Historical research is always chancey, but at some point you have to weigh the
evidence and, on the whole, I think it is against soldados de cuera using
cartridge boxes in the first half of the 18th century or so. Let's review the
evidence:

Against cartridge boxes:
They do not appear on the soldados in our earliest known image of the troops,
the circa 1725 Segesser II hide painting (Museum of New Mexico collection). This
shows members of the Villasur Expedition making a last stand, firing their
carbines (see Photos section, Senores and Soldados).

Next, cartucheras do not appear in a list of goods and prices available in the
presidios published as part of the 1729 Reglamento. *At this point, I have not
started to look for other inventories or documents from the era that may very
well mention cartridge carriers.

Soldados de cuera were only issued six pounds of powder a year and had to pay
for paper and lead themselves. Thus firearms may not have seen much use.

Then, the c.1765 paintings from Baja California show soldados de cuera,
including a dismounted figure holding a carbine, without cartucheras. This
picture is also in Photos/Senores and Soldados.

A quote from later in the century, when cartucheras were common issue, has a
commander saying that his men preferred to carry a few cartridges in the back
pockets of their cueras. So earlier soldados could have carried them there too,
at least when dismounted.

Finally, period pictures of Spanish cavalry in the homeland and New Spain
frequently show the mounted regular soldiers without cartridge carriers right
through mid-century.

The evidence for cartucheras:
Sid Brinckerhoff's book on Spanish Colonial Arms and Armor shows a
"reproduction" cartuchera for a Spanish dragoon. This was displayed in the
Spanish military museum in Madrid and was based on period pictures. It is meant
to represent the kind of thing used in the 1720s. You must judge for yourself
how reliable this evidence is, though the repro cartuchera itself is not a real
artifact.

The earliest pictures of regular cavalry and dragoons in Spain that I can find
wearing cartucheras is the 1750s, but they do have them.

When the 1772 Reglamento was issued, the wording about the cartucheras was: "a
cartridge pouch, a leather jacket, and a bandoleer of antelope hide, of the type
presently in use . . ." [cartuchera, cuera y bandolera de gamuza, en la forma
que actualmente las usan]. Thus a cartridge box made of gamuza - buff leather -
was, like the cuera and bandoleer, already in use before 1772. We just don't
know when the cartuchera came into use.

At this point, that is the evidence as I see it. My conclusion is that, until I
see evidence such as cartucheras appearing in pre-1772 inventories, we can
assume that most, if not all dispensed with their use and carried their
cartridges, most likely, in their front-mounted saddlebags where they were handy
or else in their pockets. At some point prior to 1772, cartucheras came into
general use.

Dropping lances before firing or using swords is not based on firsthand accounts
but on reason. I am quite certain that no devices like stirrup buckets and arm
straps were in use before the post-Napoleonic Wars Era in New Spain and the
provinces [see my essay in the Files section under "Lances"]. Thus, to use the
right hand for anything else, the lance would have to be shed. I've suggested
that one way of carrying the lance while riding was to balance it across the
saddlebow, held by the right hand. This is commonly done by lancers elsewhere.
But to balance it without using the right hand, and while loading and firing -
even in a standing position, could be tricky. More than likely, if they had to
drop their lances, they could ram the point or perhaps the butt (metal caps for
these are mentioned in inventories) into the ground - if the earth was loose
enough for them to stick. If not, they would just have to drop the thing.

As for missing info, I think you have done the right thing by adopting something
practical but not jarring to the eye. And bravo to you for being honest about it
to people who ask. I cannot tell you how many times I've cringed watching
reenactors try to justify to the public something they find comfortable or
convenient or that they just like, by making something up. This is about
history, after all.

Let me give you a typical example. An interpreter at a California historical
site where I lectured last year told me with great glee how she foiled a visitor
who questioned her use of a kind of seashell in her necklace. It seems that the
visitor was a marine biologist who recognized the shell as coming from the
Caribbean. The interpreter, instead of dropping character and thanking the
visitor quickly made up an outrageous story of finding the shells attached to a
shipwreck on the California coast and incorporating it into her jewelry.
"You have to think quick to defend yourself against those sorts of questions"
this lady boasted, as if interpretion at an historical site was some kind of
battle of wits and the curious public was her oppenent. At that point, I asked
her about the cross she wore with her period costume. "Oh yes, our blacksmith
here makes these out of the horsehoe nails he turns out," she informed me. "You
know, of course," I replied "that Spanish horses in California were never shoed,
but had naturally hard hooves?" To this, she had no answer though, by now, I'm
sure she's thought one up. The point is, rather than inventing excuses for the
things you do to fill in the gaps in knowledge, be honest with the public, as
you have been. And when new evidence comes along, be prepared to change.

