A myth-tackling thread. Looking at the British redcoats, modern Americans often claim that they were, "Too dumb to take cover." TL;DR, during the whole eighteenth century (and in Europe too), the British would lie down under fire and take cover on the battlefield. 1/17
First of all it seems as though this practice was incredibly common. So common, that it might even be considered a normal British practice . Unlike the shallow, open-order formations used by the British in the AWI, laying down under fire did not come from North America. 2/17
Also, it should be noted: the troops performing this tactic are battalion company soldiers, not light infantry of any sort. Where possible, I have avoided sources from light or provincial units, in order to establish that regular British soldiers employed this tactic. 3/17
British troops employed this tactic in almost every major battle of the War of Austrian Succession. According to Lt. Colonel Russell at Dettingen in 1743, and in his words: "our foot almost kneeled down by whole ranks, and so fired upon 'em a constant running fire." 4/17
Russell describes a pattern, by which both sides would wait until individual enemy soldiers would rise from a stooped position to load or fire, and then pick off the exposed individual enemy soldiers. 5/17
At the Battle of Fontenoy, there are a number of instances of British soldiers employing cover to avoid enemy fire. Under the orders of Colonel Robert Munro, the Highlanders were permitted to engage, "in their own way of fighting." 6/17
When the French would prepare to fire a volley, the Highland troops would "clap to the ground," allowing the French fire to pass over them, and, "instantly as soon as it was discharged, they sprung up, and coming close to the enemy, poured in their shot." 7/17
Another soldier related: "we observed a large battery ready to be opened on us. We had orders to lie down on the ground; but for all that, many were wounded, and some killed. Presently after the discharge we rose up... still keeping up our fire." 8/17
He described Rocoux in similar terms: "By this time the French came very near us, and a cannon-ball came straight up our rank. But, as we were lying upon the ground, it went over our heads. We then had orders to stand up and fire." 9/17
During a raid in the Seven Years War, Corporal Todd reported in 1758: "And as soon as we got ashore, we lay down close upon the Beach, near the water edge, that our ships might fire over us in case the Enemy Advance to make any Attack upon us[.]" 10/17
John Knox describes this practice during the 1759 campaign at Quebec. He describes laying down in the while maneuvering against the enemy and on the battlefield against enemy infantry. The British 46th Regiment used this tactic at the Battle of La Belle Familie. 11/17
Unsurprisingly, the practice continued during the AWI. Again in this era, it seems to have been a response to coming under artillery fire. At the Battle of Harlem Heights, British diarists record that they lay on their arms after coming under fire by American artillery. 12/17
Thomas Sullivan, with the 49th Regiment of Foot, recalled: "The Cannonading continued at both sides for an hour... All that time out Brigade i.e. 2d., lay upon our Arms in a field of Indian corn..." Sullivan describes this practice again at Brandywine in 1777. 13/17
In 1777, Ensign Thomas Glyn of the Brigade of Guards reported, "the Enemy advanced with two pieces of Cannon & began to cannonade us, when we were ordered to lay down and being covered by the ground, no loss ensued...". 14/17
On St. Lucia George Harris of the 5th Regiment of Foot recalled, "My gallant friend, now no more, Captain Shawe of the 4th. Company, was ordered by me to make his men lie down, and cover themselves with brushwood as much as possible, to prevent them being seen as marks." 15/17
It seems odd, then, that one of the most enduring myths of the American War of Independence is that the British were, "Too dumb to take cover." The British army, like most contemporary European armies, tried to maximize their effectiveness. 16/17
As always: you want footnotes for the quotes, read it on the blog: shorturl.at/diu47 17/17

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Alexander S. Burns

Dr. Alexander S. Burns Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KKriegeBlog

