SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Looking at the development of the US Army, from the founding on up to the end of the 19th Century (and very early 1900s), why was it so different from all the European armies? Especially the British and French armies which served as the template for much of the military thought of the era. The US Army never went in for any of the "different" types of troops, such as Lancers, Grenadiers or Light Infantry. Dragoons formed the early cavalry, but were redesignated as plain Cavalry (mounted rifles, really), at the opening of the ACW. No Lifeguards or Hussars, either. Just Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery. I've been told that this derived from the small size of the peacetime Army, compounded by the simple structures and tactics forced upon the Army (Union and Confederate) by the rapid buildups of the ACW (never enough skilled leaders or time to master the higher/more complex skills). There was the "weird" phase, right at the start, with the Legion of The United States (a combined arms organization), brainchild of "Mad" Anthony Wayne. Thoughts?
Doug Kibbey Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Looking at the development of the US Army, from the founding on up to the end of the 19th Century (and very early 1900s), why was it so different from all the European armies? Especially the British and French armies which served as the template for much of the military thought of the era. Because, contrary to a lot of people's beliefs, the U.S. Army was one of necessity and did not share the genuine (vs. imagined) colonialist aspirations and experience other than as the ex-colonials that we are (that they were striving not to be) and did not have a period of "commonwealth" transition. It's pretty much apparent why they are different....the country was not trying to emulate Britain and France, but to divorce itself from that tradition. In many ways, it was a "Peoples Army" that preceded the other ones that have perverted that phrase in the 20th century.
Guest JamesG123 Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Looking at the development of the US Army, from the founding on up to the end of the 19th Century (and very early 1900s), why was it so different from all the European armies? Because... its not a European Army? The US Army never went in for any of the "different" types of troops, such as Lancers, Grenadiers or Light Infantry. Dragoons formed the early cavalry, but were redesignated as plain Cavalry (mounted rifles, really), at the opening of the ACW. No Lifeguards or Hussars, either. Just Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery. Not true. We had "Dragoons" up until the 1890s. And they were tactically distinct from "Cavalry" even if the equipment converged over time. And at the beginning of the American Civil War the States raised all sorts of units with colorful names and uniforms. But yes, by the time of the ACW got into its bloody slog, warfare had become very "commondized" or industrialized. Mass armies that battered at each other, not much of a mood for experimentation and clever outfits. Even in the cavalry, everyone was firearm equipped, even if they were "plain" cavalry. The Americans were also very pragmatic and unpretentious. Without any lineage to draw on, there's no point in calling yourself a "lancer" if you don't carry a pointy stick. The real differentiation was in its artillery. You had the light flying battteries up to the big siege guns and mortars. During the revolutionary war you had the light infanty in the form of Rodger's Rangers. But really, the American Army was mostly militia and irregulars anyway, they had to spend considerable effort to get any kind of standardization. Which hadn't really been overcome even by the war of 1812.
SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Not true. We had "Dragoons" up until the 1890s. And they were tactically distinct from "Cavalry" even if the equipment converged over time. 1st and 2nd Dragoons were reflagged to Cavalry in 1861. Officially, that's the end of them in the US Army. And at the beginning of the American Civil War the States raised all sorts of units with colorful names and uniforms. Which brings up a point. The US Army may have been (ostentatiously?) plain, but the militia units tended to be as exotic as could be (which drove the Zouave craze), and had a lot of "Grenadiers" and "Greys". Most of which was lost when the States (Union and Confederate) started knocking the various Companies together to try to form Regiments... Falken Edited January 30, 2011 by SCFalken
Colin Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 I think the ACW was a taste of what was to come in WWI and killed much of the desire to stand out.
Guest JamesG123 Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 1st and 2nd Dragoons were reflagged to Cavalry in 1861. Officially, that's the end of them in the US Army. Ok. 3rd "Cavalry" regiment stood up in 1846 was technically a Mounted Rifleman regiment, aka: Dragoons. And was a term used interchangeably if you go by the 3rd ACR museum. So it was a case of a War Dept. simplification which confused things. Are they "Cavalry" with pistols and sabers who ride around causing mischief? Or are they "Cavalry" who fight dismounted with carbines? Which brings up a point. The US Army may have been (ostentatiously?) plain, but the militia units tended to be as exotic as could be (which drove the Zouave craze), and had a lot of "Grenadiers" and "Greys". Most of which was lost when the States (Union and Confederate) started knocking the various Companies together to try to form Regiments... Prior to WWI the vast majority of the US Army was Militia and National Guard.
SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 I think the ACW was a taste of what was to come in WWI and killed much of the desire to stand out. I'm less concerned with the uniforms of the various military sub-cults, than the rejection of specialist units, such as LI or Lancers (who, along with Hussars, got a huge PR boost due to performance in the Napoleonic Wars). A reflection of the small size of the US Army? Falken
SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Prior to WWI the vast majority of the US Army was Militia and National Guard. AIUI, the US Army and the Militia/NGUS were completely different organizations, until the Root reforms (Dick Act, 1903). Falken Edited January 30, 2011 by SCFalken
Guest JamesG123 Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) I should have said "US military land forces" but I didn't feel like being pedantic. I'm less concerned with the uniforms of the various military sub-cults, than the rejection of specialist units, such as LI or Lancers (who, along with Hussars, got a huge PR boost due to performance in the Napoleonic Wars). A reflection of the small size of the US Army? There was a generation (literal and technological) between the Napoleonic and American Civil wars. Most of the senior leaders of on both sides were artillery officers and while they couldn't grasp that the increase in firepower on the battlefield made neat rows of troops marching toward each other was murder, even they could realize the folly of having horsemen run around with sticks. Think about how the US Army evolved. Except for brief interludes of fighting the Brits and the Mexicans, the Army was a force of small units geographically dispersed that fought/suppressed the Indians. ALL of the Army's infantry would be considered "light" by European standards. Different armies different mentalities and needs. Different nomenclatures as well. Edited January 30, 2011 by JamesG123
SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 even they could realize the folly of having horsemen run around with sticks. The lance seems to have been effective against troops equipped identically to, and at least as well drilled as, those in the ACW (Waterloo, Mexican War, Crimea, etc). It just never caught on in the US, for some reason (likely too much training required). Falken
Guest JamesG123 Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Its really only effective against an enemy considerate enough to stand in nice tight rows out in the open to get plowed into. The Indians usually didn't oblige. And Americans are too good a shot for sticks to be a viable alternative.
DougRichards Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Its really only effective against an enemy considerate enough to stand in nice tight rows out in the open to get plowed into. The Indians usually didn't oblige. And Americans are too good a shot for sticks to be a viable alternative. 1861 there were just five mounted regiments in the US Army. 1st and 2nd dragoons, 1sta nd 2nd Cavalry and the Regiment of Mounted Riflemen. So there was some variety.The 6th Pennsylvania (yes, state militia) carried lances between 1861 and 1863. But the real difference between the armies of the European states goes down to tradition, a tradition that the USA was not burdened with. In the mid 1800s Europeans still fought as if firearms were a passing fad, and it was going to be cold steel in the form of the bayonet, lance or sword that woudl be the main weaponry. Hence some Napoleonic troopers still wearing armour. America also did not have royal families to protect, hence no 'guard' units like the Lifeguard Cavalry and the various other Guard units.
SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 America also did not have royal families to protect, hence no 'guard' units like the Lifeguard Cavalry and the various other Guard units. Washington's Life Guard (Commander-in-Chief's Guard) was extant during the life of the Continental Army. The various State Militias, when they could be bothered, had the odd Governor's Foot/Horse Guard Falken
thekirk Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 I'd say a bigger influence on the US military was that we had no legacy class of aristocratic scions that the system had to keep productively employed... Many of the European "elite" regiments have always struck me as being full employment plans intended to keep the younger sons of the aristocracy distracted by the shiny, instead of causing trouble. This is why you had such elaborate uniforms, and so forth. The US Army, on the other hand, was a hell of a lot more workmanlike, particularly the Regulars. Not to mention, Congress back in those days was beyond parsimonious, and I can't imagine them springing for bearskin busbies, or matching splendor for the horse's tack. If you ever want to do a compare/contrast, look at the difference between the McClellan saddle, and most of the European offerings of the same era. There were instances where the US Army went with the shiny, but you hardly ever saw that out in the field on the frontier, until after the Indian Wars were over. 1880s-1890s, you started to see some idiocy crop up, like pickelhaubes and so forth, but by and large, the Army remained more common-sense about uniforms and tactics. The Indians weren't likely to be impressed by the pennons flying high on the lances, as many of the observers of the European armies were. They'd probably respond by luring the lancers into broken terrain, and then ambushing them in detail. I seem to remember seeing an account written by someone who took part in a European-trained officer's attempt to use lances in Minnesota during one of the many Indian uprisings. As I remember, it didn't work out too well, and the lances got mostly left-behind, and used for spit-roasting meat in camp.
