WARFARE IN THE 18TH

CENTURY
 Warfare in the 18th century saw many notable developments in strategy, tactics, and

weaponry that managed to produce something unlike any previous kind of warfare

previously seen. The development of a change in superpowers was also heavily affected by

this, along with the resulting changes in global politics. Not to mention the climax in terms

of the consequences the Napoleonic wars had, with generals and strategists such as thinking

of new ideas regarding how to wage war. Of course, to get to that point, we must first

understand how the wars of the 18th century were fought in regards to the weapons, types of

soldiers, go over the origin of the way politics in the century were thought about in regards

to nations, and very briefly go over the results of the four most major wars of the 18th

century and how their results were reflective of the age they came from.

To begin with the developments which were made, we must first start with a brief

history about firearms, or to be more specific the adoption of firearms by most nations just

before the 18th century. The 17th century was the first time that firearms had been widely

used in European warfare, after their first initial use in the 16th century, but their use was

heavily limited. By the mid-17th century though, the use of firearms had come to

completely dominate the weaponry of most European powers, with conflict such as the

English Civil war having most infantry use muskets as the primary weapons. Not to

mention the 17th century also saw firearms develop further. Previous firearms were

designed in such a way that to activate the gunpowder required a fuse separate from the gun

to start the chain reaction which allowed for the lead balls to travel through the air. The

Arquebus being the prominent example of this design. By the 17th century firearms had

developed into having matchlock mechanisms, which merely allowed for a single lit rope to

1
be attached to a side, and a trigger to allow it to be in the gunpowder. This in turn also lead

to the development of the trigger. However, what was the most prominent design of the 18th

century wasn’t the matchlock, but the flintlock. Unlike the matchlock, flint locks relied on

the friction created by the flint against the frizzen, which would then allow the chain

reaction which set the gunpowder off, whereas matchlocks required the rope to be lit every

time a shot had to be fired. While it was used in the 17th century along with the matchlock,

the benefits of the flintlock soon led to most matchlock rifle designs being abandoned in

favor of the flintlock by the 1690s. This in turn is what led to the flintlock becoming the

defining rifle of the 18th century and allowed it to maintain widespread use until the

invention of breech loading rifles in the 19th century.

However, with the widespread adoption of gunpowder rifles, and matchlock and

flintlock mechanisms simplifying the process of loading and firing a gun, new types of

soldiers had to be created to acknowledge this ever-growing change. Especially with the

decline of plate armor in the 17th century, where most weapons could easily pierce it. The

most common type of soldier in the 18th century was the standard line infantryman. Line

infantry followed operating in line formations, which formed most tactics for early modern

warfare in general and operated in such large groups so that the volley of musket fire would

supersede the inaccuracies of pre-rifling firearms. The exact tactics of line infantry will be

elaborated on in the general tactics of the 18th century. Grenadiers were another type of

infantry unit in the 18th century, and notably their roles had changed over the course of the

century. In the beginning of the 18th century, like their name implies, they were soldiers

whose primary job was to throw grenades, but by the time of the Napoleonic wars, their

2
role had shifted into acting as “strongmen” who would lead the charge for other troops, and

became mostly equipped with muskets. Other types of infantry included light infantry, who

were musket men that focused on carrying lighter muskets, and having less rigid lines, and

Skirmishers, who were riflemen that focused on accuracy, and typically acted as the

vanguard for a regiment during a battle, and typically only served to harass the enemy

instead of inflicting major damage. Infantry only made up a small part of the armed forces

for most militaries in the 18th century, and cavalry was still a major force in many armies

Calvary still played an important role in the formation of armies in the early modern

period, and they varied widely in terms of their weapon, and intended goals in terms of

battle. The first major kind of cavalry was cuirassiers, or to be simply put, were the most

common type of cavalry in the 18th century, and typically wielded either swords, or some

type of firearm. Typically, they were mostly used to break line formations via charges, and

to act as ambushers. While they could also be called just “heavy cavalry”, the name

cuirassier comes from how they originally wore curias, a type of plate armor that was

associated with mounted troops since the beginning of the 15th century, which many had

still worn at the beginning of the century. Or at least until the 1750s or so. Another notable

type of cavalry was the dragoons, where while they rode on horseback, for the purposes of

fighting they dismounted and then used their rifle or sword to fight. Of course, dragoon is

merely the French name for the type of soldier, and they could also interchangeably be

called mounted infantry, which also demonstrates the principals of dismounting to fight.

The final major type of cavalry, light cavalry, was less common in the western European

armies of Britain or France, but nonetheless still made a major impact in the Germanic and

3
Slavic armies of central and eastern Europe. Typically, they had mostly served as

reconnaissance, but they also performed duties that required speed over anything else.

Cossacks and Hussars are the most famous examples of this type. Now that the types of

troops have been described, the exact format of how they fought can go into greater detail.

