Lord Cornwallis | 27 Dec 2020 6:39 a.m. PST |
So I have been working on my Cowpens battlefield for about 4 months and I thought it was coming along well. I was thrilled to see a new biography on Tarleton "War at Saber Point" by John Knight which my wife got me for Xmas. This guy does a lot of good stuff on the "all things Liberty site"including the "ranking the best and worst of the American Revolution in film" posted recently on this forum. It is a great book and is the first I have read that heavily features the British Legion and not just Tarleton. However when I got to his chapter on Cowpens my heart sank. Seems I have made a couple of rookie mistakes. My 71st (Frasers)Highlanders I have in Kilts. According to Knight they had long ceased wearing them and wore trousers or "trews" in the battle. This is disappointing as Highlanders always look good in kilts! But I want it to be historically accurate so I will paint up the trews variant. Even worse a number of my legionaires I have firing carbines. The author tells us that Tarleton trained his cavalry to never use them in a pitched battle and that "the saber and momentum were the only weapons the legion used outside skirmishing." They actually used their carbine holster "to carry their bread and cheese"! I want to feature carbines if I can as they look so good, so I thought I would at least be able to use them for Washington's dragoons. But further into the chapter he tells us that Washington ordered his charge into the midst of the 17th light dragoons with the order not to fire any weapons! This leaves me with just the 17th Light Dragoons. Does anyone know if they fought with carbines in the battle? Anyway I have just a couple of chapters left to read. I will post a review when I finish as he makes some interesting points about the legions uniforms, particularly the infantry component. |
historygamer | 27 Dec 2020 7:23 a.m. PST |
I believe the carbine was mainly used if fighting on foot. Pistols would be more likely fired from the saddle. The Highland units left their kilts behind early in the war. |
mghFond | 27 Dec 2020 8:42 a.m. PST |
Hey it's a hobby and a game, if you like your units in kilt and firing carbines, go for it! I like to try and be historical but I'm not bothered if I got something a little off (especially if I only found out AFTER I went thru the work on the figs). Just my two cents worth. |
IronDuke596 | 27 Dec 2020 10:48 a.m. PST |
I admire your willingness to be historically accurate as possible. I do too. |
robert piepenbrink | 27 Dec 2020 6:26 p.m. PST |
I can only hope that anyone trying to kill me is firing a smoothbore carbine from a moving horse, but even in the 18th Century few people were that lucky. Carbines were generally kept for dismounted use, and not always issued. And a cavalry officer who went to carbine fire in a battle--as opposed to a little light skirmishing between pickets--would not still be in command for the next one. That said, a wargame army is not a diorama. It's going to be used for multiple battles, we're stuck with the poses in the bag--and the only person you really have to satisfy is yourself. I've sent Highlanders into battle with kilts and feather bonnets in many battles where they wore no such thing, and shall again. Not like I'm going to build a regiment in both orders of dress for one period. I fight fall battles without fading the coats too. |
AICUSV | 27 Dec 2020 7:31 p.m. PST |
Not far from me is spot where on May1, 1778 a militia man was shot through the head, while sitting of a fence rail, by a Dragoon with a carbine. According to a first hand account of a survivor of Lacy's command following the Battle of Crooked Billet. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 3:28 a.m. PST |
Imrie/Risley made an excellent cavalry model of a light dragoon firing from the saddle. I have it in my collection and I believe that the horses made by the firm are excellent, as are the dragoons. They produced six regiments from the war-all four light dragoon regiments, dragoons of the Queen's Rangers, and the 17th Light Dragoons. I have not found any source or memoirs from that war where cavalry fired carbines from the saddle, but in the Napoleonic period, French light cavalry and heavy cavalry both did. So, bearing that in mind, modeling that from Cowpens or any other cavalry action of the war is accurate to the period, if not the actual action. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 3:29 a.m. PST |
And a cavalry officer who went to carbine fire in a battle--as opposed to a little light skirmishing between pickets--would not still be in command for the next one. And why is that? |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 3:31 a.m. PST |
