I am reading the Starbuck Chronicles for the second time. I really enjoy Bernard Cornwell's civil war series about a pastor's son from Boston fighting for the South in Virginia. However, Cornwell's last in the series was a few years ago and has not continued past the battle of Sharpsburg. Also, his books are somewhat anti-South as well. But if I chose not to read any civil war novels that were anti-south, I would hardly have anything to read!
One interesting point in Cornwell's books is that Starbuck, the copperhead Southern officer carries a rifle into battle with no rank insignia on his coat. Even after he becomes colonel he does this. Did many Southern officers carry muskets into battle without showing rank? I am somewhat puzzled by this.
"Devils in cretinous shape, Colonel, as even a casual glance at their skull shapes might reveal. They are Southerners: half witted, morally infantile, and crinimal. Don't feel sorry for them."- Bernard Cornwell in Battleflag.
Subscribe to Recent Stories
That's why it's called
FICTION.
"Treason must be punished, even if we have to eat every turkey, chicken and pig in Virginia"
Pvt. John Haley, Co. I, 17th Maine Vol. Inf.
Bob Firth
Take it
EASY.
"Ours is a just war, a holy cause. The invader must meet the fate he deserves..."-Major John Pelham, Stuart's Horse Artillery
Funny thing!
I was just thinking about this yesterday. It was not the norm that Officers carried rifles but there are accounts of them taking up the musket and fighting with the ranks. Gen. D.H. Hill observed some men laying on the ground firing at yankee soldiers in the distance. He approached the men and instructed them to stand up. He took one of their muskets and began to instruct on loading and firing and then debating whether or not he hit the man he was aiming at. Point of the lesson was that they could fire more rounds standing than laying. (His secondary point was that the men were acting like cowards.)
Sidney Lanier wrote, I believe in "Tiger Lilies", about several officers taking up muskets and fighting. While a fiction piece, it is based on personal experience. Still Officer's with muskets doesn't appear to be the norm.
Will
What do we really know..........
In the vaunted Book "company aytch" there is a constant mention of a lt. who carries a henry rifle and this is supposed to be truth as it comes down from an old veteran....there are som many people involved in this war that what we think we know changes with the discovery of a pack of letters or a diary. we can never know for sure what the real truth is in certain aspects,but we do have the basic guide of conduct, ie regulations. We know what officers were issued and what they may have purchased, but there are examples that defy those standards...one must be in the employ of the army, but there are examples of citizens taking up arms to fight with the army of their choice while they are in the area, but after they move on the civilan stays...Ie the old man at Gettysburg, and an account I read once of some youths joining up with confederate forces with their hunting rifles running out of ammo and then sending thier ramrods down range...War makes people do things that arent in the books, Breeds hill, the colonials if they had powder and not shot were picking up buttons, nails and rocks to fire at the redcoats coming up the hill, preachers and doctors, men of god and of healing send men of the other side to their deaths. and as an example of this latest war, the Maine Man, cant remember his name, former of watervill, currently in the Marines, recieved the Navy Cross for using his weapon, rifles and pistol, and the hummer he was driving, to mow down Iraqi soldiers, then leaping from his vehicle(he probally just rolled out, but leaping is more dramatic) he used rpgs and the rifles of dead Iraqis to secure the position.. he was an offficer..Now I know modern war and civil war are apples and oranges but where is it in the handbooks that you can use your hummer as a weapon?
arent their cases of infantry units captureing artillery batteries and then employing them against the foe? now do those infantrymen just stand there until qualified artillerymen can take over the operation of the gun? I doubt it.....I rember one time a reenactor stated that infantry was infantry and cav was cav, and artillery was artillery and they operated apart from each other, but historically speaking at one time the 15th had a cav scout from ashbys command tasked with them, one point an artillery battery was tasked with them, and also the account of the 42(3)rd Va cav, Mosby and his short lived trial of the mountain Rifle, a small Cannon with a 2.5inch bore mounted on a prarie(sp) carriage. they shot a train with it and then it was captured...it now is in some museum in Ny.
and uniforms, theres a whole nother posting.
