|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 21, 2010 16:16:39 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?). Allen, there are at least ten good participants' accounts: by Urrea (diary and report), Ehrenberg as you mention, Duval, Holland, Schakleford, Boyle, Morgan, Cash, and Field.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 21, 2010 16:19:16 GMT -5
Miss a few...
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 21, 2010 16:19:53 GMT -5
PS: It has also to be kept in mind that many of the Texian participants only reported the battle as they saw it from their particular side of the square. For instance, those attacked on the south were attacked solely by cavalry units; on the other sides, by a mix of foot and horse troops. The square during the first day of combat covered almost an acre.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 21, 2010 18:24:39 GMT -5
Thanks guys; how reliable is "Texian Illiad" on this battle?
|
|
doc
Full Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by doc on Nov 22, 2010 4:17:17 GMT -5
Allen:
While Hardin's vibrant prose continues to seduce some, I much prefer the primary accounts.
But that's just me . . .
Doc
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 22, 2010 5:52:56 GMT -5
Thanks guys; how reliable is "Texian Illiad" on this battle? "Hardin's vibrant prose" is reliable still as one of the best of the concise accounts available of the battle of Coleto Creek, since it relies on first-hand accounts. Of course a scholarly book-length study of this fight has long been overdue!
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 22, 2010 10:19:47 GMT -5
Allen: While Hardin's vibrant prose continues to seduce some, I much prefer the primary accounts. But that's just me . . . Doc ...and I find it pompous yet folksy ;D to quote another Texas author. ;D Just joking.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 22, 2010 13:26:36 GMT -5
Allen: While Hardin's vibrant prose continues to seduce some, I much prefer the primary accounts. But that's just me . . . Doc Thanks Doc! I'm laughing! I agree with you and Gary on primary sources, but I'm not giving up my copy of "Texian Illiad"! Allen
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 22, 2010 13:26:57 GMT -5
Thanks guys; how reliable is "Texian Illiad" on this battle? "Hardin's vibrant prose" is reliable still as one of the best of the concise accounts available of the battle of Coleto Creek, since it relies on first-hand accounts. Of course a scholarly book-length study of this fight has long been overdue! Hint, hint.
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 22, 2010 13:38:39 GMT -5
Allen: While Hardin's vibrant prose continues to seduce some, I much prefer the primary accounts. But that's just me . . . Doc ...and I find it pompous yet folksy ;D to quote another Texas author. ;D Just joking.
|
|
|
Post by dudleyt on Nov 25, 2010 11:37:55 GMT -5
As I understand it, starting with the American Revolution, there were three classifications of horse: mounted infantry, dragoons and cavalry. Both sides employed them in forms of regular and militia units, whether Tory or Whig. Mounted infantry moved on horse, fought as infantry. Dragoons were expected to fight mounted as cavalry or dismounted as infantry. They were armed with modified infantry muskets, pistols and swords but with accouterments used by both the cavalry and infantry (at least that is the way it was supposed to be). The cavalry fought on horse and was not expected to be employed as infantry and had weaponry and accouterments specific to cavalry operations. As was noted above in another post, American cavalry during and after the American Civil War were actually dragoons; the “dragoon” designation disappeared some time after the Mexican War. The dragoon and cavalry were European designations and the mounted infantry seemed to be an American adaption. However, I am no expert on the subject and there may have been formal examples of mounted infantry among European armies. But it is interesting that there were no formal lancer units used by the British or Americans during the Revolution. The only lances carried in North America were by the Spanish and then the Mexicans units (except for the ceremonial Canadian Mounted Police units). Enlightening discussion. I always thought the Mexican army employed lancers as larger units but apparently they were a subunit of a cavalry regiment with the unofficial lance raised to official status in 1837. And whether official or not, judging by several primary sources, lances sure loomed large in the minds of Texas infantry.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 25, 2010 13:25:37 GMT -5
Dragoons and Mounted Rifles disappeared from the American military lexicon on 3 August 1861 when the following redesignations took place.
1st Dragoons, constituted 2 March 1933, redesignated 1st Cavalry. 2nd Dragoons, constituted 23 May 1836, redesignated 2nd Cavalry. Regiment of Mounted Rifles, constituted 19 May 1846, redesignated 3rd Cavalry. 1st Cavalry, constituted 3 March 1855, redesignated 4th Cavalry. 2nd Cavalry, constituted 3 March 1855, redesignated 5th Cavalry. 3rd Cavalry, constituted 5 May 1861, redesignated 6th Cavalry.