As previously stated, infantry was expected to operate in line formations for most

battles in the 18th century. Before the battles, generals and other lower rank commanders

would usually make plans before the engagement and anticipate having at least three lines

of which to command. These being a first line, or frontline, the second line, and the reserve.

These lines would consist of multiple regiments. Typically, multiple regiments would be

involved depending on the battle, and they usually consisted of around 800 men each. The

next step commanders would take is to act on the initial plans that they had laid out, and for

their men to march until engagement. Once they had reached the enemy, and once both

sides had seen each other, the first initial fire would commence. Once that had occurred, the

attacking side would have their infantry change from a column formation, to a line

formation to maximize their potential volley, and since column formations had only existed

to minimize the wide space that the troops would occupy via marching. Along with

minimizing any oncoming fire once they could have encountered as they were marching.

Once they had switched to line formation, they would typically find the defending army to

be used a nearby village if the attackers were specifically marching towards it, or the

defenders would hold the line at their own camps if they were on an open field, or marching

towards the attackers as well. Usually houses would work as suitable cover, but churches

also acted as the right kind of cover not for the building itself, but for the cemetery walls.

4
Along with those preparations, the heavy artillery would be getting ready for firing on the

nearest hillsides. After those various preparations were done, the battle would truly start.

Usually when the fire of the musket balls would happen, it occurred at usually anywhere

from 30-200 paces (or 22-152 meters). Along with that, where the soldiers aimed was

dependent on how far away, they were to compensate for the recoil. To give an example, if

they were to shoot from as far away as 450 paces, they would aim for the hat, but if they

were 150 paces away, they would aim for the knees. Along with that in mind, usually only

one in 260 shots would hit a target, which is what necessitated line firing to begin with. On

top of this, both sides would have to contend on if a cavalry charge would occur, in which

case they would be reliant on getting most of their shots to land between 30-50 paces before

relying on their bayonets for combat. Otherwise the charge would overwhelm them, and

they would have no time to reload, as they would be fighting against 130-160 men beating

down on them with their swords and the force of their horses charging. Of course, if cavalry

had intercepted one another, it would turn to sword fights mostly as most cavalry would

blind one another if they had fired. Even then though, cavalry on cavalry fights were

exceedingly rare in the 18th century.

Finally, Artillery served an important function in battles for both sides no matter if

it was purely a defensive army vs an attacking army, or two armies meeting on a field as

previously stated. While they were not as important in the minds of strategists before the

1740’s they proved themselves to be extreme valuable after the seven year’s war. With

examples such as battle of Torgau, or the battle of Liegnitz (1760) where they had

decimated the opposing armies. They were typically brought to the battlefield via horses

5
and had the artillery men prepare the weaponry as soon after they had taken the shackles off

the horse used to transport it. These weapons would typically be anyway from Howitzers,

to standard variety of cannons depending on the conditions of the location. As previously

stated, they would typically use nearby hills to act as the place to put the cannons, and as

the battle ranged on they would typically choose between two types of shots, round shot,

which was typically used for long range targets, or cannister for short range shots. After

choosing the ammo type, the artillery would then fire around 3 shots before they had found

the angle which they had to fire at, and then bombard the opposing enemy until the battle

was won.

Now that each type of armed force has been given details regarding how they

operated, we can go into details about what had happened after a battle was nearing its end.

Typical considerations usually came down to three main reasons. 1. Surprises taken during

battle. 2. The number of troops still alive or unwounded, and 3. The state of the terrain the

army was on. Morale was also a significant factor, as if they had lost their bravery, it

would not be uncommon for them to desert as they had in battles such as Paltzig (1759).

Moreover, causalities in the 18th century were typically worse than they were in comparison

to 20th century warfare, where it would be considered almost lucky to get causalities at less

than a 25% mortality rate. Not to mention that the stress buildup would cause some soldiers

to accidentally wound their own, and the sight of the wounded would cause more stress

than merely seeing a corpse in most cases. However, when the final decision on whether to

retreat had happened, it was either a formal withdrawal, or a spontaneous desertion by both

officer and regular soldiers. Either way, once the opposing army had retreated, the

6
victorious army would spend the evening rounding up the dead, and the commanding

officer would let the head of state know about the victory which had occurred. The losing

army on the other hand would have the commander trying to preserve morale and rerouting

themselves. Whether they were defender or attacker. Along that, both sides of the conflict

would interrogate, or attempt to exchange prisoners of war once the battle was ended, along

with the wages being given out for the men’s service. Thus, a typical battle of the 18th

century ended.

