"Plains of Abraham - British were in ranks of three" Topic

So I just finished reading a particularly thorough study of the battle, and the tactical formatons of Wolfe's Army.

QUEBEC, 1759: RECONSTRUCTING WOLFE'S MAIN BATTLE LINE FROM CONTEMPORARYEVIDENCE
Author(s): Earl John Chapman and R. Paul Goodman
Source: Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, Vol. 92, No. 369 (Spring2014), pp. 1-59
Published by: Society for Army Historical Research
Stable URL: jstor.org/stable/44232451
Accessed: 21-11-2019 20:28 UTC

The authors go into great detail examining the tactical formations in use at the time, the actual number of rank and file on the field, the space between the battalions, the deployment of artillery, and eyewitness accounts. Their conclusion?

"The evidence presented here strongly suggests a conventional three-deep deployment during the battle on the Plains of Abraham. It presents a largely
conventional defensive line of battle, typical of that used in mid- 18th century European warfare, designed to deliver maximum firepower from the available
manpower; many of the eyewitness accounts commented on the regular nature of this battle."

Some of the eyewitness accounts:

"Little utilized or unnoticed in relation to the depth of Wolfe's MBL, accounts from the 78th Foot (Fraser's Highlanders), and one account 15th Foot. Ensign Malcolm Fraser in his contemporary journal recorded line that, "ours was no more than three deep"75 and die 78th Foot's Robert Macpherson, wrote, "our troops form'd in a line of men three The third account reporting a line three men deep was by Lieutenant Hamilton, who was with the 15th Foot, deployed en potence close to his reminiscences recorded some years later, Hamilton recalled involving skirmishing with the French irregulars before the main commenced, and observed General Wolfe interceding with a sergeant wounded man removed from the ranks. He wrote: "…but as soon as the platoons returned to the regiment, the musqueters came buzzing a bout and wounded us a good number of men, a poor fellow in the center rank having been shot in the hand was for quitting his rank, which the Serjeant would have prevented…" (Emphasis added)"

The sole reference to fighting in ranks of two, apparently picked up by numerous historians and repeated through the decades:

"Firstly, however, it is necessary to evaluate the supporting eyewitness accounts. As mentioned above, most modem historians have adopted without much question,
Corporal Johnson's statement that Wolfe's MBL was "drawn up two deep only"69 Written in 1787, twenty-eight years after the event by a non-commissioned officer with acknowledged help from others, Johnson's overall narrative of the campaign
contains several factual errors. For example, during the landing at the Anse au Foulon, he stated that Wolfe landed with the first boat "which no sooner touched
the land but he [Wolfe] leaped out upon the beach…"70 This is not supported by other witnesses. Two other inaccuracies are: (1) his frequent references to Lieutenant-Colonel Simon Fraser of the 78th Foot being on the field that day; and
(2) the size of the opposing French forces.71 Johnson did not give any details of the MBL, only mentioning it at the conclusion of his account, stressing the quantity
of ground to be covered, where he was clearly trying to account for the light British casualties."

Further, artwork from the periond, including the famous Edward Penny painting of the death of Wlfe while serving with the Louisbourg Grenadiers, painted in ranks of three, along with some other art work would seem to support the notion of ranks of three.

If you can get your hands on this wonderful document it is worth the read – though excrutiatingly detailed at times. Further, it gives real field strengths and dispositions of the troops deployed on the Plains.

Interesting. Very interesting.

I've always contended that they were in ranks of three there. The article goes into trying to explain the discrepancy of casualties, as related to troop formations and distance. I was surpriseed by how small some of the British battalions were in the line too. Of course the biggest always seems to be the Highlanders (78th Regt).

I must say, if true it is most inconvenient in terms of my basing but then perhaps better for impending terrain.
As this is the first (?) assertion I'll look forward to seeing how it stands up to conventional 'wisdom' before I commence re-basing. Let the military historian's academic debate commence. I'll be sure to read it.
One thing is for sure, it's amazing how often this sort of thing occurs. There are a few myths which do get accepted and repeated unchallenged over hundreds of years – probably becasue most people and even most historians don't care that much on particular details. Only a wargamer (perhaps a re-enactor) would give a damn about uniform detail, colours, formation and ground coverage.

I'm both. :-)

The thin red line is more myth that reality during this period (F&I). Unfortunately, oft repeated, never sourced.

Thanks – most useful – downloaded for later perusal.

It is a very indepth article. I was amazed at the level detail.

Talking with a friend last night, he says the "Thin Red Line" comes from the 19th century – specificially the Crimea. He was going to double check that, but so many authors have parrotted (it sounds cool?) this wrong information about Wolfe's army standing on the Plains in ranks of two.

Some years back I read a first person account of the battle where the author (he was there) noted that the one 60th Battalion drew up in ranks of two as they were greatly reduced from previous action. I always took that as that formation was unusual, at least there, otherwise why note that?

It does--the "Thin Red Streak tipped with steel" as described by William Howard Russell, in observing the 93d Foot as it blocked the Russian advance on the British supply depot at Balaklava. Later morphed into Thin Red Line.

link

Interesting. So later day authors were taking this one faulty memory account – written 28 years after the event – and twisting it to meet 19th century jargon.

The F&I period is a very complicated period. My own take is that it really only lends itself to lower level, skirmish-type gaming since there were so few larger scale actions – and the few that were, were skewd in some forgone conclusions.

While I never had many doubts Wolfe was using ranks of three on the Plains, I equally have few doubts that Amherst was probably deploying his army in 1759 in ranks of two.

In recent book on the Duke of York's Flanders campaign of 1793, there are period reports quoted that indicate 3 ranks were in use then

Yes, it was the "standard" formation, as detailed in all the period manuals. Ranks of two were used on special occaissions. During the AWI it became standard due to the lack of cavalry, and move into open order (18 inches between files), as taught and ordered by General Howe. But, the basic formation was ranks of three.

Just a plug for the Society for Army Historical Research which is recognized as being in the forefront of British military studies.
I have been a member since the early 1970's.
The quarterly journal is up to Number 394.
Membership information and application is available from the society web site or from the Hon. Membership Secretary at membership@sahr.org.uk

42nd, where are you? You owe me a beer. LoL :-)

Present.

Do I, now? Always pleased to stand my round. Why is that, though?

The essence of the "Thin red line (etc)" trope is, as the image indicates, a mere battalion of infantry facing off a Russian cavalry division; all that stood between the enemy and the British depot at Balaklava.
Both the above image and the trope are founded shakily on the inconvenient fact that with a brace of long range volleys a battalion group of Highlanders, Royal Marines, convalescents, of about 800 (plus some demoralised Turks), persuaded a force of some 400 Russian light cavalry to turn aside before they got too close.

I submit that four thousand-plus veteran British in four-plus brigades holding their fire, waiting in grim silence, either in two or three ranks, to let fly at a disordered force of somewhat fewer French regulars and militia as it stuttered towards them…

-is not quite the same.

Glad to see you back on here. I hope you are well. If you recall, we had exchanges posts in the past where I asserted that the British were in ranks of three at Quebec. I believe that you respectfully differed.

This study by the army is excellent and provides eyewitness accounts of ranks of three, discrediting the only reference every made to two ranks – a comment which was made 28 years after the fact, unlike the other accounts which were made sooner.

Read the report. It is exhaustive and thorough – sometimes painfully so. LoL