Resica
Senior Member
160 years ago today. Largest cavalry battle on US soil!
Who won?
I don't keep up with much before about 1900.
I wonder why the Confederates were better horsemen early on. Everyone rode a horse back then. Most Northerners were in rural areas like the Southerners were. I would have suspected northern riding skills would have been fine. Maybe tactics but they were all horse people. I guess someone has to be better. Just seemed strange to me.The average Reb cavalryman consistently whipped his yank counterpart until mid war when the blue bellies caught up, somewhat in riding skills more so in better weaponry, animals, supplies, with the Rebs suffering from high attrition of men and animals, scant supplies, ect...
I wonder why the Confederates were better horsemen early on. Everyone rode a horse back then. Most Northerners were in rural areas like the Southerners were. I would have suspected northern riding skills would have been fine. Maybe tactics but they were all horse people. I guess someone has to be better. Just seemed strange to me.
I bet they did the same up north. No game laws of course. Maybe the terrain was better down there for the most part but still. Must have been tactics and commanders, maybe.A lot of the young Southerners hunted on horseback as they hounds ran deer. That was a common tactic even before the Revolutionary War. It continued on into the 1930s or so in the Deep South. Especially in Low Country South Carolina.
I bet they did the same up north. No game laws of course. Maybe the terrain was better down there for the most part but still. Must have been tactics and commanders, maybe.
I'm sure that's true but you would still think young bucks up north would be good at horsemanship, racing, jumping, etc. Kinda like people racing today. Maybe what you say tipped the horsemanship.I don`t think so. Running deer with hounds never caught on up north, where most of their hunting style was stillhunting through the woods on foot.
Haven't dove into numbers but I thought both sides were close in numbers, at least through Gettysburg, I certainly could be wrong.I think it was logistics. The confederates were organized differently. The union Calvary was a monster to support in the numbers they had. Scatter their logistics and they were hurting.
It’s not the numbers. Lee had his logistics tied to field units. Less cumbersome, close at hand. It was also a product if meager supplies. The union had the monster wagon trains supporting the Calvary as a whole. Raid that train and scatter it and they were hurting until reorganized.Haven't dove into numbers but I thought both sides were close in numbers, at least through Gettysburg, I certainly could be wrong.
It’s not the numbers. Lee had his logistics tied to field units. Less cumbersome, close at hand. It was also a product if meager supplies. The union had the monster wagon trains supporting the Calvary as a whole. Raid that train and scatter it and they were hurting until reorganized.
I don’t know, our greatest General was a West Pointer without a single demerit. Many upper echelon southern military were formally trained.I will offer this.
The Union Army also had more “ego” issues since many senior officers were professional soldiers and had served for years.
Confederates didn’t have enough history to have that issue early on.