Only 8-20 soldiers guarding a major fort?!

[@austinkelman5453]

I remember reading or watching a video talking about how some Medieval castles were able to withstand wars or raids from much larger forces with very few soldiers. A lot of factors can come into play I suppose. Well defended areas, natural obstacles, man-made obstacles, weapons, logistics, location, elevation, etc. Since most of the forts, especially out West, tended to be wooden instead of either stone or brick then I feel like it's safe to say that a detachement of ~8-20 men would be okay all things considered. Sure, anything could happen, and people can still climb walls and stuff, and the Natives could've/would've had access to firearms too making warfare comparabily different to what medieval warfare was (different types of firearms and less common to see firearms in the medieval period), but it's also important to keep in mind that forts weren't like super massive either. Some of them were relatively small and could even simply just look like a block house or a palisade wall with a couple buildings inside. Even the Romans had small mile-castles on Hadrian's wall that were effectively small forts in their own right. So, it's not inconceivable to believe, especially if the fort is already made. Then, depending on orders, the daily running is to probably drill, forage, scout, guard, and downtime. Plus, I've seen so many different examples of U.S. forts during this time period in general and not all of them were necessarily similar. The ones back East that were proper garrisons tended to be made of brick and stone while those in the frontier tended to be made of wood. I've seen some, especially during the time of the civil war (which could've been impromptly made just as a temporary fort) that were relatively simple dugouts (sometimes in star-shaped patterns as other European countries used) with a small palisade and tents in the center. I think when most people think of a fort they think of it being some massive defensive place, but that's not always the case.

[@gallantcavalier3306]

Incredible. Companies, platoons, even squads on detached duty from the whole outfit, simply incredible.

[@henrykrecklow817]

Dividing a regiment up into small post continued even after the CW, The 7th Cavalry was mostly split up until the Washita in 1868 and then the Little Big Horn in 1876. Basically it was only during a campaign that the regiment would be brought together.

[@scotthealy3206]

The unique and absolutely messed up life of the frontier soldier. The most interesting aspect of the 19th century army to me!

[@robertschultz6922]

I love by a fort in Nevada, which in 1860 was the biggest in Nevada territory, but there are almost no official transcripts from the fort. The state park in charge can't even find anything. The fort in question is ft Churchill. I was a guide there for a short time and tried to write a book but due to difficulty researching the subject gave up. Does anyone have any recommendations on what to do to try and find anything???

[@unitedwithbritian]

Sounds like a version of a 19th century fireteam to me.

[@Wolfram762]

Great video!!!

[@An2oine]

30 rounds per dude, nope.

[@rileywilliams9385]

Feels like Embassy Duty 😮

[@twostep1953]

Based on that painting, I'd take more than 10 rifle-bullets per man! However, unlike the painting, the usual threat was from what we today would call gang-bangers; young warriors out to make a reputation for themselves. Even in small numbers and poorly armed, the soldiers usually had the advantage. Update: Other videos show ammunition sent by the manufacturer in 6-pistol-bullet boxes, and 10-rifle-bullet boxes. So maybe... that was considered to be a Basic Load for its day?

[@tomhenry897]

10 rounds? Thought 60 was full load

[@50TNCSA]

those electrical boxes are they original LOL

[@ryanmichael1298]

At first I thought you were Ohio Volunteer Cavalry...