The armies in the American Revolution did not always just stand in open fields and fight in linear formations. Often times, the armies employed cover in forms of trenches or other fortifications. The Continental army started using fortified positions since Bunker Hill and employed them in the early parts of the war. The British also had forts and fortified camps in the colonies as well, spreading from Canada all the way to Georgia. However, forts or fortified camps did not always ensure victory. The locations could still be encircled or even bypassed by an enemy force, and depending on the locations it could mean a loss of a region. A battle of armies lined up in grand formations would often ensure a more decisive victory or loss since the main objective is to cause devastating blows to the army and force the enemy to rout. To cause enough losses that the enemy army will have a hard time regaining strength to be a future combatant force to deal with. Professional soldiers took time and money to train to the standards the armies had back then.

However, commanders knew this and would often try to find a place that would prove more advantageous for them to fight on. Battles of Princeton and Cowpens are two examples of a battlefields that helped the tactics of the American army and a disadvantage for the British army. Battles in the AWI did not always unfold into a linear one, it could depend on topography and any obstacles (whether natural or manmade) that would require change of tactics. The placement of armies in a battlefield was just as important as the sizes of the armies and the firepower they brought with them.

The British army relied on firepower and the bayonet to win the battle. Everything from the Land pattern musket to the field guns they brought with them. Cavalry of course also had a key element in the battles but less so than previous wars and those fought in Europe. A slight digression, the British army only brought over two regiments of cavalry from Britain and attempted to rely more on provincial cavalry forces since the shipping of horses would be too expensive to constantly do. Lines of battalions provided the wall of fire needed to cause devastating effect onto the enemy. The walls of fire did not come from the complete inaccuracy of the muskets used but for the higher chance of causing a blow to the opposite battalion and possibly pushing the enemy back into retreat. By the time of the Southern Campaign, and a little earlier, in 1780 the British army changed from closed orders and three rank firing to open orders and two rank filing. The change came from the lack of cavalry used by the American forces as well as being able to advance forward easier on broken ground. Trees, brush, rocks, or even fences would be easier to move through in the open order formation. Open orders meant about 18 or so inches in between the files of soldiers. They also used extended open orders, often a few feet in between, which allowed the battalion to cover more ground and not be such an easy target for enemy volleys. Artillery could fire rounds over a mile out and bombarded enemy lines as the infantry approached. Engagements could begin at distances of over 100 yards away. The advancing army would try to fire and move forward to push the enemy back off the field or get close for the bayonet charge. At 40 or so yards, the advancing army would fire a volley and then charge their bayonets. This maybe the resemblance of arrow and sword armies you speak of. I am not a medieval historian so I hope someone in that study can chime in soon.

The musket is the main weapon used by both armies. The British had the Land pattern musket while the Americans would use French Charlevilles, some Dutch, and some even made in America. Contrary to belief, they are not wholly inaccurate and can hit targets from 70 yards away to good effect. Each soldier drilled to hit targets with consistency and to be able to reload about 3-4 times a minute. The stress of battle may have lowered that to 2-3 a minute, but rapid fire would also mean burning through ammo before getting to bayonet range. Commanders knew the advantage of fast reloading with tap-loads but also the need for accuracy. A cool levelled piece would cause more effect than a rapidly loaded and aimed piece.

The bayonet was part of the tactics used by the British in the war, the other firepower as mentioned. The American forces struggled with the bayonet charges throughout most of the war except when battalions had the Charleville pattern musket since it could hold a bayonet. The riflemen and militia forces often only had small swords or hunting swords with them which could not keep up with a bayonet on the end of a musket. The shock tactic used with the bayonet and flank companies became a prevalent one used in the war. Light infantry tactics originated back to the Seven Years War with their skirmishing and bounding fire instead of linear warfare. Light infantry attacked fast and picked off enemy soldiers with accuracy, and then could cover the army's retreat. They also used cover such as rocks and trees. Warfare changed over the century and especially by the American Civil War.

