Cavalry

[kevikens]

Something about the troopers' equipment I have never quite been able to understand is the issuance and use of the saber. In some books I have read they seem to have been not much used in actual combat or if they were they were not especially lethal in terms of damage done to the other side. Yet in some accounts I have read that the Union cavalry came to rely more on this weapon than they did early in the war and that superiors wanted their men to rely on them in combat. Are their any general principles that can be established about their common use as weapons, their lethality given that surgeons reported treating few mortal wounds from edged weapons (or did that statistic apply only to infantry) or that Union commanders late in the war wanted their men to use them more often in combat? I am guessing at this but perhaps the idea was for troopers to use their sabers more commonly in clashes with other cavalry but their carbines when fighting on foot as infantry.

 

[redbob]

Something about the troopers' equipment I have never quite been able to understand is the issuance and use of the saber. In some books I have read they seem to have been not much used in actual combat or if they were they were not especially lethal in terms of damage done to the other side. Yet in some accounts I have read that the Union cavalry came to rely more on this weapon than they did early in the war and that superiors wanted their men to rely on them in combat. Are their any general principles that can be established about their common use as weapons, their lethality given that surgeons reported treating few mortal wounds from edged weapons (or did that statistic apply only to infantry) or that Union commanders late in the war wanted their men to use them more often in combat? I am guessing at this but perhaps the idea was for troopers to use their sabers more commonly in clashes with other cavalry but their carbines when fighting on foot as infantry.

I would think that the unit's commander's feelings about the sabre would influence what the troops did. Also, the fear factor of the blade vs. a bullet may play into their use; but I can see them being of more use in a blade to blade clash than any other time. Keep in mind that the Civil War was the sabre's last hurrah and that by the 1870's they had been pretty much put out to pasture except for ceremonial purposes. To kill with a slash takes power, skill and luck while to kill with a thrust is much easier, but more difficult to perform while in combat on a horse. You read accounts of men like Wade Hampton suffering numerous cuts around the head and shoulders from blade to blade combat and not suffering severe injuries and as Nathan Bedford Forrest had been reported to say about a blade to blade combat: If he had given me the point instead of the edge, he would have been here today and not me.

 

[Patrick H]

It appears that I didn't get my earlier response fully uploaded. I was trying to agree that the accoutrements could very well have been photographer's props. I've been confused about that for a couple of years because research indicated that both sides purchased and issued those pin fire revolvers early in the war. On the other hand, I knew photographers kept props (and they still do). In any event, he does seem to be wearing his belt, holster and saber-bayonet as described in other posts, so the photographer got that part of it right, even if he was using props. As to the look on he young man's face, I have seldom seen a more earnest and solemn expression. He has taken a big step and he knows it. I am pretty sure this was on his 21st birthday or within days of it.

 

[mofederal]

The belt strikes me as a little odd, not your standard sword belt plate model. As does the cap pouch, although I would guess it was about the same model as issued to the infantry. The pistol, I would assume has it's correct holster. It does look different though. Did different models of pistols each have a different holsters, or were they standard? I know the 1862 pocket police revolver had a holster for that model, did it fit other models.

1862 Pocket Police Holster

 

[2/241]

Something about the troopers' equipment I have never quite been able to understand is the issuance and use of the saber

2 reasons for a saber
fighting man on man while on horseback (a saber is better than a maze)
- remember You have to fight AND control Your horse
- nothing fancy like a rapier, a blunt but sharp weapon , a heavy saber

Cutting down running infantry from behind & above, before the invention of the first (proto) machineguns: nothing better than a heavy saber.

becomming obsolete with increased firepower and especially increased rapid loading

 

[WJC]

Here's another photo of a cavalryman: Daniel Fisher, Private, Company F, 15th Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry.

The belt strikes me as a little odd, not your standard sword belt plate model. As does the cap pouch, although I would guess it was about the same model as issued to the infantry. The pistol, I would assume has it's correct holster. It does look different though. Did different models of pistols each have a different holsters, or were they standard? I know the 1862 pocket police revolver had a holster for that model, did it fit other models.

View attachment 189779

1862 Pocket Police Holster

We shouldn't forget that some troops made their own holsters....

 

[Patrick H]

The belt strikes me as a little odd, not your standard sword belt plate model. As does the cap pouch, although I would guess it was about the same model as issued to the infantry. The pistol, I would assume has it's correct holster. It does look different though. Did different models of pistols each have a different holsters, or were they standard? I know the 1862 pocket police revolver had a holster for that model, did it fit other models.

View attachment 189779

1862 Pocket Police Holster

Mofederal, if you mean the photo I posted, I agree completely. Even if that happened to be issue equipment, that belt and buckle were a wreck. I don't know enough about cap pouches to comment, but that is a pin fire revolver, so it would have had a different ignition system.

 

[johan_steele]

I too suspect those to be photographers props... maybe... partly.

The belt and sabre bayonet visible are the "Rifleman's Belt" for the M1841 or M1855 Rifle. The pistol is clearly a French pinfire and I admit I don't know a thing about those holsters.

