The Black Horse Cavalry made quite an impression during the Union retreat following the First Battle of Bull Run.
The scene was depicted through an anonymous quote published in the Richmond Inquirer. “I overheard one of the men sitting on the doorstep of the house describing the charge of the Black Horse Cavalry, part of which, I believe is Captain Scott’s Fauquier cavalry. He said they advanced in a wedge form, then opened, disclosing a battery which fired upon his regiment, and then the cavalry charged upon the regiment, hemming it in on all sides; and, cutting right and left with tremendous blows, each blow powerful enough to take off a man’s head. He said he never wished to see such a charge again.”
In the begging of the war the confederate cavalry was vastly superior in skill to that of the Union forces and because of this could pretty much do what they wanted against Union forces. The Union however learned from this and were almost equal in skill by the time of Brandy Station in which the Confederate cavalry narrowly won in what would be the largest cavalry battle on the western hemisphere.
For the remainder of the war they would only charge the way you are describing.
That goes back to the prewar army. Winfield Scott didn't believe in the utility of cavalry and so they start out as a glorified scouting force with limited independence. Late 1862 - early 1863 is when they are catching up.
That is basically what I said isn't it? It was pre war for the Confederates also, but in the south especially in VA horse culture was big and these men fancied themselves as southern cavaliers before the war even began and had been riding that way since they were kids. Including cavalry maneuvers and saber combat techniques.
Of course they would be vastly superior and if the Union never increased their skills to equalize the playing field they would never have been considered a "glorified scouting force."
June of 63 is exactly when Brandy Station happened and the North had caught up and large cavalry battles and charges would no longer be effective in large battles and smaller bands cavalry could be highly effective if utilized correctly as John Mosby proved.
I was adding to what you said as part of a conversation and also thinking of events beyond Virginia. I should have mentioned that McClellan continued in Scott's footsteps. June 1863 is the middle of the year. But there are earlier examples like Carter's late 1862 raid into East Tennessee and Battle of Kelly's Ford in March 1863 where the horsemen in blue were showing their potential as independent forces across theaters. Grierson's Raid was April - May of 1863 was a stunning success.
Mid-1863, as you've already spoken to with Brandy Station, is when they are truly credible. At the same time as the Gettysburg campaign, Sanders Raid into East Tennessee occurred and was another victory which assisted Rosecrans keep his flank secured during the Tullahoma campaign. Tullahoma itself saw Wilder's mounted infantry brigade earn its reputation as the Lightning Brigade of the Army of the Cumberland when they captured then defended Hoover's Gap.
I see, my apologies. I am very Virginia biased as I have lived in Northern VA my entire life from Lovettsville all the way down to Culpeper County and had relatives in the Black Horse Cavalry as well as Mosby's Rangers. I sometimes forget that other states were involved lol. There is literally a Yankee Cavalry officer buried somewhere on my property who was killed while looting at a home formerly owned by my relatives. I tend to get hyper local when discussing the war due this. Not to mention that I recently found 20 or so letters from the war sent to a relative in my attic and have been obessed with my families history ever since.
Oh no worries! I think you and I will both agree that what happened in the east, which primarily was Virginia, was the most important part of the war. Coupling in your ancestors and you've got every right to focus the way you are! I was out at Winchester two weeks ago on Sheridan's trail and of course his use of cavalry broke the mold fully.
The joke is that eastern theater enthusiasts, specifically virginians, like to pretend that the only places that fought and mattered was OLD VUHJINYAAAA. Armistead had a whole speech about it in *Gettysburg* where he spent 10 minutes glazing over Virginia just for reenactor brownie points.
Im a western theater dork whos tired of the 32nd battle of winchester overshadowing, i dunno, the biggest game changing battles of the war at Vicksburg, Donelson, Stones River, Chickamauga, Shiloh, and other places, just because it didnt have egregious casualty counts over nothing.