While we have talked in detail about the circumstances of battle so far, but we have

not gone into much detail about nations themselves, or about the circumstances that had led

to nations adopting the ideas used in the development of the nation-state. To give the idea

of the nation-state a possible origin, we would be most inclined to name The Peace of

Westphalia as a possible origin point. The reasoning for this was that both sides in the

negotiation process, the French and the Hapsburgs, wanted the treaty to be acted out in an

equal and just matter, and how dividing up territory for countries was unlike most results of

previous European conflicts. This in turn led to a soft form of international law, and

Westphaelian sovereignty, where a state’s territory would be recognized no matter the size.

While the true effects of this wouldn’t truly be felt until the 18th century where it was fully

realized, it had at least laid down the groundwork for the idea of nation-states, and

international politics for the next half century. What we could also say rose out of the

beginning’s of the nation state was also the formation of the modern idea of patriotism, as

not only was there a shift in the ideals men fought for, such as the many wars of religion in

the past centuries like the crusades or even the “recent” thirty years war, to fighting for the

7
state as an extension of the immediate community. The rise of the patriotism is also of note,

as it was what also led the switch of mercenaries being the primary bulk of a nation’s

armed forces and led to the growth of modern national professional armies.

However, regardless of the origin point of the ways of thought, the results of the

major wars showed just as much of an impact on how the politics and styles of warfare had

changed in the 18th century. The first major war of the 18th century was the war of the

Spanish succession, and it is notable for two things regarding the results of it. 1. It allowed

the British empire to show how strong it had become with how it’s victory and 2. The war

was the first major step of decline for the Spanish empire as it had declined to the point

where foreign nations were waging a war to decide the monarch for political control, and

how the Dutch republic eventually declined after the war as the largest maritime power. In

an essence, the war of the Spanish succession was about how the great powers at the time

would decline for the next century and was an important step in the growth of British

supremacy for the next 200 years. The second major war of the 18th century was the Seven

Years War, and it is notable as it was the first truly global war as there were conflicts in

north America, Europe, and even as far as India. Not only are the results notable for that

alone, but for how every great power at the time was involved, and most military tactics

regarding the warfare we have spoken of came from this war mostly. To make it brief, it

was important for being a global war, and the tactics which had arisen out of it, along with

the loss of France’s colonial possessions leading to British supremacy growing further. The

third war which was notable was the American revolution, but while we can already infer

how notable it is thanks to our modern political arrangements, we can also note it for how it

8
was the first instance of modern guerrilla warfare. Not to mention how the loss of the

colonies eventually led Britain to pursue India, albeit with the British East Company doing

most of the work. Finally, we come to the Napoleonic wars, which like the American

revolution is notable just for the impact but is most well-known for how Napoleon had

drastically changed military strategy, but also for how it had been primarily used as

Napoleon wanting to spread liberal ideals. This is the most important part, as it ended up

influencing warfare for the next 200 years as being a tool for specific goals, or to put it in

precise terms, politik, which was an idea thought about in the 18th century, given a proper

action. Not to mention the influence it had on Clausewitz when he wrote On War ,and how

it influenced future generals. In an essence, the wars of the 18th century resulted in the

decline of many great powers with “newer” ones taking charge such as Great Britain, and

the usage of war changing to allows events such as global wars, or wars based on the sense

of Politik.

In finality, warfare in the 18th century, and the early modern period in general was

unlike most wars before it. The growth of firearms led to warfare becoming primarily

ranged and required large amounts of men to form a proper army. The way it was fought

was unlike previous wars thanks to new weaponry, as they had to accommodate for this,

along with the adoption of professional armies. And finally, the rise of the modern nation-

state allowed for wars unlike any other that were fought beforehand, but also thanks to the

growth of global trade. In short, it had laid the groundworks for how wars are fought for the

two centuries after it.

9
10
 Citations

A brief note regarding the citations

For most of my project, I had used “The Military Experience in the age of reason as

my main source for most of my information, as it compiled as many primary sources as

possible into its writing, and concisely explained what I wanted to write about extremely

well. Other sources were used for information that it did not cover in depth, or had

information that a piece of information that I was searching for, but could not find an

appropriate citation for. On War was primarily used as an example of primary source of

military strategy, but otherwise wasn’t used as it went into more about Military theory

instead of using examples tactics which were used from what I had looked over.

Duffy, Christopher. The Military Experience in the Age of Reason. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group, 2016.

Blackmore, David John. Destructive and Formidable: British Infantry Firepower 1642 -
1765. Frontline Books, 2014.

Gibson, James N. A War without ... Rifles: the 1792 Militia Act and the War of 1812.
Archway Publishing, 2016.

Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1918.

Croxton, Derek. “The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty.” The
International History Review, vol. 21, no. 3, 1999, pp. 569–591.,
doi:10.1080/07075332.1999.9640869.

Hughes, Basil P. Firepower Weapons Effectiveness on the Battlefield, 1630 - 1850.

11
Black, Jeremy. European Warfare in a Global Context, 1660-1815. Routledge, 2007.

12