|
Post by TRK on Nov 29, 2010 12:28:23 GMT -5
Here's a link to vol. 1 of the 2-volume 1824 Mexican cavalry tactics manual (which, tellingly, is a reprint of a Spanish cavalry tactics of the same title): Reglamento para el ejercicio y maniobras de la caballeria, vol. 1 (Mexico: Martin Rivera, 1824, se espende en la librería de Galván) books.google.com/books?id=dWFCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=caballer%C3%ADa+m%C3%A9xico+%22ejercicio+y+maniobras%22&hl=en&ei=hNvzTOTaL8b_lgfz5amXDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=caballer%C3%ADa%20m%C3%A9xico%20%22ejercicio%20y%20maniobras%22&f=falseWhile I'm at it, here's a Mexican handbook of voice signals for cavalry movements and maneuvers, published 1824: Prontuario de voces para los movimientos y maniobras de la caballeria (Mexico: 1824) [Covers the school of the company to the school of the division] books.google.com/books?id=a2BCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=falseFinally, here's some good swag: an 1842 Mexican compilation of army regulations (unfortunately, only vol. 2 is available): books.google.com/books?id=TipEAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_sn.b., these published regulations appear very similar to Ordenanzas del ejército published in Spain in 1768, although purportedly the Mexican regulations included revisions effective after Mexico gained its independence. Here's a link to the 1768 Spanish Ordenanzas:books.google.com/books?id=HmtHAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 29, 2010 12:33:40 GMT -5
Excellent-and thanks!
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Nov 29, 2010 12:40:09 GMT -5
De nada.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 29, 2010 14:51:11 GMT -5
I would also caution that we have no idea whatsoever of the full extent of training the Mexican dragoons received, viz., whether solely for mounted duty, or combined with training for dismounted service. Judging by European models, I would place my bets on the latter, especially considering the guerilla-like nature of their foes (Indians, insurrectionists holed up in the mountains, etc.), and the inescapable fact that when indeed required to serve on foot they did so with a remarkable immediacy and know-how. Gary, without hard data, it's pretty hard to assume that dragoons, received a lot of dismounted training. If we look at periods that we have hard data for, very little training of any kind took place. Most of the "normal" duty day was filled with fatigue details for the average soldier, simply maintaining himself his horse, the barracks and stables. Generally speaking a couple of hours of mounted drill (drill and ceremonies) occurred daily, but that was it. Now of course - everything depended on the colonel (still mostly true), what he wanted, was what would be emphasized. While cavalry was evolving during this time period, I still think that in the western hemisphere in the 1830s, dragooons were the chosen mounted force for their mixed capability, and that it was not simply a title. Other, than study by the officers, though I expect most practical experience in both mounted and dismounted operations occurred on campaign and not in peacetime training. "Remember your Regiment and follow your Officers." CPT Charles May, 2d Dragoons, Resca de la Palma. Wolf, We do have Hefter's commentary on cavalry training with carbine. The latter drill manual "was very similar to the infantry rifle [sic] drill." Hefter lists the various moves the cavalryman was to make in loading and firing his piece, on foot as well as mounted. (THE MEXICAN SOLDIER, p. 56-57). So the idea that "hard data" doesn't exist is of course not true. Not that I have that cavalry manual in front of me! I think there are a lot of assumptions being made and too little research. Hefter also lists volley fire for dismounted cavalry, and ceremonial handling of the weapon on foot and knee!
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 29, 2010 15:00:52 GMT -5
Thanks Tom----always count on you when it comes to the "original"!
A lot of stuff to wade through!
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Nov 29, 2010 15:16:33 GMT -5
Gary, in that first reference, the Reglamento, on p. 253 begins a section on lancers drill, management of the lance, etc. And, as Kevin just pointed out to me, the last section of the book covers dragoons, and there are instructions in there on how to form-up for fighting on foot ("pie a tierra") as infantry.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 29, 2010 15:24:25 GMT -5
Wolf, We do have Hefter's commentary on cavalry training with carbine. The latter drill manual "was very similar to the infantry rifle [sic] drill." Hefter lists the various moves the cavalryman was to make in loading and firing his piece, on foot as well as mounted. (THE MEXICAN SOLDIER, p. 56-57). So the idea that "hard data" doesn't exist is of course not true. Not that I have that cavalry manual in front of me! Gary, good drill manuels do not equal actual training. We have mutiple evidence from many different primary sources from several countries that cavalry (and infantry) of any sort rarely got beyond the very basics (ie the school of the soldier) in garrison training. All I'm saying, is be careful, to ASSUME that the Mexicans achieved a level of training that most of the rest of the world did not, in their peacetime operations. Now what woul d be interesting, given the mutiple revolutions, etc. would be to try and trace the actual experience of the Cuautla, Dolores, Tampico, and Guanajuato Regiments were prior to their entry into Texas. Question, looking through some of my sources, I see refernece to some independent cavalry companies (that are not called presidials), were they activos or permanentes? and were they organized along regimental company lines or presidial lines?
