|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 8:47:19 GMT -6
Post by Scout on Nov 19, 2007 8:47:19 GMT -6
Does anyone know if saddles and bridles were assigned to troopers or was it a 'grab fest' when they were needed. I can't find much on this. I need this for something I'm writing. Hep me!
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 8:51:52 GMT -6
Post by conz on Nov 19, 2007 8:51:52 GMT -6
Does anyone know if saddles and bridles were assigned to troopers or was it a 'grab fest' when they were needed. I can't find much on this. I need this for something I'm writing. Hep me! I'll see if I can find it in writing, but I'm very sure that each Trooper had his own tack set, just for him and his horse. Most would probably mark theirs in some way to identify it for when they got piled in a bunch...probably scratch the inside of the leathers. In riding barns, we use small tags, but I haven't run across tags or nameplates being used out there back then. Clair
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 8:54:50 GMT -6
Post by clw on Nov 19, 2007 8:54:50 GMT -6
I would think bridles had to be assigned to each horse as head sizes vary as well a bitting needs. Ideally this would apply to saddles too, although I don't know how the cavalry approached saddle fitting. I love to find out.
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 10:45:40 GMT -6
Post by Scout on Nov 19, 2007 10:45:40 GMT -6
We all know the so called mystery of the horse found later by Godfrey and company near the Yellowstone and Rosebud Rivers. The horse was saddled and bridled. Godfrey says they searched around as to try to find out whose horse it was but could find nothing that would identified the owner. I would think if saddles and bridles were marked it would've been easy to id. If they were assigned they must have been unmarked. A feedbag was also found with no markings as to who the owner was. Strange stuff.
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 11:03:03 GMT -6
Post by Scout on Nov 19, 2007 11:03:03 GMT -6
With a constant turnover of troopers I would think they would not have let you mark your gear anymore than they would let you carve your name in your carbine. Government property you know. clw you make a good point. Perhaps saddles and bridles were assigned to a specific horse to accommodate the horse's needs, and not to a particular trooper.
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 11:25:12 GMT -6
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 19, 2007 11:25:12 GMT -6
Scout:
It was thought that this man might have been a survivor, because a carbine was found under the dead horse, and that no Indian would have left such a prize. I know that you know this; it's for the benefit of those who may not. Some of the leather was missing [for those unfamiliar with the cavalry saddle of the day, it was not exactly a luxury item]. including the saddle straps, and "we conjectured that some man had escaped, and on reaching the river had killed his horse for meat and used the saddle straps to tie together a raft....."
Godfrey uses the third person throughout, which leads me to believe that he may not have seen this for himself, just as many persons who perpetuated the Nathan Short Story attributed it to someone else: "It was Crook's men" "the Scouts found" "There was a white hat found" etc etc etc [and blah blah blah]. It's virtually impossible to find anyone who says: "I saw the body, and it was Nathan Short."
I don't believe the Short Story [or the short story about the Short Story] :* but there might be something to the dead horse tale [and the dead horse tail].* Without looking it up, I know that there was one [at least] deserter from the regiment either at the Powder River Depot or on the march from there to Rosebud. And for all we know, given the loss of the company roster books of the five destroyed companies, there might have been one or more on the march up Rosebud, or Davis Creek, or Ash Creek. There certainly were more than enugh stragglers, and one of them might have simply dropped off to the side of the trail [especially during the night march] and found his way to the mouth of the Rosebud without incident.
My money would be on the deserter.
Gordie, MC
* I'm sorry. I cannot help myself at times. Most times.......................................
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 11:48:56 GMT -6
Post by Scout on Nov 19, 2007 11:48:56 GMT -6
I believe a horse was found...I'm not questioning that, but the saddle was still on it which leads me to think saddles weren't marked. I agree with all you've said Gordie...I think it was a deserter. As you point out there's not a shred of evidence to support the Short story. Although it is listed as fact in 'Men with Custer' and even here on this website as the location of Short's death. A total myth with nothing to support it.
"If you tell a falsehood enough times it will eventually be accepted as fact."
Didn't mean to get sidetracked by the Short story. Anymore evidence on saddles and bridles?
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 11:58:11 GMT -6
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 19, 2007 11:58:11 GMT -6
Hi Scout_
I went through my Randy Steffen volumes again this morning and found nothing in the regs/orders/directives quoted there, to say that saddles were assigned to a specific trooper. HOWEVER, everything I saw regarding horse equipments would support the logical conclusion that in fact: saddles, bridles and halters were assigned to a specific horse and that the horse AND its equipments were then assigned to a specific trooper. That trooper then being solely responsible for the animal and its equipments. Saddle trees (and seat) came in three lengths. All such equipment was fitted to the horse and then assigned in total to the trooper on a ‘best fit’ basis. (After all, the government spent $95, or more, on the horse, but only $13 for the troopers butt.
In 1872, bits came in four sizes, again leading to the conclusion that they too were issued according to the specific needs of the individual horse. Incidentals such as adjustments of bridle and halter straps, for a proper fit offer additional evidence of that. Stirrup straps would of course be adjusted to the particular leg length of troopers, and swapping saddles, and bridles around would require readjusting everything. On campaign, two extra pairs of horse shoes - pre-fit to the horse -were to be carried in the saddle bags provided for that purpose. They also would need to stay with the horse they were fitted to.
All and all, I would say that the equipments were issued to, in effect, the horse and the trooper was then assigned the total package (horse and its equipments).
