Cavalry!

Think there was an old thread here on Forrest's men primarily using rifles by mid war, can't find it again though. Many of his troopers were also initially equipped with shotguns but were later issued or captured rifles, short rifles and carbines, since a lot of the fighting they did was dismounted. However, revolvers were also carried so they could fight mounted when they had to.

The Eastern Theater tended to see more mounted fighting than the West, like at Brandy Station or East Cavalry Field at Gettysburg. I'm no expert on that topic, but I believe both sides continued to use sabers much more so than in the West and Trans-Miss., even if large scale mounted hand-to-hand clashes were still rather rare. It would be interesting to know the exact armament of a number of regiments under Stuart and Hampton in 1863-64 and compare them to those under Forrest and Wheeler, or a number of commands in the Trans-Miss.
Calling @Eric Wittenberg . Question above about cavalry weapons. You are the pro from Dover, sir.
 
I agree with @Eric Wittenberg. The 52nd North Carolina formed square, not Lane's men.

Ryan

Yeah. Seriously.
Can you imagine a brigade forming a square?
And, btw, forming a square for a regiment would have required about 45-60 different audibles to make it happen.

And, darn, if I were one of those folks ordered to form a square while bullets were marching my way, you know what...

Just sayin'

There is no clear evidence that a "square" was formed, other than that front moved. Getting a line move into a column, or a column into a line (which was likely the situation there) might had looked like a "square".
 
Didn't they use these squares in the CW, too, Jim?

During the Battle of Shiloh one of Sherman's regiments, the 55th Illinois Infantry under Lt. Col. Oscar Malmborg (Stuart's brigade) formed a square in front of the advancing infantry of Chalmers' brigade. Needless to say, it was a bad decision.

There were several regiments of Forrest's command that fought with rifles and smoothbores rather than conventional cavalry weapons. At Brice's Crossroads and Tupelo the Kentucky Brigade under Lyons/Crossland were designated as Mounted Infantry and used the horse as transportation and never fought mounted. Forrest, like most cavalry commanders, rarely had his troopers fight mounted.

Tom
 
Changing Role of the Cavalry and Gettysburg

'The role of the cavalry at the beginning of the Civil War was very limited. Horsemen of both armies were initially limited to patrolling and scouting, guarding supply trains and railroads, and providing escorts to generals. They were only used in battle as shock troops, a tactic which dated back to the Romans. A favorite jibe from the infantry was: "Did you ever see a dead cavalryman?" The foot soldiers believed the cavalry to be "dandies on horseback" who never saw much fighting and always had the easy life... Of course, truth was very different from the romantic descriptions of newspapermen. Soldiering on horseback was a hard life with plenty of danger. The cavalry's military role had dramatically changed by 1863 and the armies were making use of their horse soldiers in more combat situations. Cavalry divisions were utilized by commanders as advance scouts and as a mobile fighting force. These new strategies culminated in the largest cavalry battle of the war fought on June 9, 1863 at Brandy Station, Virginia. Brandy Station was the opening clash of the Gettysburg Campaign.

Union troopers of General John Buford's Division opened the Battle of Gettysburg against Confederate infantry of General Heth's Division on July 1st. The cavalrymen were limited by their numbers and the moderate range of the carbines they carried, but were able to deter the Confederate skirmishers for a few hours until Union infantry arrived. While the armies did battle around Gettysburg, cavalry units skirmished in Hunterstown, Pennsylvania, and on several roads east of town.

Stuart's men were thwarted at Gettysburg by determined Union cavalry regiments which were better armed and led by experienced officers who had learned some of their tactics from the foe. Cavalry not only opened the battle, but closed it in a fierce contest east of Gettysburg. In a decisive showdown on July 3rd, Union General David Gregg's Cavalry Division thwarted a drive on the Union right flank by General J.E.B. Stuart's Cavalry. The battle was fought dismounted until a last desperate charge to break through the Union positions was beaten back by General Custer's Michigan Brigade. From Gettysburg on, cavalry would never be the same.'

http://www.civilwar.com/overview/315-weapons/148532-cavalry-62478.html

I had little understanding that the cavalry opened and closed the battle of Gettysburg, or awareness of the difference it made. Going by the article, Gettysburg made a difference to the cavalry as well. @Waterloo50 , you might find some of the answers you are looking for here.
 
Changing Role of the Cavalry and Gettysburg

'The role of the cavalry at the beginning of the Civil War was very limited. Horsemen of both armies were initially limited to patrolling and scouting, guarding supply trains and railroads, and providing escorts to generals. They were only used in battle as shock troops, a tactic which dated back to the Romans. A favorite jibe from the infantry was: "Did you ever see a dead cavalryman?" The foot soldiers believed the cavalry to be "dandies on horseback" who never saw much fighting and always had the easy life... Of course, truth was very different from the romantic descriptions of newspapermen. Soldiering on horseback was a hard life with plenty of danger. The cavalry's military role had dramatically changed by 1863 and the armies were making use of their horse soldiers in more combat situations. Cavalry divisions were utilized by commanders as advance scouts and as a mobile fighting force. These new strategies culminated in the largest cavalry battle of the war fought on June 9, 1863 at Brandy Station, Virginia. Brandy Station was the opening clash of the Gettysburg Campaign.

