Warfare conundrums

[Melliores]

Hello there. I have been pondering on a couple of weird facts and ideas that were in use throughout the XVIIIth and XIXth century warfare. Let us start with:


- Did only officers and cavalry wear and use swords/scimitars/sabres? I was left with the impression that infantry and artillery soldiers only had their bayonet to rely on, possibly a dagger or a combat knife as well. Of course I am excluding melee based regiments as they surely had some sort of reliable weapon for close quarters.

- Where were positioned the drummers/ fifers when the batallion was marching in battle? I have seen some pictures where they had formed the first line of the batallion - while this could have been good for morale and marching order would it not make more sense to position them on the sides? As a matter of fact how would one get picked out as a drummer/fiffer? Was there a specific sub-organisation for them in place or were they considered as part of the regiments proper troops?

- Why did soldiers on the battlefield wear leather neck-collars to protect them from being strangled with a garrote/wire? I can easily see why the ones on picket duty or scouts would wear them, yet who would try to strangle you in the middle of a bloody battlefiled with musket fire and cannon shots amidst you?

- How were each and every soldier's possessions handled in battle, in particular their backpacks? Were they left at the baggage train, which would make sense since those backpacks could hinder them in combat, or were they carried with them in the battlefield? If they were left at the train, how could one retrieve his own possesions latter on? Were there name tags or some sort of identification process in place?

- It is not portrayed in game, but how much water an artillery battery would need during the course of a battle to cool off the cannon's barrel? How was that water carried by the artillery personal, especially in the case of Horse batteries? In the case of the navy, was salt water from the sea used for this purpose?

As you see I am more into roleplaying than strategy games, yet I can not help it. Some things back from those days just do not add up. Any kind of insight on the day to day practices of the Army and Navy would be welcome. I am sure there will be a couple of more questions as times goes on.

Thank you in advance for your time.

[Keyser]

Hello there. I have been pondering on a couple of weird facts and ideas that were in use throughout the XVIIIth and XIXth century warfare. Let us start with:


- Did only officers and cavalry wear and use swords/scimitars/sabres? I was left with the impression that infantry and artillery soldiers only had their bayonet to rely on, possibly a dagger or a combat knife as well. Of course I am excluding melee based regiments as they surely had some sort of reliable weapon for close quarters.

NCO and officers usually used a spontoon as it was a good melee weapons and allowed them to use it as a stick to realign the men in the line.
Most infantry carried a short sword/sabre in the period, although it seems it wasn't really used and was more as a security measure and an honorific sign.

- Where were positioned the drummers/ fifers when the batallion was marching in battle? I have seen some pictures where they had formed the first line of the batallion - while this could have been good for morale and marching order would it not make more sense to position them on the sides? As a matter of fact how would one get picked out as a drummer/fiffer? Was there a specific sub-organisation for them in place or were they considered as part of the regiments proper troops?

I am not sure, but i think musician were deployed in front while on the march but at the rear of the unit during a fight.
It also varied by country, some had them on the flank of the units, others in the middle.
Targetting the drummer wasn't seen as something to do (although that could happen), because he wasn't armed (and more often than not was an underage soldier)

- Why did soldiers on the battlefield wear leather neck-collars to protect them from being strangled with a garote/wire? I can easily see why the ones on picket duty or scouts would wear them, yet who would try to strangle you in the middle of a bloody battlefiled with musket fire and cannon shots amidst you?

I don't know about what you are speaking...
Soldier could wear "cravat" necklace on occasion, but i've never seen any leather neck-collars.
Officer and NCO also had a "gorgerin" (i don't remind the english word) as a rank insigna rather than armor.

- How were each and every soldiers possessions handled in battle, in particular their backpacks? Were they left at the baggage train, which would make sense since those backpacks could hinder them in combat, or were they carried with them in the battlefield? If there were left at the train, how could one retrieve his own possesions latter on? Were there name tags or some sort of identification process in place?

The backpack bothers me in ETW, cause they are ugly and because soldiers would rarely fight with them (and because many irregulars and militia units shouldn't have them either).
They would stay at the camp with the train and camp followers/administrative personnel/guards.
There was maybe name tag, but as each unit was encamped in a given spot, each soldiers in a given tent, with a given comrade or near a given "bivouac" and campfire with his units, the risk to loose personnal stuff existed but was rather limited.

[clibinarium]

Yep, Keyser's got it right on all points.

Polearms were usually carried by officers, spontoons or harlbards, these were useful for aligning ranks and push men into position. They could be used for fighting, but an officer's job was to coordinate his men not really to fight. All would have carried swords too, but any 18th Century man of standing would have done so in civilian life too. Swords or "hangers" were issued to private soldiers, but they were very rarely used, as the bayonet was more effective in melee (which was pretty rare anyway), it was reckoned by some officers that they were used more often by soldiers to kill their fellows in drunken arguments. Most armies phased them out for line infantry in the late period, soldiers resented this as a loss of personal status in some armies. As for knives and so on,; probably rare as soldiers usually had what they were issued only, and combat knives weren't really issued. You probably could find them in the more irregular types like grenzers or American riflemen.