LC, It's your collection you can do what you want with it. Not all battalions carried colors in combat either, but it looks better with the figures if you give them one. |
Bill N | 28 Dec 2020 6:49 a.m. PST |
I am inclined to believe that by Cowpens the 71st were wearing overalls as even their trews were worn out and it was easier to source the same supplies as everyone else. At least that is my excuse for painting them that way. There is an argument that if you really want to depict your mounted units accurately they would be sitting on standing horses. Most of us prefer our horse units to be a bit more animated. Plus we tend to produce our units to fight in multiple battles. I am not a fan of mounted figures firing carbines simply because if creates logistic challenges on basing and deploying those figures. If you want a few of them though, go for it. |
Lord Cornwallis | 28 Dec 2020 7:47 a.m. PST |
Apparently the Legion carried no "colours." Lord Rowden tried to present the infantry with them for their bravery at Hanging Rock. Tarleton refused them. |
robert piepenbrink | 28 Dec 2020 8:18 a.m. PST |
And why is that? Because (a) they were unlikely to hurt anyone, which is sort of the point of tactics, and (b) cavalry in battle--again, as opposed to skirmishing--is a shock arm. When you fire from the saddle at carbine ranges--and remember you need both hands--you forfeit momentum and have the wrong weapon in hand, and irate strangers with lances and swords will kill you while you're still swapping out. I can think of two or possibly three instances in the Napoleonic Wars when some unwise and inexperienced French cavalry commander tried such a thing. They were all disasters. Hey, I love that scene in The Mummy where the charging Medjai shoot down the Foreign Legionaires as much as anyone. But it wasn't a documentary. AICSU, I don't doubt it for a minute--as preliminary skirmishing. I can also find you people killed by spontoons, and at least one careless fellow who walked in front of his own artillery just as the gun fired. But cavalry at Cowpens was behaving as cavalry should on a battlefield--closing to contact at a trot of gallop with shock weapons in hand. Except when they turned and ran, of course. And then you note they were using pistols to hold off the pursuers. |
doc mcb | 28 Dec 2020 8:18 a.m. PST |
As many others have said, use the minis you have as whatever the scenario requires. I do a lot of 1:1 skirmish gaming and need to keep up with what weapons are where, loaded or unloaded, where the horses are when they dismount, etc. But though I do try to have mtd and dismtd minis for cavalry who may fight on foot, and also casualty figures, at some point you just have to declare who is what, or put some sort of token or marker on them. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 10:25 a.m. PST |
And why is that?Because (a) they were unlikely to hurt anyone, which is sort of the point of tactics, and (b) cavalry in battle--again, as opposed to skirmishing--is a shock arm. When you fire from the saddle at carbine ranges--and remember you need both hands--you forfeit momentum and have the wrong weapon in hand, and irate strangers with lances and swords will kill you while you're still swapping out. I can think of two or possibly three instances in the Napoleonic Wars when some unwise and inexperienced French cavalry commander tried such a thing. They were all disasters. And you would be incorrect. I doubt very seriously that any cavalryman in a melee or a charge would attempt to use his carbine. Yes, you have to use both hands and the reins would be held in at least one of them. The 20th Chasseurs a Cheval at Eylau fired at advancing Russian cavalry from the halt, just as the Grenadiers a Cheval did at Waterloo against advancing British cavalry. And they were ordered to do so by their commanders who were not in any trouble for ordering that mounted fire. In both instances, the French cavalry advanced to the charge with drawn sabers/swords after firing. Apparently, the Grenadiers a Cheval discarded their musquetons after discharging them and before charging. Regarding the actin of the 20th Chasseurs a Cheval at Eylau (from Denis Parquin's Memoirs, pages 67-68): 'About two o'clock in the afternoon an immense force of cavalry moved forward against us, but only at the walk, as the snow and marshy soil admitted of no quicker pace…Colonel Castex now inquired if our carbines were loaded. On receiving an affirmative answer he gave the order 'Carbines ready! – as in campaigning we had the practice of carrying those weapons at the hooks. He next ordered the officers to fall into place in the column and then did so himself.' 'Meanwhile the huge mass of dragoons were steadily approaching us, still at a walk, Colonel Castex regarding them perfectly unmoved. Only when the Russians had approached within six paces of us did his voice ring out shaprly: Fire!' 'The command was carried out by our regiment as steadily as if on parade. The effect of this one volley was terrific-almost the entire front rank of the Russian dragoons was mowed down…' |
