"ACW Cavalry Charges" Topic

I recently attended an ACW reenactment that included cavalry. At the luncheon afterwards I listened to the conversations between the ACW reenactors and various attendees. Since this was in Kentucky many audience members were very knowledgeable about horses although not necessarily knowledgeable about the ACW. One cavalry re-enactor described the engagement and mentioned his unit charged several times that battle. One of the attendees asked:

"Did they really do that in Civil War battles? Make several charges at full gallop in the same battle?"

The re-enactor replied that they did.

The attendee said:

"How? I've trained horses for over 30 years and no horse I know of has the stamina to do what you describe happens in a mounted charge and mounted melee more than once a day."

The re-enactor replied: "Well, after a charge ACW cavalry did retire to reform and rest before engaging in another mounted charge".

The attendee replied: "I don't care if the horses were checked into the Magic Mountain Health Spa for a message and a nap. Horses that did what you describe are through for the day."

I've played many tabletop ACW battles where cavalry did charge mounted more than once a game. Granted, most rules required some intervening non-charging, non-combat turns before that unit could charge mounted again. But if this horse trainer is correct it looks like an ACW cavalry unit should only get one mounted charge and one mounted melee a game afterwards the horses are restricted to a non-combat walk or trot. Which also means that cavalry unit must fight dismounted thereafter in the game.

Can anyone cite an historical battle where an ACW cavalry regiment charged and meleed mounted more than once?

A cavalery unit is usualy worn out after the charge.
But it depends on what you call charge.
i seriously doubt there where charges like during the napolenic wars. No Eylau or Waterloo kind of charges.
as per chandler :

squadrons move off at a trot up to 1/3 of distance of the ennemy
canter up to 150 yards from the ennemy
gallop up to 50 yards
full speed charge untill contact
if the full speed charge was initiated to fast then the horses would arrive blown out.

At Eylau 10700 horse charged the russians over 2500 yards.

I wonder if any cavalry charged over such a long distance during the acw.

An ACW cavalry regiment made a mounted charge? ;)

darthfozzywig

at gettys burg there was a charge…

I doubt a ACW cavalry charge and re-charge several times. Perhaps that reenactor didn't know what he was talking about. Don't judge history by the average reenactor.

I would not be surprised if units made several charges at Brandy Station. I don't view an ACW cav charge the same as a Naps cav charge, either. I would say both men are wrong to a degree.

and then we are talking about kentucky thoroughbreds versus these war horse who were used to a very different life and stamina. the race horse like the tennessee walkers are race and show horses. however i do bow to the kentucky gentlemans horseflesh experience.

According to accounts I've read, the French cavalry at Waterloo made repeated charges, as many as ten in all. And after that some of those some squadrons were in good enough shape to ride down several battalions near La Haye Sainte.

So I'd say the horse-trainer was wrong to some degree.

I think repeated charges were made at Brandy Station, though perhaps none were as good as the first.

And some Union cavalry was getting quite good by the ned of the war. Union cavalry at Winchester broke Confederate infantry and took works. Wilson's cavalry took a defended redoubt at Selma in 1865. Sheridans' cavalry broke infantry at Saylor's Creek.

I think a show horse definately has a different lifestyle than a war pony.
though the reenactor could be wrong as well.

Hi

Race horses do a 2 minute all out run, not the same as a "charge" on the battlefield. In the medieval period, a "charge" ment closing, doing final bit quickly and crashing into people.

In the acw, even infantry "charged" which didn't mean they pulled out lances and crashed into people.

The term had come to mean "close quickly" and shoot. That final "charge" is usually a very short distance, not the mile of a horse race.

R

Comparing ACW and Napoleonic cavalry usage is always dangerous. The battlefields were different (more rugged terrain in the US), and cavalry organizations and usage were different (US cavalry was used more often as mounted infantry although there are exceptions.

Yes there were "charges" in the ACW but not on the scale or distance of the Napoleonic wars.

Also, in the case stated in the orignial post, the critic was forgetting that the reenactor had just done multiple charges that day…the reenactor's horse certainly had done what the trainer claimed couldn't be done!

There certainly were, as noted, charges and counter-charges at Brandy Station

Gents;

Several (i.e., more than one) Confederate Cavalry Regiments charged multiple times (maximum of three) during the fight at Brandy Station on 9 June 1863. This is well documented in the records and diaries of the time. They were in Jones' and Hampton's Brigades, and included the 35th Virginia Cavalry Battalion – I can't recall the others off hand at work. So … that outright kills the statement that they "can't".