Union troopers of General John Buford's Division opened the Battle of Gettysburg against Confederate infantry of General Heth's Division on July 1st. The cavalrymen were limited by their numbers and the moderate range of the carbines they carried, but were able to deter the Confederate skirmishers for a few hours until Union infantry arrived. While the armies did battle around Gettysburg, cavalry units skirmished in Hunterstown, Pennsylvania, and on several roads east of town.

Stuart's men were thwarted at Gettysburg by determined Union cavalry regiments which were better armed and led by experienced officers who had learned some of their tactics from the foe. Cavalry not only opened the battle, but closed it in a fierce contest east of Gettysburg. In a decisive showdown on July 3rd, Union General David Gregg's Cavalry Division thwarted a drive on the Union right flank by General J.E.B. Stuart's Cavalry. The battle was fought dismounted until a last desperate charge to break through the Union positions was beaten back by General Custer's Michigan Brigade. From Gettysburg on, cavalry would never be the same.'

http://www.civilwar.com/overview/315-weapons/148532-cavalry-62478.html

I had little understanding that the cavalry opened and closed the battle of Gettysburg, or awareness of the difference it made. Going by the article, Gettysburg made a difference to the cavalry as well. @Waterloo50 , you might find some of the answers you are looking for here.
I was thinking about the battle of Cotton Plant, where Colonel Hovey faced two regiments of Texas cavalry, I'm sure that I read that the Union infantry fell back to a cornfield and set up a firing line. when the cavalry charged them the infantry were able to fire three volleys which sent the cavalry packing in complete disarray. I'll look it up but I think I have a written account from Hovey himself. I read that that attack by the Texas cavalry was one of those situations where the cavalry where hit with three volleys and they only managed to cover 100 yards. At that point someone must have realised that rifled weapons were making frontal cavalry assaults useless. I'm sure there's plenty of incidents where the cavalry suddenly found that their tactics needed to change.
Great thread by the way.:smile:
 
I'm still wondering at what point you consider it more favourable to advance infantry across an open field than cavalry (if you have them). Did anyone argue in favour of the cavalry in this respect? Or am I misunderstanding something about tactics? Perhaps the bulk of the terrain didn't lend itself to cavalry charges, as I think someone else has already pointed out.
 
Yeah. Seriously.
Can you imagine a brigade forming a square?
A simple question of training and giving the order in proper time.

Not really relevant during the civil war, but Brigade and even division squares can be found in use during other wars.
(Napoleon in Egypt, the british against the Zulu's and similar... and you can find similar during the medieval period)
 
Composition of Cavalry Units

Cavalry regiments were composed of ten companies of 100 to 110 troopers each. There were five squadrons in a regiment, a squadron being a combination of two companies. This was later changed and the regiments were divided into three battalions. Cavalrymen could fight either mounted or on foot in a staggered skirmish line. Fighting on foot did eliminate some of the unit's firepower as one soldier was designated as a holder for four horses, including his own, while the other three troopers were detailed to the firing line.

http://www.civilwar.com/overview/315-weapons/148532-cavalry-62478.html
 
Calvary Men and their Weapons

confederatecavalryweapons.jpg


Confederate Cavalry trooper with sword and revolver

mosbyranger.jpg


16 year old Mosby Ranger with flintlock musket

civilwarcavalryriflerevolversaber.jpg


Union cavalry trooper with cavalry sword, Colt Army revolver, and carbine

civilwardragoonweapons.jpg


Union cavalryman with Colt Dragoon revolvers and sword

http://www.thomaslegion.net/americancivilwar/unionconfederatecavalry.html
 
Hate to be an advertisement, Cavalry Charger but if you're looking for books on cavalry, we won't see you for awhile- I don't frequently get into discussions on cav because I just do not know enough. Am kinda a secret addict- grgrgrandfather was 6th US Regulars, engaged at Fairfield, so flattens me. Still, best to stay in the bleachers, if I have nothing useful to add! Anyway. look up Eric Wittenberg's books but take a week's vacation.