Drummers, as has been said, usually formed up behind the line in combat, in the centre or along the flanks, sometimes both. Their status was nearly that of non-combatants, so killing them was not viewed as desirable, capturing them was better as their drums were viewed as trophies of war, not as good as colours, but still desirable. Kettledrums were considered a great catch. Usually drummers would be used to carry away wounded men from the line.

Leather neck stocks were common, but my understanding is that they were primarily for keeping the soldier's head up and maintaining a "military bearing", they were effective at this and very uncomfortable. They were another instance of trying to keep a uniform parade ground look for the troops at the expense of their comfort. Haven't heard of the anti garotte theory.
Gorgerin is gorget in English, though I think its one of those French loanwords.

As for backpacks, they come along in the second half of the century. Prior to that knapsacks, or "snapsacks" were used, often two. The sacks weighed down on the shoulders heavily, the backpack distributed the weight more easily across the chest. Often prior to combat the soldiers would be ordered to dump them on the ground or to put them in the baggage. if action had been unexpected or a running fight was expected they probably fought with them on. In North America or anywhere battles were less formal than in Europe, they often kept them on. A common sight when packs were downed was the men relieving themselves before action. You don't see that in many films.

Water for guns; no idea about the amount, I'd guess that a few men from the battery would be shuttling back and forth to the nearest stream, each gun would probably have a couple of buckets in its outfitting.

[Melliores]

Thank you to the both of you. I should have been more precise about the collars which were better known as leather neck stocks as clibinarium pointed out.

I have found the following description:
http://www.sykesregulars.com/equipme..._stock_ref.php

alongside with a few pictures:
http://www.sykesregulars.com/equipme...stock_pics.php

I did read about those leather stocks in a book but in it they were described as worn by the London police department as a precautionary measure. It seemed to me that that was probably the same reason why the Army would issue them to soldiers as well, seeing as they were pretty uncomfortable to the soldier. I should have known better.

By the way did the Navy wear stock as well?

Concerning the drummers:
How were they picked if most of them were underaged? Was it common practice to enlist adolescent boys in the army?

[Keyser]

Well i didn't knew about them...

Never heard of it.

[Bonaparte]

By the way did the Navy wear stock as well?

I can't give you a straight answer, but I highly doubt that the Navy personel itself did this if the "leather neck" is indeed there for purposes of maintaining the right posture. The reasoning here is that the drill of the Navy itself (in most cases) is much less formal than the drill of the Army. Did the marines (or the equalivant) wear them? I doubt it, you don't really drill much on a ship. If the neck piece is indeed there for drilling purposes, you wouldn't see it worn in combat though.

I've seen my share of danish army uniforms (as late as today) from the period and I've actually never seen this kind of neck piece - I would like to add.

Also, the Royal Danish Life Guard (then and now the epitome of drill in the Royal Danish Army) did not and do not wear this kind of neck piece, I can assure you of that. Danish military tradition is highly influenced by germany (Prussia and so forth) so that might say something about that.

Concerning the drummers:
How were they picked if most of them were underaged? Was it common practice to enlist adolescent boys in the army?

I can vouch for the underage part here. I'm guessing that in the established armies, in the established regiments - they were choosen just as they are today. Among those boys who are already there (for whatever reason) and who know how to - it may or may not be an esteemed position, then more so than now I'm assuming. Only difference is that they aren't underage now since it's illegal. As goes for the early period I can't say - since the soldiers in Britain, France, Prussia etc. were not enlisted armies; Napoleon - after all - invented the entire idea of that. They were mainly mercenaries and professionals.

[Melliores]

Keyser - Do not worry about them so much. It seems they were mainly used by the Brittish Army and latter by the USA Army. Like Bonaparte pointed out on the continent they were not used.

Bonaparte - It is strange that on the continent such neck stocks were not in common use but the Brittish and latter Americans seemed to favour them for some reason. I truly hope there was something else next to looking smart and a correct posture. Are there any Britts out there would could confirm their function and reason for use?

I have a couple of more questions:

- Why did armies adopt the various high, bulky hats in place of the tricornes? From a strictly practical point of view would it not be better to leave those hats just for the parade uniform? Marching with them in battle or ridding with them in the case of hussars and uhlans seems a little restraining. They do seem to better identify you as a target as well.

- Were pistols used by ordinary soldiers? From the little I know of the history of this period it was common for Ottoman troops (mostly irregulars but Janissaries favored them as well) to pack a pistol or two as a side arm along with the mandatory scimitar.

[ProvostGuard]

In regards to melee weapons, pikes were still sometimes used throughout the 18th and even 19th centuries.

Pikes saw some limited use in the American Revolution.