Going the long way around to say: ‘I think clw has it right.’
Hope it helps a little, M
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 13:27:12 GMT -6
Post by rch on Nov 19, 2007 13:27:12 GMT -6
Per A. V. Kautz, "The 1865 Customs of the Service for Non-commissioned Officers and Soldiers," the men of a company were to be given a number as closely as possible to their position on the alphabetical roster of the company. The company was to maintain a set of marking implements. Equipement was to be "marked with the letter of the company, and the number of the man who uses it, and in some cases, his name or initials."
rch
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 13:53:48 GMT -6
Post by mwkeogh on Nov 19, 2007 13:53:48 GMT -6
Hi Scout_ I went through my Randy Steffen volumes again this morning and found nothing in the regs/orders/directives quoted there, to say that saddles were assigned to a specific trooper. HOWEVER, everything I saw regarding horse equipments would support the logical conclusion that in fact: saddles, bridles and halters were assigned to a specific horse and that the horse AND its equipments were then assigned to a specific trooper. That trooper then being solely responsible for the animal and its equipments. Saddle trees (and seat) came in three lengths. All such equipment was fitted to the horse and then assigned in total to the trooper on a ‘best fit’ basis. (After all, the government spent $95, or more, on the horse, but only $13 for the troopers butt. In 1872, bits came in four sizes, again leading to the conclusion that they too were issued according to the specific needs of the individual horse. Incidentals such as adjustments of bridle and halter straps, for a proper fit offer additional evidence of that. Stirrup straps would of course be adjusted to the particular leg length of troopers, and swapping saddles, and bridles around would require readjusting everything. On campaign, two extra pairs of horse shoes - pre-fit to the horse -were to be carried in the saddle bags provided for that purpose. They also would need to stay with the horse they were fitted to. All and all, I would say that the equipments were issued to, in effect, the horse and the trooper was then assigned the total package (horse and its equipments). Going the long way around to say: ‘I think clw has it right.’ Hope it helps a little, M Good research here Mike. The MacClellans come in 3 basic sizes....11, 11 1/2, & 12.
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 14:18:00 GMT -6
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 19, 2007 14:18:00 GMT -6
Keogh-
Thank you. I wasn't really clear when mentioning the 1872 year. That was the year the recommendations were made. They were accepted, as regards tack, but may have taken many months to be conformed to.
The Cavalry/Calvary regiments were still using (and for a few years after) a mish-mash of equipment dating back to the ACW era - maybe further. INCLUDING rations. Waste not, want not - I say.
M
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 16:10:11 GMT -6
Post by clw on Nov 19, 2007 16:10:11 GMT -6
Neat stuff Michael, I'm finding this facinating! Saddle trees in lengths not widths? Does it define the 3 measurements of the trees? I would think it would be narrow, medium and wide. Are those seat sizes 11, 11.5, 12? If so, those troopers had some skinny butts! And are there any further descriptions of the bits? I know the basic cavalry bit, but was it standardized or were there variations?
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 16:32:00 GMT -6
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 19, 2007 16:32:00 GMT -6
clw-
Yes. Length and not width. 11, 11.5 and 12 inches in length are the exact specfications.
HEY! HEY! HEY! The McClellen I have is the 12" seat and fits my more personal parts quite well. I don't think of myself as having a skinny little butt. Its quite admirable - in my humble opinion.
Give me a little time and I'll type out all of the bit specs, and post them here for you.
M P.S. I have the complete saddle recommendations as well if you want them.
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 17:11:10 GMT -6
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 19, 2007 17:11:10 GMT -6
clw- Here ya go: Dated April 16, 1872 MODIFICATIONS OF THE PRESENT EQUIPMENTS. The Bit.-- The present bits. Nos.1, 2, and 3, as described in the Ordnance Manual, are deemed unnecessarily severe and injurious to the horses. The Board therefore recommends that No. 1 be abolished as unalterable, and Nos. 2 and 3 be altered in the mouth-pieces as follows: one-half of the numbers to be 5” between branches; opening of arch, 1”.05; height of arch 0”.5; the diameter of all mouth-pieces 0”.7, and cylindrical from branch to spring of arch; at center of arch vertical thickness 0”.325; horizontal thickness of 0”.450. The present No. 4 should be used until new ones are required to be made, when it will be advisable to introduce the same mouth-pieces as above, and make one-half 5” between the branches, and one-half 4”.75, thus giving for future issues two degrees of severity only, and two widths of mouth-pieces, to be designated as follows: No. 1. 5” between branches; 1” height of arch. No. 2. 4”.75 between branches; 1” height of arch No. 3. 5” between branches; 0”.5 height of arch No. 4. 4”.75 between branches; 0’.5 height of arch M
|
|
|
Saddles
Nov 19, 2007 17:11:42 GMT -6
Post by clw on Nov 19, 2007 17:11:42 GMT -6
yes, Length and not width. Huh. Well I don't know the McClellen very well. Interesting that saddle sizes were designed for length of back, not breadth. Personal preferences as to butt shapes aside -- ahem -- I forgot that the deeper the seat, the smaller the size, McClellens being relatively deep. But still, I ride in a close contact 15.5. I weight 90 lbs and hence am qualified to discuss skinny butts. I realize that's probably a lot of typeing, but I really would love to read it. The Grand Guardian of Justice could tip her scales in your favor should the need arise, Great One. ;D
|
|