The rigid structure of the modern army, and a society which can sustain it, is born from the collapse of the old order.
Rococo
Time Frame – 1710 – 1789
Politics/Economics – The absolute monarchy is in decline. Parliaments and other forms of direct representation are either slowly and methodically, or violently and suddenly, becoming the true centers of power. The complexities of the market economy mean large numbers of middle-class managers are actually making direct decisions as to the flow of goods and services, requiring large numbers of middle-class administrators and legislators. This, and the increase in material wealth, allows the upper class to remove itself from the boring day-to-day management of politics, business, the military and even their own households. The leisure class is born.
It was also the age of enlightenment, where incredible advances in pure philosophy, in basic science, and in political theory are made all in the name of establishing an unprejudiced approach to knowledge. For example, whereas in the previous century science was a process of observing nature and then extrapolating theories based on those observations, now observation was merely the first step. Theories had to be tested and re-tested, proved to be viable under controlled conditions. In other words, the true scientific method was born. No idea, no matter how entrenched in society, was beyond being questioned and tested. A similar rigor was applied to all of the fields of knowledge, and quickly the concepts of democracy, of the rights of the individual, of pure human thought being able to unravel the mysteries of the universe were dusted off from Greek writings and made real. For many it was liberating, for others terrifying, for others revolutionary.
Fashion/Manners – This impulse of the upper class to separate themselves from common society had an effect on every affect. With many middle class managers achieving substantial wealth, it was almost as though the nobility had to prove that they were by their nature entitled to their vaunted position of not having to work. They did this by developing a lifestyle that they felt demonstrated their natural superiority. So their focus was on what they considered refinement, proof that they were by nature “well-bred” – and in doing so created a set of social rules nearly Byzantine in complexity. But in simplified terms it came down to two areas of concern: separateness of the body and elevated inclinations.
Separateness of the body is a difficult concept, although we still live with many of it’s ramifications to this day. The idea is that a noble born person was literally living an elevated existence. Not sacred, but definitely on a higher plane than that of the common people, who are naturally tied to the earth. This differentiation was thought to manifest physically. So while commoners might be comfortable living an animal existence, nobles by their very nature required their bodies to be kept separate from the profane world. The Princess and the Pea story is a direct example. Being of noble birth the princess is disturbed by any irregularity, any intrusion of the profane world.
That was the theory, unspoken but acted upon daily. The reality was that nobles had to work at every moment not to slip up and show any signs that they might not be as refined as their neighbors. Social occasions were filled with landmines of failure of etiquette, a thousand chances to make a mistake and act like a brute. And how the gossips would enjoy every misstep!
The marks of refinement included being embarrassed at crudity, of even denying that the body has any bodily functions at all. A refined person would want to keep his person from being touched by another, so by extension to be allowed to touch someone or even be granted close proximity was a great show of favor. Even the presenting and eating of food now required a variety of implements and procedures. In every field, one was expected to show a preference for the delicate rather than the robust, so much so that dining, traveling, viewing entertainments, all had to be performed without being sullied by the presence of commoners. Whereas prior nobles could live in an easy concourse with people of every walk of life, this generation felt that it was presumptuous of common folk to even speak out of their station. Servants were expected to not only tend to the needs of the nobility, but to isolate them from the real world and the messy parts and people of daily life. Gone were the days of travelers from all walks of life stopping at a tavern or eating a meal at an inn.
For the upper class, line, texture, and color moved to the feminine and ethereal with each passing decade. By the late 1780’s pastels, lace, frills, powdered wigs and delicate patterns are the standard for high-born men and women, breaking completely with the growing middle class. And this was a conscious decision, one to create a visible gulf between have and have-nots. The more that the middle class increased in size and ability to purchase fine goods, the more the upper class felt compelled to separate itself from all aspects of daily common life. This further compelled the leisure class to develop its own forms of social customs including proscribed table manners, having elaborate coffee and tea service while entertaining guests, and even developing a style of dance – the minuet – that required time to learn and would change every few months. Only those rich enough to afford private dancing lessons and had the requisite leisure time to practice the latest version could possibly hope to present themselves at any party. And the grand opera houses and symphony halls were built as much to keep the lower classes out as to keep the finest art in.
Gone was the vigorous strength of the prior century. Instead of presenting themselves as men of power, this next generation of nobility elevated frivolity to a raison d’état. The world existed in order to provide them with their desires, and they existed in order to provide elegance to the world. At every turn, the artificial and ephemeral is valued over the stolid and practical.
Instead of sitting in a chair as though it were a throne, now the body is allowed to lounge gracefully, as though the body were a carefully draped fabric theatrically placed to highlight the room. The arms may drape over the back of the chair, but at no time should there be a look of collapse. Instead, every pose is calculated to give the appearance of delicately floating when lounging, sitting, standing, walking, even leaning against a door frame. It is a time of contrived casualness. And since it was so important to demonstrate that this aristocratic demeanor was completely inborn and natural and free of care, no expense was spared in hiring instructors to carefully train one in performing every possible activity. In every moment of waking life one had to move and stand as though one were being watched by the world of your peers, even when alone, for one small slip in their company could shatter your social standing.
Although men were taught to move more gracefully and lightly than before, the feet were still turned out into a ballet third position, the chest expanded and chin held high, the back straight. Interestingly, walking was finally allowed to be heel-toe for upper class men. The arms were generally bent or occupied with some sort of prop, but never simply hanging down to the side. A certain asymmetry was always attempted, and the limbs showing graceful extension without resorting to unnatural rigidity. The bow was more relaxed, with the hat removed and swept only to waist level, the arm staying almost straight). At the same time, the right foot was extended forward and a gentle bend from the waist finished the move. Hats were removed indoors and stayed off.
It is somewhat ironic that the aristocracy, in order to fill their days now devoid of productive activity, indulged in so many activities that were oddly middle-class in nature. Playing cards, serving coffee, picnicking in a artificial “rustic” setting, and yet all still had to be performed with the same conformity to casual elegance and ultra-refined ritual.
