military tactics of the 1700s

7/23/2019 Military Tactics of the 1700s

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/military-tactics-of-the-1700s 1/19

P R E S E N T S

M I L I T A R YT A C T I C S O F

T H E 1 7 0 0 S

The techniques and technologies that helped fight

the Revolutionary War

Justin Johnson



American Military History Podcast Presents : Military Tactics of the 1700s

Copyright © 2015 by Justin Johnson

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be

used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case

of brief quotations em- bodied in critical articles or reviews.

For information contact :

Justin Johnson

http://www.americanmilitaryhistorypodcast.com

Book and Cover design by Justin Johnson

First Edition: October 2015



I . W H A T H A S B E E N

“I have not yet begun to fight.”

-John Paul Jones

FOR CENTURIES LEADING UP TO THE 1700s, battles had been

won on horseback or with hand to hand combat. However, with the advent

and improvement of gunpowder and gunpowder based weaponry, it was

clear that the 1700s marked the beginning of the Age of the Rifle.

Armies themselves began to change as well. England was one of the

first governments to create a standing professional army with strong

organizational structure. This was a strong departure from current

standards of the time, which revolved around recruiting armies from the

population or hiring out mercenaries. When England created it’s New

Model Army, local militias did in fact represent the bulk of the fighting

forces in England, and throughout Europe. It’s also something that we see

in the American colonies, during the first part of the Revolutionary War,

prior to the forming of the Continental Army.



A M E R I C A N M I L I T A R Y H I S T O R Y P O D C A S T

!

3

I I . F I R E A R M S

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we will hang seperatley”

-Benjamin Franklin

The New Model Army brought into play the flintlock-actuated

musket guns for infantry soldiers. And while these soldiers also still

sometimes carried a sword (for extreme close range combat) it was their

rifle that changed the course of warfare and saw the end to the horse

mounted knight, as musket balls could easily pierce the strongest personal

armor of the time.

Prior to the implementation of the flintlock rifle, the matchlock rifle

had originally introduced the concept of a mechanism or “lock” to aid in

the firing of a hand-held firearm. Before the development of this

mechanism, a lit match had to be lowered by hand into the weapon’s flash

plan to ignite the gunpowder primer. The matchlock made the weapon

easier to fire, and more stable (as they soldier was now able to use both



M I L I T A R Y T A C T I C S O F T H E 1 7 0 0 s

4

hands to hold the weapon). The weapon itself began to make it’s

appearance in Europe in the mid-15th century but was mostly obsolete by

the early 1700s, giving way to the more efficient and powerful flintlock

rifle.

The term flintlock is applied to any firearm that is based upon the

flintlock mechanism. Commonly referred to as a just a “flintlock”, the

mechanism holds a piece of flint which is held in place between a set of a

jaws at the end of a short hammer. The hammer is pulled into the cocked

position prior to firing, upon trigger pull, the spring-loaded hammer moves

forward causing the flint to strike a piece of steel called the “frizzen”. The

movement of the flint and hammer causes the frizzen to slightly slide back,

revealing a pan which contains gunpowder. As the flint strikes the frizzen

it creates a spark which falls into the pan and ignites the powder. While the

matchlock rifles of the past had keep a match constantly lit, which

provided problems in moist conditions and it also increased troop visibility

to the enemy during night marches or maneuvers. The flintlock eliminated

most of these problems, but it was not without it’s own flaws.

One problem was the lack of a proper safety mechanism. To ready the




!

5

rifle, the hammer was moved to a half-cocked position, the pan was

primed and a percussion cap was inserted, to fully fire, the hammer was

moved to a fully cocked position and the trigger would be squeezed.

However, in many instances the hammer would snap itself out of the half-

cocked position causing it fire. This was a such a common problem it’s

where we get the phrase “going off half-cocked”. The rifle also emitted a

huge shower of sparks when fired which not only gave away location but

ran the risk of igniting the powder of the man reloading beside you,

leading to the practice of firing in volleys to stagger the shooting &

reloading.

Despite it’s shortcomings the flintlock rifle was a revolutionary

weapon, staying in service for military and civilian use for some 100 years.

In, addition the weapon positions and drill commands that were originally

devised to standardize carrying, loading and firing a flintlock weapon

remain the standard for drill and display today.




6

In terms of the Revolutionary War, the most common flintlock rifle

was the Brown Bess muzzle-loading smoothbore musket. It was a British

weapon but it was used heavily by both British troops and American

colonists alike. The musket fired a single shot .75 caliber ball or a cluster

style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a shotgun

like effect. The barrel, lockwork, and sling-swivels were typically made of

iron while other pieces such as the butt plate, trigger guard, and ramrod

pipe were found in both iron and brass. It weighed around 10 pounds and

could be fitted with a 17 inch triangular cross-section bayonet. The rifle

did not have sights, but it could be aimed by using the bayonet lug as crude

sight.

