Rudysnelson | 12 Sep 2015 7:51 p.m. PST |
I would expect that they used the British Drill book that was given to Provential officers before the war. |
Green Tiger | 12 Sep 2015 11:16 p.m. PST |
No standard British drill book before 1792… |
Ironwolf | 12 Sep 2015 11:20 p.m. PST |
The Manual of Arms, 1764 link |
B6GOBOS | 13 Sep 2015 3:58 a.m. PST |
In Massachusetts a lot of units were using Pickering's manual. |
rmaker | 13 Sep 2015 12:00 p.m. PST |
Basically, whatever a) was available, and b) took the colonel's fancy, just like in the British army. |
Supercilius Maximus | 13 Sep 2015 12:43 p.m. PST |
Pickering combined the 1759 Discipline for the Norfolk Militia and the 1764 Manual of Arms. I don't think it was used outside of New England very much (if at all). However, one or other of these two manuals would have been in common use amongst the pre-war colonial militia in all 13 Colonies. Henry Knox, who later commanded the Continental Artillery, was a bookseller who specialised in military texts, and who imported titles that were read by many connected with the pre-war militias, who later became generals in the Continental Army. The 1764 Manual of Arms was used widely by the British infantry, but not universally; there was no official manual until 1792 (as already mentioned above). Numerous pamphlets and other private publications – usually written by serving officers and often dedicated to a general of prominent person with a view to obtaining his approval and sponsorship of the document – came out each year, dealing with specific aspects of drilling and training soldiers, and controlling them on the battlefield. However, some of these offered contradictory advice, and some officers read more widely than others. An example of what this could lead to can be seen in the fight at the North Bridge in Concored, when the officer in charge of the three British light companies attempted an evolution called "street firing". Of the three companies, his had practised it; the commander of another was aware of it, but had never attempted it or seen it done; and the commander of the third had never heard of it. |
FlyXwire | 14 Sep 2015 6:38 a.m. PST |
Great thread topic, and with some great info! (appreciate the contributions here) |
historygamer | 15 Sep 2015 7:53 a.m. PST |
"One thing I can't visualize, is that the manual says that the men should be spaced so they can feel the soldier on either side but not be so close as to impede movements." Correct. When at close order the elbows touch a little bit. "For firing the front rank,…: Technically, the front rank kneels, and steps back when they do so. "… they take a step back and six inches to the side." The second rank steps back slightly. " The second rank is then fired likewise, stepping back and six inches to the side with the right foot into the intervals between the front rank soldiers, thru which they fire." The third rank steps the right, and places their right foot behind the man to their right. This three rank system was called locking, I believe. The third rank musket goes over the right shoulder of the man in front. If only forming in two ranks you can lose the first rank or third rank, depending on standing orders. If in (open) order, we use an arms length apart for spacing the files, but the ranks stay close for safety purposes. I am surprised no one has mentioned the unofficial official manual of the period – Sir Humphrey Bland – which was revised in 1759 (previous editions were the same) by Fawcett, reflecting the practices then in use. Also, the Duke of Cumberland (then the CiC of the Army) issued his own version of Bland's called the New Exercise – which was not so new and the difference between Bland's and this one are miniscule. I believe Washington urged all his officers to read Bland's (1759). "Does anyone know where they got the space to shoot between?" It forms naturally in this arrangement. "Or does the fact that the second rank are all the taller soldiers allow them to be close and high enough to get the muzzle far enough to the front?" The sizing of the men certainly helps. You don't want the short guys in the third rank (or second if firing in ranks of two standing) Does anyone know where they got the space to shoot between? Or does the fact that the second rank are all the taller soldiers allow them to be close and high enough to get the muzzle far enough to the front? "Any re-enactors do this?" Yes we do. |
Supercilius Maximus | 15 Sep 2015 2:57 p.m. PST |
I thought the point of the 1764 Manual was that it condensed Bland, or have I got that wrong? |
historygamer | 15 Sep 2015 6:28 p.m. PST |
