Skirmish Line Horse Holders

[Diane Merkel]

One of our LBHA members needs help:

I can very clearly recall reading some place that company sergeants were the primary horse holders when a skirmish line was formed. However, I can not find this fact stated anywhere, and I do not have Upton's manual. HELP!!!

[El Crab]

From what I've read, veterans held the horses because it wasn't an easy job to do. And I'd guess that veterans who showed aptitude became NCOs, and thus were given the duty of holding mounts.

But I'd also guess that while tactics might dictate NCOs to do so, there weren't ever enough sergeants and corporals to hold them. In other words, a 48 man company would not have 12 NCOs. Nowadays, if they still used horses in combat, they might, because it seems every other soldier is a corporal or sergeant of some kind.

[Timothy Ratliff]

Close enough-a fire team consists of 4-5 soldiers typically headed by a sergeant, and there would probably be at least one corporal or specialist.

[pgb3]

Diane: Thanks for the help here. And thanks Crab. Now, I am not trying to upset the apple cart or change the world and I surely know there were not enough sergeants to hold all the horses and that it does seem silly and that there is nothing in the historical record to support this and so forth. However, sometime during the past two years, I read that sergeants were considered primary horse holders. All I am trying to do is locate the source of that statement. Thanks for all the e-mails trying to convert me or convince me etc. And I really do appreciate the fact that you even care that much. However, please, all I am looking for is some help in identifying the author/book/article whatever that contained this “fact”. I do not have an Upton’s so I have no idea if there is a grain of truth to it, nor do I much care. I would just like to locate it. Thanks a lot, really. I do appreciate the help.
BTW, this has developed into a nice chat board. Good work, and I really like the International contributions. I shall return.
Perry

[d o harris]

Diane, I also cannot recall my source, but, of course, I'm certain the source I can't recall is better than the source you can't recall. What I recall is that horseholders were corporals, and what we would today refer to as skilled trades, blacksmiths, saddlers, farriers, who were paid as corporals at the company level, and had the titular rank. These ordinarily would be troopers with several years experience. It was imperative to have experienced men as horseholders, but it was equally imperative to have sgts on the line directing the troops. In actual practice it seems when a Co. counted off by fours, #4 was a matter of chance.

[crzhrs]

doharris:

I would agree with you. Experienced horsehandlers were needed to control up to four horses at a time. Sgts were needed for their companies as back up to officers, or even to act as commanders.

It seems during Custer's fight that horse holders were unable to control their steads, probably too much noise, dust, smoke, Indians whooping it up and waving blankets, which added to the confusion and breakdown of companies. I don't think even the most experienced horse holders would have been able to control the horses.

[Jim L]

I agree with the guy who said that the sgts were needed for their leadership and would not have been horse holders. I cant remember the source but some claim that the sgts acted as file closers and helped to keep order but that part of the reason that order was not maintained was that some of the senior NCOs were killed early .

Some one can correct me but the information I have always gotten was that many of the enlisted men in the 7th at the lbh were fairly new recruits and not that well trained . Couple that with the fact that they must have been exhausted and the need for very good leadership from the sgts can not be over estimated. I seriously doubt if the leadership of the sgts would have been used holding horses as that leadership would have been too valuable to waste that way.

[norseman]

BTW , had to change my name from Jim L to norseman for some reason to become a member of this forum . Have been quite interested for a long time about the Custer battle. Glad to find this group.

[Diane Merkel]

The member user names cannot contain spaces, so you probably could have registered as JimL but not as Jim L. You should be able to modify your profile to change the screen name that is shown next to your messages. In any event, we are pleased to have you join us.!

[Treasuredude]

I've already mentioned to pg3 via email that I remember reading about sgts. being horse holders. It's been driving me nuts trying to find the source.

I'm sure I have read it in the last month or so. I would bet anything that it is in BATLLE CASUALTIES II but now I can't find it. If I remember, it was a comment by an Indian participant.

[norseman]

Thanks Diane and thanks for the forum. To Treasure Dude, if memory serves every 4th trooper was a horse holder which would seem about right as that would be about all the horses that one man could hold when they were worked up . the sgts exerience would have been in real demand in a fight just directing the men, especially if the officer of the unit was taken out. It would have been a real waste of experience to have the sgt holding on to horses. JMHO

[Diane Merkel]

I am not nearly as well read as most of you but, ever since pgb3 sent me the original question, I've been thinking that the horse holding was mentioned during the Reno Court of Inquiry. Where, I don't know, but I think it's part of someone's testimony.

How's that for being vague?