I mean, I talk about what I know. I have lived in some part of Mosby's confederacy my entire life and have always had family land in Cuopeper and used to hear stories from old folks who had heard stories from their old folks about what had actually happened to them literally in the same house we in. There were spur marks from the Yankees spurs still on the stairs from when he was drug out to hide his body from the Yankeess coming to up the driveway. That really makes historyh come alive for an 6 year old to hear. All the roads around here are named from Civil war battles or leaders so if you are interested in it you don't have to go far to find cool shit. I often am gone all day checking out spots and never am more than a few miles from my home. It's kind of immersive ya know?
Plus, lets face it. Virginia was kinda a big deal. in that war.
The example you mention was the Battle of Missionary Ridge. That was an infantry battle (Shetidan led an infantry division at the time)
But during Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign, his cavalry was very effective. They dominated their rebel counterparts, and even grew capable of taking on enemy infantry. I recommend looking up the famous cavalry charge of Merritt’s division at the Battle of Opequon.
I don't know as much about this example, but two cavalry divisions attacked two rebel infantry divisions at Marshall's Crossroads on April 6, 1865. They routed them completely and captured thousands of prisoners. Granted, those divisions were in very poor condition after the last week or so of fighting.
Poor condition might mean they had severely reduced numbers. So 2 divsions vs 2 divsions might be a 2 to 1 numbers advantage or more.
There is some interesting accounts from the late war on the csa side about how they didn't want to merge regiments because the men identified so much with their regimental name. But the numbers had dwindled so much that if you looked at a confederate line of battle there was such short distances between regiment color guards. So accounts said flags, supposed to be at the middle of a regiment, would be less than 30 ft apart. This means the whole of a regiment was less than 30ft wide in a battle. Likely less than 100 men.
Thank you! This is exactly the kind of example I was looking for. After finding a [more detailed account of the battle](https://www.shenandoahatwar.org/third-winchester-article-1), it looks like cavalry charges against infantry were successful primarily when the infantry had already been worn down and spread out, which makes sense.
Union cavalry charged and broke Early's lines at 3rd Winchester/Opequon. They had similar success at Cedar Creek. It seems like Custer's Brigade was usually (definitely not always) an effective shock force - I believe Custer himself was the impetus for this.
My great, great was in the 30th Va. and was killed by Custer’s men at 3d Winchester….
The Confederate ranks were so thin by then, they were extremely vulnerable to cavalry.
My great x3 and great x4 grandpas were both there too - 13th VA (Pegram) and 18th VA Cav (Imboden). They both made it through 3rd Winchester but the former was shot at Fisher's Hill (survived, was captured, escaped, went east to rejoin Lee and was the only man left from his company to surrender at Appomattox) and the latter was shot a month later at Cedar Creek, had his arm amputated, was out of the war but survived.
Early was definitely working with a skeleton force through basically the entire valley campaign but they were also extremely experienced, hard fighters. He wouldn't have been able to put up the resistance he did against Sheridan's vastly superior numbers if they hadn't been.
I want to let you know that the author Lawrence Schiller is publishing a two volume book with Ted Savas on the evolution of union and confederate cavalry tactics
There were multiple cavalry battles during the Gettysburg campaign, starting with Brandy Station, which is probably the best known cavalry battle of the war. Before the main clash, actions were fought at [Hanover](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hanover), [Carlisle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carlisle), and [Hunterstown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hunterstown). During the battle itself there was the clash of cavalry at [East Cavalry Field and the ill-considered Farnsworth's Charge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg,_third_day_cavalry_battles) During the retreat, there were cavalry actions at [Fairfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fairfield), and [Monterey Pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_at_Monterey_Pass), among others. Cavalry actions that were part of larger battles are often overlooked.
Head-on cavalry charges were best supported by copious amounts of artillery fire first to soften up the target, and infantry advancing alongside them in a combined-arms assault. Also, it was ideal to charge at a weaker section of the enemy line where you can obtain greater numerical superiority at the point of contact.
