|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 20, 2010 17:16:57 GMT -5
Alan: 7th Infantry-------OCCAM'S RAZOR ------- LEX PARIMONIAE ------- IT IS SO BECAUSE THE COLONEL OF THE REGIMENT SAID IT WAS SO AND SOME LESS THAN ENLIGHTENED SOUL AT THE WAR DEPARTMENT BELIEVED HIM IN TRUE KEEPING WITH THE LESS THAN ENLIGHTENED NATURE OF THAT PARTICULAR AND PECULIAR INSTITUTION
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 20, 2010 17:46:19 GMT -5
Well no, we're still getting hung up on terminology. Mexican Dragoons, like their European counterparts were cavalrymen through and through. The fact that circumstances may have compelled them to dismount and use their carbines from time to time doesn't alter that. Urrea dismounted some of his cavalry at Refugio and San Patricio because he didn't have infantry available and as the Texians were forted up in a church and some buildings respectively, sitting outside on their horses waving their swords would have been plain silly. Encinal del Perdido/Coleto, as Urrea admits in his report, was a complete foul-up. He tried a couple of mounted charges against the square but while they failed they at least pinned the Texians long enough for his infantry to come up. It then turned into a long range firefight which used up his ammunition, which he tried to resolve by issuing the Cuautla's carbine ammo, but it turned out to be too big and actually got jammed in the musket barrels* so that he had no alternative but to dismount and feed some of his cavalry into the skirmish line. So yes it happened, but they were acting out of their normal mounted role and there's no way I'm going to buy the notion suggested by Gary that some of Sesma's cavalry could have been dismounted at the Alamo - everyone's quite clear that it was lancers who got in among the fugitives. *as a fascinating aside, this is useful evidence that Mexican cavalry were equipped with British dragoon carbines rather than the Paget carbines usually cited. The Paget was .66 calibre and therefore its ammunition wouldn't have had any problem fitting anything in the Mexican armory. The dragoon carbine on the other hand was .75 calibre, the same as the India Pattern/Brown Bess musket, which would have been fine if Urrea's infantry were carrying it, but if the troops in question were Activos carrying French or Spanish .69 cal muskets that explains the problem Stuart, the debate isn't about "terminology." Everyone here knows that dragoons and lancers are "cavalry." As for Coleto Creek, your scenario of what transpired there is erroneous. Urrea's cavalry did not attack Fannin's square alone, unaided by the infantry, in the opening phase of the battle. Their initial mission was to block Fannin's passage northward, and as they did so other units of Urrea's force, BOTH foot (cazadores and grenadiers among them) and horse, simultaneously began to surround the square. Both Mexican infantry and cavalry then attacked the square at the same time, not the cavalry alone in "a couple of mounted charges," which you suggest helped pin the Texians down while Urrea waited for "the infantry to come up." The Mexican infantry were already there...and fighting hard. Urrea's dragoons, after failing in mounted attacks on selected sides of the square (in concert with the infantry attacks), were subsequently deployed as open order skirmishers, and, again operating at the same time as the infantry, resumed attacking the square. My citation of the deployment of Mexican dragoons on foot at Coleto Creek, Refugio, and San Patricio was meant to counter the earlier declaration that European-styled "dragoons" by 1836 were essentially pure cavalry and that their fighting on foot was the exception rather than the rule. That it wasn't the rule is certain; but the examples cited clearly show that American dragoons were not the only cavalrymen to be very frequently used in effective dismounted combat service at the time. As for none of Sesma's cavalry being dismounted in the March 6th action, the existing accounts are very short on details, and the variety of landscape surrounding the Alamo---lots of brush, for one thing---posed challenges to tactical maneuverability that Sesma's spare and oversimplified account fails to detail to any satisfactory degree. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 20, 2010 17:51:39 GMT -5
(and I still think they may have had either pioneers or grenadiers as well). That's the guy from what became the Cuautla Regiment in the Battle of Tampico sketch. Hefter seems to have been the one who identified him as a mounted pioneer/gustadore, but I've never come across such an animal in a cavalry regiment. There are two possibilities; he may well be a farrier - in some armies they were distinguished by fur caps, alternatively he might be a grenadier. The elite companies of some of Napoleon's cavalry regiments wore fur caps by way of a bit of swank; dragoon regiments had grenadier style bearskins, while Hussar and Chasseur regiments tried to get their elite companies in Kolpacks/Busbys, while the line companies had shakoes. On balance, given that he appears to be on his own - I'm told by those who have seen the painting closer up than me that the guys behind him have helmets with black canvas covers - I think he's most likely a farrier. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 20, 2010 18:03:29 GMT -5
Hi Gary
OK my resume of Encinal del Perdido was a bit simplified, but the point remains the same. I think we're getting too polarised in this argument and quite unnecessarily.
