In The News
Be sure to check out Jay and Kay's website (podcasts!, forums and all) here, and to Like their Facebook page here! You can find our podcast here.

Also, follow me on Twitter (@mikezglr) to be the first to know about Blog updates, new matches, and more!

If you want to read a series of blog entries in the order they were posted, or are looking for one specifically, check out the Table of Contents right here! Also be sure to check that page between matches to get a teaser of the next blog on my slate.

Total Pageviews OF ALL TIME

Who will win the first fictional match on Masters of Battle?

22 July 2011

Warrior Bio: George Washington and the Continental Army, circa 1778 CE.

Author's Note:  This is an exciting series of Blogs to start!  This is the debut of my firearms grading scale, as well as a rematch of the first Episode of Season Three of Spike TV's program, Deadliest Warrior.  I think that I should warn you now; the scores for this match are going to be much lower than you may be anticipation, not because they are bad weapons or anything, but because they are poor in comparison to modern technology.  Anyway, back to the part where I play up the things featured in this match:  I love this period of warfare because it wasn't yet all about guns.  Heavier weapons like cannons played just as big of a role as older forms of fighting like cavalry sabers, while new technologies such as grenades and the bayonet were making themselves known on the battlefield.  One more thing... this thing is going to be really freaking long, as I've got a ton of ground to cover, so I'll upload bits and pieces as I write them.  If you want to save yourself the trouble of checking this Blog every few hours (not that I mind) you can Follow me on Twitter and get updates as soon as I announce them.  I've held you long enough - let's get started!


This famous painting, made by the artist Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze, portrays a heroic General Washington leading his ragged army from the forefront across the Delaware River to take part in the infamous Battle of Trenton.  In reality, Washington is believed to have either taken cover under a shawl against the frigid weather or taken part in the rowing duties after one of his men lost control of his hands to the cold.  This image was not taken by me, and is used without permission from en.wikipedia.org/.
-Equipment Assessment

~Primary Weapons; Pennsylvania/Kentucky Long Rifle, Brown Bess, Model 1766 Charleville Musket.  At the time of the American Revolution, there were no stable, permanent military bodies besides independent state militias – and due to the lack of regulated military equipment, there were no local factories or gunsmiths able to arm soldiers on the scale required to run a war, much less win one.  As such there were multiple types of muskets used by American soldiers at the time; the most common of them would have been the Long Rifle considered native to Kentucky and Pennsylvania.  Depending on the skill of the user, the Long Rifle could accurately hit targets between one and two hundred yards away, with one British officer writing in the 1776 Siege of Boston that, “at one hundred fifty yards, any one of them [the Americans wielding the Long Rifle] can hit a playing card nine times out of ten”.  Thanks to the intricate rifling inside of the barrel (a technique used by gunsmiths to increase the speed, accuracy and overall effectiveness of firearms) and long barrel (hence the name) the Long Rifle possessed an incredible muzzle velocity of more than one thousand feet per second.  Modern recreations have been found to have an average speed of 1,235 feet per second, which is simply amazing giving the now-primitive technologies involved in the creation and use of this weapon.  The Long Rifle was popular among American militia and frontiersmen, with the weapons being passed down from generation to generation and used to hunt game as well as kill enemies.  The other common primary firearms used by Continental Army were the Brown Bess and Charleville Musket.   The Brown Bess was a British musket used all throughout the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries and constantly modified, adapted and evolved to a point where it is virtually impossible to accurately single out what variant was most often in use at the time of the Revolutionary War.  American soldiers often acquired the Brown Bess from raids on British armories or battlefield looting, the former a practice that was very popular well before hostilities broke out in the Thirteen Colonies.  As for the Charleville Model 1766, it was a French weapon – the American rebels had the support of France thanks to their sharing of a common enemy, and were well-supplied with surplus and technically obsolete (read:  outdated) firearms from French smugglers until the nation formally entered the conflict in 1778 on the side of the Americans, soon bringing Spain and Holland along with them against the British Empire.  Anyway, both the Brown Bess and the Charleville muskets had an effective range of about eighty yards, and like the Long Rifle were single-shot firearms.  As for rate of fire, the Long Rifle and Charleville were recorded as having a maximum output of two rounds per minute, but the Brown Bess’ shorter barrel and rustic design allowed it to unload three rounds a minute in the hands of a trained user.  Altogether, the primary weapons of the Continental Army score fifteen (15) of forty (40) possible points.  While absolutely deadly in their heyday, these archaic firearms do more good as museum pieces or fireplace displays than killing tools in today’s age of warfare.

