What's Up With Artillery Swords?

Thanks for all the great info, guys. I'm learning lots. Keep it coming!

Bob Owen--you mention "documented results" when talking about the artillery sword's use against cavalry. Could you point me to some of the documents? I'd enjoy reading them, if available.

Still not sure how many personnel in an average ACW light artillery battery would carry the artillery sword. Any ideas out there? Was it just the gunners, chiefs of the piece (or limber?), Lts? I imagine they weren't often carried by the drivers of either the carriages or caissons...

And while we're at it, how common were pistols in the battery? Were they common among the battery officers, less common among the cannoneers, least common among drivers?

One of the reasons I'm asking all these questions: In addition to increasing my general knowledge, I'm also trying to get a clearer picture in my mind of that early afternoon on Sep 20th, 1863, on the ridge overlooking Dyer's Field at Chickamauga when my GGGrand-Uncle's unit--the 3rd Independent Battery, Wisconsin Volunteer Light Artillery--was overrun by units of BGEN Bushrod Johnson's division (probably McNair's brigade) and lost 5 of their six guns. Was there likely any defensive small arms fire or sword play from the battery personnel, or was it just one last pull of the lanyards on guns double-charged with canister and then run for the rear? Of note, the casualty rate among the gunners was 50%; out of 52 men manning the 6 guns, 15 were wounded (two mortally) and 11 were captured. Thirty-three horses (probably all these were on the limbers/carriages) were killed but all the caissons and the rest of the personnel were saved.

Only 52 men to man 6 tubes? Isn't that a little on the low side?

R
 
Only 52 men to man 6 tubes? Isn't that a little on the low side? R

Not really. According to the 1864 Field Artillery Tactics manual, a gun det was composed of 9 men; the gunner (Cpl), numbers 1-7 (Pvts), and a spare. This does not count the chiefs of the piece (Sgts), section leaders (LTs), drivers for carriages and caissons (Pvts), etc, just the men manning the guns and limbers. As there were 4 Sgts and 5 Cpls among the casualties, each gun det might have been short their spare (plus maybe one other) to get the total up front near the guns (NOT counting drivers) to 52. According to the report of LT Livingston, acting battery commander, "We will here note that we went into action with 52 men on our six pieces and that we lost 26 men—or fifty per cent." Per the OR, the battery had 119 men (officer and enlisted) at the time of the battle. A fully manned battery totalled about 150, so the battery was definitely short some men, but during the fight the guns were just about fully manned.
 
Not really. According to the 1864 Field Artillery Tactics manual, a gun det was composed of 9 men; the gunner (Cpl), numbers 1-7 (Pvts), and a spare. This does not count the chiefs of the piece (Sgts), section leaders (LTs), drivers for carriages and caissons (Pvts), etc, just the men manning the guns and limbers. As there were 4 Sgts and 5 Cpls among the casualties, each gun det might have been short their spare (plus maybe one other) to get the total up front near the guns (NOT counting drivers) to 52. According to the report of LT Livingston, acting battery commander, "We will here note that we went into action with 52 men on our six pieces and that we lost 26 men—or fifty per cent." Per the OR, the battery had 119 men (officer and enlisted) at the time of the battle. A fully manned battery totalled about 150, so the battery was definitely short some men, but during the fight the guns were just about fully manned.

Gotcha. I was thinking that you meant that there were only 52 men total instead of 119. 52 would be WAY short.

R
 
Gotcha. I was thinking that you meant that there were only 52 men total instead of 119. 52 would be WAY short. R

Roger that! I should have made the basis for the number more clear.

I know that one of the guns had a shortage just before the action, based on some published documentation involving my ancestor.