What I've been saying all along is that the term dragoon had no particular significance at this period. Yes they dismounted to fight on the occasions cited and for the reasons which I gave, but that was because they were soldiers not because they were dragoons.
If the Cuautla were a hussar regiment Urrea would still have dismounted them because he needed his troopers (or at least some of them) on their feet and using their carbines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 20, 2010 18:53:58 GMT -5
Wolfpack: You are correct about the 3rd Dragoons, but I don't see anything to suggest that regimental formation was complete or if they saw combat, and it was disbanded post war. If you have information on that please let me know. The 3rd Dragoons were raised in 1847 and at least a sizable portion were with Scott. A roster of Harney's provisional cavalry brigade shows LTC Thomas Moore commanding the 3rd Dragoons at Mexico City. At least part of the regiment (seperate companies) was providing route security with Lane, etc. But, a sizable portion of the regt was at least at Molina del Rey and San Antonio Gate. Mexico City. I'll have to dig to find more info. The detachment of Mounted Rifles (todays 3rd) with Scott were brigaded as part of an Infantry Brigade and fought most of the campaign as light infantry and dismounted. Very early in the campaign their horses were given to the Dragoons. Except for the Rifle detachments providing route security, they weren't remounted, as I understand it, until the end of the campaign. I can't recall but Samuel Walker was serving with either a detachment of the 3rd Dragoons or Mounted Rifles when he was killed. The 3rd was immediatedly disbanded when the Treaty of Guadlupe was ratified. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 20, 2010 19:30:55 GMT -5
Wolfpack: You are correct about the 3rd Dragoons, but I don't see anything to suggest that regimental formation was complete or if they saw combat, and it was disbanded post war. If you have information on that please let me know. The 3rd Dragoons were raised in 1847 and at least a sizable portion were with Scott. A roster of Harney's provisional cavalry brigade shows LTC Thomas Moore commanding the 3rd Dragoons at Mexico City. At least part of the regiment (seperate companies) was providing route security with Lane, etc. But, a sizable portion of the regt was at least at Molina del Rey and San Antonio Gate. Mexico City. I'll have to dig to find more info. The detachment of Mounted Rifles (todays 3rd) with Scott were brigaded as part of an Infantry Brigade and fought most of the campaign as light infantry and dismounted. Very early in the campaign their horses were given to the Dragoons. Except for the Rifle detachments providing route security, they weren't remounted, as I understand it, until the end of the campaign. I can't recall but Samuel Walker was serving with either a detachment of the 3rd Dragoons or Mounted Rifles when he was killed. The 3rd was immediatedly disbanded when the Treaty of Guadlupe was ratified. Walker was serving as a Captain in C Company, RMR at the time of his death. Many of his men had dismounted and were fighting inside a building... One of his officers give a very detailed account of the RMR at Huamantla in "Reminiscences of the War with Mexico, As Told by Col. Thos. Claiborne," Vedette 7 (April 1886). |
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 20, 2010 21:38:23 GMT -5
If the Cuautla were a hussar regiment Urrea would still have dismounted them because he needed his troopers (or at least some of them) on their feet and using their carbines. Possibly if they were equipped with long arms (and not all hussar regiments were). But he would not have dismounted lancers who were also from the light cavalry family. |
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 20, 2010 21:39:20 GMT -5
Alan: 7th Infantry-------OCCAM'S RAZOR ------- LEX PARIMONIAE ------- IT IS SO BECAUSE THE COLONEL OF THE REGIMENT SAID IT WAS SO AND SOME LESS THAN ENLIGHTENED SOUL AT THE WAR DEPARTMENT BELIEVED HIM IN TRUE KEEPING WITH THE LESS THAN ENLIGHTENED NATURE OF THAT PARTICULAR AND PECULIAR INSTITUTION That's pretty much it. Except it was the War College who wrote the initial Lineage and Honors stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 20, 2010 21:41:37 GMT -5
