The Era of Musket & Pike, Third Installment

In the history of warfare, the Era of Linear Warfare often gets a bit of short shrift. People want to jump ahead to the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, and if they look at Linear Warfare at all, it’s simply to dismiss it in favor of the “revolutionary” nature of what was unleashed on the world in 1789. Yet, the 18th Century is a fascinating era, with a very mature, well developed method of warfare, and some of the most noteworthy “Great Captains” of history. It’s the era of Marlborough, Eugene of Savoy, Marshal Saxe and Frederick the Great after all.

In this last chapter of the series, we’ll look at the developments of the 18th Century, and also see how the seeds for the next era were already well and truly sown.

With each successive war in our period (1700-1788) there will be tactical developments of interest.
 
In Western Europe, the latter half of the 17th Century was dominated by the Sun King, Louis XIV. Across countless fields, the armies of Turenne and the Great Conde dominated the battlefield, with only great coalitions of multiple nations able to stand up against the might of France. However, between the ending of the War of the League of Augsburg (1697) and the beginning of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701) the picture changed. Oh, the WSS was still a war of a large coalition against France (and now Spain), but in this war, the French were on the back foot very early on, and remained that way to the end.

Why? What had changed? Part of the answer is that the leadership advantage turned around. The French had some good generals (especially Marshal Villars), but the Coalition forces were led by two great captains: Marlborough and Eugene. However, the other part of the answer is what we’ll be looking at for the moment. The Coalition forces (especially the British* and Dutch) had taken several tactical leaps which made them more effective on the battlefield. (*Note: The change to “Great Britain” was in the middle of the WSS, so for half the war “English” is proper, and then “British” is. For this article, I’ll stay with British as a rule, since it is proper for the rest of the timeframe and games we’re discussing.)

I. War of the Spanish Succession (WSS)

Left, Sir John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough. Right: Prince Eugene of Savoy

A. Infantry

As I’ve talked about in previous installments, one of the fundamental changes in infantry warfare was the progressive thinning out of formations. We have gone from 10 rank lines, to 6 rank line, and now with the WSS, we end up with 3 or 4 rank lines. There were really a couple of primary drivers to this change.  The largest is the continued improvement of the musket. One reason for the extremely deep formations of the previous century was to give the musketeers a chance to reload.  However, as muskets got lighter and the firing mechanisms improved, the need for deep formations of musketeers lessened. Then, the development of the socket bayonet meant that musketeers were capable in melee, allowing armies to finally retire their pikes (as mentioned last time.)

That said, there were still some fairly significant differences between the armies on a few levels. The British and Dutch had led the way with the adoption of the 3 rank line, while the French and Hapsburgs were still using 4 ranks. Then, the British and Dutch had also adopted platoon firing (which I’ll get into in the section on firepower). Finally, the French actually had not fully changed over to flintlock muskets when the war began. They still had a mix of older muskets along with the flintlocks.

So, as I’m in the early stages of working on WDS War of the Spanish Succession, let’s think about how all of that will play through in game terms. Honestly, the French are going to have some issues. First off, they’re in 4-rank line, so they have less firepower to begin with.  Second, they’re going to have lower firepower to reflect the fact that they hadn’t gotten all their units equipped with flintlocks. Finally, at least some of the enemy infantry will likely benefit from quality fire modifiers. All of that together will mean that the French will be very much on the wrong side of the firepower matchup man for man.

One thing that you will see in this era is that infantry is actually fairly secure against cavalry, especially if the troops are in good order. In fact, they were so secure that one of the key events of the Battle of Blenheim was when a force of infantry moved up in direct support of the horse!

So, how would we contrast Marlborough’s infantry with that the Swedish infantry fighting the concurrent Great Northern War? As we saw last time, the Swedes had not fully abandoned the use of the pike yet, so they would be at a serious firepower disadvantage against the British, especially as the British put a great deal of work into maximizing their firepower (see below). Now, the British could be nearly as aggressive in the advance to melee as the Swedes, often holding their fire for one very close range volley before charging in, but they were not as reliant on that as the Swedes were. 