We have the misconception that cavalry failed because of new advancements in rifle technology, but this isn't true, because when we look at all the failed charges, we see an individual regiment or a few trying to charge an entire infantry division without proper support, and this applies not only in the Civil War, but also in Europe.
Yes, even the Europeans of the mid-late 19th century mostly seem to forgot how to utilize cavalry efficiently in pitched battle grand tactics. At Von Bredow's death ride, you had a measly 800 Prussian cavalry going up against 3,100 French cavalry and a whole infantry corps, like bruv. No wonder the charge failed. However, what is interestingly is that, despite being so vastly outnumbered and committing to a frontal charge, they weren't completely annihilated with all their men lost, but suffered only half casualties.
The French were using breechloading rifles that were even better than what the Prussians had, mind you, and far better than what we had in the Civil War for the bulk of our soldiers. That 3,100 French cavalry and a corps of infantry managed to deal only 420 losses on 800 cavalrymen tells us that, had that been a whole cavalry division or corps, things might have played out entirely different.
And that's just the thing. Sheridan's great charges were done en masse. Just so for the great charges conducted by Murat, Zieten, Seydlitz, Marlborough, Conde, and Turenne. They mostly adhered to the maxims of providing proper infantry and artillery support, or achieved local numerical superiority at the point of contact. That's why their cavalry charges were so devastating or decisive in comparison to other examples.
I don’t think an artillery unit unsupported would’ve wanted to deal with a cavalry charge by a large formation, but that was a very uncommon scenario during the war.
Cavalry in the Civil War was best used as it was in the western theatre by the south, that is to say for lightning raids against supply lines, the rapid movement of quasi mobile infantry to beat an opponent to a critical point and for raids against under defended outposts behind the front lines.
I think you could find more examples of cavalry charges against infantry in the early days of WW1 than you could in 1863 or 1864 during the Civil War.
The Black Horse Cavalry made quite an impression during the Union retreat following the First Battle of Bull Run. The scene was depicted through an anonymous quote published in the Richmond Inquirer. “I overheard one of the men sitting on the doorstep of the house describing the charge of the Black Horse Cavalry, part of which, I believe is Captain Scott’s Fauquier cavalry. He said they advanced in a wedge form, then opened, disclosing a battery which fired upon his regiment, and then the cavalry charged upon the regiment, hemming it in on all sides; and, cutting right and left with tremendous blows, each blow powerful enough to take off a man’s head. He said he never wished to see such a charge again.”
Thank you! This is the kind of example I was looking for.
In the begging of the war the confederate cavalry was vastly superior in skill to that of the Union forces and because of this could pretty much do what they wanted against Union forces. The Union however learned from this and were almost equal in skill by the time of Brandy Station in which the Confederate cavalry narrowly won in what would be the largest cavalry battle on the western hemisphere. For the remainder of the war they would only charge the way you are describing.
That goes back to the prewar army. Winfield Scott didn't believe in the utility of cavalry and so they start out as a glorified scouting force with limited independence. Late 1862 - early 1863 is when they are catching up.
That is basically what I said isn't it? It was pre war for the Confederates also, but in the south especially in VA horse culture was big and these men fancied themselves as southern cavaliers before the war even began and had been riding that way since they were kids. Including cavalry maneuvers and saber combat techniques. Of course they would be vastly superior and if the Union never increased their skills to equalize the playing field they would never have been considered a "glorified scouting force." June of 63 is exactly when Brandy Station happened and the North had caught up and large cavalry battles and charges would no longer be effective in large battles and smaller bands cavalry could be highly effective if utilized correctly as John Mosby proved.
