"Drill Manuals, North America / AWI" Topic

Pickering – PDF link

I believe Howe instituted the loose order 2 rank line while in Nova Scotia after withdrawing from Boston. It is there that the British army got the training missing at Bunker Hill. I don't know if Howe's reforms were ever written down in a drill book.

I think Steuben's reforms were the first time the Continentals got a uniform drill system. Before this each regiment chose their own system.

According to Atwood, the Hesse Cassel troops adopted two ranks on arrival in America, but retained close order at the insistence of the Landgraf. It's not clear if any HC units ever did adopt the looser British formations in the field; possibly the von Bose regiment did in the Carolinas and Virginia at the end of the war, but other units are still recorded as wearing full gaiters so possibly they retained other distinctions as well.

The Brunswickers (and, I assume, the other "northern" contingents – principally Hesse Hanau) seem to have adopted the British tactics, as Riedesel organised a field day to demonstrate that his infantry had "caught on" to Burgoyne and Fraser, prior to the Saratoga campaign.

Howe's "light infantry drill" (which was really just a more relaxed way of moving battalions, (grand) divisions, and companies around) was adopted by the whole of the former Boston garrison after the withdrawal to Halifax, and to more recent arrivals after the move south to Staten Island; note that the 47th Foot transferred to Canada after the Halifax camp and took the new drills with them to spread around the northern units. So the British were using these "looser" formations from the start of the NYC campaign (this is commented on by the Germans).

What Steuben did was to regularize the Continental army's infantry drill by creating an adaptation of all the drill books currently in use, and amalgamating them.

I suggest a copy of Spring – With Zeal and Bayonets Only will answer most of your AWI questions. link

"Drill Manuals Used by the Continental Army

-A Treatise of Military Discipline by Humphrey Bland, 1727."

Washington suggested that all his officer have a copy. It was considered one of the seminal works of the period. It was reissued many times, but wasn't updated till 1759 by William Fawcett, who later became Adjutant General of the British Army:

link

His updates reflected what the British Army was doing in Europe (1758), the dispensing of the powder flask, etc.

"What drill would the British and French [and their colonists] have used during the FIW – Bland?"

Bland was the bedrock, but the (un)official Manual Exercise was set forth by the Duke of Cumberland (1747?), though printing problems delayed its issue. It was as official as it gets. The differences between the Duke's work and the 1759 version of Bland (Fawcett revisions) is miniscule.

Can't answer for the French manual.

"Was there a difference between FIW drill and AWI early war drill?"

Yes, but it was largely the actual motions of handling the musket.

Some follow-up AWI questions:

You might find some of your answers about Valley Forge impact here:

link

Great book.

The British often fought at Order (arm length apart), Open Order and Extended Order. The British proved very flexible during military operations in North America as well during the F&I War.

Here are your F&I answers in Houlding's wonderful book:

link

American units were usually small. The frontage of a 220 man battalion would likely be about 250 feet (110 men front, two feet, leaving some room between companies).

Three ranks was pretty much dead, though the British could go into that if needed, same for the Germans. I believe David Bonk talked about this at the Battle of Green Spring in his Osprey book (or he told me in person, I can't remember which).

link

I am as close to being the senior British re-enactor in the country as you'll find.

Comrade Protz who lurks here had French instructions for North America.
Would have to dig to find what was used. Not sure they had a central system or if each colonel did hid thing and each field commander his own often trying averaging what was in use in his command.

Too busy to look now. If really urging, you can try asking the French and even more the canadiens reinactment chaps.

Sometimes I wondered if we should base the brits slightly looser than the patriots?

I am positive the French had a formalized manual exercise, I am just not that familiar with it, especially how it changed from SYW to AWI period.

All I can add is that Ewald stated that he was afraid of meeting the French on the, field after they joined the war, due to the loose and open formation the Brits were using.

If they were suing the type of open order Ewald described the frontage of a be more than 250 feet. Two men and then an arms length and the next pair ([22"+22"+36"]*55 this works out to be about 367 feet).

The rules I used (BG) fight them as battalions and then also account for brigade morale as well. I think you are being too dogmatic about how units were employed. They used them as needed, often sending a section, or platoon, or company forward as needed.

In regards to Ewald's comment, he was kind of proved wrong when the French and English fought at La Vigie, which featured the English conducting a fighting withdrawal into their works. The assault of 9,000 French against 1,400 English was a decisive English victory.

The rear file man fired over the shoulder of the man in front of him.

The estimate I gave was for an American 220 man unit, in two ranks, with space between companies. An average English battalion of eight hat companies was about 320 men.

Rochambeau adapted French drill for the Expedition Particuliere, having two ranks stand to fire, and the third loading/passing muskets forward. I've often wondered how well this worked in practice, but since his corps fought no major field engagement, I guess we'll never know.

The pre-war colonies would be using British or local adaptations of British manuals. There is a Boston reprint of a 1713[?] manual that is similar to the 1745 version. In Bland's[?] 1755 manual the only difference that I noticed is that one primed from the cartridge rather from a priming flask. In 1751 Gov. Shirley, of Massachusetts Bay, printed his own manual for use by the militia. In 1770 Worcester County, Massachusetts Bay, voted to adopt the '64 manual as it was "more showy" than the Norfolk. I believe that Gov. Tryon, of New York, had sugested that "Fix Bayonets" be deleted from the drill since most of the militia didn't have bayonets. Pickerings is the first time I had seen a description on how one formed three ranks. I think folks are still arguing about Pickering's manual being adopted.

The French practice of having the third rank loading etc. was still in use during the Napoleonic Wars, and some French generals thought it was useless.

La Vigie in St Lucia in 1778 was in some respects a re-enactment of Bunker Hill but with the British on the heights.

The seasoned British light infantry, were out in advance, and by fighting unconventionally, as it appeared, caused consternation among the French causing one provincial regiment, La Martinique, to "give way and run along the beach."

Later, during a parley the French explained: "the French chasseurs are never supposed to make any serious resistance; But [ yours] retired… and they advanced--they broke, and they rallied; and when we no longer saw a single man, we received a heavy fire in every direction."

After that opening phase, the French came on in the old way, "moving on in solid columns to the attack."

"The columns never fired a shot. They for a time seemed to
pay no attention to our cannon-ball, which swept away whole ranks, but inclined their heads, now to the right, now to the left, as if to see which way they could most easily ascend the hill. One column gave way twice, and was twice rallied in our sight beneath our fire, they came to a halt at last, and there they stood or fell."

With casualties mounting and ammunition running low, the British were ordered to withdraw farther up the hill, reserve their fire, and wait for the French to close. The French did not follow but continued firing.

The British, reduced to five rounds a man, sat down and held their fire. A re-supply of ammunition arrived from a captured French magazine. The British resumed firing. The French retired, leaving upwards of 400 dead on the field.