B. Cavalry

The WSS marks the beginning of a long arc of cavalry development which will take us to the great cavalry battles of the Napoleonic Wars. Much like we saw with the Swedes in the Great Northern War, there was a move towards a focus on cold steel.

This move started with Marlborough’s forces. He did not want his horse to use firearms at all, instead counting on the shock of the charge and cold steel. As discussed before, in the 17th Century, it was not uncommon for cavalry to volley fire their pistols and then charge in. This meant that the charge had very little force. Instead, Marlborough insisted on charging in directly, even going to the length of only issuing his horsemen 3 rounds of ammunition for an entire campaign, only to be used on picket duty!

Especially early in the war, the French forces were still fighting in the “old style.” In fact, at Blenheim, the French cavalry took a major British charge at the halt. Normally, when cavalry units get charged, they would charge to meet the enemy, so that both sides would have momentum. In this case, the French stayed standing in one spot, and were decisively defeated in one of the key events of the battle.

Now, this is a theme we’ll see for the rest of the century (and beyond), where charging cavalry will progressively start their final gallop from further and further out, and also ride in tighter formations.

I’ll have a few book recommendations for you as we move through this article, and the first one today is honestly the book that kind of got me started down the path of trying to learn the nuts and bolts of linear warfare lo those many years ago. “The Art of War in the Age of Marlborough” by David Chandler. It’s maybe a bit superseded by some more recent works, but still lots of great information in there. (Links for all recommended books at the bottom of the article.)

Excursus I: Infantry Firepower

This is a good time to talk about firepower. It’s a fascinating topic, and one that has a great deal of mythology attached to it. I’ll be honest, much of what you’ve learned is either outright wrong, or at least partially true at best. Yet, it’s a vital topic, as the tactics of linear warfare were heavily based on firepower. After all, the units were deployed in line to maximize firepower!

One popular image that has been seen in movies and school textbooks is that armies in this era used fire by ranks. That is, the front rank would fire, and then kneel down, and while they were reloading, the second rank would fire. Finally, the third rank would fire, and by that time, the first rank would be ready again.  As with many things, the truth is rather more complex than that. In fact, there were armies and units who would more or less use that approach, but that is only one possibility.

There was actually only really one reason that you couldn’t fire in one large, full battalion volley.  Commanders always wanted to have some loaded muskets ready to go to fire at anyone who wanted to launch an assault. This was especially important if enemy cavalry was around, as they could easily charge in during the time your troops were reloading. So, that “full volley” might happen from time to time, but usually only at very close range when everyone is going to bayonets immediately afterwards.  So, some way of staggering out the fire of a battalion was the norm, such as fire by ranks.

This brings us to the topic of platoon fire. During the War of the League of Augsburg, the Dutch started using a form of platoon fire, which was swiftly adopted by the British troops (as King William was commander of both armies). Then, during the leadup to the WSS, the British would further improve the process.

So, what is platoon fire? There were lots of variations, but in the WSS, the British system worked more or less like this: Each battalion was divided up into 4 “Grand Divisions.”  Each of those Grand Divisions was then divided into 4 platoons (making 16 total). Then, they had a set rotation of which platoon would fire in the 1st firing, the 2nd firing and 3rd firing. Often, the front rank would not fire with the rest of the platoons, but be withheld for need. The result of all of this is a more tightly controlled fire.

