In far too many reenactments, mounted cavalry is sent forward as skirmishers against the infantry, while no effective use is made of dismounted cavalry.  A more accurate display of cavalry tactics would be to use dismounted cavalry where it is most effective and in the role it actually filled in combat.

The advantage of the dismounted trooper over his mounted counterpart in close fighting is evident.  Confederate Gen. Edward Porter Alexander wrote on page 38 of his memoirs, "It is rare that hostile lines get as near together, and are so exposed to each other's view, that men can select their targets.  When this does occur some decisive result is apt to be reached quickly."

A cavalryman and his horse present a rather large target, and it would be expected that the decisive result predicted by the general would occur in a conflict as closely fought as those at most reenactments.  Simply put, mounted cavalry are routinely sent too far forward for survivability at events.

And for what purpose?  Unless firing at massed infantry or massed cavalry, skirmishing on horseback is likely to be a lesson in futility.  The cavalryman is firing from the back of a moving horse with a carbine or a pistol, an almost impossible feat of marksmanship.  If the distance between the front sight and rear sight of a carbine is 20 inches, a misalignment of the sights of a quarter inch means the bullet will travel one quarter inch off its intended target each 20 inches of flight.  At 50 yards the bullet will miss its mark by 22 inches, nearly two feet.  If the weapon is a pistol with 8 inches between the sights, the bullet will miss its mark by more than four feet at 50 yards.  On the other hand, a mounted cavalryman presents a much better target to stationary infantry, making skirmishing on horseback against infantry suicidal.

Col. John S. Mosby described the ineffectiveness of mounted fire on page 91 of his memoirs, "One of the Yankees jumped behind a tree and was taking aim at Fount when I leveled my pistol at him, but missed Fount, though within a few feet of him.  I then jumped down from my horse and as the fellow turned to me I rested my carbine against a tree and shot him dead.  Fount fired at one with his pistol, but missed."

Mosby, a strong proponent of the pistol for cavalry, also wrote on page 286 that, "to be effective, the pistol must, of course, be used at close quarters."

In most cases, cavalry skirmishers need to be dismounted.  At most reenactments, mounted cavalry is usually sent forward as a show starter to thrill the crowds, only to disappear and let the infantry get on with the real reenactment.  Just how was cavalry really used in battle?

Robert F. O'Neill, Jr. described this fighting: "Stuart's regiments usually had one company that was designated as a sharpshooter company.  They were armed with rifles or carbines whereas many men under Stuart's command by design or circumstance were armed with saber and pistol only.  Once contact with the enemy was made and as soon as the opportunity presented itself the sharpshooters would be dismounted at a position of advantage from which they could assist their comrades."

The value of this tactic is highlighted by a Confederate cavalry officer, quoted by O'Neill as saying, "I reached the top of the hill where a squadron of our regiment, sharpshooters, dismounted behind a stone fence. (I) met the enemy with the balance of the regiment in the lane where we had a stubborn fight, our sharpshooters firing from the flank while the mounted men poured it in from the front."

The Federal horror at being caught in this situation is evident in the writings of Lt. Charles G. Davis, commanding companies A and B of the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry.  O'Neill quotes him as writing "two squadrons of the enemy had been placed behind stone walls.  This ambush had to be passed in charging the enemy in the road.  Men were punched out of their saddles by fire from sharpshooters who could practically touch their targets."

O'Neill quotes Confederate Sgt. George Brooke, writing of the same encounter, as saying, "I was so close to these men as they charged by me that I could see dust fly from their blue jackets as the bullets of our revolvers would strike them."

When is the last time dismounted cavalry was deployed with mounted cavalry at a reenactment?  Too often, only lip service is paid to those who reenact dismounted.  They are allowed to bivouac with the "real cavalry", then they are used as infantry skirmishers.  Why are they not used as dismounted cavalry?  Have them take up a position  of advantage where they can provide fire support for their mounted counterparts.  Let's stop pretending dismounted cavalry is light infantry and integrate the mounted and dismounted cavalry into a cohesive unit.  Then we can start demonstrating real cavalry tactics and stop perpetuating a myth.