Next, re-enactment horses and modern ranch horses are not "cavalry horses". In the former, the owner's first instinct is to preserve the animal. That is not necessarily the first instinct of a cavalryman. The later's first duty is to follow orders, if able. Thus, while the horse may be fairly blown, that would not stop a second charge being ordered or executed.

Further, cavalry regiments seldom operated, moved, of fought as a unit. Rather, they did so in battalions (four companies), squadrons (two companies), or by company (ten/twelve respectively in full strength Confederate/Federal regiments).

In virtually all situations, at least one squadron was acting dismounted as skirmishers, one/two were in reserve, and only two/three were ever executing a movement/charge at the same time. Often, it was just one. This means that as long as the proverbial "sh.." had not hit the fan, up to 40% of the regiment was in reserve and another 20% was available to pull back and remount while only 20-40% of the regiment was actually doing the fighting.

This is NOT the way re-enactors fight [and I do re-enact as cavalry]. First, in even the best of cases, there is barely one full strenght company of them – usually there is FAR less.

Also, this is decidedly NOT the way most wargames, at any scale, deal with Cavalry Regiments.

I have studied all of the Civil War cavalry engagements quite extensively. There are numerous very good books out there that cover everal of them. Further, you can easily get your hands on the various tactical manuals the officers used to study tactics and drill their men. Any good library has ORIGINAL manuals on their shelves. Re-enactor sutlers carry reprints of them. I have copies of all theose used in the war – and it was by no means a major investment to get them – nor was it one to get good books on the fights.

Point being, do a little research and you can quickly get a grasp for what and how cavalry did what it did in the war.

Mark E. Horan

If I recall correctly, a cavalry regiment that charged with all its squadrons was often defeated by a regiment that kept a fresh reserve. Since horse spas are rarely available on campaign, the above may explain why a mounted reserve was so important – catch them with a charge with your reserve when they are blown or disordered by the first action.

The other item that hasn't been mentioned was the simple reality that the owner/trainer of a Thoroughbred would ignore the health of the horse where the Commanding Officer who saw the need for the charge would push the horses to do it if they could.

The owner/trainer has an entirely different set of priorities that begin with the horse surviving, while the survival of the horses was a consideration for the Cavalry Commander it often was subordinated to military necessity.

Cavalry during the war typically wore horses out pretty quickly in the course of campaigning.

I've recently finished a book on the battle of Brandy Station, to be published in the Osprey Campaign Series this autumn.

In my research on the battle over the years,and various other cavalry fights, I kept an eye out for the accounts of cavalry action both for my wargaming and my historical research.

I'm hestitant to make many assertions because the historical material usually does not provide enough information for clar-cut answers. Ideally. I would have liked to interview veterans, but that was not possible. And almost all accounts are sparse or unclear. One of the few things I can
declare is that it is not a matter of "doing a little research and quickly getting a grasp." The historical record is sorely lacking. Many books on cavalry in the Civil War, as well as regimental histories, are wretched. I have done a great deal of research, and many aspects of cavalry battles are still unclear to me. Just pinning down when parts of the battle happened is very difficult. Judging how long melees
lasted is often very tricky. It was a matter not just of the horses exhausting themselves, but the men wearing out from their exertions and the tension of combat. My research also included discussing horses with experts (although not exhaustively), including Joe McKinney. Joe has written the only good book on the battle and has often ridden over the battlefield on his horses. As a retired Army infantry officer, he has also seen combat (not cavalry combat!), much more combat than I've seen. He also could not answer many of the historical riddles of the battle.

There was a variety of fighting, both mounted and dismounted, even some by infantry, at Brandy. Some of the terrain there has quite steep hills or is wooded; and the distances covered could be substantial. I have walked all of it, and given many tours. Mounted regiments did charge more than once, and it amazes me that the participants did not wear out faster on that hot day. Several regiments charged three or more times, sometimes in a short period. Not once did anyone say in writing, "Our horses were blown." Ammo expenditure surely was another factor, yet no one said they were low on ammo.

As an expert on this battle I can say that my research produced a great many questions in my mind in addition to
the answers I found. I think that may be true of any historian. The more you know, sometimes, the more you realize how much you don't know, or even can never know.