Casualty rates may not be as high as you expect. At most, the armies suffered a 20% casualty rate. On average, the American army suffered 16% while the British 12%. Certain battles did have higher rates, such as the Battle of Camden, Guildford Courthouse, or Eutaw Springs. Battles did not go on for hours like they would in medieval Europe or even in 18th century Europe with the War of Austrian Succession or Seven Years War. Most engagements lasted roughly 40 or so minutes. Sieges took more time of course. Only when armies had more than 3,000 on each side could they go on for over an hour. So soldiers did face the wall of fire but depending on the range of engagement, the results of the volley could vary. Battalions moved forward after several volleys, hoping the enemy has lost morale and enough soldiers to rout from a bayonet charge.

As for attacking camps, it would mean that the camp proved to be at a disadvantaged place that the attacking army could easily win. I mentioned earlier about fortified locations, unless they prepared for a siege it would not be a good idea to attack a fortified place. However, armies could not always have fortified positions and had open areas that could succumb to an attack. These did happen. In the spring of 1781, Whig forces attacked a British camp nearby Wiggin's Hill. The British had prepared for it since a scout came back with word of enemy advance. The British repelled the American forces and inflicted higher casualties.

In conclusion, at least for the AWI, it was not always linear battles but a mix. Open battles did have its purpose since non conventional warfare did not always mean an ensure victory or the wanted results. Both sides used guerilla warfare and tactics to push the enemy back.

​

Matthew Spring With Zeal and Bayonets Only

Christopher Duffy, Military Experience in the Age of Reason

Why did people stand in line in 18th century warfare?

You have to understand the difference between the rate of mortality between melee combat and gunfire combat, especially after gunfire combat get its more evolved tactics.

Once muskets were invented they were incorporated into tactics in the same way as archers. But soon it became apparent that they were much better, since armor could do almost nothing to stop a bullet from them and you could train a musket man much easier and faster than an archer.

But, the early gun weapons were smoothbore, and that meant they were terribly inaccurate at long or medium range. How do you solve that? With concentration of fire. That meant putting your musket men close together so once they fired more of them would hit an enemy formation (of infantry men or cavalry) instead of the grass or a rock 100 meters away. Basically a musket man formation works like a shotgun, it fires lots of bullets in a short range. Once you put your pike protecting them from enemies, you have the early pike and shot formations, like the Spanish tercio.

In the 16th and 17th century people like Gustavus Adolphus and Oda Nobunaga started realizing that the muskets could have a devastating effect on enemy formations if they could keep their rate of fire. But reloading a matchlock or flintlock musket is time consuming. You probably saw this in movies, how the guy must take the powder, put it inside the musket through the muzzle, press the powder, put the bullet, light the match (in the matchlock case), etc. The best drilled soldiers would take tens of seconds, and most could take a minute or more. So they solved this by putting lots of musket men shooting at intervals. After one line of musket men had shot, they would go back or kneel and the line behind them would shoot. And so on. Some formations had 2 lines, other had 3, others had 4 and so on. If the rate of fire was kept constant, as I said, this could kill many, many incoming charging enemy soldiers, and demoralize them.

After the bayonet is invented, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the rate of pikemen to musket men diminishes, until the pikemen disappear completely. A musket man with a bayonet attached to his musket is a pikeman now. That way every soldier you have can shoot and later, once you think hand to hand combat should be engaged, you can order them attach bayonets and charge or face a charge.

But why did the officers take so long to order the bayonets attached?

Because once you attach one, your musket becomes almost impossible to shoot and even more impossible to reload, so you work only as a pikeman now. So if your officer orders you to charge, you have to face all the enemy volleys of fire. If the enemy is good, they can shoot at you and your charging friends four times in a minute and then attach their own bayonets before they engage you in melee. How many of your companions will be alive after four volleys? Will your unit keep the charge or disband once half of them are dead and have to face basically a wall of pikes?

So the battles in the American revolutionary war (and 18th century Europe) are two lines of men, facing each other, and shooting at each other at intervals UNTIL one side decides it’s best to charge. Then the still shooting side can keep shooting for a time until the other side is near, when the defending side will attach bayonets and face their enemies as a pike wall. Or, you know, one side gives up and runs or surrenders before that.

I think the Sharpe historical fiction books depicted this very well.