DougRichards Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) I'd say a bigger influence on the US military was that we had no legacy class of aristocratic scions that the system had to keep productively employed... Not to mention, Congress back in those days was beyond parsimonious, and I can't imagine them springing for bearskin busbies, or matching splendor for the horse's tack. In 'Fighting Men of the Civil War' William C Davis, 1989, on page 8 is a photo of a New York Militia unit parading on the cobbled streets of New York in 1860, resplendant in Busbies, White Cross webbing, large white epaulettes and white gloves with a broad white stripe down each side of the pants. Lining one side of the street, three deep, is another formation 'at ease' in white shirts, with wide across the chest a black strap, 'Sam Brown belt' style and once again, busbies. Of course this contrasts with the men of the 79th New York infantry, 'Highlanders' who went into battle initially in kilts, but whose uniform later changed to light blue trousers. Seeing that regiment in line next to a regiment of Zouaves (perhaps a fellow New York unit, the 9th New York Infantry) would have presented a colourful sight. Edited January 30, 2011 by DougRichards
BillB Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) I'd say a bigger influence on the US military was that we had no legacy class of aristocratic scions that the system had to keep productively employed... Many of the European "elite" regiments have always struck me as being full employment plans intended to keep the younger sons of the aristocracy distracted by the shiny, instead of causing trouble. This is why you had such elaborate uniforms, and so forth. The US Army, on the other hand, was a hell of a lot more workmanlike, particularly the Regulars. Not to mention, Congress back in those days was beyond parsimonious, and I can't imagine them springing for bearskin busbies, or matching splendor for the horse's tack. Fair comment ref the aristos altho not sure how that translates RWT Republican France, which was a pretty major player in the bling and practical mil stakes, especially up to 1870. Ref the bling, it wasn't paid for by HM govt either, at least until the Cardwell reforms in the 1880s I suspect. Before that it was paid for by the Colonel who raised the regiment, who was only able to claim back a fraction of the cost; hence the administrative fiddling and shennenigans that led to the imposition of an annual trooping of the Colour. That's the other reason aristos were so well represented in the upper echelons of the British Army - only they had the disposable income to cover the cost of setting up a regiment. And not all the officers in the BA were aristos by a long way. If you ever want to do a compare/contrast, look at the difference between the McClellan saddle, and most of the European offerings of the same era. There were instances where the US Army went with the shiny, but you hardly ever saw that out in the field on the frontier, until after the Indian Wars were over. 1880s-1890s, you started to see some idiocy crop up, like pickelhaubes and so forth, but by and large, the Army remained more common-sense about uniforms and tactics. The Indians weren't likely to be impressed by the pennons flying high on the lances, as many of the observers of the European armies were. They'd probably respond by luring the lancers into broken terrain, and then ambushing them in detail. Yes, but saddles aren't necessarily a good yardstick for armies that had more inf than cav, is it. The point you and some others seem to be missing regarding European armies is that generally speaking all the shiny fancy stuff was for use in the home garrison rather than operational setting, where the only operational stuff was police actions to quell the general populace when they got uppity. Here in Britain for example, the last serious mil campaign in the domestic arena was in 1745-6 against the Jacobites, after that it was just stuff like Peterloo, which was generally handled by the local volunteer militia anyway. There was a separation between that and what went on during serious mil campaigning overseas, where practicality, comfort and even a degree of camouflage generally held sway. Take a look at what the Brit troops wore in the Americas during the AWI, or in India or Africa, not much bling at all and essentially similar to the US Army practises folk are talking about on the Frontier. The key point is that the US Frontier was internal to the US, whereas for the Europeans it was overwhelmingly external, at least in the period the US has existed and the turn out in the two was very different. I suspect it was the same in the US too, if on a smaller scale. doubt US troops stationed in places like Washington DC were dressed like their counterparts out fighting Indians on the Frontier. I seem to remember seeing an account written by someone who took part in a European-trained officer's attempt to use lances in Minnesota during one of the many Indian uprisings. As I remember, it didn't work out too well, and the lances got mostly left-behind, and used for spit-roasting meat in camp.Fair one, but IIRC the British use of the lance originated in India and there was a fair bit of that kind of thing there and they don't appear to have had any great trouble using it effectively. I think you are missing that not all European weapons/types of troops were deployed on every occasion. Just like now there was a considered selection of units & capabilities when it came to mixing units to missions, and just like now it is necessary to match the capabilities of the enemy; hence the use of lancers on both sides in the conventional warfare of the Napoleonic period, for example. Similarly, IIRC the only lancers deployed to South Africa for the Zulu War was a small detachment acting as bodyguard to Chelmsford, and lancers were not deployed there en mass. Also with ref to cavalry, it is noticeable how the British cavalry arm overall developed along utilitarian lines just like its US counterpart once it started to be deployed operationally; most of the BA's operational deployments from the Crimea onward were infantry heavy due to the terrain, but large scale cavalry deployment in the Sudan and South Africa brought about changes similar to those in the US cav during & after the ACW. Got more but have to dash, will try & get back later. Edited to add: In answer to the thread starter post, I don't think the US Army was as very different to its European copunterparts as suggested, and I'd say that the root of what difference there was lies in the political rather than mil sphere. AIUI the US Founding Fathers didn't want a standing army at all because it was seen as a potential tool of oppresssion but experience against full-time professionals in the AWI showed that to be unworkable. Consequently the US standing army had to be small to prevent it or anyone else getting ideas, and overwhelmingly utilitarian in mindset and appearance to reinforce the point. Add that to the fact that it was deployed overwhelmingly as a security force internally, ie to counter threats within the expanding geographical borders of the US, then the reason for what differences there were is clear. BillB Edited January 30, 2011 by BillB
DougRichards Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 By the end of the 19th century the US Army was still wearing blue a blue shirt, by this time the British Army had moved to khaki, hence the uniforms of the Boer War. Of course it also depended on the theatre. In Africa in the 1870s redcoats wore, well, redcoats, as they were not facing Zulus with many firearms. In India they were wearing khaki, as a basic form of camoflage. A parrallel of course is that the French Polis went to war in 1914 in blue coats and red trousers, having not learnt any lessons from the Franco-Prussian War about concealment. So the US Army were learning lessons about uniforms amd concealment that it took the French a lot longer to learn.
