Sabres question

[elisabeth]

This is an old warhorse, I know, but two things I've read recently prompt me to raise the topic again ...

The general opinion these days is that it was entirely sensible, and indeed SOP, to leave the sabres behind. Reasons given are:
1) noise;
2) weight;
3) lack of trooper skill in using them;
4) useless in anything but hand-to-hand fighting, and this wasn't the style of fighting expected when facing Indians;
5) outmoded weapon, a hangover from Civil War days;
and many more.

However -- Whittaker, in his Life of Custer (posted on the Book Boards), goes into a long and impassioned rant about the folly of ignoring their usefulness. Well, Whittaker has many opinions that are questionable, and maybe this is another of them. But it's interesting, isn't it, that he should feel so strongly about the matter?

The other thing that made me sit up and take notice was Godfrey's account of Washita, posted by Billy on:
freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/

Now, Washita was the ultimate stealth campaign. And, many think, the model on which Custer was patterning his LBH attack. Stealth and silence were so critical here that men were forbidden even to stamp their feet to keep warm, and dogs were killed to prevent them barking. Yet from what Godfrey says, there was no thought of ditching the sabres on this campaign. He mentions that officers took them off when creeping up to the vantage-point above the village -- but put them on again before the attack.

So ... it's pretty clear that in 1869, Custer felt that the usefulness of sabres outweighed any noise, weight, or incompetence considerations. And a direct attack on an Indian village, as at Washita, is about as hand-to-hand as you can get, making it an ideal weapon.

The assumption must be that Custer fully expected to make a similar attack on any village he might find at LBH. (Especially as he'd said no to the Gatlings, which might have enabled him to keep at arm's length from Indians.) So why, just seven years later, had he so radically changed his mind about them? And was it a major error?

[crzhrs]

More than likely by 1876 the military realized the use of sabers was obsolete for a number of reasons:

NOISE

CUMBERSOME

NO TRAINING

FIREARMS WERE MORE EFFECTIVE

The shock of seeing mounted cavalry attacking with swords drawn may be a psychological factor but was not worth the effort.

I believe De Rudio stated he brought his saber along to the LBH but never used it. If so, I wonder where it ended up.

As for Whittaker . . . I don't think he had any military experience and was probably romanticizing the use of the saber. I believe in his bio of Custer he stated Custer went down fighting with a saber.

So anything he stated should be questioned.

[El Crab]

How hard is it to use a saber? And I'd think the lack of training would be a hindrance if fighting another saber-equipped regiment. But if I'm charging a camp I'd want something to use after I've emptied my Colt. Or something to defend myself with when a warrior is riding next to me trying to knock me off my horse.

I certainly don't think it was the reason they lost, but I think they could have been useful in sustaining a village attack. And the effect they had on Indians was overlooked. The saber was a shock weapon, and the Indians didn't exactly like facing them.

Plus, there were a few warriors armed with them, including Yellow Nose.

[Steve Wilk]

Custer's decision may have been based on a confidence in the Colt .45; with its metallic cartridges providing a faster reload than the old cap and ball percussion cap pistols. Perhaps also he may have reasoned that in his experience fighting plains tribes, he had not seen the saber to have had much effect in combat.

It is interesting to note that Col. Mackenzie, prior to embarking on his Powder River expedition which culminated in the defeat of the Northern Cheyenne, ordered sabers not only be taken with, but sharpened as well. Perhaps he felt the lack of the weapon contributed to Custer's defeat. Lt. McKinney, killed at the Dull Knife fight, was shot while advancing with saber drawn, (this is depicted in Big Back's drawing) and Capt. John Hamilton is reported to have fought off some warriors with his saber, wounding one or two.

So perhaps the weapon wasn't all that outdated after all.

[elisabeth]

Thanks, all. I didn't know that about Mackenzie, Steve; interesting indeed.

I do agree with Crab that if I had Indians coming at me, I'd want something more to defend myself with than an empty revolver I've no time to reload ... Hard to argue that sabres would have made all the difference, but one can't help wondering whether morale would have collapsed quite as quickly as it allegedly did if troopers had had them. And the Indians would have found it harder to rush them at the end, surely? In Reno's charge-to-the-rear, too, they could have saved a few lives.

I've heard it said that for infantry, the "fix bayonets" order is a big morale-booster for those doing it (and a morale-depleter for those about to face a bayonet charge). Same with sabres for cavalry?

[El Crab]

Actually, bayonet charges throughout history have been relatively bloodless. Since the advent of gunpowder, European man has been less enamored with the idea of killing at close range and with a blade, rather than shooting someone. Its more personal, and our subconscious is opposed to it.

Bayonet charges usually resulted in few deaths, and one side fleeing in terror or the other side not committed to the action.

Custer's Michigan Brigade sure enjoyed a good saber charge, and had no qualms about killing at close range. Then again, a saber is used to slash while a bayonet to stab, and I believe that was the difference.

Like I said, I really don't know if it would have made a difference at all. But if its me on a horse, headed for a 1500 lodge village, I'd want something to go to when my Colt is empty. But I don't think the issue of the Reno battalion was the lack of sabers, but the lack of able leadership.

[elisabeth]

Couldn't agree more.

Reno: absolutely, it was poor leadership that got them into that chaotic retreat. But still, when you read the stories of troopers being dragged off their horses etc., you can't help visualising how much better they could have defended themselves if they'd been able to slash at the nearest warrior ...

[El Crab]

elisabeth said:

Couldn't agree more.

Reno: absolutely, it was poor leadership that got them into that chaotic retreat. But still, when you read the stories of troopers being dragged off their horses etc., you can't help visualising how much better they could have defended themselves if they'd been able to slash at the nearest warrior ...

Well, they could have tried to shoot the warriors. It appears they mostly just ran for it, too stricken by fear to even wave a Colt in hopes of bluffing a warrior away...

[crzhrs]

The saber may have been of some use during a cavalry charge. But once dismounted, it probably would have been very cumbersome to deal with. Imagine wearing a saber in a scabbard and trying to fire a weapon, especially from a kneeling or lying position. The saber would have been totally useless and problematic once dismounted.

[elisabeth]

True enough.

Maybe it's partly a training issue. You'd need to be a pretty good horseman to manage a sabre in one hand and a pistol in the other. And you'd need to be a good horseman AND a good shot to use your carbine from horseback, hence the need to fight dismounted ...

[El Crab]

The sabers could have been strapped to the horses.

[Soldier]

"Soldier" (a/k/a Cavalryman, Ghostman, etc.) posted his typical nasty note. I have saved it. If anyone cares to read it, e-mail me at [e-mail].

[El Crab]

I already read it. It was nice and condescending from the get-go. Good call on deleting it.

What I find most humorous about posts like that is the poster knows everything and everyone else is clueless. That condescending "its so funny to see the idiots talk about things they don't know about", as if they themselves do.

Then, ironically enough, he noted how speculation and guesswork about the very subject that no one knows about makes it enjoyable.

And once again, its someone who refuses to register yet seems to think they're beyond reproach. Its not really anonymous, its just annoying. Posting under multiple names and without taking the time to register is rather troll-ish.

[Diane Merkel]

Agreed. Thanks for your support, Crab.

[Soldier]

Soldier, get a life! Your comments will continue to be deleted.