Cavalry soldiers weight.
ro...@webtv.net
Recently on the History Ch. program "Mail Call", the host was showing
equipment used by the cavalry around the time of the LBH fight. He
showed each article, and said it's weight. Total equipment, including
some feed for the horse totalled 60 lbs. He stated that a cavalry horse
was not to cary a combined weight of rider and equipment could not
exceed 200 lbs.
The rider had to weigh no more than 140 lbs.
In none of the books I have read or ever heard it mentioned. Have any
of you ever heard this?
Boy, it that was so, John Wayne, Ward Bond, Victor McLaughlin and that
entire John Ford crew would have out of luck.
Charlie
Gerald Clough
Both in the cavalry and in other work ahorse, such as cowboying, the fact
that the horse and rider had to keep going for hours made size a real
issue. You will find comments throughout the writings of trail drivers
about someone or other being too large or too heavy to be useful.
The following is from memory and may be a bit off, but you'll get the idea.
19th century US cavalry could, I suppose be classed as a light cavalry.
although tactically they often behaved more often like dragoons. The
difference in horse weight between light and heavy cavalry could be
perhaps 400 pounds. Using 6:1 as the ratio of horse to rider weight,
that's a difference in rider weight of something like 65 pounds, enough
to restrict operations of the light cavalry sort to slightly built
troopers.
The terms "light" and "heavy" had, by the 19th century, lost much of
their original implications, since heavy armor and their distinctive
roles were less important, except that light units would still have
carried the log day in the saddle roles of scouts and fast support.
Thus, we see both the heavies and lights in their respective charges on
the day in the Crimea when "The Light Brigade" became famous. (Dragoons,
the third type of mounted troops, rode *to* battle and dismounted to
fight.) By that time, a lot of the difference between heavy and light
cavalry units was simply the difference in the size of horses chosen and
the size of the men those horses could manage.
From what I read, 140 pounds would indeed be somewhere around the upper
limit for working long riders. My impression is that cowboys and horse
soldiers were very often significantly lighter than 140. Granted, the
trail driving cowboy didn't carry his mount's feed, but the weight of
his saddle no doubt made up the difference against the light cavalry
rig. The average man's height in the 19th century in the US was 5'6", so
they weren't exactly emmaciated. And the army, as always, was largely
recruited from the urban poor, not typically a robust bunch. (Not that
being raised on corn bread and salt pork produced a larger specimen,
even though the constant work of the rural youth made him tougher.)
Ward Bond and company would have been left at home. John Wayne would
have run thruogh his string of typical cow ponies before noon.
--
Gerald Clough
clo...@texas.net
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
Chris Mark
>Recently on the History Ch. program "Mail Call", the host was showing
>equipment used by the cavalry around the time of the LBH fight. He
>showed each article, and said it's weight. Total equipment, including
>some feed for the horse totalled 60 lbs. He stated that a cavalry horse
>was not to cary a combined weight of rider and equipment could not
>exceed 200 lbs.
>The rider had to weigh no more than 140 lbs.
>
> In none of the books I have read or ever heard it mentioned. Have any
>of you ever heard this?
According to "Cavalry Tactics, U.S. Army," 1874 edition, total weight of
"horse equipments and cavalry acouterments" for a 5 day patrol totalled 100
pounds, twelve and a half ounces. This includes everything from a watering
bridle to 12 rounds of pistol ammunition in a box.
The official listed weight of "Man" in the manual is 140 pounds, giving a total
weight of 240 lb., 12.5 oz.
So The TV program and the official manual disagree by about 40 pounds. Wonder
what their source was?
Incidentally, my copy of the manual has a few handwritten notations, such as to
use a "schabraque" a sort of overall saddle cover, for comfort, carry a piece
of soap, extra ammunition "as much as can comfbly [sic]" extra rations ("meat
in a can good") and a sturdy "slouch hat." These would have added weight, as
also would I imagine such things as tobacco, playing cards and what
not....maybe 10 pounds or so. A lot to carry for a horse weighing about 850
pounds, 14 or 15 hands high, six or seven years old, "of western mustang
stock."
Chris Mark
Bob Tiernan
Chris Mark wrote:
> According to "Cavalry Tactics, U.S. Army," 1874 edition
Would that be the Upton edition? Who
sells that one?