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 29, 2010 15:24:43 GMT -5
Some idea of the continuing tradition of dragoons employed to fight on foot can be found in various old military manuals. One of them, TACTICS, by a German Colonel named Balck, was first published in 1896, and is useful here because it provides a fairly detailed summary of the way dragoons of a number of countries were utilized in dismounted combat. (From a chapter entitled "The Dismounted Action of Cavalry"):
Here are two examples (French and Russian dragoons...who seem to have kept alive the old dragoon tradition):
"France. An escadron retains one platoon, a regiment one to two escadrons as a mounted reserve. In the other platoons, either all the men or only the even numbers dismount. In the former case, one horse-holder is detailed for each rank. When Dragoons dismount to fight on foot, the lance remains in its boot at the stirrup and is fastened to the saddle-bags by means of a hook attached to the arm-strap. When only a small number of skirmishers is required, one to two platoons may be designated for dismounted action. In certain circumstances (when surprised or when it is essential to get away quickly), it may be a good plan to dismount, hold the horses by the reins, and, after firing a few shots, mount up again. When the led horses (chevaux haul le pied) can be posted under cover in the immediate vicinity of the skirmishers, two horse-holders suffice for each platoon. If the platoons of an escadron fight separated from one another, it will likewise be advisable to divide the led horses into corresponding groups. In defense, the firing line is to be made as strong as possible, a support comprising one-third of the force being kept out. Closed bodies are to move in column of fours. When the skirmishers are to mount, the led horses are to be brought up to meet them. Kinds of fire used: Volley fire (in exceptional cases only; under no circumstances at close ranges); fire at will (feu a volont!); short and violent bursts of fire (par rafales violentes et courtes); and rapid fire (feu rapide).
Russia: The Dragoons (armed with rifle and bayonet) in the first place, the Cossacks in the second, are designed for dismounted action. The platoon is the tactical unit in dismounted action. Ordinarily, in dismounting to fight on foot, number two in each set of threes remains mounted, i. e., two-thirds of the unit is available for dismounted action. When a greater proportion of the unit is to dismount (a procedure to be employed when good cover is available for the led horses, and when the latter will not, in all probability, have to change position), only number two of the rear rank of each set of threes remains mounted, i. e., five-sixths of the unit is available for dismounted action. When necessary, the number of horse-holders may be still further reduced. Each escadron retains one platoon, each regiment one escadron as a mounted reserve. When the dismounted force is to mount up, the led horses (if mobile) are to be brought up to meet it. In the Cossacks, when a greater number of troopers than usual is to dismount to fight on foot, the horses of a platoon are linked—the so-called dismounting with the batowka of the horses. In this case, only one horse-holder remains with the led horses of the platoon, and one non-commissioned officer, in addition, with those of each sotnia. The procedure is as follows: The odd numbers advance eight paces; then all the troopers of the front rank execute a left about, while, at the same time, each trooper of the rear rank leads his horse forward until its head is in line with the saddle of that of his file leader. The reins of each horse are then drawn through the cincha of the one opposite, placed over the cantle of the saddle, and drawn taut. When tied together in this manner, the horses can move and turn as much as they like, but they can not run away. The Cossacks employ a third method of dismounting, that of dismounting in a circle. In this, the sotnia, in single rank, forms a circle; the men dismount; the horses lie down; and the troopers use the horses as cover and as rifle rests. This method of dismounting is to be used in exceptional cases only, when a unit is surrounded on open terrain by hostile cavalry, and is required to hold its position until the arrival of reinforcements. The same kinds of fire are used as in the infantry. Closed bodies are to fire volleys only."
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 29, 2010 15:27:14 GMT -5
Gary, in that first reference, the Reglamento, on p. 253 begins a section on lancers drill, management of the lance, etc. And, as Kevin just pointed out to me, the last section of the book covers dragoons, and there are instructions in there on how to form-up for fighting on foot ( "pie a tierra") as infantry. Tom, as they say in some circles, you da man!
