How 18th Century Armies Shot At Each Other

We all know the limitations of musketry. Sure, they're often overblown, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist! Muskets took a long time to reload and lacked accuracy at long ranges. With these drawbacks, how did armies fight back in the day? Or, more specifically, how did they shoot? Because they certainly didn't 'take turns' giving volleys!

My Light Infantry video, if you'd like to learn more about Firing by Files:

Thanks to Jaron and Declan, my editors for this video!

Timestamps:
00:00 - Introduction
01:32 - Volley Fire
08:38 - Firing by Sections
11:52 - Sponsored Ad
14:05 - Firing by Ranks
19:12 - Firing by Files
21:10 - Street Firing
25:41 - Firing & Advancing/Retiring
28:25 - Conclusion

You can learn more about my work at:

If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,

You can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!

[GageNewby]

Fire by ranks absolutely existed in at least the French army from the mid-18th century on and likely in other nations as well. De Vault’s memoirs discuss the effectiveness of it, and it was briefly prohibited in the Instructions of 1776, only to be brought back in the Ordinance of 1788. The French would use the fire by rank that other nation’s used, as well as a unique type called fire by two ranks. De Vault says fire by rank was rarely used but was excellent as an anti-cavalry tactic in square, but had little use elsewhere. De Vault also mentions the former fire by rank is drawn up “as the other nations do, ” which indicates that others certainly did it as well but he doesn’t seem to name who in particular, although I suspect the British may have also done it informally since he’s often comparing these other firing methods to the British. It was outlawed briefly in 1776 not because it was ineffective in firepower, but because officers noted that soldiers kneeling under fire were often too scared to stand up on command, and as such were far less maneuverable, unable to charge, and badly positioned to receive a charge if so many soldiers are kneeling and refuse to get up.

Essentially, how it would work in practice though, is the first rank would kneel while the second fired. Then the second would reload and then the first would fire while kneeling and so on. This way at least one rank was always loaded to fire on cavalry if needed and there’s no risk to shooting the kneeling soldier while he’s moving to reload because fire is held until reloading is complete. Fire by rank also doesn’t necessarily require the first rank to kneel and can still be done by leveling the musket over the shoulder of the first rank so it’s not as rigid as you’d think. The regulations went back and forth on which they believed to be better, and in some cases one would be outright banned only to be brought back for the other to be banned later. To quote specifically, “it is recommended, especially for the squares formed against the cavalry, the firing of ranks, in which each of the three ranks fires in turn, so as to produce instantaneous effects on the enemy cavalry, without ever being disarmed.”

To also quote Guibert, “Fire by one or more ranks is, I believe, the only proper form against cavalry and for the defense of an abatis, or of a post which the enemy would attack decidedly and with bayonet at the end of the gun, because it is the only one which gives, if I can express myself thus, a mass of fire able to stop and reverse great efforts; but it is necessary, as I say, to employ it only when the enemy is shaken for an attack of strong force, and to spare the control of this fire, so that the two last rows make their last discharge when it is has. twenty-five paces, and that the first rank reserves its own to do it at close range.”

Then there’s Marshal Davout who says positively about firing by rank, and also says volley and platoon fire must never be done against cavalry, “we must only fire against the cavalry in files or ranks. The file fire must begin at least 150 paces, and from the right of each section to feed the fire as the cavalry advances. We can only start firing at 100 paces and even closer, the ranks only firing successively, there are always two of them who have their guns loaded. This fire is very good against cavalry, when it is done with cold blood and great practice. The fires of battalions, half-battalions and platoons must never be used against cavalry, unless the infantry is covered by an abatis, a ditch, a palisade or an obstacle sufficient to stop the shock. In this case, these fires must be made at close range.”

If you can’t trust Davout, who can you trust? Napoleon’s best marshal, who never lost a single battle in his entire career, a man who could defeat entire armies with his single corps, possibly the best tactician of the era.

The fire by two ranks is slightly different where the formation is at a depth of three. The first rank kneels and never fires, but holds it for an emergency, while the rear two ranks fire just like a normal formation of depth of two would if the first kneeling rank wasn’t there, firing by battalion, half-battalion, or platoon depending on the regulation in place or at will.