A number of years ago Brent Nosworthy came out with his seven years war book. At the time he gave a discussion on some of the details he had read of in European cavalry officer first person accounts on the various "tricks" that they had learned in their campaigning.

One of these included way to fool the other side into thinking you were a friendly unit until you were right up on top of them. There were a number I do not particularly recall. However, the net result was that reality is much more varied, confused, and anacdotal than is often made clear by various books on period tactics.

But flipping that around, while I agree with Mr. Beattie in the sense of speaking of specific engagements, I believe Mr. Ware is correct when speaking of general practice. General practice is important not to disregard, it is what the troops would at least envision – even if execution fell short.

I am very much a novice on ACW cavalry, and I hope and expect my more learned colleagues to correct any misstatements in the following. In my recent reading about Shiloh, especially Larry Daniel's book which I am too lazy to pull out right now, he recounts a few charges by cavalry as part of the main battle on April 6-7. An Ohio cavlry unit charged in the Bell field area near the Peach Orchard as part of a ccounterattack after a Confederate charge on the Sunken Road area.(almost read like a unit charging in support of a breakthrough result in Fire and Fury). Also, Wharton's Texas Rangers were ordered by Beauregard to charge into the flank of Wallace's brigade on April 7, but were driven back. Forrest's cavalry was guarding a ford near the battle when he moved his troops without orders to the area around the Sunken Road, Peach Orchard, and Bloody Pond where he seems to have taken part in a mounted attack on the area. His troops were busy on the night of April 6 as pickets and scouts into Union activity at Pittsburg Landing. Johnston's attack on Sunday was supported by small cavalry units on each flank, and there are small Union cavalry units listed in the orders of battle but I have no idea of their initial placement. I am sure many may remember that after the battle, Forrest led a charge while covering the Confederate retreat at a place called Fallen Timbers. Did all this happen because this was an early war battle in the West and the commanders were trying to figure out how to use cavalry? I do not remember ever having a mounted cavalry charge in an ACW game, but would be interested to see it. It seems as if Stuart's cavalry was in the thick of Bull Run with his charge into the New York Zouaves. Does this mean that cav moved farther from the main battles as the war progressed? Cannot wait to hear opiniions from this long monologue!!!!

A couple of sources for the Union side that you might be interested in:

The Union Cavalry Comes of Age by Eric Wittenberg carries a variety of actions and tactics, interspersed with anecdotes and reports. Covers only to 1863 Brandy Station.

A more comprehensive work is the three volume set by Stephen Starr, The Union Cavalry in the Civil War.

Details:

1-72550 Wittenberg, Eric UNION CAVALRY COMES OF AGE, THE This noted authority on cavalry challenges a Civil War myth, from Hartwood Church to Brandy Station 1863, b/w photos, maps, appendicies, notes, biblioindex.1 vol, 432 pgs 2003 LONDON, BRASSEY'S INC NEW-dj ……$40.00

1-24850 Starr, Stephen Z. UNION CAVALRY IN THE CIVIL WAR, THE Defintive work on the Union Cavalry from Sumter to Appomattox and the War in the West; b/w maps & illust, biblio, index. 3 vol, 1649 pgs 1985 BATON ROUGE, LSU PRESS
AS NEW-dj ……$115.00

All in stock.

Dennis from OMM
onmilitarymatters.com

Wonderful responses. To summarize:

· Speaking to a local veterinarian helped to further clarify the issue for me.

The horse-trainer was correct as far it goes; it takes generations of breeding and methodical nutrition and conditioning for a racehorse to run a full mile or so (approximately 2 minutes) flat out without suffering injury or debilitating fatigue and exhaustion. And even then it requires a track especially laid out for that purpose and the services of an expert jockey who can weight less than a typical ACW cavalry saddle and equipment, much less the cavalryman. ACW cavalry horses enjoyed none of these advantages.

Then how was even one cavalry charge even possible, much less repeated ones?

1. As mentioned in this thread, they didn't run full out for any length of time. Actual gallop only occurred the last few hundred feet.
2. As also mentioned in this thread, cavalry horses are tools of war, not pampered participants in a sporting event. With cavalry horses issues of injury and fatigue, even to the point of death or permanent disability, are secondary to achieving the military objective or meeting battlefield challenges. If you ignore the consequences and the horse has at least a minimum amount of training and conditioning, a cavalry horse can be made to gallop further than ordinarily expected and sustain several charges and combats, albeit with decreasing effectiveness.