THEN, for what-on-earth-transpired-day-to-day, enlistment to camp to war? The 6th United States Cavalry in the Civil War: A History and Roster, Don Caughey. Heck, think I've read my Kindle copy to tatters.
Sorry @JPK Huson 1863 , I don't know how I missed this on the thread, AND the post underneath it, too, but in response, I am definitely going to read Eric's books at the earliest opportunity. My fascination with the Cavalry isn't waning, and my hope is that people will add to the discussion, which you have done again today :smile: Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
Someone should edit the wiki article to include the raids of Forrest, van Dorn, Wheeler and Chalmers.
Agreed. Thanks for raising awareness. My hope is that if someone has an interest, they will investigate more thoroughly.

In the meantime, input on this thread is greatly appreciated.
 
General John Hunt Morgan had potential. He had excellent troopers and subordinate commanders and his command was well armed and well mounted. But he lost about 2400 troopers plus horses and equipment raiding north of the Ohio River in 1863.

Morgan’s 1863 Raid did divert Union troops away from Bragg’s Army for a while and that helped Bragg win at Chickamauga which was about the only worthwhile thing Bragg ever managed to accomplish. But in the end that victory simply allowed the Confederacy about an extra year in the West. Was that extra year worth losing one of the finest bodies of horse the Confederacy ever fielded?

On the other hand, the 11th Ohio Volunteer Cavalry in Wyoming Territory soon gained about two good companies of Galvanized Yankees to fight Indians in the west. After a few months in a prison hellhole a number of Morgan’s men volunteered.
 
An attempt was made to form a square at the First Battle of Bull Run by men of Sherman's brigade. Sherman wrote after:
"By the active exertions of Colonel Corcoran, we formed an irregular square against the cavalry which were then seen to issue from the position from which we had been driven, and we began our retreat toward the same ford of Bull Run by which we had approached the field of battle. There was no positive order to retreat, although for an hour it had been going on by the operation of the men themselves. The ranks were thin and irregular, and we found a stream of people strung from the hospital across Bull Run, and far toward Centreville. After putting in motion the irregular square in person, I pushed forward to find Captain Ayres's battery at the crossing of Bull Run. I sought it at its last position, before the brigade had crossed over, but it was not there; then passing through the woods, where, in the morning, we had first formed line, we approached the blacksmith's shop, but there found a detachment of the secession cavalry and thence made a circuit, avoiding Cub Run Bridge, into Centreville, where I found General McDowell, and from him understood that it was his purpose to rally the forces, and make a stand at Centerville."

Colonel Michael Corcoran commanded the 69th New York.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/memoirs/general-sherman-battle-bull-run.htm

Side note:
I find it endlessly fascinating that at the First Battle of Bull Run, William Tecumseh Sherman commanded a brigade that include the 69th New York and the 2nd Wisconsin. All three would go on to incredibly fame, Sherman in the West, the 69th New York in the Irish Brigade, and the 2nd Wisconsin in the Iron Brigade. And they all started side-by-side.
 
Thanks for your input Zack. That's a real gem, in terms of information, and it seems the formation was put into use, maybe on more than one occasion. I've read a description supposedly ascribed to Sam Watkins and Co.Aytch re: this formation, but I haven't been able to verify the source. I'll keep working on it.
 
Company G of the 32nd Indiana Infantry formed a square in the battle of Rowlett's Station, Dec. 17, 1861, against mounted attacks by the 8th Texas Cavalry "Terry's Texas Rangers".

In his official report, Col. August Willich says:

"The Rangers advanced within 15 yards, and then fired with shot-guns and revolvers. Our skirmishers made great havoc among them, but finally retreated behind the square formed by Company G, Captain Welschibillig. Now a fight ensued such as seldom occurs. The Rangers, about 150 to 200, thinking they could ride over that small squad of 50 men, attacked them in front and left flank, Captain Welschbillig suffered them to approach within 20 yards, and then fired a deadly volley at them. They retreated, but only after having discharged their guns and rifles at our men. They charged a second time, and engaged in front and both flanks. Several of them came close to our bayonets. A well-aimed volley sent them back again. They made a third but weak charge, which resulted more disastrously to them than the former."​

There were other instances where a square was formed with the threat of cavalry nearby, but few where they were actually attacked.


I'm still wondering at what point you consider it more favourable to advance infantry across an open field than cavalry (if you have them). Did anyone argue in favour of the cavalry in this respect? Or am I misunderstanding something about tactics? Perhaps the bulk of the terrain didn't lend itself to cavalry charges, as I think someone else has already pointed out.
Later in the war, more experienced Union cavalry made larger, corps or division sized mounted attacks against infantry at Third Winchester, Cedar Creek, and Sailor's Creek with major success. There was also a successful Confederate mounted charge against infantry on the last day of Bentonville by about a brigade, including the 8th Texas Cav.

Whether or not a cavalry charge over open ground would succeed might depend on a number of factors. For example, some of the above instances were against a weakened force or in conjunction with infantry assaults. They were also by a brigade, division or corps of cavalry rather than some of the isolated cavalry charges made by a single regiment earlier in the war.
 
Back
Top