Like most muskets, the accuracy of the Brown Bess was fair, with the

effective range being quote as 175 yards, but most formations and

strategies called for the weapon to be fired en masse at 50 yards to inflict

the greatest damage upon the enemy.




!

7

I I I . T H E S O L D I E R

“The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone;

it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”-Patrick Henry

A rifle wasn’t the only thing a Revolutionary War soldier carried:

pistols, sabers, and halberds were also known to be carried. Officers

carried smallswords, Dragoons were officially issued a saber and a pistol.

For standard infantry, pistols were rare.

The soldiers in the Revolutionary War that fought for America were

either Continental Army Soldiers (after its formation) or Militiaman

A continental army soldier, on his right side carried a leather or tin

cartridge box that held twenty to thirty rounds of ammunition, a musket

tool, and a supply of flints. On his left side he carried his bayonet in a

leather scabbard attached to a linen or leather shoulder strap. Each soldier

also carried a haversack, usually made of linen, to carry his food rations




8

and eating utensils, which typically included a fork or spoon, a knife a

plate and a cup. He also had a canteen made of wood, tin or even in some

cases glass to carry water. His knapsack held extra clothing and other

personal items such as a shaving kit, a tinderbox with flint and steel for

starting a fire, candle holders, a comb and a small mirror. Soliders also

learned to carry a fishhook and twine so that they could catch fresh fish

when near a lake or river.

After the formation of the Continental Army, the militiamen were the

secondary fighting force in the Americas but were often called upon to

assist the army in military campaigns. While the equipment that the militia

soldier carried looked different from that of the Continental soldier they

usually performed the same or similar function. A militia rifleman carried

his firearm, knife, tomahawk (or a light ax), water canteen, powderhorn for

his black powder, and a hunting pouch that held other shooting supplies.

Battles fought with black-powder weapons would produce enough

smoke that would make it very difficult to see more than few yards on the

battlefield. Clouds of smoke would make it harder to distinguish between

friendly and enemy forces. Because the smoke produced was white, bright

colors were typically chosen for uniforms. The British for the most part

wore red and scarlet uniforms; the French wore uniforms of white, but

with bright blue accents, and the Americans wore dark blues and browns.Congress did not adopt an “official” uniform until 1779, but soldiers did

tend to have clothing similar to others in the company or regiment. Many

volunteer companies entered the war in uniforms purchased by themselves

or their commanders.

A soldier’s uniform consisted of:

• a hat, usually turned up on one or three sides




!

9

• linen or cotton shirt

• wool coat

• a waistcoat or vest

• a pair of trousers or breeches that were gathered just below the

knee or overalls

• stockings

• leather shoes

Camp life for the soldier's provided minimum equipment. Officers

were provided tents made of canvas or heavy cotton, usually about 10 feet

across by 14 feet deep by 8 feet high. If supplies were available infantry

were given tents, which were roughly 6.5 feet square and 5 feet high. Not

only was it smaller than an officer’s tent, but it was expected to provide

shelter for 5 men. In lieu of a tent, an infantryman would use his blanket to protect him from the elements. While marching soldiers would eat biscuits

or hard bread and ears of corn. Sometimes there was cornmeal and dried

beef. Baggage wagons would lead the march and carry the provisions and

rations of troops. The wagons were in front, so that the soldiers would be

forced to pass by them when the army stopped the march for the day. As

they passed by they would pick up their rations and start setting up camp

and cooking.

Cooking became essential in camp because food was issued in raw

form. A set of cooking utensils was usually issued to every six or eight

men. This included a kettle, cooking forks and spoons, and often a water

bucket. Soldiers usually provided their own forks, spoons, and knives to

eat with. They also needed a plate, usually made of wood or pewter, and a

drinking cup.

In 1777 it was ordered that each soldier would receive one pound of




10

flour or bread, one and one-half pound of beef or pork, and one quart of

beer per day. Each week he would receive five pints of peas, one pint of

meal, and six ounces of butter. Vinegar was issued on occasion and rum

was issued to those men working around the camp and on guard duty. It

was recommended that the men should always boil or roast their

provisions.




!

11

I I I . F O R M A T I O N S

“Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they

mean to have a war, let it begin here..”-John Parker

Camp life was one thing, but the battlefield was another. It’s a

common “myth” or more correctly a “misunderstanding” that the

American army beat the British by employing guerilla tactics to fight

against the British who just came at them in nice straight organized lines.

This is just not historically accurate.

Did the American Army use guerilla tactics? No. We do have

evidence that proves that colonial militia employed these tactics on several

occasions but in most battles, both sides used the classic linear tactics. It

was how armies of the time foght and Washington wanted to be

recognized as a legitimate commander of a respectable military, so he

employed the tactics and techniques that were common in the world at that

time.