(and I still think they may have had either pioneers or grenadiers as well). That's the guy from what became the Cuautla Regiment in the Battle of Tampico sketch. Hefter seems to have been the one who identified him as a mounted pioneer/gustadore, but I've never come across such an animal in a cavalry regiment. There are two possibilities; he may well be a farrier - in some armies they were distinguished by fur caps, alternatively he might be a grenadier. The elite companies of some of Napoleon's cavalry regiments wore fur caps by way of a bit of swank; dragoon regiments had grenadier style bearskins, while Hussar and Chasseur regiments tried to get their elite companies in Kolpacks/Busbys, while the line companies had shakoes. On balance, given that he appears to be on his own - I'm told by those who have seen the painting closer up than me that the guys behind him have helmets with black canvas covers - I think he's most likely a farrier. Excellent points. I cannot recall, but they may be wearing tarred covers. Interesting point about the farrier. The other thing is only a company is represented in the background. Was this SA's excort company? |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 21, 2010 5:29:14 GMT -5
That's the guy from what became the Cuautla Regiment in the Battle of Tampico sketch. Hefter seems to have been the one who identified him as a mounted pioneer/gustadore, but I've never come across such an animal in a cavalry regiment. There are two possibilities; he may well be a farrier - in some armies they were distinguished by fur caps, alternatively he might be a grenadier. The elite companies of some of Napoleon's cavalry regiments wore fur caps by way of a bit of swank; dragoon regiments had grenadier style bearskins, while Hussar and Chasseur regiments tried to get their elite companies in Kolpacks/Busbys, while the line companies had shakoes. On balance, given that he appears to be on his own - I'm told by those who have seen the painting closer up than me that the guys behind him have helmets with black canvas covers - I think he's most likely a farrier. Excellent points. I cannot recall, but they may be wearing tarred covers. Interesting point about the farrier. The other thing is only a company is represented in the background. Was this SA's excort company? Very likely and again like the infantry pioneers/gustadores, farriers customarily formed part of what the French called the tete de column or color party so that again might indicate a suitably swanky escort company |
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 21, 2010 6:13:56 GMT -5
Hi Gary OK my resume of Encinal del Perdido was a bit simplified, but the point remains the same. I think we're getting too polarised in this argument and quite unnecessarily. What I've been saying all along is that the term dragoon had no particular significance at this period. Yes they dismounted to fight on the occasions cited and for the reasons which I gave, but that was because they were soldiers not because they were dragoons. If the Cuautla were a hussar regiment Urrea would still have dismounted them because he needed his troopers (or at least some of them) on their feet and using their carbines. Not necessarily polarized, Stuart, just wandered far afield of the main point I was trying to make: that Mexican dragoons were more likely to serve on foot in real combat situations that were Mexican lancers. The documentation only confirms this. Thus you have, at Coleto Creek, Refugio, San Patricio and undoubtedly elsewhere, the word "dragoons" used when describing mounted troops fighting on foot, not "lancers." It's a key point, and a very emphatic one in terms of the history. Not to say that lancers weren't also employed now and then in a similar mode; but there is little written support for this. As for Sesma, each translated version of that report I've read is different, with the translator often injecting his own idea of what is being said, so depending on any one translation is problematic and misleading. It must also be underscored that Sesma does not say that all he threw against the Texian fugitives were lancers , nor is it always clear that these intercepting parties were on horseback. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 21, 2010 10:50:00 GMT -5
I'm a total novice on this stuff, but I find the account of Urea at Coleto Creek very interesting. Aside from Urrea's own account, and Filisola's debunking of it, what reliable source do we have about that battle (Ehrenberg?).
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 21, 2010 12:30:53 GMT -5
I'm a total novice on this stuff, but I find the account of Urea at Coleto Creek very interesting. Aside from Urrea's own account, and Filisola's debunking of it, what reliable source do we have about that battle (Ehrenberg?). Captain Benjamin Holland: At the request of the officers, the artillery was permitted to open fire. The wind was blowing slightly from the N. E., and the smoke of our cannon covered the enemy, under which they made a desperate charge, but were repulsed with a very severe loss. Our cannon was loaded with cannisters of musket balls, and the howitzer with grist. In this manner, the action was kept up with great fury by the enemy; charge after charge being made by the cavalry and infantry, and always repelled by a heavy loss on their part. Our men behaved nobly; and, although surrounded by overwhelming numbers, not a change of countenance could be seen.