Now though, that I’ve managed to confuse everyone with trying to describe platoon fire, here’s the dirty little secret. It was very common for armies to break down into “free fire” once a battle got going. Instead of waiting for officers orders to fire, troops would fire as soon as they managed to reload and aim. Now, this point is one of some scholarly debate, where some say that the British generally managed to hold fire discipline, while others say that they didn’t. One quote that I’ve seen used on both sides of the debate:

That the Austrians behaved well is also true; that except one of their battalions which fired only once by platoons, they all fired as irregular as we did; that the English infantry behaved like heroes, and as they were the major part in the action to them the honor of the day is due; that they were under no command by way of Hyde Park firing, but that the whole three ranks made a running fire of their own accord, and at the same time with great judgment and skill… (Lt. Col Russell speaking of the Battle of Dettingen, quoted from Alexander Burns, Infantry in Battle p143)

Of note in that quote is the reference to “Hyde Park firing,” that is to say, the drill field.  Instead the British evidently spent the vast majority of the battle in free fire. It’s worth noting that the British were considered the best in Europe at fire discipline, so if they engaged in free fire, it’s a strong sign it was the general practice.

What difference does it make?  A great deal of the difference is psychology. Taking a volley from an enemy (even if it’s only ¼ of the muskets in a platoon system) means that there’s going to be lots of musket balls coming at you all at once. You know that your unit is going to get hurt badly when the enemy fires. On the other hand, individual fire is going to be a constant whizzing of bullets, and guys dropping here and there, but it’s just not the same.

In game terms, it doesn’t make that much difference. We’re looking at 15 minute turns after all.  There the focus is mostly on a given armies level of training in both rate of fire and aim. So, the armies that are best in sustained fire are the ones that will get various bonuses in game (either by way of quality modifiers, or perhaps a different weapon class).

So, that leads us to the next question: at what range did they fire?  As long as I can remember, I’ve heard the 100-60 rule. That is to say, the maximum range of a smoothbore musket was 100 yards, but you needed to be no further than 60 yards out for the fire to really be effective. While it is certainly true that muskets were more effective the closer you were, they would fire a fair bit further out.   There is good evidence that troops might fire over 300 yards at times. So, in WAS and SYW, we’ve set musket ranges to 300 yards (though the firepower at max range is limited). Just as officers would want their troops to hold their fire, you may want to conserve ammo by waiting for better shots.

Note: Obviously you can do this manually, by simply not firing your units, however if you are playing with Automated Defensive Fire and/or in Turn mode which will trigger Opportunity Fire, you will want to set the range the AI will conduct fire for your troops. You do this from the A/I menu and then select "Adjust Auto Defensive Fire". The resulting dialog will appear and you can make your desired choices.

One other big advance in infantry firepower would be the adoption of the iron ramrod by the Prussians in the years leading up to the War of the Austrian Succession. That allowed the troops to keep up a greater rate of fire. While most armies had adopted the new ramrods by the SYW, the Prussians are still given credit for their greater firing abilities in both WAS and SYW. That’s why they have “improved muskets” as their weapon type. (The British are given the same benefit in SYW, but not WAS.)

II. War of the Austrian Succession (WAS)

Above: Marshal Saxe

A. Infantry

The Battle of Mollwitz is fascinating. At first, things looked very poor for the Prussians. Their cavalry had been driven from the field, and young King Frederick II had fled the battlefield. However, that is when the legend of the Prussian infantry began. Despite having lost most of their cavalry support, the infantry drove the Austrians from the field, in the process announcing to Europe that they were now to be considered the best infantry in Europe.

What made the Prussian infantry so good? There’s really three things to discuss. First (and arguably the least important) was the aforementioned adoption of the iron ramrod. The second cause was the cadenced march, and finally was the relentless drill of the Prussian army.

I talked about the ramrods in the firepower section, so let’s look at the other two. Cadenced marching had been largely lost since the days of Rome, but it gave a number of advantages to the Prussians.  First of all, a group of men all marching in their own step is always going to be slower and more disorganized than a group using cadenced marching. Second, it made it much easier and more efficient for the unit to change formation. This wasn’t limited to battalions changing formation, but it also allowed the entire army to deploy more quickly and effectively. This is perhaps most easily seen in the SYW at Rossbach and Leuthen where the Prussians were able to gain highly advantageous positions on the enemy.  In game terms, this is often reflected by giving the Prussians more movement points than other armies.