The French also had a habit of firing by files in line and not just in a skirmish order from the 1760s and onward. The fire would roll across the company front as each file fired successively, and after the first fire it would dissolve into a fire at will where each soldier was instructed to fire deliberate aimed shots, preferably oblique to the enemy, believing at will fire was more accurate than volley fire. The only reason it rippled by file at the start was to keep the firing at will staggered across the front where someone would be firing and another reloading at all times. If it all erupted at once as an initial volley, there would still be a predictable rhythm to the at will firing with most firing around the same time and most reloading around the same time. Depending on the regulation in place at the time, the third rank may or may not fire, with the third rank being prohibited from firing in 1788, where they were instructed instead to reload fusils for the second rank. However the primary accounts indicate that the third rank typically still fired even after 1788 because soldiers don’t want to just stand there under fire and would typically fire against orders. The accounts also indicate that the third rank actually reloading fusils as instructed almost never actually happened because soldiers didn’t trust others’ weapons enough to function in combat and so they would often pretend to swap fusils without actually doing it.

This last part is explained by Captain Tansky, “These truths are so evident that they leave no doubt as to the disadvantage of the third rank in its present destination. I will even add, from my own experience, that a soldier does not have enough confidence in another's rifle; he dares not adjust, lest the butt strike him in the face, and it happened to me several times to notice that the soldiers of the second rank were only making a show of exchanging their guns with the men of the third, and always kept theirs.”

This is all in the regulations, the memoirs of De Vault, and among the theories of the “military philosophes” like Guibert or Pirch, and this is also summarized in “The Background of Napoleonic Warfare: Tactics of 18th Century France” by historian Dr. Robert Quimby.

[Great_Olaf]

I was skeptical about the problems with firing by ranks until you reminded me about these being muzzle loaders, that more than anything else convinced me. I've seen those being released, if the way my dad had to do it in Civil War reenacting was anything like the way the British did it, and I'm fairly sure that it would at least have to be nearly vertical... Yeah, I can see how that would be problematic. I can see solutions for every other problem with sufficient training, but that... Muskets are also a lot longer than modern rifles, which complicates things even more.

[theaman]

Didn't expect you to upload at 1:45 AM but in the words of Chancellor Palpatine: A Surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

[KroM]

Four ranks deployment is typical of French 18th century doctrine. French written accounts (règlement de 1766) and later academics also indicate that there was a great amount of simplification in the musketry firing patterns since the SYW. During the SYW, they speeak about "feu de bilebaude" which refers to independant fire or fire at will basically. The soldiers would fire as soon as they're finished reloading, on their own pace. The French army also had the "feu de rang", where the best marksmen are put in the two front most ranks, and the two ranks in the back will only conduct reloading the muskets for the shooters, who will pass their muskets to the back once fired. This method was also used by early skirmisher forces or legions like Grassin's or Fischer, and in America, notably in cover, where the best shot would fire from cover with at least two soldiers behind bound to reload the muskets only.
The "feu de chaussée" (street firing equivalent) was done in column, each rank would step up with the rest of the column, fire, then run to the back of the column, while the whole column slowly advances.

[FelixstoweFoamForge]

And eyewitness accounts agree that all the theory and training went out of the window after a couple of volleys, as in the smoke, confusion and noise, orders went unheeded and everyone ended up just loading and firing as fast as they could individually.

[richardarcher]

Former English Civil War re-enactor here. Firing by ranks was a common drill in the 17th Century - called 'Fire by Rotation' according to the drill manuals we use. First rank (usually of six) would fire and retire to the rear of the file to reload leaving the way clear for second rank to step forward and have a clear field of fire. Matchlocks are clumsy beasts compared to firelocks with long loading times, hence the need for six ranks, and my best time reloading eas 40 seconds (admittedly I'm not good at it). The fire by ranks beloved of games and some movies with men reloading whilst kneeling - good luck with that carrying a matchlock with rest.

Variations on the theme allow to advance and retreat whilst firing also where the front rank either retires to reload or remains where they are and successive ranks move forward. Back then the technology wasn't as sophisticated but by the 18th century the firelock mechanisms and ubiquity of paper cartridges as well as removal of pikes from a formation enables tactics to evolve.

An interesting aside on platoon firing, I believe David Chandler one wrote that in the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-13) it was not uncommon for British and Dutch regiments utilising the platoon firing system to keep the third rank in reserve as an unofficial 'fourth' firing for emergencies just in case you needed a handy blast of lead if firings one through to three were not ready,

[vanivanov]

3:10 Force Projection: Honestly, this was more related to bayonet charges and command and control. Problem with this idea, is that having a man-sized gap in your line theoretically reduces the enemy's accuracy by 50%, since half your line is empty space. So double the localized firepower, but half the accuracy would technically cancel itself out.

