Strategies and Tactics of the American Revolution | The Paoli Massacre

Have you ever wondered why soldiers in the American Revolutionary War fought in lines? Or how they used rifles? Did they have cavalry? How did they use cannons on a battlefield? Were there sneak attacks or ambushes?
Warfare is immensely complicated, and for all the rules and organization that armies have attempted to use to maximize their success, no plan survives contact with the enemy. The unpredictability of warfare means most things that can happen, probably have. So we’re going look at some of the unique, and the more ordinary situations that soldiers ended up in during the Revolution.
Today, we are going to try and answer a question that a guest at the museum asked me recently. “Did the soldiers ever get attacked in their camp?”
Sources:
From George Washington to Brigadier General Anthony Wayne, 18 September 1777: bit.ly/3Dolz5i
To George Washington from Brigadier General Anthony Wayne, 19 September 1777: bit.ly/38gcnl6
To George Washington from Brigadier General Anthony Wayne, 19 September 1777: bit.ly/3sU4wDu

[@CipherNameRaVeN]

Great stuff! Just came from Paoli.

[@JYFMuseums]

"Remember Paoli!"

[@ejb6822]

in fact, the statement of "no plan survives the contact with the enemy" is from motlke, and always misused when cited, since this exclusively refers to a period of time where "contact with the enemy" refers to a state of first recognition - not actual combat. the design of the plan before a certain amount of recoginition has been achieved is what is not surviving contact, that's why a plan has to cover as many possibilities as possible. but after recognition happened, that's not the case anymore, because plans survive here all the time. one simly has to differentiate between pre-recognition operation-plans, and post-recognition combat plans. it's exclusively the former which the statement refers to.

[@tbone6032]

I’m a little confused, why did they decide not to load their weapons? I get that they want to be quiet but why not load and just order them not to fire? That way they have the shot in case they need it at least

[@JYFMuseums]

Hi Tbone603, and thank you for the question.
Paoli is an example of part of an army attacking their enemy who is encamped or manning fixed fortifications.
The ideal is not to allow your troops to become involved in a engagement of musketry that would evolve into a much larger battle, consuming more men and time. Instead the desire is a swift attack made with good order and discipline.
Officers involved such attacks want to close the distance with an enemy as quickly as possible and drive that enemy from their encampment or fortified position in confusion at the point of the bayonet. In these close quarters fights the bayonet is the most effective weapon.
Swiftness, cohesion and surprise, without the enemy realizing such an assault is coming is key. A negligent discharge of a musket, or a soldier breaking ranks to fire their musket can spoil the assault and alert the enemy that it's coming. Turning what should have been a lopsided victory into a disaster for the attacker.
It was a very normal tactic for such assault forces to make their attacks with muskets unloaded and bayonets fixed to the musket - though it would also be normal for any reinforcement force following at a distance behind the assaulting troops to have muskets loaded.
Paoli involved British troops attacking an American camp with muskets unloaded. At Yorktown in October 1781, American and French troops would storm British Redoubts 9 & 10 with muskets unloaded and bayonets fixed.

[@tbone6032]

@@JYFMuseums what an amazingly detailed response, thank you! Great video BTW!