On the subject of drill, most armies drilled, but no army of this era drilled as relentlessly as the Prussians. They practiced all manner of large scale maneuvers at the annual exercises, and they kept in firm practice at the manual of arms for their musket. The idea there was to drill the process of loading and firing into the heads of the troops so deeply that they would drop into that automatically on the battlefield.

However, there are a couple of other things to note in the WAS. One of the more popular scenario sets in WAS is the one focused on the Jacobite rebellion (the ‘45). The Highlanders were in many ways reminiscent of the Swedes of the turn of the Century. Their goal was to get into melee range, but this was as much about psychological warfare with the hope that the enemy would be unsettled, if not put to outright flight, by the onrushing Highland charge. The Jacobite melee advantage in WAS is therefore intended to replicate men who fled as well as men cut down by Highland swords and bayonets.

Then we can look at the increase in Light Infantry. In the WAS, the primary Light Infantry is found in the Grenzers. The Grenzers were troops from the Ottoman border of the Hapsburg lands. In the WAS, the Grenzers were probably at their best in the “Kleine Krieg,” that is to say, the “small war.” They were one of the keys to Marshal Traun’s operational victory over Frederick in 1744. The French raised a growing number of light formations as the war went on, often combined-arms legions of infantry and light horse, but there was little growth of light troops in other armies. 

Another form of infantry that we should look at is the Grenadiers. Originally, these troops were formed up of assault troops who were issued early grenades, especially for use in siege work. Already by the WSS, most nations had a company of grenadiers as part of every battalion. (Incidentally, the iconic hats of the grenadiers were adopted in part to keep the hat from interfering with the throwing of grenades, though they also helped the esprit de corps of these units.) By the WAS and WSS, it was common for the grenadiers to be detached from their regular battalions and formed into grenadier battalions. This might be on a very temporary basis (often shown as “converged grenadiers” in the games) or on a more permanent basis (the Prussians tended to do this.) Because of their reputation as assault infantry, they are often given better morale and a +1 melee bonus.

B. Cavalry

As we saw earlier, the Prussian Cavalry performed very poorly at Mollwitz, and so Frederick made it a personal project to improve his cavalry. His first focus was to have his troopers charge at the gallop instead of the trot. This was actually a gradual process during the WAS, where the distance the troops were to start to gallop was increased on several occasions. By 1744, they were to start the full gallop around 200 paces. The Prussian cavalry continued to improve throughout the war.

In WAS, we also see a growing number of Hussars. Now, these are very different from the Polish Hussars we saw in Vienna 1683 and GNW. The roots of these Hussars come from Hungary, and they’d actually entered Hapsburg service in the late 17th Century. During the WSS, they largely fought in Hungary against a rebellion led by some of the nobility. They were light cavalry, especially at home in the “small war” of scouting, raiding and the like. However, they might be found on the battlefield, especially hanging around the flanks. King Frederick Wilhelm of Prussia had noted the Austrian Hussars in the 1720 and formed his own units, which would serve his son in his wars.  

While the WAS didn’t see much from the irregular horsemen of the steppes, we now see the familiar pattern of cavalry that will carry forward through the SYW into the Napoleonic Wars: Heavy Cavalry (Cuirassiers and Carabiniers), Light Cavalry (Hussars), Dragoons and Irregular (Cossacks and the like.)

When you look at the different types of cavalry in game terms, you’ll see the distinction. Heavy Cavalry types are automatically given a melee bonus on the attack. Further, they’ll often have a further melee bonus assigned on a per unit basis. Light Cavalry will generally move faster, but won’t have the automatic melee bonus, and likely won’t have the per unit one either (or at least a smaller one.) Dragoons may not be quite so fast as the Light Cavalry, but like the other cavalry are still capable of charging, but also dismounting (in most cases). Finally, irregular cavalry cannot charge, and in fact may have weapons that are not suited for melee (like bows.)

It’s probably a good time for our next book suggestion. Christopher Duffy is the must read name in regards to this period, and one of his most important books is “The Military Experience in the Age of Reason”.

