Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil War + more Bell Hood

Expand Messages
  • tmix
    I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death. This would especially
    Message 1 of 21 , Feb 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
      tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death. This
      would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved, inter
      mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort of a
      given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the infantry
      would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the better
      of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
      Tom M.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@...]
      Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
      War + more Bell Hood

      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
      > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
      > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
      > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
      > casualties.
      > Tom M.
      >

      Tom,

      I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
      squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
      fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?

      Joe






      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Mark Peters
      ... Tom and Joe, Interesting comments on bayonets, etc. As has been suggested previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for most Napoleonic
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 1 4:11 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:

        Tom and Joe,

        Interesting comments on bayonets, etc. As has been suggested
        previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for most
        Napoleonic forces. The British developed the use of the bayonet
        after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
        (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45. The tactics of the Jacobites
        was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
        and close before reloading. The musket was then useless in hand to
        hand combat. Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of the
        musket. So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was essentially
        a defensive weapon. Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
        attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
        of troops ie. ranks v columns.

        With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
        many casualties could have resulted. To fire at a group of marauding
        French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
        off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
        bayonet being used for defence. Therefore, I believe that only a
        shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due to
        time and recuperation) could have been possible.

        Best wishes,

        Mark

        > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
        > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death.
        This
        > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved,
        inter
        > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort
        of a
        > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
        infantry
        > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
        better
        > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
        > Tom M.
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
        > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
        > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the
        Civil
        > War + more Bell Hood
        >
        > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
        > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
        > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
        > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
        > > casualties.
        > > Tom M.
        > >
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
        > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
        > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
        >
        > Joe
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Bill Merritt
        I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other,
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 1 7:43 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one square was formed at a time in the CW.

          tmix <tmix@...> wrote:
          I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
          tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death. This
          would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved, inter
          mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort of a
          given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the infantry
          would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the better
          of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
          Tom M.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@...]
          Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
          War + more Bell Hood

          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
          > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
          > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
          > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
          > casualties.
          > Tom M.
          >

          Tom, 

          I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
          squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
          fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?

          Joe






          Yahoo! Groups Links







        • Bill Merritt
          Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance, they made superb
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 1 7:46 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance, they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking meat. I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets than were humans.

            Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@...> wrote:
            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:

            Tom and Joe,

            Interesting comments on bayonets, etc.  As has been suggested
            previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for most
            Napoleonic forces.  The British developed the use of the bayonet
            after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
            (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45.  The tactics of the Jacobites
            was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
            and close before reloading.  The musket was then useless in hand to
            hand combat.  Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of the
            musket.  So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was essentially
            a defensive weapon.  Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
            attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
            of troops ie. ranks v columns.

            With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
            many casualties could have resulted.  To fire at a group of marauding
            French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
            off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
            bayonet being used for defence.  Therefore, I believe that only a
            shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due to
            time and recuperation) could have been possible.   

            Best wishes,

            Mark

            > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
            > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death.
            This
            > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved,
            inter
            > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort
            of a
            > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
            infantry
            > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
            better
            > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
            > Tom M.
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
            > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
            > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the
            Civil
            > War + more Bell Hood
            >
            > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
            > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
            > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
            > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
            > > casualties.
            > > Tom M.
            > >
            >
            > Tom, 
            >
            >  I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
            > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
            > fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?
            >
            > Joe
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            > Yahoo! Groups Links

          • Mark Peters
            There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of after. Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been a problem in itself. Was
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 1 8:15 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of
              after. Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been a
              problem in itself.

              Was it possibly the case that the musket was loaded, then bayonet
              attached after? Otherwise, the logic would be that the bayonet was
              attached at all time during combat, and we know that this was not the
              case. If so, this would have allowed one shot only before using the
              bayonet in defence/attack. As a result, crossfire could not have
              been much of a concern when forming square.