On the positive side, the life of leisure also provided time for more productive pursuits. For those with the intellectual curiosity and mental acumen to allow it, many of the upper class seriously devoted themselves to art, literature, philosophy and science. These few were certainly not indicative of the majority of their class, but their efforts, whether working alone or in easy concourse with others across national boundaries or social barriers, in no small measure pushed advances in these fields and gave rise to the age of enlightenment.
Not to be forgotten is the tremendous growth of the middle class, both in numbers and in power. They were the ones actually running industries, operating the day-to-day functions of government. This new class and the wealth that they produced propelled cities to develop services to accommodate them. True shops, restaurants, pre-manufactured clothing and furniture become common. As usual, men’s fashions ape the changes in military fashion (smaller hats, tighter sleeves, more leg covering with heavier material). In keeping with their increasing isolation from the aristocracy, the true bourgeoisie likewise did not try to emulate upper class mannerisms. They walked the streets unarmed and without turning out their feet, allowed their arms to hang at their sides if they wished, and could sit comfortably against the back of a chair with both feet on the floor without feeling ill at ease.
Civilian Conflict – The slow transformation of the heavy rapier to the light smallsword was helped along by the rise of the bourgeoisie. With the aristocracy responding by transforming every aspect of their daily life into something refined, the sidearm was naturally changed as well. The brutal, brawling, street fighter’s tool that was the rapier was replaced with a weapon far more elegant and more suitable for a gentleman. Very little or no cutting, both thrusting and parrying with a single sword (indeed, in a single action), means that the smallsword requires intensive and expensive study, and so became exclusively the weapon of the leisure class. The hilt is reduced so that the look and movement of the sword in the scabbard while promenading allowed for a more graceful carriage than the athletic swagger of the cavalier period. It also meant that only the upper class would wear it.
For the only time in history, a weapon is designed not for function, but for fashion. The stiletto-thin smallsword cannot cut, cannot be used in battle, indeed was designed to be useless against any other type of weapon or when in the hands of someone not specifically trained in its use. The hand protection is nonfunctional, but instead made as light and elegant as possible, a badge of status. Worn from a shoulder sash and never hung from a waist belt, the scabbard moves independently of the clothing, requiring training from a dancing master to even walk the streets with grace. The very real fear of being laughed at for failure to handle the wearing of the sword with elegance led many to forego wearing the sword altogether. Use of a weapon in the left hand is considered gauche [pardon the pun] and slowly disappears. Once the waist belt goes, so must the dagger, so for the first time in European history, the dagger disappears as a normal part of a man’s daily wear. Only hidden daggers used by thieves or ruffians remain.
As such, dueling becomes the activity of only the nobility. Although no longer as widespread amoung the population as it had been in the early 17th century, it became alarmingly common for young nobles to duel over imagined offences. The duel was slightly more formalized than it had been with the rapier, but there is still no salute as we see in the movies. The role of the second was tightly codified. After the initial challenge was offered, it was the seconds who would make arrangements, and all further direct contact between the duelists would cease. Seconds would make sure that the terms of the duel (to the death, first blood, etc.) were adhered to, and would no longer take up a weapon themselves to continue the fight. As dueling was legally banned in most countries, it was also the second’s responsibility to maintain secrecy.
Just as in the previous century, monarchs wear a sword of war rather than a civilian sword for portraits and official functions. But now the symbol of military power is either the new military sabre or a broadsword so greatly reduced that it little more than an emblem rather than a weapon.
Warfare – In the early 1700’s a fundamental shift occurred that affected weaponry, warfare, fashion, economies, governments, art, society, and philosophy to such an extent that we are still struggling with the consequences. And it all began with less than half a pound of steel. It happened once before in Western history, when the tiny stirrup shook Europe to its foundation. This time it was the lowly bayonet.
No one knows when the first bayonet was invented. In all likelihood it started as perhaps a dagger or broken sword with which the handle was simply jammed into the barrel of a malfunctioning musket, converting it into at least a heavy but practical pike. It was often a life saver, for if faced by a soldier on horseback, a long pointed stick is of infinitely more value than a sword. By the late 1600’s, several companies of musketeers were actually issued plug bayonets for this purpose. [They were also used on rare occasion by the nobility when boar hunting, as the charging boar is still one of the most dangerous of game.]
On the battlefield, muskets can continue to fire so long as a line of pikemen is there to protect the musketeers from an enemy cavalry charge. Should that line be insufficient to the task, a musketeer could become part of that defense by sticking the bayonet in the barrel and pointing the weapon at the charging horses. But the plug bayonet obviously completely disables the musket. At some point someone came up with the idea of attaching the bayonet underneath the barrel, instead of in it. Now the musketeers can continue to load and fire while the same muskets also act as a protective barrier of bristling spear points. Give the pikemen bayoneted muskets and you’ve doubled the firepower and doubled the defense with the same number of soldiers.
So now soldiers were trained to hold a line with the bayoneted musket, against either a cavalry or an infantry “bayonet charge”. Fire as a unit, then hold the line as a unit. Additional training (still seen today) in using the bayoneted musket as a hand-to-hand weapon was more for morale than usefulness. Once the cavalry had breached the line, the inevitable outcome was the destruction of the musketeers.
But at almost the same time, the musket itself undergoes a change. Advancements in metallurgy led to thinner, lighter barrels, which no longer required thick gunstocks, so the weight of the musket decreased in time to only a third of that of the arquebus or the Spanish musket. Gone is the dangerous smoldering fuse of the matchlock, replaced by the much easier to operate flintlock. The gun itself had the same rough layout but instead of live embers from a burning fuse or “match”, the new guns used a hammer which held a piece of flint. On squeezing the trigger, the hammer dropped the flint forward, which hit a strike plate made of rough steel, causing a shower of sparks to land on the primer powder. Musketeers could now operate their weapons even in damp weather. The misfire rate among trained soldiers dropped down to about 20%, reloading only took 30 seconds or less, and most importantly, the soldiers could now fire while standing nearly shoulder to shoulder. The effective firing distance increased slightly, from 80 yards of the matchlock to between 150 to 200 yards for the flintlock, although the order to fire was usually given at the old preferred distance of 100 yards. Firing in unison, the effect of a wall of bullets each only two feet apart flying across a field was devastating. Such a force became a combination of the best of both light and heavy infantry, and finally the lowly foot soldier could not only hold off, but even attack enemy cavalry.