Excursus II: Columns

When we started the Seven Years Project way back when, one of the major issues we had to deal with was how to deal with column. Of course, the roots of the engine lie with the Napoleonic Engine, and in that era, columns were extensively used as battle formations. However, in the Era of Linear Warfare, that usage was exceedingly uncommon.  

So, what is the issue here? The first thing to look at is an understanding of what a column was. If you have a large group of troops, the fastest and most efficient way to move them from one place to another is to form them up in a column and set them to marching. This form of column (a “Column of March”) was common to all armies in this era.

However, armies in this era were generally committed to only using it as a movement formation, and not as a combat one. We can see this when we look at what a “column” really is in this era. So, lets go out to the drill field.  

(Note, this picture is not to scale, but is simply to show how a column was set up. Each counter is one company.)

 

Now, our column pointed to the top-right. In 1755, the French had 16 companies per battalion (official establishment around 40 men). The most common column for the French was “Column by Platoon” which in French usage meant 2 Companies side by side, each one three ranks deep. In other words, the individual companies themselves were in line formation, but the arrangement of the platoons created the column.  The distance between each platoon was the width of the platoon. In other words, each company is on about a 13 man width (with standard distances between men), so a platoon is 26 men wide. So, the 2nd platoon in this formation would follow by the same distance that 26 men would take, and then each line in turn. This is what is known as an “Open Column”, which is a reflection of the distance between each successive platoon. You could “close” the platoon by closing up that split, but that was pretty rare.  They kept the open split because it made the process of turning from column into line easier. (Just note how easy it would be to form line to either the left or right from this setup. If you wanted to form to the left, just have one company wheel left in place, while the one to it’s right swings into the space to its’ right. The entire column snaps into line quickly.)

The French are a little unusual by using such a high number of small companies, but this setup actually ends up being fairly typical. The Prussians divided their battalions into 8 companies, and their march column was on a single company front, which works out the same (1/8 of the troops are in the front formation.)

 

Now, let’s compare that to a Napoleonic Column. By the later part of the Napoleonic Wars, the French Army had reduced the number of companies in a battalion from 16 to 6, but they still used the paired setup. This meant that 2 of 6 companies were in the front line, a full 33% of the force, as opposed to the 12.5% of the SYW era column. Further, they were much more willing to close up the formation. I mention this in order to show the differences, and why we can’t model the Columns in the pre-French Revolution games in the same way as the earlier games. Notice both of the above pictures show a full battalion in column. The Napoleonic Column has less counters simply because they'd consolidated to fewer companies. So, both pictures are about the same number of men, and you can see how much more compact the Napoleonic version is.

Did you notice that as I discussed all of this, I kept hedging slightly? It’s time to introduce you to the Chevalier de Folard. Folard was a French Officer and Military theorist from the early 18th Century, and he reacted against the rise of linear warfare. He proposed a radically different form of fighting. He was a proponent of the use of Mass Formations on the battlefield. He advocated the use of 500 man battalions, each with 400 musketeer and 100 pikemen. They would operate on a front of 20-30 files, with the pikemen arrayed along the outside of the formation. Up to 6 battalions could operate together in one large mass formation.

Folard’s ideas were never fully adopted by the French, but they were influential, and many French officers saw promise in the use of mass formations and an aggressive push to cold steel. The French did have a “Column of Attack” in the drill book by the Seven Years War, which involved tightening up the column described above (as well as putting each company in 6 ranks instead of three), as well as pairing with another battalion in the same formation. There were times where the French attempted to use this form of mass formation (notably at Assietta in WAS) though it was not successful. There was also a column attack at Rossbach, but that was forced by circumstances, when the French army was intercepted on the march by the Prussians.

