1798 rebellion - muskets v, pikes

kildarejohn · 23-09-2014 10:41am #1

Discussions on 1798 often seem to deteriorate into talk of who did what to who, sectarianism etc. But could we discuss some facts about the weapons used?

Has anyone researched the type of muskets in use by the British/Irish Yeomanry in 1798?
I find it hard to understand how in several battles a small number of yeomen with muskets defeated huge numbers of pike men.
Looked at purely mathematically, the pike men should have won; if a musket had a range of only 100 yards, and took at least 20 seconds to reload, then men with pikes should have been able to rush forward and overcome the infantry while they were re-loading.
Why did this not happen? Were the rebels simply terrified by the noise and smoke from guns they had never experienced before?

Judgement Day · 23-09-2014 11:19am

Most of the instances that you refer to were situations where Yeomen/Loyalists were in fortified positions, usually large houses, rather than lined up against rebels in the open. Borris House http://www.kavanaghfamily.com/articles/2006/20060710.htm being a case in point.

At the Battle of Tubberneering (nr.Gorey) on the 4th June, 1798 Crown forces were caught in the open and were overwhelmed by larger forces of pikemen - albeit some of whom had muskets.

At the Battle of New Ross on the 5th June, 1798 the pikemen were in the ascendant in much of the close quarters street fighting but at the Battle of Arklow on the 9th June, 1798 - against well dug in regulars and yeomen - they had little chance against sustained musketry and cannon fire.

pedroeibar1 · 23-09-2014 12:38pm

In addition to the comments by Judgement Day (welcome back, you were missed!), the muskets were smooth bore flintlocks and lethal & accurate up to about 50 yards - beyond that, out to 100 they were inaccurate and could kill/wound if lucky enough to hit the target aimed at. The rebels generally were farmhands, labourers, up against government troops who were highly trained, disciplined and when in the open would be in formation. Infantry in serried ranks – front row kneeling to fire, second row priming their weapons and the third row re-loading - can keep up a barrage of fire that would deter most, particularly when armed only with a pike. In several areas the government forces were militias, who were ‘amateurs’ and did not have the same degree of training or discipline. That led to short-lived victories by the pikemen.

Jesus. · 23-09-2014 2:18pm

It was always the case in history that no matter the bravery of the insurgent, it was very rare that a group of them, however large, would overcome trained and disciplined troops with superior firepower in battle. Civilians with arms do not an army make. Its dreadfully difficult to move and keep order on hundreds or thousands of people that have never heard a shot fired in anger in their lives and have just had some sort of weapon thrust in their hands and ordered to take on a professional army.

I know its from a later date but near the end of the film Zulu gives an indication how tightly packed infantry using the tactics describes above can just pile up attacking pike/spear men with an almost constant fire. Add artillery into the picture and the '98 peasantry were really up against it. They actually did remarkably well given the situation.

Manach · 23-09-2014 9:53pm

From what I remember of military history (book by Archer Jones on the subject), pikes were easier to create than muskets, which had (even the Brown Bess type of musket) had a poor rate of fire. AFAIK the US Colonists during the 1776 war wanted to raise a regiment of Archers as these still would have out-fired the muskets. However the issue was training. Archery like Pike skills were drilled in from youth. The expert Pike men were from Swiss cantons, and had trained from an early age both to handle and drill in teams. In 1798 Ireland, the pike was available, but not the long term training or the tactical expertise to use them.

pedroeibar1 · 24-09-2014 12:40pm

Manach wrote: »

From what I remember of military history (book by Archer Jones on the subject), pikes were easier to create than muskets, which had (even the Brown Bess type of musket) had a poor rate of fire. AFAIK the US Colonists during the 1776 war wanted to raise a regiment of Archers as these still would have out-fired the muskets. However the issue was training. Archery like Pike skills were drilled in from youth. The expert Pike men were from Swiss cantons, and had trained from an early age both to handle and drill in teams. In 1798 Ireland, the pike was available, but not the long term training or the tactical expertise to use them.

That stems from a suggestion by Ben Franklin that bows & arrows, and pikes, should be considered. It was an idea that never got off the ground nor was even given much attention. Why go back several hundred years in the face of modern technology? It took a decade to acquire good archery skills and constant practice had to be continued to maintain those skills. The Archery Laws required all Englishmen to practice at the butts, which is why their losses at Crecy were one for every forty Frenchmen killed. See here

Pikes could readily be ‘knocked out’ by the village smith, their manufacture employed very basic and existing farm tool technology. Manufacturing a musket would have been beyond the skills and available equipment of almost all country blacksmiths in 1790’s Ireland. The cost of a musket would also have been prohibitive and far beyond the pocket of a tenant farmer. Even up to the mid 1800’s ‘Brown Bess’ (Land or India pattern guns) were usually assembled, the parts being made by several manufacturers, just as today the same process is followed in the ‘fine’ gun trade with several constituent manufacturers for each gun. Making one of my shotguns involved eight distinct artisan skills. (Barrel maker, actionmaker, lockmaker, finisher, stockmaker, inletter, engraver and polisher.)

Also in the equation are the Penal laws, which forbade the carrying / ownership of arms by Catholics, and the Game Laws, which prevented the acquisition of musketry skills. The only training/experience the rebels had was in some cases a couple of decades of faction-fighting practice, which would have helped with a pike, but not against a musket.

It’s worth googling Mad Jack Churchill if you do not know about him, he is credited with during WW2 being the last man to kill with a bow and arrow.

kildarejohn · 25-09-2014 11:45am

Thanks to all who replied. Lots of good info on weaponry etc.
I originally posted the query having read an account of the Battle of Monasterevin, and that was certainly an example of the huge supremacy of the British/Yeoman - according to some accounts there were 3000 rebels and they were defeated by a very small Yeoman force, 43 cavalry and 42 infantry, with 65 rebels dead, 7 yeomen.
In the light of the various comments, it seems the rebel tactics were disastrous; they attacked along the canal bank, and met the infantry musketmen. On the narrow towpath there was nowhere to take cover, so even 10 muskets could have covered the width of the path. If as the poster suggests, the infantry were in 3 ranks, then 42 men could have kept up a heavy fire.
But the pikes seem to have had some success against the cavalry, as one report says they had 10 horses killed & 3 wounded - so that was 1/4 of the cavalry disabled.
Would be interested if anyone can point me to other sources on this battle.

pedroeibar1 · 25-09-2014 9:59pm

The main use of the pike was defensive, but that required considerable training. Rows of pikemen, pikes resting on the shoulders of the row in front made a formidable 'porcupine' wall against attact. In the offensive, one of the main uses of the pike was against cavalry – once a rider had fired his musket it was difficult to reload in the saddle (which is why the wide trumpet of the blunderbus developed) and the rider had to depend on his sword. A pike could be used out of sword-range, the ‘hook’ could cut the reins of a horse – making it less manageable - or more importantly ‘hough’ a horse by cutting its tendons, thus rendering it useless. Choice of terrain is very important, that number of rebels (probably an overestimate) would be in each other’s way in attacking in a narrow space. Badly armed, trained, officered, lambs to the slaughter.

1798 rebellion - muskets v, pikes

Comments