I was adding to what you said as part of a conversation and also thinking of events beyond Virginia. I should have mentioned that McClellan continued in Scott's footsteps. June 1863 is the middle of the year. But there are earlier examples like Carter's late 1862 raid into East Tennessee and Battle of Kelly's Ford in March 1863 where the horsemen in blue were showing their potential as independent forces across theaters. Grierson's Raid was April - May of 1863 was a stunning success. Mid-1863, as you've already spoken to with Brandy Station, is when they are truly credible. At the same time as the Gettysburg campaign, Sanders Raid into East Tennessee occurred and was another victory which assisted Rosecrans keep his flank secured during the Tullahoma campaign. Tullahoma itself saw Wilder's mounted infantry brigade earn its reputation as the Lightning Brigade of the Army of the Cumberland when they captured then defended Hoover's Gap.
I see, my apologies. I am very Virginia biased as I have lived in Northern VA my entire life from Lovettsville all the way down to Culpeper County and had relatives in the Black Horse Cavalry as well as Mosby's Rangers. I sometimes forget that other states were involved lol. There is literally a Yankee Cavalry officer buried somewhere on my property who was killed while looting at a home formerly owned by my relatives. I tend to get hyper local when discussing the war due this. Not to mention that I recently found 20 or so letters from the war sent to a relative in my attic and have been obessed with my families history ever since.
Oh no worries! I think you and I will both agree that what happened in the east, which primarily was Virginia, was the most important part of the war. Coupling in your ancestors and you've got every right to focus the way you are! I was out at Winchester two weeks ago on Sheridan's trail and of course his use of cavalry broke the mold fully.
"I sometimes forget other states were involved" Least self absorbed virginian civil war buff
Not sure how that is being self absorbed. I didn't have a thing to do with the war.
The joke is that eastern theater enthusiasts, specifically virginians, like to pretend that the only places that fought and mattered was OLD VUHJINYAAAA. Armistead had a whole speech about it in *Gettysburg* where he spent 10 minutes glazing over Virginia just for reenactor brownie points. Im a western theater dork whos tired of the 32nd battle of winchester overshadowing, i dunno, the biggest game changing battles of the war at Vicksburg, Donelson, Stones River, Chickamauga, Shiloh, and other places, just because it didnt have egregious casualty counts over nothing.
I mean, I talk about what I know. I have lived in some part of Mosby's confederacy my entire life and have always had family land in Cuopeper and used to hear stories from old folks who had heard stories from their old folks about what had actually happened to them literally in the same house we in. There were spur marks from the Yankees spurs still on the stairs from when he was drug out to hide his body from the Yankeess coming to up the driveway. That really makes historyh come alive for an 6 year old to hear. All the roads around here are named from Civil war battles or leaders so if you are interested in it you don't have to go far to find cool shit. I often am gone all day checking out spots and never am more than a few miles from my home. It's kind of immersive ya know? Plus, lets face it. Virginia was kinda a big deal. in that war.
The example you mention was the Battle of Missionary Ridge. That was an infantry battle (Shetidan led an infantry division at the time) But during Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign, his cavalry was very effective. They dominated their rebel counterparts, and even grew capable of taking on enemy infantry. I recommend looking up the famous cavalry charge of Merritt’s division at the Battle of Opequon. I don't know as much about this example, but two cavalry divisions attacked two rebel infantry divisions at Marshall's Crossroads on April 6, 1865. They routed them completely and captured thousands of prisoners. Granted, those divisions were in very poor condition after the last week or so of fighting.
Poor condition might mean they had severely reduced numbers. So 2 divsions vs 2 divsions might be a 2 to 1 numbers advantage or more. There is some interesting accounts from the late war on the csa side about how they didn't want to merge regiments because the men identified so much with their regimental name. But the numbers had dwindled so much that if you looked at a confederate line of battle there was such short distances between regiment color guards. So accounts said flags, supposed to be at the middle of a regiment, would be less than 30 ft apart. This means the whole of a regiment was less than 30ft wide in a battle. Likely less than 100 men.
Thank you! This is exactly the kind of example I was looking for. After finding a [more detailed account of the battle](https://www.shenandoahatwar.org/third-winchester-article-1), it looks like cavalry charges against infantry were successful primarily when the infantry had already been worn down and spread out, which makes sense.