One note, when you read histories of battles, it’s good to read between the line when writers talk about someone attacking “in column.” For instance, at Moys, the Austrians attacked in a “column on a battalion frontage.” In other words, the battalions themselves were in line, but they were placed behind one another, with about 100 yards between them. (Players can easily do that themselves in game, so there’s no engine adjustment needed.) There were a few times where battalions which were themselves in column attacked, but that was quite rare, often caused by terrain limitations.

How do we handle this in game? With SYW, we added column fire and melee modifiers (which are found in the PDT). In effect, a unit which tries to fight in column gets severe penalties to both fire and melee combat. In fact, at the release of SYW, they were exceedingly punitive (with infantry only firing at 1% of their normal firepower!) That was done to drive home to players that they should be in line. In the most recent patch, those values were reduced to a bit more moderate value (firepower is typically at 1/7 of normal strength, melee has a -60% penalty in both SYW and WAS.)

The exception here is the French. As I mentioned above, the French have at least some nods in their book towards using mass formations on the attack. In SYW, they are generally given a much lower melee penalty (-20%). Likewise, in a few WAS scenarios they are given improved values for “Folard Columns” (such as Assietta). We aren’t up to the columns of the French Revolution quite yet, but the seeds are there.

So, our next book suggestion is very, very new (published this year!) but a fantastic addition.  “Infantry in Battle” by Alexander Burns.

III. Seven Years War (SYW)

Left: King Frederick the Great. Right: Marshal Leopold von Daun

There is not a huge amount of difference between the WAS and the SYW. Generally what you see is a continuation of the patterns which had been started in the earlier war. One notable thing is that many armies attempted to “Prussify” their armies. They saw the success of the Prussians and tried to copy it. This is especially evident in the widespread adoption of the iron ramrod and cadenced marching. No one was entirely successful in this (and they did tend to focus on the wrong things at times), but in general, the other armies did improve considerably in the interwar period.

However, there are a few things of note. As the war dragged on and Frederick’s situation grew more desperate, there were times that the Prussians experimented with narrowing to 2 rank line to extend the amount of frontage they could cover. It didn’t stick, but this is another time where we see seeds of what would happen in the Napoleonic War.

This war also saw increasing use of Light Infantry, not only in the small war, but also on the battlefield. For instance, the Grenzers tied up a huge chunk of the Prussian infantry in the woods at Lobositz. We also see a couple of other groups of Light Infantry forming up. The German states allied with Frederick had several units of infantry drawn from the huntsmen who managed the forests.  As you might guess, they were called Jägers (hunters.) Both the Prussians and French also formed up more irregular light units (for the Prussians, the Freikorps), though they tended to be of more dubious value.

However, the really interesting stuff with light infantry was happening on the other side of the Atlantic. After all, the French and Indian War was really only just one front of the larger war.  America was a natural place for the development of light infantry for a few reasons. The various Native American tribes in the region of course had their own styles of warfare, and much of that is what we would associate with light infantry: men spread out, using cover and individual fire. That of course influenced all the armies in the Americas, even those made up of troops transported from Europe. That was especially true considering the terrain, which tended to be much denser than what was common in Europe.

Perhaps the most famous light infantry of the FIW was Rogers’ Rangers, under the command of Major Robert Rogers. One thing that made them notable is that Maj. Rogers developed the “28 Rules of Ranging” which would shape light infantry tactics both in America and Europe.

I haven’t really talked much about artillery in this chapter, but it’s largely the pattern we’ve seen up to this point. The carriages of the guns have continued to improve, which has led to more mobile artillery. However, as previously, once the artillery was set, it didn’t move around all that much (other than the widespread battalion pieces.)

One notable thing is the development of Frederick’s famed “Horse Artillery” where there were sufficient horses to not only move the cannon but even mount the gun crew. However, the Prussians only made one battery and it very rarely saw action, so it’s more a presage of things to come than a major factor in the SYW.

Excursus III: Army Deployment

As Linear Tactics progressed, one thing that happened is that a very distinct and regular method of deploying your forces arose.

A fairly clear example of this is seen in the initial setup of the Prussians in the Leuthen (Late) scenario in SYW.

