Certainly, a great many more were lost to artillery (from all fired arms) and sickness than any of the other possibilities. I mention lost because most lists touted as pertinent to weapon use simply don't relate the numbers of the dead with circumstance clearly identified, rather those recorded as wounded. Jim alludes to that a bit.
Similar discussion over the years often draw information from some more related instances, such as Shelby sharpening a back edge and von Borcke (or another) relating kills via sword blows. It must simply have been a matter of luck from my own purchases over time that do show 19th century swords in general had been sharpened. Perhaps it was simply a less European outlook and armoury outlook regarding fielding sharp swords. There have certainly been enough examples presented in these threads to show the countries better versed in military operations continued to field sharps up into the 20th century.
I am not a terribly well read student of the American Civil War, aside from pursuing family genealogy and following some of those family members. Of them, I can count to some that started as cavalry and became attached more as mounted infantry. Others continuing to be numbered as cavalry (forage, melee type stuff) during the brief campaign of Price leading a surge back through Missouri. There have been noted battles in which massed cavalry charges were somewhat successful but my opinion and readings point to much more massive logistical use as troopers as mounted infantry (on both sides).
The somewhat mythological use of southern handguns probably needs to be addressed in such discussions but Hollywood (bolstererd by these myths) will too often relate the sheer number of guns some individuals are said to have carried. The truth and personal accounts will probably relate the records of some cavalry retaining swords when available, while maybe a select few were abandoning swords entirely (although shotguns and carbines were a good argument for mounted infantry use).
I hate to draw from states such as Missouri entirely in showing the lack of arms available for southern interests and masses of entirely unarmed that responded (by the time of the battle of Willow Creek) yet the use what one brought from home was only too true up through and beyond that state and the battle of Willow Creek. I do know my paternal gggrandfather (William Alfred Cleeton) went to Oregon as a school teacher instead of disagreeing with brothers and his father (James Cleeton), whom were southern campaigners/sympathizers. As well, first cousins in the Union infantry with one dying outside Atlanta and others surviving to pension. Then there are clear family evidences of pledging to the Union. Then promptly heading off back to Clark, Perkins and Price in rallying for the south once more.
Infantry use? Surely a lot less than might be numbered as used as a primary weapon and yes, a signaling device of sorts.
So where does that all lead back to sharp or not? The generally accepted truths that the 1860s offered little use of sharps is probably pretty accurate (in the big picture) while needing to understand there are still enough sharpened swords of the period and context to say it was not entirely unknown. Some of my Missouri notes keep reminding me of Lyon parading through town with a guard of well equipped cavalrymen. here is a post from me in 2004, easier than me plowing through a mess of bookmarks again.
Quote:
This is not the page I was looking for but it does show a fellow leaning on something with a similar hilt.
Germans in the Civil War: I goes to fight mit Sigel, by William Keel
http://www.ku.edu/kansas/ford/keel.html Edit for 2009 url update
http://www.skyways.org/orgs/fordco/keel.html
I'll be back. The terrible broadsword quote was something about Lyon's Hessians. OK, so it wasn't terrible broadswords (that quote was from somewhere else). Here is the page I remembered. Down a few paragraphs is the description of mounted Germans with massive swords.
Missouri In The Civil War, Chapter VI
http://www.civilwarhome.com/missouri6.htm
"He entered Springfield with a good deal of mediaeval display. His escort, which was composed of St. Louis German butchers, remarkable for their size and ferocious aspect, was mounted on powerful iron-gray horses and armed with big revolvers and massive swords, and thus accoutered dashed through the streets of the little town, which was held by…"
Also worth considering is your local history of Union recruitment and German imigrants of the time. Franz Sigel (the first link above) is an indication of what these folk were leaving behind and an insight into the politics they supported. Check out the current owners background and family history.
So, in rather convoluted theory, it is certainly possible the sword was used in the conflict. Who used it and origin of manufacture will only be answered by your research.
Good luck with this, the paths are many to the stories of that war.
Cheers
Hotspur; had ancestral first cousins fighting against each other in several battles
|
Almost invariably, it reads to me as the seasoned officers and troopers from other experiences (European or not) were a minority indeed when maintaining tactics and weapons other countries used into the 20th century. In another great sense, there was simply less organization in training of Union cavalry troopers for sword use vs dismounting and firing.
In other family research, the edged era of warfare does seem to have lasted in America at least up into the post 1812 period, as their militia musters show they were not meant to be carrying only powdered arms (while those firearms have been a fundamental of militia muster back to the 18th century).
A broad subject not so easily quantified.
Cheers
GC