              Mark

              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
              wrote:
              > Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for
              the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance,
              they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking meat.
              I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets
              than were humans.
              >
              > Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:--- In
              civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
              >
              > Tom and Joe,
              >
              > Interesting comments on bayonets, etc. As has been suggested
              > previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for
              most
              > Napoleonic forces. The British developed the use of the bayonet
              > after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
              > (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45. The tactics of the
              Jacobites
              > was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
              > and close before reloading. The musket was then useless in hand to
              > hand combat. Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of
              the
              > musket. So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was
              essentially
              > a defensive weapon. Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
              > attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
              > of troops ie. ranks v columns.
              >
              > With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
              > many casualties could have resulted. To fire at a group of
              marauding
              > French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
              > off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
              > bayonet being used for defence. Therefore, I believe that only a
              > shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due
              to
              > time and recuperation) could have been possible.
              >
              > Best wishes,
              >
              > Mark
              >
              > > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would
              be
              > > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on
              death.
              > This
              > > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were
              involved,
              > inter
              > > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as
              sort
              > of a
              > > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
              > infantry
              > > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
              > better
              > > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of
              survival.
              > > Tom M.
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
              > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
              > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of
              the
              > Civil
              > > War + more Bell Hood
              > >
              > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
              > > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo.
              All
              > > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static.
              Of
              > > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly
              fire
              > > > casualties.
              > > > Tom M.
              > > >
              > >
              > > Tom,
              > >
              > > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
              > > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
              > > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
              > >
              > > Joe
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
            • tasimmo
              ... War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one square was formed at a time
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 1 8:19 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
                wrote:
                > I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil
                War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were
                formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one
                square was formed at a time in the CW.
                >
                > tmix <tmix@i...> wrote:I do not know of any stats. After such a
                fight the carnage would be
                > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death.
                This
                > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved,
                inter
                > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort
                of a
                > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
                infantry
                > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
                better
                > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
                > Tom M.
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
                > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the
                Civil
                > War + more Bell Hood
                >
                > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
                > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
                > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
                > > casualties.
                > > Tom M.
                > >
                >
                > Tom,
                >
                > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
                > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
                > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
                >
                > Joe
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                Service.



                Gentlemen,

                I've been boning up on my knowledge of the infantry square as used in
                Napoleonic times, and because of its "all-around facing" the square
                normally only fired to its FRONT; this would have been even more
                imperative when several squares were deployed within shooting
                distance of each other. Thus, the overall firepower of an infantry
                square was much reduced. It was the points of the bayonets within the
                3- or 4-rank deep square that kept charging cavalry horses "at bay".
                At Waterloo, the cavalry and smoke was so thick that the squares
                apparently could not even see one another.

                Tom S.
              • tasimmo
                ... a ... the ... the ... instance, ... meat. ... volley, ... to ... number ... the ... would ... the ... nearby ... considerable friendly ... Mark,
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 1 8:24 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Peters" <mark-
                  peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:
                  > There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of
                  > after. Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been
                  a
                  > problem in itself.
                  >
                  > Was it possibly the case that the musket was loaded, then bayonet
                  > attached after? Otherwise, the logic would be that the bayonet was
                  > attached at all time during combat, and we know that this was not
                  the
                  > case. If so, this would have allowed one shot only before using
                  the
                  > bayonet in defence/attack. As a result, crossfire could not have
                  > been much of a concern when forming square.
                  >
                  > Mark
                  >
                  > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for
                  > the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for
                  instance,
                  > they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking
                  meat.
                  > I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets
                  > than were humans.
                  > >
                  > > Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:--- In
                  > civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Tom and Joe,
                  > >
                  > > Interesting comments on bayonets, etc. As has been suggested
                  > > previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for
                  > most
                  > > Napoleonic forces. The British developed the use of the bayonet
                  > > after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
                  > > (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45. The tactics of the
                  > Jacobites
                  > > was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial
                  volley,
                  > > and close before reloading. The musket was then useless in hand
                  to
                  > > hand combat. Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of
                  > the
                  > > musket. So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was
                  > essentially
                  > > a defensive weapon. Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
                  > > attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given
                  number
                  > > of troops ie. ranks v columns.
                  > >
                  > > With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
                  > > many casualties could have resulted. To fire at a group of
                  > marauding
                  > > French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
                  > > off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering
                  the
                  > > bayonet being used for defence. Therefore, I believe that only a
                  > > shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due
                  > to
                  > > time and recuperation) could have been possible.
                  > >
                  > > Best wishes,
                  > >
                  > > Mark
                  > >
                  > > > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage
                  would
                  > be
                  > > > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on
                  > death.
                  > > This
                  > > > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were
                  > involved,
                  > > inter
                  > > > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as
                  > sort
                  > > of a
                  > > > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
                  > > infantry
                  > > > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of:
                  the
                  > > better
                  > > > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of
                  > survival.
                  > > > Tom M.
                  > > >
                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
                  > > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                  > > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of
                  > the
                  > > Civil
                  > > > War + more Bell Hood
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                  > > > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo.
                  > All
                  > > > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static.
                  > Of
                  > > > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly
                  > fire
                  > > > > casualties.
                  > > > > Tom M.
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Tom,
                  > > >
                  > > > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the
                  nearby
                  > > > squares, but of course that must have done
                  considerable "friendly
                  > > > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
                  > > >
                  > > > Joe
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ---------------------------------
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
                  > >
                  > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                  > Service.


