Talk:Horses in warfare/Archive 3

Moving forward

I have a nice collection of paragraphs building up in my sandbox, some of which are nearly ready to make the Big Move here. I'll merge them in when I'm ready, but there are a few things I want to clarify/bring up first.

1. What spelling are we using? The article seems to have a mix, and needs to be standardised. My preference is for UK spelling, of course!
   1. It's supposed to be British spelling. Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I've done a sweep of the article to standardise spelling, but I've probably missed some Gwinva (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
2. There is too much on knights. Anyone mind if I reduce the "decline" stuff? I don't think we need it all (merge to HitMA, perhaps)
   1. I would have no problem with this. There have been several complaints by outside editors that the article is too long, so any trimming we can do would be good. Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I've played around with it, reducing the knight coverage, and adding more general horse warfare stuff. I think it's a little shorter (but the article length is a problem: I haven't done the 18th/19th C yet) Gwinva (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
3. WWII seems to be mainly how the Polish didn't attack tanks, which strikes me as undue weight. Why present a case merely to knock it down? A simple statement of fact should be enough. Can I reduce it, perhaps merging the detail/rebuttal of a myth elsewhere? (Where?)
   1. Again, any place we can trim is good. Most of this was added by the same editor that was misquoting Keegan, so feel free to cut. Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • merged to Cavalry, and other stuff added to make more comprehensive (oh, dear, that length thing...) Gwinva (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
4. I had a little Americas stuff to add in, but reminding you all that another editor recently added some info, which might need cleaning to FA standard.
   1. I'll clean up the refs in this section later today (it's easier on my other computer). Thanks for the heads-up. (Dana)
      1. I've done a copyedit and cleaned up the refs. Dana boomer (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Not essential for my work, but when I glanced over the article, I was struck by the shortness of the lead. (And, on that subject, can we have a better lead picture? That reenactors mount is not representative of a knight's horse (too heavy) and this is predominately about war horses, not re-enactments.)
   1. Most of the lead had been moved to below the TOC by the addition of an "Overview" section header by a random editor. It's been fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      1. OK, here are some choices that I found for the lead (feel free to use one, or find another one completely). Whatever the lead image is that we choose, it needs to be facing into the article. So, try these:

• 
• 
• 

• I like the 3rd, but it's been nominated for deletion (not pd until next year) Gwinva (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. It might be worth having a section on horse artillery (perhaps under tactics?). This is about the use of horses in warfare, not just cavalry, and that is a pretty major use not covered by "draught horse" sections, since they're not just pulling things (like the regular artillery) but something more: a precursor of the tank, if you like.
2. We seem to jump from WWII to "today". Where do I put the post-war 60s/70s stuff?
   1. Perhaps add a section called something like "Late 19th century" right after the WWII section? Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now (I'll probably come up with some others later, though!) Gwinva (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And a question from me (mainly for Ealdgyth): Should we move the journal references back into the main text in order to shorten the refs section, like we did in the horse article? If so, I'll work on that today and tomorrow, along with other ref cleanup. Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I'm fine with all the above tweaks. And the journal moves sounds like a good plan to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, the journal refs have been moved into the in-line text. If you see any still in the refs section, it's because I missed them, so feel free to move! Dana boomer (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As indicated above, I've worked on medieval, WWI and II; still have Renaissance, 19th C to do, plus various other bits. Length is going to be a problem, I think, but we can't not have these sections. Gwinva (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, added some more (mainly Nap wars). Still to do/finish: Renaissance/Early modern; Colonial wars; late 20th C. Should probably mention the American civil war: Cavalry in the American Civil War might have something useful. I also park here a picture whose previous location is no longer appropriate (since now renaissance only) but has not found a home elsewhere. Gwinva (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(Restored photo)

By the way, forgot to say: feel free to edit, improve, or reduce what I've added as appropriate! Gwinva (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements redux

Overall I am mostly OK with the general nature of the changes that occurred (sorry that real life is keeping me away for days at a time). Anyway, though I can live with the wholesale shift to British English, I actually did about 90% of the writing for last major expansion of the article outside of Gwinva's excellent material on the Middle Ages, and the prior version was written by SCA types, so technically we should have kept US English by wiki protocols. However, given the worldwide nature of the article, British English is also fine and probably more appropriate, so really I'm just mildly irked and will get over it.