To take full advantage of the improvements in firepower, soldiers had to be trained to stand as close together as possible, and march and fire as a unit. This required close-order drills of a more-or-less standing army conducted by professional army officers, rather than nobles on horseback leading hastily summoned local militias into battle. Although it took military planners another two hundred years to admit it, mounted cavalry was now obsolete. Instead, light cannons and artillery were the only effective way of softening the opposing army before attempting to take the field with your own infantry. Once engaged, winning became a matter of quickly moving the infantry into and out of position as battlefield conditions change, just as in Roman times. And just as the Romans learned, the only way to take full advantage of such an infantry is to train and drill on a nearly daily basis, which means a full-time standing army instead of quickly gathered levies. This also meant a professional officer class promoted due to battlefield competence rather than mere social standing. Kings were quite willing to offend the landed gentry and deny them generalships in favor of promoting lowly-born but capable fighters if it meant the difference between gaining or losing territory.
Uniformity in military dress was now crucial, not merely to identify the soldier from a distance, but in a tight formation of soldiers in drill during training to see which individual was out of step. All uniforms began to incorporate the vertical high contrast stripe on the pants’ legs [that stripe is still seen on tuxedo pants, although now in black]. Along with shirts and jackets, pants and boots were tailored to be much tighter fitting. Hats were made far smaller than ever before, and the wonderful plumes stuck in the brim must disappear. Why? If the musketeers are going to be effective in holding off a cavalry charge, they have to stand, march, and fight while almost shoulder to shoulder, so the elaborate dress of the late 17th century became an encumbrance.
A popular myth is that warfare during this time became so weighed down with protocol and formality that a general would issue a written invitation to his opposite, requesting the presence of his army to meet in battle at a mutually agreed upon time and place. This story is told to demonstrate the supposed etiquette of the time, requiring fair play and honorable action, even in war. Very gentlemanly and proper and all, but a ridiculous fabrication. There were times in history where one military leader would challenge another to battle, but always because the challenger thought that he possessed a clear advantage that was unknown to the other side, an advantage that was time sensitive and might be lost if there was any delay. And there were certainly some officers who accepted the challenge, but only because they also felt that they had the upper hand, and that bringing the armies together sooner rather than later was to their benefit. This is not chivalry; it is high stakes poker playing.
There was another reason why a challenge to battle would be issued, one that is a bit difficult for us moderns to fully appreciate. Although the number of soldiers on the field had increased by this time to number several thousand, requisitioning food and supplies did not keep pace. Maintaining an army in the field for more than a few weeks was a daunting logistic challenge. An army on the move needs vast amounts of food for the soldiers and even larger amounts of hay for the horses. Every week out in the field meant that your soldiers were getting weaker and your numbers were slowly diminishing from disease and desertion. Add to that the fact that in this pre-telegraph age, the movement of the enemy was half intelligence gathering and half guess work. Many times two opposing forces would pass within two or three miles of each other and be completely ignorant of the fact. Rather than continue to wander through the countryside, at some point both sides might be frustrated enough to push ahead into battle even if the terrain was not perfect.
It is at this time that the military salute is created. I hate to disabuse another much beloved story; one that would have us believe that the salute comes from the ancient medieval tournaments, beforewhich knights would remove their helmets or at least lift their visors. According to the tale, this allowed fellow combatants to have proof that they were fighting only fellow nobles. People who like this story enjoy the correspondence between current military practice and the romance of chivalrous protocol. There are only three problems with this story:
- The first of which is the rather obvious dilemma of the complete lack of saluting during the intervening 300 years.
- The second being that the knights would have lifted their visors as proof of identity among equals, whereas the military salute is a demonstration of submission from inferior to superior, never between equals.
- Third, the knights simply never did that. They didn’t walk around wearing their armour, let alone their helmets. Knights showed up with quite a retinue days before the event, were easily recognized by everyone, and would only put on their helmets seconds before actual combat, it being too stifling to wear any longer than necessary.
The fact is the stiff-armed military salute comes from the most traditional sign of obedience there is – namely the bow. What in medieval times was a simple lowering of the head underwent many changes throughout the centuries until by the 1600’s it included a graceful step back and a sweeping removal of the hat. One of lower class always bows first, bows lower, and the bow is held until acknowledged by one’s superior. This civilian practice was second nature in the military, especially since officers were originally all of the upper class and soldiers were all of the lower.
Some cavalry units by the 1700’s already had begun to forego the hat doffing when their uniform hat became the mitered cap, and especially the “shako”, that extremely tall fuzzy headpiece with a tiny brim still seen on drum majors. The shako and mitre are difficult to quickly remove and replace with one hand, so the doffing was shortened to a symbolic removal. It was a mere touching of the brim with the thumb and first two fingers, showing the intent without the difficulty of the practice. This diplomatic compromise quickly became standard protocol for infantry as well, since the bowing and doffing is difficult when soldiers are standing shoulder to shoulder while wearing a sword or holding a musket.
So here we can see a direct line of descent of what was and remains a sign of respect and submission. The bow was still in full use during the cavalier period with soldiers standing far apart so as not to blow each other up, but quickly is refined to the precise and snappy salute, which allows respect to be shown even in tight military formation.
Mounted cavalry could still be used on occasion to take advantage of enemy infantry or artillery errors. If a perspicacious general noted that his enemy had left a flank exposed or was lax in shifting from marching to battle formation, he might be able to call for a sudden charge by the cavalry to create an opening that the infantry could exploit. More often, a cavalry charge was aimed directly at the center of an infantry line, usually ending in the massacre of the cavalry or the infantry running in fear. Either outcome was considered glorious.