                  Mark,

                  Apparently, the bayonet "hedge" was provided by the (kneeling) front
                  rank of the square, while the second, third and (sometimes fourth)
                  ranks provided the firepower. I would imagine these ranks did
                  not "fix" their bayonets.

                  Tom S.
                • Bill Merritt
                  Loading the musket with the bayonet attached was no problem at all; it was a socket, so the barrel of the gun was free. I ve done it often, without noticing
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 1 9:02 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Loading the musket with the bayonet attached was no problem at all; it was a socket, so the barrel of the gun was free. I've done it often, without noticing the bayonet.

                    Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@...> wrote:
                    There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of
                    after.  Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been a
                    problem in itself. 

                    Was it possibly the case that the musket was loaded, then bayonet
                    attached after?  Otherwise, the logic would be that the bayonet was
                    attached at all time during combat, and we know that this was not the
                    case.  If so, this would have allowed one shot only before using the
                    bayonet in defence/attack.  As a result, crossfire could not have
                    been much of a concern when forming square.

                    Mark

                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
                    wrote:
                    > Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for
                    the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance,
                    they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking meat.
                    I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets
                    than were humans.
                    >
                    > Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:--- In
                    civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Tom and Joe,
                    >
                    > Interesting comments on bayonets, etc.  As has been suggested
                    > previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for
                    most
                    > Napoleonic forces.  The British developed the use of the bayonet
                    > after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
                    > (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45.  The tactics of the
                    Jacobites
                    > was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
                    > and close before reloading.  The musket was then useless in hand to
                    > hand combat.  Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of
                    the
                    > musket.  So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was
                    essentially
                    > a defensive weapon.  Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
                    > attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
                    > of troops ie. ranks v columns.
                    >
                    > With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
                    > many casualties could have resulted.  To fire at a group of
                    marauding
                    > French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
                    > off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
                    > bayonet being used for defence.  Therefore, I believe that only a
                    > shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due
                    to
                    > time and recuperation) could have been possible.   
                    >
                    > Best wishes,
                    >
                    > Mark
                    >
                    > > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would
                    be
                    > > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on
                    death.
                    > This
                    > > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were
                    involved,
                    > inter
                    > > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as
                    sort
                    > of a
                    > > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
                    > infantry
                    > > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
                    > better
                    > > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of
                    survival.
                    > > Tom M.
                    > >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
                    > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                    > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of
                    the
                    > Civil
                    > > War + more Bell Hood
                    > >
                    > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                    > > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo.
                    All
                    > > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static.
                    Of
                    > > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly
                    fire
                    > > > casualties.
                    > > > Tom M.
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > > Tom, 
                    > >
                    > >  I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
                    > > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
                    > > fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?
                    > >
                    > > Joe
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > 
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ---------------------------------
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
                    >  
                    >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >  
                    >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                    Service.