doc mcb | 28 Dec 2020 11:04 a.m. PST |
So a volley from horseback works if the enemy walks to within six paces of you? Hmmmm. Not widely applicable, I'd say! |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 11:12 a.m. PST |
The question is: why wait until they were in slingshot range? Undoubtedly because they were at the walk. As with most, if not all, tactical applications, any course of action depends on the situation. And the bottom line is that the French regimental commander, Colonel Castex, made the call which turned out to be correct. And the French inflicted casualties on the Russians at a ratio of three to one for the action and attained a tactical advantage over the Russians by engaging with carbines first. And firing their carbine volley gave them the advantage over the slow Russian advance. The bottom line? At times firing mounted does work. Apparently, you have not read the memoir…🤦♀️ Next question… |
robert piepenbrink | 28 Dec 2020 11:12 a.m. PST |
Well played, Brechtel. Well played. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 11:32 a.m. PST |
Interestingly, French cavalrymen were taught mounted marksmanship, especially at General Henri Delaborde's camp of instruction at Pontivy during 1806-1807. There is also a painting of the 5th Chasseurs a Cheval engaging in mounted skirmishing against Cossacks during the 1805 campaign showing the troopers firing their carbines mounted. |
Bill N | 28 Dec 2020 12:17 p.m. PST |
I am a bit confused. I agree that there were instances of cavalry units firing carbines from the saddle in the Napoleonic Wars. There are references to troops firing long arms from the saddle in later American wars. I don't see how these are relevant to the question of whether and when men in the saddle would have been firing carbines as units during the AWI. |
Lord Cornwallis | 28 Dec 2020 12:19 p.m. PST |
This is a great debate. Let's keep it civil. You both clearly know more than me about the pros and cons of carbine use and I am not playing referee but I thought it might be helpful to copy n paste Knights take on why Tarleton trained his Legion from using carbines. " Originally, throughout continental Europe, light dragoons were not equipped with sabers. Instead, their primary armament was a carbine that could be fitted with a bayonet. This they were trained to fire from the saddle. Tarleton, like other cavalry officers before him, realized that far from being an asset, firearms impeded the effectiveness of a cavalry regiment. Though they offered a far greater range than a three-foot saber, combat experience taught they were woefully inaccurate when fired from a galloping horse. To use them effectively, troopers would inevitably halt and fire from a stationary saddle. In doing so, the for- mation lost all of its all shock value, with the power of the saber charge being replaced by scattered fire from distant rifles. Though British Le- gion troopers usually carried a brace of pistols, carbines seem to have been used sparingly, and there is no occasion where the legion is recorded as getting involved in a static firefight.27 Instead Tarleton ad- hered to the maxim "the sword is the most destructive and almost only necessary weapon a dragoon carries." 28 A cavalry unit's offensive power came from its momentum, not the weapon its troopers carried, which was almost incidental. An average light dragoon horse weighed eight hundred pounds, and with a trooper aboard was a thousand-pound missile that closed at over thirty miles an hour. Tarleton made it a doctrine for his soldiers to "charge home" with swords in hand and aim their horses at the enemy like ranks of galloping projectiles. A furious onslaught of frenzied horses crashing into the enemy ranks became the British Legion's trademark. Few in- fantrymen could stand against a troop of dragoons driving maddened horses into their ranks. Tarleton's key cavalry tactic was to get his ad- versary to break, as an enemy on the run with his back turned was far more vulnerable to the pursuing dragoon's blade." (The numbers are his footnotes.) |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 1:49 p.m. PST |