This video demonstrates the quick-shooting ability of the Brown Bess - the user reputedly loosed three shots in merely forty-six seconds.  While most marksmen at the time would not have been able to match that pace, this is still a great representation of the loading and reloading process and quick-firing ability of the musket.  The video was not uploaded by me, and is used without permission from youtube.com/.

~Secondary Weapons; Six-Pound Bronze Cannons.  Artillery was an integral piece to warfare in the Age of Revolutions – there were many recorded instances of infantry giving the field to the enemy rather than trying to fight enemy combined-arms units without having artillery of their own to back them up.  The massive field guns used by the early Americans in the Revolutionary War were usually (relatively!) lightweight, maneuverable bronze models that used six-pound solid rounds to hammer away at targets with surprising accuracy.  Field artillery operated in batteries of six to fifteen individual cannons, their crews, and the teamsters and draft horses used to transport and maintain them.  Thanks to low numbers of trained, educated artillerymen and even lower numbers of actual cannons, I’m going to assume that the average battery consisted of six guns working together to assault enemy positions – six being considered the bare minimum for European armies at the time.  Essentially titanic rifles, they operated on a very upsized scale compared to their handheld cousins, firing at an average of one round every two minutes, launching projectiles hundreds of feet away at thousands of feet per second – through only slightly ridiculously complex equations on my part, I’ve deduced a possible number of solid shot having a maximum range of 1,520 yards (with an effective range of 1,140 yards) and moving at 1,925 feet per second, therefore having projectiles moving from the cannon to their target at a rate of 1.776 seconds – impossibly fast for a human to even acknowledge the movement of the missile, much less hope to dodge it.  That said, cannons did use different types of ammunition – one popular choice at the time was grapeshot.  Made by tying many small steel balls into a sack, resembling either a pineapple (if you were British at the time) or a bundle of grapes (if you were not), the forerunner to canister shot garnered a quick reputation as a butcher on the battlefield.  Rather than firing one solid missile, it loosed dozens of smaller ones with which to shred targets in its direct radius – and even completely vaporize those nearest it.  Due to the wider spread of kinetic energy output, in my calculations I’ve placed the grapeshot as having an effective range of 40% of the maximum (608 yards, or 1,824 feet).  An interesting footnote to history is that the Continental Army lacked the materials for making proper European-style grapeshot, so they had to improvise by taking broken chains, fishing hooks, scraps of metal from smithies, and whatever else was at hand in order to still retain the tactical advantage of using multiple ammunition types.  Other, far less common ammunition types were heated shot, “angels” which were two halves of a cannonball fixed together by a metal bar to trip up enemy infantry and cavalry, and chained shot used to tear shipping masts and building support beams apart.  All told, the six-pounders of the Continental Army get fourteen (14) of twenty (20) possible points here, thanks to having a great effective range and their ability to work in concerted batteries.
The Americans started the war with a dangerously low number of cannons - they were not able to actively challenge the British in open combat for any real length of time.  However, that all changed in 1775 when American forces led by General Benedict Arnold captured the fort and everything inside of it under cover of darkness.  The Americans followed this up by General Henry Knox leading a task force 300 miles in the winter to take fifty-nine cannons to reinforce General George Washington's Siege of Boston, forcing the British to surrender the city without a fight.  This image is used without permission from http://www.awesomestories.com/.