Im just saying it could happen..........
Seamus
"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifing......nothing"
MacBeth
Bernard Cornwell
...is one of my favorite writers and I've read his entire Richard Sharpe series about a British Officer in who worked his way up through the ranks. From Private to Colonel, he always carried his Baker Rifle and used it along with his Infantry Saber. Cornwell likes to equip his hero-officers with rifles it seems, however, that doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened in real life. Like privates equipping themselves with every kind of lethal weapon they could lay hands on...from knives to belly guns to pistols to rifles...it happened...just not often, or always condoned...but it definately did happen.
I know that if I was in a battle and was a lieutenant or captain...and things were getting hot for our side...and every bullet you could throw downrange could help make a difference, then I'd grab the first musket whose former owner no longer had use for it and be shooting as well as shouting orders.
Edward Porter Alexander....
... mentions in his auto-biography that he asked to borrow a rifle to take a few shots at some Yanks. He fancied himself quite the hunter in his off hours. I believe that in most cases the Officer with a Rifle thing was more of a "Hey let me get a wack at them boys" kind of thing.
"Hawks and Eagles fly like Doves"
2nd Lt Eric R. Reeder
United States Army
Corps of Topographic Engineers
2nd Lt Eric R. Reeder United States Army Corps of Topographic Engineers "Hawks and Eagles fly like Doves"
Lt. George Deering
Lt. George Deering, of the 16th Maine Inf. Company G, is reported to have taken a rifle from those available around him and stepped into the ranks at Gettysburg.
It is said that, "He was evidently excited, and every once in a while would forget to return his rammer after loading, hence would send it over to the enemy."
As an aside, for those of you who are familiar with Dana Deering from years past, Dana is related to George. Now go to http://mainememory.net/home.shtml And perform a search for "George A. Deering". The likeness is uncanny.
This link should get you straight there.
http://mainememory.net/bin/Detail?ln=4296&in_size=298
--
Michael Johnson
Worth a bullet
Sam Watkins of "Co. Aych" First Tennessee Infantry summed it up that he and his pards would not waste time or powder shooting officers, because they weren't the ones trying to kill them. They knew to shoot at the rank & file of privates who were doing the majority of the killing. Any officer, (Myself included)tried to blend in and not distinguish themselves visually in combat. I couldn't hide all they had to do is look for the radio antennae and I would become a bullet magnet. Not unlike a color bearer! I carried a rifle by choice as considereing a side arm to be of minimal use in a firefight. Like the bayonet, it was better than being unarmed. Bear in mind, a lot of officers chose to not carry anything but a sword, because his job was to control the fight not participate in its execution. But, when there were Rebs, or Yanks in the tanglefoot, you picked up a musket and did your part until the crisis allowed you to get back into the fray as a leader.
"Never Apologize, It's a sign of weakness!
Cpt. Nathan Brittles
Pvt. Steve Henry
Co. A, 3rd Maine Volunteer Infantry
"Bath City Greys
Officer's Function vs Form
The job of an officer or NCO is not to themselves engage the enemy, but to direct the efforts of their Soldiers in doing this in the most advantageous manner possible. This has not changed since the days of the Roman Legions.
If an officer or NCO is engaged in launching bullets at an enemy, he will soon develop "tunnel vision" and lose sight of the larger battle around his unit. A unit composed of such officers or NCOs would be doomed.
Do isolated examples exist of some officer lugging a musket or rifle around the battlefield? Or of temporarily using one, probably to provide an example to the troops? Sure. But I would caution against using works of fiction as serious references.