Grenadiers, Fusiliers, Dragoons – there is a litany of special units that develop during the time, usually as armies experimented with special units that could quickly ride into battle armed with firearms, but then dismount to fight. Grenadiers were trained in throwing and firing explosive grenades, fusiliers used harder to load but extremely accurate rifled muskets, and dragoons were equipped with short muskets so that they actually could fire from horseback or quickly dismount and run into battle. In some areas, local units of raiders were incorporated as special mercenaries, such as the Hussars, Cossacks, and Rangers. All were attempts to try to gain a tactical advantage by reestablishing an effective light infantry or light cavalry. But for all intents and purposes, the battlefield dynamic came down to heavy infantry vs. heavy infantry.
Although the value of a curved sword was known for thousands of years, it was only in the late 1600’s that European manufacturers were able to mass produce quality curved blades of three feet in length but light enough to wield with one hand. Sabres were used for close-in fighting, replacing the military-grade rapiers and broadswords, the only exception being the Scots, who kept their basket hilt single-hand broadswords but at least changed their tactics, using them the way other armies did the sabres. Cavalry sabres were curved or straight depending on the intended use. Heavy cavalry units used a straight light blade; light cavalry units used heavy curved blades. Why? Because heavy cavalry charged at enemy infantry and impaled them as they stood or ran. Light cavalry charged at enemy cavalry and slashed and cut at them as they rode. Infantry sabres were curved for the most part, with straight blades used only on presentation dress swords. Curved sabres were preferred, as straight blades have less cutting power than curved blades at the same weight.
The military did not provide for knives for any of their soldiers. Bayonets, yes, but no knives. From the irregular units, however, many of the riflemen used a knife to carefully prepare and trim the cloth patches they used, as opposed to the rough paper cartridges used by the regular musketmen of the infantry. These specialized riflemen simply brought their own knives, and many in the regular infantry copied them and did the same, as well as bringing a variety of pocket knives for their personal use. The “rifle knives”, as they were called, were usually simple butcher knives, predating the Bowie by about a hundred years, but having some of the same characteristics. Pistols were available, but still impractical enough so as to be of almost no battlefield utility. They might give a soldier a feeling of power, but they had no tactical purpose.
Sailing Ships
European monarchies were able to defeat other powers and establish colonies throughout the world primarily due to their technological advantages, especially in the production and use of firearms. But guns and soldiers need to be transported, and then local material and goods sent back to the mother country. Without the West’s superior sailing vessels, each conquest could never have been exploited. A case can be made that if the West had developed steam propulsion earlier than it did, the Age of Exploration would never have happened, for steam ships require deep harbors and a supply of fuel at its destination. Only light sailing ships allowed Europeans to explore and then dominate every corner of the world, powered only by the wind.
I am unaware of any show that requires extensive knowledge of the fighting practices of the sailing vessels of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (lines of attack, firing cannon, etc.). But there are of course several that deal with pirates, so we will explore some of the hand weapons commonly found aboardship.
Military battles on the seas are usually attempts to sink the opposing ships, but pirates look to leave the vessel intact so they can board and loot, perhaps then take the ship and sell it, use it for themselves, or if it has little value, scuttle it. So pirates used their cannon to disable merchant vessels (striking the mast and sails, slowing the ship down) and then close in alongside. Grappling lines were thrown and the ships were pulled close together, and then the pirates would board with the idea of killing any resistance (or witnesses). None of this required any special equipment, and actually all of what we consider pirate weapons were actually developed by naval forces to combat piracy. It of course took very little time for them to be stolen and used by the pirates themselves.
Assuming that outrunning the pirates didn’t work and then firing any defensive cannons failed to stop them, the next level of defense was preventing them from boarding. At close range, pistols and muskets were effective at killing individuals, but each firearm takes some time to reload, and firing from a tossing ship can ruin your aim. So far more practical was the blunderbuss. Not a hunting weapon at all, the blunderbuss (“thunder gun”) is a very short musket with a very fat barrel and a flared barrel opening. Specifically designed as an officer’s weapon to put down shipboard insurrections, it fired not a single ball, but many small pellets. The flared barrel allowed the pellets to quickly spread and cut down a large number of attackers with one shot. The pellets could be anything: gravel, ballast, glass shards, nails, tacks. A number of pirates attempting to throw grappling hooks could be disabled with one shot, even with poor aiming.
But when the grappling hooks do connect with the ship, those ropes must be cut before the ships are pulled together. A stout curved military sabre can do it, but the full length blade can easily get entangled in the ship’s rigging. A shorter version of the sabre was designed, called the cutlass. Quite literally, it means “cut the rope” (lass = rope, as in lasso, windlass, etc.), but it is also a powerful killing tool. Most cutlasses were simple sabre hilts with two foot curved blades.
In the final hand-to-hand fighting, more impromptu weapons might have been added, such as knives, belaying pins, and perhaps some light fishing harpoons.
Why does the cutlass look the way it does? Even from the Middle Ages, the best seafaring generals were Moors (ipso Othello). Europeans would often hire a “Mohameten” to lead their navies. (Our word for admiral comes from the Italian “almirante” which is a corruption of the Arabic “al emir” – the prince). Europeans had the rapier and broadsword, but the Muslim nations developed the curved sabre (“saf-r” = sword), a superior weapon but again not easily swung on a ship’s deck. A short curved heavy-bladed weapon is just right for tight quarters, and the guard style is merely a variant of sabre guards. Regular length sabers were, and still are, presented to naval officers as a sign of rank, but had no utility at sea. Completely useless info: Film pirates often have Gaelic accents because the Scots really were premier pirates from even centuries before the Norman Conquest (“scotti” – to plunder). Aren’t you glad you’re still reading this?
