Stuart Peachey, The Mechanics of Infantry Combat in the First English Civil War 28 pp. illus. bibliog. Stuart Press, 1992.

This paper, based on a lecture originally given at a Partizan Press English Civil War Conference, attempts to establish how infantry in the First Civil War actually fought compared with the theories laid down in drill books. The author has compiled a considerable number of interesting statistics, based primarily upon actions in the West Country in the first 14 months of the war, and also includes a detailed analysis of the action at Rathconnel in Ireland in 1642. Some actions elsewhere are considered more briefly, with rather uneven results. It would have been good to see how far the author's conclusions on some of' the smaller actions he discusses Could have been applied to the larger scale battles of the war.

There is a detailed discussion of the tactical formations normally employed in battle, with the author agreeing with the well-evidenced reality that in practice a number of weaker regiments would be brigaded together in action. He goes further than some in maintaining that both the regiment and the company had largely only administrative significance, and that more informal groupings were the norm in combat. In special circumstances this may well have been true, but the evidence from elsewhere (e.g. Cheshire) suggests that whilst the author's claims may well have been true so far as the Regiment was concerned, the company was still the basic tactical unit, both in Brereton's Parliamentarian forces and among their opponents.

It is suggested that many actions, especially the "storming" of towns, were protracted affairs of up to 19 hours on occasions, involving a steady advance aimed at sapping enemy morale rather than inflicting casualties. This again must depend upon interpretation of the evidence; in reality few combats of such theoretical length have ever been continuous, and considerations of both human endurance and practical questions of ammunition supply etc., must have necessitated long lulls in fighting.

Also debatable is the author's assertion that hand-to-hand combats could last for two hours; this again may depend to some extent upon one's definition of the term but ill most actions where a time scale can be ascertained (e.g. Naseby, Edgehill, to some extent Marston Moor) what may be termed the "push of pike" stage of the battle actually lasted in the region of 30 minutes at most. Again the physical exertion involved in what was in effect a massive "scrum" provides the explanation.

The author gives some interesting statistics concerning the ineffectiveness of musketry in terms of casualties inflicted per Volume of shot fired. This is, of course a common statistical characteristic from the dawn of firearms to present day combat, and owes a great deal to enduring psychological factors (most people arc actually uninterested in killing anyone unless they themselves feel directly threatcried), and the general inaccuracy of the weaponry involved would have added to this effect.

Despite these caveats, this is a well researched and thought provoking paper, well worth reading in conjunction with other work on related topics, such as Stuart Reid's "Gunpowder Triumphant".

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com