PVT Massuere, a driver, was apparently a quiet, unassuming kind of guy who spent more time with the horses than with his battery mates. Anyways, he volunteered to fill in for someone missing on one of the gun crews that day, but the gunner said no, he didn't think Massuere "had the fortitude for the place." Turns out that during the debacle, that gunner was shot through the lungs and, unable to stand and slowly suffocating, was abandoned on the field by his men. However, PVT Massuere ran into the maelstrom, grabbed the gunner by the ankles, slung him over his back, and carried the Corporal away until Massuere was able to grab a loose horse, then threw the gunner over the back of the horse and led them to the Dry Valley road and north towards safety. Evidently the way Massuere carried the gunner off the field helped drain his lungs of blood and contributed to the Corporal's survival. Decades later, in his memoirs the gunner praised Massuere's bravery and credited the Private with saving his life.
 
Each battery had at least 4 guns. Union batteries had normally six. Each gun had a limber to draw it (six horses) and another limber to pull the caisson (another six horses) an official total of four ammo chests, one per limber and two per caisson.

With that many horses, it would be logical to expect farriers and artificers to keep the horses shod and carriages repaired. And at least one forge. And there had to be a number of men to hide 12 horses.

So a battery incorporates quite a number of men and equipment. Complicating that is the idea that capturing a gun was about as important as capturing a regimental flag. So how does one do that? Shoot the horses so the guns can't be moved. And shoot the gunners so the rate of fire is slowed. It was much to be desired to keep some infantry close to protect the guns.

And I don't know of any picture showing anyone carrying those swords. Maybe on parade?
 
Each battery had at least 4 guns. Union batteries had normally six. Each gun had a limber to draw it (six horses) and another limber to pull the caisson (another six horses) an official total of four ammo chests, one per limber and two per caisson.

With that many horses, it would be logical to expect farriers and artificers to keep the horses shod and carriages repaired. And at least one forge. And there had to be a number of men to hide 12 horses.

So a battery incorporates quite a number of men and equipment. Complicating that is the idea that capturing a gun was about as important as capturing a regimental flag. So how does one do that? Shoot the horses so the guns can't be moved. And shoot the gunners so the rate of fire is slowed. It was much to be desired to keep some infantry close to protect the guns.

And I don't know of any picture showing anyone carrying those swords. Maybe on parade?

the horses were not hidden, according to Stacey Allen. He commented the last time I talked with him that the proper position for horses was in harness, 7 paces to the rear of the gun and facing it.... all artillery horses were deaf from the firing.
 
I''ve heard that regulations be danged, they tried to hide them, whether it was 7 paces or 70 paces, they didn't want to loose any. Stacey is probably correct on the regulations, but it all depended on the gun and battery commanders, didn't it? I'm reasonably certain the Generals weren't pacing off regulation distances when the opposition was approaching.

There are places on Shiloh that horses can be hidden, places where they could only be screened, and places were they were in plain sight.
 
It's 2011, I've got a SAW with 2,000 rounds. The short sword design is useless. Let's see your documentation of good results by the short sword against cavalry charges, thanks! I'm expecting OR citations in the dozens if not hundreds.

BTW, the records of wounds by a saber collaborate their lack of effectiveness in wounding someone. Like the bayonet, the number of wounded may have been superceded by the number of deaths from the weapon.

I'm a big fan of Minty and his over 100 saber charges during the ACW (Minty of the Cavalry is still a GREAT ACW book).....it was the threat of the saber that was its greatest effect, not actual wounding.
I hope your SAW is registered or that you are in the military and belongs to Uncle Sam.:smile: I don't think that a SAW was in use in the time of the Roman Leagons and the short sword was efficient enough to establish the Roman Empire. Most of the use of the artillery short sword was used to high effect during the war with Mexico. The Confederacy produced and issued a few thousand of the swords and they also were used as naval cutlasses. The Union gunboats issued artillery short swords also when there was a lack of cutlasses and they were handy in the confines of a gunboat. The saber was issued without a sharp edge as the weapon was designed to inflect injury more so than death as the wounded needed to be cared for during a fight. forrest was known to have the sabers in his command sharpened. The Confederate D guard bowie was used as an artillery short sword by Southern batteries.
 
