Basically at the moment I am contemplating whether to presume a cavalry or infantry impression. I have or am working on gaining a lot of the prerequisite skills for a cavalry impression, as I am a intermediate level rider and also am part of a historical fencing club and am trying to take up sabre (I can already use longsword\katana). I have most of a passable impression going for almost any branch (sack coats are really great in this regard), but don't own any weapons and have several other bits of misc. kit to pick up besides. While I do want to try and fall in with a bigger unit at some point, I suspect that any interactions with them I might have would be more akin to how I do conventions for my other hobbies, generally falling in only when going to reenactments and thus I will likely still be doing individual living history work for the most part. I know some people are hugely dismayed with dismounted cavalry, and I will concede that it is an over done, and poorly done by most. But seeing as I expect that in the long run I will at most only be able to rent a horse, or borrow others, I suppose I will have to be dismounted most of the time. Not that this was unheard of during the war, and I think I can do a better job than many, but I have already received a lot of back lash for merely contemplating getting into a cav impression on a-certain-forum-that-shant-be-named. At this point I am unsure wether it is wisest to pursue the infantry impression so many seem to do simply for sake of conformity, or to try and work on cavalry as I already have some of the skills it requires and also it corresponds to some of my other hobbies. I humbly seek everyone's sage advice. On a related note, a few quick questions: 1. Did cavalry wear their haversack & canteen on them as in the infantry? I know they didn't have knapsacks as their saddlebags answered much of the same need, but I assume their equivalent of a "mess kit" was fairly uniform across branches? 2. One of my favorite books for quick & detailed reference is Coggins' Arms & Equipment. Unfortunately, it was written during the centennial so sometimes what it says is suspect as scholarship marches on. I have noted that more recent sources often show the tin cup hung by the haversack closure as seen above. Coggins depicts it as commonly hung from the canteen cork chain. He dose however state sometimes the cup replaced the canteen entirely, so... Is Coggins depiction also correct for having both cup and canteen? Did soldiers actually discard the canteen later in the war as he suggests, perhaps explaining the wearing of them on the haversack closure? I did find in my "field test" in the latest event that the cup was something of a encumbrance if one merely wanted to retrieve a quick snack from their haversack, which has made me think Coggins was on to something. Or are Coggins thoughts on the matter merely influenced by reenactorisms of times long past?