|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 29, 2010 23:08:59 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 alanhufffines on Nov 29, 2010 23:11:37 GMT -5
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? IMHO the independent companies NOT listed as Presidials were Activos.
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 29, 2010 23:13:02 GMT -5
(Says to self, "The paths of glory, etc. etc.") ;D Remember thou art mortal... ;D SHUT UP, F%$T! ;D
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 30, 2010 2:16:01 GMT -5
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? IMHO the independent companies NOT listed as Presidials were Activos. That's my understanding; Permanente units were organised as regiments and dressed in red with green facings, while Activos were organised as single companies and dressed in green with red facings. Permanente units were named after battles, such as Cuautla, while Activos were named after their state (remember that supposedly they are Active Militia - National Guard). Presidiales were named after the areas in which they were, originally at least, supposed to be operating, eg: Rio Grande
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 30, 2010 7:02:16 GMT -5
What this entire discussion has proven is the old maxim, "The more you learn the less you know."
We may know a lot about the sartorial aspects of Mexican cavalry, but very little else apparently.
Clearly each branch of the mounted Mexican troops---dragoons, hussars, lancers, sappers, and later cuirassiers---served a particular function, and one's educated guess is that they did receive different training according to that purpose.
The idea that all these branches were simply lumped together under a "cavalry" umbrella, and that each one operated essentially the same way, without specific duties, tactics, and weapons handling, is not only unsupported, but nonsensical. That each branch often became multi-purpose as occasion demanded, is hardly a surprise. But the impression derived from the history is that the dragoons seemed to be the most versatile of them all.
Of course we haven't yet plumbed the intensity of training each branch experienced, nor do we have a complete picture yet of their actual performance in the field...but damme if that wouldn't make a fine book, eh?! THE MEXICAN CAVALRY, with sections devoted to each branch, their history, and so on.
The biggest drawback of the 1836 campaign for Mexican cavalry was the acquisition of good horses. Some units had them, others did not. Occasionally a herd of 500 decent mounts would be obtained, but that would be offset by the bad grass situation along the northward march.
One Anglo observer near the Mexican border wrote to his American friends in early 1836: "the cavalry are the choice troops from the interior, they are armed, every one with lance, musket, pistols and sword." Another American in Mexico, a merchant, echoed this observation: "I have seen 300 of the cavalry, and in my opinion they are excellent troops."
Certainly "choice" and "excellent" troops would indicate a degree of training and experience higher than a slovenly bunch of raw recruits.
In his SANTA ANNA'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST TEXAS, Santos (pp. 34-36) notes that active organizing and training went on while much of the Mexican army gathered at the Leona Vicario headquarters camp. They were there for almost an entire month. Santos remarks how officers went about "acquainting the new recruits with their equipment and drills...the rudiments of marching and execution of various formations." Nothing too specific, but it reminds us that preconceptions in historical studies are often wrong, and that an open, inquisitive mind is usually the best way to reach our common goal of truth.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 30, 2010 11:14:14 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... This will sound like heresy, specially from somebody who once wrote and taught doctrine, but "good" doctrine only has a limited impact. Custer had good doctrine, but led a virtually untrained and undisiciplined regiment, that could not recover from command mistakes. Most units, even today, do not get much beyond training the individual. Good unit training requires (and required), money, time, space, and command influence. Garrison activities become all consuming, and are a total distraction. Probably the best training the Mexican cavalry received was indeed while they were assembling for the march into Texas - and the march itself - first having the time and motivation to get beyond basic training and then practcing by actually doing the skills they would need on a campaign in enemy territory. The most important factor is command, something we Americans for some reason want to minimize. Napoleon once famously said "There are no bad regiments, only bad colonels." Imo, there is no greater truism. If the Cautula Regiment was well trained, it probably owed it more to the quality of its commander than any other factor. As I recall it, the Dolores Regiment and its commander, Mora, was detailed by Santa Anna to participate in the burning of the bodies after the Alamo, for failing to care for its horses, the most basic of all training for a cavalry regiment. I'm not trying to minimize the importance of doctrine and don't think that your basic statement is wrong, but the relationship between good doctrine and good training are not directly linked. Training is simply dependent on too many other factors, the most important of those is the individual unit commander.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 30, 2010 12:19:33 GMT -5
I am, in fact, agreeing with you. As as I said, we know that there was a standard out there in the Mexican mounted troops, at least in print. Now there needs to be a look at of anyone ever bothered to follow it....having had some experience with the use of 19th century military tactics books, I found out that until you in the field, you really don't know how this all works out...