                  • tmix
                    Yes, loading and re-loading were a challenge with the bayonet attached. Some of our re-enactors could better discuss this than me since they have done,
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 1 11:17 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yes, loading and re-loading were a challenge with the bayonet attached.
                      Some of our re-enactors could better discuss this than me since they
                      have done, although obviously not under life and death situations. But
                      what you touched on is why a bayonet charge was very rare. When
                      Chamberlain ordered his charge it shocked his men knowing it meant an
                      all or nothing, do or die event. It was a chilling order that I found
                      the movie to portray beautifully.
                      In Napoleonic times it was more of given to use the bayonet. At
                      Friedland the French engaged the Russian Guard who were quite tall. Thus
                      the French found they had to jab in an upward motion. Napoleon's surgeon
                      Larrey made quite a study of after battle results that helped him create
                      advancements in the medical, like the first mobile field hospital near
                      the front.
                      During the Civil War, a bayonet charge was often regarded as a last
                      resort suicide move. A very scary proposition.
                      Tom M.

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Mark Peters [mailto:mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@...]
                      Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 10:16 AM
                      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
                      War + more Bell Hood

                      There was another problem, with bayonets and firing, I thought of
                      after. Reloading a musket, with a bayonet attached must have been a
                      problem in itself.

                      Was it possibly the case that the musket was loaded, then bayonet
                      attached after? Otherwise, the logic would be that the bayonet was
                      attached at all time during combat, and we know that this was not the
                      case. If so, this would have allowed one shot only before using the
                      bayonet in defence/attack. As a result, crossfire could not have
                      been much of a concern when forming square.

                      Mark

                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Bill Merritt <bilmerritt@y...>
                      wrote:
                      > Nevertheless, the Bayonet was an essential piece of equipment for
                      the Civil War soldier. They served numerous purposes...for instance,
                      they made superb candle-holders, and were very good for cooking meat.
                      I imagine, also, that far more pigs and cows were stuck by bayonets
                      than were humans.
                      >
                      > Mark Peters <mark-peters.midlandsandnorth@m...> wrote:--- In
                      civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Tom and Joe,
                      >
                      > Interesting comments on bayonets, etc. As has been suggested
                      > previously, the bayonet was certainly not a preferred weapon for
                      most
                      > Napoleonic forces. The British developed the use of the bayonet
                      > after attempting to combat the use of claymores by the Jacobites
                      > (mostly Scottish clansmen) in the '45. The tactics of the
                      Jacobites
                      > was to charge the Hanoverians, after receiving the initial volley,
                      > and close before reloading. The musket was then useless in hand to
                      > hand combat. Hence, the addition of a short sword on the end of
                      the
                      > musket. So Tom is quite correct in stating that this was
                      essentially
                      > a defensive weapon. Most Napoleonic tactics were developed in
                      > attempting to achieve the greatest amount of fire by a given number
                      > of troops ie. ranks v columns.
                      >
                      > With regards to cross-fire, as at Waterloo, I am unsure as to how
                      > many casualties could have resulted. To fire at a group of
                      marauding
                      > French cavalrymen would have been essentially a one, possibly two
                      > off, as reloading would have resulted in standing and lowering the
                      > bayonet being used for defence. Therefore, I believe that only a
                      > shot at an advancement, and possibly one at retreat (unlikely due
                      to
                      > time and recuperation) could have been possible.
                      >
                      > Best wishes,
                      >
                      > Mark
                      >
                      > > I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would
                      be
                      > > tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on
                      death.
                      > This
                      > > would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were
                      involved,
                      > inter
                      > > mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as
                      sort
                      > of a
                      > > given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the
                      > infantry
                      > > would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the
                      > better
                      > > of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of
                      survival.
                      > > Tom M.
                      > >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@a...]
                      > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                      > > To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of
                      the
                      > Civil
                      > > War + more Bell Hood
                      > >
                      > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                      > > > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo.
                      All
                      > > > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static.
                      Of
                      > > > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly
                      fire
                      > > > casualties.
                      > > > Tom M.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > Tom,
                      > >
                      > > I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
                      > > squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
                      > > fire" damage. Are there any statistics concerning this?
                      > >
                      > > Joe
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/civilwarwest/
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > civilwarwest-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      Service.




