cav, and i know of some bad impressions of cav people do too.

Wasnt there were actual dismounted cavalry units? Texas in particular I think the majority enlisted as cavalry and as the war went on regts would be dismounted to fill the need for infantry, they would remain cavalry in name but have dismounted added. such as the 10th Texas

I always wondered how it worked, as I thought CSA cavalry had provided their own mounts?

 

[bdtex]

Wasnt there were actual dismounted cavalry units? Texas in particular I think the majority enlisted as cavalry and as the war went on regts would be dismounted to fill the need for infantry, they would remain cavalry in name but have dismounted added. such as the 10th Texas

I always wondered how it worked, as I thought CSA cavalry had provided their own mounts?

I believe I heard something along those lines from Danny Sessums at a couple of symposiums.

 

[DixieRifles]

Well, maybe the Blue Bellies didn't get close enough to see how Forrest's Cavalrymen were outfitted.
So let's look at a description of the dead cavalrymen from Chalmers' Cavalry Division on 11 October 1863, written by Captain E. O. Hurd of Company B.

The first paragraph is describing the retreat of the Confederates, as that is the time the 39th Ohio Regiment arrived. The Confederate Cavalry escaped on horseback but during part of their retreat they continued to fight on foot.
That last sentence is basically saying that the day before the battle, that dead cavalryman was strolling through the Union camp selling items to the soldiers. Other accounts said they found Passes on some of the prisoners and dead. Either they were spies or they were void of all uniform.

And you said you've never seen a dead cavalryman.

 

[archieclement]

I believe I heard something along those lines from Danny Sessums at a couple of symposiums.

From the texas handbook online on the 10th Texas Cavalry

"For the first few months of the war the Tenth Texas served west of the Mississippi River in Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana as part of the Department of Texas. In April 1862 the unit was dismounted and sent east of the Mississippi River where it served for the remainder of the war. At this time, the unit totaled 565 effectives in the field."

 

[7thWisconsin]

Dismounted cavalry is one of the easiest impressions to do badly. Dismounted cavalry reenactors have an uphill climb because of the history of the hobby. Often, as you can see by others reactions, dismounted cavalry have the reputation of being fast and loose with history and safety, with a high "yahoo factor." If you can keep that in check with good firm solid uniform and weapon standards you'll go a ways toward avoiding that stereotype. Cavalry dismounted drill was different than infantry. If you can act like cavalry on a skirmish line, and not like infantry with flashier uniforms, again, you will earn the respect of other reenactors. With every fiber of your being, purpose not to look or act like those guys above.

 

[major bill]

Would this partly depend on the battle being reenacted? I am not reenactor, but have seen reenactors at events that really do not seem to fit in with the battle. For examples a company of highlanders wearing kilts at Gettysburg reenactment. The same can be said with sharpshooters wearing green uniforms reacting at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Sadly the same can be said of some Confederate dismounted cavalry. A 300 pound dismounted Confederate cavalryman participating in Pickett's Charge with a carbine, 6 revolvers, a saber, a large Bowie knife and two smaller throwing knives in his boots. I can see why he tied his horse some where and attacked on foot as the poor horse would have had difficulties caring him in a charge of the Union troops on Cemitary Ridge. Sorry but I was simply not convinced he fit in with Pickett's Charge any more that the Union soldiers in kilts on the top of the hill.

 

[Story]

The main difference is that cavalry fighting dismounted had their own specific way of doing so, wherein companies (later termed troops) were divided into groups of four men - the same as the four riding abreast in a normal road column - and every fourth man would act as horse-holder for the other three. (That also means whenever you're considering unit strengths for engagements you have to deduct one-forth of the numbers of the unit fighting dismounted from the battle line.)

View attachment 322129

One suggestion for explaining this to the crowd would be to have one legitimate horseholder with four horses (perhaps the entire herd present at any given event) within the crowd's line-of-sight.

The announcer would then highlight the above tactical facts for the crowd, then direct their attention to the skirmish line of dismounted cavalry.

Just a thought.