I am a bit confused. I agree that there were instances of cavalry units firing carbines from the saddle in the Napoleonic Wars. There are references to troops firing long arms from the saddle in later American wars. I don't see how these are relevant to the question of whether and when men in the saddle would have been firing carbines as units during the AWI. The references are relevant to the period. And I highly doubt that the idea of firing carbines while mounted originated with the Napoleonic Wars. And I did state that I hadn't found any examples of light dragoons firing mounted in the War of the Revolution, that does not mean that it didn't happen. The question is: Why wouldn't they if the need arose? |
doc mcb | 28 Dec 2020 3:00 p.m. PST |
So if your enemy is an idiot something stupid may still work? No doubt you can find other instances among all of the memoirs. |
robert piepenbrink | 28 Dec 2020 4:49 p.m. PST |
Why wouldn't they if the need arose? Well, skirmishing, maybe. but the "need" seldom seems to have arisen on a battlefield. I stand corrected in thinking it never worked. I'd just flat forgotten Parquin. Lord Cornwallis, to expand on Brechtel's point, Napoleonic technology is very close to AWI, and technology tends to drive tactics. Citing the ACW has to be done with more care: you can do things with a rifled breech-loading carbine--especially if it has a magazine--which might not be advisable with a smoothbore muzzle-loader. And training varied tremendously. So when someone says "they did thus and so in the ACW" a prudent man checks how they and their opponents were armed and trained before thinking whether this was feasible in 1780. But if they did it in the Napoleonic Wars--or the Seven Years War, come to that--it was probably possible with AWI equipment. Generally, AWI light dragoons had to be all-purpose cavalry, capable of scouting ahead of an army and of making formed charges with sabers even against other cavalry in good order. With due respect to Tarleton as a cavalry commander, he's not seeing something Henry Lee or William Washington missed: they're all trying to fill that heavy cavalry "ecological niche" while still being capable of scouting and providing defensive screens. The range of situations is, after all, one of the charms of the AWI. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 4:52 p.m. PST |
So if your enemy is an idiot something stupid may still work? No doubt you can find other instances among all of the memoirs. Incredible. So, you believe that Col Castex was stupid for ordering his regiment to begin the action with mounted carbine fire? It worked-and the unit was successful in fighting the enemy cavalry. |
doc mcb | 28 Dec 2020 6:09 p.m. PST |
No, dear, I think the Russian colonel was stupid in moving into point blank range at the walk. Col. Castex would have looked rather foolish if the Russian commander had noticed that his target was stationary with both hands full and ordered a charge. Well, the volley worked, but a tactic that depends on the enemy blundering is not widely appllcable. Which is what I first commented. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Dec 2020 6:48 p.m. PST |
The one that wins is the one that makes the fewest mistakes. |
doc mcb | 28 Dec 2020 10:13 p.m. PST |
|
Brechtel198 | 29 Dec 2020 4:38 a.m. PST |
I am so pleased that you agree…😒 |
Bill N | 29 Dec 2020 9:16 a.m. PST |
The references are relevant to the period. And I highly doubt that the idea of firing carbines while mounted originated with the Napoleonic Wars Sorry but I don't buy the argument that because something was done in the Napoleonic era means that it also was done in the AWI. It isn't a question of whether mounted individuals COULD fire their carbines while mounted. Its a question of whether mounted men operating as units did use this tactic, or in the case of loyalist and rebel mounted troops whether they were even trained to do this. |
Brechtel198 | 29 Dec 2020 11:58 a.m. PST |
Whether or not you 'buy' the idea, it is there to consider. It does give you, however, a subject for research if you are interested and not merely trying to argue a point merely in order to disagree for whatever ends. 🤦♂️ |
historygamer | 30 Dec 2020 7:37 a.m. PST |
