1798 rebellion - muskets v, pikes

kildarejohn

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?

galwaycyclist

kildarejohn wrote: »

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?

OK at the time standard military tactics would not have been for all to fire at once.

This is why we still march in columns of three. So a column would form into a line formation consisting of three ranks of musketmen facing the enemy.

The ranks could fire in rotation or all together. If rotating then while one rank is firing the others are ready or reloading. So if they all fired together they could be vulnerable for a minute or more. But dividing the work means there always a third of the force about 20 secs away from being able to shoot.

folbotcar

For once I can claim practical experience because I was a member of the Irish Militia, a redcoat indeed. No I'm not really, really old or a reincarnation of an old soldier or even a bit mad, well Ok maybe a bit mad. But in reality I took part in filming the TV series 'The Year of the French' along with many others in my FCA unit way back in the early eighties. We were all fully trained in the use of muskets and arms drill from the period. We even got to fire off a few shots. Please no jokes about the FCA still using muskets back then. :P No we had reached the WW2 period by then.

But to answer your question. By 1798 the pike was long since obsolete as a battlefield weapon. It was a very useful defence against cavalry and was usually used in conjunction with musketeers firing early muskets which were short ranged and took a long time to reload. They would shoot at the enemy but once the cavalry appeared they would hide behind the wall of pikes.

But once the flintlock musket appeared with it's longer range and it's higher firing rate the pikemen became sitting ducks.

But as you say why didn't the pikemen simply charge the redcoats when they were reloading. The simple answer is that in 1798 most of the pikemen were untrained peasants. It was basically beyond them. In any case the pike even in the hands of trained and disciplined soldiers was largely a defensive weapon.

Add that to the fact that the Irish Militia for all their faults were fully trained soldiers equipped with what were state of the art weapons.

The simple reality is that the first salvo from the infantry would have decimated the front ranks of the pikemen. It would probably be difficult to get the survivors to even stand their ground let alone charge. Even if they did charge they would be hit by a second or even third salvo before they closed with the redcoats. Even veteran soldiers faltered under that sort of treatment.

I seem to remember there were indeed several charges at Vinegar Hill but they failed to break the British ranks probably for the reason above.

That's even ignoring the effects of artillery.

I know the pike has become an iconic feature of the rebellion but I wonder if it was that important during the battles anyway. Useful for 'piking' the odd protestant or loyalist. But not a really practical battlefield weapon against trained soldiers equipped with modern muskets.

I must dig out one of the books I have on the subject.

twinytwo

kildarejohn wrote: »

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?

There is a reason why the Brits controlled a quarter of the planet at one stage.

The redcoats were a force to be reckoned with, they were the only standing at the time that practiced with real ammo, they could fire 4 rounds a minute when the French for example could fire 3.

Sure they had lost the 13 American colonies in the 1770's/1780's mainly due to fighting in Europe. Had they been able to bring their full fighting force to bare on the Americas the ending would have been very different.

Even if all the men in column/square fired at once, they would have had bayonets attached. These columns/squares withstood Calvary charges... Pikemen would not have been an issue.

SwiftJustice

twinytwo wrote: »

There is a reason why the Brits controlled a quarter of the planet at one stage.

The redcoats were a force to be reckoned with, they were the only standing at the time that practiced with real ammo, they could fire 4 rounds a minute when the French for example could fire 3.

Sure they had lost the 13 American colonies in the 1770's/1780's mainly due to fighting in Europe. Had they been able to bring their full fighting force to bare on the Americas the ending would have been very different.

Even if all the men in column/square fired at once, they would have had bayonets attached. These columns/squares withstood Calvary charges... Pikemen would not have been an issue.

The 1798 was right in the middle of the Flight of the Wild Geese period of Irish Mercenary History. The Irish had vast experience in fighting.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Oulart Hill- Irish pikes defeated Brit/loyalist muskets. Could be done.

byhookorbycrook

This thread reminds me of "Requiem for the Croppies" by Seamus Heaney:


"Until... on Vinegar Hill... the final conclave.
Terraced thousands died, shaking scythes at cannon."

http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/poets/seamus_heaney/poems/12705

neilled

SwiftJustice wrote: »

The 1798 was right in the middle of the Flight of the Wild Geese period of Irish Mercenary History. The Irish had vast experience in fighting.

Yes, they had vast experience once they were trained and fought abroad. Leaving home they were civilians.

Lockstep

The pike was very useful for defending musketmen from cavalrymen, given the speed of cavalry and how slowly matchlock muskets were to reload but this all changed with the bayonet.

Once the bayonet was widespread (especially the socket bayonet which would reliably stay on the musket) the pike was obsolete as the bayonet could be used to ward off cavalry while maximising firepower. This was especially the case in the 1798 rebellion where the British would have had the Brown Bess musket which was inaccurate individually but devastating in volley fire.

Pikemen facing musketmen would have to charge at them to utilise their pikes and the pike is not a great weapon for charging with. By the time they got in close, they'd have lost a lot of men to musket fire and would be using long, unwieldy weapons.

galwaycyclist

twinytwo wrote: »

There is a reason why the Brits controlled a quarter of the planet at one stage.

The redcoats were a force to be reckoned with, they were the only standing at the time that practiced with real ammo, they could fire 4 rounds a minute when the French for example could fire 3.

What this meant in practise was that the British infantry could reduce their lines from 3 ranks to 2. So that they were bringing more weapons to bear per volley while also making themselves a less concentrated target.

There is still a drill movement for that as well. Forming two lines from three.

65535

Hi,
In Africa the Redcoats were still using those tactics albeit 100 years later.
You can see it in action in the film Zulu.
In the middle of the film they use 2 ranks but towards the end when their position was being overrun they use 3 ranks very effectively against the Zulu natives which were only using 'short spears'
It is quoted on Wikipedia as "Volley fire (infantry tactic)"

Markcheese

Jordyn Rich Hearse wrote: »

Oulart Hill- Irish pikes defeated Brit/loyalist muskets. Could be done.

Could be - but wasn't generally done ...
A pike is a long handled defensive weapon (mainly ) . The Irish were pretty much farm workers ,untrained,not longterm moulded into a group.. they weren't worried about the survival of their unit they were fearful of ending up like the guy In front of them - dead-or down wounded -