See what you think of my tweaks, which may have made things worse, not better. I restored the image of Napoleon, as it is an excellent example of light cavalry horses. I also restored the decline of the knight stuff, though put it into the Renaissance section. It may need yet more reorganizing, but the technology changes that led to changes in horses and how they were used was far more important than the bloodline bit...which I parked on the talk page of HiMA.

I'm OK with a mention of Horse artillery, if we can find a place for it (there really is a problem sorting out the chronological history and the tactical history...not sure how to resolve, and this will be an issue if we go to FA, I'm sure, we had enough misunderstandings with the GA review.

I'm a little concerned with going on too much more about things in Euro history without a possible sandbox for a breakout. I don't want to put undue weight on any one time era more than we must...Remember that there is also the modern uses section, which may include late 20th c. Montanabw^(talk) 08:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

FA Nom?

What still needs to be done on this article before it goes to FA? Probably a thorough copyedit, but anything else? Ealdgyth, what's your opinion on the sources? Dana boomer (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

BW is ok with FA sooner or later, but keep in mind that we have the same crew simultaneously trying to get horse to GA and doing a massive improvement drive on Lipizzan, presumably for GA, so do we have the time/energy/worker bees to take this to FA now too? Montanabw^(talk) 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am at an art fair this weekend and next Saturday too. After that, I'm MUCH more available, so keep that in mind also. And I think we need to check in with Gwina also. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a couple more bits to merge in about the renaissance (sorry to be so slow) and a cite to chase. I will the have a good read of the article again, to see if I have any other thoughts. Hope to do that tomorrow. Gwinva (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added some stuff in, moved knight decline back to medieval section (but I'm still concerned it's too long) and clarified a few bits. Certainly needs a copy edit, but also a read through by everyone to approve content. Do we go straight for FA, or try a peer review first (since the A class review didn't give a lot of feedback). MilHist do their own peer review, too. Gwinva (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is peer review first, but I'm not set on the notion. FA can be kind of random depending on who first logs on to review, and I'd rather get some pre-reviews to see if certain themes/problems keep repeating themselves. (I personally hesitate to fix every hiccup an individual reviewer picks up if I don't really think it's needed, but if multiple people say the same thing, I listen pretty closely then...) For me, I have read this article so many times and worked on tweaking individual sections so much that I'm kind of blind to the big picture any more, and feel that completely outside eyes may be helpful. MilHist folks may be good, I haven't dealt with them much, you know better than I. Or maybe we know a good reviewer who could do a "pre-review" for us and maybe pick up more than the generic peer review would...? Montanabw^(talk) 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with going through a peer-review process first, to see if there's anything major that we're missing. Do we want to try the MILHIST one first, to see if we get more of a response than we did with the A-class review? Then, if we still want more feedback, we can go through the normal peer review process and get Ealdgyth to ask some of her FA friends to take a quick look at the article before we put it up for FA. Sound good to everyone? If so, why don't we go ahead and put the article up for the MILHIST peer review tomorrow, since this is a process that doesn't need immediate responses to all of the points, as an FA nom would. This will begin to give us some feedback on this article, while still allowing us time to work on the other projects that are on our collective plate. Dana boomer (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We have OTHER projects? (gawks at Dana) I'm fine with the proposed order. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(gawks at everyone) Um, other projects? Like the Horse GA, and before that blew up, Dana and I were sort of trying to get Lipizzan up to GA, plus the whole bombshell of the WP CD release version 7 where they dumped several high-priority/suck-egg quality articles onto the list for us to tune up by October?? (grinning, ducking and running) AAAHHHH!!!! Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've listed it at MilHist for a peer review. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Horses in warfare‎ Gwinva (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