Col. Zebulon Pike experimented with pikes during the War of 1812. He used a three-rank formation; the first two ranks were armed with muskets and the third line carried a twelve-foot pike. The pikemen also had muskets, but their barrels had to be shortened to reduce weight and allow for easier slinging while the pike was in use. Pike also acquired 200 swords for his men. This formation added to the shock power of a bayonet charge and was apparently quite effective. (information from "Don Troiani's Soldiers in America")

If I'm not mistaken, the Confederate Army considered equiping its soldiers with pikes.


Soldiers carried their backpacks and possessions into battle quite often. In fact, I think it became increasingly more common as time went on.


Shako's were rather impractical. During the War of 1812, the US Army adopted leather caps (the so-called tombstone shakos) that were cheaper and apparently more comfortable than regular shakos. The US military adopted the more practical forage cap in the late 1830s. So it seems rather odd that shakos were still in use in Europe by the mid-19th century.

God bless.

[Bonaparte]

- Why did armies adopt the various high, bulky hats in place of the tricornes? From a strictly practical point of view would it not be better to leave those hats just for the parade uniform? Marching with them in battle or ridding with them in the case of hussars and uhlans seems a little restraining. They do seem to better identify you as a target as well.

You have to discern between Guards and similar regiments - and the regular infantry. And you also have to remember how much morale meant in mass troop warfare.

Wearing a uniform isn't just practical means - it goes a great way to cast a spell over the soldiers wearing it in terms of both unison and creating the feeling of belonging to a regiment/unit as well as creating a feeling of needing to prove oneself worth of the uniform. This is even true today - how do you think 18th century soldiers felt? Giving each regiment it's very own colours, designs, hats and so forth meant a great deal for the morale and I assume could also actually give the officers a way of telling one unit from another in a second in the middle of a battle. Hats are naturally a part of this here.

Okay, very impractical hats are dumb - but honestly there's a ton of things to consider in this matter, and sometimes you just make odd choices and that choice sparks a trend.

The Royal Danish Life Guard - which has a very similar equalivant in England (and Napoleon had one unlike any other) - wear bearskin headwear which extends their height about 40 centimeters or so. That's a great deal - and even more so back then when the average Joe was much lower (20 centimers or so lower than it is today). This headwear was worn just as much as a morale boost for the unit themselves as a war to scare the enemy.

You probably know how much a guy being more than a head taller than you means if you are about to start a fight with him. I tell you - even a 18 year old boy who's been enlisted for no more than 4-5 months standing in full parade uniform with the bearskin on looks scary. And let me remind you that most guard regiments already only allowed tall and strong soldiers, so imagine men of higher than average height adding another 40 centimeters on top of their head.

[Keyser]

- Were pistols used by ordinary soldiers? From the little I know of the history of this period it was common for Ottoman troops (mostly irregulars but Janissaries favored them as well) to pack a pistol or two as a side arm along with the mandatory scimitar.

Ottomans were slow to adopt them for their troops, but once they did, they used them in large numbers, especially for assault troops storming fortifications.
In european regulars forces however (it's different for irregulars of course, especially balkan irregulars fighting mostly like the turks) pistols weren't issued as far as i know, excepted in the cavalry.

Soldiers carried their backpacks and possessions into battle quite often. In fact, I think it became increasingly more common as time went on.

The could happen, but i would think it was rare in the XVIIIth century as army counted on their baggage train and camp, and supply roads a lot.
However it's true that with the french revolution and the high speed achieved by french troops manoeuvering and living of the land, the soldiers started more and more to wear them even in battle (as there was often no camp and baggage train anymore to left them in (or a baggage train left far far away lumbering on the roads behind the army)

[Bonaparte]

The could happen, but i would think it was rare in the XVIIIth century as army counted on their baggage train and camp, and supply roads a lot.
However it's true that with the french revolution and the high speed achieved by french troops manoeuvering and living of the land, the soldiers started more and more to wear them even in battle (as there was often no camp and baggage train anymore to left them in (or a baggage train left far far away lumbering on the roads behind the army)

I honestly don't know much about the period concerning this specific matter, but I know how hard it is to fight with extra weight - the difference in weight between a weapon weighing 3,5 kg and a weapon weighing 2,7 kg is immense when you're marching. Whether you've got a backpack worth 25-30% of your bodyweight on your back too really has a huge effect on your fighting capabillities. I doubt any european army would fight with their backpacks on if at all possible, it would severely limit their reload speed as well as hamper their accuracy (depending on whether they actually aimed their shots at all in the first place - outside the british army this was actually rare in the period) due to the strain it puts on your shoulders as well as getting in the way of a proper shooting position.

And lets not even speak of the issue it has on movement speed and melee.

[schoenkoenig]

All those concerns are great, but quite literally everything these soldiers owned was contained in their knapsacks. If they left them at the camp, not only could the enemy manage to pilfer them (the Austrians' Hussars lost Mollwitz for the Austrians because they stopped to pilfer the Prussian camp allowing a counterassault to form up), but the camp guards probably would help themselves to any valuables or food they found in soldiers' knapsacks as well.

[Lee1026]

I would be quite surprised if the officers let the soldiers keep their bags with them when they fought. It is not like they care whether the troops lose a few things here and there.