"Civil War Cavalry Units: Worth the Cost?" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleThe G Dog couldn't say 'no' to this opportunity!
Featured Profile Article
|
Tango01 | 03 Dec 2020 9:18 p.m. PST |
"At times during the Civil War, cavalry unit raids did achieve some measure of success, but more often than not, their success was inconsistent and costly…." Main page link
Amicalement Armand
|
Dn Jackson | 03 Dec 2020 10:23 p.m. PST |
Very poorly reasoned. It's almost like it was written by a gamer. The thesis is essentially: "Every time my cavalry charges infantry they lose, so they're useless." It ignores the main actual use of cavalry during the war, reconnaissance. Just look what Lee was able to do when his cavalry dominated their Union counterpart in the early years of the war. The yanks had to dance to his tune. And when his cavalry was unavailable during the Gettysburg campaign he was at a distinct disadvantage. As for this quote from the article,"Usually when Confederate cavalry did mass its force, it was little more than "a license to roam off into the enemy's rear areas searching for plunder and glory," writes historian Paddy Griffith." This is another reason for me to dismiss Paddy Griffith as a historian. These raids served a strategic purpose not addressed by the quote of the article. The threats these raids posed meant tens of thousands of Union soldiers were on guard duty far from the front, disrupted supply lines, and could have a major effect on campaigns. For example, Grant was forced to abort his Vicksburg campaign when his supply depot at Holly Springs was destroyed. So yes, it was very much worth the cost. |
Extrabio1947 | 04 Dec 2020 6:50 a.m. PST |
The Western Union armies suffered dearly from a lack of cavalry until 1863. It was cheaper – and faster – to raise infantry, so most states went in that direction. The situation became so acute that Rosecrans took the unprecedented step of mounting infantry on requisitioned horses and mules (basically anything with four legs that could be saddled). The mounted infantry – dragoons in the purest sense – immediately proved their worth. So yes, definitely worth the cost. Ask Bragg. |
Frederick | 04 Dec 2020 7:36 a.m. PST |
Totally agree – cavalry were much more than a battlefield presence – and as to the Union cavalry, there is a great line a historian friend has about the Gettysburg Campaign, which is "The importance of being Buford" |
Tango01 | 04 Dec 2020 12:47 p.m. PST |
Thanks!. Amicalement Armand |
Battle Phlox | 04 Dec 2020 1:14 p.m. PST |
|
d effinger | 04 Dec 2020 2:07 p.m. PST |
Dn Jackson, I completely agree with your assessment about Paddy Griffith. He doesn't understand the ACW. |
Tango01 | 05 Dec 2020 12:06 p.m. PST |
|
Rudysnelson | 05 Dec 2020 10:23 p.m. PST |
Another who agrees with Dan Johnson. I Alabama with the numerous raids, most actions included cavalry on both sides. When local defense battalions responded to a Union raid, even infantry used whatever available, horses, mules, wagons to get to the area. One action was a Union raid to destroy stores and disrupt training camps around Talladega. A large enough response group was dispatched from Fort Williams, now Sylacauga, to reinforce scattered companies from the muster depots. They arrived on horses and foot. |
donlowry | 07 Dec 2020 10:34 a.m. PST |
I assumed, from the thread's title, that he meant: Is it worthwhile buying and painting cavalry units for tabletop games? Which, of course, depends on a lot of things. |
|