12

When soldiers were trained in the American Army, they were trained

using the British manual of arms, but it is interesting to note that while

conventional tactics were the focus, there were some units like those in

Williamsburg, Virginia who would march one day a week to places like

Queen’s Creek in order to practice wood tactics or Indian tactics.

So what exactly were the tactics of the time? They are commonly

referred to as linear tactics and it’s something we’ve all seen before in

movies or on television. Lines of soldiers facing off against each other

while volleying fire back and forth.

The line formation was the standard tactical formation of the time, it

was a continuted derivation of the phalanx formation or shield wall

formation from ancient times. An infantry battalion would form “in line”

by placing troops in several ranks (or rows) (with 3 ranks being the most

common), each rank was roughly half a metre apart and each shoulder was

roughly arms length apart. The army had to be well drilled in this

formation and constantly watched over by officers and noncommissioned




!

13

officers to ensure that the line was solid and that proper order and

discipline was maintained. The officers and non-coms typically arranged at

the rear of the line, behind their respective units. The line formation was

considered a stationary formation. Troops could advance short distances,

but movement was slow and typically always resulted in a broken line, an

uneven line, or an unwanted salient in the line.

Troops travelled in a traditional column formation, which is a

formation of soldiers marching together in one or more files in which the

file is significantly longer than the width of ranks in the formation. The

formation allowed the troops to move quickly, charge effectively, and

form a square formation quickly (which we’ll talk about momentarily) but

it would not present a large number of firing muskets towards an enemy

target.

The line formation was slow for moving, but it was also very

susceptible to cavalry charges. An effective cavalry charge against a unit

in line formation would completely break down the units cohesion and

quite possible even lead to the unit being completely wiped out. Not to

mention the morale and psychological impact to other nearby line units. To

combat this, a line formation would transition into a square formation.

The square formation or “hollow square formation” was units

arranged as a square or sometimes rectangle with each side composed of

two or more ranks of soldiers armed with their muskets and bayonets

affixed. Typically a battalion (approx 500 to 1,000 men) was the smallest

force to form a square. The units colors and commander were positioned in

the center, along with reserve forces to help patch holes in the square.

Once formed in a square the infantry would volley fire at approaching




14

cavalry, either by file or by rank. If possible they would hold fire until

roughly 30 metres from the square. The resulting casualties would

eventually form piles of dead and wounded horses as well as their riders

which would help to obstruct further attacks. The weakest point of the

square formation was it’s corners. An effective cavalry charge, while

costly to the cavalry unit, could break the formation. Calvary would also

use feint charges and false attacks to make the units waste their shots, and

then fully charge while they were busy reloading. The best way, however,

to break a square formation was with artillery. 500 to 1,000 men grouped

closely together would be easy targets for artillery. The cohesion of the

square would break under sustained fire.

Another formation was the skirmish formation. In this formation, unit

cohesion is much looser and the troops are much more spread out.

Typically behind cover or a structure like a fence or ridgeline or even trees

and rocks. It may be the skirmish formation that is often confused with

“guerilla tactics”, especially since American militiamen were known to use

tactics taught to them by the Native American tribes (ie: how to effective

fight from cover). While the skirmish formation promotes firing from a

covered position it doesn’t enforce the “hit and fade” tactics that are so

common with guerilla attacks. In a guerilla attack, an offensive force

would appear and harass the enemy, either defeating him, or fading back

into cover to retreat or converge from another angle. A skirmish formationwas more dug in. Holding a fairly stable position, that would remain there

until ordered otherwise. The skirmish formation was the least susceptible

to massive losses under artillery fire because the men were so spread out.

However, they were extremely vulnerable to cavalry charges as they did

not present a united line or front of fire like the line or square formations.

Calvary were also privy to their own tactics and techniques. Given




!

15

that they were large targets for artillery and their smooth bore weapons had

a close range (in fact, most dragoon or cavalry soldiers fought more with a

sword than with their firearm) they were ill-suited for holding terrain. The

primary role of calvary elements was to disrupt enemy lines, to rout units,

the split forces, and to charge and destroy artillery positions. They were

major offensive force that would do great damage to enemy forces if they

were left unchecked.




16

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

Justin Johnson is a native of North Carolina where he lives with his

(smokin’ hot) wife and 3 children. During the day he works for a Fortune 50

Retailer located in North Carolina. On his off hours outside of spending time with

his family, he finds the time to produce and publish the American Military History

Podcast.

Justin chose Military History as his content niche, for a few reasons:

1. He’s always regretted not joining the military himself

2. There’s a story to be told. From the men and women who put their lives

on hold and on the line to protect the freedoms of our nation

www.americanmilitaryhistorypodcast.com



Thanks for reading! Please check out the podcast:

On iTunes:

https://goo.gl/cAkQUL

Or the Website:

http://www.americanmilitaryhistorypodcast.com

military tactics of the 1700s

Documents