Wearing the cutlass was easy. Usually the pirates simply stuck it into their belt or sash, although some may actually have had scabbards for their swords. By the way, I’ve noticed that some people like to point out that the sword on Captain Morgan that used to be drawn on the rum bottle of the same name was shown with the hilt facing “the wrong way”, that is to say the knucklebow facing backward, to the left. (The Captain is no longer drawn having any sword at all; probably a bow to political correctness.) Almost all swords that have a single edge are worn on the left side of the body with the edge and knucklebow going forward, as are all rapiers and smallswords. But if you think about it for a moment, that might not always be the most practical way to wear a sword. Here’s why:
Both the buccaneers and the samurai warriors realized that drawing a sword might also mean having to use it even as the sword is drawn, before it is completely out of the scabbard. Grabbing the handle in the traditional manner, knucklebow and edge forward, leaves a very weak bend in the wrist until you have the chance to completely withdraw the sword and then point the blade. Wearing the sword the “wrong” way lets you immediately grab the handle using a powerful hammer grip, with no break at the wrist. The most common first attack from someone holding a weapon is to lift it high on the right and come down at an angle to the opponent’s left. Even if the sword of the defender is still coming out of the scabbard, it’s still possible to block that initial attack and in the same move come down with your own sword to the head of the attacker. Japanese katana are worn this way for that purpose, and it seems that for close-quarter fighting many pirates did the same.
Then why aren’t all curved sabres worn “backwards”? Because in Western military usage, the curved sabre is meant to be worn and used while on horseback, and having the curve forward allows gravity to help keep the sword from bouncing out of the sheath.
NeoClassic/Empire
Time Frame – 1775-1820
Politics/Economics – At first it might seem strange to highlight such a small period of time, one that admittedly overlaps considerably and inelegantly with the previous Rococo. But it is in the tension between the two periods in this very brief slice of history, acting as giant millstones working in opposite directions, which produced the changes in society that would create what we recognize as modern life. They reverberate to almost every aspect of present day society.
The great intellectual ideas – republicanism, free market capitalism, individual rights, inherent equality without regard to ancestry – born in the previous century were now forcefully promoted by activists through Europe, and, of course, in the European colonies throughout the Americas. Whether the struggle was engaged intellectually and peaceably (as in England) or broke into violent revolution as in France and the United States, everyone realized that what was at stake was nothing less than the future of Western society.
Because the possibility of a new world order was so palpably at hand, the pressure to act out immediately was tremendous. So the natural conflict between a reasoned, intellectual examination of classical precepts and the passionate call to arms of violent overthrow often raged within nations, within cities, even within the minds of individuals. I’m not sure we can appreciate the momentous change that was happening to these people. But keep in mind that in their minds they were finally transforming human society, bringing civilization to what they considered its natural state, of being ruled by a compassionate rationalism.
To give you a sense of the emotions which reverberated underneath the cold political actions, I offer this translation of the original Argentine national anthem, written in 1813, three years before the country actually achieved its independence:
Listen, mortals, to the sacred cry – liberty, liberty, liberty!
Listen to the sound of broken chains, see noble equality now enthroned.
A new and glorious nation rises to the heights of the earth,
Its head crowned with laurels, and at her feet a Lion destroyed.
May the laurels be eternal, that we knew how to achieve.
Crowned with glory we shall live, or we swear to die gloriously.
Notice the quick interplay between appeals to both noble ideals and bloody action. Neither quality can sustain itself very long before being affected by the other.
Fashion/Manners – The manners and style of conduct that before was merely viewed as the difference between upper and lower classes now became markers of political affiliation in every country. To bow at the waist would show that you were a republican, while bending at the leg might disclose you as a Monarchist. A bit of lace too refined and one might be verbally attacked in a republican tea house, while failing to turn out the feet sufficiently in an elegant household might lead others to think that you had anarchic sympathies. One had to tread carefully through the minefield of dress and comportment if one had to venture in mixed company. Small wonder that as tensions rose, the members of each group would isolate themselves from the other as much as possible.
As the aristocracies fell, middle class and even lower class sympathies affected style and manners. Men now wore the trousers of the working class, cut their hair shorter in the Roman republican style, and wore simpler fashions made of less expensive fabrics. The bow was a simple bend from the waist, and shaking of hands in greeting was considered just as appropriate.
Warfare – No changes here, except that the size of armies grows steadily, increasing the pressures of the population to sustain them. It is worthy of note that by this time all armies used cloth or paper preloaded cartridges, replacing the wooden cartridges on the bandoleers of the matchlock musketeers. They could now carry thirty to fifty rounds, easily enough for one or two days of battle.
One little point of interest for those working on the American Revolution. It is not well known that the American forces were consistently underfunded and poorly supplied, not just during Valley Forge. Food was rare and of poor quality, and providing sufficient blankets and clothing was a constant struggle.
Civilian Conflict – The use of the smallsword did not alone increase the number of duels between hot-headed young men, but it did cause the number of fatalities of young noblemen to soar. In a rapier fight, some of the nastiest wounds from a cut (as opposed to a thrust) could still be patched by a skilled surgeon. The thin blade of the smallsword being unsuitable for cutting, all efforts were on the thrust, and the smallsword blade punctured more deeply than did the rapier, causing deep bleeding that was nearly impossible for the surgeons of the time to stop. Even if the bleeding could stop, the chances of systemic infection were very high and would almost certainly lead to death. Swords didn’t have to be poisoned in order to kill in this pre-antibiotic age. Pistols also came into vogue as an alternative to the sword, and this in fact did lead to more duels. Many who otherwise would have found an excuse not to approach someone with sharpened steel were much more likely to show up on the field of honor with a gun.
Romantic
Time Frame – 1820 – 1865
Politics/Economics – As the century progresses, it is becoming accepted that republics either are or will be the dominant political structure for nation-states throughout the Western world. (I should define my terms: a republic is a nation ruled by a charter or constitution, a democracy is direct rule by the majority of its voting citizens. For example, the United States is a republic, for we follow the constitution that allows for democratically elected representatives. Very few, if any, countries are or were full democracies, in which whatever is voted on by the majority becomes law without restraint.) Republics have an existence that does not depend on the actions of one person, and therefore limit the power of even monarchs that remain in power. This shift in power changes the relationship of the citizens to their country. For example, in previous times one might refer to the reigning British monarch as simply “England”, for the country and the ruler were one and the same. But from this time forward, it is always “the King of England”, a phrase used in the prior centuries to be sure, but now with the understanding that the kingship belongs to the country, not the country to the king. Titled aristocrats may still retain many privileges, but they have lost direct control of society.