speeds

I have been reading a bit about hoirses in warfare and often encountered that there were speed limits depending on armour and type of attack and certain acceleration steps. Perhaps you could give more information about that in the section about horses in general. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have any sources, that would be great. Problem is, I don't have any idea where or how to incorporate this (maybe Gwinva has ideas? Gwinva?). I don't know if this sort of thing was ever clocked. We can get general ideas from long marches and such when some historical record notes that they went X miles in Y hours over Z number of days. But for a rate in mph or kph, I have no idea where to start. For one thing, it is kind of obvious that the heavier the load, the slower you go. On the other hand, the better the horse, the faster you go. And then again, a good horse at the wrong job can't do squat. So there is a tradeoff between the type of animal and the work performed, making it hard to generalize. For example, an Arabian was a lot faster than a draft horse when carrying a simple rider and saddle, but if you hitched both types of animals to a really heavy load, the draft horse, being able to pull more weight, would be "faster" than the Arabian, who wouldn't be able to move the load at all. Just my two bits, this is worth discussing, perhaps. I can see a place in general info for some examples -- I know Gwinva and I have discussed this issue in the past...but there is SO much variability (for example, nowadays, there are endurance races where horses travel about 100 miles in roughly 12 hours. On the other hand, a heavily-laden wagon train would be lucky to go 10 miles in a day). Futher thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I did read something which gave speeds in a charge, which I think is what Wandalstouring is talking about. I'd have to have another look (and hope it wasn't in one of the books I've already returned). As to where it would fit, perhaps under cavalry tactics, or somewhere. I think it's a good idea: this article is about the horses, so readers will want to know what they're doing in a battle, and how the mechanics of it all worked. (for example, I keep coming across the daft idea from people who should know better that destriers used to walk because the armour etc was too heavy for them to do more. I know this must be daft, because shock action needs speed to work: a lumbering walking horse would hardly offer much danger. Gwinva (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! A walking destrier! I can see it now: "CHARGE!" "Oh, excuse me, THUD!" As for location, take a look at the section on light-weight, middle-weight and heavy weight horses, also the technology section right after. We may be able to add some kind of generalized, cross-all-eras-and-cultures principles on size, weight and speed in there someplace. (FYI, Wandal was one of the people who motivate me to get those sections created). Montanabw^(talk) 23:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about the speed for charges with lance(only fast canter), with sword(full galopp?) and about use of long range weapons from horseback (at full galopp or at a very slow pace as far as I remember). I think it is in the medieval source book. In cavalry tactics was also a link to a graphic about the acceleration of Polish winged hussars (it has been removed, but it is somewhere in the internet). Wandalstouring (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey, thanks for clearing that up. I'll defer to Gwinva. The line between a canter and a gallop is sort of a debatable one...technically it's the point at which the gait goes from three beats to four, not really a mph or kph cutoff, so definitely Gwinva's research territory...if you can find the diff on the Hussars article, or whatever. We shall look into it as we can... Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the page explaining the cavalry charge of the Polish winged hussars and providing analysis, although they totally neglect how limited sufficient horses for that kind of warfare were. Another issue that surfaced when the Poles did lose too many and an issue that should be adressed here. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

September-October 2008 round of edits

Latest batch of tweaks look pretty good to me, gang. And Ealdgyth, that breakout note was Gwinva's, stolen by me from HiMA! LOL! (poking Eadgyth and giving her a head noogie) :-D Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Peer Review

OK, I've taken care of most of the comments from the peer review, so the main comments on content still to be resolved seem to be:

• One editor wants more information on cavalry tactics.
• One editor wants more information on mounted infantry.

Honestly, this article is already really long, and I think that more information on these subjects can stay in their respective articles. However, if anyone disagrees with me on this, feel free to point it out!

Also, at one point we had discussed changing the lead image...there are a couple of options provided in one of the sections above. Do we still want to do this? Feel free to use the options above, or provide new selections.

We don't seem to be getting much feedback from the peer review, although we've gotten a little bit. Should we consider putting the article up for FA fairly soon, or do we want to go through a regular peer review first to see if we get any other comments? Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the lead image for now, even though it does perpetuate the "draft horse as destrier" thing a wee bit. First off, the knight's horse is the most popular conception of a "war horse." Second, I feel that a color photograph is vastly superior to either a B&W or a drawing, when available. The image is also dramatic and has eye appeal. Also, the B&W photo is the lead for a different article already, the Waler one, I think. That said, I am always up for ideas for better images if they are out there.

I agree with NOT expanding the article significantly. If this was a military wikiproject peer review, I can see why those folks may want those areas emphasized, but I do think we have cavalry, light cavalry AND heavy cavalry already, so I think our responsibility there is to just make sure we have it well-linked. I don't know what is out there for "mounted infantry." (Isn't that an oxymoron? Isn't "infantry" inherently the foot soldiers???), but if there is something, we may want to do some additional wikilinking.