The 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry (Rush's Lancers) were organized and equiped as a lancer regiment for Civil War service. I don't know if they ever carried lances in combat though. There may have been others of which I am not aware.
Many volunteer companies (troops) were organized on both sides during the Civil War that carried names like lancers, light dragoons, mounted rifles, dragoons, hussars, and the like. They may have kept these traditional titles during their service in the Civil War and after, only a careful examination of lineages can tell that tale. In practicality though when these companies were placed inside regimental organizations they lost their seperate identity, and became just another lettered company. Some of these names exist formally today as partenthetical titles. The First Philadelphia City Troop (which I think is now Troop A 1st Squadron, 104th Cavalry) is one such unit.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 25, 2010 15:57:44 GMT -5
I have to emphasise again that in the 1830s the term dragoon had no particular connotation other than that it was a common term for a cavalryman who was not a lancer or a hussar, although to be awkward regiments like the Cuautla Dragoons included a company of lancers, who strictly speaking were dragoons rather than lancers such as the later Jalisco Lancers.
Going back to the 18th British Army traditions inherited by the American one, at the outset there were two types of cavalryman; Horse or heavy cavalry, and dragoons who had started off as mounted infantry but were last used in that role (and quite exceptionally) at Clifton Moor in late 1745. Latterly they were supposed to serve as light cavalry but the distinction between the two was so blurred that in 1746 most of the Horse were redesignated as Dragoon Guards and thereafter the only difference between them was a slightly different uniform. It then didn't take long to realise that there really was a need for some light cavalry to do the scouting and outpost duty and after successful experiments with "light troops" added to regiments, a number of dragoon regiments (but not dragoon guards) were redesignated as Light Dragoons and started adopting all manner of spiffy distinctions like helmets instead of hats. Unfortunately just like the original dragoons they immediately (and I mean immediately) proceeded to abandon their specialist role in favour of playing at real cavalry and displaying an unhealthy obsession with charging rather than scouting and skirmishing. It consequently came as a bit of a shock to the system when the King's German Legion came along during the Napoleonic Wars and demonstrated how light cavalry were supposed to operate. In the meantime some units had taken to calling themselves Hussars and dressing accordingly. King George however, in between bouts of insanity, took exception to this and consequently they ended up with curious titles like the "15th (Light) Dragoons (Hussars)". After the Napoleonic Wars lancers suddenly became fashionable and a number of light dragoon regiments who hadn't "converted" to hussars, went one up on them by transforming themselves into (Lancers) instead and adopting an even more spiffy uniform - difficult I know, but they managed. They were still obsessed with charging though.
Now the point I'm making is that US dragoons were called dragoons simply because the word dragoon was inherited as a synonym for a cavalryman and if they were sometimes called upon in particular circumstances to dismount and use their carbines that was because they were soldiers and because they didn't have any infantry or enough infantry to do the job, not because their dragoon title meant that was their role - as illustrated by the way US dragoons simply became cavalry just before the civil war. The volunteer companies are also a good example in that they basically picked titles that suited them or went with whatever style of uniform they fancied rather than because they wanted to take on a particular role.
As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, Urrea would have dismounted hussars if he'd had any in the circumstances where he had to dismount his cavalry - but not his dragoon lancers as they were the only people not to carry carbines.
I think the simplest and easiest way to look at this is that cavalrymen all carried swords and expected to use them and unless they were lancers it was irrelevant to all but uniform enthusiasts whether they were designated as horse, dragoons, hussars, horse grenadiers, guides or anything else.
Mounted rifles/mounted infantry on the other hand didn't normally carry swords
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 25, 2010 18:15:25 GMT -5
Returning for a moment to Ramirez y Sesma, his troops are alternatively referred to as cavalry and/or lancers. We read that his cavalry encircled the Alamo (or at least the east/southeast sections), and that his lancers ran down the Texians who tried to flee the fort. It sounds like there is some mixing of terms or lack of clear delineation at that time among Mexican mounted troops.
Yes - this is a very enlightening discussion; thanks to the experts in this area for posting.
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 25, 2010 22:42:21 GMT -5
I have to emphasise again that in the 1830s the term dragoon had no particular connotation other than that it was a common term for a cavalryman who was not a lancer or a hussar, although to be awkward regiments like the Cuautla Dragoons included a company of lancers, who strictly speaking were dragoons rather than lancers such as the later Jalisco Lancers. No, this is incorrect as I think the entire thread has shown. A dragoon is a cavalryman that could fight mounted or dismounted.
|
|