Bland covered much more than the manual exercise. It covers everything from cavalry to how to pass a defile. It includes how to send for the colours, the correct formations and facings, garrison duties and roles, etc, etc. Cumberland's New Exercise always struck me as a hodge podge of his standing orders and thoughts from his previous campaigns. Iff the '64 covers such stuff I have never seen those portions. |
epturner | 16 Sep 2015 4:21 a.m. PST |
We did the Pickering drill for one event a few years ago, the name escapes me. It was rather interesting forming in three ranks, vice two. Very cumbersome. Need to get back and do more AWI re-enacting… ahh… right after I hit the lottery and finish painting the Lead Mountain… Eric |
Thomas Mante | 22 Sep 2015 8:44 a.m. PST |
SM The '64 was intended to introduce some aspects of the Prussian Drill that Cumberland had initially tried in 1757. The '64 had at least a couple of editions produced in America, one in new York and one in Philadelphia so I would no be surprised to find one printed in Massachusetts at some point as well. Of course under Howe's influence British troops started to draw up in two ranks and increase file spacing very quickly in 75/76. The Plan for the Norfolk Militia (1st ed 1759) also had an American edition as well. It is know that George Washington did have a copy of Bland's 'Treatise' is his library though I am unsure whether it is the later Fawcett edition. Houlding's book 'Fit for Service' ahs some very useful discussions on the various amnuals of arms and exercises available to the British Army in the C18th. Other than providing a uniform drill book to be observed throughout the army I have often wondered if the only things that were really different about the Steuben drill was just a simplification of commands/movements (though even the '64 allows for that in combat IIRC) and a very close file spacing – 2'ft per file including spacing. |
historygamer | 22 Sep 2015 12:40 p.m. PST |
I think Houlding makes a good case that Bland's and then the '64 were viewed as the unofficial official drill manuals – though again, Bland's Treatise covered a lot more than just the manual exercise (so was still required reading for young officers). The inspectors noted any variations from these works during their inspections of the troops. Oddly enough, Braddock was one of the first to break with Bland's/Cumberlands (his benefactor) when he reformed the firings at Fort Cumberland and created a second grenadier/flank company (name only?). Also, other troops did show up in North American in 1776 already knowig how to fight at open files, IIRC. |
Thomas Mante | 22 Sep 2015 1:23 p.m. PST |
historygamer you are right about Braddock – he called for divisions to be formed by companies rather than being told off in equal sized platoons. His intent was to ensure that the men served in fire units commanded by their own officers. Houlding calls this the 'Alternate and it was one of the basic premises in the '64 Manual Exercise IIRC. Of course when he divided the force to push onto the fort he had to then rely on taking detachments rather than whole companies (the grenadiers were an exception IIRC) and that might have hindered his intent. Have you seen this yet? link Yes another book on Braddock but unlike the last one (by Crocker) it may be actually worth considering. It seems as if Kopperman may have a just successor. |
historygamer | 22 Sep 2015 2:02 p.m. PST |
I just saw that in either Fort Pitt Museum's book shop or Fort Ticonderoga's. I wanted to read up on it first. No one yet has fully detailed how Braddock actually organized his soldiers on the march and how that impacted his ability to fight a meeting engagement at the head of his column. I wonder if this guy does? Braddock's ideas must have been wandering about the pre-war army, as Mourdant (sp?) instructed the same re-organization during his advanced camps prior to the cancelled raid on France (Rochefort?). Some of those units found their way over to North America. Also oddly enough I believe it was Amherst who was forwarding on a long delayed printing of Cumberland's New Exercise (it really wasn't) in 1758 to Bouquet. Of course Fawcett's revision was done in 1759 – reflecting what the troops were then doing Europe- so that would not have shown up in the colonies much before 1760 – though the ideas could have traveled faster with officers coming over. |
Thomas Mante | 22 Sep 2015 3:08 p.m. PST |
Ideas on the 'Alternate' were circulating around the pre-SYW army. Wolfe was certainly au fait with the latest theories and practices. He did a lot to make Lord Bury's 20th a model regiment in the pre-FIW war period. There has been question on how much influence he may have had on Windham's Norfolk Militia. By the 1760s I suspect that it was more the norm in so far as such a thing existed pre-Dundas. Apart from Houlding I suspect much of this is also covered in David Blackmore's recent book 'Destructive and Formidable' |