I guess before going to the FA gauntlet, I think a "regular" peer review might be helpful insofar as it will draw out the people with neither a horse nor a military background who may pick up the places where we neglected to clarify what is obvious to us but not to others. But I could go either way on this, just more of a time crunch to find out this stuff when we go for FA, and it is nice to do peer review first as a test drive. Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a FAC regular, we're getting ... tired .. of folks using FAC as a PR, so strongly suggest going to PR with this. Mainly to get non-horsey, non-military viewpoints. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and think of mounted infantry as the precursor to the infantry riding around in the hummers... mounted just means they moved faster than foot infantry. They still fought on foot. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, FOLLOW UP: see Dragoon, I think that is the same thing as "mounted infantry..." i.e. foot soldiers also trained to use horses. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question: Could we/should we add a little bit to the "tactics" section expressly mentioning what Mounted infantry/Dragoons are? (We describe horse artillery at the point in history it appears, cavalry appears to be kind of universal) We only mention chariots and cavalry there, maybe we need to touch on the other main uses? (This is something where I could go either way, don't want the article bogged down). Montanabw^(talk)

Ok, that's on my "to-do" list as well (along with speeds). Since comments at MilHist have dried up, might be worth getting a regular peer review, to make sure that we have things nailed before FAC. (btw, dragoons were similar to mounted infantry at one point, but the definitions of dragoon altered slightly over the whole period. You also get "mounted rifles" which weren't dragoons. Most of the later cavalry action was be such troops.) Will try and get a short summary together with links to main articles. Gwinva (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mounted infantry is a very important component of Medieval warfare. Mounts could be horses, camels or mules. They provided for example the Rashidun caliphate army a significant strategic advantage leading to the biggest empire of early Medieval history and so on. Dragoon doesn't fully cover that because it's a recent phenomen. Here we could specifically adress that not every horse was used as a mount in combat, instead most horses, the donkeys and the mules were for transport (expect during the first crusade when knights used mules as combat mounts). The question for the average reader is what qualified a horse as combat mount and why were so many equids used for transport - couldn't that be done with small handcarts like in T'ang and Sung China? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm cool with adding a general historical overview of mounted infantry to the tactics section, though may need to be Gwinva to do it. (I obviously know squat about infantry). I guess this article is already about "horses in warfare" generally, mentioning horses as pack and draft animals as well as combat mounts, so whatever gives a thorough overview without excess bloat is fine with me. Montanabw^(talk) 01:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Related modern uses

Is this section required in an article about Horses in warfare ? they should be and are articles in there own right and not included here. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus of editors here is yes, these are military-derived uses and thus relevant to a complete history, particularly given that there is relatively little remaining use of horses in actual modern warfare. I think we have wikilinked to all related articles as needed, but let us know if we missed one. Always OK for further discussion, of course. Montanabw^(talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviews

Hello everyone. I just wanted to update everyone that I've archived the MILHIST peer review (since it appeared to be inactive) and opened a new request for an open peer review. Ealdgyth, I know you're on the road and won't be able to help as much, but I think that should be OK :) I'll be online quite a bit over the next few weeks, so I should be able to respond to most of the comments, although I'll be looking to everyone else for content input! Dana boomer (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. By the way, any wisdom to creating an ordinary archive for the earlier stuff on this page? Seems to be getting a bit bloated. We have older discussions archived, maybe an archive 2 or 3, or 4 or whatever...? Montanabw^(talk) 16:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How's that? I archived everything up to the beginning of September in Archive 2 (the PR/A-class/GAR, etc have their own designations and are archived under the individual projects)...I think everything that we may need to look at I left on the page. Feel free to archive more or bring some stuff back. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I should be home by early next week, at the very latest. Client's stallion just got home from the trainers and she's wanting us to wait a day or two so that he can quit thinking he gets to breed before we photograph. Darn, we have to hang out in scenic Colorado, drat! Should have internet most nights, so can at least check in. Bear in mind that PR isn't "fast" so it'll be up at least two weeks, probably. I'll try to ping a couple of folks to look at it too. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Related modern uses section

There have been consistent comments that the Related modern uses section is too long and for the most part un-necessary. I am proposing to cut it down significantly, and, rather than having it be it's own main header, be a sub-section under the "Modern usage" section. Here is my proposed wording: Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I mostly disagree with the comments of essentially one individual and oppose cutting the section to any significant degree, other than the Equestrian competition section, which may be a little bloated. I don't have a problem with some section header shifting around, but not wholesale elimination. I'll make a tweak of the article, which encompasses some of below Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's not just one individual. It's the current peer reviewer, one of the peer reviewers from the MILHIST review, and one of the reviewers during the GAR. This seems to be an ongoing theme, and so butchering this section might be the only solution. Honestly, I think this section is fairly bloated. There's too much ancillary detail in it as it is, especially since the article as a whole in bloated. This is probably the least-related section in the whole article - and I'd rather butcher it now than during the FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks and merged the two "modern" sections. I can always find some verbiage to chop. See what you think. My frustration is that two week later, someone is going to come around and whine that we don't mention something important. Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

On a different topic, I can see how maybe the intro is a bit long. If you want to take a whack at it, I have no objections. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Chop, chop...?