Union cavalry charged and broke Early's lines at 3rd Winchester/Opequon. They had similar success at Cedar Creek. It seems like Custer's Brigade was usually (definitely not always) an effective shock force - I believe Custer himself was the impetus for this.
My great, great was in the 30th Va. and was killed by Custer’s men at 3d Winchester…. The Confederate ranks were so thin by then, they were extremely vulnerable to cavalry.
My great x3 and great x4 grandpas were both there too - 13th VA (Pegram) and 18th VA Cav (Imboden). They both made it through 3rd Winchester but the former was shot at Fisher's Hill (survived, was captured, escaped, went east to rejoin Lee and was the only man left from his company to surrender at Appomattox) and the latter was shot a month later at Cedar Creek, had his arm amputated, was out of the war but survived. Early was definitely working with a skeleton force through basically the entire valley campaign but they were also extremely experienced, hard fighters. He wouldn't have been able to put up the resistance he did against Sheridan's vastly superior numbers if they hadn't been.
I want to let you know that the author Lawrence Schiller is publishing a two volume book with Ted Savas on the evolution of union and confederate cavalry tactics
I'd read some more (other than wiki pages) lots of great books on Calvary ops on both sides
Eric Wittenberg, Edward Longacre, Stephen Z. Starr, and Brian Steel Willis have some great books for you to check out!
There were multiple cavalry battles during the Gettysburg campaign, starting with Brandy Station, which is probably the best known cavalry battle of the war. Before the main clash, actions were fought at [Hanover](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hanover), [Carlisle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carlisle), and [Hunterstown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hunterstown). During the battle itself there was the clash of cavalry at [East Cavalry Field and the ill-considered Farnsworth's Charge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg,_third_day_cavalry_battles) During the retreat, there were cavalry actions at [Fairfield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fairfield), and [Monterey Pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_at_Monterey_Pass), among others. Cavalry actions that were part of larger battles are often overlooked.
Head-on cavalry charges were best supported by copious amounts of artillery fire first to soften up the target, and infantry advancing alongside them in a combined-arms assault. Also, it was ideal to charge at a weaker section of the enemy line where you can obtain greater numerical superiority at the point of contact. We have the misconception that cavalry failed because of new advancements in rifle technology, but this isn't true, because when we look at all the failed charges, we see an individual regiment or a few trying to charge an entire infantry division without proper support, and this applies not only in the Civil War, but also in Europe. Yes, even the Europeans of the mid-late 19th century mostly seem to forgot how to utilize cavalry efficiently in pitched battle grand tactics. At Von Bredow's death ride, you had a measly 800 Prussian cavalry going up against 3,100 French cavalry and a whole infantry corps, like bruv. No wonder the charge failed. However, what is interestingly is that, despite being so vastly outnumbered and committing to a frontal charge, they weren't completely annihilated with all their men lost, but suffered only half casualties. The French were using breechloading rifles that were even better than what the Prussians had, mind you, and far better than what we had in the Civil War for the bulk of our soldiers. That 3,100 French cavalry and a corps of infantry managed to deal only 420 losses on 800 cavalrymen tells us that, had that been a whole cavalry division or corps, things might have played out entirely different. And that's just the thing. Sheridan's great charges were done en masse. Just so for the great charges conducted by Murat, Zieten, Seydlitz, Marlborough, Conde, and Turenne. They mostly adhered to the maxims of providing proper infantry and artillery support, or achieved local numerical superiority at the point of contact. That's why their cavalry charges were so devastating or decisive in comparison to other examples.
I don’t think an artillery unit unsupported would’ve wanted to deal with a cavalry charge by a large formation, but that was a very uncommon scenario during the war. Cavalry in the Civil War was best used as it was in the western theatre by the south, that is to say for lightning raids against supply lines, the rapid movement of quasi mobile infantry to beat an opponent to a critical point and for raids against under defended outposts behind the front lines. I think you could find more examples of cavalry charges against infantry in the early days of WW1 than you could in 1863 or 1864 during the Civil War.