The call to pure reason could not sustain itself, and appeals to the sentimental and romantic are the hallmarks of the time. One can hear the shift take place in less than a generation in comparing the music of Beethoven to that of Mozart, and likewise the bloody excesses of armed revolutions and the studied political writings that gave them birth.
The incredible progress made in the basic sciences finally produced tangible benefits to engineering and technology. Unrestrained technology, fed by an unimpeded free market, can produce and deliver a flood of goods and services previously unavailable to middle and lower classes. Economic power begins its shift from agriculture to heavy industry.
Fashion/Manners – As the royal houses of Europe lose power, the manners and dress of the prior nobility fall from fashion. But this does nothing to squelch the desire to be in the upper class, so the newly ascendant must find another way to justify their power. The period is marked by a desperate attempt to prove a true nobility which is not tied to direct descent from a royal family, which of course few of these middle-class managers had. The concept of “nobility of sensibility” (one can be born of noble character rather than of noble lineage) leads to the disuse of ostentatiously upper class pursuits in favor of cultivating the image of natural refinement, primarily in dress and movement but also in purchasing items of distinction. This was meant to demonstrate that the truly noble could be from humble circumstances, but that they would show an intrinsic affinity to civilized things.
With increasing industrialization also came a lowering of direct employment in agriculture, therefore a migration of low income workers into cities. When combined with the dramatic rise in purchasing power, this led the newly expanded middle class to attempt to attain upper class status by proxy. Having a servant was common, and items of “culture” were bought and displayed throughout the home. Important books, musical instruments, small knickknacks to serve as “conversation pieces”, all were designed to impress upon the visitor that the home was filled with people of a sensitive nature. To further that image, home life was managed so as to maintain that illusion, even if the reality was quite different. The average home, no matter how humble, was now expected to have a separate dining room and even a separate parlor, both for entertaining guests and for the devotion to leisure activities, especially reading and music. Even if a man worked by day in manual labor, he would be expected to maintain the facade of pretended leisure, and dress more befitting a gentleman once he arrived home for dinner. There was even a great proliferation in the breeding of non-working dogs, pets with no direct “job” such as catching mice or defending the livestock. Having extra things, without any true usefulness, was an important part of maintaining the facade.
The general manners of the prior period are still observed, but in a much more relaxed form. The bow is still retained for formal occasion or when greeting a woman, but the handshake becomes nearly universal. Doffing the hat is replaced by merely raising and returning it in a small and gentle motion, perhaps with a slight nod of the head. The feet may be turned out in standing or walking, but only if it should give a pleasing appearance and by no means rigidly adhered to. What was important is that there be no show of fussiness or hurry, but rather an appearance of casual elegance which could almost be called “proud neglect”.
Men’s fashion became middle class at all levels, starting the long slide from refinement to casualness. Laces and embellishment are considered feminine; instead – simple lines, tighter fitting coats, smaller hats, the ubiquity of trousers. By the end of the period half of all clothing is purchased pre-made. Accessories are reduced to cane, gloves, and small objects easily placed in pockets.
Warfare – Industrial progress leads to standardization of the implements of war. Vast quantities of weapons could now be built with interchangeable parts, meaning that repairs to any item could be made by the quick substitution of a spare part instead of manufacturing a specific repair. At the very end of this period rifle-barreled percussion muskets begin to replace the old flintlock smooth bores, greatly increasing the effective range. The sword is reduced to a symbol of rank or a weapon of last resort rather than a battlefield necessity. Soldiers were still trained in their use, but generals knew not to depend on them for tactical advantage. Most often, swords were used after the enemy line had been breached and the attackers were ready to crush the remaining opposition. If soldiers found that they were in a situation that required use of the sword, then the battle was almost over or something had gone terribly wrong.
Civilian Conflict – Even as the sword becomes ever more romanticized, it fades as a practical tool. Few had the leisure to practice enough to be a credible threat in a duel, and wearing a sword was considered an ostentatious affectation of the now discredited leisure class. Training in th use of the sword moves from the ling master to the fencing salon, where the practice of swordplay becomes a sport rather than self defense. And it is finally here where the practice of saluting with the sword is created. For it is in the fencing clubs that the full wire mesh mask is used during practice. Once over the face, the eyes are no longer visible and a simple way of determining that the participants are ready to spar. A simple raising of the sword up to the mask and then sweeping it down to the ground serves. This movement then was borrowed by stage actors, and then by the silent movies. Through them it has become the common fallacy that is expected by anyone seeing a “historic” duel.
Although the average man of this period may still be armed when traveling, it is much less common. When it does happen it is not the sword but the single-shot pocket pistol, hidden from public view, which now served this function. As a result, duels of honor are now more common, but less lethal. It became easier to believe one could win, but luckily the erratic flight of round balls fired from smoothbore pistol barrels meant that most shots missed their marks.
A very few men might still be adept with a sword and wish to have one near, and so the invention of the sword cane provides a gentleman with a discreet way to walk the streets with his weapon of choice at the ready.
A renewed interest in fisticuffs as a way to settle arguments led to professional prizefights utilizing a “scientific” study of the manly art of self-defense. For many, this was preferable to dueling with sword or pistol, as it was much less likely to end in death. It also brought some basic rules to a fight (no kicking, no eye gouging), and so was an exercise which even gentlemen could undertake.
Industrial Age / Rifled Breechloaders
Time Frame – 1850 – 1890
Politics/Economics – With all of the elements of the industrial revolution firmly in place, there was needed only one last component to bring it to full fruition, and that came in the laying of railway lines throughout Europe and the United States. With that, goods could be transported to an part of the country or continent within days of manufacture. In the span of one generation, a trip across the country went from taking six months to only five days. With the invention of the telegraph, news from any city could reach the furthest hamlet within minutes.
Photography changes the way humans assimilate information about the world at large. Once shown photography, they only accept reality as being that which they can confirm visually, even if only by proxy. No longer can death in battle be portrayed as something heroic – the photographs from Gettysburg are a powerful witness to the ugliness of war, giving the lie to innumerable patriotic paintings.