~Tertiary Weapons; Single-Shot Flintlock Pistols.  There were few trained gunsmiths in Colonial North America, so most civilian or officer’s sidearms were imported from the Old World – typically Britain or Germany.  The British army at this time employed a specific type of unit known as the dragoon; mounted infantry using pistols and sabers rather than rifles to ride to the battlefield, dismount and fight, or pursue fleeing enemies.  However, the Continental Army did not possess the numbers of pistols or trained men necessary to field units of dragoons of their own, so they made do with irregulars using their own horses to skirmish with the British forces.  Pistols were relegated to use as an officer’s weapon, possessing neither the range nor accuracy of a rifle, but instead providing an easy way to spot officers in the heat of combat, often being used singly or in pairs along with a sword.  Pistols at this time were only effective between ten and twenty yards, but were more than capable of killing men at those ranges.   Once a pistol’s shot was expended, it was a difficult and laborious process to reload it in battle, so soldiers typically carried multiple preloaded pistols so as to continue firing without having to reload.  The small guns at this time often featured a brass or bronze cap fixed onto the butt of the handle so that when it could be used as an effective club with which to bludgeon opponents.  Overall, the rather mediocre flintlock pistols get only half (5) of the total (10) possible points in this category.

Melee Weapons; Colichemarde Sword, Cavalry Saber, Hatchets, Spontoons, Rifles and Pistols.  There was a great variety in the melee weapons used by the Continental Army and the men that made it up – officers fought with swords and spontoons (large-bladed descendants of the old European hunting spears) while enlisted men used the bayonets and weighted rests of their rifles and pistols to bludgeon and pierce enemies.  Irregular units fought Native American-style with farmyard hatchets, with many men capable of throwing them accurately at distances up to ten yards away.  For swords, there were two main types – the infantry dueling sword and the cavalry saber.  The infantry sword was a cousin of the German gentleman’s weapon, known as the colichemarde.  It was wildly popular amongst wealthy men in the New World, with George Washington himself accepting one as a gift and wearing it often in public, though actual records of his using it in battle are slim to none.  The other sword was the cavalry saber – descended from the Middle-Eastern shamshir, it featured a long cutting edge and curved form that made for a fast and deadly weapon.  In contrast the colichemarde was an evolution of the old bastard sword, featured a straight blade that was thick at the base and rapidly thinned to make a needle-like point for quick thrusts and surprising parries.  The cavalry saber was considered more of an officer’s weapon, worn often by infantry leaders to reflect their status and give them something of an exotic flair, while the colichemarde was seen as something used by wealthy noblemen with long family histories in the Old World – which was more than a little true of them.  The spontoon, or partisan, was a weapon popular in both the Old and New World for the reach it afforded the devastating cutting, thrusting and sheer crushing power of its wide blade.  American spontoons were ordered to be used by all sergeants and any corporals that could afford them as status symbols, but they were still popular for actual use in battle.  These unique polearms were actually regulated to be six feet, nine inches in length, and some have survived to this day to be found in estate sales and museums across the Northeast.  All told, the melee weapons of the Continental Army get seven (7) of ten (10) possible points in this category, with the lack of regulation and formal training holding it back from a higher score, but the versatility and sheer variety in weapons present bringing it above average.
Though General Washington did respect the advantages of using irregular state militia as scouts and skirmishers, he believed that the American Revolutionary could only be won by use of a European-style, well-trained, -drilled and -armed standing army.  Unfortunately for him, most of his forces were woefully under-equipped and did not live up to their leader's hopes and expectations; though some individual units did make him proud in their use of regular uniforms and drilling.  In the end it was a composite force of both light irregulars and formal soldiers that won success for the Americans.  This image is used without permission from http://www.jezblog.com/.
-Variables Assessment


~Training.  To be frank, training for the men that made up the Continental Army was irregular at best and nonexistent at worst.  The quality of soldiers varied greatly from unit to unit, with companies from neighboring towns, not to mention states and regions, having vast gaps in how efficient and well-supplied they were.  Many of the Continental Army’s officers, such as General Washington himself, were British-trained veterans of the Seven Years War’ (also known as the French and Indian War) with years of combat experience behind them, but they were few and far between, resulting in a huge gap of actual knowledge of how to operate in the armed forces among the enlisted men that made up the army.  As a result of this, discipline was lax on the soldiers, resulting in much unnecessary raiding of the countryside, lack of proper sanitation in camp (and subsequent sicknesses) and poor performance in battle.  This all changed in 1778 at Valley Forge, when the Prussian military officer Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben arrived under the blessing of Benjamin Franklin, serving as the American ambassador to Paris at the time.  Von Steuben claimed to be a great officer and general in the Prussian army, but was actually only a former member of the general staff – yet he had an incredible knack for leading and training soldiers.  He instituted many new training techniques and camp regulations to the fledgling Continental Army, ranging from coordinated, Prussian-style bayonet charges to the placements of kitchens and latrines.  Within months the Army was back on its feet, low on sickness and better organized that ever imagined, even by General Washington himself.  However, the varied levels of training and equipping still plagued the army until its demobilization after hostilities ended, and that costs it a score of four (4) of five (5) possible points here.