You will notice that the officer on the right of this post is armed with an M16A2 rifle. Am I a hypocrite? No. The circumstances of combat in Iraq make this prudent because although my job, first and foremost is to direct and lead troops in combat, I may have immediate need of this weapon for self preservation. This is not contradictory, as a repeating revolver would have been much more useful in a close combat emergency in the civil war, rather than a single shot musket. My M16A2 is more effective in this regard than a semiautomatic 9mm (which I also carry). The M16A2 is also useful in directing the fire of my troops; since we do not operate in massed ranks, verbal communication can be unreliable. Therefore I carry all tracer in my magazines so the troops can mass their fire where mine is impacting, which I designate as the most advantageous point to mass fires.
Alright, so I don't make this a primer on modern infantry combat, I'll just conclude that the tactical missions, environment and characteristics of weapons and combat in the 1860s, would make carrying a long gun a distractor to an officer who must first, last, and always be concerned with the tactical employment of his unit to the greatest advantage. If I was an officer in the civil war I would go with a revolver or two and probably conveniently lose my sword.
"Treason must be punished, even if we have to eat every turkey, chicken and pig in Virginia."
-Pvt John Haley, Co I, 17th Maine Vol. Inf.
Bob Firth
Late of the 25th Mass
Nobody on this thread said
>
Nobody on this thread said anything about using fiction as serious, reference, Bob. It started out as a curious question of what Bernard Cornwell drew his sources from in the making of the Starbuck chronicles. Though it is a fictional series, like Jeff and Michael Shaara's books, they are based on actual events and mostly actual persons. As you have seen here, several MMB members have indeed found incidents in which officers used a musket a time or two. I am a little lost on what Iraq has to do with the discussion.
I am sorry if you misunderstood my opening post.
wow...easy guys...
As for the topic Zack, it was nonfictional for the officers to pic up rifles once and a while. as did the yanks too. was talking to an old man at the hospital, and his great great grandfather was a drummer boy in the 20th ME, and he told me that it got so bad at little round top that he dropped his drum and picked up a rife. He was only 14. So you can imagine in war you will do what you can to survive.
"WAR IS HELL" William T. Sherman
Pvt.J.Thurlow
Mr. Cornwell's depiction of
Mr. Cornwell's depiction of officer's with rifles was not as fictional as some would believe.
I think that Cornwell had a couple of primary reasons for his Confederate officer characters carrying rifles. One is that the Starbuck character does not fancy the pomp and brass of what is entitled to an officer. He does not wear rank on his coat and he carries a rifle into battle. Also, in these books, Starbuck does not let himself stand out as an officer during battle because he knows that the yankees would surely sight him at a chance to plug an officer.
As common sense as this character seems to make, I do believe that most officers did at least sport a pistol and ranks on their collars. It was important for the men to know where their commander was. Hardee's book of tactics does outline the problem of officers being welcomed targets by their obvious regulation attire. So to prevent the mortally wounding of officers, Hardee gives a system of regulations on how far behind the battle line each officer should be according to rank. As we all know, this part of the manual was usually ignored and over fifty Confederate general officers paid the price.
So I believe Cornwell embellishes some of the nonfiction aspects of the war. While describing Jackson in Battleflag, Jackson is portayed as an officer wearing no rank or sword and wearing a blue cadet cap. We all know that Jackson did in fact wear the stars and laurels of a general officer and unlike many high ranking Confederate officers, did wear a sword. So I believe that Cornwell embellished the character of the Confederates as guerilla like soldiers with no uniform or much attention to the traditional appearance of a soldier. It was his fictional personality of the Confederate soldier, though historically, in some instances mentioned earlier were actually was true.
So winding down Cornwell's portrayal of the Confederate soldier is about half fiction and half true. Usually the case with serious Civil War novelists.
Geee...
