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
  • 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 1 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
    • 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 2 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
      • 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 3 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
        • 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 4 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
          • 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 5 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
            • 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 6 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
              • 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 7 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
                • 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 8 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
                  • 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 9 of 21 , Mar 1, 2004
                    • 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.