                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • tmix
                      I know of 2 squares in the ACW and they were individual efforts as opposed to interlocking compositions which was the norm in Napoleonic times. One of the
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 1 12:40 PM
                      • 0 Attachment

                        I know of 2 squares in the ACW and they were individual efforts as opposed to interlocking compositions which was the norm in Napoleonic times.

                        One of the squares was at Chancellorsville which helped take out Stonewall and the 2nd was on the far right of the Confederate line on day one at Gettysburg. Another possible one may have been formed on Day 3 to repulse Kilpatrick’s stupid charge. Buford and Gamble had the good sense to not attack the CSA square on the 1st day but did make sure to worry and occupy the infantry units.

                        Could you give me some details on any other squares you may know of?

                        Tom M.

                         

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
                        Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:44 AM
                        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil War + more Bell Hood

                         

                        I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one square was formed at a time in the CW.

                        tmix <tmix@...> wrote:

                        I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
                        tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death. This
                        would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved, inter
                        mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort of a
                        given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the infantry
                        would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the better
                        of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
                        Tom M.

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@...]
                        Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                        To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
                        War + more Bell Hood

                        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                        > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
                        > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
                        > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
                        > casualties.
                        > Tom M.
                        >

                        Tom, 

                        I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
                        squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
                        fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?

                        Joe






                        Yahoo! Groups Links






                         

                      • Bill Merritt
                        Sorry, I can t give any more details of the other squares, though I shall ask. It was a discussion, a few years ago, on the Gettysburg Discussion group. I got
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 1 1:51 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sorry, I can't give any more details of the other squares, though I shall ask. It was a discussion, a few years ago, on the Gettysburg Discussion group. I got bounced by that group (voluntarily, really), after a real heated discussion on Dan Sickles. I have another source, though, and shall get back to you.

                          tmix <tmix@...> wrote:

                          I know of 2 squares in the ACW and they were individual efforts as opposed to interlocking compositions which was the norm in Napoleonic times.

                          One of the squares was at Chancellorsville which helped take out Stonewall and the 2nd was on the far right of the Confederate line on day one at Gettysburg. Another possible one may have been formed on Day 3 to repulse Kilpatrickļæ½s stupid charge. Buford and Gamble had the good sense to not attack the CSA square on the 1st day but did make sure to worry and occupy the infantry units.

                          Could you give me some details on any other squares you may know of?

                          Tom M.

                           

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Bill Merritt [mailto:bilmerritt@...]
                          Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:44 AM
                          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil War + more Bell Hood

                           

                          I have heard of eight times where a square was formed in the Civil War. Cross-fire would have been significant if two squares were formed next to each other, but, from what I have read, only one square was formed at a time in the CW.

                          tmix <tmix@...> wrote:

                          I do not know of any stats. After such a fight the carnage would be
                          tremendous with little effort to assuage the actual cause on death. This
                          would especially be so when Hussars and Carabineers were involved, inter
                          mixing their fire with that of the squares. The cross fire as sort of a
                          given and accepted price of the combat. Without the square, the infantry
                          would be trampled down so the risk was worth taking. Kind of: the better
                          of 2 evils, with the square providing the best chance of survival.
                          Tom M.

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: hartshje [mailto:Hartshje@...]
                          Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:44 PM
                          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A few of my favorite statistics of the Civil
                          War + more Bell Hood

                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "tmix" <tmix@i...> wrote:
                          > I was waiting for someone to catch the reference to Waterloo. All
                          > squares were a "tactical defensive" ploy as they were static. Of
                          > course the cross fire of squares took out a lot in friendly fire
                          > casualties.
                          > Tom M.
                          >

                          Tom, 

                          I had never really considered the crossfire effect on the nearby
                          squares, but of course that must have done considerable "friendly
                          fire" damage.  Are there any statistics concerning this?

                          Joe






                          Yahoo! Groups Links






                           

                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.