I'm sure the book is good, I myself have never read it. But I hate books like that. If your going to rite something in history make it right, Because there are some people out there that think its the truth and really its not. I mean if your going to make it fictional change the smaller aspects, because if you start changing what they ware, and how they act you now have made a totally different person. That now mixes the hole truth about the person, especially Jackson. know what i mean?
that's probably why us reenactor get so many stupid questions at encampements.lol:)
Pvt.J.Thurlow
Rank
There is some documentation that some partisan unit's officers wore no uniforms or uniforms without rank. However the regulations were pretty clear about uniforms. The both armies observed the rank and side arm rule, exception may be commanding generals. Officer's needed to be identifiable, so the book is not a half truth...it is fiction.
I don't care for fiction, but it has some value. Without it, reading would be dull and boring most of the time. Many people will have no imagination or point of reference to understand certain topics. I do not read historical fiction as a rule because you can't trust the source. Perhaps they are only to be read and details never talked about....lol Learn the experience not the facts type of stuff.
Will
Yeah...
I just hope people that read that kind of thing DO know there history. so we don't have people trying to prove points that you know its wrong and they think its right. that just causes a f%ing headache. i just got done with dealing that kind of thing yesterday bout Lincoln.
Pvt.J.Thurlow
Easssssy Thurlow. Down boy!
Easssssy Thurlow. Down boy! I will probably drop this discussion for it is obvious there are anxietys and undertones of uncessary jabs.
I will close my part of the discussion with a careful review of the intital topic on this thread.
First of all, every member on this board knows a thing or two about the difference between fiction and nonfiction. And yes, some of us "do know their history." Yes, some of us do read fiction on occasion but no one should assume that any of us take every page of the novel as gospel.
If a writer on the Civil War has any hope in getting good press and acclaim from Civil War reenactors and historians they should know enough about the civil war to make their fictional accounts more convincing. Most fictional books on the civil war are not pure fiction. Take Shelby Foote's Shiloh for instance. Or how about The Killer Angels, Gods and Generals, The Last Full Measure, Black Flower and so forth. If you cannot find any historical truth in any of those writings then you are studying the wrong war!
Nobody on this thread is trying to prove one thing or another. We are just discussing two issues. The first is -did some officers carry rifles in the civil war? And the second is, how creditable are the nonfiction details in fictional novels? I am sure that we've all pointed out some inaccuracies in purely nonfictional civil war books as well. As reenactors we know more than the general public and indeed, some of these proclaimed historians out there about the War Between the States. So it is in our nature to dig for facts wherever we can obtain them. And most true civil war writers such as Michaele Shaara and Bernard Cornwell have studied for many many years on the Civil War before attempting their fictional accounts of it. So to completely discredit their work would be unfair. It is up to us, living historians to decipher what is truly inauthentic and not true and what is accurate and historically proven through our own researches.
The common theme of this thread was that some of what is written in fiction actually did happen some other things did not. This is not a bayonet charge or busting of heads between two parities. No need for a ....headache.
And what about Lincoln? I made a point to save my electricity by keeping my tv off during the Lincoln program on the History channel last night. However, I hope that the program was indeed informational and entertaining for you lincolnites out there!
Thank you, everyone, who shared with me your responses and answers to my question regarding rifle ownership in the officer corps. Your posts have shown that Cornwell's writing was half wrong in his accounts of Confederate soldiers but also half right. Thanks again for sharing your own research and knowledge regarding my intial question.
Just answering the Question
QUOTE:
"Nobody on this thread said anything about using fiction as serious, reference, Bob. It started out as a curious question of what Bernard Cornwell drew his sources from in the making of the Starbuck chronicles. Though it is a fictional series, like Jeff and Michael Shaara's books, they are based on actual events and mostly actual persons. As you have seen here, several MMB members have indeed found incidents in which officers used a musket a time or two. I am a little lost on what Iraq has to do with the discussion.
I am sorry if you misunderstood my opening post."
I disagree Zac. I refer to your statement below, in which it is clear that you are referring to a work of fiction in asking if it was common for Confederate Officers to carry long arms and not wear rank insignia.