Even with the “bend” in the army, the overall pattern is quite clear. Essentially you have 2 lines of infantry in the center. The second line is typically about 100 yards behind the first. If you notice at the ends of infantry formation the infantry battalions that are facing outwards? That’s a normal spot for Grenadiers, and their job was to make sure that no rogue cavalry could exploit that gap.

Then, you have cavalry on both wings. Now, this is a good reminder that while what I described above is the “general” way to deploy an army, they would be willing to do different things. Notice on the far right of the Prussian formation, there’s a bit more infantry hanging out there. That’s not the norm, but it’s not entirely unheard of either.

Now, the 3rd (or even 4th) lines can be a bit more variable. One way or the other, they’re the reserves. In this case the entire reserve line is cavalry, but it’s possible to have a 3rd infantry line back there as well, along with the reserve cavalry.

The general idea of all of this is that the infantry forms a solid “core” for the army, while the cavalry is able to either keep the enemy away, or even support the infantry in their own assault.

IV. American Revolution (ARW)

Left: General George Washington.  Right: General William Howe

Our period ends with the American Revolutionary War. How many of you are waiting with baited breath for more news about the game?  Well, guess what! I’m not here to give you any! That will have to wait for others to share as the game gets closer.  :-) 

However, what I can do is point out something that’s already been shared. Did you read the blog post announcing WDS American Revolutionary War? I hope so, if not, it’s more than worth the read. Did you pay attention to all the fine details? Like say, the entire first row of British Infantry images? All of those units are in “open order”. What’s going on here?

As I mentioned a few paragraphs ago in relation to FIW, one of the issues that armies had in North America was the extremely dense terrain. One adjustment that the various armies made was moving into “open order,” that is to say, wider, more flexible splits between the soldiers in a line. It was extremely common for the British to operate in this formation for the better part of the war. This made it far easier for the troops to march through denser terrain, or even across farm fields (especially if there were things like split rail fences involved). The use of 2 rank line was also common (by all sides for that matter.)

On the other hand, the forces of the Colonists (especially in the later Continental Army) tended to fight in more standard, inflexible closed formations, though, as noted, they would generally fight in 2 rank line. Early on, the Continental Army could actually be a bit variable. Before Valley Forge and the arrival of Baron von Steuben, battalion officers were largely left to their own desires in regards to how to form up their own men. One of von Steuben’s major roles was to consolidate the drill and deployment of the army. As you might expect, the militia was always more variable. (It is worth noting how many of the militia were veterans of the FIW/SYW.)

It’s also of note that the ARW was as close to an “infantry war” as you’re ever going to see. Cavalry was pretty limited on both sides, both because of the expense and the terrain. What cavalry that existed was often used in the small war of scouting, raiding and escorts. There was some artillery, but again, the amount and size of the guns were both less than what you’d find in comparable forces in Europe.

At this point, it’s good to throw in one last must read book. “With Zeal and Bayonets Only” by Matthew Hasler Spring. It’s an in-depth study of the British Army in the ARW, and dispels many of the myths you may have learned over the years.

Here are the links to pick up the various mentioned books if you are so inclined:

We also recommend the following podcast:

This podcast is dedicated to exploring the pivotal wars, battles, strategies, and figures that shaped the 18th century. From the rise of powerful empires to the dramatic shifts in military tactics, we delve into the stories behind the soldiers, commanders, and innovations that altered the course of history. Whether you’re a military history buff or just curious about this transformative period, we’ll guide you through the battles, conflicts, and the evolution of warfare that defined an era.

This is hosted by Alexander Burns and Andrew Bamford

I hope you’ve enjoyed this jaunt through the Era of Musket and Pike. It’s a fascinating transition from the days of knights in plate mail to linear armies built around the firepower of the musket.  It’s been good for me to brush up on things and reconsider. There’s always something new to learn. What’s more, I hope it’s given you a new view of the Musket & Pike games. We’re always looking to improve, and we’ve got good things yet to come for you!