Did a go-through to cut excess words. Assorted work of all folks today cut it from 100 Kb 24 hours ago to 97 kb now. Not bad for taking out minor stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dana and Ealdgyth: Take a look-see at the chopping I did on the related uses section. I consolidated the Modern Uses and the Relate Uses sections together, merged some paragraphs, cut trivia, cut down on the number of subheadings, and the whole section, both military and non, is now a total of six paragraphs. I might be able to live with a bit more reduction, but not clear down to a couple of superficial sentences, as in particular, the ceremonial and law enforcement uses are still essentially military. The only wholly non-military section is the sport one, but it's down to a paragraph and mentions the most directly derived events. Don't know if I can really cope with further cuts, but if something specific is rubbing you the wrong way, let me know and maybe if I sit and think about it for a day or so I might come around. (Grin) Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking much better! I can't really see anything else that I'd like to cut, and I think the significant trimming that has taken place is beneficial to the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okies, would you care to peek over at the peer review? I think it's just chitchat between Peter and me at this point. Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dang! Big gaping hole in article

Hi gang, IMHO, it has come to my attention that we really do need a paragraph or so on the American Civil War. It is more significant than I realized. This after all my work to cut the bloat, now I am going to increase it! (sigh). However, I am going to sandbox it below and let everyone hack at it before it goes into the article. Ealdgyth, in particular can you give me an analysis of sources, as most are from the web, I am trying to at least take those that themselves have citations themselves or other indicia of reliability. I can probably upgrade some with some time at a library... anyway, here's the sandbox, at the moment the stuff in parens note cites I haven't put in templates yet. hack away. My goal, if youse guyz are OK with it, is basically one GOOD paragraph or so to go into the Americas section. Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. It's good information to include, and as long as we keep it short it shouldn't be a big deal, especially after all the stuff we've cut out so far. Ealdgyth, Gwinva, what do you think? Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: Rewrote. See what you think. Per importance, the issue is that the Civil War was one of the most horse-dependent conflicts in history, apparently both the numbers of horses and things like the high level of mobility of artillery were of note (Gwinva, would you concur based on European research?). The ownership soldiers, not just officers, attached to individual horses was also somewhat unique. The adaptation of tactics based on uniquely American experiences in the west is something different and ties in well to what's already in the article. What I have here is (maybe?) too long, but I can't do more without letting it "sit" for a bit. Feel free to tweak on mine rather than make a new section, easier to cross-check with diffs. Montanabw^(talk) 00:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here I am: apologies to all for being absent for so long. I can access Urwin's history of the US cavalry, which might provide better cites. As to concurring, hmmm. Most horse dependent???? How do you compare figures like that? Boer war was pretty much dependent on horses and they went through a lot. Troopers took their own horses too. But certainly, times they were achanging and all that. Nap wars, the officers had their own horses, but troopers were not of a class to own horses. Where were the civil war soldiers from? Boer war and WWI mounted men were all from farming/rural backgrounds, and owned horses and clobber. Those that didn't went into the infantry. If you've paid for a horse, you're going to be pretty attached to it. But I've certainly read of other cavalry men who rate their horses highly. Anyway, that's by the by: you don't make the claims in the sandbox. What is interesting is the move away from European traditions. What are these? Do they mirror the changes made to the mounted rifles in colonial armies (SA, Aust, NZ)? Mobile artillery suggests they've become dependant on horse artillery (regular ordnance became heavier). Interesting... the wars in India were at a similar time, and there its use was declining. So it does suggest the use was significant. Oh, and "I told you so". I think I muttered to you about the need for American stuff before???  :) Gwinva (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, huh, you DID tell us so! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, that's why I need more eyeballs. What is unique and different about the US Civil War as opposed to other conflicts of the time? It seems that cavalry played a very large role, possibly more, at least in proportion, than in other conflicts of the time. (Note 17,000 of the 20,000 fighters at Brandy Station were cavalry, just as an example) In short, to give you some background to answer your questions, one big deal was that the cavalry soldiers from the South, both officers and enlisted ranks, essentially grew up on horseback - the south was rural and had poor roads, much agriculture was plantation-based, lots of miles to travel. Even relatively low-social-class people would have been in the saddle almost from birth. In fact, in the southern army, if a cavalry soldier lost his horse, he was expected to go out and find another one on his own. Most of the superior cavalry officers were also from the south and so when the war broke out, they basically kicked the north around for two years until the Union figured out what to do about it. (Which was to improve their own cavalry, basically) In the north, which was more industrial and oriented toward small farms, there were also more roads, more people's experience with horses was behind a plow or wagon, they weren't the riders that southerners were. Also, the north raised a lot of farm horses, the south had a lot of racehorses and gaited riding horses, so more suitable stock, too. (One source Ealdgyth says is not good enough lists breeds) Most "grunts" in the Union initially joined the infantry. Essentially, yes, they used horse artillery to a significant degree, mobility mattered a lot, very few places had anything set in-- it HAD to move. Over one million horses perished in the conflict, I don't know how that stacks up to the Boer War or Crimea...as for unique methods, I'm not finding specifics, just references to adapting cavalry tactics to fighting on the Great Plains and in Mexico, disposing of some European styles (one author calls the European model "unsound" which is a both vague and POV, but you get the idea). Now this very well could parallel things happening in SA, AU, etc...but Americans, of course, would do everything our own way! LOL! Basically, some sources say that McClellan adapted the Union cavalry manual from that of Russia, they clearly studied European tactics, but then tweaked them to American conditions. So, taking that and maybe skimming the sources I have below, any feedback on what struck you as different and what was pretty typical of the 1860s will help! Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