Additionally, ranged weapons are more flexible about distance. For example, if your line is 100m longer, then at a range of 50m the men at the very far right and left would be shooting at ~72m, about a 44% increase in range. And that is presuming there is no effort to wrap around and flank the enemy line which would eliminate the distance issue and cause enfilading fire.

The real reason is combat was still settled with melee weapons, in that case the bayonet, so a thinned line was liable to be totally routed by a bayonet charge. There would also be cases where space was at a premium, so loose order would mean half your men don't get line of sight on the enemy.

[gustavchambert]

The vulnerability and strength of volley fire is rather well illustrated by certain Carolean letters.
I remember one where the soldier describes how the enemy fired their volley at the advancing Caroleans, only they fire to early, fufty meters or so, and the soldier describes the effect as unimpressive.
This is the the point where the Carolean line goes into a running advance, and then fire their volley at 15-20 meters, which according to the soldier had the effect that "they fell like grass [to the scythe]". After which the Caroleans charge, as per their standard doctrine.

To me this suggests that volley fire might be better as an offensive tactic, as you can follow it up with force projection through melee, which you can't really do on the defensive. This also gives a large extra element of shock yo your charge.

[demomanchaos]

Fire By Rank is useful in games like Empire TW because you can't really make the men do proper Fire By Section without a lot of fussery so FbR in that regard does a reasonable job of simulating that.

[bow-tiedengineer]

for me at least, I didn't really realize that firing by ranks was different but firing and advancing or retiring. When I thought of that sort of firing then the next rank firing, I generally though of it basically being like firing and retiring, although potentially with the front rank taking a pace or two forward to maintain position, or maybe even with the rear rank advancing to become the front while to other ranks are reloading, resulting in a gradual advance. I wonder if this sort of misunderstanding is why people think firing by ranks was more common than is was.

[vanivanov]

Volley Fire: I feel you needed to emphasize the issue of smoke and different abilities of the troops more. If it takes you 30 seconds and me 15 seconds to reload, then I could be stuck waiting instead of firing two shots. Of course, the reason hey tried to synchronize shooting, is you can barely see anything through the cloud of smoke musketry produces, so you want to have everyone aim and fire at the same time.

[KestrelOwens]

I think the firing by ranks come from people who would think that you need to fire from all points in the line and not realize that it is entirely possible to cover the entire line.

[vanivanov]

Firing by Ranks: As many people pointed out, this was common in Pike and Shot warfare, and specifically a cornerstone of 17th century Dutch military tactics, and is also known as the Swede's Way. Nothing really stops you firing by ranks by section, either.... As someone else pointed out, traditionally the shooters would move to the front, or the reloaders would move to the rear before reloading, so they're not in the way of the line of fire. So, it continued as Street Firing, whether or not it maintained popular use in the field.

[wayneshingler]

I actually WATCHED your ad instead of skipping through it like I normally do! Thank you for making that entertaining.

[Brenticus]

I think one of the best things about this one is how well these illustrations demonstrate some of the timing and nuances of line fighting. Line fighting already basically breaks a modern person's brain, so I think this is a really great way to help people understand something that on its face seems patently stupid.

[kingofthefleetians]

I really appreciate the skits you do for your sponsorships. It keeps the pacing of the video itself and is genuinely entertaining unlike the sponsorships in a lot of other YouTube videos, so it's really refreshing to see someone be creative and have fun with their content instead of being solely business.

[Zajuts]

If you wanted to do "fire by rank" properly, it would make more sense to have the rear rank shoot first, with the 1st and 2nd ranks kneeling, and rising successively towards the front. Another way is to basically just do volley fire with the first 2 ranks, and the 3rd(and 4th, if any) be in reserve, so that when the need arises, the front ranks can be ordered to kneel and the rear rank(s) can fire their volley. It can also be done the opposite way, like if you are in a square formation 4 ranks deep. Have the 2 front ranks kneel, projecting bayonets, while the rear ranks shoot volleys. If the formation is being charged, the front ranks can be ordered to shoot. If "fire by ranks" were ever done, it would still make more sense to do it by company instead of the entire battalion.

[Albukhshi]

@ 5:00
It was the standard French practice up to the 1750's, when the fourth rank was abolished just before the Seven Years War (the regulations in 1754 limited infantry to 3 or 6 ranks, and the cavalry to just 2; the six rank system was for bayonet assaults). This for rank system had been the standard in the French Army since the end of the War of Spanish Succession, though five ranks was also used.