That said some Cav units early war were issued the M1841 instead of carbines as there weren't enough carbines to go around. Now were any also issued pinfire revolvers as well? I don't know.

The thing about the rifleman's belt and sabre pictured is that those would have been army issue & Govt property and were not available on the civilan market until after the war. Any NCO or officer worth his salt would be asking just where that photographer stole them from. The pinfire not so much as those were available on the civilian market prior to the war.

 

[Patrick H]

I too suspect those to be photographers props... maybe... partly.

The belt and sabre bayonet visible are the "Rifleman's Belt" for the M1841 or M1855 Rifle. The pistol is clearly a French pinfire and I admit I don't know a thing about those holsters.

That said some Cav units early war were issued the M1841 instead of carbines as there weren't enough carbines to go around. Now were any also issued pinfire revolvers as well? I don't know.

The thing about the rifleman's belt and sabre pictured is that those would have been army issue & Govt property and were not available on the civilan market until after the war. Any NCO or officer worth his salt would be asking just where that photographer stole them from. The pinfire not so much as those were available on the civilian market prior to the war.

Johan, I am not totally sure I understand your post, but I DO understand that there are problematic things about the photo. I have always thought so. I first started researching revolvers that looked like the one in the photo. I learned it was a Lefaucheux and that these were bought in quantity by both sides early in the war. I believe this to be an 1862 photo, and I know this cavalry was chasing guerrillas around north central Missouri at the time. Maybe the revolver was actually issued. Maybe it was a prop. After 156 years, who can say for sure? Ditto with the saber-bayonet. Why would a kid with a pinfire revolver carry a cap pouch? Was it full of pinfire ammo? Wasn't that ammo reputed to suddenly detonate other rounds in the pouch when the pins rubbed together? YIKES! Who can say for sure about this photo? But I am still not discounting the possibility that he is posing with photographer's props. He might have gone right back to his company and been issued similar, or far superior, equipment. I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

 

[johan_steele]

Johan, I am not totally sure I understand your post, but I DO understand that there are problematic things about the photo. I have always thought so. I first started researching revolvers that looked like the one in the photo. I learned it was a Lefaucheux and that these were bought in quantity by both sides early in the war. I believe this to be an 1862 photo, and I know this cavalry was chasing guerrillas around north central Missouri at the time. Maybe the revolver was actually issued. Maybe it was a prop. After 156 years, who can say for sure? Ditto with the saber-bayonet. Why would a kid with a pinfire revolver carry a cap pouch? Was it full of pinfire ammo? Wasn't that ammo reputed to suddenly detonate other rounds in the pouch when the pins rubbed together? YIKES! Who can say for sure about this photo? But I am still not discounting the possibility that he is posing with photographer's props. He might have gone right back to his company and been issued similar, or far superior, equipment. I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

I'm actually leaning towards the idea that the riflemans belt w/ associated bayonet were issued to him along w/ an M1841. The pinfire might have been as well or it may have been a prop. You're right about us likely never knowing for sure.

 

[Badgercwcollector]

Here is a great photo of a US Cavalry mans weapons issue. Except for the artillery sword it is period correct.
View attachment 189675

I have seen more artillery swords mistaken for cavalry swords. Pawn Stars military expert had it identified wrong .also.

 

[Booner]

I'm actually leaning towards the idea that the riflemans belt w/ associated bayonet were issued to him along w/ an M1841. The pinfire might have been as well or it may have been a prop. You're right about us likely never knowing for sure.

What @Patrick H failed to say is that the young trooper in question was a member of Merril's Horse. Perhaps with that information someone can come up with what weapons they were issued?

I wish he was wearing his Kepi in the photo. Merril's Horse had distintive piping on their way uniforms

 

[mofederal]

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-merrill-horse-2nd-missouri-cavalry-usv.25842/

Merrill's Horse were issued Hall's carbines at least early in the war.

 

[Patrick H]

What @Patrick H failed to say is that the young trooper in question was a member of Merril's Horse. Perhaps with that information someone can come up with what weapons they were issued?

I wish he was wearing his Kepi in the photo. Merril's Horse had distintive piping on their way uniforms

@Booner is correct. He is not wearing the shell jacket with distinctive piping. Supposedly, all of Merrill's troopers wore jackets with a piping design that looked like a stylized horse's head. However, this photo was hanging on my Aunt's living room wall, along with a later photo of a cavalry trooper--probably post war. The trooper in the later photo is wearing a shell jacket just like this one. There is considerable disagreement in the family as to whether these are the same man at different ages, or whether they are brothers or cousins who served in the cavalry. Because this photo was in my Aunt's possession, I have accepted it as a probable enlistment photo of an ancestor who was known to have enlisted in Merrill's Horse in August of 1862. I have accepted the shell jacket and old accoutrements as simply what was available on Merrill's supply wagons at the time. But those are informed guesses and I can't be positive about any of it.

My aunt would certainly have displayed pictures of her uncle in his uniform. I can't imagine why she would have displayed pictures of other troopers unless we had more than one ancestor in the federal cavalry.