~Strategy and Tactics.  General Washington realized that he could not successfully challenge the British in the open field, so he fought around that obstacle – he made an irregular war with his state militia units, sabotaging British supply lines and constantly skirmishing with garrison forces, while maneuvering his regular soldiers into ideal, fortified positions such as at Boston and Yorktown.  He avoided overstretching his army in the field whenever possible, as without local support his armies could fall apart at the seams from starvation and lack of pay.  When drawn up in order of battle, though, the Continental Army under General Washington fought in a very European style – something of a set-piece affair, formal units of men using bayoneted muskets and trained by von Steuben fired regular volleys and formed a foundation for the rest of the army to build upon.  Skirmishing state militiamen using long rifles operated independently of the regular soldiers, wrecking havoc on the flanks and rear of the enemy while also performing valuable reconnaissance missions, then fading back into the trees to avoid direct confrontation with the better-equipped British soldiers.  What artillery batteries General Washington had took up positions behind the center of musket-men, pounding away at their counterparts behind the enemy lines and firing devastating scattershot at the massed infantry.  General Washington preferred to attack his enemies where they least expected it, such as the infamous Christmas-time raid on Trenton, and seldom gave the British the advantage of an open battle.  However, he was not a very imaginative commander, and was often tactically inferior to his counterparts among the British in the early years of the War before he truly came into his own.  Washington gets four (4) of five (5) possible points here, as it was ultimately his great willpower and compassion for the cause that led him first to survival in the face of defeat, then victory, and finally the only uncontested Presidency in American history.

In this late Nineteenth Century picture, General Washington is shown observing the troops with his staff of officers - among them are both von Steuben and the Marquis de Lafayette; without the former the American military may never have become a formidable, healthy fighting-force, and without the latter the aid of the French military may not have even become involved in the conflict.  This image is used without permission from http://prints.encore-editions.com/.

~Morale.  For much of the time that the Continental Army was mobilized there was a serious problem with morale among the soldiers – pay and rations were often late and little in coming, camps poorly set and overcrowded with men and animals, and battles gruesome and terrifying.  Desertion was startlingly common among men in the lower ranks, with some state militiamen even refusing to leave the boundaries of their home states to fight in other regions.  However, the large core of diehards devoted to the cause for independence from Great Britain remained and fought on from battle to battle, and truly had their mettle tested at the 1778 winter at Valley Forge.  A constant, chilling frost maimed and killed men and animals, making the survivors miserable while the stark environment offered no riposte from it.  Supplies and morale were at an all-time low; General Washington took to taking daily walks among the men to reassure them and give them an image to look up to, even after he too fell ill from the rough New England weather.  This changed when two foreign military officers arrived; the Prussian Baron von Steuben and the French Marquis de Lafayette.  The two men worked tirelessly in restoring morale and fighting-spirit to the embattled Americans, assuring them that foreign aid would be coming if they could only hold on a while longer.  Lafayette was commissioned as a Major-General by the Continental Congress, but was not given a command due to being born a foreigner.  Instead he attached himself to General Washington and served as his aide-de-camp, seldom leaving his presence except on express orders to serve other tasks.  Major-General Lafayette’s first battle was at Brandywine on 11 September 1777, where his forces were driven back with loss by the superior British and Hessian soldiers.  He himself took a bullet-wound to the leg, but rallied the men and formed a fighting retreat before collapsing and being treated for his wound.  After the fact, General Washington cited his bravery in the face of danger and was able to broker his command.  Lafayette later participated in scouting missions in New Jersey, once routing a numerically superior force of Hessian mercenaries with less than three hundred men.  By the time of the Battle of Yorktown Lafayette and the other officers, foreign and domestic, had managed to win France’s full military support of American independence, and arrived back to the New World at the head of a massive French fleet of warships, bottling the British and forcing the British commander, General Cornwallis, to surrender to the Continental Army.  Given the uneven state of morale for the Continental Army, ranging from the lowest depths to the highest heights of human emotion, I’m going to award them an average score of three (3) of five (5) points here. 