QUOTE:
"One interesting point in Cornwell's books is that Starbuck, the copperhead Southern officer carries a rifle into battle with no rank insignia on his coat. Even after he becomes colonel he does this. Did many Southern officers carry muskets into battle without showing rank? I am somewhat puzzled by this."
My point in mentioning use of long arms today is that I am sure someone was going to point out that I was armed with a rifle in the image that accompanies each post, as proof of hypocrisy in my argument that an officers job is to direct the actions of his troops rather than engage the enemy himself. But I agree that enough electrons have been wasted on this subject.
Bob Firth
Late of the 25th Mass
Right or Wrong...
...I don't really care. Cornwell spins a great story and I am too busy enjoying his descriptions of battles and events to really care. I enjoy historical fiction and, being fiction, you juat have to enjoy the ride and not worry about the facts. In his Sharpe series, he always writes a disclaimer that, in order to make the story work out, he had to change the date of a battle or move a general to another location...he never tries to say, "This is what actually happened." It's entirely plausible that some officers used rifles, shotguns, muskets, swords, sabers, pikes, sticks and rocks in the heat of battle. They just never carried those weapons on dress parade...and, as previously said, the officer was supposed to concentrate on the tactics of the situation and not be involved with personally trying to reduce the number of enemy soldiers trying to kill him.
Really good historical fiction writers like Cornwell, Jim Nelson, or even Farmer (the Flashman series) study the facts, then throw in some fiction to make the story capture the reader's imagination...and in turn sell a bunch of books...
So let's just say some did, some didn't...
Now...the next big question based on all of the recent 'research'...
Was Lincoln really depressed AND gay???
Depressed Yes...
...Gay?.... um No...
Now Buchanan is another story...
2nd Lt Eric R. Reeder
United States Army
Corps of Topographic Engineers
"Hawks and Eagles fly like Doves"
2nd Lt Eric R. Reeder United States Army Corps of Topographic Engineers "Hawks and Eagles fly like Doves"
oops...
he only thing i was saying was, i hope that the people who dont know much about the civil war and read the chronicals thinking that it's all truth. then you can get into arguements with those people. like here is an example; just the other day at school I was talking to a friend about the show on lincoln that was coming on the history channel. than my friend started arguing with me about why lincoln freed the slaves. He thought he freed the slaves because he was a nice guy and thats what needed to be done. when really the reason being was he needed men to fight for the union. Basically it was a big arguement because he din't know his history, and he thought he did.
Ever been in those situations.... they suck!
Pvt.J.Thurlow
Ok move along...
I think everyone can move along. There doesn't seem to be much constructive here now.
I don't think Zac meant to leave anyone with the impression that he was using Cornwell's work as a reference. I think he was only looking to see if anyone know's of any historical reference that may have been used by Cornwell as a guide.
Some of us offered historical references to officers temporarily taking up rifles. But, unless I missed it, no good reference to a day-to-day carrier.
I have not read any of Cornwell's work. But it sounds like a good example of creative license. And, in reference to another discussion, this is a concern I have with our first person discussion. But I will post those comments over there.
--
Michael Johnson
Gay
Now lets get our head a little into the 1800's Men had closer bonds with each other than they do now. Men sleeping in the same bed- very common. Did we call Pres. Andrew Jackson gay because he slept in the same bed with the artist Mr Earl? Was Jefferson Davis gay because he slept in the same bed with Andrew Jackson JR. They had a far different mind set then we do today. They kissed each other put their arms around each other. Funny how gay is even an issue. Ok I have got to get back to the wool. Hawks and Eagles Fly Like Doves CopperHeadAnnie
Lt. Melcher
I read that Lieutenant Melcher of the 20th ME at Little Round Top picked up a rifle with bayonet in that charge down the hill.
"the North mu st gain
"The North must gain victory very soon," Adam Shook his head. "What's happening to us Nate"?
Starbuck laughed at the question, "We're at war. And your side says that houses have to be burned and goods taken from civilians."
-The Starbuck Chronicales