"Please help me answer this question" Topic

from an overseas hobbyist

"I have a question.
I heard that among the soldiers, it was fashionable to have guns (one and preferably several). The soldiers were taken as booty or bought at his own expense. And this is understandable. Six-gun and rifle no. But among the figures of soldiers little figures with revolvers in his belt. How Come ???"

I assume the question is asking why some figures come with both pistol and rifle?

If so, I have never seen any!

Unfortunately, the question is in rather poor English.

I think I understand.

He wants to know why there aren't more soldier miniatures sculpted with revolvers on their belts?

Can't really say about the minis, or historical accuracy of that.

I suspect that any trooper that could afford a pistol, or could take one as a prize would want want, for close-in self defense, and since they could fire more than one shot at a time, when many guns couldn't.

Given the close quarters combat, I'd certainly want a pistol, if I had access to one.

Perhaps the miniatures sculptors aren't aware that many men (assuming they did) carried them.

Why carry an extra heavy weapon that you would probably never get to use?

Yes, Mako, he wants to know why more miniatures are not sculpted with pistols in their belts or with other personal fire arms.

I think the perception of many soldiers carrying a revolver or two comes from this appearing in many studio photographs of the time. Almost all Confederate soldiers photographed, and Union not in strict uniform are well armed. I suspect the weapons were studio props, and not weapons carried in the field.

It is my understanding that this was largely a phenomenon early in the War. You'll notice that a lot of the Confederates in those photos are in militia uniforms and early issue state uniforms.

As Dan suggests, there comes a point where you're carrying around a hunk of iron that you realize you'll never use. Take the first good trade you can get!

A lot of troops carried revolvers with the early in the war for those close in fights. The problem was that close in fights were very rare. There was a lot more time spent walking than fighting and very little fighting up close. So they became just more weight to lug around and were gone by the first winter of the war. Most were either sent home or collected and issued to the cavalry.

If you've not been in the military and never been on a long foot march, one very quickly learns that any weight that is not an absolutely positively necessary item, is better done without and quickly dispensed with.

I agree with Dn Jackson and others. The same goes for the large fighting knives seen in so many early-war photos. "It seemed like a good idea at the time…"

I love the period stories about the march routes of newly formed units being heavily littered with equipment that seemed a good idea before the march, being discarded as the miles began to pile up…

I agree with all the above – when you read the accounts of volunteers who signed up in 1861, many of them came with revolvers, big knives, etc which were quickly discarded after their first route march

Plus when pictures were taken I suspect the people having the picture taken made sure they looked as martial as possible by having as many weapons as possible – maybe even from the photographer's stock

I agree, many of the early studio pictures had the men posing with many weapons. But they were just studio props and did not belong to the men at all.

Infantry would certainly have little use for revolvers at this time, but I rather suspect many cavalry troopers would carry a pistol or two for use in any infighting that might occur while saddled up.

For instance, The death of the great JEB Stuart, at Yellow Tavern in 1864, was occasioned by a pistol shot from a dismounted Yankee trooper. It was reported at the time that Stuart fired 6 shots in return (also from a pistol I believe).

Nathan Bedford Forrest was credited with killing over 30 men in battle with "saber,pistol and shotgun" (Frederickson 2001).
I also think that pistols were freely used at Kelly's Ford when cavalry columns clashed.

From one reading, which I am not sure how good it is (the Osprey on the Army of Northern Virginia), it seemed that the initial enthusiasm for having many weapons (revolvers, bowie knifes) gave way to extreme practicality (keeping only the absolute necessary), which even led soldiers of the NVA to throw away their bayonets (since they were not that useful).

As others have said, once you get to the real business, a rifle is pretty much all you need (shoot or club the poor sods to death).

Also extra kit means extra things to take care off. Just keeping a long weapon in good condition is a chore (I hated it in my army days. You got to oil it, disassemble it, clean it). Add to that keeping a bowie knife and the much more sophisticated revolver (they need oiling as well, and the revolver needs dissembling).

That is time you could use to sleep or drink coffee (and soldiers prize sleep and coffee above all. I was in a peace army and would had happily killed to get some more hours of sleep. Think how much more a war army soldier would want sleep).

Almost all the studio images of soldiers are taken using prop equipment. Weapons, accoutrements, etc, virtually always belonged to the photographer and NOT to the soldiers.

Why? Because the soldiers were not permitted to leave camp with their arms and accoutrements. No one in their right mind would allow soldiers to carry their weapons and gear out on town where the chance to get some whiskey into you and cause mayhem was just too great.

Arms were stacked on the color line. Accoutrements were either slung on the arms or kept in the soldier's tents. The only possible items a soldier might take with him would be his haversack and canteen. He'd take his knapsack if he was headed home on furlough, but otherwise even that remained in camp. Keep in mind, too, that the weapons and accoutrements do NOT belong to the soldiers. They are company property and signed for by the Captain of the company and he is responsible for reimbursing the army if anything is lost, stolen, or misplaced while he is in command.

But having said that, the only time we can be fairly certain that the arms and accoutrements belong to the soldier, is if the image was taken either in the field, or in a tent at the unit's encampment.

Otherwise, those extra weapons like revolvers, knives, etc, are so much hokum.

And, as stated above, anyone who ever served or has gone on any sort of long march or hike knows full well that every pound carried MUST be a necessity, otherwise it gets left behind, or abandoned along the route of march.

Lastly, any soldier with a revolver and no reason to have one would have it confiscated and turned in to the Ordnance officer of the unit. The Confederates, especially, did that right at the start of the war in order to help arm their cavalry. Meat for another discussion of course, but I'll just add this much: Looking at cavalry inspection reports, fully half of the CS cavalry never had a revolver or pistol, and likely 40% actually carried them.

So the idea of soldiers with multiple weapons ought to be put to bed.

I agree with History PhD. Anyone who has done a 20 mile hike with full pack and weapons would drop every ounce of excess weight at the first chance. Given the few times a pistol might have been handy during the war, I just don't see very many infantry carrying them.

Having done a 25 mile march as a re-enacter, you learn to go as light as possible. A 10 pound rifle is heavy enough.

Why make comment on the man's English? I understood what he wanted perfectly.

I saw no point in not paraphrasing it to begin with.

Beast Rampant,

It was a direct quote and I was in a hurry to consult the TMP forum in order to give him the best answer I could.

The gentlemen's English is much better than my Russian and I probably should have taken moment to clarify his question for TMP readers.