~Protection.  True body armor was difficult to maintain at this time, and not very effective against the weapons of war used at the time – high-caliber ammunition was the order of the day, whether used by muskets, rifles, pistols, or cannons, and so most men saw any type of armor as an encumbrance more likely to slow and tire them than protect their bodies from harm that would likely find them anyway.  That said, General Washington was wise enough to understand the importance of protection for his soldiers; at years-long Siege of Boston, he had mammoth earthworks built up around the city for his men to take cover in, towering over the buildings of the city.  Smaller fortifications were used throughout the Revolutionary War, such as at New York and Bunker Hill.  When those were not available, General Washington still preferred to fight from good positions in the environment – using rivers and rough terrain to protection his flanks and rear from enemy dragoons or Loyalist or Native American skirmishers, tall grasses to conceal his true numbers and ambush the enemy, and wooded hill country from which to mount lightning-fast raids and surprise attacks on the unsuspecting enemy.  However, that use of the environment would mean very little if drawn up to battle in open ground, without trees or foothills to protect his soldiers, and the lack of any true body armor is troubling.  All told, the protective variables that General Washington and his army would bring to a fight only get two (2) of five (5) possible points; at least they made an effort.

 General George Washington, later President Washington, was remembered as a man of honor and integrity; as well as ambition, possessing a personal charisma with which he helped to create and preserve a nation.  His name is held in great honor to this day, and many modern historians, military officers and politicians look to him as an ideal to aspire towards.  When news of Washington's death reached Paris, Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte ordered ten days of mourning for, "the loss of so great a man".  This image is used without permission from http://flcenterlitarts.files.wordpress.com/.

12 comments:

  1. Well, this should be interesting. Go Napoleon!

    Also, I have a question: what kind of ancient warrior could possibly get close to a perfect 100 out of 100? Or come close? I thought the Roman Legion would get an excellent grade, but they only got 80 out of 100. The only possibilities I can think of are the Mamelukes, Mongols, or one of the imperial Chinese or Indian armies. On that note, what firearms using warrior could get 100 out of 100?

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's a pretty tough score- it may not take much for Napoleon to equal this, but I don't know what types of guns his armies used on the battlefield besides those shown on the program. Also, will you be comparing bayonets and swords somehow or will you just assess the sides as equal in that area or measure discipline?

    Also, I'm just curious but have you ever played the mod The Battle Grounds II? Awesome game....

    And one final note, I can sympathize with your match being very long. My own one, Sora vs. Toon Link, has been in the works for almost two months now!

    Great so far, I'm looking forward to more. BTW, are you going to be making predictions on the podcast?

    ReplyDelete
  3. For your book, will this ranking system be used for all your post gunpowder warriors, because guys like Vlad the Impaler or Henry Morgan incorporate gunpowder with medieval age weaponry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @SL; Thanks! As for who could reach perfection, in my old system where everything was worth 10 points I think that the Roman Legion would have gotten close to 100, but in the new one it would have to be a warrior-culture with great mobility, flexible ranged weapons and strong but strong but non-restricting armor. With all of that in mind, I think that the Mongols fit the bill nicely. And concerning the modern warriors, it would have to be a modern culture, probably one of the world's elite special forces units - the American Delta Force, Canadian JTF-2, British SAS, or Chinese Snow Leopard unit all come to mind.

    @V712; Yeah, I agree. I'll also be comparing the many melee weapons used by both opponents. I haven't played that game, but it sounds neat. And it'll be a while before I can get more of this match up...

    @MM; I'm not sure yet, it'll probably depend on the number of firearms used by the warriors involved in the match. I do know that Vlad will use the pre-modern scale, though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hm, cannons. I'm thinking next are the tertiary/melee weapons, and then a bunch of x-factors. This does raise some questions for me, though.