Best wishes,
David


shown firing their escopetas --- In Soldados@yahoogroups.com, anthony campisi
<campamc@...> wrote:
>
> Just want to throw a couple of quick comments (speculations really):
>
> Cartridges in pockets:
> I suspect that they would be carrying only about half-dozen cartridges
> max, not like 20! Also is it possible that they had cartridge boxes,
> but that they were commonly omitted from depictions? Or are the
> artists generally reliable on that account?
>
> Dropping lances to fire carbines:
> I've heard (but can't remember where -- may have been in this group),
> that some lancers balance the lance across the front of the saddle???
> I'm by no means a horseman, but if you're firing your escopeta, you're
> probably stationary. I don't know how feasible this would be.
>
> Authenticity:
> This is a general question for everybody-- how do you handle missing
> info? Let me give you an example: My civil war reenactment group is
> the 1st NM Volunteer Infantry. During the Confederate invasion of New
> Mexico (1861 - May 1862), we have no photographs of enlisted men.
> Nothing (ok there might be one, but it would have to have been
> mislabelled). We have data that there were supply shortages, some
> companies report being given very bad clothing . . . but no specifics
> (i.e. was it early poor contractor stuff that managed to make it down
> the trail, or old worn out garbage lying around in local depots?).
> There were also canteen shortages until at least the very end of
> 1861. -- I am loathe to be without a canteen at any reenactment/
> living history event. Now, I have this odd setup that I put
> together. It's a glass bottle in a woven container slung over my
> shoulder by a rope. I will sometimes carry this, instead of my
> (rusting) canteen. The bottle isn't period, and I'm not sure about
> the woven thing (it's actually like knitted out of light-weight
> rope). I'm totally honest about it when people ask though. I tell
> them what the situation was in 1861, and that we really don't know
> what they had -- but, they would have carried water with them
> somehow. I point out it's not a period bottle, and the container
> should probably be more like a woven basket.
>
> One of the reasons I'm asking this, is because this bottle actually
> draws a lot of attention. People think it's really cool. As do I --
> glass is a very nice container to drink out of. :-)
>
> Thanks,
> -Tony
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2009, at 7:50 PM, David Rickman wrote:
>
> > Hello Zieg,
> > Regarding sources, it is hard to know where to begin. I've been
> > researching this stuff in primary and secondary sources for ages.
> > Some things are published, such as the 1729 Reglamento I mentioned
> > earlier, which is a primary source, or the Max Moorehead book The
> > Presidio, which is a good secondary source. And then there is the
> > archival work - looking at memoirs, finding regulations, looking at
> > supply lists, etc. Finally, and quite importantly, looking at real
> > stuff: eyewitness pictures, actual artifact. For an obscure part of
> > the 18th century world, there is a lot of information to absorb.
> > But, as I mentioned before, the earlier period that you have chosen,
> > since it is pre-regulation, is going to be less specific about what
> > soldiers are wearing, which actually makes your task more difficult.
> >
> > Perhaps we can all contribute our favorite published sources to a
> > general bibliography in the Files section.
> >
> > David
> >
> > --- In Soldados@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Paul Ziegler" <thezieg@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Very good about no cartridge box. That's A-OK with me. At the
> >> risk of
> >> sounding vulgar in my approach, I'm keen to spend what I have to
> >> spend, but
> >> there's only so much much money to go around. If I don't have to
> >> buy or
> >> make a cartridge box or belt, that leaves more money and time to
> >> put into
> >> the rest of the kit. Now that I read that sentence over again, I
> >> realize
> >> that I'm not sounding vulgar so much as repeating the very same
> >> concerns of
> >> the soldado on the frontier. "Es el mismo perro con diferente
> >> collar."
> >>
> >> So this brings me to the next big question: where are you getting
> >> your
> >> info. I'd like to get to the point where I'm finding these things
> >> out for
> >> myself and bringing them here for your input. I'm thrilled that I
> >> have so
> >> much guidance (that you have the knowledge and that you're so
> >> willing to
> >> share it) but I'd like to be more than just the tabula rasa. What
> >> sources
> >> are available online that I'm missing?
> >>
> >> Zieg
> >>
> >> Eric Paul Ziegler
> >> Double E Farm
> >> Elizabeth CO
> >> classicalequitation@
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: Soldados@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Soldados@yahoogroups.com] On
> >> Behalf
> >> Of David Rickman
> >> Sent: Friday, 10 July, 2009 8:32 PM
> >> To: Soldados@yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: [Soldados] Why no cartridge box?
> >>
> >> A bit of quick research seems to indicate that no cartridge box was
> >> carried
> >> by soldados de cuera in the early-18th century. The Reglamento de
> >> 1729 lists
> >> "Prices to be charged in the presidios for provisions, equipment
> >> and other
> >> necessities which must be provided for the soldiers." These include
> >> not only
> >> the cost of the cuera (25 pesos in Coahuila as compared with 40
> >> pesos in New
> >> Mexico) but also shows that soldiers carried their swords on baldrics
> >> (tahalies) costing 4 - 5 pesos, depending on location. Muskets cost
> >> 25 - 30
> >> pesos, and their saddle scabbards (fundas) were 3 - 6 pesos plain
> >> and 6 - 10
> >> pesos when embroidered with pita and silk. But there is no mention
> >> of either
> >> pistols or cartridge carriers of any kind. That is one bit of
> >> evidence.
> >>
> >> Next is the fact that quite a number of cavalry units in New Spain,
> >> even in
> >> Mexico City prior to the second half of the 18th century appear to
> >> have been
> >> without cartridge boxes, judging from period artwork. This means
> >> they had to
> >> carry cartridges either on themselves or their saddles.
> >>
> >> Next, the regulations note that as part of their pay, soldados de
> >> cuera were
> >> given only 6 pounds of powder per year and that if they wanted to
> >> buy more,
> >> it cost them 5 reales per ounce. Add to that that lead and paper
> >> were paid
> >> for by the soldiers themselves and you begin to think it likely
> >> that the
> >> firearms were only a weapon of last resort.
> >>
> >> Lastly, the 1729 Reglamento lists the component parts of the soldados
> >> saddles, which include saddle trees, rump covers (anqueras), and
> >> corazas (a
> >> larger form of mochila). They also include a pair of saddle bags
> >> (cojinillos) which, very likely, were mounted under the coraza but
> >> at the
> >> front of the saddle, within easy reach of the rider - as seen in
> >> Father
> >> Tirsch's pictures of saddles. My opinion is that the soldados de
> >> cueras of
> >> the 1740s - 1750s did not fire their escopetas often and, when they
> >> did,
> >> they reached into their saddlebag for another cartridge.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to: Soldados-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Please check http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Soldados/links for links
> > of interest,
> > and our files section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Soldados/
> > files for reference material, photos and equipment!Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>