---

See also: Cavalry in the American Civil War

The United States Congress authorized federal horse regiments in 1855. American cavalry adopted tactics based on experiences fighting over vast distances during the Mexican War and against indigenous peoples on the western frontier, abandoning some European traditions. During the Civil War, cavalry reached the highest position the horse soldier would ever hold in the American military.

There were more horses in the North, but horses and riders of the South were considered superior. Most fighting occurred in the South, and local horses were often seized by Northern forces. Field artillery in the American Civil War was highly mobile. Both horses and mules transported the guns. However, only horses were generally used on the battlefield because mules resisted control when under fire.

Cavalry troops, particularly in the south, often took their own horses to war. At the beginning of the war, most experienced cavalry officers were from the South and joined the Confederacy, which initially had battlefield superiority. The tide turned at the 1863 Battle of Brandy Station, early in the Gettysburg campaign, where the Union cavalry, in the the largest cavalry battle ever fought on the North American continent, ended the dominance of the south. By 1865, Union cavalry were decisive in achieving victory. So important were horses to individual soldiers that the surrender terms at Appomattox allowed every Confederate cavalryman to take his horse home with him.

Notes:

---

I'm not sure that the saddle is important enough to mention, honestly. While it was certainly an improvement, it wasn't as ground breaking as the horse collar or stirrup. HOnestly, I'd strip it to:

Civil War, horses and mules were of major importance The south was dominant in cavalry battles until the Battle of Brandy Station (ck cites from that article) when the north came into its own. Field artillery in the Civil war was highly mobile, pulled by both mules and horses. While mules were suitable for travel over rough terrain, they became so uncooperative under fire that only horses were used in battle. (cite http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-horses-and-field-artillery.htm, and http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-horses-and-field-artillery.htm/2 America’s Civil War: Horses and Field Artillery).

which keeps it to information that is specific to the war, and not generalistic statments. The Civil War isn't that important outside the US that we need more than this, I don't think. And certainly, we need better sources. The Grace one, isn't going to pass muster at FA. Any of the printed sources we're using should cover this, if you give me a day or so to recover from the road. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We mention saddles in general elsewhere, so I'm OK with not getting into the McClellan, which was notable mostly for being cheap and easy to mass produce. The History net articles appear to be the sources for the others, including Grace, so as I can cite to Historynet (which is actually citing a Civil War periodical), I'll use it. Ohio State ehistory archive will also probably be OK (?), the others are various reenactment sites, which I'll use for now until we can find something better if that works. Great if you have books, I've got a ton of history stuff, but it's all political history, not military -- I can tell you what Lincoln thought of McClellan (not much), though... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Popped the section into the article due to lack of further comment. Feel free to tweak away! Montanabw^(talk) 05:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)