The tremendous loss of horses during the ACW seems to bear out the above. ACW armies consumed thousands of horses. A significant number of cavalry horses did not survive a battle. And very, very few survived a full campaign. And these numbers far exceed those that could have been loss due to shot or shell. I believe the remaining losses must be attributed to exhaustion and fatigue so profound that the horses in question could no longer be relied upon as cavalry mounts.

· ACW cavalry re-enactments are colorful and entertaining. But cavalry re-enactors are understandably not interested in injuring their horses or themselves and seldom reach the level of physical intensity experienced in a typical historical cavalry engagement.

[Overheard conversation at a re-enactment:

"The cavalry battle was wonderful but my son would have enjoyed it more if it had real sword fights"
" I'm sorry madam but we've found that our membership suffers if our cavalrymen end up impaled on the end of a saber."
" I'm sure you've done your best. Come on, Tommy, lets go talk to the nice artillerymen."
As she left a cavalry re-enactor muttered: "Yeah. Maybe they'll lob a shell into the viewers stand for you."]

I've been advised that a better appreciation for the physical forces at work in ACW cavalry engagements may be found by watching a polo match. Even though polo ponies are superbly conditioned and trained full-sixed horses and polo matches are usually divided into 6 chukkas lasting only 7 minutes each, I find it telling that a polo pony is typically only played in two chukkas before being replaced by another pony.

Forwarded from Dean West:

I have read everything I can get my hands on about cavalry, and I ride in the Kentucky reenactment cavalry. I do agree that most reenactors in general know less than you'd think about the war, but a minority of them know much. One must attend a "national" reenactment in order to see cavalry forces larger than forty to sixty on a side. There are supposed to be 400 cav at the Gettysburg National this year. Too, cavalry service, even "Pretend" cavalry service, is hard, and rather expensive. I expect the numbers are going to become even smaller in the future, thanks to gas prices. Some fear cav reenacting will die out because of gas prices.

Anyway, there are numerous factors that affect the ability of a horse to perform in battle. I altogether disagree with the "horse trainer" who believes horses are so easily "blown." It is not unreasonable to compare them to human athletes. Some humans can run marathons. Others can't walk up a flight of stairs without becoming "blown". Certainly, it would be virtual suicide for me to compete in a 440 race at this point in my life, as it would be dangerous to expect a poorly conditioned horse to gallop around a battlefield all day. Conditioning is of prime importance when considering what they are capable of doing. However, a sound horse, not too old, well fed, well watered, inured to exercise (conditioned), and with proper temperament for cavalry service is capable of strenuous and long participation in battle. Certainly, a horse with these characteristics is more than capable of making more than one 1000 yard charge during a battle. My Morgan mare, which is 17 years old and not really in tip-top condition, can easily fast trot for several miles without tiring much. In fact, she's got such a great heart that she'll break into a gallop after so doing when she senses we're nearing camp, where the food is. My young Tennessee Walking Horse can walk-trot virtually indefinitely at around 5-6 miles per hour. There is a field near my home that is over 400 yards wide. The Morgan can, in succession, without pushing her, trot, canter, then gallop that distance in slightly over two minutes. After she's rested a few minutes, she's ready to go trotting off, fine as a fiddle. Of course, like all flesh and blood, hot weather effects how long they can perform. I must mention that I care deeply about my horses and do not abuse them. They are my buddies.

Huge horses do not make good cavalry horses, nor are big men optimum for cav service. Huge horses can't move fast and tire easily if they do. According to the "father of modern cav", Frederick the Great, the optimum size heavy cav horse is 15.2 hands (62 inches high at the withers). Also, a heavy man can tire a horse right quick. Fredster wanted his heavy cavalrymen to be around 5'4" to, at the most 5'6", 130-140 pounds. Of course, just as with people, height is not the only measure of weight. My Morgan is a stout beast, 15.2 hands, but weighs around 1200 pounds. We also have a Saddle Bred- he's 16.2 hands, but weighs only around 1100 pounds. A cold blood draft horse, a Belgian say, weighs 3000 to 3500 pounds. These fine animals are altogether unsuited for cav service.

I could go on, but this is to long already. I hope it is not untoward for me to mention that I do have a a piece coming out in the next issue of North & South magazine describing an interesting little western cavalry fight in great detail. There were plenty of charges during this running fight, which lasted over six hours and covered about seven miles of ground.