Thanks for all the great info, guys. I'm learning lots. Keep it coming!

Bob Owen--you mention "documented results" when talking about the artillery sword's use against cavalry. Could you point me to some of the documents? I'd enjoy reading them, if available.

Still not sure how many personnel in an average ACW light artillery battery would carry the artillery sword. Any ideas out there? Was it just the gunners, chiefs of the piece (or limber?), Lts? I imagine they weren't often carried by the drivers of either the carriages or caissons...

And while we're at it, how common were pistols in the battery? Were they common among the battery officers, less common among the cannoneers, least common among drivers?

One of the reasons I'm asking all these questions: In addition to increasing my general knowledge, I'm also trying to get a clearer picture in my mind of that early afternoon on Sep 20th, 1863, on the ridge overlooking Dyer's Field at Chickamauga when my GGGrand-Uncle's unit--the 3rd Independent Battery, Wisconsin Volunteer Light Artillery--was overrun by units of BGEN Bushrod Johnson's division (probably McNair's brigade) and lost 5 of their six guns. Was there likely any defensive small arms fire or sword play from the battery personnel, or was it just one last pull of the lanyards on guns double-charged with canister and then run for the rear? Of note, the casualty rate among the gunners was 50%; out of 52 men manning the 6 guns, 15 were wounded (two mortally) and 11 were captured. Thirty-three horses (probably all these were on the limbers/carriages) were killed but all the caissons and the rest of the personnel were saved.
I'll go back and dig out some references of the use of the short sword and post them to you. The normal crew of a gun is seven plus a gunner. The gunner (who commanded the piece) normally wore the artillery short sword as well as the other crew members. An NCO of a Battery wore the mod. 1840 NCO artillery sword. The officers wore the mod. 1850 field officer's or foot officer's sword. Handguns were not issued to enlisted men of the gun crew and not likely to the NCO. The officers were issued a handgun. The artillery short sword was soon discarded after the first years of the war. Most casualties of the gun crews were caused by the opposing artillery.
 
Thanks, Bob. Your info helps a lot, and matches my suspicions. I look forward to seeing any reference you find on the use of the short swords.

Until a few years ago, my city sponsored a living history/reenactment event called "Civil War Days," which involved a couple of reenactor batteries as well as infantry, cavalry, and naval units. However, just when I started getting into researching my ancestor from 3rd Wisconsin Battery, the city pulled the plug on the event and my easy access to a source of answers for my questions went away. I'll have to find another living history/reenactment event nearby and hang out with the artillerists for a few hours to see if I can get a more clear and accurate visualization of artillery actions.
 
Next time you visit Harpers Ferry check out a couple of examples of actual artillery gladius-type (gladiators were named because of their use of this type sword) short swords purchased by for use in the John Brown raid. I would like to see a photograph taken anytime during the war which shows a battery in the field in which any member is shown wearing this rather odd piece of equipment.
 
Next time you visit Harpers Ferry check out a couple of examples of actual artillery gladius-type (gladiators were named because of their use of this type sword) short swords purchased by for use in the John Brown raid. I would like to see a photograph taken anytime during the war which shows a battery in the field in which any member is shown wearing this rather odd piece of equipment.
Most photographs that show a battery in the field will show the crew without much of their equipment. The photos that show the sword are of those taken in garrison.
 
I recently made an impulse purchase of an Ames sword made in 1841, and I found your forum while doing further research after the fact.

When I first read of the gladius inspired sword for Union artillerymen decades ago, I thought it sounded weird, then upon further reflection I thought it might be an inspired choice. Afterall, a saber and scabbard could only trip you up and or get caught in the spokes when you and half a dozen others are trying to crew a cannon.

I never saw one in a museum or picture. I saw one recently for the first time on a Pawn Stars. I wanted to have it to get a better understanding of both it and the original gladius upon which it was based.