With Darwin’s Origin of the Species, doubts flared again as to the legitimacy of religious authority. The heady excitement of living in the dawn of a new utopia faded as the reality of the new republics showed them to be just as liable to corruption and oppression as had the monarchies. Exuberant romanticism becomes muted, and art and science begin to look at the deficiencies of the human condition.
The response: Victorian morality. We now think of it as simply being repressively prudish, but it was far more than that. The mainstream thinking was that unrestrained passions encouraged vices that proliferate and ultimately degrade the participants. So indulging in sensual pleasures led directly to crime and unhappiness. By cultivating pastimes that both please and elevate, an individual would find not only true happiness, but society would improve as well. The basic tenet is hardly unique to this period, but had never been completely accepted as a societal norm. All aspects of living were redefined through this outlook: clothing become more somber and conservative, the dances and popular art become more pedestrian, terms of greeting become more formal, even within the confines of a private home.
Of course, when it came time to decide on the specifics, many of the mannerisms bordered on the absurd. Men are banished from being with their wives during childbirth, not because of an impropriety of seeing his wife unclothed, but that his presence amoung the others (doctor, midwife) was a public proof that he had seen his wife unclothed. (The fact that a child was emerging from the womb as evidence of the same was discreetly ignored.) Referring to chicken breasts and legs as white and dark meat respectively was not merely to prevent offending sensitive dinner guests, but more importantly to prove that the speaker did not dwell on prurient topics.
The positive side of Victorian mores is that it brought several important societal concerns into the open. Movements against slavery, against child labor, and promoting women’s rights all made great strides forward, as did the expansion of public works advancing literacy, sanitation, and the general livability of the rapidly growing cities. This was thought to be not only the job of the government, but also of all those that benefited privately from the acquisition of wealth.
An interesting counter current throughout the period is the morbid fascination with death and the paranormal, even the abnormal. Monsters, demons, ghosts had always had their part in literature, but now they inhabited the mundane world, and one did not need to have discourse with the devil in order to be in danger. The concept of evil attacking good people who have not committed any moral lapse themselves is a common theme. Melodramas are hugely popular, not because they exaggerate expressions and emotions (this was necessary when playing to large houses), but because of the unrestrained portrayal of the villain and his nearly inhuman enjoyment in committing his crimes.
Fashion/Manners – Almost all objects in daily use are now made at least in part by machine. By the end of the century only 10% of clothing will be custom made. Pre-made clothes naturally cannot be as form-fitting as their predecessors were, so male attire tended more toward the boxy, with less room for unique embellishment. Instead of individuality, men would dress largely the same, very conservatively, although with different outfits for different times of day.
More and more items are purchased without regard to their direct utility. Instead, every room and every wall is covered with bric-a-bracs and whatever opulence the household can afford. If the items don’t fit to one style, so much the better, as it shows the “worldliness” of the owners. Filling a wall with photographs of one’s extended family provided a faux-aristocratic lineage. Objets d’art are now produced to fill this middle class need to demonstrate their sensibility. Included are large numbers of landscape and still life paintings with simple domestic themes so as not to tax the average viewer.
Manners did not change, but did become more tightly restrictive. Hats and gloves were always removed when indoors. In seating, one tended to sit back in the chair, and could cross the legs at the knees, but not with the foot to the knee. Individual flair is unacceptable, and in all things the man is expected to cultivate a demeanor of being aloof and reserved, sober and conservative, the exact opposite of everything that the prior aristocracy had been before the French Revolution. Lifting the hat on a passing greeting was expected, but to engage in conversation before being formally introduced was impossible. And this last prescription was based on a very real concern of needing to identify someone’s true status. Anyone could purchase the appropriate clothing of the well-to-do, and easy access to travel meant that it was now impossible to tell who was who simply by appearance. At the very least, a calling card could begin to establish one’s credentials, and better yet was a letter of introduction. But at some point it was necessary to have a close associate vouch for the stranger. To do this entailed a certain social risk, for you were in effect staking your own honor on behalf of someone else.
Civilian Conflict – The sword was by now no more than a sporting diversion and only rarely a dueling weapon. For the most part it was already viewed as an anachronism. The civilian sword was now only found in the sport fencing clubs, and it is here that lifting the sword to the face and following with a downsweep of the blade began as a salute before each practice bout or match. With both combatants completely masked, the salute was a simple expedient of indicating that the competitor is ready to engage. This “salute” was later appropriated for stage and film as a historical salute before a duel, although that is a pure fiction.
The invention of the percussion revolver, capable of firing six shots in quick succession, led to a dramatic reduction in duels. Bareknuckle fighting is replaced by gloved fighting and the Marquis of Queensbury rules of 1867, but this merely increased the number of middle and lower class prizefighters and reduced the number of gentlemen willing to “settle their differences in the ring.”
At the beginning of the period, there were practical revolvers, but as they were muzzleloader/percussion guns, had several limitations. The loaded charge could fail in damp weather; and the lead ball could drop out of position if holstered for too long. Additionally, the technical limitations of the gun meant that a certain amount of pressure would be lost at the junction of the chamber and the barrel, so the revolvers tended to be low powered and the bullets traveled with relatively slow velocity. Starting in 1875, rifles and revolvers and shotguns became available that could be loaded from the breech and fired commercially pre-loaded cartridges. Now truly anyone could pick up and fire a gun, and it required no particular skill nor strength nor even practical knowledge concerning the weapon one is holding in order to kill someone. No longer was there any need to measure out powder or set percussion caps. And since the cartridges were of brass, they effectively sealed out water vapor. Now revolvers could be left loaded indefinitely, and as the brass cartridge automatically sealed the breach, could fire bullets with a much higher flight velocity.
Metallurgical advances also permitted the overall size of the gun to be reduced. Whereas percussion pistols maxed out at .36 caliber in term of ease of use and comfort, the new cartridge revolvers at .45 caliber weighed far less and had an overall shorter length, even with a similar barrel length. As the center of balance now rested on the hand, the revolvers were no longer “barrel heavy”, so were much easier to control. This meant that the guns were just as accurate, light to hold, easier to carry, easier to aim, and could fire more powerful ammunition.