    Does Napoleon get a higher score for his cannons because he was a master of artillery? Or is that an x-factor? What would the JTF-2 have as a secondary weapon, since I don't think they use artillery? How would you compare modern secondary weapons systems (Sniper rifles, shotguns, grenades, portable anti-armour weapons) to older gunpowder ones? (Cannons, Gatling guns/heavy machine guns)

    Also, I just realized that Audie Murphy VS. Léo Major would be pretty neat for the current iteration of the Deadliest Warrior show to try. Even with the possibility of a giant internet storm forming in the event that Audie loses to a French-Canadian (Second most visited grave in America after Kennedy, who would have thought?)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I haven't done the evaluation for Napoleon yet, but I can say with some certainty that he'll score higher there than George did.

    As for the weapons classifications, I'm going based on how popular the weapon was with the warrior rather than the range they were used at.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey man this looks great so far! I admire the time that you put into this, as well as your innovative new format for modern. Did the Colonials use any grenades that could be factored in? Also what about Bayonets?


    As for assuaging your "inner nerd", what types of games/movies you into?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I meant to talk more about bayonets, I mentioned them in the Melee Weapons category and in the section concerning von Steuben (one of my favorite Colonial figures, along with Lafayette - could you tell? :P) but I felt that I was getting too long-winded as it is to go even further about them. But yeah, bayonets were not thought highly of before von Steuben came along; the ones that were available were typically used like long knives in combat or at camp, often serving as meat spits and fire-pokers. Once von Steuben reorganized the Continental Army he instructed the soldiers in the usage of coordinated bayonet charges, making them much more effective fighters and actually winning several battles due to the British not being prepared to have their own tactics thrown into their faces.

    As for grenades, I've got no clue but I don't think that they were common. They really didn't come into their own until Napoleon instituted his Grenadiers years later (that's some hefty foreshadowing right there, y'all). So I don't think that grenades of any kind will be factored into the Colonial arsenal, unless you count the six-pound explosive shells used by the cannons :P

    And concerning my inner nerd - you can get a pretty good idea of where I stand by checking out my "Currently Viewing, Reading, and Listening" tidbits on the side of the page. I'm a huge (but mostly retired, I need to study real history if I want a job some day!) Tolkien fan, general science fiction geek (of Star Wars, Firefly, and all others. In that order.), and really dig bands like Daft Punk, The Black Keys and The Strokes. I follow webcomics like Dead Winter, all of Blind Ferret Productions' (Least I Could Do, Gutters, and Looking For Group) efforts, and Cyanide & Happiness. I don't watch much television beyond American Dad, Everybody Loves Raymond, and Triple D (Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives!). That's all ignoring anything remotely history-based, by the way. I'm just now getting into things like "A Song of Ice and Fire" (HBO's "Game of Thrones" is AWESOME!!) and the classic '80s action movies like the Predator/Alien franchises, Star Trek and all things Joss Whedon/J. J. Abrams, except for LOST.

    I guess you could say that I'm something of a more evolved hipster.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm surprised that Napoleon considered Washington a great man, considering that the former crowned himself Emperor and started to conquer places while the latter truly put his country rather than himself first.

    It won't be a surprise when Napoleon wins this, but I'll applaud Washington for a good effort anyway. Also, I'm starting to wonder if Napoleon's weapos will be different to the point where he actually can beat himon weapons alone or whether it will be due to superior tactics- besides Washington's irregulars, I don't see that much of a difference between their arsenals (muskets, pistols, swords.)

    Also, please give Napoleon's cavalry a detailed write-up- as the successors to knights, cuirassiers have always been some of my favorite warriors.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah, I guess that that speaks to the general wackiness that constituted Napoleon's personality.

    I agree; as much as I want the home team to win this match, from what I'm seeing the Grand Armee has it in the bag. But I haven't started grading yet, so we'll see! And don't underestimate those long rifles...

    As in reality, Napoleon's cavalry (all of the different types - hussars, chasseurs, and cuirassiers) will play a big role in how this battle is fought.

    One more thing; I'm really looking forward to writing the actual battle sequence for this. I've got some great dialogue in mind for both leads, as well as their supporting casts. I think that it'll be a very fun read.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, and Mike, I have a very special announcement on my blog that I'd like you to see. I know you aren't crazy about fictional matchups, but I actually try to use my writing skills this time. Tell me what you think!

    ReplyDelete