The Prussians didn't officially abolish four ranks until the War of Austrian Succession.The Austrians still used four ranks until 1757, Sweden until at least 1758 (when Prussian-style drills were introduced), and the Russians used four ranks throughout the Seven Years War.

Point is: it wasn't experimental, or even limited to the Germans: neither is true. It was just the standard in most armies for the first half of the 18th century to deploy in four ranks. And it reflects the 17th and 18th century trend of shallower musket lines; most armies started with 8 ranks, then 6, 5, 4, 3, and in some armies, 2 ranks. The British started with 8, then 6, and then went straight to 3 (with comical results reflected in the drills from before 1764*), and then 2.

@ 14:25
Fire by ranks is described by Hawley in his recommendations for countering the highland charge, and the system described is similar to what's in ETW: you start with the rear rank, then the center rank. The main difference is that first rank would not have fired, unless the Highlanders practically got atop them.

So the concept was there. The real question is whether it was used or not. If it were used, it would have been at Falkirk, but it's uncertain. Regardless of whether it remained theory, or was used in battle, the actual result would have looked something like this (an actual historic example, but outside the timeframe):


Just imagine the men using 1740's drill, starting from the ready position (front rank knelt, middle loacked in behind them with legs 18' apart and stooping over the front, and the rear stepped right 12 to 18"). Bear in mind that drill at that time was different to what you're used to--or indeed, to what it was just a decade later. See, back then, when a British line fired, the men not only recovered arms, but the two rear ranks also stepped back. No one's getting in anyone's way reloading. This practice of opening ranks to reload wasn't actually abolished until the 1750's--just in time for the Seven Years War (first unofficially--there are references to changing drill as early as c. 1750--then officially in 1756). Not that this matters, because this scheme--the one Hawley proposed (and possibly used), wasn't meant for sustained fire: reloading was an unlikely prospect.

Fire by ranks--in the caracole style--was standard practice in French and German Armies in the War of Spanish Succession (the British and Dutch were by now on the Platoon fire system). But you talk of something akin to it later.

@16:03
The funny thing is that Hawley's instructions aren't meant for sustained fire. It's just about dumping ammunition in a controlled way against a highland charge at close range so that they might break. The idea was that the first firing would happen at an already close range; a bunch of highlanders would be hit. As the shock of this settles in, the second rank would fire, at a still closer range. If this didn't cause the Highlanders to turn on their heels, the third rank would wait till the highlanders were practically atop them. And if that didn't work? Bayonet time!

The reason you do it by ranks is twofold (and recall this was at least definitely a proposal--so everything here is theoretical):

1-The charge is going to be along the whole frontage of the battalion: you don't want any gaps in the firing, as would happen by platoon fire--especially not at close range.
2-The firings not only kill but can "suppress". Psychologically, it's a lot like eating two (or three, if you don't stop) volleys in rapid succession: psychologically worse than 1 big volley. Recall that the goal is to simply stop the highland charge: it's basically a very deadly game of chicken. You don't need to kill all the Highlanders: just break their determination.

Personally, I can't really comment on its effectiveness, but it is telling that a similar scheme was in fact used in the US Civil War, to good effect.


*Prior to the regulations issued in 1764, what we (or really, the rest of Europe at the time--or indeed, the rest of humanity) would call a file in a 3-rank deep line was called a half-file. A file pre-1764 was fixed at six men--a remnant of a time the English deployed six deep--so when the army began using three, the three-rank arrangement got called a half-file. You see it reflected in the drill manuals too: when assembled on parade, the men would draw up six deep at first, and only move to 3 when the platoon exercise (loading and firing) began.

[jordonstewart]

Hey Brandon F, can you tell me the difference between how they shot in formation in the Napoleonic wars to later Victorian wars like Afghanistan, Zulu, eygpt and the Boer.

[vanivanov]

Fire by Sections: The main advantage is you can get a similar effect to Firing at Will, without so much smoke obscuring your vision. The smaller the sections you have firing at their own pace, the less you'll get issues where some troops shoot 4 times a minute, and others shoot twice a minute. You also get flexibility in when to fire, based off the cover and activity of that part of the enemy line.

9:25 Note that if you have two units taking turns firing, that is halving your (volume of fire/time), your firepower. This makes sense for pairs of skirmishers with small unit tactics, where cover is a major issue, but I don't know if it's wise on a larger scale. Do period sources recommend this method? It's not much of a concern if you have your sections firing sequentially, of course.