For those of you who have never seen or held one, imagine it as a heavyduty double-edged machete.
I believe the real purpose of the weapon was as a fascine knife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascine_knife

That is, it was used to cut sticks to be bundled or woven together , then used to shore up the sides of earthworks, a gunner's best protection against other artillery and infantry fire. For protection against cavalry, it could be used to cut pickets to stick in those earthworks.

That's why the French re-introduced the style in 1816, and I think why the German consultants let that style stand in the 1840 US sword re-organization. Earthworks were a trend in warfare.

Obviously it's of no use in single combat against a man with a loaded firearm, or a saber for that matter. Without a shield,( and preferably a helmet and greeves ) the saber wielder will mortally pierce you before you can quite reach him. Even if the saber fellow had much shorter arms to equalize the reach, the saber would be too nimble vs. this weapon.

In favor of the 1832 artillery sword is it's strength. I'm sure it could break a saber, but I can't see how you'd get the chance unless you were the sole survivor of the battery crouched beneath the cannon as the cavalryman tried to thrust at you .

The only horses you could kill with it would be wounded ones of your own team.

I think with practice you could deflect a fixed bayonett with a downward chopping motion, then wreck the fellow's neck on the upstroke, but really, if the infantry has overrun your artillery emplacement, you're going to be out numbered.

I think revolvers are the only things that would do any good at that point.

After reading Bob Owen's post about swords not being worn by cannoneers in the field, I looked at a lot of google pictures- photos and sketches - of Union cannon crews. What I noticed is that while the officer will have a hand on his saber whenever he knows he is being sketched or photographed, in the field the area around the guns is free of obstructions, and the men are remarkably short on belts, hats , canteens, and side arms. Basically only shoes, pants, and coats for the most of them, no more.

The purpose of this sword was to prepare for battle, then I figure it's put away.

Oh, and if Forrest is close enough to recognize and headed your way, it's probably time to surrender.
 
Incidentally, the fact that they were of basically the same pattern as the gladius was known at the time... I've run across multiple references to them in Navy and Marine Corps records as "old Roman swords." (They seem to have been occasionally issued in place of the older pattern Navy cutlasses.)
 
Didn't know about the terminology, but I did find that some were issued to the USN.
I could see it as a replacement for a boarding axe, to cut boarding nets, etc. I'm guessing the 1851 Colt revolver changed the nature of boarding.
 
I know you guys like to read and study, right? Probably the best book for day to day life in a Civil war Artillery battery is, "Hurrah For The Artillery!" compiled by James Brady. Jim didn't write it, he compiled it from day reports, letters home, after action reports, diary entrys, and even some contempory newspaper accounts. The book takes you from the spring of 1861 when the subject battery, (Independent Pennsylvania Battery E, Knaps) began a "compliment" battery to the 28th. Pa. Inf. to the long road home from North Carolina in the spring of 1865.

At one point, summer of 1864 I beleive. The Batterys numbers swelled to about 300 plus men, due to veteran recruitment back home. Many of these surplus men were issued shoulder arms, but remained with the battery as it's own Infantry support. Just one of the more interesting aspects in the book. An early studio photograph of David Nichol, (later 1st Sgt of the Battery whome many of the letters and day reports were written) shows him in uniform with a Cavalry sabre...Studio prop?

Also refer to the photography section right here on this site, there's a very detailed study of "Knap's Battery" at Sharpsburg just after the battle as they limbered up to persue Lee's army. Most of them look like a hodge podge of military/civilian rabble. Some wear bowler hats, slouch hats, straw hats, whatever they felt comfortable in. There's even a few in uniform, (maybe just officers though). A few small arms are visable in some of the close up detail photos, not many though. The photo study will give you a pretty good insight of an artillery battery actually at war rather than in camp. Quite a bit can be gleaned from this photographic study of Knap's Battery in the field.
 
Back
Top