While I don't doubt that an occaissional picket fired his carbine from the saddle while on patrol, I do question (and serioulsy doubt) that this activity ever occured as an entire unit, for a variety of reasons. In looking at the Continental Cavarly records, they were always short of equipment – including carbines. The British, on the other hand, were always short of well trained horses. Horses are flight animals, and have to be well trained, over time, to endure the sights and sounds of combat. No doubt this led to the Britih Light Dragoons being buried in the column at Brandywine – as most of their mounted died in transit before landing, and the mounts they likely acquired in Maryland and PA were only good for riding to the battle and not much else. Further, the Crown cavalry was divided into foot and mounted sections, further reducing their mounted element. There were few horse to horse actions involving any numbers. The 16th LDs (or some element, thereof) charged at Monmouth (swords), only to be repulsed by musket fire. The largest cavarly action took place at the Hook, and invovled hand to hand, with perhaps an occaissional pistol shot involved (side note – ever wonder why figure sculptors often put pistols in infantry officers hands when on foot? Me too.). I believe in early wars, horse often rode up, fired their pistols, then flung them at their opponents. Seems like a waste of weaponry to me. Likely quickly discontinued as ineffective. Reloading your carbine after shooting it on horseback just wasn't going to happen. I've seen experienced cavarly re-enactors (former Horse Guards OR) struggle while just trying to reload a pistol. Once fired, you had to do something with your carbine, likely reattach it to your sling – which had to be cumberson to say the least, while mounted. I believe the original concept for Light Dragoons was to ride to the action, dismount, and fight on foot, though that fell into disuse quickly as well. |
Brechtel198 | 30 Dec 2020 8:12 a.m. PST |
the Crown cavalry was divided into foot and mounted sections, further reducing their mounted element. The shortage of suitable horses for cavalry units was a persistent problem. The 2d Continental Light Dragoons were reorganized as a 'legionary corps', for example, in January 1781 to consiste of two dismounted and four mounted troops. The other three Continental Light Dragoon regiments were also reorganized as 'legionary corps' around the same time with the same organization. Lee's Legion, properly the 2d Partisan Corps (though first it was designated as Lee's Legionary Corps), was organized as having three mounted and three dismounted troops. The dismounted troops were considered to be light infantry. |
historygamer | 30 Dec 2020 8:21 a.m. PST |
You have to wonder if the move to these legionary corps, for both sides, was a consequence of a lack of suitable mounts. The designation of "light infantry" is a bit odd, as to my knowledge, there was no American light infantry drill/manual. It is hard to say how they were used, other than supposedly elite (which was clearly not the case for all these units) shock troops. The British answer to how Lights were to be used is shown in Howe's instruction to the entire army at Halifax in early 1776 – of using open files – called order (confusing, as that is also a position under the manual of arms), also known as the common order (as noted in the 71st Regt's orderly books). By Light, perhaps that means the men were younger, picked men, could march longer, faster, etc. As I've stated in the past, the history, and use of American Lights in this war gives me a headache, as it comes and goes, is not particularly clear, etc. And not all American Light units were elite, by any means (see Maxwell's unit during the Brandywine campaign, or the created Lights under Dearborn during Saratoga). |
Bill N | 30 Dec 2020 8:42 a.m. PST |
It is an idea to consider Kevin. I have considered it and rejected it. North America didn't have the tradition of mounted troops that Europe had. When they sent Howe's army over the British limited their mounted contingent to two regiments of the fairly novel light dragoons. In my readings on the AWI I have yet to come upon a reference to a significant body of cavalry discharging long arms as a unit while mounted. To my knowledge Pulaski's cavalry version of Steuben's Blue Book didn't survive. If it did, given that he was trying to form up lancers while still serving as commander of the cavalry, I am not sure it is relevant to what American cavalry was being trained to do. There are also numerous references to how cavalry lacked equipment raising the question of how many may have even had the carbines needed to employ this tactic. There is the references to Tarleton's philosophy stated above, and IIRC Tarleton never second guessed himself in his writings for failing to have his troops use firepower in a situation. So any suggestions as to where else I should be looking? |
Brechtel198 | 30 Dec 2020 8:43 a.m. PST |