The increase in power did have one drawback – the increase in recoil. Much higher powder loads combined with elimination of exhaust leaks that were endemic in the old percussion revolvers added quite a kick to the new guns. Stances were modified so that instead of the full upright posture seen in gentlemen’s duels, gunfighters spread their legs and bent the knees and even the elbow of the shooting arm. Softening the joints this way allowed the entire body to act as a shock absorber to the recoil. Even then, it still took a good deal of concentration and upper body strength to keep the gun from flying up after a shot.
While the wearing of guns, even pocket pistols, was rare along the east coast states and in large cities, it was somewhat common in the American West, although it is a 20th century exaggeration to think that more than five percent of adult males would wear a sidearm even in frontier towns. The main limiting factor was the high cost of guns and even ammunition. A revolver and box of cartridges could run up to seven months’ wages for the average worker.
In dangerous territory, a gun might be considered a necessary tool no matter the cost. While in open country, the ubiquity of six-shot cartridge revolvers was almost matched by the tremendous popularity of lever-action rifles, which could fire up to twenty shots before reloading. Lastly, large fighting knives were commonly worn in the West and South, while discrete folding pocket knives might be carried by anyone throughout the country.
Warfare – Interesting that at a time when civilian menswear was turning to dark and somber colors, military uniforms remained quite colorful. Part of this was to allow a certain controlled ostentation amoung the different units, but there was also a fully practical consideration. Generals often had to follow the movements of a battle line that might be as far as a half mile away and extend a mile in either direction. As warfare continued to be centered on the careful movement of ordered blocks of soldiers, recognizing the different units from the distance was critical. Having soldiers wear bright colors aided in this, and even such details as the colorful wide stripe down the pants leg would show that a unit was either marching in order or had lost discipline and was perhaps responding to a threat not visible from his position.
While warfare itself did not change during the period, one of its armaments did, catching the commanders off-guard. Starting from the 1820’s, the musket went from flintlock to percussion lock, and the concomitant reduction of steps necessary for firing meant an increased rate of fire. This the generals could appreciate and quickly put to good use. But it was another change, the move from smoothbore barrels to rifled barrels, which led to catastrophic loss of life in wars of this period, especially the American Civil War.
It was long known that rifled barrels on a musket were superior to smoothbores, but it was much harder to ram a lead ball into a rifled muzzle-loader. The lead ball would have to be slightly larger than the barrel opening, so it could take the shape of the grooves in the barrel as it was being rammed in. It formed a good seal but it took some care. If the ball was too loose, the expanding gases on firing would escape past the grooves and the ball would fly without much force. So for the great mass of soldiers, the easier to load smoothbore was issued.
Then a new type of ball, the Minie bullet, was invented which was slightly smaller than the barrel diameter, so it could be rammed easily down the barrel, but once fired the flat bullet base would expand, pressing into the spaces of the lands and grooves, effectively sealing the gases so that the bullet would fly with far more force and speed than any previous ammunition. In addition, when fired from a rifled barrel the cone-shaped Minie would spin like a thrown football, giving it great stability in flight.
The changeover was not immediate, for in the initial stages of the war both sides scrambled to provide enough firearms for the thousands of mustered troops. Almost all of the armouries were filled with old style flintlock smoothbore muskets, and although these were quickly retrofitted with percussion locks, the smoothbore barrels remained the same. So although the soldiers could reload with far greater speed, the distance and accuracy of the muskets remained unchanged.
But by the second year of the war, the output of weapons was largely standardized, with smoothbores no longer being produced. Now every soldier could have a rifled-barreled musket, and could shoot with increased speed, accuracy, and especially distance. The new rifled muskets had an effective firing range of 400 yards compared to the previous smoothbores’ of only 150. And this is what the generals did not consider.
The West Point trained officer corps continued to use standard military tactics learned from the Napoleonic wars, placing their troops at distances that would have been at the outer reach of the smoothbore muskets. But they were now several hundred yards inside the effective range of the new rifles. Many cavalry and infantry charges, based on calculations made from the previous era, were now doomed to fail, turning battles into massacres for both sides.
If the accuracy of fire came as a surprise to the generals, it was brutally stunning to the soldiers. So many high velocity bullets were fired in close range that in one battle an entire stand of saplings was mowed down to a height of three feet. The noise and percussive force meant that few soldiers could even distinguish the sound of their own muskets firing over the din of battle. One post-battle inspection by a reporter of the time recounted that …
“On the field of Gettysburg there were 27,574 guns picked up and of those 24,000 were found to be loaded, and half of them were double loaded. One fourth had from three to ten loads in, and many had five or six balls to one charge of powder. In some cases the powder was above the ball, in others the cartridges were not broken at the end, while in one musket twenty three balls, sixty two buckshot and a quantity of powder were all mixed up together.”
There are two interesting points brought up from that quote. First, that the fear and panic of battle led many soldiers to be unaware that their rifle was somehow disabled, and so they continued to reload and attempt to fire, some of them several times before being shot themselves or discarding their firearm and picking up another from a fallen comrade. The second is the poor training and discipline of many in the infantry, and the general lack of knowledge of basic firearms use by the line officers. Many soldiers were allowed to load up their rifles with any quantity of bullets and buckshot, on the theory that more is better. This is all the more strange when one remembers that soldiers were issued pre-measured, pre-wrapped individual paper cartridges that had the powder, ball and wadding necessary for each shot.
Towards the end of the war, some new rifles were available that were practical breech loaders, but they were still single shot weapons using stiff paper cartridges. It wasn’t until the mid-1870’s that well engineered multishot rifles using brass cartridges were mass produced. In the USA, lever-action rifles were issued to the army, especially in the western states where the majority of the fighting was from cavalry troops fighting Native American tribes. Although lever-actions had limited range due to their short barrels, they were the perfect weapon for what were essentially battles between light cavalry forces.
European armies, not having to deal with patrolling a vast frontier, never adopted the lever-action in their armament, but rather moved more quickly to bolt-action rifles as soon as they became available in the 1880’s. With better range and firing far more powerful ammunition, they better served the needs of the largely infantry units of Europe.