Feb 2
Well, I'm currently stuck at an airport waiting on a delayed flight to a military history conference, so here is my promised thread on uniform research. Again- I'm more of a social-military historian, so this might not be radically new to you uniformologists out there. Image
This post follows one uniform detail and my search for answers regarding it. My hope is that it will provide material culture enthusiasts with a step-by-step processes for evaluating and answering their own questions regarding uniforms from the 18th century
A few years back, I became interested in the uniforms of one of the most iconic mid-eighteenth-century military units: The Reusch Hussars, or Hussar Regiment 5 of the Prussian Army.
Read 25 tweets
Jan 31
So I am a social historian, most of the wargamers and reenactors I talk like talking uniforms. 🧵
How impractical were 18th century uniforms? How can we take armies that wore bright colors, lace, and powdered wigs seriously? TL;DR, uniforms were often practical and adaptable.1/15
Uniforms are used as a piece of evidence to assert that eighteenth-century warfare was inefficient, formalized, and foppish. So, how ostentatious and formal was 18th-century military clothing? Did uniforms hamper the ability of European soldiers to effectively wage war? 2/15
It is said that the bright red uniforms of the British infantry made them easy targets, to be individually picked out by American riflemen. Although this may true in very specific cases, by and large, the American War of Independence was not fought by drab colored riflemen. 3/15
Read 15 tweets
Jan 29
A Sunday reading list. I'm often asked by wargamers, reenactors, or military history enthusiasts, "what should I read on this topic?" This is a list of the 5 books that capture the reality of armies and warfare in the 18th century Atlantic World. Links below. 1/10
As professional historian, you read a lot for comprehensive exams (in my case, four 8-hour tests on 261 books writing 20-30 pages from memory). shorturl.at/wBIPQ Not all books are great and helpful. Some are on theory rather the realities of combat. These 5 are great. 2/10
Start at the top and work your way down. Some of these are expensive, so to paraphrase Will Hunting, Don't be like me at drop $150,000 an education you could have for a $1.50 in late fees at the local library. (if you don't get the reference, ) 3/10
Read 10 tweets
Jan 28
A special-topics Saturday: what did urban warfare look like in the eighteenth century? I'm not talking about sieges, or even field battles when troops fortified small villages, but when armies clashed in towns or cities. Encounters of this sort are rare, but not unknown. 1/7
I examined sources from the fight at Preston in 1715, the Austrian attack on Velletri in 1744, and the American assault on Quebec in 1775.
When fighting in an urban environment, soldiers quickly sought out cover, usually by barricading themselves in houses. 2/7
In addition to houses, soldiers constructed street barricades and fighting positions. In the course of the use of houses as cover by soldiers, structures were almost always burned. 3/7
Read 7 tweets
Jan 27
The narrative that eighteenth-century soldiers were slow moving, ineffective automata who were only capable of engaging the enemy at insanely close range and quickly moved into hand-to-hand combat is one of the most widespread and damaging myths in military history. 1/6
Instead, we should be focusing on the way that these men:
-engaged in small arms firefights at 100-200 yards
shorturl.at/cEGO6
-frequently fired without orders from their officers (rolling fire)
shorturl.at/fijCU 2/6
-moved at speed on the battlefield (jogging or running) when the situation required
shorturl.at/efklw
-engaged in melee (hand-to-hand) combat infrequently.
shorturl.at/PQRU4 3/6
Read 6 tweets
Jan 26
Who was the "average" soldier in the 18th century?
You can tell individual stories, but with a large sample of data it becomes possible to understand historically significant trends about these men.
I'll be exploring these topics in a bit more detail soon. 1/5 Image
He was older than you might immediately think.
shorturl.at/bqsA7
He was taller than you are often led to believe.
shorturl.at/aemE2
He was likely a day-laborer or junior textile worker before joining the army: not aimlessly unemployed.
shorturl.at/ELSX9 2/5 Image
He probably wasn’t married, although up to a third of his comrades might have been.
shorturl.at/kluxV
He marched 15 miles a day, on average.
shorturl.at/dhiwz
He would likely take part in 3-4 major battles over the course of his career.
shorturl.at/jrvz1 3/5 Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(