You have to wonder if the move to these legionary corps, for both sides, was a consequence of a lack of suitable mounts. I don't believe anyone has to wonder at all. ‘As for the cavalry, it should never be touched; old troopers and old horses are good, and recruits of either are absolutely useless. It is a burden, it is an expense, but it is indispensable.'-Maurice de Saxe The designation of "light infantry" is a bit odd, as to my knowledge, there was no American light infantry drill/manual. Why does there have to be a drill manual for light infantry? The French developed excellent light infantry and tactics by practice and not with any manual-that came later. And it should be remembered that the Continental Corps of Light Infantry was the elite of the Continental Army. Having a manual is fine-actually operating as light infantry in the field is much better. The British developed excellent light infantry in the French and Indian War and revived it in 1771 with a light company in the infantry regiments. The Continental Army added light infantry companies to the Continental infantry regiments with a new organization in May 1778. Interestingly, Baron von Steuben had served with the Prussian Free Corps in combat and understood light tactics. There was also the example of Maurice de Saxe, Henry Bouquet, and the Comte Turpin de Grasse for the development of the Continental light infantry arm. |
Brechtel198 | 30 Dec 2020 8:45 a.m. PST |
It is an idea to consider Kevin. I have considered it and rejected it. And that is your loss, unfortunately, historically speaking. |
historygamer | 30 Dec 2020 8:45 a.m. PST |
"There are also numerous references to how cavalry lacked equipment raising the question of how many may have even had the carbines needed to employ this tactic." The point I alluded to in my previous post. I'd have to look in my reference books to see what firearms the Continental Cavarly was carrying. Lots of French muskets among the infantry, but not sure about the cavalry. It was expensive to maintain these troops, and their performance in the field was mixed, at best. |
Bill N | 30 Dec 2020 8:56 a.m. PST |
I am in the camp Historygamer that says there was more to it than simple lack of horses. There are plenty of references in the south to mounted militia. Tarleton had little trouble remounting the British Legion after it lost its horses on the trip south. The British were even able to mount regular infantry in the south on locally obtained horses. I think a factor may have been the lack of resources to support cavalry. Pulaski was writing in the winter of 1777-78 about the inability to provide fodder for the horses which forced him to disperse his command. Small mounted commands that kept moving could probably meet their needs from local sources. Troops that remained sedentary would need to build up magazines. A Legionary corps with fewer horses would provide some of the advantages of mounted troops while using fewer resources. It was an informed choice Kevin. It is simply not your choice. |
historygamer | 30 Dec 2020 9:11 a.m. PST |
Bill N – I agree, just noting that providing horses to ride somewhere, as opposed to taking them into a shooting situation is apples to watermelon. Even horses trained to ignore gunfire can freak out about the sound a drum, a fife, the fluttering of a flag, etc. The militia horses were certainly not trained to that level. Their riders rode them there and dismounted, I would imagine. Of course, if it were a situation of just horse and swords, might be a lower standard where the horse would be okay. Fodder was an on-going issue in the 18th and 19th centruy wars in America. Just finished Cubbison's book on the Braddock and Forbes campaigns, as it related to Deputy Quarter Master Sir John St. Clair. Fodder and wagons (also a recurring theme in AWI period) were the nightmares of both campaigns. I seem to recall reading Douglas Southall Freeman's book on R. E. Lee where the shortage of fodder in Northern VA in 1864 handicapped his army as well. I think your assessment is spot on. :-) |
doc mcb | 30 Dec 2020 10:10 a.m. PST |
I suspect that horse quality suffered more from attrition than because it was originally low, at least for Americans. Virginia and the tobacco-growing south generally was horse and cattle country; that is what you did with land that would no longer grow tobacco (after about 5 crops). There must have been thousands of good horses theoretically available, but the planters were also no doubt very good at hanging on to them. It was a procurement problem and not the absence of what needed to be procured. |
doc mcb | 30 Dec 2020 10:14 a.m. PST |
Mounted militia in general were probably very poorly mounted. But the planters' sons, if mobilized as they occasionally were, would be very handsomely mounted. |
42flanker | 30 Dec 2020 12:36 p.m. PST |