Thus was the battle kept up and upon the repulse of each charge, column upon column of the enemy were seen to fall, like bees before smoke. Here would be seen horses flying in every direction without riders, and there dismounted cavalry making their escape on foot, while the field was literally covered with dead bodies. It was a sorry sight to see our small circle: it had become muddy with blood; Col. Fannin had been so badly wounded at the first or second fire as to disable him, the wounded shrieking for water which we had not to give them. The fight continued until dusk, when the enemy retreated, leaving us masters of the field, with ten men killed and wounded, while the enemy lay around heap upon heap. We possessed a great advantage over the Mexicans, they having no artillery, and we having nine brass pieces, with which we kept up an incessant fire of musket balls.Dr. (Capt) Jack Shackelford: Those on our left were the celebrated "Tampico permanent Regiment," of which Santa Anna said "They are the best troops in the world." When at a convenient distance, they gave us a volley and charged bayonet. So soon as the smoke cleared away, they were received by a piece of artillery, Duval's riflemen, and some other troops, which mowed them down with tremendous slaughter. Their career being thus promptly stopped, they contented themselves with falling down in the grass and occasionally raising up to fire; but whenever they showed their heads, they were taken down by the riflemen. The engagement now became general; and a body of cavalry, from two to three hundred strong, made a demonstration on our rear. They came up in full tilt, with gleaming lances, shouting like Indians. When about sixty yards distant, the whole of the rear division of our little command, together with a piece or two of artillery, loaded with double canister filled with musket-balls, opened a tremendous fire upon them, which brought them to a full halt and swept them down by scores. The rest immediately retreated, and chose to fight on foot the balance of the day. Our guns had now become hot---we had no water to sponge them---many of our artillerists had been wounded, and we had to rely alone on our small-arms. These were industriously handled, as all our men were kept busy during the balance of the day |
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 21, 2010 14:33:35 GMT -5
I'm a total novice on this stuff, but I find the account of Urea at Coleto Creek very interesting. Aside from Urrea's own account, and Filisola's debunking of it, what reliable source do we have about that battle (Ehrenberg?). Captain Benjamin Holland: At the request of the officers, the artillery was permitted to open fire. The wind was blowing slightly from the N. E., and the smoke of our cannon covered the enemy, under which they made a desperate charge, but were repulsed with a very severe loss. Our cannon was loaded with cannisters of musket balls, and the howitzer with grist. In this manner, the action was kept up with great fury by the enemy; charge after charge being made by the cavalry and infantry, and always repelled by a heavy loss on their part. Our men behaved nobly; and, although surrounded by overwhelming numbers, not a change of countenance could be seen.
Thus was the battle kept up and upon the repulse of each charge, column upon column of the enemy were seen to fall, like bees before smoke. Here would be seen horses flying in every direction without riders, and there dismounted cavalry making their escape on foot, while the field was literally covered with dead bodies. It was a sorry sight to see our small circle: it had become muddy with blood; Col. Fannin had been so badly wounded at the first or second fire as to disable him, the wounded shrieking for water which we had not to give them. The fight continued until dusk, when the enemy retreated, leaving us masters of the field, with ten men killed and wounded, while the enemy lay around heap upon heap. We possessed a great advantage over the Mexicans, they having no artillery, and we having nine brass pieces, with which we kept up an incessant fire of musket balls.Dr. (Capt) Jack Shackelford: Those on our left were the celebrated "Tampico permanent Regiment," of which Santa Anna said "They are the best troops in the world." When at a convenient distance, they gave us a volley and charged bayonet. So soon as the smoke cleared away, they were received by a piece of artillery, Duval's riflemen, and some other troops, which mowed them down with tremendous slaughter. Their career being thus promptly stopped, they contented themselves with falling down in the grass and occasionally raising up to fire; but whenever they showed their heads, they were taken down by the riflemen. The engagement now became general; and a body of cavalry, from two to three hundred strong, made a demonstration on our rear. They came up in full tilt, with gleaming lances, shouting like Indians. When about sixty yards distant, the whole of the rear division of our little command, together with a piece or two of artillery, loaded with double canister filled with musket-balls, opened a tremendous fire upon them, which brought them to a full halt and swept them down by scores. The rest immediately retreated, and chose to fight on foot the balance of the day. Our guns had now become hot---we had no water to sponge them---many of our artillerists had been wounded, and we had to rely alone on our small-arms. These were industriously handled, as all our men
were kept busy during the balance of the dayWonderful stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 21, 2010 15:18:17 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin!
|
|