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Nov 29, 2010 15:30:05 GMT -5
(Says to self, "The paths of glory, etc. etc.") ;D
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 29, 2010 15:33:45 GMT -5
Wolf, We do have Hefter's commentary on cavalry training with carbine. The latter drill manual "was very similar to the infantry rifle [sic] drill." Hefter lists the various moves the cavalryman was to make in loading and firing his piece, on foot as well as mounted. (THE MEXICAN SOLDIER, p. 56-57). So the idea that "hard data" doesn't exist is of course not true. Not that I have that cavalry manual in front of me! Gary, good drill manuels do not equal actual training. We have mutiple evidence from many different primary sources from several countries that cavalry (and infantry) of any sort rarely got beyond the very basics (ie the school of the soldier) in garrison training. All I'm saying, is be careful, to ASSUME that the Mexicans achieved a level of training that most of the rest of the world did not, in their peacetime operations. Now what woul d be interesting, given the mutiple revolutions, etc. would be to try and trace the actual experience of the Cuautla, Dolores, Tampico, and Guanajuato Regiments were prior to their entry into Texas. Question, looking through some of my sources, I see refernece to some independent cavalry companies (that are not called presidials), were they activos or permanentes? and were they organized along regimental company lines or presidial lines? Wolf, I'm not assuming that Mexican dragoons were as well trained as their European counterparts. I am saying that we simply do not know the extent of their training. However, it must again be stressed that "dragones" in the 1836 campaign did indeed perform their duty quite well, which tells me that they weren't just a bunch of mestizos or Indians given uniforms and mounts and simply told to act like cavalry. In fact, the reports we do have of the approaching Mexican cavalry in early 1836 do relate a well-equipped force. Sanchez-Navarro also noted this, and mentioned that they were "overflowing with conceit, good clothes, shoes, excellent equipment, and with very gorgeous horses."
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 29, 2010 15:34:17 GMT -5
(Says to self, "The paths of glory, etc. etc.") ;D Remember thou art mortal... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 29, 2010 16:10:43 GMT -5
True, but they do indicate a standard, and a start from which one can look at the field documentation and try to figure out what was going on...
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 29, 2010 16:40:53 GMT -5
I'm increasingly thinking this is one of those arguments where we're not actually in opposition but sllightly out of focus.
First things first. All cavalrymen are trained in foot drill simply because as any NCO knows the primary purpose of drill is to get your people from point A to point B without losing too many of them on the way, so they have to be able to function as a disciplined unit on foot as well as on horseback, simple as that. Same goes with carbines. All the initial training with carbines has to be done on foot so that not only can they mount guard on foot, but to make sure that the guys are at least reasonably proficient before they try doing doing it and controlling a horse at the same time.
(In the British Army they expected all cavalry to be at least conversant with the infantry manual for all of these reasons)
Now Dragoons; once upon a time they were mounted infantry pure and simple and were equipped accordingly. They rode into battle and dismounted to fight as infantry. Over the course of time this distinction faded as they became proper cavalrymen. They could dismount and fight if required, but primarily they were cavalrymen and because they were serving as troopers the more expensive heavy cavalry, such as Horse and Cuirassiers accounted for a lower proportion of the mounted arm and indeed in some armies disappeared.
The dragoon, in short was pre-eminent not because he was a specialist who uniquely could fight on foot and on horseback but because he was the standard issue cavalryman. As such he could and did dismount to fight when necessary, not because he was a dragoon/mounted infantryman but because he wasn't a cuirassier. A matter of perspective really.
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 29, 2010 23:08:04 GMT -5
I know a lot of you are firmly entrenched in your line of thinking, but all this discussion has opened up a whole new area of study as far as I'm concerned. And the deeper I dig, the more surprised I am with the results. The sad truth is that the tactical duties of Mexican dragoons have not been researched worth a d**n. Yet what evidence we do have tells us that they were versatile, not predictable. They could serve in dismounted serice as skirmishers, in defense of positions, and even in attacks on enemy positions on foot, not to mention functioning as scouts, escorts, etc. Another typical moment came during the Grass Fight of November 26, 1835: 150 Mexican dragoons dismounted and took position in a ditch in order to confront the advance of Bowie and his detachment. The dragoons did not charge into the latter's ranks, but chose to fire at them from cover. Considering the few engagments that can be numbered during the Texas Revolution, it is remarkable how frequently "dragones" are mentioned in dismounted service---and not dismounted lancers or presidials or hussars. So anyone is welcome to nurture their own presumptions about all this. But to me it's a rather fascinating, and as-yet unresolved and barely studied, subject.
|
|