The British also had a profligate tendency of loading up a full complement of horses for journeys southwards, in 1777 and 1780 for instance, significant numbers of which would be dead or invalids by voyage's end. QMG Brig Gen Sir William Erskine spent mch of the weeks after landing in 1777 foraging for local horseflesh. He seems to have had considerable success. |
Brechtel198 | 30 Dec 2020 1:16 p.m. PST |
From With Zeal and Bayonets Only by Matthew Spring regarding the problems facing the British mounted arm regarding remounts and forage, 271: 'The two main factors responsible for this usual paucity of mounted troops were the difficulty of procuring suitable horses and the problems of feeding them…From 1777 onward, the development of an increasingly effective rebel cavalry arm exacerbated the British shortfall in mounted troops-a factor that became increasingly significant during the southern campaigns, in which the rebel dragoons of Colonels Henry Lee and William Washington played a vita and distinguished operational and tactical role. In the Carolinas Cornwallis's dragoons often found themselves at a distinct disadvantage to their rebel counterparts dur to the difficulty of obtaining suitable mounts.' When Cornwallis moved to Virginia he was able to find suitable and excellent mounts with which to mount his available cavalrymen. |
Brechtel198 | 30 Dec 2020 1:18 p.m. PST |
It should be noted that mounted militia were not cavalrymen. There is more to being a cavalryman than being mounted on a horse. |
doc mcb | 30 Dec 2020 2:01 p.m. PST |
Yes, like being armed with a saber. Which some state units endeavored to be. See, e.g., MILITARY UNIFORMS IN NORTH AMERICA plate 750, Georgia State legion 1781-82. They were not militia, I realize. |
doc mcb | 30 Dec 2020 2:08 p.m. PST |
Plate 752 is "Illinois Troop, Virginia Light Dragoons, 1779-1782" and notes that "the Illinois troop was augmented from time to time by Virginia Volunteer Militia Light Horse. These units were equipped and clothed from quartermaster stores set up by Brigadier General George Rogers Clark to serve the needs of the Illinois Department." But no doubt most mounted militia lacked swords and dismounted to fight. |
Stalkey and Co | 30 Dec 2020 6:25 p.m. PST |
If in one year you actively fight in 1-2 "battles" but you spend every other day or more on fatigue duties, foraging, picket duties, et al ad nauseum [all of which is still the staple of military activity, altho you can substitute scrounging for foraging usually at least] you will not have to wonder why light infantry and light dragoons acquired weapons they found useful. I bet if you read some memoirs on the British light cavalry, or any cavalry in the North [First City Troop should be well documented] you will find that such petit guerre operations were considered essential by the commanders and that they were well valued soldiers and equipped with anything they needed and wanted and could be available. My guess is that Lt. Dragoons on both sides would have 1-2 pistols, a sword of "some kind" and a long weapon, whether a proper carbine or a hunting weapon or a regular musket. However, they might not bother to document it, and the weapons might be handed off to their relief, sort of the way warm coats would be between sentries. My 2 cents. |
doc mcb | 30 Dec 2020 6:59 p.m. PST |
I was told, long ago, by someone who served in WWII (US Army) that trucks with the ring-mount 50 cal. HMGs would find them missing if they were not guarded constantly, The front line troops would steal them. Infantry platoons wanted to have several 50s, one per squad if possible, in spite of the weight and ammunition supply problems. Any jeep would have one mounted, whether in the TOE or not. I expect that is a staple in soldiering. |
Stalkey and Co | 31 Dec 2020 7:34 p.m. PST |
yeah Doc mcb, that's another great example, certainly more modern but same line of thinking. I don't think it pays to get too specific or didactic in historical warfare pre 1900. When you read a lot – A LOT – of documents, you realize what's really going on. |
doc mcb | 31 Dec 2020 9:13 p.m. PST |
I do a fair bit of F&I skirmishing, built around log cabins and a blockhouse in the center of the table. WE keep track of every weapon. Very often papa is out hunting and mama and three kids are besieged inside the cabin by a few indians. A shortage of good weapons can be a very real problem for the civilians. But on at least one occasion a private of the Black Watch ended up in the cabin, wounded iirc, and the family asked what weapons does he have? Well, let's see, he has a Brown Bess with bayonet, and a pistol. He has a broadsword. And he has a dirk. And the family rejoices! |