Richard Lindquist Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Washington's Life Guard (Commander-in-Chief's Guard) was extant during the life of the Continental Army. The various State Militias, when they could be bothered, had the odd Governor's Foot/Horse Guard Falken If you remember, the entire revolutionary army was disbanded. The only US Army was about a company mannning the arsenal and fort at West Point. The army of today only began organizing when they realized they needed a standing force to deal with the injuns ad things like the Whiskey Rebellion. As the nation developed, the scattered nature of the army activities led to the infantry companies being pretty much standard, multi-purpose units.
Archie Pellagio Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) The other factor to bear in mind is that most of the European regiments were centuries old at the time of the foundation of the Republic of the USA - They carried a lot of legacy from times when they were basically roving mercenary bands and tended to stick with a good thing. When you're starting from scratch, it is a bit wanky to go straight to the over-decorated A-Team-Third-World-Country stuff. Edited January 30, 2011 by Luke Y
SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 In 'Fighting Men of the Civil War' William C Davis, 1989, on page 8 is a photo of a New York Militia unit parading on the cobbled streets of New York in 1860, resplendant in Busbies, White Cross webbing, large white epaulettes and white gloves with a broad white stripe down each side of the pants. Lining one side of the street, three deep, is another formation 'at ease' in white shirts, with wide across the chest a black strap, 'Sam Brown belt' style and once again, busbies. Boston Light Infantry (later to supply the bulk of the 43rd Massachusetts Infantry) had a parade uniform of this style. Page 15 of Osprey's Man at Arms 207, ACW Armies Volunteer Militia. They switched to a Zouave scheme in 1861. The guys standing 'at ease' sound like the NY City Guard. Falken
SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 If you remember, the entire revolutionary army was disbanded. I did mention that ("through the life of the Continental Army). I was mentioning the CinC's Guard as a matter of background. Falken
thekirk Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 In 'Fighting Men of the Civil War' William C Davis, 1989, on page 8 is a photo of a New York Militia unit parading on the cobbled streets of New York in 1860, resplendant in Busbies, White Cross webbing, large white epaulettes and white gloves with a broad white stripe down each side of the pants. Lining one side of the street, three deep, is another formation 'at ease' in white shirts, with wide across the chest a black strap, 'Sam Brown belt' style and once again, busbies. Of course this contrasts with the men of the 79th New York infantry, 'Highlanders' who went into battle initially in kilts, but whose uniform later changed to light blue trousers. Seeing that regiment in line next to a regiment of Zouaves (perhaps a fellow New York unit, the 9th New York Infantry) would have presented a colourful sight. Doug, what you're missing is who paid for it... Here's a hint: It wasn't the Feds. I don't have the references for it, right now, but I'm pretty sure there's documentation showing that most of that fancy stuff was paid for out-of-pocket by the individuals in those militia regiments, by subscription, and by their wealthy sponsors. Congress was parsimonious to a fault, and did not want to spring for a lot of that stuff. Which is kind of scary, considering their conduct in the last century or so...
DougRichards Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Doug, what you're missing is who paid for it... Here's a hint: It wasn't the Feds. I don't have the references for it, right now, but I'm pretty sure there's documentation showing that most of that fancy stuff was paid for out-of-pocket by the individuals in those militia regiments, by subscription, and by their wealthy sponsors. Congress was parsimonious to a fault, and did not want to spring for a lot of that stuff. Which is kind of scary, considering their conduct in the last century or so... I was not arguing that the men had to pay for it themselves, but remarking that some US militia uniforms rivalled those of the European powers in ostenatiousness.
SCFalken Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) I was not arguing that the men had to pay for it themselves, but remarking that some US militia uniforms rivalled those of the European powers in ostenatiousness. A tradition that should be revived in the Guard.... Where can we get Busbys and shakos in this day and age? Falken Edited January 30, 2011 by SCFalken
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now