Bob t
Bob Tiernan
Roado wrote:
> The rider had to weigh no more than 140 lbs.
Yes, the typical enlisted man in the cavalry was
wasn't a big guy.
> Boy, it that was so, John Wayne, Ward Bond, Victor McLaughlin
> and that entire John Ford crew would have out of luck.
Well, I'm not sure about that. I doubt that officers
and non-coms etc would be excluded if they were bigger
than the average person of the era. Lots of Civil
War officers and non-coms who stayed in the army
had too much experience to be ignored.
Bob T
Todd
Saskatchewan. I was a bit startled when I saw it because it looked so small, about the right size
for your average modern woman.
Yet these guys were tough. On more than one occasion they rode for seven days across open prairie in
the dead of winter, burrowing into snowbanks to weather a blizzard!
--
Todd
C. Enna
>19th century US cavalry could, I suppose be classed as a light cavalry.
>although tactically they often behaved more often like dragoons.
I am currently reading the newly published
biography titled GENERAL PATTON by Hirshson, 2002.
The point that I wish to make about it is that it
wasn't until the advent of WWII that the US Cavalry
was finally disbanded in favor of the new mechanized
cavalry - the tank corps. Just prior to WWII the
debate was still raging within the military over
the usefulness of the mounted soldier with saber
vs the use of tanks. Hard to imagine, isn't it.
Patton actually designed a new saber early in
his military career that was adapted by the
military as 'official' for many years. It did
away with the curved saber shape that most people
think of as representative of the saber.
Patton, throughout his long career, was a noted
horseman, owning a string of horses of his own.
Being rather well-healed financially for a military
man, he could well afford the best horse flesh.
The book is vague on who paid to ship his stable
of horses from one post to the next but it does
say that the horses went where Patton went, even
when he was stationed in Hawaii!
I can recall polo fields at Ft Bliss, TX as late
as about 30 years ago. Patton was a polo player too.
And one of the very last Cavalry units was posted
at Ft Bliss until a few years ago. They put on
shows for various events wearing 19th century uniforms.
Another aside - not many may realize that Patton
was with Pershing on the incursion into Mexico
chasing Panch Villa after Villa invaded the USA
at Columbus, NM. Patton was later stationed at
Ft Bliss, TX for awhile, where he played polo.
Chris Mark
>> According to "Cavalry Tactics, U.S. Army," 1874 edition
>
>
>Would that be the Upton edition? Who
>sells that one?
Original edition.
Chris Mark
Gerald Clough
> Another aside - not many may realize that Patton
> was with Pershing on the incursion into Mexico
> chasing Panch Villa after Villa invaded the USA
> at Columbus, NM. Patton was later stationed at
> Ft Bliss, TX for awhile, where he played polo.
>
There's a wonderful photo of them. The copy I remember was
on the wall of the restaurant at Lajitas. Pershing and
company are crossing (or recrossing) what is probably
the Rio Grande. Pershing is looking rather like William
Holden in his Wild Bunch costume.
Off to his right rear rides a jug-erred aide who looks to
be about 15. His hat is a bit too big and sits down on
his ears. It's Patton. No doubt he was fatigued. He looks
a bit more mature, what you can see of him, in the photo
at the bottom of:
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/dptmsec/pershing.htm
ISN-News
battlefield? hhhmm, have to check. They researched remains found at the
sight. With modern technology they could determine the height, weight, age
of the remains. Also determine if they had recovered from some illnesses &
injuries. What they died from or what had happened to the bodies after being
killed.
They listed a lot of the men as being under 5'07" and weighing under 150
pounds. One thing they did say was back in the 1800's the average height of
a man was shorter than the average for today. Sorta dry book but filled with
alot of information.
C. Enna
>Off to his right rear rides a jug-erred aide who looks to
>be about 15.
I know it was a typo, but I like your new
version - "jug-erred." Patton was certainly
no saint and made plenty of errors in his career.
The biography I'm reading has the usual picture
section in it and Patton does indeed come off
as immature looking in some of the photos up
until his 30s. People who think of the movie
version 'Patton' would not recognize the real
Patton, I suspect.