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 30, 2010 12:34:59 GMT -5
If the Cautula Regiment was well trained, it probably owed it more to the quality of its commander than any other factor. According to Filisola the Cuautla was in actually pretty poor shape, which he attributed to Urrea's mismanagement. Now Filisola had an agenda and I wouldn't necessarily take everything he said as gospel, but long before I'd read his commentary I'd independently come to the conclusion that Urrea has been very much overrated.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 30, 2010 12:51:59 GMT -5
We may know a lot about the sartorial aspects of Mexican cavalry, but very little else apparently. Clearly each branch of the mounted Mexican troops---dragoons, hussars, lancers, sappers, and later cuirassiers---served a particular function, and one's educated guess is that they did receive different training according to that purpose. The idea that all these branches were simply lumped together under a "cavalry" umbrella, and that each one operated essentially the same way, without specific duties, tactics, and weapons handling, is not only unsupported, but nonsensical. That each branch often became multi-purpose as occasion demanded, is hardly a surprise. But the impression derived from the history is that the dragoons seemed to be the most versatile of them all. Of course we haven't yet plumbed the intensity of training each branch experienced, nor do we have a complete picture yet of their actual performance in the field...but damme if that wouldn't make a fine book, eh?! THE MEXICAN CAVALRY, with sections devoted to each branch, their history, and so on. I absolutely agree on the need for a proper study, but remain to be convinced about the likelihood of the different cavalries having distinctly different doctrines. In my experience an awful lot of the differences are simply cosmetic ones and can cite numerous examples from various countries of regiments changing their status simply for the sake of a more impressive uniform. Dragoons are unquestionably the most useful and consequently most numerous cavalry not because they received any specialised training, but rather the other way round, in that they didn't take on a deliberately more restrictive role, like becoming cuirassiers. I'm not entirely convinced this didn't apply to lancers as well. While they were trained to charge with couched lances like knights jousting and consciously liked to be portrayed that way as it fitted the bold cavalier image, the Austrian and Polish uhlans who revived the popularity of lancers during the Napoleonic Wars were light horse lancers, whose principal role was scouting and skirmishing and rather than couching their lances and charging straight ahead they also used them for poking at scattered infantrymen, since they could outreach a musket and bayonet. In the sort of role they were actually used, rather than misused as battle cavalry carrying carbines and occasionally getting off their horses to use them will have come naturally - yes I know some countries thought it would be a wizard wheeze to just give them a pistol as it wouldn't interfere with handling the lance, but they soon learned better of it.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 30, 2010 16:12:02 GMT -5
Let's not forget that some of the cavalry with Santa Anna in 1836 were long-established units with a lot of training and field experience under their belts.
The dragoons who served with Urrea in 1836, in both mounted and dismounted service, performed exemplary service that pointed to a cutting-edge professionalism--for the Mexican army at least.
We can engage in endless guesswork about this subject, but somewhere there is additional source material that needs to be plumbed and carefully dissected. Unfortunately, it would take a devoted soul with a lot of time.
To whatever extent training manual exercises were actually applied in the field or not, the fact is that there WERE specific exercises for dragoons in military manuals of a number of countries at both the beginning and the end of the nineteenth century, and in-between. The distinction is important: these were exercises for dragoons. But of course all military history is very messy, and no one here is trying to claim that things ran in an ideal fashion.
Col. W. A. Graham offered the best caution about jumping to conclusions in history, when, in his dedication to his THE CUSTER MYTH: A SOURCE BOOK OF CUSTERIANA, he wrote:
"TO THOSE PERSONS who think that Dis-solution of the Custer Myth is easy, and particularly to those who are quite sure they have Dis-solved it, This work is dedicated."
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 30, 2010 16:42:17 GMT -5
Let's not forget that some of the cavalry with Santa Anna in 1836 were long-established units with a lot of training and field experience under their belts. The dragoons who served with Urrea in 1836, in both mounted and dismounted service, performed exemplary service that pointed to a cutting-edge professionalism--for the Mexican army at least. Not forgetting either that in the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 30, 2010 16:45:15 GMT -5
Let's not forget that some of the cavalry with Santa Anna in 1836 were long-established units with a lot of training and field experience under their belts. The dragoons who served with Urrea in 1836, in both mounted and dismounted service, performed exemplary service that pointed to a cutting-edge professionalism--for the Mexican army at least. Not forgetting either that in the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king And to beware of the blind leading the blind!
|
|